Autori

• Margherita Gobbo - Senior Researcher Mondo Internazionale G.E.O. Cultura & Società
• Marco Rizzi - Senior Researcher Mondo Internazionale G.E.O. Cultura & Società

Abstract

This article examines the role of student activism as a catalyst for social change, with a focus on anti-war movements. By comparing the student-led protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s to the recent resurgence of pacifist activism in response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly in Gaza, the study explores the similarities and differences in their strategies, impacts, and underlying motivations. Through a contextual analysis of the socio-political environments of the United States during these periods, the article sheds light on the nature of student activism in advocating for peace and justice. The investigation aims to determine the validity of contemporary comparisons drawn by the international press between these two significant movements.

Introduction

Social movements have consistently played a vital role in shaping societal progress, with student movements often at the forefront of these efforts. Historically, student activists have been pivotal in advocating for various causes, from climate change and racial equality to gender rights, exemplified by the recent global climate strikes and the #MeToo movement. These movements underscore the power and potential of youth activism in bringing about significant change and raising awareness on critical issues that affect societies globally. Among these influential movements, peace and anti-war movements have been particularly prominent. These movements have historically mobilised students to protest against wars and advocate for peaceful resolutions to conflicts. One of the most notable instances of such activism was during the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s, where student-led protests and demonstrations across the United States and other parts of the world demanded an end to the conflict.

In recent months, a new wave of student activism has emerged in response to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, specifically focusing on the situation in Gaza. Students globally have been rallying for a ceasefire, drawing parallels to the historical anti-war movements of the 1960s. This resurgence of pacifist activism has been covered extensively by the international press, which has drawn comparisons between the current student protests and those of the Vietnam War era. The media has highlighted the similarities in the passion, tactics, and urgency of these movements, suggesting a continuity in the spirit of student-led activism across different generations.

Given these parallels, this article aims to delve deeper into the validity of these comparisons by examining the characteristics, strategies, and impacts of both the contemporary student movements and those from the 1960s. By analysing the social, cultural, and political contexts of the United States during these two distinct historical periods, we can better understand the nature of student activism and its evolving role in asking for peace and justice, also shedding light on the legacy of student activism in shaping public discourse and influencing policy.

I. The Vietnam War protests

Context

The Vietnam War took place during the intense geopolitical struggle of the Cold War, where the United States aimed to contain the spread of communism. (Kindig, 2008; Khan Academy, 2023)​. The "domino theory", a key aspect of U.S. foreign policy at the time, posited that the fall of one nation to communism would lead to the subsequent fall of its neighbours. This theory was particularly influential in shaping U.S. involvement in Vietnam (Sheinkin 2015). American policymakers believed that a communist victory in Vietnam would threaten the stability of Southeast Asia and, by extension, global balance of power​ (Kindig, 2008; Khan Academy, 2023)​. Domestically, the Vietnam War era was a time of significant social and political upheaval in the United States. The civil rights movement was gaining momentum, challenging racial segregation and discrimination, while the countercultural movement was questioning traditional societal norms. These movements created a fertile ground for anti-war sentiment, as many Americans began to question the ethical and moral implications of the war. The media played a critical role in shaping public opinion by bringing the brutal realities of the conflict into American living rooms through television broadcasts and news reports​ (Kindig, 2008; Small, 2002; Duncan & Stewart 1995)​. The socio-political context of the United States during the Vietnam War was characterised by widespread distrust of the government. The release of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, which revealed that successive U.S. administrations had misled the public about the progress and scope of the war, exacerbated this distrust (Sheinkin, 2015). This era also saw the rise of a powerful anti-war movement, spearheaded by students, civil rights activists, and other segments of society who were increasingly disillusioned with the war and its justification​ (Chupein, 2019; Khan Academy, 2023)​.

