Near the end of the rally Don Karshner, Dean of Students, came up to Corbett, "Kathryn" he said, "they [the students] want to march, but you've got to give me ten minutes. I can get them a permit, but you've got to hold them for ten minutes." Karshner had spent time at the Smith River Retreat with Arcata's police chief, and due to the communication gained through that meeting ten minutes later an Arcata police officer came running across the street with the permit in hand.(35) Instead of the students conducting an illegal, permitless march that would pit them against the local authorities, connections made at the Smith River Retreat alleviated this possibility and resulted in a legal march.

Just before the students departed Corbett addressed the crowd, "I knew we could do this at Humboldt and its been glorious. You came, you listened, you put your hands up. I thank you."(36) Bill Richardson then led approximately three fifths of the students assembled at the rally on a march down to the Arcata plaza, becoming the largest march in Arcata history; and yet one that was totally unmarred by violence of any kind.(37)

President Siemens' response to the rally and march was one of admiration and respect. At an informative rally held at Arcata High on Friday, May 8, Siemens called the Sequoia Quad rally a "Humboldt Milestone" and stated that the meetings were "nothing short of admirable." He soon thereafter sent a letter to President Nixon, urging him to listen to student protest and to "consult with the mainstream of our responsible college youth and to attempt an understanding of their widespread, deep seated desire for peace." Siemens promised to take this message with him as part of the delegation sent by H.S.C. to Washington, D.C. and further promised to attempt to get those in Washington D.C. to realize what was happening with youth on college campuses.(38)

The other members of the H.S.C. delegation to Washington D.C. were elected at an organizational meeting after the Sequoia Quad rally, and included History professor Tom Jones, Student Body President Bill Richardson, and student representative Roger Smith. When Tom Jones gave his acceptance remarks to those who had elected him he appeared with a fresh short haircut. While Jones later attested that he cut his hair due to spring's arrival, the Lumberjack reported his haircut as a political act designed to facilitate communication with politicians in Washington D.C.. A trend soon arose among certain students, who also began to cut their hair short to emulate Jones' technique in order to facilitate communication with members of the community surrounding H.S.C., who would might be offended by their long hair.(39)

Jones, Smith, and Richardson traveled to Washington D.C. separately from President Siemens; in fact, the three delegates never even saw the College President during their trip to Washington D.C. Siemens had chosen to go his own way. Jones' airfare was paid for by the College, and student funds were used to cover the cost of Richardson's and Smith's journey. Once in Washington D.C. the three men met with members of the State Department, and with members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.(40)

The technique designed by Jones, Smith, and Richardson was to have Jones meet with the officials first. He then would approach whoever he was meeting with saying, "Well look at me, I'm faculty and look what is happening on my campus. Quite apart from how you feel about the war the universities are being torn apart by this." He used the presence of the students outside the office to emphasize the need to get something done to "control this tiger." Jones would then be followed by Richardson and
Smith, who in a calm and diplomatic way tried to express to officials their anger with the situation in Vietnam. Jones felt that the response from the officials was predictable: those one knew to be opposed to the war listened, and those who were known to be in favor of it only wanted to talk about non-vital issues such as how the Humboldt State Baseball team was doing.(41)

Humboldt State's delegation was only one of many that were visiting Washington D.C. at the time. Students from all over the nation descended on Washington D.C. to meet with their officials. Humboldt County's representative in the House of Representatives, Republican Don Clausen, stated that through his meetings with Humboldt students and others, "I have gained new insight as to just how disturbed and concerned they really are." He also added, however, that "It was quite obvious I did not say the things many of them wanted to hear. To do so would be grossly unfair to them and to the situation as I know it."(42) Bill Richardson upon return stated that he felt that Senator Alan Cranston was the most receptive to student grievances and that "there is little doubt that those we talked to know that Humboldt is now on the map."(43)

Back in Humboldt County, students were active all through the weekend between the Wednesday, May 6, rally and the beginning of the actual picketing of the campus Monday, May 11. Many were involved in canvassing the local community in a door to door attempt to talk with local residents about the war and about why Humboldt State students had decided to strike. The canvassing students prepared for their activities in teach-ins held Thursday and Friday, May 7 and 8. The students, in an attempt to present their views through personal contact, canvassed neighboring communities including Blue Lake, Ferndale, Bayside, Eureka, Arcata, and McKinleyville. They distributed flyers, attempted to get signatures for petitions, and handed out postcards addressed to President Nixon urging an end of U.S. involvement in South East Asia. Most canvassers reported positive responses from people; most particularly receiving words of support for the non-violent methods of protest chosen by the students. Between Thursday, May 7 and Monday, May 11, when actual pickets began, over eight thousand local homes had been reached, with more canvassing planned during the week long strike.(44)

