Hubbry Logo
Teach-inTeach-inMain
Open search
Teach-in
Community hub
Teach-in
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Teach-in
Teach-in
Teach-in
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A teach-in is similar to a general educational forum on any complicated issue, usually an issue involving current political affairs. The main difference between a teach-in and a seminar is the refusal to limit the discussion to a specific time frame or a strict academic scope. Teach-ins are meant to be practical, participatory, and oriented toward action. While they include experts lecturing on their area of expertise, discussion and questions from the audience are welcome, even mid-lecture. "Teach-ins" were popularized during the U.S. government's involvement in Vietnam. The first teach-in, which was held overnight at the University of Michigan in March 1965, began with a discussion of the Vietnam War draft and ended in the early morning with a speech by philosopher Arnold Kaufman.

The first teach-in

[edit]

The concept of the teach-in was developed by anthropologist Marshall Sahlins of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor during a meeting on March 17, 1965. Previously, around 50 faculty members had signed onto a one-day teaching strike to oppose the Vietnam War.[1] About a dozen of these faculty members, including William A. Gamson, Jack Rothman, Eric Wolf, Arnold Kaufman, Frithjof Bergmann and Roger Lind, reconsidered the strike and gathered to discuss alternative ways to protest the war in the face of strong opposition to the strike from the Michigan legislature and governor as well as the university president.[2] The New York Times Magazine summed up how Sahlins arrived at the idea: "They say we're neglecting our responsibilities as teachers. Let's show them how responsible we feel. Instead of teaching out, we'll teach in—all night."[3]

The term teach-in was a variant of another form of protest, the sit-in. Later variants included the die-in, bed-in, lie-in, and draft card turn-in.[4]: 37 

This first teach-in was organized by faculty and Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor on March 24–25, 1965.[4]: 37  Michigan governor George Romney and other politicians still opposed the event.[5] The teach-in was attended by about 3,500 people and consisted of debates, lectures, movies, and musical events aimed at protesting the war.[6][7] Michigan faculty members such as Anatol Rapoport and Charles Tilly were also involved. Women students who attended received special permission to stay out during the night. Bomb threats emptied the hall three times over the course of the teach-in, sending participants into the freezing cold, where they continued their activities. Other Michigan students in the Young Republicans organization picketed the event, protesting "anti-American policy."[8] The teach-in ended the next morning, concluding with a 600-person rally on the steps of the library.[5]: 108 

Subsequent antiwar teach-ins

[edit]
Leaflet is 8.5 x 14 inches and lists 21 speakers.
UCLA Vietnam Day Committee leaflet promoting its 25 March 1966 antiwar teach-in

The Michigan teach-in received national press, including an article published in the March 25, 1965 issue of the New York Times.[8] It went on to inspire 35 more teach-ins on college campuses within the next week. By the end of the year, there had been teach-ins at 120 campuses.[5]: 108  Antiwar teach-ins were held until the end of the Vietnam War. These included:[4]

  • Columbia University, March 26, 1965[9]
  • University of Wisconsin, April 1, 1965
  • University of Pennsylvania, Swarthmore College, and Temple University (coordinated), April 7, 1965
  • Rutgers University, April 23, 1965[10]
  • Boston University, May 5, 1965
  • National Teach-In (televised), Sheraton Park Hotel, Washington DC, May 15, 1965
  • U.C. Berkeley, May 21–22, 1965
  • Kent State University, spring 1965
  • Harvard University, spring 1965
  • Goucher College, spring 1965
  • Marist College, spring 1965
  • Principia College, spring 1965
  • Flint Junior College, spring 1965
  • Case Western University, spring 1965
  • Berkeley, October 15, 1965
  • UCLA, March 25, 1966[11]
  • New York University, March 30, 1971
  • First Congregation Church, Washington, October 25–26, 1971
  • Brandeis University, April 1975

Not all college students at the time were antiwar protesters, however. At many teach-ins, pro-war students showed up to protest or signed letters of support for college administration, including at Kent State University, the University of Wisconsin, and Yale University.[5]: 108 

Teach-in at U.C. Berkeley

[edit]

The largest Vietnam teach-in was held on May 21–22, 1965 at U.C. Berkeley. The event was organized by the newly formed Vietnam Day Committee (VDC), an organizing group founded by ex-grad student Jerry Rubin, Professor Stephen Smale, and others. The event was held on a playing field where Zellerbach Auditorium is now located. Over the course of 36 hours, an estimated 30,000 people attended the event.[12] The State Department was invited by the VDC to send a representative, but declined. UC Berkeley professors Eugene Burdick and Robert A. Scalapino, who had agreed to speak in defense of President Johnson's handling of the war, withdrew at the last minute. An empty chair was set aside on the stage with a sign reading "Reserved for the State Department" taped to the back.[13] : 91–94 

Participants in the event included Dr. Benjamin Spock; veteran socialist leader Norman Thomas; novelist Norman Mailer; independent journalist I. F. Stone and historian Isaac Deutscher.[14] Other speakers included: California Assemblymen Willie Brown, William Stanton and John Burton; Dave Dellinger (political activist); James Aronson (National Guardian magazine); philosopher Alan Watts; comedian Dick Gregory; Paul Krassner (editor, The Realist); M.S. Arnoni (philosopher, writer, political activist); Edward Keating (publisher, Ramparts Magazine); Felix Greene (author and film producer); Isadore Zifferstein (psychologist); Stanley Scheinbaum (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions); Paul Jacobs (journalist and anti-nuclear activist); Hal Draper (Marxist writer and a socialist activist); Levi Laud (Progressive Labor Movement); Si Casady (California Democratic Council); George Clark (British Committee of 100/Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament); Robert Pickus (Turn Toward Peace); Bob Moses (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee); Jack Barnes (National Chair of the Young Socialist Alliance); Mario Savio (Free Speech Movement); Paul Potter (Students for a Democratic Society); and Mike Meyerson (national head of the Du Bois Clubs of America). British philosopher and pacifist Bertrand Russell sent a taped message to the teach-in.

