"I feel a little wary of a more militantapproach because it seems to alienate some moremoderate students," says Chong, who herself is aprominent leader in the struggle to establish moreethnic studies courses.

"I don't want the issues to lose legitimacy,"Chong adds.

Changing Issues

Harvard administrators and alumni agree thattoday's issues are not as unifying and urgent asthose during the 1960s and 1970s.

"[In 1969], people were being drafted. Itimposed on people's lives in a very direct way,"says Elizabeth M. Harvey '73. "It created atremendous sense of immediacy and urgency."

Epps says that the life-or-death nature of theissues being protested was a factor.

"I think there was a strong element ofself-interest in protesting against the war," Eppssays. "people's lives were at stake.

But alumnus Timothy L. Carden '71, a protesterduring 1969, says the movement was supported by amajority of the students because their altruismenabled unity in protest.

"There was a belief in change and protests thatweren't just out of self-interest but rather aconcept of unity of purpose that is much moredistant today than it was back then," Carden says.

Unlike the anti-war movement during theVietnam War, protests today galvanize around morespecific issues that affect a smaller percentageof the student body.

"The difference is that, unlike the warmovement, there isn't a single issue whichmotivates a broad cross section of collegestudents the same way civil rights and the VietnamWar did," says Paul V. Holtzman '83, a leader inthe divestment protests.

Megan E. Lewis '95, co-chair of Radcliffe Unionof Students (RUS), says the issues today are notoften part of a larger movement.

"[Anti-war] was a movement , things aredifferent now," says Lewis. "Issues have less todo with movements."

"The issues have been personalized," she adds."[RUS] issues now have more to do with rape andsexual assault."

Attentive Administrators