1968-1969 Protests

Timeline of 1968-1969 Protests

history of a touch of spring.pdf

Prattler, Volume 30, Number 18, vol. 30, no. 18, 1969. JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/10.2307/community.29261901. Accessed 4 May 2021.

What Are Pre-Existing Tensions to

Donovan's Presidency at Pratt Institute?

Pre-eXisting Tensions

Preceding the protests of 1968-1969, there were already underlying tensions between Pratt Institute's students and faculty towards the administration. On campus, there would be anti-war protests towards the United States’ war with Vietnam and an ongoing debate about students’ rights within Pratt Institute, which manifested as student proposed constitutions within the late 1960s.

Amongst all the ideological concerns, Pratt Institute underwent financial difficulties which contributed in deteriorating the physical infrastructure and the quality of education. Within his presidency James B. Donovan would propose controversial economic policies to alleviate Pratt Institute’s financial situation. This would include the rise of student tuition and debate over faculty salaries that would alienate students and faculty.

Pratt Administrative Meetings

FCM_10_19690325_D.pdf

"Faculty Statement on Salaries." Pratt Senate Minutes, 25 March 1969. Pratt Institute Archives.

Faculty Salaries

In the debate over faculty salaries James B. Donovan would alienate faculty which led to a breakdown of communication. Within the minutes of the Pratt Senate, it was noted:

"President Donovan has given as his reason for this policy that there is a lot of “deadwood” on the faculty and that he hopes to force them out by this means. He has stated this frequently to both faculty and students which has not made for the best relations with Faculty. The Faculty believes that this is fallacious reasoning anyway since the incompetents referred to would not find it easy to get jobs elsewhere and would thus be unlikely to resign.

The President has also dwelt at length on the serious misconduct of a few members of the faculty, seeming to imply that there were many more such scoundrels. The Faculty naturally resents this implication and distrusts the man who makes these charges. Control of faculty misconduct is clearly an administrative responsibility and it should be dealt with directly and firmly, not deviously and gently by means of a 5% pay cut. Nor should the entire faculty be deprived of a just cost-of-living increase merely as a device to put pressure on a few reprobates."

Page updated

Report abuse