(The author is a first-year law student who travelled extensively in the Soviet Union and East Europe last summer. He met with several student and government leaders during his month-long student exchange in Yugoslavia.)

"In last year's June barricades the students in Belgrade did not have the intention to check the traffic, but to show who was on the other side."

Students' Quarterly, University of Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, July, 1969

"Just as Marcuse and Franz J. Strauss do not constitute the same world, so also students in this world do not use the same language, and speak along different lines."

Ljubljana student

THE YOUNG journalist was right. The Yugoslav student movement is fundamentally different from that in the United States or Western Europe. Young radicals in Yugoslavia protest different inequities, often in different ways, with different philosophies, and different results.

What SDS'er would fight police over "greater employment opportunities for students in factories"? Jobs for students was probably the major demand in the violent demonstrations in Belgrade during June, 1968. Thousands of students waged a pitched battle for several days, nearly causing a national crisis. Their foremost concern is still good jobs after graduation.

What American student would protest over inexperienced enterprise managers who were politically appointed a decade ago? Yet the generation gap in Yugoslavia is fired by the conservatism of partisan veterans in the bureaucracy. Many were given responsible positions in reward for their conduct in World War II. "These old bureaucrats are fighting a rear-guard action against the economic reforms. They made the Revolution in the 1940's, and have been afraid of any changes ever since. They expect us to behave like the passive Soviet youth!" said one discontented youth in Zagreb.

He was a shaggy-haired history student, whose father held an important post in the regional government. We were at his home for a wild dancing party one night while his parents were out. Like other Yugoslavs, he was very open in talking about student dissatisfactions.

Unrest is a function of Yugoslav political culture. The young people there occupy a unique position. They live between East and West, between two ideological extremes: "the exploitative, late capitalistic system and bureaucratic, bloc socialism," as an economics professor put it.

It is often said that the Yugoslav system of worker self-management is a special Third Way in the world. But there is really no philosophy to guide the students. Marx and Lenin are not sufficient, and Marcuse does not quite fit. Students are beginning to say that their brand of socialism is at a "crucial point of synthesis," but they don't seem to know where to go.

The community of students and professors in Yugoslavia has only recently voiced its claims. They have been painfully aware of some inequalities and injustices for several years. Perhaps they did not speak out because they were relatively free and content. Travel and work abroad were without restriction. Most foreign goods and books were easily available.

The awakening was partially due to the removal in 1966 of Alexander Rankovic, head of the secret police. Until then it was still hazardous to criticize vigorously internal policies or the Soviet Union. As late as November, 1966, Djilas, Mihajlov, and others were sentenced for their works. Under President Tito's direction, a trend of liberalizing decentralization followed in Yugoslavia.

This emerging consciousness and new freedom of expression developed into the Yugoslav student protest. But student radicalism is a matter of definition in Yugoslavia. They are clearly not very radical in the Western sense of the word. Most of the young people I met seemed to approve of their system of worker self-management.

The radical perspective, voiced by a few, is that worker self-management is "old-fashioned, inelastic, and unsuitable for all parts of the country." None of the students I spoke with was ready to offer a substitute. They are dissatisfied with its faults. One student journalist lists the "negative practices in Yugoslav socialism" as: "too large material differences between people, mutilation of personal freedoms, poor material help to students, bureaucratic institutions, and withholding knowledge from the society."

Many of the students know ideally what they want: "a broad-minded state, tolerant, and progressive," as one student described it to me. They generally know what they do not want: "Stalinist monotheism and mythology in our political life."

The various students I talked with, even the most radical, were not violently opposed to their system. The majority were committed to working within the establishment; none of them mentioned outside alternatives or dropping out. "We still have faith" was the tone of most of our discussions.

In fact only a few, philosophically advanced journals, like Problemi and Praxis, operate outside the system. This may not be because these writers are so alienated, but because they feel themselves above the activist approach. I spent some time with the bearded director of Problemi in his modest Ljubljana office. He described himself as a "political nihilist, not interested, and not searching for feasible solutions." He admitted that most journals of this sort are too intellectual to have a broad-based appeal.

THERE are several possible reasons for this general allegiance in spite of protest. First, the young people in Yugoslavia possess a real pride in their country. Yugoslavia for centuries has been under foreign domination by the Turks, Austrians, and other major powers. Now it is remarkably independent. In Yugoslav cities people still often mention how the Partisans drove the Nazis from their land at greast costs, but without Soviet assistance. The students are tired of old men's war stories, but they have a deep respect for past suffering.

