1. Robert J. Alexander, Latin American Politics and Government, 20 (N.Y., 1965).

2. Cited in John H. Petersen, “Recent Research on Latin American University Students,” Latin American Research Review, 5:1: 37 (1970).

3. In addition to Petersen's review (above), see S. M. Lipset, ed., Student Politics, 1-53 (N.Y., 1967), for a summary of many of these studies.

4. This is not to say that there has been a dearth of material written on the topic of university student behavior, for, indeed, a great deal has been published on this problem. The point here, however, is that there has been virtually no systematic, comparative research which has investigated actual instances of student activity. The present approach differs from earlier efforts in that the data base comes primarily from an identifiable “population” of student political activities reported from 1961 through 1966. Thus, “activism” in this context refers to the relative incidence of actual student political activities and not to self-descriptions (e.g., activist, non-activist, etc.) provided in responses to survey questionnaires. An example of the latter approach to the study of student activism is John H. Petersen, “Student Political Activism in Guatemala,” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, 13: 78-88 (1971).

5. S. M. Lipset, “The Political Behavior of University Students in Developing Areas,” Social and Economic Studies, 37-75 (March, 1965).

6. Ian Weinberg and Kenneth Walker, “Student Politics and Political Systems: Toward a Typology,” American Journal of Sociology, 75: 77-96 (1970).

7. Roberta Koplin has formulated a model similar to Weinberg and Walker's. Koplin, however, is more concerned with non-institutionalized forms of student politics; and as such, her model is substantially more relevant to the present study. (The Koplin model has certain drawbacks which precluded its utilization in the present study. These weaknesses become apparent in the conclusion when Koplin's approach is contrasted with the methodology employed herein). Koplin, “A Model of Student Politicization in the Developing Nations,” Comparative Political Studies, 1: 373-390 (1968).

8. Kalman H. Silvert, “The University Student,” In: Continuity and Change in Latin America, John J. Johnson, ed. (Stanford, 1964).

9. Ibid., 217. Silvert is supported in this claim by Glazer's work on Chilean students. See Myron Glazer, “Chile,” In: Students and Politics in Developing Nations, Donald K. Emmerson, ed. (N.Y., 1968).

10. Silvert, “The University Student,” 222.

11. Ibid.

12. These years were chosen because published information on the various measures for independent variables was most plentiful during this time period.

13. Each variable is described in greater detail in the appendices. Appendix A, for example, contains the source of information used in operationalizing all of the variables; Appendix B specifies some of the criteria used to translate the variables into empirical referents, which permitted quantification and comparison.

14. The rationale for this kind of approach rests heavily on certain assumptions of statistical tests of significance. “Strictly speaking,” as Robert D. Putnam points out, “significance testing is merely a way of checking inferences from a random sample to the universe from which that sample is drawn. On the other hand, Blalock and Gold have argued that significance tests may help us sift important from unimportant findings even when there is no question of inferring to a larger universe.” The latter objective—sifting important from unimportant findings—is of primary value here since it is difficult, for lack of similar previous studies, to say a priori which relationships bear scrutiny and which do not. Ideally, tests of significance in exploratory research facilitate a separation of significant and insignificant results. For an example of a similar methodological position, see Robert D. Putnam, “Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin American Politics,” World Politics, 20: 93 (Oct., 1967). Also see Hubert Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics, 270 (N.Y., 1960), and David Gold, “Some Problems in Generalizing Aggregate Associations,” American Behavioral Scientist, 7: 16-18 (Dec., 1964).

15. The term “direct action” refers to those instances of student action which have traditionally had the greatest influence on the surrounding political environment (e.g., street demonstrations, strikes, marches, and protests). Since these are the kinds of activities reported in the New York Times for this time period, Bakke's term is used here to identify the population of activity under investigation. E. Wight Bakke, “Students on the March: The Case of Mexico and Colombia,” Sociology of Education, 37: 200-208 (1964).

16. Silvert, “The University Student,” 217.

17. “Student Political Activism in Latin America,” Daedalus, 97: 70 (1968).

18. Frondizi's opinions are cited in Silvert, loc. cit.

19. Orlando Albornoz, “Academic Freedom and Higher Education in Latin America,” Comparative Education Review, 10: 250-256 (1966).

20. John P. Harrison, “Confrontation with the Political University,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 334: 74-83 (1961).

