In the '60s, when students evicted deans from University Hall and picketed on Mass. Ave. in protest of authority, campus political views rang loud and clear.

Students consistently followed George McGovern, not George Wallace.

Now, is it Ted Kennedy or Jesse Helms? Or are students generally too preoccupied with the practicalities of forging careers and collecting salaries to worry about the ideologies of either?

This year students' signals have crossed, impeding the transmission of a coherent message about campus political opinion.

In the fall as Chinese President Jiang Zemin's black limousine weaved its way through the throngs of people, record numbers of students lined the streets to protest China's poor human rights record.

But this relatively isolated outpouring of political action may be an anomaly. Students seem generally disinterested in activism and inclined to act more reserved.

Beth A. Stewart '99 rode to power as president of the Undergraduate Council on a platform of little council involvement in political issues and more attention to student living concerns.

While it monopolized campus attention for several weeks, the debate over whether to extend the Harvard Dining Services (HDS) ban on grapes quickly bored many students. The ultimate reinstitution of grapes in the dining halls seemed to indicate a large conservative presence on campus.

Students activist leaders have also had very limited success sparking campus interest in issues such as sweatshop labor and poor working conditions.

A campus observer since the '60s, Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III said activism as an all-consuming campus attitude is in decline. "There's more pragmatism and less risk-taking," he said.

A greater number of students are "coming to Harvard to enjoy higher education to its fullest extent" which appears to lessen their willingness to espouse forceful ideologies and engage in controversial activities, Epps said.

The People's Republic of Cambridge

For a short period of time in October and November, Harvard became the focal point of the national debate surrounding Jiang's visit to America--the visit of the leader of a government with a history of torturing and imprisoning its people. And students showed the nation how they felt--with passion (please see related story, page C-1).

In driving rain, crowds of about 5,000--with a large contingent of protesters--waved flags and banners from the streets from Swedenborg Chapel to the Science Center.

"The amount of people that were there at Harvard--between supporters and protesters--was probably the largest gathering we've seen since the '60s," said Cambridge police spokesperson Frank T. Pasquarello.

Shortly before Jiang's limousine and escort passed through the tunnel by Memorial Hall, protesters burned a People's Republic of China flag to the cheers of many onlookers.

Harvard anti-Jiang activists, joining the strong opposition to the Chinese president's visit around the country, presented a united front of rebellion to the Asian president's visit. Representatives from 11 Boston and Harvard organizations--including Harvard Students for a Free Tibet, the Harvard branch of Amnesty International and the Free Burma Group--met to draw out plans in late October.

Even the Undergraduate Council spoke out against Jiang's visit, voting to support the student groups which were against the suppression of human rights in mainland China, Taiwan and Tibet and condemning China's "countless abuses of basic human rights."

"It is neither responsible or responsive for [the council] to refrain from debate on this issue," said Lamelle D. Rawlins '99, council president at the time.

Many students say Harvard was able to present an uncharacteristically united front on the issue of human rights in China. While some students supported Jiang and his policies, the majority of student groups disapproved of the warm welcome University administrators provided.

"There are times when we have to band together in a common cause," said Kevin A. Shapiro '99, editor of The Salient, in a May interview. "In protesting Jiang's visit, we had conservative student groups like The Salient joined with groups like Amnesty International. It was useful and productive."

Cable TV or Human Rights?

Self-interest found its way into this year's race for council offices as Stewart and Samuel C. Cohen '00, current council vice president, baited students with "Larry King Live," "The Real World" and "South Park." The students bit.

Their December campaign hinged on student life concerns, such as getting cable TV for students. They turned the tide of the council, creating a shift from the ideological crusades of Rawlins and her predecessors.

"[The vote] represents the fact that some things need to change and that we're going to change them," Stewart said at the time of her election. In electing Stewart by the slim margin of 45 votes, students abandoned the liberal and idealistic crusades traditionally identified with college students for a more pragmatic approach.

"I do think in some ways it shows the student body wants us to focus on things that make a day-to-day difference," Cohen said following the election.

But others say the council elections cannot serve as a litmus test for campus activism because many students--whether or not they support activism--simply do not view the council as political organ.

Culinary Contention

While the council may not incite campus debate, fruit does.

In November 1997, students voted to return grapes to the dining halls. In 1992 students had demanded an HDS moratorium on the purchase of table grapes following a nation-wide boycott inspired by union leader Cesar Chavez.

Although many said worker conditions have improved over the past decade, union heads in California assert that life is still miserable for workers.

