Abstract

This article explores the creation of the Over 60 Health Clinic in Berkeley, California, during the mid-1970s. Developed by a local network of the activist group Gray Panthers, the clinic offered screening and preventive care to elderly clients and was intended to serve as a catalyst for broader health reform. Drawing on the proposals, contracts, and reports that structured the clinic’s early operations, the article traces the clinic’s efforts to imagine new modes of care, even within the constraints of collaboration with bureaucratic public agencies. In so doing, the East Bay Gray Panthers articulated a distinct understanding of “healthy aging” as relational and contingent on the maintenance of existing intergenerational communities.

In the spring of 1975 the Berkeley-based network of the Gray Panthers issued a declaration arguing for the necessity of sweeping health care reform.1 Such a declaration was not particularly surprising, as it aligned neatly with the political aims of the larger, intergenerational Gray Panthers organization, whose slogan proclaimed “Age and Youth in Action.” The Gray Panthers advocated for the rights of the elderly and also vigorously engaged with a number of prominent social movements, from antiwar activism to women’s liberation. For several years, the national body had faced off against conservative politicians and the American Medical Association. The Gray Panthers had explicitly called for the development of a universal, accessible, and comprehensive National Health Service, positioning health care as an issue of central importance for every person across the United States rather than a special concern for the elderly.2 They drew on the policy platforms of an influential radical health movement, including organizations like the Medical Committee for Human Rights and the Health Policy Advisory Center (Health/PAC), which had emerged from the civil rights and antiwar movements.3

While this broader political strategy undergirded the thinking of the East Bay Gray Panthers (EBGP), the local network focused specifically on the plight of the elderly, arguing, “No comprehensive health plan to meet the needs of this population exists. Present resources are often prohibitive in cost, difficult of [sic] access, and exclude chronic degenerative conditions characteristically experienced by aging populations. Present health care delivery systems are oriented toward acute medical illness, and do not encompass preventive medicine, health education, or health maintenance, and may more appropriately be termed ‘sick care’ rather than ‘health care.’”4

The East Bay network’s approach also differed from its parent organization’s in form. Rather than delivering this message from a podium or plastering it across a flyer, the network submitted this manifesto as one point of a funding proposal to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors for a drily named “Geriatric Health Services Program.”5

The EBGP’s strategy of close collaboration with municipal- and county-level bureaucracies, along with such a clear acknowledgment of the bodily changes that accompanied aging, marked a distinctive approach within the Gray Panthers organization. Its strategy was shaped by the background and skills of its first convener, Lillian Rabinowitz, and other early participants. The EBGP saw local power structures as flawed but malleable, ready to be molded to activists’ demands. The “Geriatric Health Services Program,” which was eventually christened the Over 60 Health Clinic, would become the crowning achievement of the EBGP. Though the clinic was fairly limited in scope—focusing on screening and preventive care—the founders saw it as a way to simultaneously attend to critical needs in the community and model possibilities for structural health reform. To the EBGP, the existence of a fragmented health care system was not merely limiting but harmful and potentially iatrogenic.6 By focusing closely on the ways in which care itself was defined and delivered, the EBGP generously reimagined the function and purpose of a geriatric primary care clinic.

The EBGP understood health care access as a cornerstone issue, without which it would be impossible for the elderly to achieve equity in mainstream society. Too often, doctors saw visible signs of aging and “good health” as mutually exclusive. However, the EBGP did not suggest that the clinic’s services would somehow halt the physiological processes of aging.7 Rather, it uncoupled chronic illness from connotations of burden and decline, insisting on the full humanity and value of the ill and disabled elderly.8 Furthermore, the EBGP took a holistic view and foregrounded the care that elderly people provided to their own families and communities. Instead of positioning the clinic as a one-sided, charitable endeavor, the organization suggested that the work of the clinic was to mirror and reciprocate those existing forms of collective support.

