The French Student MovementAuthor(s): Jean-Pierre WormsReviewed work(s):Source: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, Special Issue on Student Politics (Jun.,1966), pp. 359-366Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International EducationSocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1186227 .Accessed: 07/07/2012 04:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and Comparative and International Education Society are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review.

http://www.jstor.org

THE FRENCH STUDENT MOVEMENT

JEAN-PIERRE WORMS

This article attempts to apply an historical

perspective to the analysis of the French student movement since 1900.1 It concen- trates on the history of the Union Nationale des Etudiants de France (U.N.E.F.). The U.N.E.F. is not the only channel for French students' political action. Indeed, it is con-

stitutionally non-political, although this has come to mean that it is not affiliated to any political party rather than not concerned with political issues. Until recently, the U.N.E.F. was by far the most influential student organization in the French political sphere.

From 1900 to 1914: The Golden Era of Student Folklore

The rise of a national organization of French students expressing a sense of col- lective identity is a relatively new phenom- enon in French historical terms. In 1877 the first local student organization (Associa- tion d'Etudiants) was founded-that is, the first organization where "studenthood" was the only criterion for membership as op- posed to the previous organizations which recruited on the basis of religious or po- litical affiliation. By 1900, such non-political and non-religious student associations ex- isted in all French university towns. In 1907 all the associations were federated in a sin- gle "National Union" of students which marks the birth of the Union Nationale des Etudiants de France. Until the end of the first world war, however, the U.N.E.F. played no significant role.

The pre-World War I student population was a very small elite (29,000 in 1900). Students came almost exclusively from the upper bourgeoisie and prepared themselves for professional careers which were assured them. They enjoyed almost complete finan- cial and future professional security. The time at the university was "the good life"-

the prelude to an elite position in society. Their position rendered them completely in- different to any social or political issue.

They went through university as through an initiation rite. Determined to "enjoy life," they had wild drinking and singing parties, outings on the town and generally partici- pated in the kind of expected and benevo-

lently tolerated student folklore described as

"sowing wild oats." The student associations presided over such recreational activities. In many ways they resembled the American fraternities: high membership fees, a system of recommendation by alumni and strong school traditions. There was very little unity in the U.N.E.F., no feeling of general soli-

darity, no nationally organized action, and a great deal of energy spent in traditional local school rivalry.

1914 to 1945: The Corporate Orientation

The thirty years that separated the be- ginning of the first World War from the end of the second signaled important changes in French higher education: the highly elitist model disappeared with its small number of upper-class students secure in their status, self-indulgent and indifferent to the world. Increasing numbers of middle-class students entered the university with greater economic and professional worries. With a new style of studenthood and with different ties to so- ciety, the student organization, the U.N.E.F., assumed new functions.

The 1914-1918 war was, of course, the first gigantic shock to traumatize the 'happy-go-lucky' student body. One figure tells the whole story: two out of three stu- dents were called up. Another effect of the devastation of war was the undermining of confidence and economic well-being of the upper and middle classes. As a result, post- war students lost their carefree attitude and were strongly motivated to terminate their

Comparative Education Review 359

studies as rapidly as possible and proceed with the business of making a living.

Moreover, the universities had begun to recruit students from a wider section of the population. By 1926, there were 58,000 students in France-twice the 1900 figure. The result of significant reform in the edu- cational system was added to this general effect of technological change: all secon- dary education became free in 1930. Sub- sequently, many children of the petite bour- geoisie continued their schooling up to the baccalaureat (terminal examination of the secondary cycle) and demanded entry to the universities. French universities numbered 80,000 students by 1939.

However, access to universities of social classes hitherto excluded was not the only factor to affect the economic security of the student population. With the 1930's came the depression and ensuing unemployment and economic hardship. Students became absorbed in solving their material problems; their local associations and the U.N.E.F. assumed an essential new function of pool- ing efforts to solve them. Grants were to be obtained from the government, subsidized housing for the increased student popula- tion and various other needs had to be taken care of: health, restaurants, sports.

