Henry Bienen took office as Northwestern’s president on January 1, 1995. A month later, he entered into the debate over the establishment of the Asian American Studies program, meeting with student activists and writing letters regarding the proposed program to the student-led Asian American Advisory Board. In an interview with NBN, Mr. Bienen discussed his memories of the protest and his prior experiences with student activism as a young professor at Princeton.
North By Northwestern: In the letters you wrote to student protesters, you repeatedly said you had “an open mind” about creating an Asian American Studies program. But, you also indicated the university would not respond to student demands and protests by immediately establishing a new program. Why did you respond in this way?
Henry Bienen: I wasn’t about to announce [the program] the way [the students] wanted to do it, under pressure. Obviously, you have a new president come in and it sets a very bad precedent to go outside the procedures we have for doing this. Fundamentally, I believe the way you establish programs is to think them out, have funding in place for them, think about what faculty you have, what faculty you might hire and have the relevant deans approve.
NBN: For the Asian American Studies program specifically, what factors did you take into account when considering the students’ proposal?
HB: When you put a big label on these programs, like “Asian American Studies,” you’re really talking about immigration and geographic spread of lots of different kinds of people with different cultures and languages. That doesn’t make it less interesting. In a way, it makes it more interesting. But it also meant there was a pretty wide net of things to consider. And that was a reason I thought deliberations and thinking it through was a good idea.
NBN: What was your reaction to the news that students were hunger striking to protest the university’s refusal to immediately establish a plan for a new department?
HB: As I recall, I said, “Let’s make sure nobody hurts themselves and that people are protected.” So, we had people out there to have conversations and provide water and food if anybody wanted it.
NBN: Were you surprised that some students responded so strongly with the hunger strike?
HB: Not very. I’ve been around universities a long time.
NBN: Could you explain that further?
HB: I grew up as a faculty member in a period of intense turmoil over the Vietnam War in the '60s .... When I became a professor at Princeton, I was co-director of the Movement for New Congress with a graduate student of mine, Bill Murphy.
NBN: So, were you an activist? What did you do?
HB: I was always more interested in trying to be effective in an electoral process than I was in carrying signs or marching, I confess .... One of the interesting things about that movement is that it was a sort of in-system movement. It wasn’t interested in burning down buildings. It was interested in mobilizing students.
NBN: So, you went through this “activist phase,” but seem reluctant to consider yourself an “activist.” Do you support student activism in general?
HB: I do support it. I want people to be what I would call “constructive.” I don’t like shouting people down, but I like to see people engaged in the world around them.
NBN: Do you consider Northwestern’s campus “activist?”
HB: I think it’s something that’s waxed and waned.
NBN: What’s the role of student activism, particularly on issues like the Vietnam War or the Asian American Studies program, on university campuses?
HB: Raising awareness is always a good thing. And universities do move slowly. Somewhere in between, “Yes, I’ll do what you want tomorrow because you’re protesting,” and moving very slowly, students can have an effect on getting [universities] to think with greater urgency. That seems to be a good thing. It doesn’t mean you’ll always do what [students] want. But, you know, putting it on [the university’s] agenda, thinking hard about it – it’s a good thing.