Faculty participants included Professor Staughton Lynd (Yale); Professor Gerald Berreman; and Professor Aaron Wildavsky. Performers included folk singer Phil Ochs; the improv group The Committee; and others. The proceedings were recorded and broadcast, many of them live, by Berkeley FM station KPFA. Excerpts from the speeches by Lynd, Wildavsky, Scheer, Potter, Krassner, Moses (credited as Bob Parris, his middle name), Spock, Stone, Gregory, and Arnoni were released the following year as an LP by Folkways Records, FD5765.[15] An online archive, including recordings and transcripts of many of the participants, is maintained by the Library of the University of California, Berkeley.[16]

Scrutiny and surveillance

[edit]

As part of the antiwar movement at the time, teach-ins were regarded by the FBI (then directed by J. Edgar Hoover) and the Lyndon B. Johnson administration as potentially dangerous to national interests. At a teach-in organized by the Universities Committee on Problems of War and Peace, 13 undercover agents attended and identified students, faculty, speakers, and activists by name and affiliation, passing the information to the FBI.[17]: 29  A Senate study, "The Anti-Vietnam Agitation and the Teach-In Movement," was prepared in October 1965 by the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws.[18] This report stated, "In reality, the great majority of teach-ins (there were a few notable exceptions to this rule) have had absolutely nothing in common with the procedures of fair debate or the process of education. In practice, they were a combination of an indoctrination session, a political protest demonstration, an endurance contest, and a variety show." The study claimed that teach-ins were a form of Communist activity, noting that "people of known Communist background were frequently involved."[18]: xii 

Legacy of antiwar teach-ins

[edit]

"[The] stroke of genius out there in Michigan ... put the debate on the map for the whole academic community. And you could not be an intellectual after those teach-ins and not think a lot and express yourself and defend your ideas about Vietnam." —Carl Oglesby, organizer at the 1965 University of Michigan teach-in and then-president of SDS, quoted in The War Within, Tom Wells[1]: 24 

"The 1965 teach-ins were significant, in fact, more because of their very organization than for their novelty or the extent of student protest. They legitimized dissent at the outset of the war. The vacuum of understanding which they exposed created a market for information. … Moreover, the 1965 teach-ins served to identify a coterie of academic experts who challenged national policy, helped to make connections among them, and established them as an alternative source of information and understanding." —An American Ordeal: The Antiwar Movement of the Vietnam Era, Charles DeBenedetti[5]: 109 

"In raising anti-war consciousness in the nation as a whole, far beyond the academic community, the teach-ins were an historic turning point in the politics of the Vietnam War. ... This liberal bias of the teach-in movement, however, was one of the too-many-reasons-to-recount-here why the academic community lost its leadership role as fast as it had gained it. Part of the problem was that as soon as the teach-in movement politicized the counterculture, the latter began to counterculturalize the politics. Hence the tension between the political and the carnival in the student left as it moved from liberal protest to radical resistance and campus violence... Alienated by the left students’ tactics, the largely liberal anti-war public reverted to traditional modes of protest, although the marches and demonstrations were now massive in scale, varied in social composition and increasingly joined by establishment politicians." —Marshall Sahlins in Anthropology Today, 2009[19]

Teach-ins were one activity of the New Left. Students, faculty, and other activists involved in the teach-ins would go on to organize other antiwar protests, including the 20,000-person rally at the Washington Monument in April 1965.[1]: 25  Teach-ins have continued through the decades since 1965 in response to other national crises, including climate change.

Modern events

[edit]

In the 1990s activists began a new series of teach-ins focused on the corporatization of education and on corporate power generally. These began under the name of the 'National Teach-Ins on Corporations, Education, and Democracy' in 1996[20] and continued on as the 'Democracy Teach-Ins' (DTIs) of 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2002. Leading activist and intellectual figures of the 1990s, including Cornel West,[21] Medea Benjamin, Richard Grossman, Naomi Klein, and Vandana Shiva spoke at the Democracy Teach-Ins, which were coordinated in their first years by Ben Manski. The Democracy Teach-ins were coordinated on hundreds of campuses at once, and were intended to build campus-based networks of pro-democracy activists. The 1999 Democracy Teach-Ins, in particular, played a role in mobilizing students for the 1999 Seattle WTO protests; the 2002 teach-ins played a similar role in preparing for the 2003 national Books Not Bombs student strike. After 1998, the DTIs became a project of the campus syndicalist movement 180/Movement for Democracy and Education.

Teach-ins have more recently been used by environmental educators. The ‘2010 Imperative: A Global Emergency Teach-in’ was held on February 20, 2007, at the New York Academy of Science and organized by Architecture 2030, led by architect Edward Mazria and viewable online through a webcast.[22][23][24]

The teach-in model was also used by a ‘Focus the Nation’ event January 31, 2008, to raise awareness about climate change.[25][26] A 'National Teach-in' was held in February 2009, also addressing global climate change.[27][28]

In 2011, Occupy Wall Street movement began using teach-ins to educate people about the inherent problems of capitalism.[29][30]

In 2015 and 2016, Black Lives Matter teach-ins were held across the United States, including in Ithaca, New York;[31] the Pratt Institute;[32] Framingham State University;[33] and Greenville, South Carolina.[34]

In 2017 and 2018, the University of Michigan ran a number of free online "Teach-Outs" on topics such as free speech, fake news, hurricanes, and science communications.[35][36][37] Some of the Teach-Outs were hosted on Coursera.[36][37]

In 2018, the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame partnered to offer a series of teach-ins and an online "Teach-Out" on Puerto Rico's hurricane recovery efforts.[38][39]

In 2018, Stanford University held a teach-in for gun-violence in schools.[40]

In 2018, students, faculty, and alumni at Edinburgh University held teach-ins on a range of issues while occupying the George Square lecture theatre in support of the University College Union strikes.[41][42]

In 2020, students and faculty at Haverford College held teach-ins on racial justice and other related issues during a strike against the college for its refusal to meet the demands proposed by Black and other POC students.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Teach-in