The U.N.E.F. undertook to secure these benefits but the action taken to do so was influenced by its past character. The or- ganization had been built as a federation of fraternal or friendship societies, not as a mass movement. There was little internal de- mocracy in the selection of leaders and the determination of policies. The national level of leadership had little power and was most reticent to use what power it had for plan- ning mass demonstrations which might have shaken the "nepotic" structure of the U.N.E.F. There was no national "doctrine," no sense of responsibility for future student generations or for the university system as a whole, with the result that the U.N.E.F. handled problems with piecemeal action and mostly at the local level.

A few demands were co-ordinated at a national level such as tuition fees, grants and social aid, but they never erupted into

mass demonstrations, student strikes or the like. Instead, the most important work was done by the local association which also acted as a charitable, mutual aid organiza- tion. Students turned to their local asso- ciation for financial loans, help with housing, etc. But their most important contribution was the soliciting of help from outside with great reliance on the alumni. Thus, a num- ber of charitable organizations, private or semi-private, were created for the students, like the Cit6 Universitaire in Paris, univer- sity restaurants in the provinces, and sana- toria. The local associations which had often played an important role in the instigation of such endeavors rapidly lost control. And as these charities developed they were federated on a national level either through private foundations (e.g. the Sanatoria Foundation) or through semi-public "offices" or "services" such as the Service de Mddecine Preventive, the Office du Tourisme Universitaire, the Office du Sport Universitaire, the Bureau Universitaire des Statistiques (which, among other services, advised on future careers) and, most important of all, the Centre Na- tional des Oeuvres which dealt with the building and administration of student housing and food services.

It is obvious that politics played a minute role in these activities. Indeed, the U.N.E.F. adhered to the most restrictive interpreta- tion of its "non-political" constitution. Each problem was seen as practical and limited, to be faced separately from all others-without political ramification. To do otherwise, to elaborate a global set of demands or strategy would have called for a different type of organization and a sense of some collective identity on the part of the students, a different conception of "stu- denthood."

The lack of militant action by the U.N.E.F., its uninvolvement in political is- sues, and its inherent respect for the estab- lished political order can probably be ex- plained in part by its structure and history and, in part, by the urgency of material problems students had to face-their eco- nomic difficulties and uncertainty of their future led them to strive for individual

360 June 1966

benefits without "rocking the boat." How- ever, another factor seems relevant: the po- litical atmosphere of the society at large.

This was not a time of political quies- cence. The Left increased its power to the point of winning an electoral majority and forming a Popular Front government while the Fascist ligues (under the leadership of Maurras) became a real threat. The stu- dents participated in the political battles and growing ideological strife. Violent fist fights between students of the Left and Right became frequent in the Latin Quarter.

Two comments should, however, be made: these demonstrations were not specifically student political manifestations but their participation in national 'adult' political movements. Secondly, the level at which the political confrontation took place was so "ideological" in terms of a clash between total theories of society that the current de- mands of the students pertaining to their more immediate basic needs could hardly be introduced into the debate. In other words, there was a dichotomy between the political involvement of students and their involvement in every day preoccupations. This also explains why the U.N.E.F. was able to remain so aloof from raging po- litical battles.

This describes the situation when the sec- ond world war broke out. The U.N.E.F. continued to function as if nothing had changed. It established "normal" relations with the new Vichy government and even went as far as collaborating with its pro- gram of compulsory youth work camps in Germany (Service du Travail Obligatoire). The university suffered less from the Second World War than it had from the first. In 1940 the number of students had dropped from 80,000 to 55,000 but it soon increased again and reached a peak of 106,000 in 1943. Students then began to join the ma- quis in greater number-others were taken to German work camps. The number of students dropped to approximately 80,000.

There again the fact that the U.N.E.F. ignored the war was not indicative of the lack of French student involvement in po- litical problems of the day but only of their

organization's narrow corporate orienta- tion. In fact, the first demonstration or- ganized against the German occupants was a student one on the Champs-Elys6es on No- vember 11, 1940, which resulted in some hundred dead and many more sent to Ger- many. Subsequently, an increasing number of students participated in the resistance movement. However, when the war ended, it was obvious that whatever students had contributed to the fight against Hitler had been done outside their own organization. In post-war France, when the Resistance spirit was the focal point of national iden- tity, the U.N.E.F. was discredited and could no longer be considered to represent French students.