Student activism, organisation, and methods

During the Vietnam War, student activism emerged as a powerful force, significantly influencing public opinion and governmental policy. The organisational structure of this activism was diverse, encompassing a range of student groups, alliances, and tactics (Sheinkin, 2015). The Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was one of the most prominent and influential groups. Founded in 1960, SDS initially focused on civil rights issues but quickly pivoted to anti-war activism as U.S. involvement in Vietnam escalated​ (Kindig, 2008)​​ (Duncan & Stewart 1995)​. The SDS was known for its participatory democracy model, which encouraged broad member involvement in decision-making processes. This model allowed SDS to grow rapidly and establish chapters on numerous college campuses across the United States. By the mid-1960s, SDS had become a central hub for student activism, organising large-scale demonstrations, teach-ins, and draft resistance campaigns. One notable example of their activism was the 1965 March on Washington for Peace in Vietnam, which drew tens of thousands of participants and brought national attention to the anti-war cause​ (Kindig, 2008; Chupein, 2019)​. In addition to SDS, other student groups also played crucial roles. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), originally focused on civil rights, expanded its agenda to include anti-war activities. Similarly, the Black Student Union (BSU) and other minority student organisations linked their civil rights struggles with opposition to the Vietnam War, highlighting the disproportionate impact of the draft on African American and Latino communities​ (Stanford, 2024; Chupein, 2019)​.

The organisational tactics of student activists were diverse and innovative. Teach-ins, a form of educational protest, became a hallmark of the movement. The first major teach-in was held at the University of Michigan in March 1965, where faculty members and students engaged in overnight discussions about the war's implications. This format quickly spread to other universities, serving both to educate participants and to galvanise broader support for the anti-war movement​ (Chupein, 2019; Khan Academy, 2023)​. Large-scale protests and marches were another key method of activism. These events brought visibility to the anti-war movement and demonstrated the breadth of opposition to the conflict. One of the most notable early protests was the April 1965 March on Washington for Peace in Vietnam, organised by SDS. This march drew tens of thousands of participants and set the stage for future large-scale demonstrations. Protests often coincided with significant events or escalations in the war, such as the 1967 March on the Pentagon, which drew over 50,000 demonstrators​. Sit-ins and building occupations were direct action tactics that aimed to disrupt normal operations and draw attention to specific issues. At Columbia University in 1968, students occupied several campus buildings to protest the university's involvement in military research and its expansion plans, which threatened to displace local African American residents. This occupation lasted for over a week, resulting in violent clashes with police and widespread media coverage. Student strikes were another powerful form of protest. In May 1970, following the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State shootings, colleges and universities across the country witnessed widespread strikes. At Princeton University, for example, over 4,000 students and faculty members participated in a strike that significantly disrupted campus activities. Similar strikes occurred at other institutions, often involving large-scale walkouts and the suspension of classes. Draft resistance was a particularly bold and consequential form of activism. Many students actively resisted the draft by burning draft cards, participating in draft counselling, and aiding those who sought to avoid conscription. Organisations like the Resistance and the War Resisters League provided support and resources for draft resisters, helping to coordinate efforts across campuses. The act of burning draft cards, in particular, became a powerful symbol of defiance against the war and the government's conscription policies​. ​(Princeton University, 2024; Khan Academy, 2023, Small, 1994)​. Collaboration between students and other anti-war groups was also significant. The GI-Civilian Alliance for Peace, for example, was an early collaboration between students and military personnel opposed to the war. This alliance organised joint demonstrations and produced anti-war literature, demonstrating the widespread opposition to the war across different segments of society​ (Kindig, 2008; Chupein, 2019)​. The impact of student activism was amplified by the use of emerging media technologies. Activists adeptly used print media, radio, and television to spread their messages (Small, 2002). Underground newspapers, flyers, and pamphlets circulated widely on campuses, while radio broadcasts and televised reports brought the anti-war message into homes across America (Small, 2002). These media strategies were crucial in shaping public perception and mobilising broader support for the movement​ (Kindig, 2008; Chupein, 2019)​.

