Select one of the questions below a write a brief (one or two paragraph) response to it.

“It Wasn’t Hard to be a Communist in Texas”:
1. What does Pardun mean by “communist” here? How does the meaning of this term change throughout? What are your reactions to this?
2. In what ways was the author changed by protest activity? How does he describe emerging criticisms of universities? To what extent had these been foreshadowed by the “Port Huron Statement?”
3. How did students from the South and Midwest change SDS? What effects did the counterculture have on activism in Austin? What remnants, if any, do you see of sixties-style activism and the counterculture in Austin?
4. What factors does Pardun identify in the unraveling of the new left? Compare and contrast the differences within SDS with those within the civil rights movement.

“The Port Huron Statement”: This is perhaps one of the most important early pieces of rhetoric to come out of the student movement, and it was SDS’s basic manifesto. Pay attention to how this piece criticizes American society and the new society it imagines, as well as to its discussion of authenticity, alienation, and anxiety.
1. Think about this statement rhetorically. Who do you think the authors imagined as their audience? What kinds of appeals do they make? What are their major claims, and what kinds of reasons do they supply to back them up? Note examples of these.
2. According to the authors, “the permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation, symbolized by the Southern struggle against racial bigotry,” transformed complacency among students into action and political commitment (62). What other things did the civil rights movement stand for in the minds of these students? Do you think it really influenced students in fact, as opposed to theory?
3. In some cases, the authors describe their situation in apocalyptic terms: if they don’t act now, the world might end. Was this an accurate assessment of the situation or youthful exaggeration? Was it an effective appeal?
4. In contemporary culture, it seems that talk about values often has to do with sexual behavior and the like (forgive the generalization). But this statement’s discussion of values is quite different. What do the authors mean by “values”? What is their critique of the way things were then? Is this critique relevant to our culture? Why or why not?
5. What do you think about the authors’ critique of students? What causes do they identify for student apathy? What role do they imagine for the university in remaking society and why is the university suited for such a role? Do you think this idea is realistic or even desirable? Should universities be involved in trying to solve society’s problems or trying to empower students?