As the new school week began Monday, May 11, 1970, student picketers were found at all entrances to H.S.C. urging other students to boycott classes in favor of participation in canvassing or attendance at a teach in.(45) Participating faculty posted assignments outside their classroom doors or on the Strike Center Headquarters bulletin board at Northtown Books in Arcata, in order for students to keep up with work .(46) The strike among faculty was fairly widespread, many who opposed it stayed home anyway, but there were rare cases in the Biology and Wildlife departments in which professors still called the role and penalized striking students. A few professors met with students outside the school and inside their own homes in an informal setting; yet one that would still produce educational substance.(47)

Actual attendance in classes on campus varied from department to department. One Forestry class reportedly had one hundred percent attendance, while a certain English class had only six students out of thirty that were enrolled attending class. Milton Dobkin, Vice President for Academic Affairs, reported that only twelve faculty had not met with classes on Monday, even though sixty had voted to support the strike. Many faculty, however, met classes on Monday, only to announce that they would be on strike for the rest of the week. Estimates for lack of student attendance hovered at around fifty percent. No violent incidents of any type took place on campus, other than certain drivers passing alarmingly close to picketers; these picketers however, were on a street with no sidewalk and took up different positions the next day. The pickets continued throughout the week of May 11 through May 15.(48)

The reaction of the community to student protest at Humboldt State was mixed. Many felt that the students had no right to protest and were hurting the nation in doing so. Robert W. Matthews, Jr. of Brizard-Matthews Machinery Co. stated: "The students are hurting themselves by not attending classes... Personally I feel the move into Cambodia was a good military move." Wallace Appleton, President of Brizards, offered a similar view, "Discontent carried to the feverish pitch it has reached in the last week is playing right into the hands of Hanoi, both at the negotiating table and on the war front.”(49)

The overwhelming majority of response from the community to Humboldt State's protest however, was praise for its nonviolent methods. Ervyl E. Pigg, Arcata's mayor, stated, "I think that H.S.C. students have shown tremendous behavior with their protest. Peaceful protest is, after all, guaranteed by the constitution. The students should be commended for conducting a lawful and orderly protest." Even those who disagreed with the student's views, commended the lack of violence. For example, Wallace Appleton stated, "H.S.C. students should be commended for the peaceful way in which they handled the peace demonstrations," and Robert Matthews agreed, "I don't think they are helping themselves with the public but they should be commended for not having any violence."(50)

The week long student strike at H.S.C. was similar to many student protests that took place across the United States following the Kent State killings and the Cambodian incursion. However, the dominant feature of H.S.C.'s student strike and all H.S.C. Vietnam protest activity was a lack of violence; this absence of violence made H.S.C.'s strike and protest activities unique in comparison to the outbreaks of violence on countless campuses across California and the Nation. Several factors seemed to have contributed to this lack of violence; including maturity and rationality of student efforts, partial faculty interaction and involvement, and a response by the administration of the college which was geared to avoid conflict.

An example of the student maturity, levelheadedness, and desire for peaceful solutions that characterized H.S.C. protest is evident in the situation surrounding the digging of a symbolic grave on the H.S.C. campus. Anti-war students wished to dig a grave on the grass between the administration building and the library to symbolize the death of the students at Kent State and various other aspects of Vietnam, including the Cambodian incursion. Opposing this however, was the United States Armed Forces Veteran community on the H.S.C. Campus, made up mostly of Korean War veterans. A small group of these veteran students confronted the students intending to dig and voiced their opposition, creating a highly tense situation. However, instead of a violent outcome, an agreement was made in which the veteran students allowed the digging, as long as it did not permanently affect the lawn. Also, the digging students had to promise to return the lawn back to normal after a certain period of time. The sod was dug out in a way that it could be put back and after a week of the grave's existence, the students who had dug it filled it back in and returned the lawn to the way it was.(51)

This story is an indication of the calm level in which events at Humboldt State transpired. The incident could have resulted in violence; both sides felt passionately about what they wanted and why. And yet, violence did not take place. This anecdote illustrates the open mindedness of the H.S.C. environment and the level of acceptance of dissenting opinion on the campus; an acceptance which is critical in avoiding violence.

