That a tiny number, a few hundred out of a student body of more than 27,000, was able to disrupt the campus is the consequence of more than vigor and skill in agitation. This minuscule group could not have succeeded in getting so many students into motion without three other, at times unwitting, sources of support: off-campus assistance of various kinds, the University administration, and the faculty. Everyone who has seen the efficient, almost military, organization of the agitators’ program has a reasonable basis for believing that skilled personnel and money are being dispatched into the Berkeley battle. During demonstrations, the commanders of operations on campus-“in the field,” one might say-kept in touch with FSM headquarters with walkie-talkies. A public information center of the FSM distributed an endless stream of propaganda. When the police arrived in the illegally occupied administration building, the first person arrested was a lawyer well known for left-wing activities. Around the Berkeley community a dozen “ad hoc committees to support” this or that element of the student revolt sprang up spontaneously, as though out of nowhere. The course followed by the University administration-the President, the Chancellor acting under the President’s direction, and all of their various aides-could hardly have better fostered a rebellious student body if it had been devised to do so. To establish dubious regulations and when they are attacked to defend them by unreasonable argument is bad enough; worse still, the University did not impose on the students any sanctions that did not finally evaporate. As Bronislaw Malinowski once remarked, the notion that the “submission of every member of the tribe to its laws” is “instinctive” may be widespread, but it is false; there is no such thing as “automatic acquiescence.” Obedience to norms is developed when it is suitably rewarded, and when noncompliance is suitably punished. That professional educators should need to be reminded of this axiom indicates how deep the roots of the Berkeley crisis lie. But the most important reason that the extremists won so many supporters among the students was the attitude of the faculty. Perhaps their most notorious capitulation to the FSM was a resolution passed by the Academic Senate on December 8, by which the faculty notified the campus not only that they supported all of the radicals’ demands but also that, in effect, they were willing to fight for them against the Board of Regents, should that become necessary. When the resolution passed by an overwhelming majority—824 to 115 votes—it effectively silenced the anti-FSM student organizations.
That a tiny number, a few hundred out of a student body of more than 27,000, was able to disrupt the campus is the consequence of more than vigor and skill in agitation. This minuscule group could not have succeeded in getting so many students into motion without three other, at times unwitting, sources of support: off-campus assistance of various kinds, the University administration, and the faculty. Everyone who has seen the efficient, almost military organization of the agitators’ program has a reasonable basis for believing that skilled personnel and money are being dispatched into the Berkeley battle. . . . Around the Berkeley community a dozen “ad hoc committees to support” this or that element of the student revolt sprang up spontaneously, as though out of nowhere. The course followed by the University administration . . . could hardly have better fostered a rebellious student body if it had been devised to do so. To establish dubious regulations and when they are attacked to defend them by unreasonable argument is bad enough; worse still, the University did not impose on the students any sanctions that did not finally evaporate. . . . Obedience to norms is developed when it is suitably rewarded, and when noncompliance is suitably punished. That professional educators should need to be reminded of this axiom indicates how deep the roots of the Berkeley crisis lie. But the most important reason that the extremists won so many supporters among the students was the attitude of the faculty. Perhaps their most notorious capitulation to the F.S.M. was a resolution passed by the Academic Senate on December 8, by which the faculty notified the campus not only that they supported all of the radicals’ demands but also that, in effect, they were willing to fight for them against the Board of Regents, should that become necessary. When that resolution passed by an overwhelming majority—824 to 115 votes—it effectively silenced the anti-F.S.M. student organizations.
.
and Histogram algorithm, underlined in wavy red.
