But at Tuesday's meeting of UNC's Campaign to End the Cycle of Violence, the 15 activists sitting in the circle have more on their minds than a possible war with Iraq. Issues such as social justice, the death penalty and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict all are intertwined
when it comes to promoting a more peaceful society.
Although some people dismiss the protesters as trying to copy the Vietnam War protests or attempting to follow a trend, social movement scholars and veteran activists themselves say that's not true. While similarities exist between the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s and today's peace movement, today's radicals fight a different fight, and they fight it differently.
For 60-year-old peace activist Andrew Silver, who dodged the draft in the 1960s by fleeing to Canada and then Israel, the mood of today's peace protests is quite different than during the 1960s. "We had a vision of changing society and making it more democratic," he said. "This (movement today) is not about changing society. This is about reacting at the moment."
Both movements show "a willingness to stand up against a war when it's not very popular to do so," he said.
Where 1960s protesters encountered a Cold War atmosphere in which dissent was labeled un-American, today's protesters must deal with hostility and charges of being unpatriotic in the wake of Sept. 11.
Fifty-year-old Marc Flayton, a UNC philosophy student who protested the Vietnam War, had a slightly different take on today's peace movement.
"The great thing about the '60s is that it was spiritual," he said. In contrast, he said, protests now seem more of an intellectual pursuit.
"Today when you see protesters, there's a tendency for people to talk about their individual thoughts," Flayton said. "There's not much of a brotherly-sisterly feeling."
The drive among today's students to be financially successful is one factor behind that individuality, Flayton said.
"(Back then), money was not an issue, ever," he said. "Today, kids have to think about their careers. People would rather give up protesting if it means their careers.
"The future of the individual is more important than the future of the country and the world."
According to surveys of incoming college freshmen over the past 35 years conducted by the University of California-Los Angeles' Higher Education Research Institute, nearly three out of four college freshmen in 2001 reported that being very well-off financially is "essential or very important." In 1968, only 40 percent of freshmen agreed.
At the same time, the yearly surveys show that interest in politics has sharply decreased: Only a third of students in 2001 reported that "keeping up to date with political affairs" is an important life goal, compared to nearly twice that number in 1966.
But that doesn't mean protesters are less sincere about social issues than their 1960s counterparts, Cohen said. Many of the young protesters back then came from wealthy families -- they just refused to dress like it.
"The '60s was a very affluent period," Cohen said, during which young people could make decisions on individuality and morality as opposed to economic concerns. "In general, it's harder to be active when you have so many economic pressures."
Protesting government policy after Sept. 11 definitely isn't the popular thing to do on college campuses yet, Cohen said, and the people who take part in protests give up a considerable amount of time and energy to do so.
"I think it's completely sincere," he said.
Reginald Zelnik, a University of California-Berkeley history professor who co-edited a book on the free speech movement of the 1960s with Cohen, noted differences in the tactics used by the two generations of protesters.
The protesters of the mid-1960s -- although not necessarily later anti-Vietnam War protesters -- possessed the "ability to find a way and touch base, connect with and inspire students who themselves were not very political," Zelnik said.
In his opinion they were less dogmatic and attempted to truly listen to those who disagreed with them.
Today's political context makes things even more complicated, Zelnik said. "There was no 9/11 in the 1960s," he said. "It's difficult to attract people with anti-war slogans in (today's) context."
N.C. Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, D-Orange, also spent time in the 1970s protesting against the war in Vietnam and has protested against U.S. involvement in Iraq both in 1991 and this year.
Kinnaird said today's protesters are less angry than the later anti-Vietnam War protesters but noted that if the situation drags on and U.S. casualties are involved, that could change quickly.
"People are feeling very frustrated and helpless, but it hasn't reached that anger (of the 1960s) yet," she said. "In the '60s, young men were dying. Unless you've got young men coming home in body bags, you're not going to have an aroused public."
Michal Osterweil, a UNC anthropology graduate student who works with the Campaign to End the Cycle of Violence, knows firsthand that the mainstream community isn't receptive to the group's messages.
"People are still scared about coming out against the war," she said.
Today's youth grow up much less political than did their 1960s counterparts, Osterweil said. "People grow up thinking politics is kind of silly."
At Tuesday's peace meeting, local activists are already actively planning future protests, outreach tactics and education sessions. Although they're enthusiastic and hopeful about the future, they still see a war in Iraq as all but inevitable.
Maybe today's protesters are a little more pessimistic about the outcome of their efforts than were the youth of his generation, who believed anything could be accomplished, Silver said. "Maybe this is a more pessimistic society."
The State & National Editor can be reached at stntdesk@unc.edu.