Counterculture influence

The counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s was deeply intertwined with student activism against the Vietnam War. It emerged as a response to rigid social norms and materialism, promoting ideals of peace, love, personal freedom, and communal living​ (Kindig, 2008; Princeton University, 2024). Music was a powerful tool, with artists like Bob Dylan and Joan Baez producing songs that became anthems for the movement. Events like the Woodstock Festival epitomised the anti-war sentiment, drawing hundreds of thousands for music and protest​ (Kindig, 2008; Khan Academy, 2023)​. The counterculture also emphasised alternative lifestyles, with many young people forming communes that rejected traditional hierarchies in favour of egalitarianism and sustainability​ (Duncan & Stewart 1995; Chupein, 2019)​. Fashion, characterised by colourful, loose-fitting clothes and peace symbols, visually represented the movement's dissent. The use of psychedelic drugs, particularly LSD, was another controversial yet influential aspect, promoting new ways of thinking and rejecting conventional norms​ (Princeton University, 2024; Chupein, 2019). Politically, the counterculture inspired direct action and civil disobedience, as seen in the activities of the Yippies and other groups. These actions, often theatrical and non-traditional, aimed to draw attention to social injustices and promote peace and love​ (Princeton University, 2024; Khan Academy, 2023)​. The legacy of the counterculture's challenge to the status quo is evident in subsequent social movements advocating for civil rights, environmentalism, and LGBTQ+ rights, highlighting its enduring impact on American society​ (Duncan & Stewart 1995; Chupein, 2019)​.

Consequences

The activism of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly against the Vietnam War, had profound and wide-ranging consequences. These effects were felt in immediate reactions from authorities, long-term changes in policies, and broader shifts in societal attitudes and values (Small, 1994).

a. repression and violence

One of the most immediate consequences of student activism was the violent repression by authorities. The Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970, where National Guardsmen opened fire on unarmed students protesting the invasion of Cambodia, killing four and wounding nine, became a stark symbol of the government’s willingness to use lethal force against dissenters. This incident, along with others such as the Jackson State killings, galvanised further protest and drew widespread condemnation from the public​ (Kindig, 2008)​​ (Khan Academy, 2023)​. Students also faced arrest and imprisonment. Prominent activists were frequently targeted by law enforcement agencies, leading to numerous legal battles. For example, leaders of SDS and other radical groups were often arrested on charges ranging from inciting riots to draft evasion. These legal challenges consumed significant resources and placed immense personal strain on the activists involved​ (Duncan & Stewart 1995; Chupein, 2019)​.

b. government surveillance

In addition to overt repression, the U.S. government engaged in extensive surveillance of student activists. The FBI's COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) aimed to disrupt and discredit the anti-war and civil rights movements through infiltration, psychological warfare, and misinformation. This program targeted leaders of the student movement, monitoring their activities, spreading false information to sow discord, and attempting to undermine their efforts. The exposure of COINTELPRO in the 1970s revealed the extent of government surveillance and its attempts to stifle political dissent​ (Princeton University, 2024; Chupein, 2019)​.

c. changes in policy and public opinion

Despite the repression, student activism succeeded in shifting public opinion and influencing government policy. The relentless protests contributed to a growing public scepticism about the war and increased pressure on politicians to change course. By the early 1970s, public support for the war had significantly eroded, leading to policy shifts and eventually the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords​ (Princeton University, 2024; Khan Academy, 2023)​. The movement also impacted U.S. military policies. One of the most notable changes was the abolition of the draft in 1973, transitioning to an all-volunteer military force. This change was a direct response to widespread resistance to conscription and the anti-draft protests that were a hallmark of the student movement​ (Khan Academy, 2023)​.

d. broader societal changes

The activism of the Vietnam War era also had lasting effects on American society. The movement fostered a culture of dissent and a willingness to challenge authority, which persisted beyond the Vietnam War. This spirit of activism influenced subsequent social movements, including those advocating for civil rights, women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmental justice. The methods and strategies developed during the Vietnam War protests, such as teach-ins, mass demonstrations, and direct action, were adapted and employed by these later movements​ (Kindig, 2008; Duncan & Stewart 1995)​. Moreover, the period saw significant changes in the media landscape. The extensive coverage of protests, police violence, and the war itself played a critical role in shaping public opinion and demonstrated the power of television and print media in mobilising social movements (Small, 2002). This era underscored the importance of a free press in holding the government accountable and informing the public​ (Duncan & Stewart 1995; Chupein, 2015).

e. personal consequences for activists

For many activists, the personal consequences of their involvement were profound. While some faced legal repercussions, others experienced social ostracism or professional setbacks due to their political activities. However, the sense of solidarity and purpose that came from being part of a larger movement was also a significant and often rewarding aspect of their experience. Many former activists went on to have careers in academia, law, politics, and other fields where they continued to advocate for social justice and reform​ (Duncan & Stewart 1995; Khan Academy, 2023)​.