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A teach-in is an extended educational gathering featuring lectures, panel discussions, debates, and audience participation, designed to inform and engage participants on pressing political or social controversies through rigorous analysis rather than direct confrontation. Emerging as a method in American universities, teach-ins prioritized substantive examination of issues, blending academic instruction with to foster informed opposition. The format originated at the on March 24–25, 1965, when faculty members, responding to President Lyndon B. Johnson's escalation of the via , opted against a full strike and instead suspended classes for an all-night series of speeches, teach-ins, and performances attended by thousands. Involving over 200 faculty speakers who critiqued U.S. involvement in , the event ran from evening discussions on draft policies to dawn rallies, setting a for campuses nationwide to adopt the model by spring's end. This inaugural teach-in highlighted causal links between military strategy and domestic consequences, drawing sharp campus divisions: supporters viewed it as principled inquiry, while critics decried it as undermining national resolve amid tensions. Teach-ins proliferated during the Vietnam era, with events at institutions like the , and others adapting the structure to dissect government rationales, economic costs, and ethical implications of the conflict, often extending into multi-day formats that influenced broader anti-war mobilization. Beyond , the approach later addressed environmental concerns, as in the 1970 teach-ins promoting action on and , demonstrating its versatility for causal reasoning on systemic issues. Though credited with amplifying without violence, teach-ins faced scrutiny for potential academic politicization, reflecting ongoing debates over universities' role in policy critique versus institutional neutrality.

Definition and Core Features

Historical Origins of the Concept

The teach-in concept emerged in early 1965 amid escalating U.S. military involvement in , particularly following President Lyndon B. Johnson's authorization of , a sustained bombing campaign against that commenced on March 2, 1965. This operation involved over 100 U.S. and South Vietnamese bombers targeting North Vietnamese airspace, marking a significant intensification of the conflict and prompting widespread opposition on U.S. college campuses. At the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, faculty members, frustrated by the administration's policies, initially considered a one-day strike to protest the war but sought an alternative that aligned with academic principles of education and discourse. During a faculty meeting, the term "teach-in" was proposed—drawing inspiration from historical precedents like marathon seminars or extended debates—to frame the event as an intensive teaching marathon rather than a work stoppage, thereby emphasizing intellectual engagement over disruption. Approximately 200 faculty participants organized the inaugural event on March 24–25, 1965, which ran overnight across multiple campus buildings, beginning with discussions on the Vietnam War draft and concluding with dawn seminars on policy alternatives. This format combined lectures, panel discussions, and audience participation to inform and mobilize attendees—drawing thousands of students and community members—against what organizers viewed as misguided U.S. interventionism. The teach-in's success lay in its adaptation of traditional academic methods into a public, activist tool, prioritizing factual analysis and debate to challenge official narratives without resorting to . Prior to 1965, no documented precedents exist for this specific hybrid of extended, -oriented teaching sessions in the U.S. context, establishing the Michigan event as the origin of the modern teach-in as a formalized strategy.

Format, Structure, and Objectives

Teach-ins generally adopt an extended format, consisting of sequential lectures, panel discussions, and interactive question-and-answer periods delivered by faculty, subject-matter experts, and sometimes activists. These sessions are often convened in large venues such as auditoriums or multipurpose halls to accommodate sizable audiences, with programming designed to alternate between expert presentations and open forums for participant engagement. The structure emphasizes continuity to sustain momentum, as exemplified by the inaugural teach-in at the on March 24–25, 1965, which operated overnight across multiple buildings, featuring over 200 faculty-led seminars dissecting U.S. policy in without halting regular classes. This non-disruptive approach differentiates teach-ins from strikes or boycotts, prioritizing sustained intellectual exchange over immediate work stoppages. The objectives center on delivering detailed, to counteract perceived in mainstream narratives, particularly regarding military escalations or foreign interventions. Organizers seek to cultivate critical analysis of policy decisions, historical contexts, and ethical implications, enabling attendees to form reasoned positions rather than emotional reactions. In the era context, teach-ins aimed to illuminate the war's strategic flaws, human costs, and domestic ramifications through multidisciplinary perspectives, fostering a shared informational base to galvanize informed and for policy reversal. This educational model underscores a commitment to empirical scrutiny and debate, often drawing on primary data like declassified documents or eyewitness accounts to challenge official rationales. While adaptable to various scales—from campus-specific gatherings to national replications—the core structure resists formal agendas in favor of organic progression, allowing emergent questions to shape and extend runtime as needed. Objectives extend beyond mere to practical , equipping participants with analytical tools for sustained , such as drafting resolutions or coordinating follow-up actions, thereby bridging academia and public action. Historical instances confirm this efficacy, with early teach-ins drawing thousands and spawning widespread emulation, though outcomes varied based on source diversity and avoidance of echo chambers.

Early History and Vietnam War Era

The Inaugural Teach-in at University of Michigan (1965)

The inaugural teach-in at the in Ann Arbor took place overnight from March 24 to 25, 1965, as a direct response to the ' military escalation in , including President Lyndon B. Johnson's authorization of —a sustained bombing campaign against that commenced on March 2, 1965. Initially planned by a small cadre of faculty as a one-day teaching strike or work moratorium to protest the war's expansion, the format shifted to an educational marathon to avoid outright class cancellation while fulfilling the university's teaching mission through extended discourse on the conflict's strategic, historical, and ethical dimensions. Key organizers included philosophy professor Frithjof Bergmann and sociologist William Gamson, who coordinated with an initial group of about 13 professors that expanded to involve roughly 200 faculty members across disciplines; the program featured lectures, panel debates, question-and-answer sessions, documentary films, and workshops spanning 12 hours from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. Speakers addressed topics such as the Vietnam War draft, U.S. foreign policy rationales, and alternatives to military intervention, with participants including students, faculty, and local community members totaling approximately 3,000 attendees who filled multiple campus venues despite logistical challenges. The event proceeded amid external pressures, including criticism from Governor George Romney and state legislators who viewed it as an inappropriate politicization of academia, yet it concluded without major disruptions and was hailed by organizers as a model for informed that prioritized over traditional tactics like strikes or boycotts. Its success in mobilizing engagement—far exceeding organizers' expectations—prompted immediate emulation at institutions like two days later, establishing the teach-in as a scalable tool for against the .

