Black Against Empire

by Joshua Bloom

  George Murray further articulated this idea in an opinion piece he wrote for Rolling Stone magazine, where he talked about the struggle at San Francisco State in revolutionary anti-imperialist and Third World terms:

  To say you’re Black and you’re proud, and still go to Vietnam to fight our Vietnamese brothers or to go and entertain soldiers who are exterminating the Vietnamese people is a crime against all of us descendants of slaves in the U.S. It is reactionary and insane, and counter-revolutionary. . . . When we talk about becoming free, we have to talk about power, getting all the goods, services, and land, and returning them equally to the oppressed and enslaved Mexicans, Blacks, Indians, Puerto Ricans, and poor whites in the U.S. and to the rest of the oppressed and hungry people in the world. . . . A revolution will smash, shatter and destroy the oppressor and his oppressive system, return all the power, the milk, eggs, butter, and the guns to the people. . . . Listen to this: freedom is a state not limited to a particular culture, race or people, and therefore, the principles upon which a struggle for human rights is based must be all inclusive, must apply equally for all people. Freedom, equality is not relative. For example, the struggle at San Francisco State is based upon three principles: 1) a fight to the death against racism; 2) the right of all people to determine their economic, political, social and educational destines; and 3) the right for the people to seize power, to carry out all their goals, and to answer all their needs. In short—All Power to the People. These are principles that all human beings can fight for, and the fight is being waged by Black, Brown, Red, and Yellow students, and workers, as well as progressive whites.19

  Seeing themselves as engaged in a revolutionary war, the students increasingly turned to radically disruptive tactics. In the rally the night before the student strike, Benny Stewart, chairman of the BSU, told the audience that individual actions, seemingly small, would have great impact if applied persistently:

  From our analysis . . . we think we have developed a technique . . . for a prolonged struggle. We call it the war of the flea. What does the flea do? He bites, he slowly sucks blood from the dog. What happens when there are enough fleas on a dog? What will he do? He moves. He moves away. He moves on. . . . That’s the philosophy we’ve got to get into. We’ve got to wear them down. . . . We are the majority and the pigs cannot be everywhere, everyplace all the time. And where they are not, we are. . . . Toilets are stopped up. Pipes are out. Water in the bathroom is just runnin’ all over the place. Smoke is coming out of the bathroom. Trash cans are on fire. People are running in and out of the classrooms, letting the students know that school is out for the day. “I don’t know nothin’ about it. I’m on my way to take an exam. Don’t look at me. . . .” When the pigs come runnin’ on the campus, ain’t nothin’ happening. Everyone has split, so the pig don’t have no heads to bust. When they split, it goes on and on and on. . . . We should fight the racist administration on our own grounds, you see; not theirs.20

  THE WAR OF THE FLEA

  While few students participated directly in the “war of the flea,” those who did were highly disruptive and hard to repress because they enjoyed wide support for their demands among students, faculty, and important segments of the broader community, especially the black community and those disheartened by Nixon’s election as president. Beginning the day after the election and continuing for five months, the San Francisco State strike made the college ungovernable.

  During the first week of the strike, small groups of Latino, Asian American, and White students picketed on campus while members of the Black Student Union engaged in more disruptive tactics. BSU activists interrupted classes and asked teachers why they were not honoring the strike. They repeatedly stopped up campus toilets and left water running in bathroom sinks so that it overflowed into hallways. A group of students targeted various administrative offices by cutting typewriter cords. The protestors set small fires in trashcans throughout campus. As excitement about the strike mounted, it became impossible for the college to conduct regular classes or activities, and by the end of the week, class attendance was down 50 percent.21

  Students returned to school from a long weekend on November 12 to find the campus occupied by hundreds of San Francisco police officers in full riot gear, including a paramilitary tactical (tac) squad, while a police helicopter circled overhead. Subject to such close police scrutiny, the strikers transitioned away from destructive tactics and focused on strengthening the picket line. Roving groups of student activists became “educational teams,” which calmly visited classes and conducted teach-ins, appealing to others to join them. Affronted first by the firing of George Murray and now the heavy police presence on campus, the faculty called an emergency meeting, and by the end of the day it had passed a motion calling for Chancellor Dumke’s resignation.

  The next day, many faculty members joined the picket line. George Murray told the press that the strike represented a historic moment, marking “the first time in the country that barriers have been dissolved between black, brown, yellow, and red people.” Without warning, the paramilitary tac squad formed two columns and pushed into the picket line, beating and arresting several targeted members of the Black Student Union and the Third World Liberation Front. News spread across campus, and soon the student picket line grew from two hundred to about two thousand people. Tension escalated between the students and the tac squad, with students chanting “Pigs Off Campus!” and throwing rocks and bottles. The tac squad responded by repeatedly charging the crowd and indiscriminately beating students. As one officer pulled out his gun and began threatening to shoot students, faculty members intervened, stepping between the students and police. Eventually, the police left campus and President Smith, noting that the police presence “has moved us along farther and farther toward physical confrontation and injury,” closed the campus, indicating that he would not reopen it until “reasonable stability” could be achieved.