II. The Pro-Gaza Student Movement in the United States

The alliance between the United States and Israel has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for nearly seventy years, beginning with the U.S. recognizing Israel as an independent state on May 14, 1948 (U.S. Embassy in Israel, 2024). This relationship, underpinned by strong historical and cultural ties, significant economic cooperation, and shared security interests, benefits from extensive economic exchanges, particularly in high-tech industries, and joint defence initiatives (U.S. Department of State, 2023). Indeed, Israel's strategic position makes it a crucial ally for the U.S. in promoting regional stability and pursuing foreign policy objectives in the Middle East (U.S. Department of State, 2023). In the context of such strong U.S.-Israel bilateral relations, the Biden administration has continued to support Israel despite widespread violations of international humanitarian law by Netanyahu's government against the population in Gaza. The U.S. administration's inaction in the face of the deaths of 30,000 Palestinian civilians and its perceived complicity in Israel's interventions has sparked a new generation of activists on university campuses across the United States (Zunes, 2024, p. 44).

Following the events of October 7, 2023, there has been a significant surge in Pro-Palestinian student activism in the United States, with protests erupting in 45 out of 50 states and gaining considerable momentum after the mass arrest of 100 students at Columbia University in New York on April 18, 2024 (Buheji et al., 2024). The day before, Columbia University President Minouche Shafik was in Washington, D.C., for a congressional hearing with Republican representatives about handling campus protests after the war broke out (Marchionni, 2024a). During his absence, students set up a camp on the main lawn, vowing to stay until the university agreed to divest from arms manufacturers and companies trading with Israel (Helmore, 2024). Shafik, seeking to restore order amidst Republican-fueled tensions due to the allegations of antisemitism attached to the student's pro-Palestine activism, called for law enforcement to clear the protesters (Marchionni, 2024a). This violent and repressive response, criticised by many university employees and the progressive electorate, backfired. Since then, encampments have spread to 80 campuses across the United States, resulting in thousands of arrests nationwide (Buheji et al., 2024).

According to the New York Times, “Columbia's Gaza Solidarity Encampment” has sparked a national student movement against Israel's treatment of Palestinians (Rosman, 2024). The Guardian (2024) has described this movement as the “most significant one since the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s” (Helmore, 2024). The comparison is fitting, as Columbia University played a similar role during the Vietnam War era, acting as a catalyst for nationwide mobilisation and facing, also at the time, police brutality in response. The 1968 student mobilizations occurred within a complex political context, notably marked by Richard Nixon's presidential election victory (Marchionni, 2024a). Today, the emergence of a student movement against the Gaza War unfolds within a similarly intricate socio-cultural and political framework due to the presidential elections in November and a broader trend of societal radicalization in the United States. As in the 1960s, American students aim to bring their protest to the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, seeking to voice their concerns about Palestine, the war in Israel, and U.S. aid to Tel Aviv (Marchionni, 2024a). Therefore, recurring themes of intense student activism, repressive institutional responses, and conflict between students and university administration in the framework of a politically charged atmosphere create a clear parallel between the two eras. However, to elaborate on this stance, it is essential to dive into the Pro-Gaza movement's actors, demands, strategies, and challenges and further explore the context of its emergence, namely the contemporary U.S. socio-political landscape.