Gray Panthers “on the Prowl”

The Gray Panthers were founded in Philadelphia in 1970, one faction of a widespread movement to change the image and position of the elderly in the United States. During the previous decade, public and political discourse had been consumed with concern about the rapidly growing elderly population, which helped propel Congress toward the passage of Medicare in 1965. Medicare, which provided basic hospital insurance and some supplementary medical insurance to a majority of Americans over sixty-five, massively lifted the material circumstances of many elderly citizens previously trapped in grinding poverty.9 Newly visible, these elderly Americans called for an expanded role in public life, pushing back on theories of aging that normalized the disengagement and gradual decline of the elderly and relegated them to the social and political margins. As a national organization, the Gray Panthers railed against this exclusion, attacking widespread images of elderly people as frail or physically dependent.

In 1969 the prominent psychiatrist Robert Butler coined the term ageism to describe the kinds of discrimination that elderly people faced as analogous to racism.10 Maggie Kuhn, the instantly iconic founder of the Gray Panthers, understood the power of this language for catalyzing action and brought the idea of “ageism” dramatically into the public eye. She was small, with a wispy white updo and half-moon glasses, and she reveled in subverting the “granny” stereotype that her carefully curated image evoked. After mandatory retirement forced Kuhn from her work with the Presbyterian Church in 1970, she began to theorize her experience as a form of age-based discrimination.11

Initial conversations with friends and colleagues led Kuhn to believe that older people had particular insights and abilities that they could bring to powerful social movements of the day—and that by contributing, they could change the role of the elderly in mainstream American society. The group gained notoriety quickly by joining forces with youthful antiwar activists and asserting the necessity of standing in intergenerational solidarity.12 Though Kuhn insisted on radicalism as a core value of the Gray Panthers’ own work, she cited no particular forms of militancy or revolutionary principles but rather a commitment to solve problems and end injustice “at the root.”13

Berkeley’s Radical Establishment

In 1974, at a workshop at a Bay Area seminary, Kuhn crossed paths with Lillian Rabinowitz. The women connected immediately, and Rabinowitz quickly took to the project of developing a Gray Panthers network in the East Bay.14 The two women had markedly different experiences leading up to retirement: Kuhn had been born to a well-to-do family in Buffalo, growing up in Memphis and Cleveland, while Rabinowitz was the child of poor immigrant parents in New Haven, Connecticut; Kuhn had famously never married, while Rabinowitz was twice divorced with three adult children; and Kuhn was Presbyterian, while Rabinowitz was Jewish. Like Kuhn, though, Rabinowitz’s interest in aging as an issue of justice sharpened when she glimpsed what her own future might hold. After retiring as a public school teacher at age sixty in 1971, she took on a volunteer position with a Jewish social service agency, leading a weekly group therapy session for elderly clients. It was this, rather than participation with any second-wave feminist organization, that Rabinowitz saw as her own “consciousness raising.”15

Witnessing the isolation and neglect that her elderly clients experienced profoundly shaped the next stages of her own life. More than a decade later she recalled, “I got my head together, as they used to say, when I became interested in aging and the politics of gerontology. . . . For me, it was the opening of my potentiality for creative work. You don’t have to be a painter or a dancer to be an artist. You can be creative in human endeavors.”16 Over the next several years, Rabinowitz’s newfound creativity drove her toward leadership roles in local political committees as well as to an increasing research interest in the regulation and oversight of health care providers.17 As she herself recognized, it was a more straitlaced path to activism, and it cemented relationships with institutions that later guided the EBGP’s entrance into direct service provision.18

As Kuhn had done in Philadelphia, Rabinowitz drew on her personal connections to build the local network, recruiting friends and colleagues from various organizations. Like Rabinowitz, many EBGP members were white, middle-class women, recently retired from helping and administrative professions—social workers, nurses, teachers, and administrators. Their well-honed bureaucratic imagination had been validated by witnessing the passage of Medicare, and it dovetailed neatly with a municipal government ready to hear their demands. After all, many of them saw their own exclusion as situational, a result of cultural ideas disparaging the elderly, rather than the inherently exclusionary and hierarchical structure of the social safety net.19 This ingrained sense of entitlement was a powerful engine, even as many Gray Panthers sharpened their analysis to push for more structural and universal reforms. Such confidence in the relationship of the empowered citizen to the state led Rabinowitz herself to claim, “Any person with good common sense knows you get the government you deserve, and if you don’t pay attention to the store, God knows what might happen to the store.”20 While this steadfast belief in reform and progress had been forged in her youth, it was cemented with Medicare’s implementation. Though the Gray Panthers saw the legislation as unfinished and deeply flawed, it remained a marker of impactful federal change.