  While the liberal faculty largely supported President Smith’s decision, conservative state politicians wanted to impose “Law and Order.” Governor Ronald Reagan declared, “For a school administration to deliberately abandon the leadership invested in it by the people of this State . . . is an unprecedented act of irresponsibility. It is clear that the administration, in its obvious quest for what was considered an easy way out, ignored other options which were available to assure the orderly continuation of the educational process.” A reporter asked what options were available, and Reagan responded, “If it’s necessary we’ll call out the National Guard, and if that’s not sufficient, call in the federal troops.”22

  When Smith refused to immediately reopen the campus, the board of trustees held an emergency meeting Monday November 18 and voted to give Smith until that Wednesday to reopen the campus. The faculty voted to hold a three-day convocation where students and faculty could talk rationally about the issues and asked Smith to cancel classes. Smith attempted to compromise by opening classes but allowing those who wanted to attend the convocation to do that instead. For three days, almost no classes took place, and the auditorium where the convocation was held filled to overcapacity. Several members of the Black Student Union spoke about their objectives. Leroy Goodwin said that the struggle was an all-or-nothing battle. “The issues are not complex. The objective is seizure of power. Until we seize power, not visible power where a black man looks like he’s running things—but real, actual power; everything else is bullshit. . . . Peace and order are bullshit; they are meaningless without justice.” Nesbit Crutchfield said, “It is very important to realize that we are involved in a revolution. The revolution is the attempt of black people and Third World people to reject the old reality of going to an educational institution which denies them their own humanity as people.”23

  The students realized that Smith did not have the power to grant their demands for the creation of black and ethnic studies departments. The next morning, Crutchfield demanded an answer: “All I want to ask . . . is will classes be c
losed—yes or no?” When Smith refused to cancel classes, the students marched out of the convocation chanting “On Strike! Shut it down!” re-igniting the disruptive student strike. Police resumed their confrontations, beating and arresting students. One officer pulled a gun on protesting students and fired two shots over their heads. Smith canceled classes for the following day, Friday November 22, but confrontations between students and police continued. The following Monday, Governor Reagan held a press conference condemning Smith, and State Superintendent Max Rafferty declared, “If I were President of San Francisco State, there would be a lot less students, a lot less faculty, and a lot more Law and Order!” By noon Tuesday, under pressure from the Trustees, Smith had resigned.24

  COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND THE LIMITS OF DIRECT REPRESSION

  Emboldened by Nixon’s victory, conservative California politicians called for “Law and Order” and forceful repression of dissent at San Francisco State. They found their ideal administrator in S. I. Hayakawa, a linguist and English professor of Japanese descent. Hayakawa was good at framing the issues and was eager to use any authoritarian measures at his disposal to subdue dissent.

  Appointed interim president of San Francisco State on November 26, Hayakawa declared a state of emergency and said he would immediately suspend any faculty member who did not conduct class and any student who disrupted campus operations. He portrayed himself as the champion of racial equality while discrediting the students who had made racial equality an issue on campus, and he argued that most students did not support the strike. He distributed blue armbands to the “silent majority” and launched a campaign calling for “Racial Equality, Social Justice, Non-Violence, and the Resumption of Education.” When the Third World Liberation Front continued to picket, Hayakawa promptly suspended student leaders and sent police to break up the picket lines.

  Moderate black leaders were upset by this response. They supported the students’ demands for increased minority enrollment, the development of black history curricula, and the creation of a black studies department. In September, black assemblyman Willie Brown had told the college administration, “If the black students on this campus are asking for something, they [s]hould get it. Period! Because our society is blowing up because black people have not gotten anything. And to sit here and go through these ponderous procedures really begs the question and asks for a confrontation.”25

  As repression of the students increased, black community leaders joined the student strike. On December 3, later called “Bloody Tuesday,” the TWLF called a rally, assembling twenty-five hundred students and faculty and community members. Among the speakers expressing support for student demands were Dr. Carleton Goodlett, editor of the Sun Reporter, a black San Francisco newspaper; Willie Brown; Berkeley City Council member Ron Dellums; the Reverend Cecil Williams; and Hannibal Williams of the Western Addition Community organization. As the crowd marched toward the administration building, the paramilitary tac squad, armed with special four-foot-long clubs, surrounded the protestors and began beating them: community members, faculty, photographers, medics, campus staff, as well as students. The students fought back for an hour. By the end of the episode, countless protestors had injuries, and the police had arrested thirty-two people.