Only in such an atmosphere of acceptance of different opinion could encounters such as the meeting of the two opposing groups over the grave issue end peacefully. Kathryn Corbett remembered varying student positions as being common on H.S.C. at this time. "We would have days with groups with spiked boots chanting and carrying signs for Mom and apple pie in defense of the war and the Jesus folks would be in another circle in another part and they would sing songs about peace on Earth." What she also remembered however, was the level of mutual acceptance under which such actions would take place, "what it was was freedom of speech ."(52)

Acceptance of diverse opinion seems to have been a dominant trend on the H.S.C. campus environment throughout these volatile times. The administration practiced acceptance in its allowance of student political activity on campus, and the students reciprocated this acceptance both in their relationships with the administration and in student to student relations. Due to this climate of reciprocal tolerance and respect for varying opinion, violence never arose on H.S.C., marking it from other campuses.

Why were students at Humboldt prone toward seeking non-violent ways to express their discontent while on other campuses violence became so common? One possible reason may have been that H.S.C. students had sympathetic faculty to look to for advice; faculty who, for the most part, emphasized peaceful, nonviolent action as the correct means of protest. The respect students had for participating faculty is evident in examples such as in the incident of Professor Jones cutting his hair. Students had a high respect for Jones and saw in his haircut, supposedly done in order communicate more effectively with Washington D.C. politicians, an example of how to more successfully communicate with people holding opposing viewpoints and followed his lead by cutting their own hair. Members of the community surrounding H.S.C. may have been offended by the long hair of canvassers, as comments from community members such as the downtown Arcata businessman at the Moratorium Day suggest. Faculty such as Jones seemed to have helped, although sometimes unintentionally, in reducing the possibility for conflict between students and the surrounding community.

Other professors such as Fred Cranston, who led the all night vigil after the Wednesday, May 6, meeting, also provided dissenting students an example they could relate to; faculty that emphasized nonviolent solutions. Cranston had been involved with production of nuclear weapons for the federal government and had abandoned the field and spoke out against it. In Professor Cranston students could see someone who was involved in the nation's military industrial complex and who had abandoned it. Seeing a person of authority, such as Cranston, who supported speaking out against things one did not believe in, helped to legitimize students' own feelings of protest against national activities."(53)

Faculty reasons for a lack of the support of the war were different than those of students but for the most part were easily explained. The national draft board depended on grades given to students by faculty to determine what students were eligible for the draft and those who would remain exempt. Quite often, certain faculty would feel pressure on them, knowing that if they gave a bad grade to a student, even if the student deserved it, that student might have to go to war. Kathryn Corbett remembered:

"There was no way to fight the draft board, that's why the faculty was so upset about it. We were being used. Its hard enough giving a bad grade to a young man even if he earned it, much less giving him a gun...Maybe he earned it, but if you gave him that grade? And some of those men had gone, and some of them had died, and something happens to you when that occurs."(54)

Faculty who felt this pressure put upon them could empathize with students protesting the war, and many at H.S.C. developed close relations with dissenting students.

There was a group of faculty who regularly interacted with students in activities such as Friday night beer hall gatherings,in which student and faculty would talk extensively about the war.(55) It was faculty-student communication such as this, that allowed students to not feel as if they were up against a monolithic establishment. Instead, there were faculty who supported their views, and who helped to guide student protest into non-violent channels.

One of the other major reasons H.S.C. had an environment in which dissent was tolerated and varying opinions accepted was dueto its administration. President Siemens contributed to the lack of violence at H.S.C. by indicating that he shared some concern over the nation's policies in Vietnam .(56) He also was completely open to student opinion, opening his office up at all times to students who wanted to speak with him.(57)

Perhaps one of the major reasons Siemens was so accepting of dissenting views, could have been due to his having a family history which contributed to an open mind in relation to dissenting positions. Milton Dobkin, Vice President of Academic Affairs at H.S.C. during 1969 and 1970, and a close acquaintance of President Siemens stated, "His brother, I believe, was a conscious objector in World War Two and suffered for it. And I think that his compassion for what happened to his brother caused him to be far more tolerant of unusual or diverse ideas than a lot of people who had a more ordinary living experience. So that the notion of protest to war was probably not a strange idea to him."(58)