Nationwide Expansion and Key Events

Following the teach-in on March 24–25, 1965, the format rapidly expanded to other campuses as faculty and students emulated the model to protest escalating U.S. military involvement in , particularly after the initiation of bombing on March 2. Within days, held a teach-in on March 26, 1965, focusing on antiwar seminars led by faculty. Two weeks later, organized a similar event, with additional teach-ins emerging at institutions including the University of Wisconsin on April 1, 1965, where thousands of students filled buildings for discussions on the war's implications. This momentum accelerated in April and May 1965, resulting in more than 50 teach-ins nationwide, galvanizing academic opposition through extended sessions of lectures, debates, and question-and-answer formats that emphasized factual analysis over disruption. A notable coordinated effort, the National Teach-In on the Vietnam War, convened on May 15, 1965, in Washington, D.C., at the Sheraton Park Hotel, attracting around 3,000 students and faculty for panels addressing policy critiques and alternatives to escalation. These events often featured diverse viewpoints, including government perspectives via invited speakers, though predominantly highlighted dissent against administration policies. The expansion reflected causal drivers such as faculty frustration with perceived restrictions on classroom discourse amid Johnson's war decisions, fostering a network of that bypassed traditional strikes in favor of educational . By mid-1965, teach-ins had become a staple of , with participation numbers in the thousands per event, setting the stage for larger-scale gatherings while maintaining focus on evidence-based critiques of and ethics.
The proliferation continued into 1966, as evidenced by events like the UCLA teach-in on March 25, 1966, which featured 21 speakers addressing policy.

UC Berkeley Teach-in and Its Scale

The UC Berkeley teach-in on the , organized by the newly formed Vietnam Day Committee, took place from May 21 to 23, 1965, marking a significant escalation in antiwar following the inaugural event at the . The Vietnam Day Committee, initiated by figures including former graduate student and mathematician , aimed to educate participants on the historical, moral, and strategic dimensions of U.S. involvement in , critiquing the Johnson administration's policies amid rising troop commitments. This event built on earlier discussions but adopted an extended, marathon format to accommodate broader participation and in-depth discourse, reflecting growing student and faculty opposition to the war's expansion. In terms of scale, the teach-in spanned approximately 36 hours and featured around 40 speakers, including academics, activists, and experts who addressed topics ranging from Vietnam's colonial to U.S. and ethical implications. Held on a playing field to maximize attendance, it drew estimates of 10,000 to 30,000 participants, with peak crowds nearing 10,000 at key sessions, surpassing prior teach-ins in duration and scope. The event's magnitude stemmed from Berkeley's activist milieu, post-Free Speech Movement, and coordinated promotion via leaflets and announcements, enabling simultaneous panels, debates, and cultural performances that sustained engagement overnight. This teach-in's unprecedented size influenced subsequent national efforts, serving as a model for extended, participatory formats while highlighting logistical challenges like weather exposure and crowd management on open fields. Attendance figures, while varying across contemporaneous reports, underscore its role as the largest Vietnam-focused teach-in up to that point, amplifying antiwar sentiments amid escalating U.S. draft calls and bombings. The (FBI), under Director , monitored teach-ins as components of the burgeoning , viewing them as potential venues for disseminating subversive or communist-influenced ideas opposing U.S. policy in . The agency's domestic intelligence operations documented early events, such as the inaugural teach-in on March 24–25, 1965, which drew over 3,000 participants and was recorded in FBI files as a coordinated protest against American military escalation following . This surveillance extended to tracking organizers, speakers, and attendees for possible ties to groups deemed security threats, reflecting broader FBI efforts to counter perceived "New Left" radicalism amid escalating campus activism. Local agencies complemented federal monitoring through specialized units, such as police "red squads," which infiltrated and observed teach-in activities suspected of fostering . For instance, the Police Department's surveilled an October 1965 teach-in organized by the Detroit Committee to End the War in during the "International Days of ," compiling reports on participants and content to assess risks of unrest. Declassified records reveal that such operations, including those by the FBI and CIA, involved illegal tactics like unauthorized and infiltration of student groups across universities, driven by fears of in conservative regions, though teach-ins themselves rarely triggered direct arrests due to their educational framing. Legal scrutiny intensified as teach-ins scaled up, with the FBI's program—initially focused on communist organizations but expanding to antiwar elements by the late 1960s—employing harassment, disinformation, and scrutiny of faculty and students involved. Hoover publicly decried campus protests, including teach-ins, as manipulated by "professional agitators" in statements and directives, contributing to investigations that chilled participation without widespread prosecutions specific to . At institutions like the , the May 1965 teach-in attracting 30,000 attendees amplified federal and state oversight, linking it to broader tensions and prompting inquiries into speakers' backgrounds for loyalty concerns. These measures, later exposed through congressional probes like the , highlighted constitutional overreach but underscored the government's causal prioritization of amid perceived threats from organized dissent.

Applications Beyond Antiwar Protest

Teach-ins on Domestic and Non-Military Issues

Following the antiwar teach-ins of the mid-1960s, the format adapted to address domestic concerns such as and racial inequality, retaining the emphasis on extended discussions, expert panels, and participatory education to inform and mobilize participants. These events often occurred on university campuses, where faculty and students canceled regular classes to focus on issues like pollution control and , reflecting a shift from critiques to internal societal challenges. A prominent example was the nationwide environmental teach-in initiative proposed by U.S. Senator (D-WI) in 1969, modeled explicitly after teach-ins to raise awareness about ecological threats including air and . This culminated in on April 22, 1970, which Nelson described as a "national teach-in" that engaged 20 million Americans across thousands of schools and communities in discussions and demonstrations on conservation and resource management. The event spurred legislative responses, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in December 1970, though critics later noted that initial enthusiasm waned without sustained policy enforcement. Teach-ins also addressed racial justice and civil rights extensions beyond the 1964 Civil Rights Act, with campuses in the late 1960s and 1970s hosting forums on topics like housing discrimination and educational disparities. For instance, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organized anti-racist teach-ins in 1973, analyzing the resurgence of segregationist ideologies through lectures and pamphlets distributed at events in Boston and other cities. These gatherings aimed to connect historical patterns of exclusion to contemporary urban poverty, drawing hundreds of attendees but facing pushback from administrators concerned about disrupting academic routines. Non-military international issues with domestic implications, such as corporate investments in South Africa's apartheid regime, prompted teach-ins focused on divestment policies. At the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in March 1966, a teach-in on apartheid featured speeches and marches calling for economic disengagement, attended by students protesting U.S. firms' complicity in abroad. Similarly, at in the 1980s, anti-apartheid activists incorporated teach-ins into shanty-building protests to educate on 's potential to pressure regimes through financial leverage, influencing campus endowment decisions despite limited immediate global impact. Such events highlighted causal links between domestic investment choices and foreign abuses, though empirical assessments showed campaigns accelerated awareness more than directly hastening apartheid's end in 1994.