Rabinowitz’s belief in governmental reform was also shaped specifically by the local context. By the 1970s Berkeley had an outsize national reputation for radicalism, born of the antiwar and free speech activism at the University of California as well as the city’s proximity to the hippies of Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco and the Black Panther Party (BPP) in neighboring Oakland.21 The Berkeley City Council, composed largely of liberal Democrats and leftist reformers, reflected those larger political ruptures and emerging connections. Loni Hancock, a city council member carried to power on the wave of demonstrations that rocked the city in the late 1960s, explained that the “radicals” had slowly found common ground with the liberal Democrats:

The word “radical” that we had been proud to carry in past elections simply no longer made much sense. . . . The solutions were still those we had posed: demystifying government, taking citizen participation seriously, and formulating imaginative programs to solve the economic problems of cities and those who live in them. . . . The only community debate concerned who could really get it done faster and more responsibly.22

In this time and place, the Berkeley city government saw little tension in using conventional tools of government to espouse radical ideals, an approach that mirrored the EBGP’s.

Defining Over 60

The EBGP saw the city government as an important partner in furthering its health activism. While the 1960s had seen the development of a rich clinic ecosystem, particularly in California, none focused solely on the elderly.23 Of course, this was in part because no other groups seeking new models of health care provision had access to the benefits of Medicare as a foundation. While the EBGP’s vision for its own clinic differed from others that had emerged to serve marginalized constituencies, the organization was eager to learn from the models developing across the region. The clinics of the Bay Area, led by hippies, BPP members, feminists, and Chicano activists, ranged widely in ideology and practice and in their willingness to collaborate with licensed medical providers and government funders. The BPP clinics strategically deployed symbols of medical authority, most prominently the doctor’s white coat. In so doing, the BPP offered Black patients the respect and dignity so often withheld from them in hospitals and public clinics.24 In contrast, the hippie Berkeley Free Clinic began to move volunteer doctors away from regular client care by 1974, identifying them as “consultants” rather than authorities in the clinic.25 The BPP frowned on governmental funding, seeing it as antithetical to its principles of self-sufficiency and autonomy, and the Berkeley Free Clinic found itself initially ignored and disdained by the city’s health department.26 Unlike the hippies and Black Power activists who eschewed the paternalism of medical expertise and the constraints of public funding, the EBGP hoped that health department involvement would position the Over 60 Health Clinic as a “catalyst” to “stimulate the city to include the elderly.”27

Fundamentally, Rabinowitz saw this as a question of representation: “The aging, as a group, have a high incidence of illness, both physical and mental, but the squeaking wheel gets the emphasis and here it was on youth. . . . We asked why there were no health programs for the aging and were told by the city that budgetary structures made such programs impossible.”28 Nonetheless, Rabinowitz’s work with the county’s recently established Commission on Aging underscored that it was possible to marshal support for the elderly as a valuable political constituency. When the EBGP learned of the opportunity to apply for a grant of available revenue-sharing funds, it was initially hesitant to submit its own proposal and hoped to find an existing program that might be expanded to meet its needs. Ultimately, though, the group decided to move forward with its own proposal, seeing it as a way to marry the direct services it demanded with the political messaging of the Gray Panther platform. In this way, it sought to make clear that elderly residents should be seen as deserving recipients of care, and also as vital drivers of policy and program development.