Not only was protest to war not strange to Siemens, neither was strong opinion. Dobkin continues, "...he was receptive psychologically to people expressing strong opinions. One of his characteristics which few people understood was...he didn't respect you if he couldn't argue with you. If you wouldn't stand up for what you believed and go toe to toe with him on the merits of an idea, or your position on a subject, he would think that you weren't worth much."(59) Due to Siemens' personal history protest was not something foreign; in fact, if one could argue a dissenting view effectively, Siemens would respect this view. An attitude such as this led the H.S.C. administration, under Siemens' control, to tolerate, and to an extent support, expressions of dissenting views and to above all advocate freedom of speech. What was present at H.S.C. was not an adversarial administration that backed protesting faculty and students into corners, but one that respected protest as a expression of free speech and allowed certain things to take place that an administration of an adversarial nature would not have. In doing so the administration helped to avoid the violence that took place on other campuses.

The importance of an administration that supported free speech on campus bypasses merely lessening tension between administration and students. As events on campuses such as U.C. Berkeley suggest, when protest occurs on a campus that possesses a student to administration relationship of an adversarial nature, conflict is more readily experienced, not only on a administration to student level, but on a student to student level also.

For example, during U.C. Berkeley's Third World Liberation Front Strike in 1969, when militant Black, Chicano, Asian, and Native American students attempted to close down the campus, if non striking students attempted to cross the picket lines they would be met frequently with threats and even physical blows.(60) Experiencing non-tolerance in their relations with the U.C. Administration, students at U.C. Berkeley returned this non-tolerance in their responses to U.C. authority. Furthermore, this non-tolerance carried over into relations between students themselves. In this atmosphere of non-tolerance of divergent views, students were not only combative in dealing with an administration that did not agree with them, but acted much the same way toward other students who did not agree with their views either.

In contrast to U.C. Berkeley, at H.S.C., the administration tolerated diverse opinions and political protest from students. In an opposite effect than what happened at Berkeley, the tolerance demonstrated by the H.S.C. administration filtered down to the student level. Students witnessed the administration's tolerance of their own views, and consequently were more tolerant themselves toward dissenting views from other students. Instead of a climate which produced violence, H.S.C.'s administration worked to produce a climate that gave people a reasonable opportunity to express their views. This attempt permeated the campus and made violent conflict at H.S.C. much less likely.

One last factor that contributed to a lack of violence at H.S.C. was the level of communication on campus created by connections made at the Smith River Retreat. This retreat helped to establish links between campus officials and community police; resulting for example, in Don Karshner being able to so quickly obtain a permit allowing the students to march after the May 6, rally. Also due to Smith River, communication was established between administration and students, such as between President Siemens and Bill Richardson; a connection frequently used in the turbulent spring of 1970.

The lasting impacts of the anti-Vietnam War protests at H.S.C. are debatable. The majority of protest to the war at H.S.C. died down in 1971 with the abolition of the national draft. Arcata, being a relatively small community with limited resources to offer graduates, is a town where most graduates leave on completion of their courses. However, many students who were involved in the strike felt like they had contributed something to Arcata and stayed after graduation. The connections such students had made with one another during the strike bound many together, and many remained in town, working to continue to have a positive impact on Arcata in ways such as in development of alternative industry as the dominant timber industry continued to decline."(61) Many of these former students have contributed to the sense of community in Arcata; a feeling of community which continues to draw residents and students from all over the state.

Perhaps the most lasting impact that the H.S.C. protests of 1969-1970 had were in the development of Humboldt State College itself. Upon the Humboldt campus today there exists more than a tolerance of diversity of view, but a promotion of it. The campus environment is one which embraces diversity among students and faculty alike, and possesses an accepting atmosphere quite unlike any other campus in California. Herein exists the legacy of the non-violent protest of the Vietnam War on the Humboldt State Campus. The precedent established by close faculty-student relations, peaceful protestations of discontent, and administrational tolerance of this discontent, all contributed in making the atmosphere of Humboldt State what it is today. H.S.C.'s unique brand of non-violent protest contributed to the evolution of the school, an evolution that so far, has resulted in a school that itself is unique in many aspects.