John Gunther’s Inside South America gives a concise overview of universities in South America in the 1960’s. Gunther had a gimlet eye towards those who were slightly to the right of Franklin Roosevelt, whom he would debrief after his trips to the continent. I say this only to note that his perspective was left-of-center. As far as education, he was a Deweyite. So his comments on universities in South America — comments which apply to Venezuela — are “friendly” — he did not think they were controversial in that day, the day of Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress, and Johnson’s Great Society:
“South American universities differ markedly from ours in many respects. Students in some schools have such freedom that they do not even have to attend classes, and scholastic discipline is lax. (Of course, this is true in England and much of Western Europe too.) … Education is a serious matter. A student is apt to take himself much more seriously than ours do; to be a student is practically to be a member of a profession. Most students are passionately political, and many are Communists or Communist-inspired. Student councils are powerful, and actively assist in the running of most hemisphere universities and … have an official voice in appointing faculty members to positions of tenure. This has been a rule for a long time in several South American institutions.
“[T]he national university is theoretically exempt from search or seizure by army, police, or other government authorities; students have, in a word, immunity from arrest.
“….[Students feel] liberated all over the continent. Their political self-consciousness and assurance have increased ever since [the early 20th century]. Having the right of refuge, they have more temptation to defy authority. Moreover, the universities became convenient asylums for bogus students, semi-students, and the like….
“Students make demonstrations, cripple the continuity of teaching by prolonged strikes, and take political sides…it is part of the profession of being a student. As to Communism it is undeniable that there are strong Communist or extreme left-wing elements today in almost all the national universities, both in the faculties and student bodies….
“Student violence should be taken with a certain perspective…. When a student throws a rock at a window this is not an example of mere hooliganism, but part of an essential revolutionary mood and mentality. The student has no other way of expressing immediate effective protest [sic!].”
Again, the above is from a friendly source. The schizophrenic nature of intellectuals’ rationalization of indefensible behavior is succinctly captured: students are fully in control, they launch prolonged strikes, yet they have no way of “immediate effective protest.” Glad he cleared that up.
In Venezuela student strikes would often turn violent. To take one example from the mid-60’s: stopping taxis, turning them over, setting them on fire. All for the purpose of supporting a transportation strike.
This problem was not new in Venezuela. In 1896, Richard Harding Davis in Three Gringos in Venezuela told of an American photographer stoned by students and concluded with these remarks: “And I am sure that the Venezuelan fathers would do much better by their sons if they would cease to speak of the University in awe-stricken tones, but would rather take away the boys’ revolvers, teach them football, and thrash them soundly whenever they caught them soiling the walls of their alma mater with nasty verses.”
When news outlets were quick to “report” that the mob who attacked Vice-President Nixon and his wife in 1958 were angry students, many, if not most, throughout the country knew that those mobs were instigated by Communist agitators and such was later confirmed. As recently as 2005, during my visit, a government organ celebrated that event and praised the Communist Youth for their actions and leadership in the mob attack.
In mid-1960’s United States (the time of Gunther’s visit in Venezuela) most institutions still saw the university’s purpose as the transmission of culture, of civilization. John Henry Newman put it this way, “…a habit of mind is formed which lasts through a life, of which the attributes are freedom, equitableness, calmness, moderation, and wisdom; of what… I have ventured to call the philosophical habit of mind.”
Russell Kirk expands further, “…genuine education is something higher than an instrument of public policy. True education is meant to develop the individual human being, the person, rather than to serve the state. We tend to ignore the fact that schooling was not originated by the modern nation-state. Formal schooling actually commenced as an endeavor to acquaint the rising generation with religious knowledge: with awareness of the transcendent and with moral truths. Its purpose was not to indoctrinate a young person in civics, but rather to teach what it is to be a true human being, living within a moral order….”
Too many fail to grasp that student protest behavior in an otherwise civilized society significantly increases the power of the state, which ostensibly is contrary to what students want. However, notice to whom the students appeal in such disruptions. Is it not to the state? Is it not to compel or urge the state to take such and such an action or to prohibit this or that speech or behavior, even to the criminalization of thought and belief? How many such major student protests appeal to the Triune God? None come to mind.
Some insist that such protests merely promote anarchy. That is obviously true in many cases; however, anarchy also ends up increasing the power of the state, which will restore immediate order and then see to it that it is ever-present to prevent a repetition of such actions.
A few years after Mr. Gunther’s visit to Venezuela, Columbia University in New York City was “occupied” by student protesters. Their actions included defecating into the college president’s office wastebaskets.
And a year after that, Berkeley riots were dealt with by then California Governor Ronald Reagan, who had no patience with the intellectuals’ justification of such behavior.
A measure of the effectiveness of anarchic actions can be seen in the number of pages in the federal register. The register had 14,479 pages in 1960 compared to 97,110 in 2016. In that span of time, there were only two years with significant reductions from the previous year: from 87,012 pages in 1980 to 63,554 pages in 1981; and from 97,110 pages in 2016 to 61,949 pages in 2017. Other than those two years, the numbers have skyrocketed since 1960. And this doesn’t even consider state and local regulations.
Educational institutions bear a major responsibility for this increase in the intrusiveness of the state, as they produce our leaders in thought, politics, and morality.
I am in great sympathy with the students in Venezuela who today protest at the tyranny under which they struggle. I want them to “win.” Many have been killed.
However, do they realize that they were not well served by their predecessors, who, in effect, rioted and struck and protested in favor of a system akin to that which rules there now? That’s a harsh thing to write and it hurts to write it. But sometimes the truth is harsh. May we learn to pause in order to ponder what brought us to this point. As we’ve seen in prior posts and will continue to see in future posts, Venezuelan, and much of South American history is more reflective of the French Revolution than of the American. This helps explain, at least in part, what has brought us to this pass.
Pray for Venezuela.
