Return to Rebels with a Cause Home Page


The Port Huron Statement was the first official document of SDS — and the most widely distributed document of the American Left in the Sixties.  Growing out of a draft statement prepared by SDS staff member Tom Hayden, the Port Huron Statement represented the collective thought of the founding convention of SDS, held in Port Huron, Michigan, June 1962.   The following excerpt is the beginning of the Port Huron Statement, including the section on Values.


We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the world we inherit.

When we were kids the United States was the wealthiest and strongest country in the world; the only one with the atom bomb, the least scarred by modern war, an initiator of the United Nations that we thought would distribute Western influence throughout the world.  Freedom and equality for each individual, government of, by, and for the people — these American values we found good, principles by which we could live as men*.  Many of us began maturing in complacency.

As we grew, however, our comfort was penetrated by events too troubling to dismiss.  First, the permeating and victimizing fact of human degradation, symbolized by the Southern struggle against racial bigotry, compelled most of us from silence to activism.  Second, the enclosing fact of the Cold War, symbolized by the presence of the Bomb, brought awareness that we ourselves, and our friends, and millions of abstract “others” we knew more directly because of our common peril, might die at any time.  We might deliberately ignore, or avoid, or fail to feel all other human problems, but not these two, for these were too immediate and crushing in their impact, too challenging in the demand that we as individuals take responsibility for encounter and resolution.

While these and other problems either directly oppressed us or rankled our consciences and became our own subjective concerns, we began to see complicated and disturbing paradoxes in our surrounding America.  The declaration “all men are created equal...” rang hollow before the fact of Negro life in the South and the big cities of the North.  The proclaimed peaceful intentions of the United States contradicted its economic and military investments in the Cold War status quo.

We witnessed, and continue to witness, other paradoxes.  With nuclear energy whole cities can easily be powered, yet the dominant nation-states seem more likely to unleash destruction greater than that incurred in all wars of human history.  Although our own technology is destroying old and creating new forms of social organization, men still tolerate meaningless work and idleness.  While two-thirds of mankind suffers under-nourishment, our own upper classes revel amidst superfluous abundance.  Although world population is expected to double in forty years, the nations still tolerate anarchy as a major principle of international conduct and uncontrolled exploitation governs the sapping of the earth’s physical resources.  Although mankind desperately needs revolutionary leadership, America rests in national stalemate, its goals ambiguous and tradition-bound instead of Informed and clear, its democratic system apathetic and manipulated rather that “of, by, and for the people.”

Not only did tarnish appear on our image of American virtue, not only did disillusion occur when the hypocrisy of American ideals was discovered, but we began to sense that what we had originally seen as the American Golden Age was actually the decline of an era.  The worldwide outbreak of revolution against colonialism and imperialism, the entrenchment of totalitarian states, the menace of war, the over population, international disorder, supertechnology — these trends were testing the tenacity of our own commitment to democracy and freedom and our abilities to visualize their application to a world in upheaval.

Our work is guided by the sense that we may be the last generation in the experiment with living.  But we are a minority — the vast majority of our people regard the temporary equilibriums of our society and world as eternally-functional parts.  In this is perhaps the outstanding paradox:  we ourselves are imbued with urgency, yet the message of our society is that there is no viable alternative to the present.  Beneath the reassuring tones of the politicians, beneath the common opinion that America will “muddle through,” beneath the stagnation of those who have closed their minds to the future, is the pervading feeling that there simply are no alternatives, that our times have witnessed the exhaustion not only of Utopias, but of any new departures as well.  Feeling the press of complexity upon the emptiness of life, people are fearful of the thought that at any moment things might be thrust out of control.  They fear change itself, since change might smash whatever invisible framework seems to hold back chaos for them now.  For most Americans, all crusades are suspect, threatening.  The fact that each individual sees apathy in his fellows perpetuates the common reluctance to organize for change.  The dominant institutions are complex enough to blunt the minds of their potential critics, and entrenched enough to swiftly dissipate or entirely repel the energies of protest and reform, thus limiting human expectancies.  Then, too, we are a materially improved society, and by our own improvements we seem to have weakened the case for further change.