1945 to date: Student "Syndicalism"

1. The Resistance heritage: 1945-50. When the French universities resumed nor- mal peace-time activities a large minority of students had been directly involved in the war. Of 123,000 students in 1946, approxi- mately a quarter emerged from the maquis or from Germany. France had been greatly damaged by the war and it was conceivable that students might primarily be concerned with their studies and uninterested in any- thing else-a phenomenon which seems to have taken place in post-war America. However this was impossible in view of the enormous intellectual and moral influence of the "resistance spirit." Unlike America, where the war had tended to unify the country and dissolve most of the political battles in the common effort, France had suffered the war as a divided nation. The Resistance had led the fight as much against the Vichy Government as against the Ger- man occupant. The war had been a partial civil war and a highly ideological one at that. Political choice was a basic factor of the French involvement during the war and France emerged highly politicized from the war.

Three "lessons" learned by the new gen- eration of students in the Resistance were particularly relevant to the future of the U.N.E.F. First, no representative organiza- tion, no group in society can stand aloof,

Comparative Education Review 361

indifferent to others and to national politi- cal issues without "losing its soul." Second, the old political parties had failed to rise to the challenge of the times and were attrib- uted great responsibility for the French debacle. In addition, rigid ideologies were highly suspect. Third, fundamental solidari- ties should not be forgotten between intel- lectuals and the working class in a country, and between all countries including those under colonial rule.

These were the main guide lines along which the "heirs" of the Resistance chose to organize student participation in the re- construction of post-war France. A national organization was needed with a window on the world at large and its problems, and yet independent of political parties, truly repre- sentative of the specific interests and aspira- tions of students. A doctrine was also needed to reconcile these two potentially divergent aims.

In the Resistance, students had been af- filiated to a variety of political, social, edu- cational, cultural, and religious organiza- tions. They federated into one single Union Patriotique des Organisations Etudiantes (U.P.O.E.). Should this organization assume all the tasks which the old U.N.E.F. had handled with the risk of endless faction fights inherent in this form of student "par- liament" or should the slower process of "capturing" the U.N.E.F. and changing it from within be tried? The second course was finally adopted. In one year "resist- ance" candidates for leadership of local as- sociations affiliated to the U.N.E.F. had stood for most elections and had won against the old discredited leaders. The Easter 1946 annual convention in Grenoble ratified their majority.

A way had to be found for reconciling the old defense of students' corporate in- terest with the new ideology of social and political responsibility. This was done through a remarkable "charter" which first attempted to define "studenthood" in socially meaningful terms ("Students are young intellectual workers"), and then elab- orated on the ensuring "rights and duties." In spite of the rather grandiloquent style in-

dicative of the time it was written, this docu- ment deserves to be quoted extensively:

La Charte de Grenoble

Preamble. The representatives of French stu- dents legally assembled at a national congress in Grenoble on April 24, 1946, aware of the historic significance of the times,

When the French Union is elaborating the new declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen,

When a pacific Statute of Nations is being drawn up,

When Labor and youth are elucidating the bases for a social and economic revolution at the service of man,

Assert their willingness to participate in the unanimous effort of reconstruction.

True to the example of the best of them who died in the fight for freedom of the French peo- ple,

True to the traditional aims of French stu- dents when they were at the peak of awareness of their aims,

Recognizing the outdated character of the in- stitutions that govern them,

Declare their decision to be in the vangard of French youth as often in the past by freely defining the following principles as the bases for their action and demands:

Article 1: The student is a young intellectual worker.

Rights and duties of the student as a young person Article II: As a young person the student has a right to particular consideration from society from the physical, intellectual and moral stand- points. Article III: As a young person, the student has a duty towards national and world youth.

Rights and duties of the student as a worker Article IV: As a worker, the student has a right to work and live in the best possible conditions, to be independent, both personally and socially, as guaranteed by the free exercise of Union rights. Article V: As a worker the student has a duty to acquire the highest competence possible.

Rights and duties of the student as an in- tellectual Article VI: As an intellectual, the student has

362 June 1966

a right to the pursuit of truth, freedom being the first condition thereof. Article VII: As an intellectual, the student has a duty:

-to define, spread and defend truth which comprises the duty to propagate and enrich culture and to assess the meaning of his- tory.

-to defend freedom against all oppression which is the foremost consideration for an intellectual.

Thenceforth, the U.N.E.F. became a mass, democratic organization both in style and action with little resemblance to the prewar era.