That‧a‧ tiny‧ number,‧ a‧ few‧ hundred‧ out‧ of‧ a‧ student‧ body‧ of‧ more‧ than‧ 27,000,‧ was‧ able‧ to‧ disrupt‧ the‧ campus‧ is‧ the‧ consequence‧ of‧ more‧ than‧ vigor‧ and‧ skill‧ in‧ agitation.‧ This‧ minuscule‧ group‧ could‧ not‧ have‧ succeeded‧ in‧ getting‧ so‧ many‧ students‧ into‧ motion‧ without‧ three‧ other,‧ at‧ times‧ unwitting,‧ sources‧ of‧ support:‧ off-campus‧ assistance‧ of‧ various‧ kinds,‧ the‧ University‧ administration,‧ and‧ the‧ faculty.↵ Everyone‧ who‧ has‧ seen‧ the‧ efficient,‧ almost‧ military ,‧organization‧ of‧ the‧ agitators’‧ program‧ has‧ a‧ reasonable‧ basis‧ for‧ believing‧ that‧ skilled‧ personnel‧ and‧ money‧ are‧ being‧ dispatched‧ into‧ the‧ Berkeley‧ battle. ‧‧During‧ demonstrations,‧ the‧ commanders‧ of‧ operations‧ on‧ campus-“in‧ the‧ field,”‧ one‧ might‧ say-kept‧ in‧ touch‧ with‧ FSM‧ headquarters‧ with‧ walkie-talkies.‧ A‧ public‧ information‧ center‧ of‧ the‧ FSM‧ distributed‧ an‧ endless‧ stream‧ of‧ propaganda.‧ When‧ the‧ police‧ arrived‧ in‧ the‧ illegally‧ occupied‧ administration‧ building,‧ the‧ first‧ person‧ arrested‧ was‧ a‧ lawyer‧ well‧ known‧ for‧ left-wing‧ activities.‧ .‧ .‧ .‧ Around‧ the‧ Berkeley‧ community‧ a‧ dozen‧ “*ad‧ hoc*‧ committees‧ to‧ support”‧ this‧ or‧ that‧ element‧ of‧ the‧ student‧ revolt‧ sprang‧ up‧ spontaneously,‧ as‧ though‧ out‧ of‧ nowhere.↵ The‧ course‧ followed‧ by‧ the‧ University‧ administration -the‧‧President,‧ the‧ Chancellor‧ acting‧ under‧ the‧ President’s‧ direction,‧ and‧ all‧ of‧ their‧ various‧ aides- .‧ .‧ .‧ could‧ hardly‧ have‧ better‧ fostered‧ a‧ rebellious‧ student‧ body‧ if‧ it‧ had‧ been‧ devised‧ to‧ do‧ so.‧ To‧ establish‧ dubious‧ regulations‧ and‧ when‧ they‧ are‧ attacked‧ to‧ defend‧ them‧ by‧ unreasonable‧ argument‧ is‧ bad‧ enough;‧ worse‧ still,‧ the‧ University‧ did‧ not‧ impose‧ on‧ the‧ students‧ any‧ sanctions‧ that‧ did‧ not‧ finally‧ evaporate. ‧‧As‧ Bronislaw‧ Malinowski‧ once‧ remarked,‧ the‧ notion‧ that‧ the‧ “submission‧ of‧ every‧ member‧ of‧ the‧ tribe‧ to‧ its‧ laws”‧ is‧ “instinctive”‧ may‧ be‧ widespread,‧ but‧ it‧ is‧ false;‧ there‧ is‧ no‧ such‧ thing‧ as‧ “automatic‧ acquiescence.”‧ .‧ .‧ .‧ Obedience‧ to‧ norms‧ is‧ developed‧ when‧ it‧ is‧ suitably‧ rewarded,‧ and‧ when‧ noncompliance‧ is‧ suitably‧ punished.‧ That‧ professional‧ educators‧ should‧ need‧ to‧ be‧ reminded‧ of‧ this‧ axiom‧ indicates‧ how‧ deep‧ the‧ roots‧ of‧ the‧ Berkeley‧ crisis‧ lie.↵ But‧ the‧ most‧ important‧ reason‧ that‧ the‧ extremists‧ won‧ so‧ many‧ supporters‧ among‧ the‧ students‧ was‧ the‧ attitude‧ of‧ the‧ faculty.‧ Perhaps‧ their‧ most‧ notorious‧ capitulation‧ to‧ the‧ F.S.M.‧ was‧ a‧ resolution‧ passed‧ by‧ the‧ Academic‧ Senate‧ on‧ December‧ 8,‧ by‧ which‧ the‧ faculty‧ notified‧ the‧ campus‧ not‧ only‧ that‧ they‧ supported‧ all‧ of‧ the‧ radicals’‧ demands‧ but‧ also‧ that,‧ in‧ effect,‧ they‧ were‧ willing‧ to‧ fight‧ for‧ them‧ against‧ the‧ Board‧ of‧ Regents,‧ should‧ that‧ become‧ necessary.‧ When‧ th eat‧resolution‧ passed‧ by‧ an‧ overwhelming‧ majority—824‧ to‧ 115‧ votes—it‧ effectively‧ silenced‧ the‧ anti-F.S.M.‧ student‧ organizations.
# | Part | Valid? | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
That‧ |
||
2 |
|
× no | Deletions must be indicated, eg by ‘ . . . ’ or [replacement]. |
3 |
‧ |
||
4 |
|
✓ yes | Deletion is followed by a valid insertion. |
5 |
‧ |
✓ yes | Insertion is an ellipsis. |
6 |
Around‧ |
||
7 |
|
✓ yes | Deletion is followed by a valid insertion. |
8 |
‧ |
✓ yes | Insertion is an ellipsis. |
9 |
could‧ |
||
10 |
|
✓ yes | Deletion is followed by a valid insertion. |
11 |
‧ |
✓ yes | Insertion is an ellipsis. |
12 |
Obedience‧ |
||
13 |
. |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
14 |
S |
||
15 |
. |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
16 |
M |
||
17 |
. |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
18 |
‧ |
||
19 |
|
× no | Deletions must be indicated, eg by ‘ . . . ’ or [replacement]. |
20 |
at |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
21 |
‧ |
||
22 |
. |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
23 |
S |
||
24 |
. |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
25 |
M |
||
26 |
. |
× no | Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets]. |
27 |
‧ |
Click this button to copy the embed code, then paste it where you want the diff to appear: