Student violence reflects conflicts of interest on the matter of political choice and is symptomatic of current reevaluation of the meaning of choice. The rationale for violence varies: Marcuse suggests that government, law and order, are disguised forms of violence; Fanon regards violence as a necessary act of cleansing and self restoration; psychiatrists Laing and Cooper view society as violence but do not see violence as an end in itself. The need to transcend personal anxieties, making use of such rationale, acts along with the rationale itself to erupt both collectively and publicly. The possibility of violence appears contingent upon the strength of the assumptions that specific aims are not subject to compromise and that moderate tacticsare too slow, or upon the agents of social control responding to or initiating violence. The vast supply of literature on student unrest allows for exploration of the interplay between intra-university and national issues and the overlap between the cultural and personality elements. Books by W.S. Bakke, Edward Shils, Raymond Boudon, S.M. Lipset and others including various American surveys like the Kerner Report show where these contingencies have resulted in violence. (JH)