The first national student strike was or- ganized in 1947 for reduction of university fees and increased government grants. It was a total success. In 1948, after demon- strations and another strike, students won the right to a special health service financed by the National Health Service and admin- istered by their own elected representatives. Student sanatoria, mental hospitals, clinics and medical care free of charge still re- main the most important achievement of the U.N.E.F. In 1950, after three years of intensive campaigning among students, the National Convention, with a near unanimous vote, adopted the principle of a student "salary" which is still on the books of the U.N.E.F. but not yet granted by the gov- ernment. The reasoning behind this last claim is that the work of the student will ultimately be of benefit to the national com- munity. They therefore have as much right to material independence and moral dignity of a salary as any other group of workers. Such a salary would be but a long term in- vestment for society. This demand is inter- esting in that it constitutes a paradox: along with other demands such as educational re- form and financial aid to working class families putting children through university, it aims at democratizing the university and is, therefore, the expression of a privileged group contriving to abolish its privilege. And as such, it is a direct consequence of the new doctrine of solidarity elaborated at Grenoble in 1946.

Solidarity was, however, also to be ap-

plied on an international basis. Difficulties in this field were to bring the down fall of the Resistance generation of leaders. An International Union of Students had been founded in Prague in August 1946, follow- ing one year of preparatory work by a committee representing students from the U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Great Britain, France, Denmark, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Yugo- slavia, Poland, India, China and Australia. However, international student unity could not resist the cold war. After Prague, in 1948, Canada and the U.S.A. withdrew from the International Union, soon fol- lowed by most other Western countries, and the Communist delegations gained a clear majority. The U.N.E.F. remained a member trying, with increasing difficulty, to save its ideal of international co-operation. How- ever, in France itself, the Communist Party no longer formed part of the govern- ment and became increasingly isolated from the rest of public opinion in a form of po- litical ghetto. Any collaboration with the Communists was stigmatized as collabo- ration with the enemy in the Cold War at- mosphere. The president of the U.N.E.F. was voted out of office upon his return from an international conference in 1950.

2. A new "corporate" interlude: 1950- 56. In the France of the 1950's the cold war was only one aspect of significant changes in the political atmosphere which made a Left-oriented militant student organization obsolete. The enthusiasm with which the political leaders, born of the Resistance, had faced the reconstruction of post-war France had been short lived. First, de Gaulle had taken away most of their powers and then the old style politicians en- tered the scene with the familiar political games. With the abandonment of a mili- tant mobilization of energies, the economic hardship of the post-war years was begin- ning to tell, to which was added the moral and economic cost of a spreading war in Indochina. It is not surprising that most stu- dents returned to a conception of unionism which emphasized narrower corporate needs to the detriment of a greater involvement in national or international issues, taxed

Comparative Education Review 363

with being "political." As is often the case, such a rigid non-political doctrine was in many instances a cover for conservative political values: many of the leaders of this period were later deeply involved in Right- wing or even neo-Fascist groups. For five years French students and their union were mainly concerned with fighting for better material conditions, graduating quickly and getting a job.

The left-wing of the movement was, however, still in control of large student as- sociations such as Lyon and Grenoble and was a sufficiently strong minority to in- fluence the decisions of the majority. Thus, they succeeded in retaining the movement's militant mass tactics (e.g. street demon- strations and sometimes a strike when the Education budget was before parliament) and avoiding a piecemeal approach to prob- lems of student welfare. During this period, a reorganization of the "Oeuvres" (student housing and restaurants) was achieved which rationalized the entire structure in a single organization administered jointly by the Ministry of Education and elected student delegates--each wielding an equal number of votes. It was only in the fields of international co-operation and anti-colo- nialism that the "a-political" majority re- fused to be influenced.

Eviction from office taught the Left that defense of student welfare could not be neglected with impunity and that a long educational effort at the grass roots level had to be maintained if the students were to accept greater social and political respon- sibility. Realizing the strength of a unified single student organization, they set about to recapture a majority in the U.N.E.F. Working at the local association level, they campaigned on well defined corporate plat- forms, organized a number of practical "services" for students and generally won the respect of their electorate as efficient administrators and defenders of student welfare. Involvement in politics was advo- cated not on "ideological" grounds but for a limited number of issues presented as a di- rect outgrowth of such corporate interests or even as a precondition to the satisfac-

tion of the immediate demands of the stu- dents (e.g. how can the state finance the necessary reforms of the university when such a high proportion of the national bud- get goes to the war effort?). By 1956, the Left was again in the majority but with a more solid platform and a more "educated" rank and file.