  Hayakawa’s repressive tactics backfired and galvanized black community support. The following morning, Hayakawa met with a group of more than two hundred black community leaders at the office of the Sun Reporter and tried to win their support; he failed in his appeal. Dr. Goodlett said the community would not allow black students to be isolated. Hayakawa retorted, “Those who call themselves representatives of the black community are in my opinion adding to the problem with their presence on the campus. If black leaders come on tomorrow and cause trouble they will be treated like anyone else who causes trouble.”26

  That afternoon, with widespread black support, more than six thousand people assembled to support the student demands. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the black press, and several churches joined the Black Panther Party in supporting the student strike. They also adopted elements of the Panthers’ rhetoric. Dr. Goodlett said that, if necessary, they would take up guns in self-defense to “protect our young people from the violence of the police.” The students also received support from the San Francisco Central Labor Council.27

  Hayakawa remained undeterred. He positioned police on rooftops to monitor every action on campus, and a police helicopter circled overhead. He addressed the picketers through the public address system: “Attention everybody! This is an order to disperse. . . . There are no innocent bystanders. . . . If you are found on campus in the next few minutes you can no longer be considered an innocent bystander.”28 The protestors dispersed but promised to return.

  On December 5, the conflict escalated again, with police officers drawing their guns on students and community members as the picketers entered the administration building. In an effort to diffuse the situation, Dr. Goodlett surrendered outside, allowing himself to be arrested. After several dozen arrests and numerous injuries, the conflict subsided. Again on December 6, more than four thousand strike supporters assembled. Because of widespread support for the student demands, direct repression was clearly failing to subdue dissent. Hayakawa changed his approach and offered the black students concessions to many of their demands, but he refused to address any of the demands of the other, nonblack Third World students. Thus, in the name of Third World solidarity, the BSU rejected Hayakawa’s offer outright. “He’s offering us tidbits. He’s trying to divide us,” Nesbit Crutchfield said.29

  Support for the student strike continued to grow. The American Federation of Teachers Local 1352, which represented SF State faculty, mobilized support for the TWLF. The newly formed Officers for Justice, a caucus of black San Francisco policemen, also came out in favor of the students, speaking publicly at TWLF rallies and endorsing the student demands.

  Momentum built for a massive show of solidarity on December 16, which students dubbed Third World Community Day, expecting busloads of support from Latino, Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, and Native American as well as black residents of San Francisco. December 16 was also the strike deadline for Local 1352. To thwart such a gathering, Hayakawa closed campus early for the holidays.

  On January 5, 1969, Governor Reagan told reporters that San Francisco State would reopen the following day and would remain open “at the point of a bayonet if necessary.”30 Hayakawa banned all public assembly and banned “all unauthorized persons” from entering campus. Faculty members in Local 1352 voted to hold a simultaneous strike of their own to put forth their contractual demands, and they received support from members of several unions, including the Painters Union; the International Longshore and Warehouse Union; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Social Workers Union, the Teamsters; and other American Federation of Teachers locals throughout the Bay Area.

  When campus reopened on January 6, more than three thousand people joined a massive picket line that surrounded the campus. Fewer than one in five classes were held. Reagan and Hayakawa denounced the protestors and obtained an injunction against the American Federation of Teachers to prohibit picketing. But the faculty defied the injunction, and the statewide California Federation of Teachers declared that all California State College campuses would be shut down if even one striking faculty member was punished. With labor solidarity, the strike became comprehensive, as Teamsters refused to make deliveries to campus and custodial workers refused to pick up trash. The Third World Liberation Front even signed a mutual-aid pact with striking oil refinery workers in nearby Richmond and Martinez. The students continued to use occasional disruptive tactics such as “book-ins” at the library, during which a group of students would check out as many books as they could, then return them all, backing up the system and shutting down library circulation. But the combined student-faculty picket with broad support from both the bla
ck community and organized labor was extremely effective at shutting down campus, so the TWLF mostly supported the picketing at the perimeter of the university.

  The standoff lasted for several weeks, with largely peaceful pickets effectively closing the campus. Then, on January 23, the TWLF called a massive on-campus rally, the first since early December. More than 1,000 students, faculty, and community members participated. The police responded with military precision. As the protestors chanted “All Power to the People!” the police drove a wedge through the crowd, splitting it in two; they surrounded one large group and proceeded to arrest every person in it, one by one. In all, 435 people were arrested, the largest mass arrest to date in San Francisco’s history. The administration canceled final exams (which had been scheduled for later that month) and offered students a credit/no credit option for the fall semester.

  THE END OF THE SAN FRANCISCO STATE STRIKE

  Unable to end the strike through mass repression, Hayakawa turned to a more sophisticated approach that combined targeted repression with concessions designed to undermine the broad public support. He established a disciplinary panel to suspend and expel students involved in Third World Liberation Front activities and appointed his faculty allies to run it. Knowing that most of the TWLF students had to work on campus to fund their studies, he banned students who had been arrested from working on campus. He shut down the Equal Opportunity Program that facilitated such work-study arrangements for all students of color. He also shut down the student newspaper, the Daily Gater, and Open Process, another student publication that had supported the strike. He seized $400,000 in student funds controlled by the student government, which was friendly to the strike.31