The Actors of the National Movement against Israel's treatment of Palestinians

Pro-Palestine activists in the United States are predominantly young, with a significant representation from Generation Z (Zunes, 2024, p. 44). Recent polls indicate that 72% of voters aged 18 to 29 disapprove of Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Similarly, only 14% of those under 30 believe it is “very important” for the United States to support Israel, compared to two-thirds of Americans over 65 who hold this view (Zunes, 2024, p. 44). Notably, this does not mean that the growth of Pro-Palestine activism is only confined to younger people. It also includes some older progressives, like the ones who protested against the Vietnam War and for civil rights. Still, the movement is most prominent on college campuses and among young students (Zunes, 2024). Zunes (2024) identifies several reasons for this generational disparity. First, while older Americans understand the historical alliance between Israel and the U.S. and witnessed a time when Israel had a social democratic leadership, younger Americans have only known Israel under right-wing leadership focused on territorial expansion. Second, if older generations generally view Zionism as a national liberation movement, younger Americans see it increasingly as a colonial-settler enterprise. Indeed, in a globalised world in which the concept of national identity is evolving, young Americans are less likely to view the nation-state as the primary means of asserting collective rights, which reduces Israel's importance to Jewish identity for them (p.44). Additionally, influenced by movements like Black Lives Matter and an increased awareness of institutional racism and intersectionality, Generation Z regards the Palestinian struggle as part of a broader fight for global justice (p. 44). Following this brief introduction of the movement's actors, it is interesting to understand its demands.

The Demands: Divestment

In their detailed and comparative analysis of the students' Pro-Gaza protests around the United States campuses, Buheji et al. (2024, p.58) identify that the movements' demands articulate themselves in the following points:

1. Universities should cease doing business with weapon manufacturers supplying arms to Israel.
2. Research funding from Israel for U.S. military upgrades should be stopped.
3. There should be increased transparency regarding funds received from Israel.
4. College endowments should no longer be invested by financial managers who profit from Israeli companies.
5. The U.S. Education Department mandates that colleges and universities report funds and gifts from foreign entities.

The authors suggest that the students' movement supports and echoes the requests of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which advocates for Palestinian freedom, justice, and equality (Palestinian BDS National Committee, 2024). The protesters are particularly focused on divestment, aiming to withdraw financial support to pressure Israel into complying with international law and respecting Palestinian human rights. This divestment involves pulling investments from companies that do business with Israel, including public stocks, hedge funds, and private equity firms associated with Israeli companies. In this context, the students are calling for universities to stop engaging with companies that profit from the occupation of Palestinian territories. Some of the targeted companies named by students include Cisco, for aiding the establishment of technology hubs in illegal settlements, and Caterpillar, for supplying bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes and infrastructure (Buheji et al., 2024, p. 71). Other companies mentioned by the students as profiting from Israel's war are Microsoft, Amazon, and Google (Helmore, 2024). Activists advocating for U.S. educational bodies to disentangle from companies who are profiting from the conflict are deploying a vast array of strategies.

Strategies & Activities

Students are engaging in various forms of activism to protest the situation in Gaza, using diverse strategies to raise awareness, advocate for political change, and support human rights in Palestine. The formers are extensively illustrated and collected in Buheji et al. (2024).

As described by the authors, a prominent method has been the creation of encampments, where students set up tents or temporary structures on university grounds (p.61). These encampments serve as physical symbols of solidarity and physical representations of the Palestinian struggle (Buheji et al., 2024). Within such venues, students organise demonstrations, protests, rallies, hunger strikes, and a vast array of activities, ranging from educational workshops on Palestinian history (i.e., the Nakba and Israeli occupation) to cultural exhibitions. These events often feature experts, activists, and individuals from Gaza, providing firsthand accounts that deepen the understanding of the conflict. Such narratives, by empowering firsthand experiences, enable to give a human and tangible face to the conflict and underline the personal impact of the political situation, by overcoming the portrayal of Palestinians only as victims or combatants (p. 61).

Furthermore, unlike the student movements of the late 60s, such as the Baby Boomers protesting the Vietnam War, today's Gen Z activists leverage the powerful tool of social media. In the digital era, students use social media platforms as a powerful tool of activism to share knowledge, news, articles, and multimedia content about Gaza, reaching a broad audience (p.49). They also coordinate fundraising events in collaboration with charities to provide humanitarian aid, such as medical supplies and food, to the people in Gaza. Additionally, activists are involved in lobbying efforts (i.e., letter-writing campaigns addressed to political representatives and participation in public forums, such as in the Chicago Convention) to express concerns about Gaza and advocate for policy changes. The movement also deploys slogans to advocate for peace and urge universities to divest. These slogans, which are chanted during marches, displayed on signs, and shared across social media, include “Free Free Palestine!” “Ending Occupation Now!” “Justice for Gaza!” and “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” (p. 77). Another slogan used by some within the movement is “No Zionism!”. The overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, fueled by narratives from certain American media and exploited by Republicans ahead of the presidential elections, has sparked significant controversy (Boorstein, 2024). This has led to tensions on campuses between Jewish and non-Jewish students, supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestine, students and university administrators, and administrators and the Congress. University leaders, such as Columbia's Shafik, have been criticised for not adequately protecting Jewish students. These tensions pose challenges to the movement's success in achieving its goals.

