This dissertation examines student-athletic protest during the latter part of the Vietnam Era (1966-1975) at four different Big Ten/Midwestern universities (the University of Michigan, Notre Dame University, the University of Minnesota, and Michigan State University) as part of the wider social justice movement in the United States. Utilizing archival research into university documents, personal letters, local newspapers, and letters to the editor, it analyzes the causes - historical, local, and societal - that led student-athletes, considered naturally conservative defenders of the status quo, to take political stands against their coaches, their university administrations, their conference, and even their fellow teammates; and it examines the structures of feeling evident in the rhetoric of the protestors, their allies, and their detractors at each campus and throughout the Midwest during this time period. Student-athletes risked being labeled as trouble-makers, their playing time, and even their educations to advocate for changes, both small and large, that they felt needed to come. For some, this activism was less revolutionary than protests by other activist students campaigning against the Vietnam War, for civil rights, or for gender equality. Indeed, aside from outright boycotts, a great deal of this student-athletic protest has been under-discussed and forgotten, and student-athletes have been left out of the historical memory concerning students of this time period and generalized student protest. Much of the student-athletic activism came through institutional means, working through university channels to bring attention to issues of concern or signing a petition in solidarity with fellow classmates, but still theirs were political acts of dissidence that caught most by surprise owing to the stereotypical conservative mythology of sports. For others, the activism was bolder: a university-wide boycott of practices or letter-writing campaigns to the student paper to raise awareness. Regardless of the scale or tactic, the activism of the student-athletes often resulted in reactionary outcry from their coaches and the community. Athletic departments downplayed, ignored, or denied the charges raised against them but usually acquiesced to some of the demands for change, eventually lauding themselves for their open-mindedness and progressive stance. However, those changes were slow to come and required continued activism to achieve results. In nearly every case, the universities argued that many of the student-athletic calls for change had been discussed previously by athletic departments and were necessary changes that would have come in time. But the universities' failures to enact such changes without prodding from below belie such arguments. The Big Ten did have a proud history of changing with the times and often before other universities had moved to do so. Especially in athletics, Big Ten schools were praised for their early adoption of athletic, racial integration, yet that integration was only at the playing level and did little to change the structures of feeling that led student-athletes to advocate for change. Arguments about playing time or comparisons to worse atmospheres and opportunities at schools in other regions did not absolve real and perceived problems within the conference. Within the Big Ten, with their professed commitment to progress and caring about the student-athlete, student-athletes rose up in numerous ways to call for swifter, more comprehensive, or even any change at all, challenging the myths of the apolitical or conservative nature of sports and its competitors and turning sports into another medium for social justice.
Read