Conservative and Right-Leaning Examples

While anti-war teach-ins dominated the landscape, conservative counterparts emerged as direct responses, advocating for U.S. engagement in and emphasizing strategic necessities for victory. At in early 1966, the Conservative Club, directed by conservative faculty, organized a teach-in focused on American , countering the prevailing anti-war sentiment with arguments for escalation and triumph over communist forces. This event reflected a broader, though minority, pushback rooted in traditionalist values against liberal activism. A prominent example occurred at Harvard University on March 26, 1971, when Students for a Just Peace—a conservative student group—hosted a counter teach-in to defend continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Featuring speakers including Thai Ambassador Anand Panyarachun, South Vietnamese Embassy aide Nguyen Hoan, White House adviser Dolf Droge, and Brandeis professor I. Milton Sacks, the event drew approximately 1,000 attendees, though at least half were militant demonstrators from anti-war groups like Students for a Democratic Society. Disruptions ensued almost immediately, with booing, chanting, seat-slamming, and thrown objects forcing Harvard Law professor Archibald Cox to halt proceedings after 45 minutes amid threats of violence from an external crowd; the university administration subsequently warned of disciplinary actions against disruptors. This incident underscored early tensions over free speech on campuses, where pro-war viewpoints faced organized opposition. In the post-Vietnam era, right-leaning teach-ins reappeared during the 2003 to challenge perceived anti-war dominance in academia. At UCLA on April 2, 2003, a pro-war teach-in— the third in a series initiated by conservative figures—featured former Education Secretary and William J. Bennett, ex-CIA Director R. James Woolsey, and counterterrorism expert L. Paul Bremer III, drawing about 300 students. Funded through private donations and grants via Bennett's Empower America think tank (later part of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism), the event aimed to present factual, intellectual arguments supporting the invasion, highlighting what organizers viewed as liberal bias in university discourse. Such initiatives sought to balance campus debates but remained sporadic compared to left-leaning precedents.

Modern and Contemporary Usage

Teach-ins in the Post-1960s Activism

Following the escalation and eventual U.S. withdrawal from in 1975, teach-ins persisted as a tactic in university-based , adapting to new causes while retaining their format of extended discussions, lectures, and debates to educate participants and build momentum for change. These events shifted from predominantly antiwar focuses to domestic and international issues, often organized by student groups and faculty sympathetic to progressive causes, though participation varied by campus. A prominent early example occurred in the environmental movement, where the 1970 teach-in at the on the environment—featuring seminars, rallies, and over 50,000 attendees across multiple sites—directly modeled the Vietnam-era format and catalyzed nationwide events leading to the first on April 22, 1970, with teach-ins at approximately 1,500 colleges and 10,000 schools. Environmental teach-ins continued into the 1970s and beyond, addressing issues like and , though empirical assessments of their direct policy impacts remain limited, with causal links often attributed more to broader public mobilization than isolated events. In the 1980s, teach-ins gained traction in campaigns against South African apartheid, particularly around university divestment efforts. On October 11, 1985, students at colleges nationwide, including Columbia University and the University of California system, held coordinated teach-ins alongside rallies to highlight corporate ties to the apartheid regime and pressure institutions to sell holdings in companies operating in South Africa. These events, such as those at the University of Wisconsin and Harvard, educated attendees on economic sanctions and divestment strategies, contributing to over 200 U.S. universities divesting by the late 1980s, though critics noted the selective focus on South Africa amid other global human rights issues. Teach-ins reemerged prominently during the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, with nationwide coordination by groups like Historians Against the War organizing events on April 9-10, 2003, at dozens of campuses to debate intelligence claims, war rationale, and alternatives to invasion. At , for instance, over 500 students and faculty attended teach-ins on March 5, 2003, featuring panels from 20 professors across disciplines critiquing U.S. policy. Similar sessions at the and Loyola University drew hundreds, focusing on historical precedents and potential postwar scenarios, though post-event analyses indicated limited influence on policy outcomes amid rapid military escalation. In contemporary activism, teach-ins have addressed , as seen in the Mississauga's 2019 series of faculty-led sessions tied to the Global Climate Strike, which examined scientific data, policy failures, and grassroots solutions for over 200 participants. Network's ongoing teach-in toolkits, updated through the 2020s, promote similar formats for community education on emissions reduction and , emphasizing empirical climate models over alarmist narratives. These adaptations reflect teach-ins' enduring role in fostering informed , though their effectiveness in driving measurable change—such as emission reductions or divestments—often depends on integration with broader strategies rather than standalone events, with source documentation from activist organizers potentially understating logistical challenges and ideological homogeneity.

