Yes and no. The forces of reaction to the previous decade were everywhere. There was the constant drone of Law and Order. A wave of anti-drug laws, heavier sentences, longer time. Inside public institutions like UCB there was wave of managerial reforms, intended to `clean-up' waste and abuse. If you provided a service, you had to justify it in some need based accountability. In other words your statistics had to look right, conform to the guildlines and prove your narrative---on grants.
Other elements were a big increase in the penetration of computer systems on bueacracies. These required a highly proceedure oriented series of internal changes to conform to what computers could and couldn't do.
What was essentially going on was the installation of the neoliberal regime in everday institutional detail. The general institutional mind set was The People were criminal, so you had to be a cop-like entity to manage them. It was the era of the welfare queen, drug dealer on workman's comp, thug culture in public schools, etc, etc.
Meanwhile, within the middle classes there was the deep suspicion that the poor were geting something for nothing on my tax dollar. There was a housing and cost of living inflation that squeezed hard and built a lot of resentments.
^^^^ CB: When I read the above, I thought, "that sounds more like the 80's" . I guess it does depend on where you were. There were forces of reaction to the previous decade, but they didn't seem dominant to me, and the "forces" reaping the harvest of the 60's seemed very widespread. That's who the forces of reaction were opposing, but not succeeding in suppressing yet.
^^^^^
For a fun sociology course, you could show Clint Eastwood movies, like the Dirty Harry series. Bullet with Steve McQueen was another. The central them was war against the pencil necked geeks in the office and the outrageous demand that cops follow the law. The logic was the law was there to protect the criminal and shackle the cops. Particular scorn was reserved for Miranda in Miranda v. Arizona. Notice ARIZOONA.
Other sources for public scorn were the first environmental regulations for auto emissions, unleaded gas, seat belts, and non-exploding cars. Just imagine the regimenation and indignity of not being allowed to buy a car that wouldn't explode on impact.
Hope this helps.
``CB: No. It felt like we had "won" the counter-cultural rev.''
Yes and no again. It depended on where you were and what you were doing. Inside the university administration, there was big fight as to how far we could push against the education machine. Inside City Hall, there was a feeling that something had been won. So the power dynamics were complex. The city was finally hiring more black, minorities and women as was the school district. Meanwhile the UC system was still lilly white. Affirmative action was a big battle in UC system. The fault lines were interesting. Projects on federal grants were encouraged to use affirmative action, while the administration and much of the faculty went along its merry way ignoring these pressures. Other battle fronts were establishing a black studies program, and a latino studies program with the academic community. All the usual bigotry was in full swing. Blacks didn't write anything worth reading and made no contributons to US history and culture. Mexicans made no contributions to California and southwest history and culture, etc. The dead white guy canon was still in place.
CG
^^^^^^^ CB: At University of Michigan in 1970, we won the Black Action Movement student strike for affirmative action. Then there was another BAM strike in 1974. In general, in the 70's, we used to talk about "the movement" still, agreeing that one existed. That's long gone. There was ongoing struggle for advances as you sketch above. It was legitimate to demand such things, to be part of the "movement" to win them, unlike today. Majoring in anthropology as opposed to business was thinkable.
The question SA posed seems to ask for a comparison with the present. To me the present seems more bureaucratic and regimented than the 70's. Reaganism/neoliberalism is hegemonic.