34 / CHRONICLESnin 1966, two years before the “ParisnSpring” and its not quite minor revolution,nbut Rector Alberto Sancheznwas already an impotent prisoner innhis office. He admitted to me thatnabsolutely nothing could be done tonshore up his university against the redntide.nThings have changed somewhatnsince then. No mistake about it—thenmost vocal forces in student governmentnare revolutionary: Marxist, ultraleftist,npacifist (the most radical andndangerous, except perhaps the ChristiannSocialists), Catholic Marxists,nplus the varieties of all these. Thenso-called “rightists” (in quotes becausenthey would rather be caught dead thannembrace the label) are in reality timidncentrists: liberal, conservative, and orthodoxnCatholics, the vanguard ofnwhich is the Opus Dei. Campus lifenand life at the majority of urban universities,nas in Europe, is marked bynpolitical conflict which reproduces thenconflicts in the political life of then”adults.” At times, when political lifenis necessarily quieter, as in Chilentoday, it is the universities where radicalismnis centered and where the conflictsnare the sharpest. It would be annerror, however, to conclude, with certainnfrightened adults, that universitynpolitics is a microcosm of long-termnsocial trends. Most radical studentsnsettle in jobs (unless chronic unemploymentnblocks their future), andnonly a handful continue their revolutionaryncareers. Since the foreign pressnfocuses mostly on these agitators, wengather the mistaken impression thatnthey speak for student mentality andnfor the nation as a whole.nIn Chile everyone knows that then”repression” denounced in the NewnYork Times is mere provocation byncommitted Communists, amongnwhom “students” are the most aggressive.nIn the same Chile, student electionsnare supposed to prefigure thengeneral elections, forecast in 1989.nWhile I was there, the Marxists werendenouncing Pinochet, Washington,nand the other usual objects of theirnwrath, and they did this at their allottednelection counters—where not onlynCommunist propaganda was openlyndisplayed, but also the ingredients fornMolotov cocktails. Funds were collectednfor purchase of weapons—this innthe 13th year of “fascist” repression.nNot all is gloomy, however, innSouth American student life, andnpropaganda takes second or third placenbehind serious studies. In threenmonths (spring in the southern hemisphere)nI gave some 25 lectures beforenthe most varied institutions: universitiesnin Brazil, Argentina, and Chile;nschools of diplomacy; Catholic andnstate universities; business schools; religiousngroups; even in private homesnbefore invited guests. It is rare thesendays to find such attentive audiencesnin the United States, where knowledgenis compartmentalized and fragmentary.nAt a business school in BuenosnAires, students’ questions included referencesnto Heraclitus and Xenophanes,nand at a panel on Tocqueville at anliberal economic institution, the prodemocraticnside was arguing so intelligentlynthat it almost converted me tontheir point of view.nThere is no question that these wideninterests and knowledge are first gainednin high school, where culture is stillnpursued. The vast middle class in thenthree countries mentioned want theirnchildren immersed in European culture,nand only after acquiring the essentialsndo they send them on to thenHarvard Business School or to Chicagonor Berkeley. As a result, I foundnpractically no difference of culturalnlevel among businessmen, lawyers,nand professors. Beyond the politicalnhostility, these men share a commonnsystem of reference whose componentsnare literature, the classics, and thenrudiments of philosophy. At an OpusnDei seminar in Mendoza, my youngnpublic was extraordinarily sharp andnprobing, as was a wider public at thenNational Teachers College in Santiago.nMore than that, the dozen or sonyoung journalists who interviewed menat various stops of my travel (men andnwomen) were just as curious and wellinformednas the students themselves.nEven on television the questioners insistednon the deepest problems to bendiscussed and did not shy away fromnthe most controversial questions thatnsimply cannot be debated on ourntaboo-laden channels.nThe administrators of universitiesnare well aware that with the largennumbers (plus the specter of unemployment),nradicalism cannot be excluded,nalthough it may be channeled.nIn Mendoza, one hour per week is setnnnaside for student orators to hold meetings.nI went through such a groupntoward the lecture hall and found neithernhostility (“the professor from thenU.S.”) nor interest. Academic authoritiesnare not acting in loco parentis innthese countries and leave the studentsnfree to organize—as long as thesenorganizations are not disruptive.nWhen they are, little can be done,napart from calling out the police (veryninfrequent, even in “authoritarian”nChile) or shutting down the universitynuntil things calm down.nWhat we understand by rowdiness isnvery rare. Since emotions take immediatenpolitical forms, students behavenmore like urban intellectuals thannrabble-rousers—not necessarily an advantage.nAlso, they are sharply dividednamong three or four ideological commitments:nMarxism, orthodox (integrist)nCatholicism, liberal democracy,nand Christian Socialism—in a word,nreproducing (but also formulating andnpreparing) the divisions of the culturalpoliticalnadult world. The Marxists arennot always pro-Soviet, but very oftennpro-Castro and pro-Sandinista. Onlynthe Catholic clergy contains more radicalnelements who, after a belated discovery,nare celebrating the antiquatednslogans of Marxism-Leninism alongnwith the new slogans of liberationntheology. Yet, it is a fact that the SouthnAmerican population is deeply impregnatednwith the spirit and culture ofnCatholicism; to every leftist protestnthere are two pilgrimages. The lowernstrata in particular—and this includesnthe Indian population of the Boliviannhighlands or the miserable huts in thenfavellas of Brazil—are strongly religiousnand remain indifferent to leftistnagitation. The latter, however, isnstrong in academic circles, and in ournindustrial democracies this is what tipsnthe balance. Both left and right in thenuniversities quote Antonio Gramsci,nwho tilted Communism in the 1930’snin the direction of cultural conquest.nGramscism has become, among professorsnand students, the intellectualnsugar-coating of leftist and rightistnpower ambitions.nIn this respect, little difference cannbe found between Catholic and secularninstitutions. Almost all universitiesnare now of the campus format, whichnmeans that students, even in downtownnareas of big cities, are pressedn