Three factors seem to have played a particularly important role in the return of the Left:

The relaxing of economic difficulties. In spite of the game of political musical chairs, the Fourth Republic had done a remarkable job of restoring France to economic progress. In the same way that deteriorating economic condi- tions seem to have fostered a withdrawal into an attitude of narrow self interest, a rise in material well being and a glimmer of hope seem to afford the individual liberty for involvement in altruistic and long-term political action.

The political situation. Contrary to its success in the economic field, politically the Fourth Re- public had failed to solve the gigantic challenge of the emancipation of the colonies. The elec- tion of Pierre Mendes-France in 1954 was a marked change in style as well as in content of political leadership and demonstrated the bankruptcy of previous governments. The need for "a change" was felt throughout the country and the electorate returned a Left majority to the 1956 National Assembly. The student Left undoubtedly benefited from this general shift in public opinion.

The political student organizations. With the Communists as isolated among students as they were in the "adult" world, two organizations rose to prominence in the non-Communist Left: the Socialist students and the Young Christian Students (J.E.C.). The former enjoyed a high degree of independence from the Socialist Party and accordingly took on a specifically "student orientation." The student world was their im- mediate field of political action. They provided a number of leaders for the U.N.E.F. Similarly, the J.E.C. was the militant student organization of the Action Catholique which emphasized complete immersion in the "milieu" for educa- tional and social action. They thus trained an- other important contingent of U.N.E.F. lead- ers. These two organizations worked in close collaboration to re-establish a Left majority in the U.N.E.F.

364 June 1966

3. From "issue syndicalism" to "revolu- tionary syndicalism": 1956-1960's. From 1956 to 1961, the Algerian war was the main preoccupation of the U.N.E.F. al- though action on corporate issues remained the basis for a large part of student sup- port. The U.N.E.F. involvement in the Al- gerian problem was indicative of the new educational and issue-oriented approach elaborated by the new leadership during the six years of their opposition. Rather than advocating outright independence for Al- geria, an intensive educational campaign was launched. Within four years student opinion was ready to support a strong po- litical stand in favor of Algeria's indepen- dence. These were some of the intermedi- ary problems emphasized by the U.N.E.F. leadership: the suppression of Algerian "culture" under French colonial rule, the discrimination against Algerians in the French educational system and the special responsibility of the academic community in both matters: the methods used by the French army and the moral responsibility of the academic community; the cost of the war and its effect on the budget of the uni- versity and, closer to home, the restrictions on student deferments. The U.N.E.F. was able to mobilize vast numbers of students and play an important political role in bringing together the more reluctant la- bor unions when the time came for effec- tive public pressure on the government in favor of a negotiated settlement for Al- gerian independence.

However, when the Algerian war ended, so did this particular type of student approach to politics. 'Decolonization' had greatly favored such a practical, issue-ori- ented political involvement. It was a highly political problem in the broadest sense of the term and not only a moral one: if a "meaning of history" had to be discovered, the rise to independence of previously de- pendent nations offered a clear example; yet it was a problem with obvious practical consequences in the everyday life of all and thus allowed for a practical educational ap- proach and not an exclusively ideological one. When the Algerian problem disap-

peared, the U.N.E.F., which had concen- trated all its political energy on it, was left with a highly politicized rank and file but with no clear issue on which such political energy could be spent. Consequently, it suf- fered a deep re-orientation crisis as was the case with other left-wing political organiza- tions and labor unions.

With no clear issue at hand, the involve- ment in politics of some students has be- come more abstract and theoretical. This trend has, in recent years, profoundly af- fected the leadership and policies of the U.N.E.F., and has, for the moment, re- sulted in a drastic reduction in its member- ship.

This new trend has been qualified as revo- lutionary syndicalism. Before analyzing its content, I should cite other factors which seem to have played a role in bringing it about.