Challenges & Tensions: the Allegations of Anti Semitism

The Pro-Palestine movement's anti-Zionist stance and condemnation of Israel's actions do not endorse antisemitism or any form of hostility, prejudice, and discrimination towards Jews. The Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, by explaining how an antisemitic rhetoric does not belong with the movement's ideological stance, has reported to the Guardian (2024) its frustration arising from “media distractions focusing on external inflammatory individuals who do not represent us” (Helmore, 2024). Still, while the national movement against Israel's treatment of Palestinians rejects any form of hate against Jews, cases of antisemitism have increased at various universities. An investigation by Politico (2024), which interviewed American journalism students documenting campus developments all around the US since April, provides a clear picture of this dynamic. For instance, Jewish student Leon Orlov-Sullivan (City College of New York) stated that while he hasn't personally encountered antisemitism, some Jewish people feel unsafe or uncomfortable on campus (Kim, 2024). Similarly, Alex Steil (University of Minnesota) highlighted that "while the protests themselves are non-violent, Jewish students hear the rhetoric directed at them as violent" (Kim, 2024). According to Steil, his university has seen a rise in both antisemitism and Islamophobia, with 42 of 122 bias reports this year against Israel and 16 against Palestine (Kim, 2024).

The Movement within the Broader U.S Socio-Political Context

Building upon this primary analysis of the U.S. National Movement against Israel's treatment of Palestinians, it emerges that while the students' occupation to end the war in Gaza is peaceful and aimed at ending Palestinian suffering through political change, the situation on campuses is delicate and complex, reflecting the one of the broader socio-political US context.

University administrators find themselves in great difficulty managing the situation, and the responses of academic administrations have varied. Some, like Brown University, have engaged with students, inviting discussions on divestment and reaching what the NY Times has named “a rare agreement between administrators and protesters" (Fortin, 2024; Marchionni, 2024b). However, other elitarian universities, including Columbia, Emory, and NYU, which have attracted students by promoting their progressive facade and history of political activism, have been criticised for “hypocritical attitudes” by outlets such as The Atlantic (2024) in light of their current repressive behaviour (Harper, 2024). This repression manifests through restrictions on speech, event cancellations, academic penalties, and the use of police to disperse protesters (Buheji et al., 2024, p. 68). Numerous instances of police brutality and violence against students have been reported, involving rubber bullets, pepper balls, and chemical agents (Buheji et al., 2024). The use of force to silence protests has faced strong condemnation from segments of public opinion and international organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (Tucker, 2024).

In general, the broader issue which is polarising the American public opinion on the conflict and making it difficult for educational institutions to react to the current activism, is that there are two opposing principles at play (Marchionni, 2024a). On one hand, there is a need to respect the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech. On the other hand, there are anti-discrimination laws promulgated in the 60s, which state that universities should be safe and non-discriminatory learning environments (Marchionni, 2024a). While these principles are clear on paper, their implementation is intricate, exacerbated by the current complexities facing the United States, including the dynamics of an electoral campaign (Marchionni, 2024a). The difficulty in balancing these principles is evident in the first public statement made by President Joe Biden on May 2, 2024, regarding the student protests, namely: “order must prevail on campuses (…) but we are not an authoritarian country that silences people” (The White House, 2024). In this context, criticism arises against his administration's perceived ambiguity on issues such as police conduct and the Gaza conflict, causing a rift within the Democratic base and eroding support among younger voters, crucial for the upcoming November elections (Gabbatt, 2024).

