Peace Retreat in Letters
The Peace Retreat was as much a generational as a wartime event. The protests were against a "1940s mentality" which saw the best response as war. The Peace Retreat was held in classrooms, the brickyard and student's dorms.
“The battle is over. The battle is now beginning. We won our war of words and now we seek a position according to our convictions on the serious problem facing our nation.”
-G.A. Dees, May 14, 1970
May 13-20, 1970
What exactly would the Peace Retreat entail? Could it even succeed? With just a few days left in the semester these were major questions facing the campus, the chancellor’s administration and most importantly, Sterling’s clique. How successful the Peace Retreat went could go a long way towards the future of student government vis a vis the university administration. One specific goal of the retreat was to open up communications on campus between pro and anti-war groups. One of interesting aspects of the retreat was the Fleece for Peace. In this venture “hundreds of male students” had their hair shorn close to the skull, getting a kind of buzz cut. The hope was to “break down walls” partially created by the view of long-haired-hippies believed to be communists or anti-democratic vigilantes. The Technician was an excellent forum for the failures and successes of the Retreat.[1]
It is illuminating how much of the May 15th Technician was dedicated to letters to the editor. Often letters to the editor took only a third of a page in the Technician. However, throughout the Peace Retreat the school newspaper left two to three pages open for people to write in and express their feelings. Writing on May 15, G.A. Dees published a letter in which he clarified the position of many on campus: “ask me how it feels to be alone!” He felt trapped writing, “I am not a member of the New Mobe [an anti-war organization] yet the other side seems to dislike people that…occupy the middle of the road politically.”[2] What did the retreat offer a vocal man like Dees? He started his own organization, the Student for Responsible Study and Observation:
“This organization will consider, through study, a course of action to follow considering the Vietnam conflict, position of students in relationship to their faculty and administration, and our position in Government…I feel that too much polarization exists in spite of great efforts to the contrary. I want to be able to associate with both sides, as I have found in the past few weeks that this is the way to really see what is happening.”
Using the space created by the Kent State protests and the peace retreat Dees represented some of best the campus had to offer in terms of making a difference. Dees was not trying to overthrow the system, divorce himself from the university administration, or attack pro-war groups. Instead, he wanted to bridge the chasm between those who were for and against the war. Dees wanted to, “see the other side from the vantage point of the” opposition. Nixon’s famous silent majority, it seemed, might just be making itself known.
Not everyone wanted to bypass the chasm. One letter to the editor, by Diana Ball a Senior at NC State, damned the school faculty as “Numb Skulls” for their vote “in favor of the radicals.” She argued that the faculty should have seen that most students were against these radicals since they voted against the Peace Retreat, “by attending class in a normal manner.” She finished with a complaint stating, “I thought my school was supposed to be run by the majority and not just a few empty headed numb-skulls and opportunists.” Another, less serious article a freshmen declared that “mankind has faults. He does not obey the rules…MANKIND, YOU HAVE ONE WEEK TO CORRECT YOUR FLAWS.” Though this was a tongue-in-cheek letter, it shows criticisms of the peace retreat: the folly of hoping to solve the world’s problems in just a week.[3]
A more well thought criticism of the Peace Retreat (and Cathy Sterling) was published on May 18th and, in many ways might actually show the success of the retreat in opening dialogues. The authors were two students who believe that Cathy Sterling did not stand for them. They start their letter by complaining about the most recent convocation, held on May 16th. This convocation, slightly smaller than the post-Kent State event on May 6th, was to be the seminal event of the Peace Retreat. “In the majority of protest speeches…continuous abuse was hurled at the actions of the National Guard at Kent State,” they began. This should not be surprising, as the guardsmen did lose control at Kent State and shot thirteen unarmed students. The authors then moved to a march against NC State’s ROTC which, “including the firing of a blank pistol. Who can wonder,” they asked, “that the inexperienced guardsmen at Kent State may have been bewildered by the same type of incident.” They ended with a complaint about Sterling: “we do not feel that Cathy Sterling…should have endorsed the march by State students to Governor Scott’s office…by endorsing the march, she infers that all students favor the march on the Capitol, when in fact all of the students do not.”[4]
However, no letter to the editor better explains the excitement the Peace Retreat meant on campus than one by Ed Epps, a senior. As the letter is quite short it is posted in its entirety:
“As a prospective graduate who could not wait to get his behind away from this apathetic institution just three weeks ago, I am happy to say that I have enjoyed working with the many thinking and sincerely motivated people on this campus.
"Like so many State graduates of past years, I would have merely been content to get as far away from this place as possible and console myself with the fact that I had some middle class, humdrum, routinized job.
"I can only say to these beautiful people—‘Right on!’
"P.S. On to graduation with peace, let’s take it out into the real world.”[5]
These letters illuminate the powerful influence the Peace Retreat had on students. For the first time everyone's voice could be heard; not just the loud on either side, but the many shades of reaction to the war. These students wanted the rest of the school to know what they thought. Why? The Peace Retreat re-directed the anger and sadness of young students: they could voice their opinions in a constructive manner. For the first time since the invasion of Cambodia students were talking and being listened to without civil disobedience.
The Peace Retreat succeeded because it was not violent. Angry protests and destrucion was always a distraction. The aggressive protests in Berkley or the boycotts at Duke did not help students learn anything except how to gain attention and disdain. The concept of the spoiled college student was born mainly from schools like Berkley; why, thought parents and adults, should they're lives be paid for if they are only going to commit arson and protstests?
Meanwhile, NC State collegiates learned about how to facillitate a legitmate discussion. This was an important step in becoming a useful U.S. citizen. One of the most important aspects of a democracy is compromise; Sterling's retreat helped students learn about conversing in a reasonable fashion. That the Peace Retreat worked within the system, forcing students and teachers to reach a compromise was emminently more useful than just making a racket like an upset child.
Click here to read about the write-in election of Cathy Sterling (by Samantha Smith)
[1] John Wescott, “Hair Sacrificed To Communicate,” Technician, May 15, 1970
[2] G.A. Dees “Stop polarization and learn from experience,” Technician, editorial, May 15, 1970
[3] Letter to the editor, “Numb Skulls” Technician, May 15, 1970; Letter to the editor, “Mankind Has One Week,” Technician, May 15, 1970.
[4] Wayne Byrd and Roger Wyatt, “Sterling Wrong” Technician May 18, 1970
[5] Ed Epps, “Right On!” Technician, May 18, 1970.