The Gaullist regime. De Gaulle acceded to power in 1958 after a military coup d'etat in Algeria thereby estranging most of the university community and particularly the U.N.E.F. He never forgave their dis- sent. His government cracked down on the U.N.E.F. with a number of measures: a subsidy justified by the various services di- rectly run by the students was abolished; the number of student representatives on the various boards where the U.N.E.F. had gained equal number of seats with the government was reduced; a rival student union was established and heavily financed by the U.N.R. (the Gaullist party) thereby destroying the unified student representation which U.N.E.F. had established. Contact with Government officials became increas- ingly tense and devoid of meaning-a trend which was accentuated by the Gaullist doc- trine: any representative organization was suspect and branded as standing between the leader and 'his' people. At any rate, the delicate balance between militant action and constructive co-operation with the govern- ment in certain fields was broken.

Changes in the student political sub-stra- tum. The Catholic student organization (J.E.C.) had encountered the wrath of the Catholic Church hierarchy who had imposed

Comparative Education Review 365

authoritative change in the leadership and

policies of the organization. The Socialist students' conflict with the policies of the discredited Guy Mollet (Head of the French Socialist Party and largely responsible for the conduct of the Algerian war) had led them to withdraw from the Socialist party and lose most of their political influence on national policies. Thus, the two political "training grounds" which had proved so fer- tile in the emergence of the new issue syn- dicalism had vanished from the scene. In their place, the more aggressive Communist student organization (U.E.C.) and the New Left organizations advocated a different ap- proach to student unionism. They encoun- tered wide support among students in a

political situation where de Gaulle allowed little room for "constructive opposition."

Demographic changes. The birth rate which had stagnated before 1945 picked up tremendously from 1945 on. By 1961-62, the effect was felt on the universities. The increase in the student population from 1950 to 1960 had been approximately 75,- 000 (25,000 in the first five years and 50,- 000 in the following five years as a result of increased economic ease). A 300,000 in- crease has been predicted between 1960 and 1970.

Very little has been done in recent years in the way of university construction, stu- dent housing and restaurants, and recruit- ment of professors to prepare for such an explosion of the student population. The crisis calls for radical "revolutionary" measures-not moderate reforms. Conse- quently, it is not difficult to understand that many students turn to what they term "revolutionary syndicalism."

The new revolutionary student ideology seems to have the following characteristics:

Suspicion of traditional "representative" democ- racy, in their own organization as well as in government and emphasis on "participatory de- mocracy." A search for a new ideology which emphasizes concepts such as student and intellectual "alien- ation." As to the university, a special emphasis on grass

roots participatory educational processes as a way to democratization in contrast to the pre- vious approach which advocated structural re- forms.

This new trend offers obvious similarities to the ideals of some American students. This article has not explained how such convergence came about. However, knowl- edge of the historical development behind the evolution of the French student move- ment might afford some insight for under- standing American and other students. This may be useful in future comparative studies.2

REFERENCES

1 It should be noted that this article is not the result of a systematic study of the French student movement. I have made no first hand analysis of quantitative data; I have made no survey, nor any substantial analysis of his- torical material. Moreover, student political ac- tivity is not my field of research. My only qualifications for writing this paper are on the one hand personal experience of leadership in the U.N.E.F. as a student at the Sorbornne and, on the other, a personal interest in the research on student movements presently undertaken by S. M. Lipset at Berkeley and Harvard.

2The following is a short bibliography of sources:

1900-1956 Michel de la Fourniere et Francois Borella.

Le Syndicalisme Etudiant, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957.

Special issue of Esprit, "Les Etudiants," 20 eme ann6e, April 1952.

1956-1961 Pierre Gaudez. Les Etudiants, Paris: Edi-

tions Julliard, 1961. 1962-1965

Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron. Les Heritiers, Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1965.

Articles in Les Temps Modernes: Marc Kra- vetz, "Naissance d'un syndicalisme 6tudiant," No. 213, February 1964; Jean-Pierre Milbergue, "La signification politique des rapports p6da- gogiques dans l'Universit6 frangaise," No. 227, April 1965; Antoine Griset and Marc Kravets, "De l'Alg6rie la r6forme Fouchet: Critique du syndicalisme 6tudiant (I)," No. 227, April 1965; and Antoine Griset and Marc Kravets, "De l'Alg6rie la r6forme Fouchet: Critique du syndicalisme 6tudiant (fin)," No. 228, May 1965.

366 June 1966