Recent Examples and Adaptations (1980s–Present)

In the 1980s, teach-ins reemerged prominently in anti-apartheid campaigns on U.S. college campuses, educating participants on South Africa's policies and pressuring institutions for from related investments. At the , students organized protests and teach-ins against apartheid, drawing parallels to earlier antiwar efforts and involving faculty like Pedro Noguera, who later reflected on their role in building solidarity. Similar events occurred at on , 1986, focusing on apartheid's systemic injustices, and contributed to broader successes by the early 1990s. These teach-ins adapted the format by integrating economic analysis and calls for institutional action, often spanning multiple days with panels on global . The early 2000s saw teach-ins revive amid , with universities hosting events to critique U.S. policy and military intervention. On March 6, 2003, the organized rallies followed by afternoon teach-ins and debates, coordinated by student groups to foster informed dissent. That same month, over 1,000 students at the University of Wisconsin attended an antiwar teach-in, skipping classes to discuss geopolitical implications and alternatives to invasion. These gatherings emphasized factual briefings on intelligence failures and potential casualties, echoing Vietnam-era models but with greater focus on real-time media scrutiny. From the 2010s onward, teach-ins adapted to economic inequality, racial justice, and environmental concerns, often incorporating multimedia and virtual elements for wider reach. During the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011, campuses like Brandeis University held all-day teach-ins on April 22, 2012, examining capitalism's structural issues through panels from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. UC Berkeley followed with a 2012 event on economic inequality, linking it to Occupy's critiques without the physical occupations. Black Lives Matter-inspired teach-ins proliferated post-2014, such as Virginia Tech's July 2, 2020, virtual panel connecting civil rights history to contemporary policing, hosted by the history department. Climate-focused iterations, like the University of Redlands' annual March 21 event with thematic 5-minute faculty talks, integrated scientific data on emissions and policy solutions. Post-2020 adaptations included hybrid formats amid the and campus tensions, with teach-ins addressing geopolitical conflicts. In response to the October 7, 2023, attacks and ensuing Gaza war, groups like at hosted a teach-in on October 20, 2023, featuring student and faculty speakers on Palestinian perspectives, though criticized for limited viewpoint diversity. Middlebury College's November 1, 2023, "Gaza in Context" event drew over 250 attendees, organized by its SJP chapter amid broader protests. canceled classes on December 5, 2023, for a community-wide teach-in with 14 events, including discussions on and Middle East history, aiming for balanced dialogue. These modern uses highlight teach-ins' flexibility for rapid-response but have sparked debates over ideological uniformity, particularly in academia where left-leaning perspectives predominate in event framing.

Criticisms, Controversies, and Debates

Charges of Ideological Bias and One-Sidedness

Critics of teach-ins, especially those organized against U.S. involvement in the , have frequently charged them with ideological toward liberal or anti-war viewpoints, often presenting information in a manner that lacked balance or invited genuine debate. For instance, at the University of Oregon's teach-in in May 1965, organizers openly described the event as a "one-sided affair" without apology, focusing exclusively on critiques of U.S. policy rather than incorporating opposing arguments. Similarly, a 1969 teach-in at drew student objections for being "one-sided" and "dovish," as it scheduled only leftist speakers opposing the war, excluding pro-war perspectives. Such criticisms extended to the broader structure of many 1960s teach-ins, where faculty initiators—predominantly aligned with progressive or anti-interventionist stances—dominated speaker lineups, leading to accusations of using academic platforms for advocacy rather than neutral education. Conservative observers, including California Governor Ronald Reagan, lambasted university environments fostering such events as enabling "communist professors indoctrinating" students and permitting "anarchy" under the guise of academic freedom, tying teach-ins to wider campus unrest that prioritized radical activism over impartial inquiry. These charges highlighted a perceived failure to represent hawkish or administration-supporting views, with empirical patterns showing teach-ins more akin to rallies for consciousness-raising than forums for causal analysis of policy merits. Proponents countered that teach-ins aimed to spotlight underrepresented critiques of actions, not to simulate balanced seminars, but detractors argued this rationale masked systemic left-leaning homogeneity in academia, where dissenting conservative faculty were scarce and often sidelined. Later reflections, including from student activists, acknowledged risks of one-sidedness in teach-in formats, recommending diverse speakers to avoid propagandistic appearances, though historical examples rarely adhered to this in practice during peak anti-war mobilization. This pattern fueled ongoing debates about whether teach-ins compromised institutional neutrality by amplifying ideologically aligned narratives without rigorous counter-evidence.

Effects on Academic Neutrality and Free Speech

Teach-ins in the , particularly those protesting U.S. involvement in , drew criticism for undermining academic neutrality by transforming university resources and faculty expertise into vehicles for partisan advocacy. Events such as the May 1965 teach-in at the , which attracted over 30,000 participants and featured lectures spanning 36 hours, predominantly showcased anti-war perspectives with limited inclusion of pro-intervention viewpoints, prompting accusations of inherent that prioritized over balanced inquiry. This format blurred the distinction between scholarly and political mobilization, as faculty often suspended regular classes to organize and participate, effectively endorsing a specific ideological stance under the guise of . Such practices fueled broader concerns that teach-ins eroded institutional , a historically central to American higher education prior to the , where universities maintained dispassionate nonpartisanship to foster objective scholarship. Critics argued that the heavy reliance on government funding for universities already inclined toward certain policy alignments, but teach-ins exacerbated politicization by amplifying liberal-leaning without equivalent platforms for counterarguments, thereby pressuring institutions to tacitly align with protesters' views. This shift contributed to perceptions of academia as an , where the liberal bias evident in teach-in programming—described as one of the movement's "too-many" limitations—compromised the university's role as a neutral arbiter of . On free speech, teach-ins ostensibly expanded expressive opportunities by providing forums for public debate amid campus restrictions, yet their one-sided execution often marginalized opposing voices, fostering an atmosphere of selective tolerance. For instance, while anti-war dominated proceedings, pro-war academics faced social and professional , illustrating how the movement's emphasis on "teach-in" as inadvertently chilled balanced exchange and set precedents for viewpoint in academic settings. This dynamic highlighted tensions between unrestricted speech and the demand for ideological , with long-term effects including heightened of faculty political activities and debates over whether such events violated principles of open inquiry essential to university governance.

