By comparison with its effects in Berkeley, Berlin, Paris and elsewhere, the international wave of student protest in the mid-to-late 1960s lapped only gently around the institutions of the University of Leeds. But perhaps the factor which keeps the events of May-June 1968 in Leeds from being allowed to disappear into obscurity is the subsequent rise to fame of the Union President at that time, Mr Jack Straw.
In Britain, the student protest movement was typically animated by three issues: first, student aspirations to participate in university government; secondly, freedom of speech; and thirdly, the inappropriate use of disciplinary procedures originally intended to apply only to academic matters. All of these elements contributed to the events in Leeds. Beyond these immediate causes there was the broader context of expansion in higher education and the feeling that universities were turning into 'graduate factories' more concerned with servicing the impersonal needs of the national economy than with the educational welfare of individual students. (1) (numbered references are to exhibits)
The May-June events in Leeds began on 3 May 1968 with a student Conservative Association meeting in the Riley Smith Hall addressed by the Conservative MP, Patrick Wall. Leaflets had been circulated calling for protests against Wall's visit (2) and the meeting was frequently interrupted by hecklers. Afterwards, as Wall and his wife left the Union Building amid a crowd of supporters and opponents, the MP was spat upon, then Mrs Wall stumbled and fell over the outstretched legs of a seated protester trying to block the way into University House. Sensational coverage of the demonstration appeared in the press. (3)(4)
The University Union convened a disciplinary tribunal which delivered its verdict on 22 May. A number of students were fined for their involvement in the fracas. The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Roger Stevens, was generally satisfied with the conduct and outcome of this tribunal, but was concerned that it had not identified and punished the 'suspected spitter' and 'alleged kicker', who had done most harm to the public image of the University. He asked the University Security Adviser, Donald Smith, to continue to pursue enquiries into this aspect of the affair. (5)
There arose serious misgivings over the conduct of the Security Adviser's investigation. It was alleged that students were picked out for interrogation on the basis of previously-gathered information about political affiliations, and that they were questioned about their political beliefs and activities. These concerns were expressed by both students and staff. (6) It was the Vice-Chancellor's response to these concerns on 18-19 June - at first seeming to concede that the Security Adviser had exceeded his duties, and then retracting this view - which, according to the Union, "had the effect of exploding the situation" (LUU Executive Committee, University Security Service: background on the present situation, 24 June 1968). (7)(8)(9)
On 19 June a meeting called by the 'May 3rd Committee' adopted a number of militant-sounding demands relating to the security service and disciplinary procedures, ending with a call for "The unconditional acceptance by the Vice-Chancellor of these demands or his resignation". (10) The following day there was an attempted sit-in intended to disrupt the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee on Discipline. Jack Straw and other members of the Committee had to push their way through a crowd of pickets. The action was strongly condemned by Straw and Union News. (11) On Friday 21 June, however, the May 3rd Committee's programme was adopted in full by an Ordinary General Meeting (OGM) of the Union, along with the demand for a public enquiry into the activities of the Security Adviser and his staff.
At the next OGM on Tuesday 25 June the deadline for the Union's demands to be met passed without response from the University, and an occupation of administrative offices in the Parkinson Building began. The students' demands were reiterated at an OGM held in the occupied Parkinson Court the following day (12). This time direct action was fully supported by Jack Straw and Union News. (13) The sit-in continued until the early evening of Friday 28 June, before ending with a march back to the Union Building.
The University refused to negotiate formally with the students while the sit-in continued, and conceded none of the students' demands concerning either the Security Adviser or disciplinary procedures. A Committee on Concern with the Activities of the Security Force, appointed by the Senate on 24 June 1968 and chaired by Professor E. Grebenik, concluded that the students' calls for a public enquiry were unjustified. (14) No such enquiry was ever held. In Union News and other student assessments it was acknowledged that, in material terms, the sit-in "achieved virtually nothing". (15)(16)
The more famous Jack Straw has subsequently become, the more journalists have hunted for skeletons in the cupboard - always fruitlessly. Jack Straw was recognised in student political circles as hard-working and ambitious, and if he was occasionally compared to Chairman Mao (e.g. "Great Helmsman and Teacher Jack Straw", Union News 3 November 1967) it was certainly not because of any ideological similarities to the Chinese dictator. His role in May-June 1968 is best understood as an example of the tendency for union leaders to appear to adopt a militant stance, not in order to promote radical demands, but rather to reassert control over their members, bolster their own power, and strengthen their negotiating position. This was how Jack Straw's actions were interpreted by Sir Roger Stevens, in an acute assessment of these events. (17)(18) This document also conveys something of the University authorities' sense of shock that anything of this nature could have happened at Leeds.
The full texts of the exhibits featured in the exhibition are available here