According to Le Monde (2024), the ongoing U.S. campus protests for Gaza present a significant political challenge for President Biden. He risks alienating both young voters and a segment of Jewish voters, creating what Leparmentier (2024) names as an “electoral trap” Meanwhile, Republicans are exploiting the protests by accusing activists of antisemitism and blaming the American left for fostering a “generation of extremists”. They describe universities as “incubators of radicalism” that tolerate discrimination, an ironic stance given the historical antisemitism associated with the American right and Trumpism (Marchionni, 2024b). This has resulted in a paradoxical situation: Republicans are now pushing to enforce anti-discrimination laws against protesting students, laws initially designed to counter conservative attacks in the 1960s (Marchionni, 2024a). The White House's domestic challenges are compounded by foreign policy difficulties, as the ceasefire agreement in Gaza remains stalled, and Israel continues to threaten an invasion of Rafah, where approximately 1.4 million Palestinian civilians have sought refuge (Helmore, 2024).

As a final remark, despite the repressive attitudes of university administrations and political pressure, the pro-Gaza movement among U.S. students continues to thrive unabated. Their persistent advocacy underscores a broader trend of youth engagement and resistance, demonstrating that attempts to silence them only amplify their commitment to justice. The students' resilience in the face of academic oppression echoes the spirit of activists who fought to end the Vietnam War. If history repeats itself, attempts by institutions and political entities to suppress dissent will galvanise the pro-Gaza movement, making it more resolute, fearless and vocal in its fight to achieve justice for the Palestinian people.

Conclusions

Based on this analysis, while there are some parallels between the Vietnam War protests of the 1960s and the current pro-Palestinian student activism, such as a striking shared spirit of youthful dissent and the use of university campuses as crucibles for broader social change, also several differences that shape each movement can be found, namely contextual ones.

Firstly, the Vietnam War protests involved a significantly larger segment of the population, primarily because the conflict directly impacted millions of American families. The draft meant that young men faced the immediate threat of being sent to fight, creating a deep sense of urgency and personal stakes that led to widespread participation. In contrast, the pro-Palestinian protests, while fervent and widespread, do not carry the same immediate personal risk for the majority of American students, as the U.S. is not directly involved in a large-scale ground conflict like Vietnam (Internazionale, 2024).

Furthermore, the nature of universities and the political landscape has transformed considerably over the past six decades. In the 1960s, universities were becoming hotbeds of political discourse, fostering environments where open debate and dissent were encouraged. Today, however, campuses often find themselves embroiled in ideological battles that can stifle open dialogue. The contemporary landscape is marked by heightened polarisation, making it challenging to create the kind of broad, cross-ideological coalitions that characterised the Vietnam War protests (Internazionale, 2024).

The demands of the current pro-Palestinian activists also reflect the modern financial and institutional context. During the Vietnam War, the links between universities and military research or funding were more direct and transparent, allowing activists to target specific collaborations. Today, financial entanglements are often hidden within complex investment structures and indexed funds, complicating efforts to trace and protest these connections (Internazionale, 2024).

Public perception also plays a role. While there is broad support for a ceasefire in Gaza, the issue of U.S. support for Israel remains contentious. Accusations of antisemitism against pro-Palestinian activists have muddied public discourse, making it difficult for the movement to gain the same level of mainstream acceptance that the anti-Vietnam War movement eventually achieved. (Internazionale, 2024).

Despite these differences, the similarities are notable and instructive. Both movements were catalysed by actions at Columbia University, with students occupying campus buildings and facing police repression. The political climates of both periods were also marked by significant national tensions and upcoming presidential elections, showing how student activism often intersects with broader political currents. The intention of contemporary activists to bring their message to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago mirrors the 1968 protests, drawing a cyclical natural trend of student-led calls for accountability and change (Internazionale, 2024).

In sum, while the context and specifics of student activism have evolved, the fundamental drive to challenge unjust policies and advocate for global justice remains consistent.