Empirical Outcomes and Unintended Consequences

Teach-ins in the 1960s, particularly those opposing U.S. involvement in Vietnam, demonstrated capacity for mobilizing campus communities, with the inaugural event at the University of Michigan on March 24–25, 1965, involving faculty-led discussions attended by hundreds of students and extending through the night despite administrative threats of dismissal. Subsequent teach-ins, such as the one at the University of California, Berkeley, on May 15, 1965, expanded the model, attracting thousands and prompting replications at over 100 institutions by year's end, thereby amplifying antiwar discourse within academic circles. These gatherings correlated with heightened student participation in broader protests, as evidenced by the rapid spread of organized opposition from isolated faculty initiatives to national networks, though causal attribution relies on historical narratives rather than controlled studies. Empirical assessments of teach-ins' influence on national policy or , however, reveal limited direct effects. Public support for the remained majority-backed in 1965, with Gallup data indicating 61% approval of President Lyndon B. Johnson's handling of the conflict that , a figure that only shifted substantially after the 1968 amid mounting casualties and media coverage, independent of early campus events. No peer-reviewed quantitative analyses isolate teach-ins as a primary driver of change; instead, they appear to have primarily reinforced existing , with broader societal shifts tied more closely to draft inductions (peaking at 382,010 in 1966) and battlefield outcomes than educational forums. Unintended consequences included the entrenchment of one-sided presentations, as organizers often curated panels with near-unanimous antiwar stances, sidelining pro-intervention perspectives and fostering environments less conducive to dialectical exchange. This homogeneity, while energizing participants, contributed to campus polarization, escalating into disruptions like the 1969 Harvard strike following teach-in-inspired , which strained institutional and prompted administrative countermeasures, including faculty reprisals. Over time, the teach-in model's integration into academic practice correlated with shifts toward activist-oriented scholarship, potentially diluting emphasis on empirical detachment, as federal funding surges for higher education in the inadvertently amplified oppositional voices without balancing mechanisms. Such dynamics, while not universally quantified, are documented in analyses highlighting how early dissent forums laid groundwork for enduring ideological tilts in university culture, often at variance with wider public sentiments.

Impact and Legacy

Influence on Protest Tactics and Public Discourse

Teach-ins introduced a novel protest tactic by repurposing academic settings for continuous, fact-based critiques of policy, originating at the University of Michigan on March 24–25, 1965, where faculty opted against a strike to host overnight seminars on Vietnam War escalation following Operation Rolling Thunder. This format emphasized extended dialogue over disruption, attracting thousands and inspiring replication at institutions like the University of California, Berkeley, on May 15, 1965, with over 30,000 attendees debating war morality and alternatives. By prioritizing empirical analysis and expert testimony, teach-ins shifted tactics from sporadic rallies to sustained educational mobilizations, enabling broader recruitment of informed participants and reducing reliance on emotional appeals alone. In public discourse, teach-ins elevated anti-war arguments by injecting academic rigor into mainstream debates, challenging official narratives through public forums that garnered media attention and pressured policymakers. Events like the teach-in, involving 200 faculty, modeled open on contested issues, influencing subsequent movements to adopt hybrid education- strategies for legitimacy and . This approach fostered causal discussions on intervention costs—such as U.S. troop commitments rising from 23,300 in 1964 to over 184,000 by 1965—rather than abstract , though critics noted potential for echo-chamber effects in participant selection. Empirical data from the era shows teach-ins correlated with surging campus , contributing to a national anti-war network that amplified dissent without immediate institutional shutdowns. Over time, the teach-in legacy persisted in tactics like moderate-flank strategies, where educational events complemented marches to build public support, as evidenced in studies of social movements distinguishing teach-ins from radical actions to enhance moderate appeal. In , they normalized involvement in , influencing later adaptations in environmental and civil campaigns by framing issues through verifiable data and first-hand accounts, though outcomes varied with source biases in academic panels. This evolution underscored teach-ins' role in prioritizing reasoned persuasion, yet their one-sidedness in early examples sometimes limited cross-ideological engagement, per contemporaneous analyses.

Long-Term Role in Education and Policy Influence

Teach-ins, as formalized during the 1965 University of Michigan event protesting U.S. escalation in , established a for universities to host extended, faculty-led forums blending instruction with advocacy on policy-relevant issues, a practice that persists in contemporary academia. This model has influenced educational approaches by encouraging interdisciplinary seminars and public lectures that prioritize real-time debate over rote learning, with institutions like the reviving variants such as "teach-outs" in 2017 to address policy under the Trump administration. Over decades, such events have integrated into campus culture, numbering in the hundreds annually across U.S. colleges by the and continuing for topics like climate policy, though empirical data on their effect on student retention of factual content remains sparse compared to standard . Regarding policy influence, teach-ins exerted indirect pressure by disseminating dissenting analyses to large audiences— the inaugural event drew over 3,000 participants overnight—contributing to broader anti-war mobilization that aligned with declining public support for involvement, from 61% approval in August 1965 to 28% by 1971 per Gallup polling. While not singularly causative, they amplified faculty expertise challenging official narratives, fostering networks of alumni who entered policymaking roles; for instance, participants later shaped environmental regulations through advocacy groups, though quantifiable attribution to specific statutes like the 1970 Clean Air Act is limited by confounding factors such as electoral shifts and media coverage. In later eras, teach-ins on issues like in the correlated with congressional hearings but showed mixed efficacy, as policy outcomes often hinged more on electoral mandates than campus discourse alone. Longitudinally, teach-ins have embedded activist pedagogy in higher education, influencing curricula toward "" components in over 1,000 U.S. programs by 2020, per association surveys, yet this evolution has prioritized mobilization over neutral inquiry in many cases, with sources noting a predominance of left-leaning perspectives that may constrain balanced policy deliberation. Their legacy in policy lies in cultivating informed elites—many Vietnam-era attendees ascended to influential positions—but causal realism tempers claims of transformative impact, as structural factors like economic costs and setbacks more directly drove changes such as the 1973 draft cessation.