The EBGP carefully structured its proposal, conforming to the terms laid out by the city. Even within the proscribed language of the contract, the EBGP found room to expand on its vision of healthy aging as an intergenerational, collective project. The proposal pitched the terms of clinic eligibility broadly: “Age sixty and over and residence within the accessible area will be the only eligibility requirements. The program will be geared for maximum flexibility: for example, those with aging parents will be eligible for counseling services, as will persons under sixty with geriatric medical problems.”29 The terms of the second sentence almost directly contradicted the first. Though the very naming of the Over 60 Clinic might have suggested strict age limits for eligibility, the EBGP used the framework of the contract to highlight the networks of kin vital to elderly health. In addition, it insisted on the potential value of linking the illness of the elderly to other overlooked clients suffering from chronic illness, and of building expertise in these complex cases. After reviewing the proposal, the city offered a contract that recognized the kinds of familial relations highlighted by the EBGP but refused eligibility for those under sixty “with geriatric medical problems,” limiting the scope to traditional parameters of age.30

By listing the services that the Over 60 Health Clinic would provide, the contract also provided an opportunity for the EBGP to redefine the meaning of both sickness and health for the elderly. The group saw the clinic as a rebuttal to a health care system that failed to invest in preventive care and health maintenance and then discarded those viewed as unproductive or unrecoverable. The Medicare model, structured around individualized interventions oriented toward future productivity, was entirely dislocated from existing and informal networks of care. As an East Bay Gray Panther member explained, “This has grown out of people’s general attitude about what it means to grow old. ‘What do you expect at your age?’ is a common response to older people’s physical complaints. This response breaks down any system that would promote independent aging.”31 These dominant ideas failed to acknowledge or support elderly people’s ability to maintain connections and thrive within their existing communities. In contrast, the clinic would demonstrate the ways that people could age without losing access to their families, neighborhoods, or even political commitments—this, instead of some list of physical metrics, would mark the experience of “healthy aging.”32

In practice, this required a delicate balance for the founders of the clinic, as they sought to denaturalize forms of illness caused by neglect and isolation while supporting elderly clients in navigating complex disease burdens that accumulated as they aged. To do so, they refused to divide clients according to “medical” and “non-medical” needs, which allowed them to acknowledge (and attempt to treat conditions with) both social and physiological etiologies. In a description of the clinic’s work, they wrote, “Some problem areas commonly encountered include life changes brought about by chronic illness, or by illness or death of a spouse or other loved one. Others include arthritis, diabetes, hypertension, and decreased vision.”33 For Over 60 providers, familial loss was just as visible as a specific diagnosis of chronic disease and might contribute equally to any analysis developed by a health care provider.

The EBGP also offered its own vision of how exactly services would be offered within the clinic. The group formulated a collaboration with the Retired Seniors Volunteers Program (RSVP), in which elderly volunteers would support clinic operations. RSVP, a national program developed with funding from the Older Americans Act, was modeled on the AmeriCorps program and offered organized volunteer opportunities for elderly people. The RSVP volunteers were a valuable resource for the EBGP in making its case to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Their presence would allow the clinic to showcase cost efficiency, as well as a model of community-oriented elderhood in which older people could provide care, not merely receive it. Within the clinic, though, the addition of elderly volunteers was not just about legible forms of elderly productivity. Rather, the EBGP believed that staffing the clinic with older people would fundamentally alter the way the clinic operated. Drawing on the understanding that elderly people were central to the function of their families and communities, the group argued that care should be reciprocal—the same population that needed Over 60’s services could not only receive care but also offer it. Tempo mattered, and elderly volunteers kept the same “life-rhythm” as the clients they served, demonstrating that slowness was not a sign of inefficiency or waste.34 This theory was substantiated by a grant manager who described the clinic’s “un-rushed atmosphere” and “patience and sensitivity” as central to its success in serving older clients.35 Peer volunteers were attentive to the needs of clinic clientele and could rely on their own lived experience to guide conversations about a client’s medical history or reasons for visiting. To achieve the goal of bridging medical and social needs, the clinic needed to facilitate these kinds of intimate, reciprocal interactions.