Some would have us believe that Americans feel contentment amidst prosperity — but might it not better be called a glaze above deeply felt anxieties about their role in the new world?  And if these anxieties produce a developed indifference to human affairs, do they not as well produce a yearning to believe there is an alternative to the present, that something can be done to change circumstances in the school, the workplaces, the bureaucracies, the government?  It is to this latter yearning, at once the spark and engine of change, that we direct our present appeal.  The search for truly democratic alternatives to the present and a commitment to social experimentation with them, is a worth and fulfilling human enterprise, one which moves us and, we hope, others today.  On such a basis do we offer this document of our convictions and analysis:  as an effort in understanding and changing the conditions of humanity in the late twentieth century, an effort rooted in the ancient, still unfulfilled conception of man attaining determining influence over his circumstances.


Making values explicit — an initial task in establishing alternatives — is an activity that has been devalued and corrupted.  The conventional moral terms of the age, the political moralities — “free world,” “people’s democracies” — reflect realities poorly, if at all, and seem to function more as ruling myths than as descriptive principles.  But neither has our experience in the universities brought us moral enlightenment.  Our professors and administrators sacrifice controversy to public relations; their curriculum change more slowly than the living events of the world; their skills and silence are purchased by investors in the arms race; passion is called unscholastic.  The questions we might want raised — what is really important? can we live in a different and better way? if we wanted to change society, how would we do it? — are not thought to be questions of a “fruitful, empirical nature,” and thus are brushed aside....

In suggesting social goals and values, therefore, we are aware of entering a sphere of some disrepute.  Perhaps matured by the past, we have no sure formulas, no closed theories — but that does not mean values are beyond discussion and tentative determination.  A first task of any social movement is to convince people that the search for orienting theories and the creation of human values is complex, but worthwhile.  We are aware that to avoid platitudes we must analyze the concrete conditions of social order.  But to direct such an analysis we must use the guideposts of basic principles.  Our own social values involve conceptions of human beings, human relationships, and social systems.

We regard men as infinitely precious and possessed of unfulfilled capacities for reason, freedom, and love.  In affirming these principles we are aware of countering perhaps the dominant conceptions of man in the twentieth century: that he is a thing to be manipulated, and that he is inherently incapable of directing his own affairs.  We oppose the depersonalization that reduces human beings to the status of things—if anything, the brutalities of the twentieth century teach that means and ends are intimately related, that vague appeals to "posterity" cannot justify the mutilations of the present.  We oppose, too, the doctrine of human incompetence because it rests essentially on the modern fact that men have been "competently" manipulated into incompetence—we see little reason why men cannot meet with increasing skill the complexities and responsibilities of their situation, if society is organized not for minority, but for majority participation in decision-making.

Men have unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity.  It is this potential that we regard as crucial and to which we appeal, not to the human potential for violence, unreason, and submission to authority.  The goal of man and society should be human independence: a concern not with image of popularity but with finding a meaning in life that is personally authentic; a quality of mind not completely driven by a sense of powerlessness, nor one which unthinkingly adopts status values, nor one which represses all threats to its habits, but one which has full, spontaneous access to present and past experiences; one which easily unites the fragmented parts of personal history; one which openly faces problems which are troubling and unresolved; one with an intuitive awareness of possibilities, an active sense of curiosity, an ability and willingness to learn. 

This kind of independence does not mean egotistic individualism—the object is not to have one's way so much as it is to have a way that is one's own.  Nor do we deify man—we merely have faith in his potential.

Human relationships should involve fraternity and honesty.  Human interdependence is contemporary fact; human brotherhood must be willed, however, as a condition of future survival and as the most appropriate form of social relations.... 

As a social system we seek the establishment of a democracy of individual participation, governed by two central aims:  that the individual share in those social decisions determining the quality and direction of his life; that society be organized to encourage independence in men and provide the media for their common participation.

In a participatory democracy, the political life would be based on several root principles:

•  that decision-making of basic social consequence be carried on by public groupings;

•  that politics be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations....

Like the political and economic ones, major social institutions—cultural, educative, rehabilitative, and others—should be generally organized with the well-being and dignity of man as the essential measure of success.

In social change or interchange, we find violence to be abhorrent....  It is imperative that the means of violence be abolished and the institutions—local, national, international—that encourage non-violence as a condition of conflict be developed.

These are our central values, in skeletal form.  It remains vital to understand their denial or attainment in the context of the modern world.

*The use of the generic word “men” was the common usage at the time. Women were active and important in SDS and SDS women were among the founders of the women's movement.

Return to Rebels with a Cause Home Page

Click here for the complete Port Huron Statement