Sources:

Buheji, M., Hasan, A. (2024). Echoes of Wake Up: Realizing the Impact of The Seeds of Students Pro-Palestine Protests. International Journal of Management (IJM). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/76QZ3

Boorstein, M., Gowen, A. (2024, May 3). What is Zionism? The movement college protesters oppose, explained. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/03/zionist-definition-explained-protests/

Fortin, J. (2024 April 30). At Brown, a Rare Agreement Between Administrators and Protesters. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/us/brown-divestment-deal.html

Harper, T. (2024, May 2). America’s Colleges Are Reaping What They Sowed. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/college-activism-hypocrisy/678262/

Helmore, E. (2024, April 29). Echoes of Vietnam era as pro-Palestinian student protests roil US campuses. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/28/us-student-protests-gaza-israel

Kim, C. (2024, May 3). What’s Really Happening on College Campuses, According to Student Journalists. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/05/03/college-campus-protests-israel-gaza-student-journalists-00155672

Leparmentier, A. (2024, April 25). US campus protests for Gaza turn into electoral trap for Biden. Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/04/25/us-campus-protests-for-gaza-turn-into-electoral-trap-for-biden_6669501_4.html

Marchionni, A. (2024a, April 30). Come è nato il movimento di protesta nelle università degli Stati Uniti (…). Il Mondo, Podcast di Internazionale. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0c2NyUohviAjfMBwHgrPjk?si=9xi8AYBHQDuVZLGRGA67WQ&nd=1&dlsi=422c9f902fa64e01

Marchionni, A. (2024b, May 6). Le Proteste nei Campus Americani. Internazionale. https://www.internazionale.it/notizie/alessio-marchionna/2024/05/06/proteste-universita-campus-stati-uniti

Palestine BDS National Committee. (2024, May 14). Supporting the student-led solidarity mobilizations in their demands for boycott and divestment and against repression. https://bdsmovement.net/Supporting-Student-Led-Solidarity-Mobilizations-In-Their-Demands

Rosman, K. (2024, April 29). Universities face an Urgent Question: What Makes a Protest Antisemitic?. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/nyregion/college-protests-columbia-campus.html

Tucker, E. (2024, May 5). Police tactics at campus protests reveal disparities in approaches to public order and lessons learned post-George Floyd. Retrieved from CNN: Police tactics at campus protests reveal disparities in approaches to public order and lessons learned post-George Floyd.

U.S. Department of State. (2023, January 30). U.S Relations with Israel. https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-israel-2/

U.S. Embassy in Israel. (2024). Politics and History. https://il.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/

Zunes, S. (2024). The War on Gaza and Middle East Political Science. Antiwar/Solidarity Activism on Gaza: New Generation, New Challenges (p.44- 49). Middle East Political Science. https://pomeps.org/.well-known/sgcaptcha/?r=%2Fpomeps-studies-51-the-war-on-gaza-and-middle-east-political-science&y=ffu:77.11.156.95:1720002485.702

Duncan, Lauren, and Abigail J. Stewart. 1995. "Still Bringing the Vietnam War Home: Sources of Contemporary Student Activism." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(9): 914-924. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/68935 (2-B)

"Even Princeton": Vietnam and a Culture of Student Activism, 1967-1972. University Archives, Princeton University. https://universityarchives.princeton.edu (2-B)

Kindig, Jessie. "Vietnam War: Student Activism." Antiwar and Radical History Project. University of Washington. https://depts.washington.edu/antiwar/vietnam_war_student_activism (2-B)

Small, Melvin. 2002. Antiwarriors: The Vietnam War and the Battle for America's Hearts and Minds. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources Inc. (1-B)

Small, Melvin. 1994. Covering Dissent: The Media and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. (1-B)

Sheinkin, Steve. 2015. Most Dangerous: Daniel Ellsberg and the Secret History of the Vietnam War. New York: Roaring Brook Press. (2-A)

"Student Activism | Stanford Stories From the Archives." Spotlight at Stanford. https://exhibits.stanford.edu(1-B)

"The student movement and the antiwar movement." Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org(2-B)

The White House (2024, May 2). Remarks by President Biden on Recent Events on College Campuses. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/02/remarks-by-president-biden-on-recent-events-on-college-campuses/(2-B)

"Vietnam War Protests: 1965-1972." A.S. Living History Project. https://livinghistory.as.ucsb.edu (2-B)