"The reasons why Cesar Chavez began the third boycott in 1984 are still valid--nothing has changed," said Mark Grossman, director of the press division of Chavez's union, the United Farm Workers (UFW).

Now, it appears the majority of students no longer feel as strongly about the alleged mistreatment of workers as they did several years ago.

"I tend to be forgiving. Other people feel [students are] conservative and selfish, and we don't care about anything beyond our world," said Sergio J. Campos '00, a member of RAZA, a Mexican/Latino-American student group which supported the boycott, in a recent interview. "But you have a lot of students here who recognize a lot more than people think."

Campos, however, said he does not attribute the results of the grape referendum to lack of caring but instead to student pragmatism. "The economy presses people to do well so they can do well when they graduate," he said. "It keeps people from jumping into causes that might be beneficial for them in the future. It's harsh to get involved in a cause. It's not pure selfishness but more practicality."

And HDS said students were the motivation behind the reconsideration of the boycott. "Each year we've been getting more and more requests for grapes, particularly in forums like our manager's roundtables," said Alexandra McNitt, a project manager with HDS.

Many students chose the juicy taste of the small, round fruit over considerations of what many activists deem inhumane treatment of workers in the fields.

"I'm excited about grapes--grapes are cool," said Mikhail S. Ulinich '99. "I just hope they're seedless."

Grape supporters formed the ad hoc Grape Coalition to advocate repealing the boycott. It was led by Adam R. Kovacevich '99, whose father owns a grape farm.

The Coalition argued that voting against the boycott was also a vote in support of students' rights, noting it would give them the choice whether or not to eat grapes. "We consider a vote to reinstate grapes to be a sign of respect of your fellow students' rights to be able to eat grapes through the school year," Kovacevich said.

Many student groups, including RAZA, UNITE and the Progressive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) opposed the Coalition.

After numerous debates, forums and a delayed vote, students finally voted on the referendum, deciding whether to vote "yes, I believe Dining Services should serve grapes of any kind" or "no, I believe Dining Services should not serve grapes unless and until grapes become available with a United Farm Workers (UFW) union label."

About 50 percent of the undergraduate population--3,166 students--voted. The turn-out for this election and for the council elections this year marked some of the highest numbers ever. Some took this as a sign that students are taking a greater interest in social issues.

"I was thoroughly shocked at how many votes we got for the grape referendum," Daniel R. Morgan '99, a member of the PSLM, said in a May interview. "I think this year has been a more activist year than previous years."

But both times students voted conservatively, moving towards passive decisions and away from the activism displayed during Jiang's visit.

There has been "a shift among students toward a center-right point of view, more concerned with what makes sense," Shapiro said in May.

Lobbying for Labor

PSLM continued to fight for worker's rights throughout the year--but without attracting large amounts of concern or attention from students.

In early November, PSLM distributed leaflets at the Business School and protested for better working conditions for Teamsters striking in Peabody, Mass. And in October, 14 members of PSLM, led by Daniel M. Hennefeld '99, joined 300 protesters marching through Boston to demand better working conditions for workers in factories.

These smaller protests culminated in a larger attack on Harvard's alleged use of companies that exploit workers to produce its insignia clothing. PSLM organized a petition drive outside the Science Center in the late spring to present to Harvard.

"We must end the abuse and harassment of workers," Hennefeld said. "A code of conduct must let [employers] know that they can't take advantage of workers or make them feel inferior."

On April 14, more than 100 students assembled at the steps of University Hall to protest sweatshops and to listen to speakers from campus organizations and factory workers. Harvard Students for a Sweat-Free Campus organized the rally.

The University has agreed to reconsider its policy in response to the protests. According to Vice President and General Counsel Ann Taylor the University is still composing a code of conduct. PSLM students are negotiating with Harvard's attorneys.

But the students' initiative did not gather the momentum or full-campus attention which Jiang's visit did.

Shapiro said the discrepancy is simple to explain. "[Sweatshops] are an ambiguous issue. It's not cut and dry," he said. "Students are too sophisticated to believe it's a cut-and-dry issue." He added that the issue behind the protests against Jiang was more clear cut and easier for students to take a stand on.

Morgan agreed that small numbers of students protest with PSLM and other activist organizations, but he pointed out that a few, vocal students can have large effects on the community. He said he is not disappointed by the student response because he acknowledges reality.

This is, after all, Harvard, he said.

"Harvard is designed to reproduce the upper class," Morgan said. "Activism is contrary to what a lot of people come to Harvard hoping to do."