Vietnam Era
There was a significant shift in student attitudes in the second half of the 1960s. The students of the Silent Generation, for whom career preparation was their main focus at the school, were giving way to the Baby Boomers for whom activism was an integral part of life. Students openly questioned college management around issues like the construction of a new campus, the use of tuition dollars, and student voice in administrative decision making. Additionally, the conflict in Vietnam gave rise to student protests both in support of and against the war.
In one noteworthy example, students were campaigning for school offices on Hanover Street, and one of the students was ticketed for jaywalking while other pedestrians were not. Students started walking back and forth across the street in protest, and the police called in reinforcements. A police van and motorcycle police arrived, with one of the officers driving his motorcycle up on to the sidewalk. A confrontation ensued, and a student was pinned to the doorway by the officer. Mrs. Shapiro went to the chief of police and negotiated with him, saying that she would get the students back into class and prevent further disruption. She felt the students would trust her and would abide by her wishes.
“I said ‘Look, these boys are just out here trying to campaign for their different activities, or their different offices and if you will get… ask your men to go home and leave them alone I will see that they get back into their classroom without any problem at all, but if you don’t, you’ll have a riot on your hands and it really will be quite unpleasant.” And they felt that it would be impossible for me to control them, and that they would not mind me and go back to… but they were willing to give it a try and I went up and down Hanover Street, both sides, and said to them the [inaudible] have gone home now, the cops have gone home and if you… that if they did that you would go back peacefully, now would you please do so and they did and it was really something that we avoided which could have blown into a full sized riot.”
Within this increasingly complex campus environment, war protest activity peaked in May of 1970 following revelations that the United States had been conducting a covert bombing campaign in Cambodia and the killing of four student protestors by National Guardsmen at Kent State University. Some New Hampshire College students were threatening to strike in protest.
May 7th was the watershed day on campus. President Gertrude Shapiro called a meeting of faculty and administrators to address the growing student unrest. At the same time, students and some faculty met at the King Cinema for a Convocation to discuss the events and appropriate student response. In the afternoon, activities moved to Merrimack Hall where an Ecumenical memorial service was held, consisting of open discussion groups. From these groups, five students were selected as representatives at an evening joint faculty-administration meeting. Mrs. Shapiro recalled:
“We went to Merrimack Hall to have a meeting with the students. I do remember standing on a table in order to talk to them. In a way, it could be called a ‘bull session'. And, in many ways it certainly was a dialogue. The students talked and the faculty and administration talked. We ultimately agreed to compromise. Everyone was pleased with the decision. And, I think a riot was averted.”
"I know that one of the fellows at the Alumni banquet came to me and said, 'Mrs. Shapiro, you don't remember me, probably, but I was part of that group [the activists] and you certainly handled that situation extremely well and averted a student strike, because you listened and allowed us to be part of the decision-making.'”
The agreement was to allow students to leave school for protest activities and have their semester grade calculated based on the work they had already completed or to stay in classes, complete their exams, and potentially boost their grades. Approximately half of the enrolled students left school early to protest.
Mrs. Shapiro navigated these highly charged incidents with remarkable success. Her ability to look for compromise and to give respect to and gain respect from the students under her leadership served her well. She described the students of this era and her approach to them as follows:
“Today’s young people are interested in what their country can do for them and what they can do for their country. And not all the criticism they offer is bad. Some of their ideas are very good and we should listen to them more.”