Several times I was told what would happen if the Soviets tried to invade after tac Czechoslovakian intervention. "We would take to the hills again. We would fight them until they could fight no more," said one longhaired law student in Skopje. He planned on entering the army after graduation.

Understandably, there is no anti-draft movement in Yugoslavia, as in the United States. The students do see their eleven-month military obligation as a nuisance or a waste, but they go without question. Many of them, I suppose, would be against killing. But the only war they know would be in defense against an outside aggressor.

"If the Soviets did step in," said one very concerned ranking Yugoslav foreign service officer, "Yugoslavia would be fighting for her life. We all need hard-headed realism to survive around here." No matter what the nature of student discontent, the government does protect the precarious existence of their country.

Secondly, it appears that Yugoslav young people have a valid share in their society Youth in many ways are more recognized than in the United States. The Union of Yugoslav Youth (UYY), for example, is responsible for the organization of young peoples' activities from the ages of 15 to 28. With copious federal funds, it runs voluntary summer camps, worker programs, agricultural projects, and international exchanges. It also acts as a "youth lobby" in channeling opinions to the government. The leaders of the UYY are bright, ambitious, liberals. Several of them, as young as 27 or 28, are already effective members of their parliament.

The more radical Union of Yugoslav Students was, until recently, a part of the UYY. They have now acquired some financial and political autonomy. Covering all of the 200,000 full and part-time students, their program is to unify student efforts through seminars, exchanges, publications, and other assistance. There is no comparable national student group in the United States.

Some students have raised questions whether the UYY has sold out. One student-body president called the organization "institutionalized, bureaucratized, and sterile, another New Class" (in reference to Djilas). On the other hand, the UYY heads accuse the students of "irresponsibility" and "lack of commitment" because of their impatience. Besides this, both organizations are plagued by nationality disputes. There have been traditional rivalries among the governing Serbians and the Croatians, Slovenians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, and Bosnians.

Despite these limitations and infighting, both organizations seem to have a growing measure of influence. There is still disparity between youth and power in Yugoslavia. "But there is real force and potential in institutionalized influence here," remarked one miniskirted political-science coed. The young people in Yugoslavia recognize and accept this strategy because they think it will be effective.

Students have maintained faith in the government because in the past President Tito has been responsive. In an unprecedented TV address after the June confrontation, he sided withthe demonstrators. He was under stiff pressure to call in army troops when the police proved inadequate. Instead, Tito said the students were right in their demands for eliminating employment discrimination against youth, bureaucratic factory management, and archaic academic practices. He also proposed reforms and laws to institute these intentions.

Tito had the choice of alienating the nation's young people or the conservative element in the government. He knew that in the long run, the youth would have to be pacified for the country to remain intact and progressive. "Undogmatic socialism" is what the Yugoslavs are fond of calling it.

WHETHER Tito can and will fulfill his promises for change may determine the extent of future unrest. If he follows through, the student demands will probably be satisfied. In this case, as one engineering student proudly remarked, "Our country may be the sole example in the world... and a good testament to the experiment for self-governing democracy." The openness, dialogue, and participatory base now present in Yugoslavia make this a valid possibility.

If not, an author in the Students' Quarterly writes, "Unfilled promises and the continuation of negative practices... might spring a second leap. This would most probably destroy 'faith' in the establishment, and would find us very near the ideological outlets of Western leftists."

Sitting in a cafe in Belgrade, another student said of Tito's move, "We can be fooled once, perhaps twice, but net three times."

The last check to student revolt may be that same sense of "hard-headed realism." The youth and wider population know the Soviet Union has often considered neutralizing Yugoslavia. Their country was not very far from Hungary in 1956. The attack on Cze-hoslovakia further heightened their awareness and military preparedness. Student leaders understand that excessively violent and successful demonstrations may provide sufficient excuse for invasion.

Time and circumstance will tell if they are willing to take that risk. If the students do press for outright confrontation, there is doubt whether the broader Union of Yugoslav Youth would follow. The mediating role of the UYY would be crucial in any case.

This potential meeting of forces might engender a major split in Yugoslav society. Their fragile unity of generations, nationalities, religions, and economic systems would be put to the test. Besides showing "who was on the other side," it would show just how many sides there are in Yugoslavia.