21. See Petersen, “Recent Research,” 39.

22. Kenneth N. Walker, “A Comparison of the University Reform Movements in Argentina and Colombia,” Comparative Education Review, 10: 257-272 (June, 1966).

23. Harrison, “Confrontation,” 79.

24. The term “precipitator” refers to any action by a non-student political force to which the student activity was clearly a response. The objective here is to discern the differing characteristics of “unprovoked” and “provoked” student disorders.

25. The empirical referents for the social mobilization variable are briefly listed in Appendix B. The scale was borrowed from Ernest A. Duff and John F. McCamant, “Measuring Social and Political Requirements for System Stability in Latin America,” American Political Science Review, 62: 1125-1143 (Dec., 1968).

26. Silvert, “The University Student,” 223. Lipset discerns this same thesis in the non-empirical literature dealing with students in Latin America. For example, he quotes Havighurst as saying that “apparent greater student interest in national politics among Latin American students is probably a reflection of more general uncertainty and instability in Latin America …. Thus national politics becomes a matter of concern to everybody.” Cited in Lipset, “The Political Behavior of University Students,” 54.

Generally the data from this study support Havighurst's speculation; however, the relationship between system stability and university student politicization is far from the simple linear one he suggests. It is significant that present evidence shows both democratic political culture and rapid societal change (and its attendant disequilibrating influence) to be characteristic of systems that experience comparatively large numbers of student demonstrations and protests. In sum, pure incidence of student penetrations into the political sphere seems to reflect the tensions inherent in the pursuit of political and social development.

27. The indices for the societal welfare variable are shown in Appendix B. The scale is also taken from Duff and McCamant, “Measuring Social and Political Requirements.” Here we must note the possibility that a methodological artifact is partially responsible for the high correlation between activisim and societal welfare. As can be seen in Appendix B, one of the three indices for the latter variable was level of educational services and, although this sub-index was weighted only so as to comprise 25 per cent of the composite measure, it is possible that the contribution to the total variable is such that the two variables being correlated (activism and societal welfare) are not operationally independent of one another. From this standpoint, it might be argued that more educational services will mean more students and thus a greater likelihood for student incidents. While we have not controlled for this specific possibility, we are confident that the statistical associations between various measures of development and student politicization are genuine and not spurious. The presence of the relationship when other indices of development are used supports this contention.

28. It is worth reiterating that the composite picture provided by the data considered so far does not indicate that students are more prone to demonstrate or protest in the relatively unstable political systems. In fact, aside from the exceptions noted in Paraguay and Haiti, the reverse relationship appears to be true; that is, students are typically more active in those systems generally considered to be stable vis-à-vis others. Nevertheless, this does not contradict the claims of Silvert, Lipset, and Havighurst; more accurately it demonstrates the need to consider the quality of student activities in addition to the mere quantity. The remainder of the paper is given over to such a consideration.

29. This classification is to be found in Appendix B and C; the original source is Duff and McCamant, “Measuring Social and Political Requirements.

30. The criteria used for classifying issue scope are admittedly gross; nevertheless, the categories seem adequate in distinguishing between the narrow issues which are unlikely to attract wide student concern and the broader issues of more immediate relevance. These criteria are listed in Appendix C.

31. The classification for issue content is as follows: (1) nationalism as the prime issue; (2) university reform or autonomy biggest issue; (3) anti-regime expression of some sort; and (4) other (unclear or ambiguous). These categories were suggested by Alexander's discussion of the issues which have traditionally inspired student actions of significant proportions.

32. William C. Hamilton, “Venezuela,” In: Students and Politics in Developing Nations, 380; Donald K. Emmerson, ed. Hamilton further notes that “only in the field of educational policy do all three factors—unity, recognized interest, and the availability of effective means—operate in the students' favor.”

Another finding not dealt with in the text concerns the role of “precipitator” in marshaling vast quantities of students into expressions of political interest. A high positive correlation was found between demonstration size and the presence of a clearly identifiable precipitator which served to rally students around the perception of a common cause. To illustrate, only 2 of 38 “massive” student actions failed to report any evidence of a prior act by opposing forces which provoked the student response.

33. It is virtually impossible from the data to determine which level of violence characterized students' tactics. Nevertheless, it is assumed that there is, statistically, a respectable correlation between student tactics and the level of violence which evolved from the confrontations.

