Administrative response to student activism and campus unrest at the State University of New York at Buffalo, 1965--1970: Lessons learned and suggestions for the future

This dissertation focuses on the administrative response to student activism and campus unrest that occurred at the State University of New York at Buffalo (UB) during the years 1965--1970. Much attention has been given to the subject of student activism throughout the history of American higher education. However, the majority of the literature concentrates on the events that occurred at our nation's most elite or academically selective universities, such as Berkeley, Cornell, and Harvard, and virtually ignores the numerous incidents of campus unrest that occurred at the non-elite or less academically selective institutions. This void in the literature leaves questions about the student activism that arose and the administrative response it drew from university officials at the less selective colleges; namely, was what transpired at the non-elite institutions similar or different than that which took place at the elite schools.;The goals of this research were to investigate the development of student activism at a non-elite university during the years 1965--1970; to uncover the causes, both local and national, which motivated the students' activism during this time; and to examine the administrative response the students' behavior elicited from college officials. In addition, the study compared the students' activism and the administrators' response at UB to that which emerged from three elite institutions. The study made extensive use of archival sources, and combined historical case study methodology with qualitative participant interviews of former UB administrators, students, and faculty who were in some way directly involved in the campus disorder.;Key findings include: (1) incidents of student activism that occurred at UB mirrored those of the elite institutions, and no significant differences were found in the fundamental issues that motivated elite and non-elite students to participate in activist activities; and (2) both the elite and non-elite administrators were unprepared to handle the sudden increase in student activism on their campuses, and each made similar administrative errors. The study concludes with lessons learned from the administrative response to these incidents, and suggestions to assist current and future college administrators in the management of student unrest on their campuses.