References

  1. https://museumofprotest.org/methods/teach-ins/
  2. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/united-states-history-since-1945/teach-ins
  3. https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/the-first-teach-in/
  4. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/teach-in-50/home/
  5. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-24/first-teach-in-conducted
  6. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2025/03/21/way-honor-teach-movement-60-opinion
  7. https://alumni.umich.edu/michigan-alum/history-lessons-teach-in-reactions/
  8. https://www.earthday.org/teach-in-toolkit/
  9. https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/anti-vietnam-war-teach-in-at-university-of-michigan/
  10. https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/anthropologists-teach-in
  11. https://usfblogs.usfca.edu/fierce-urgency/2021/04/13/marshall-sahlins-and-the-birth-of-the-teach-in/
  12. https://michigantoday.umich.edu/2015/03/16/teach-in-50/
  13. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/03/23/teach-remembered/70354670/
  14. https://www.michigandaily.com/uncategorized/vietnam-protestors-revisit-past-teach/
  15. https://www.facebook.com/groups/159700503902/posts/10162297482073903/
  16. https://thedemocraticstrategist.org/2024/05/may-10-comparing-antiwar-movements-past-and-present/
  17. https://repair.ucsf.edu/teach-ins-0
  18. https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/c.php?g=819842&p=5850986
  19. https://www.highflyingbird.com/berkeley-teach-in
  20. https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/summer-2010-shelf-life/intellectual-action-hero/
  21. https://folkways-media.si.edu/docs/folkways/artwork/FW05765.pdf
  22. https://riverasun.com/teach-ins-and-nonviolent-movements/
  23. https://www.facebook.com/realtime1960s/posts/may-22-1965-a-33-hour-vietnam-teach-in-at-the-university-of-california-at-berkel/1256888886442113/
  24. https://socialistworker.org/2014/12/02/spark-that-lit-the-1960s-campus-revolt
  25. https://vault.fbi.gov/anti-war-movement
  26. https://vault.fbi.gov/athan-theoharis/athan-theoharis-part-01
  27. https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/news/news-articles/unl-students-were-protesting-the-vietnam-war-and-the-fbi-was-watching/
  28. https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/s/detroitunderfire/page/red-squad
  29. https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/fbi-and-cia-mounted-illegal-surveillance-operation-on-progressive-student-activists-in-southern-states-in-1960s-covertaction-magazine
  30. https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/cointelpro-teaching-the-fbi-s-war-on-the-black-freedom-movement/
  31. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/j-edgar-hoover-campus-unrest-1970
  32. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/teach-ins-helped-galvanize-student-activism-in-the-1960s-they-can-do-so-again-today/
  33. https://nelsonearthday.net/
  34. https://wilderness.net/learn-about-wilderness/people/gaylord-nelson.php
  35. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-22/the-first-earth-day
  36. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Gaylord_Nelson_Promotes_the_First_Earth_Day.htm
  37. https://blogs.lib.uconn.edu/archives/2022/04/21/resources-for-the-study-of-student-led-civil-rights-activism-1960s-1970s/
  38. https://archives-spec.unl.edu/projects/divestment-students
  39. https://davidson.libguides.com/activism-and-protests/divestment-from-apartheid
  40. https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/student-protests-and-lessons-anti-apartheid-movement
  41. https://teachingsocialstudies.org/2023/01/20/vietnam-protests-at-new-jersey-universities/
  42. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1971/3/27/pro-war-teach-in-dissolves-in-turmoil-administration/
  43. https://www.commentary.org/articles/daniel-pipes/harvard-student-disruption-prefigured-campus-extremism/
  44. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-apr-03-war-campus3-story.html
  45. https://thenextsystem.org/teachins
  46. https://eartharchives.psu.edu/2020/04/13/1970-environmental-teach-ins/
  47. https://www.oah.org/process/rome-earth-day/
  48. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/10/11/College-students-nationwide-staged-anti-apartheid-protest-rallies-and-teach-ins/5771497851200/
  49. https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/category/gene-sharps-198/050-teach-ins
  50. https://www.aamarchives.org/who-was-involved/students.html
  51. https://historiansagainstwar.org/teachin/
  52. https://stanfordmag.org/contents/rallying-against-and-sometimes-for-war-in-iraq
  53. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/03/mich-m06.html
  54. https://dschwei.sites.luc.edu/iraq.htm
  55. https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/main-news/come-together-utm-teach-ins-grapple-realities-solutions-climate-change
  56. https://www.earthday.org/teach-in-toolkit-2/
  57. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/05/1249134934/gaza-protests-uc-berkeley-pedro-noguera
  58. https://thedrewacorn.com/2024/11/08/dytt-drew-students-organize-against-south-african-apartheid/
  59. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/03/06/students-across-us-mount-antiwar-protests/740a8625-1328-46b2-ba90-359835602a38/
  60. https://www.brandeis.edu/now/2012/april/occupy.html
  61. https://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/05/economic-inequality-teach-in/
  62. https://liberalarts.vt.edu/news/events/2020/06/teach-ins-on-social-justice.html
  63. https://www.redlands.edu/offices-directory/academic-departments/environmental-studies/sustainability-at-the-university-of-redlands/climate-teach-in
  64. https://bowdoinorient.com/2023/10/20/sjp-hosts-teach-in-regarding-violence-in-palestine-and-israel-yields-unforseen-student-turn-out/
  65. https://www.middleburycampus.com/article/2023/11/middlebury-students-for-justice-in-palestine-hosts-teach-in-as-over-500-alumni-sign-letter-on-israel-palestine-war
  66. https://www.brandeis.edu/stories/2023/december/teach-in.html
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20528196
  68. https://www.nytimes.com/1965/05/09/archives/article-9-no-title-vietnam-comes-to-oregon-u-vietnam-comes-to.html
  69. https://osupublicationarchives.osu.edu/?a=d&d=LTN19691010-01.2.8
  70. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/3/8/balancing-act-pbtbhe-council-of-deans/
  71. https://daily.jstor.org/ronald-reagan-v-uc-berkeley/
  72. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/ronald-reagan-unrest-college-campuses-1967
  73. https://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-disappearing-conservative-professor
  74. https://michigandaily.com/uncategorized/house-education-teach-ins-born-a2-continue-be-valuable-source-knowledge/
  75. https://www.niskanencenter.org/conservative-voices-in-1960s-campus-activism-with-lauren-lassabe-shepherd/
  76. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/09/harvard-academic-freedom-free-speech
  77. https://www.aaup.org/academe/issues/winter-2025/free-speech-movement-sixty-and-todays-unfree-universities
  78. https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2019/02/1969-student-protests-vietnam
  79. https://history.wisc.edu/publications/cold-war-university-madison-and-the-new-left-in-the-sixties/
  80. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/us-anti-vietnam-war-movement-1964-1973/
  81. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/two-days-in-october-student-antiwar-protests-and-backlash/
  82. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666
  83. https://fordschool.umich.edu/news/2017/teach-out-series-pays-homage-university-michigan-s-game-changing-vietnam-era-teach-ins
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.