— Authored by a Hunter student

On July 22nd, several MDSO members went to see a screening of the documentary “The Five Demands,” followed by a panel discussion/Q+A. The film documents the 1969 City College occupation, and the events that followed, culminating in a tuition-free CUNY with open admissions. 

Background and Campus Shutdown

Overall the film was a pleasure to watch. The historic City College occupation in 1969 is a beacon of radical history in the student movement that deserves a lot more study and analysis. The music used, beautiful archival footage, and especially the myriad of interviews with people who were on the ground during that time painted a vivid picture of the tension and stakes of the occupation. 

Desegregation of public schools is usually looked at in light of K-12 schooling. The Little Rock Nine in 1957, or the Boston bussing riots usually take precedent in our textbooks when learning about this history. What is often not looked at with enough depth and deference is the impact of desegregation in higher education, specifically in New York City. The City University (CUNY) schools, up to and through this time period, were renowned institutions that historically served the (white) working class and (white) immigrant communities of New York City. With no tuition, any (white) high school graduate could continue their education in college and pursue whatever they wanted. This was not the same for NYC’s Black and Puerto Rican populations. While in theory the price tag was the same for all students, the discrepancies in education and opportunities meant that most Black and Puerto Rican students did not meet admission requirements. The film starts with interviews of City College alumni who participated in the SEEK program (Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge), which tried to bridge the gap between the inadequate education Black and Puerto Rican students received in their K-12 schooling and the level of intensity a city university expected out of it’s students. Many recalled being treated poorly by professors, even publicly humiliated in class, all while putting in extra work in night classes to attend an almost all white college smack in the middle of Harlem. It’s this situation that brought forth the need for radical change, led by students. The historic occupation of the City College campus was guided by five core demands, formulated by SEEK students: 

1. A school of Black and Puerto Rican studies.
2. A freshman orientation for Black and Puerto Rican students.
3. That SEEK students have a determining voice in the setting of guidelines for the SEEK program, including the hiring and firing of SEEK personnel.
4. That the racial composition of the entering freshman class be racially reflective of the high school population.
5. That all education majors be required to take Black and Puerto Rican history and the Spanish language.

Their five demands reflected that students needed more accommodations than just open admissions. For this same reason, the first demand in the MDSO program (for free and public higher education) contains the crucial sub-demand: “Real remedial education and other measures to remove any cultural and social barriers to the education of the people.” Our program recognizes the failure of public schools to prepare many children for college-level work: 

“The vast masses of working people are educated only up to the minimum level required for unskilled or semi-skilled labor. This unequal education begins in the K-12 school system, which fails to universally impart even the basic instruments of reading, writing, math, etc”

Ultimately, any barriers, whether financial or academic metrics for admissions, serve to exclude the poorest and most marginalized sections of the working class. Interestingly, Open Admissions wasn’t one of the original five demands. Rather, it was for the student body population at City College to accurately reflect the demographics of the surrounding neighborhood in Harlem. 

One takeaway from this film was how unintended and objective factors shape the course of a struggle. This can be seen in the culmination of open admissions as backlash to more of a racial quota, or in the fact that the president of the college, Buell Gallagher, happened to be sympathetic enough to not call in police at the advent of the occupation. Unforeseen negative consequences were also out of students control, like Governor Rockefeller’s budget cuts to CUNY being planned even before Open Admissions were implemented, dooming the experiment to financial crisis from the get go. However, the main theme of the occupation and this film, despite its flaws and holes, is the agency and leadership of students in not only student issues, but wider struggles at large. 

The Panelists and Lessons Learned

The film, sadly, left us with many questions. The film did not really go into how the Open Admissions policy ended in the 1990s. The film ends with the triumphant speech of an immigrant student at a CCNY commencement ceremony. This happy ending glosses over the fact that Open Admissions *did* end, and is still needed today. Most egregious of all was the total absence of any discussion of tuition costs. If someone was unfamiliar with any of the history of CUNY outside of this film, they would walk away unaware that students paid $0 tuition up until 1976.

After the film ended, there was a panel discussion between the director and some of the interviewees from the film. An MDSO member asked in the Q+A what advice they could give to a new generation of student activists seeking to take militant action similar to the 1969 City College occupation. The answers we received were disappointing to say the least. One panelist said the best thing we could do is vote out the people who make decisions who are in power (this same panelist earlier in the discussion quoted General David Patraeus favorably, BTW!). Another panelist recommended getting involved with CUNY Rising, a group that spends its time lobbying in Albany for a New Deal for CUNY. Perhaps the best advice we received, although simple, was to build and organize through coalition work. The City College occupation was able to sustain itself for so long thanks to all the various groups involved, from the community at large, to medical students serving as doctors on the campus. The history of the student movement at CUNY clearly demonstrates that it will take the collaboration of students, the community, and labor to make a militant struggle for a free and open campus possible again. 

We are still fighting to make CUNY free and open to all, but the level of organization of revolutionary-minded students is a lot lower than it was in the sixties. To reach that level of militancy again, the student movement must grow past its present stagnation. It is important to look to the past, study history and draw key lessons in order to better inform ourselves on what the next steps forward may be. This film and discussion provided some of that knowledge, flaws and all, and I do recommend those interested in this history and rebuilding the student movement to attend a screening, provided your study of history continues further than the film itself.