organization, or its representatives – reverberated into the second-half of the decade. During 1967 and 1968, for instance, New Leftists on campus debated whether disrupting Dow’s recruitment activities was, in itself, a betrayal of their own commitment to free speech. When faced with an explosion of African American protest in the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s assassination, on 4 April 1968, the University’s leadership responded with a strategy of ‘outreach and education’ (147), launching ‘Project 500’ – an ambitious attempt to recruit 500 African American students for the coming school year (at a time when just 1% of the institution’s 30,000 students were black), acceding to demands for a black cultural centre, and offering support to attempts to establish a black studies programme. Although Radicals in the Heartland is driven forward by a brisk chronological narrative it would have been good if Metz had found time to stand back a little from the immediacy of the events and considered some of the bigger questions at play. It is clear from his account that a number of key activists at Illinois cut their teeth in the civil rights movement (particularly, it seems, with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee), but this is a part of the story that is not really covered. Similarly, Metz paints a rather sympathetic portrait of some of the campus administrators who, more skilfully than their counterparts elsewhere, sought to bend to student demands where they could and defuse tensions where possible. Yet we are left wondering why they received so little credit from their students. There is, also, little attention paid to generational change and its impact on activism: students joining the University in the second half of the decade were, culturally and politically, likely quite different from their counterparts of just a few years earlier. Overall, Radicals in the Heartland never really engages critically with the rich historiography of the 1960s; indeed, by treating the environmental, feminist and gay liberation movements of the 1970s as a postscript to ‘the Sixties’, Metz ignores the work of numerous scholars who have sought to sweep away the so-called ‘declension narrative’ that framed the early histories of this era. Metz has, though, crafted a compelling and intriguing story, and has succeed in writing the activism of students at Urbana-Champaign into the history of the 1960s. His book will be of interest to Sixties scholars, as well as to former and current students of the University of Illinois.

中文翻译：

---

在我们信任的巧克力中：打开好时公司镇

组织或其代表——在这十年的后半段产生了反响。例如，在 1967 年和 1968 年期间，校园里的新左派人士就扰乱陶氏的招聘活动本身是否背叛了他们对言论自由的承诺进行了辩论。1968 年 4 月 4 日，当马丁·路德·金遇刺后非洲裔美国人抗议爆发时，该大学的领导层以“外展和教育”战略（147）作为回应，启动了“500 计划”——一项雄心勃勃的尝试在下一学年招收 500 名非裔美国学生（当时该机构 30,000 名学生中只有 1% 是黑人），满足对黑人文化中心的要求，并为尝试建立黑人研究计划提供支持。尽管《中心地带的激进分子》是由轻快的时间顺序叙述推动的，但如果梅斯有时间从事件的紧迫性中稍稍退后一点，并考虑一些正在发挥作用的更大问题，那就太好了。从他的叙述中可以清楚地看出，伊利诺伊州的一些主要活动家在民权运动中崭露头角（似乎特别是学生非暴力协调委员会），但这是故事中没有真正涉及的一部分。同样，梅斯描绘了一些校园管理人员的相当同情的画像，他们比其他地方的同行更巧妙地寻求尽可能满足学生的要求，并在可能的情况下化解紧张局势。然而，我们不知道为什么他们从学生那里得到的学分如此之少。还有，很少关注代际变化及其对激进主义的影响：十年后加入大学的学生在文化和政治上可能与几年前的同龄人大不相同。总体而言，《中心地带的激进分子》从未真正批判过 1960 年代的丰富史学。事实上，通过将 1970 年代的环境、女权主义和同性恋解放运动视为“六十年代”的后记，梅斯忽视了众多学者的工作，他们试图扫除构成早期历史的所谓“退化叙事”这个时代的。不过，梅斯编造了一个引人入胜且引人入胜的故事，并成功地将厄巴纳香槟分校学生的激进主义写入了 1960 年代的历史。六十年代的学者会对他的书感兴趣，