Peace Retreat on Trial
The Peace Retreat was passed by a close but powerful vote.
“Those who want to continue with their studies should be allowed to continue. But those who consider a college education more than a classroom situation should have the opportunity to pursue these interests, and vigorously, without being academically punished.”
-Technician article, May 11, 1970
May 11-13, 1970
At the height of their enthusiasm, Cathy Sterling tapped into NC State student’s desire to continue moving. The same day that six thousand students sang “All that we ask if give peace a chance,” she challenged the protestors to think about college differently. She and her team recommended a Peace Retreat. This would not close the school but instead hoped, “the full energies of the Student Body should be turned to study and discussion of the issue of the Southeast Asian War.” She asked that students think about what the Vietnam War meant to and for them. In an open letter she recommended that “every student, regardless of his stand, pro or con, on the issues involved should contact his faculty members and make his views know.” The Peace Retreat was “not a blank check for students to begin summer vacation two weeks early,” rather students had a “great responsibility” to work hard for the goals of the Peace Retreat.
The Technician was a firm sponsor of the Peace Retreat. Not only did it give the event top billing for each remaining day of the semester, but the school newspaper also published several editorials in favor of the retreat. “Her [Sterling’s] proposal is one which merits,” one editorial said, “the attention of every person of this University community.” The editorial reinforced Sterling's ideas regarding the Peace Retreat: “those who consider a college education more than a classroom situation should have the opportunity to pursue these interests, and vigorously, without being academically punished.”[1] The Technician published a schedule for the Peace Retreat, “Monday, May 11, 11:00-1:00 Poster and banner making workshop on Brickyard. Bring your own supplies.” But not everyone agreed with Sterling and her friends. One professor was firmly against the Peace Retreat, “if any occupation is truly more important at the moment than completing one’s formal education, one should simply admit that fact to himself and drop out of school. Everyone would be better off in those circumstances.”[2]
Between May 11 and May 13 the Peace Retreat was literally on trial. First Cathy Sterling spoke before the Student Body Government. For an hour she answered questions about what kind of work the Peace Retreat would entail. This discussion, however, was almost a formality; practically the entire student government was firmly behind the proposal. The major effort was with the Faculty Senate. During the senate debate Sterling was grilled for a full three hours. Many faculty were against the Retreat and believed that school was only for studying not “taking a leave of absence to drink and party.” The Peace Proposal did pass the senate, which meant it could be debated by the entire faculty. As Technician wrote, “the Senate voted to treat the ‘Peace Retreat’ as any valid extracurricular activity” much like an athlete missing class for a sporting event. This was significantly less than Sterling had asked. An article in the Technician said, “There seemed to be much opposition on giving grades on courses based on work completed without a requirement to finish the course work.”
A special issue of the Technician on published May 14th proclaimed “We Won! I Couldn’t Believe It!” On May 13th the faculty (all 498 of them) asked Sterling questions about amnesty, classes, and the possibility of the Peace Retreat. Contrary to expectations, a majority of the senate voted for the Retreat. This meant that students taking part in the Peace Retreat had many options in involvement. They could, “(1) continue as usual, (2) receive a letter grade for the course based o work presently completed, (3) receive a pass/fail grade for the course, based on work presently completed, (4) receive an incomplete as a grade for the course and make the work up later.” This was significantly more than the Senate gave just a few days previously. The vote, however, was very close.
Why did the faculty vote for the Peace Retreat? The faculty reported that “we feel that the university, by virtue of its pre-occupation with the human condition, is not isolated from the life of the society in which it exists.” Faculty responses continued, “we feel that it is necessary for students to be able to participate in expressions of genuine concern,” which meant that the teachers believed the students needed an opportunity to focus on the issues of war and protest. Student G.A. Dees, a “Nixon supporter” wrote that the faculty provided “sincere consideration, receptiveness, and action on a student request brought before them in the prescribed manner” to students.[3]
A memo published in the Technician by the pro-Retreat faculty discussed the challenges the Peace Retreat. They hoped the students would prove their inherent value and ability to stretch and grow beyond their own ideals: “implementing the [Peace Retreat] will test all of us…our time of concern is also our time of opportunity to forge a closer bond between faculty and students by working cooperatively to resolve the many specific difficulties.”[4]
To view the project page for Activists and Authorities (by Nathan Johnson, Hayley Moll, Lauren Roland and Samantha Smith) click here