Teacher comments
From Harvard Strike Project Wiki
[edit] Papers
[edit] Harvard University Student Strike, 1969
This paper needs a snappier title. It needs to be more clear about the way police violence radicalized the student body and was the driving force behind the strike. It needs to be more carefully edited for comma and period use and word repetition. Many of the terms are confusing. For example, SDS' goals aren't clearly defined, and people like Ken Glazier are introduced but not linked to or otherwise identified. I've taken it upon myself to add sections to it for easier navigability. The Hans Christian Andersen link is very appropriate. There is excellent use of primary source material on display in this paper. The reference to Columbia is confusing; the demonstrators at Columbia actually got most of what they were asking for, but they did also close the University for a semester, which many students saw as taking away their right to the education they were paying for. This paper does an excellent job explaining what happened during the Strike, what the Faculty did, and what happened at each major meeting. The thesis of this paper, that the Strike demonstrated the strength and civic engagement of the Harvard Community, is very clear an effective, although I personally don't think the evidence supports the sub-thesis that the strike didn't accomplish its intended goals - clearly, police action against Harvard students became much less likely, ROTC lost power, and Harvard students gained a larger voice in campus politics. Sounds like a success to me.
[edit] The Radicalization of Students at Harvard
Awesome title and section titles. There are some un-cited block quotes that need to be fixed. Generally, though, this paper lays out, with a good mix of primary sources, newspaper articles, and references to our all-important secondary source (Eichel), the progression of events that led up to the strike. The only thing I might change would be to clarify the power structure of Harvard more clearly (i.e. what is the corporation, what is the Board of Overseers, why is SFAC not seen as sufficient representation, etc.) The paper is also cleanly-written, well-sourced, and competently linked.
[edit] Unwarranted Actions to Liberate University Hall
This title lacks punch. There are a few minor wording issues which I've altered, but the thesis itself isn't quite right. I think you mean to say "the use of force to bust this occupation was unwarranted because the occupiers were conducting themselves non-violently and were unlikely to maintain their occupation for long. It was also immoral, because the administration was stubborn and dishonest." The paper is very well organized and easy to follow, and the basic points behind your writing come across as thoroughly and soundly proven. You've done a good job working with the evidence to come to conclusions that are provocative but reasonable and defensible. There are some formatting issues with the citations on the page that need standardizing. Very nice use of the Sizer interview.
[edit] President Pusey
The title isn't very exciting. Also, it should have the author's name on it. I've changed some of the wording for grammar and style. You should mention in your discussion of the large crowd around the hall at the time of the bust that the occupiers had put out scouts to pull the fire alarms in the Freshman dorms so that there would be an audience. Generally, you have very few citations in this paper. I can think of lots of places where you might have gotten the information you're giving, but you need to provide some references to make that clear. It's not clear who you mean when you say Pusey was more active with the press than his predecessors and "they" had less exposure to it. You should also mention "The Old Mole" when you talk about the release of private information. Everett Mendhelson also made some comments about Pusey it might be worth quoting. By the end, your paper does a nice job of describing what happened to Pusey, why he made the decisions he did, and what the results were. What you haven't done is explain how you know what you're asserting to be true, which is an important change to make if you're going to complete this work.
[edit] Results and Effects
Clear title and good section titles. I've edited some wording issues. You need to introduce and analyze quotes in order to fully tie your evidence to your thesis - instead, quotes are frequently use to tell the story you're creating instead of as evidence that what you're saying is true. There are some good quotes from primary sources here, but for the most part you're quoting Eichel, which is a secondary source you'd do just as well paraphrasing. You're also citing the chapter title instead of the Author's last name, which isn't the right format. Nevertheless, you've clearly explained your thesis and explained how and why you think the Strike was ultimately successful. Good work.
[edit] Humor as a Political Tool
Excellent title, sub-headings, and links. Generally, your paper is very solid, with lots of specific examples. There aren't any citations on display, but generally this paper makes direct reference to specific sources and analyzes them, so it's not difficult to understand where your information is coming from. More quotation from your sources might be helpful, especially in the case of the Tuna Fish society. The pictures are also an effective way of communicating your specific entry points into this information.
[edit] No Rest. No Mercy. No Matter What.
Excellent title and subtitle. There are a few formatting and wording issues that I've corrected. Your citations are generally done incorrectly; you need to be citing Eichel and a page # when you cite the Harvard Strike. You're also citing one source too frequently right now; you have numerous primary sources that should/could be informing your work beyond two chapters in one secondary source. Finally, the thesis on display here doesn't entirely work yet - you are arguing that SDS was effective, but you don't mention what they wanted, what they did to get it, or what they ultimately accomplished. Also, a lot of the examples you use are out of chronological order, which might sometimes be okay but often makes it hard to understand how SDS operations changed over time. Finally, your sections, which you originally called "arguments", need to tie much more clearly back to your thesis.
[edit] The Creation of an African-American Studies Program at Harvard
This paper has a clear thesis which is well supported by reference to two major secondary sources and some interview material. The evidence is pretty much there, and although the formatting here isn't completely finished, it's clear that you've begun to grapple with the complexities of student/faculty and student/student politics at Harvard. In writing this paper, you're coming to grips with some pretty challenging stuff; specifically, the way in which different groups who have their own internal cohesion problems attempt to cope with one another when working for change. I don't think I agree with the idea that Afro was more successful because of more "specific" goals - I think they just had more sympathy for the specific goals they had, and that they were better at presenting a united front in order to achieve them than SDS which, ultimately, just wanted to tear down the whole system. Still, it's an excellent beginning, which you rounded out nicely in your Gateway project.
[edit] The Bust
This paper is excellently argued and well-organized. The citations are improperly formatted (author's last name, page #) and should be fixed, and the tone sometimes veers into the informal ("my second argument is..."). There are also places where evidence that ought to have been used (for example, Pusey's classic statement "Can anyone imagine that the demands are meant seriously?" would be a good example of the unreasonableness of the administration) was not, and that's particularly important when you're writing a paper that ultimately suggests that a great number of highly respectable, thoughtful people performed their jobs incompetently. This is not to say you're wrong, just that since your paper is ultimately a prosecution, you ought to make the strongest case you possibly can. Nevertheless, there are well-supported facts behind each of the assertions you make here, placed in a logical order, and a clear conclusion and introduction. Nice job.
[edit] Expansion
This paper veers off in an interesting direction. Asked to write about the issue of expansion, your paper does not mention where the expansion was taking place, what the students exact demands were, or what ultimately happened. And it doesn't matter, because what you've done is taken on the challenge of summing up student motivations for caring about the issue in the first place, and it's an excellent (if slightly long) read. You do an exceptional job sourcing your information (although you're citing things wrong - authors last name, page # please), and using a variety of sources to draw information from. You've also backed up the sorts of points you made well and made good style choices throughout. Very thoughtful, interesting work.