34. A word of caution is in order with regard to the use of chi-squared as a test of statistical significance for Tables 9 and 10. As a general rule, the use of χ² presumes that not more than 20 percent of the expected cell frequencies in a contingency table will consist of an n of 5 or fewer observations. In Tables 9 and 10 we have clearly violated this assumption; the cells with expected frequencies of less than 5 comprise 33 and 50 percent of the cells in these two tables, respectively. To fully eliminate the problem of statistical reliability here would require an expansion of the scope of this analysis and, more specifically, an increase in the number of cases composing our “universe” of student behavior. Having decided against the latter alternative, believing that such a course would produce diminishing returns in view of the effort required, we are thus willing to acknowledge that χ² is possibly quite imprecise as a measure of statistical significance here. Accordingly, the findings suggested by these two tables are tentative and should be taken with extreme caution.

35. Interestingly enough, the majority of the 25 cases so classified dealt with the demonstration of student contempt for the U.S. and its policies toward Latin America. Such demonstrations occur quite frequently in the Canal Zone where the issue of U.S. control and presence is very sensitive. Similarly, many such expressions of nationalist feeling by students take place as a protest against the publicized presence of a high ranking U.S. official on campus or in the capital city of a given country. Generally these protests have attracted only a fraction of the membership of the student federation in large universities and, typically, have resulted in some degree of violence (usually property damage, the stoning of a motorcade, or flag desecration). There have been exceptions to this pattern; e.g., the disruptions which attended the much publicized visits of Vice President Richard Nixon to Caracas in 1958 and Nelson Rockefeller to various capitals in 1969.

36. See, for example, Bryant Wedge, “The Case Study of Student Political Violence: Brazil, 1964, and Dominican Republic, 1965,” World Politics, 21: 183-206 (Jan., 1969). Wedge's study, although it employs a rather sophisticated analytic framework, contains a great deal of historical information. This seems to be characteristic of the studies of political violence; there are so many historical contingencies involved that cross-national analyses are severely handicapped in covering all relevant factors. The same problems are illustrated in the various studies of the Kent State crisis of May 1970. It simply does not seem feasible to develop variables which will provide satisfactory explanations of the violence at Kent State, Jackson State, and elsewhere without primary consideration being given to the pecularities of each case.

37. Of these limitations, three are particularly noteworthy. First, no consideration is given to what might be called the “perceptual interface” of student activity. That is to say, it is assumed that the conditions for which tentative measures have been derived bear at least a general resemblance to the political milieu as it is perceived by students. To what extent this is a valid or invalid assumption cannot be determined by present evidence. However, it might be profitable to undertake a comparative study of certain “objective” indices of political conditions relative to the “subjective” interpretations of those conditions by student groups. Very likely, some discrepancy exists and has definite implications for student political behavior. The example of Brazil up to 1964 is a case in point. In the early 1960's during the Goulart-Quadros period, the National Student Federation was the most powerful of any in Latin America. [See Joseph Love, “Sources for the Latin American Student Movement,” Journal of Developing Areas, 1: 215-226 (Jan., 1967)]. In large part this prestige can be attributed to what Edelman calls a highly “symbolic alignment” between the UNE and the national leadership. Significantly, this symbolic alignment sprang from the favorable disposition of Goulart toward his former student organization. It thus seems likely that the course of Brazilian student politics was heavily influenced by this subjective identification with the national political elite. See Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, 1964). All of this is admittedly speculative, but the point is that such possibilities were impossible to investigate in the present study and might be worth scrutiny in the future.

Second, this approach is limited in terms of explaining differential levels of effectiveness by students in articulating their demands. Again, practical considerations precluded any measurement of student impact on the larger political scene.

Finally, this study suffers from a lack of attention to group differences in student tactics both within and between countries. Obviously, certain groups, e.g., those which identify with liberation movements, typically rely on more violent tactics than others. Unfortunately, the data base for this study is insufficient to permit a classification in terms of the style and nature of different student political groups.

38. Koplin, “A Model of Student Politicization in Developing Nations.”

39. Roberta Koplin, David Finlay, and Charles Ballard, Jr., “Ghana,” In: Students and Politics in Developing Nations, 64-102; Donald K. Emmerson, ed.