Across the various activist movements at Pratt during the late '60s to early '70s, several main themes emerge to categorize students' concerns. Pratt students demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the administration on a variety of issues falling under three major themes: communication and transparency issues; a lack of respect and dignified treatment of students, particularly students of color; and differing opinions between students and administration on the social and educational responsibilities of the institution.
Students and faculty alike were concerned by the lack of communication and transparency from the Pratt administration. This is evidenced by issues such as the 1972 letter from President Henry Saltzman instructing that communication between certain groups on campus and the Board of Trustees be limited in order to avoid "obnoxious" correspondence. Students demanded representation in various parts of the administration in order to have the platform to communicate the student perspective. In the 1968 architecture strike, for example, students advocated for a tri-partite committee consisting of students, faculty, and outside professionals to reevaluate the architecture curriculum. Students consistently advocated for more transparency regarding the school's finances. Students wanted to have a say in decisions made for the institute and have an open line of communication with the administration. A quote from the Prattler vol. 13, no. 18 in 1969 exemplifies the students' attitude about communication with the administration: "when the word of the administrators is no longer credible because of so many inconsistencies from day to day to day, then who are we to believe?"
Another major theme of student concerns was the lack of dignified treatment of students, particularly students of color. This was evidenced by the dismissive ways in which administration talked about students' concerns, such as President James B. Donovan referring to the 1969 strike as "a touch of spring" rather than taking students' demands seriously. The architecture student strike was a result of years of concerns from students being ignored by the administration. Students felt that they were being taken advantage of for money, noting that the administration raised tuition while cutting studio hours, faculty, and facilities. Students were arrested and violently attacked by campus security during their demonstrations. The Black Student Union noted a serious lack of diverse representation in faculty, administration, and the Board of Trustees. The BSU advocated for a Black and Latin American Studies program for years with no success.
Students and the Pratt administration often held differing opinions on the social and educational responsibilities of the institution. Pratt students believed that the institute has a responsibility to its surrounding community and advocated for better relations between Pratt and residents of Bedford-Stuyvesant and Clinton Hill. They protested the acquisition of the Willoughby Walk apartment buildings that would result in the displacement of the buildings' majority Black residents. The high tuition and lack of access to financial subsidies make the institute inaccessible to the predominantly Black and Puerto Rican working class population of Pratt's neighboring community. Students also felt that Pratt was not fulfilling its educational responsibilities to its students, noting curriculum issues, deteriorating facilities, and poor treatment of faculty.