The clinic also prioritized outreach and advocacy services, not only to support individual patients but also to deepen its understanding of the obstacles preventing structural reform. In its request for a renewal of funding, the EBGP described the dual purposes of advocacy visits in which volunteers accompanied clients to health and social services appointments: “In such cases, one of our staff will accompany a client to a provider to help insure that the client receives the best service possible; in addition, we increase our knowledge of the service hazards and difficulties that exist for the senior population in the community.”36 They did not focus solely on advocacy for individual clients whose age might lead them to be ignored or overlooked in medical facilities and social service agencies. The volunteers also served as investigators who could note the failures of these systems and report back to the EBGP to advocate for specific changes at a policy level. The EBGP insisted that attention to individual clients and the complexities of their situations did not detract from structural reform but formed a foundation for long-term strategy and change.

Writing Care into the Contract

In 1978, two years after its founding, the Over 60 Health Clinic separated from the EBGP and became its own entity, though Gray Panther members still filled its ranks of volunteers and leadership. While the clinic was never formally replicated in other parts of the country, it continued to grow.37 Years later Rabinowitz reflected, “In my opinion, the fact that the Gray Panthers are identified as the founders of the Over 60 clinic has given them more credibility than anything else they have ever done.”38 The EBGP had made elderly people legible as valued members of their larger communities, and within the clinic providers had prioritized forms of ongoing attention and care over dramatic cure. They made it clear that there was no way to assess need without considering health as a fundamentally relational experience, in which attention to care and support were as vital as access to specialist services.

By most metrics, the Over 60 Health Clinic did not, in the end, offer a “radical” shift in health care provision. That is, “at the root,” the services at the clinic did not threaten the standard operations of the city’s health department, nor were its principles adopted and disseminated by public administrators. The EBGP’s orientation toward government reform, and its comfort in navigating bureaucracy, pushed it to articulate its principles and priorities through the flexible clauses of a traditional contract. This was a subtle kind of prefigurative strategy, in which intentional small-scale practices inevitably created knowledge about what larger changes might be possible, for the system as a whole. At the Over 60 Health Clinic, the methods of medical care were built around the same kinds of reciprocal relationships that grounded the EBGP’s political principles. Most transformatively, the EBGP demonstrated the necessity of reforming the experience of medical care and not merely its availability.

I would like to thank Naomi Rogers, Tess Lanzarotta, and the issue editors, Amanda Ciafone and Devin McGeehan Muchmore, for their close attention and thoughtful suggestions on this article.

Notes

1.

The Gray Panthers referred to local chapters, which were semiautonomous and affiliated with the national headquarters, as “networks.” The leader of each local network held the role of “convener” rather than “director” or “president.” The terms were chosen to reinforce the egalitarian and collectively oriented principles of the organization.

2.

“Toward a National Health Service,” Health Policy Statement, June 1973, Gray Panther Health Committee, Folder 2 “Gray Panthers Admin Board (1974, Jan),” Box 1, Gray Panthers Records, SCRC 27, Special Collections Research Center, Temple University Libraries, Philadelphia.

3.

For more on these organizations, see Dittmer, Good Doctors; and Chowkwanyun, “New Left and Public Health.” Though many overlapping constituencies had pushed for national health insurance throughout the twentieth century, no substantial expansions were won until the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Beginning in the 1940s, the American Medical Association led a bitter campaign to deride national health insurance as socialist and anti-American. See Starr, Remedy and Reaction, 29–63; Gordon, Dead on Arrival; Hoffman, Health Care for Some; and Tomes, Remaking the American Patient, 139–64.

4.

“Amendment to Contract,” April 7, 1975, Folder 15, Box 2, Berkeley Gray Panthers records, BANC MSS 2011/251, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

5.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors was the governing body of Alameda County, which in 1970 was the most populous of the nine counties making up the San Francisco Bay Area. Bay Area Census, “Population by County, 1860–2010.” 

6.

Mark Jacobson, “Gray Panther Founder Speaks at UCSF,” March 1, 1979, Oversize Box 1, Berkeley Gray Panthers records. See also Gray Panthers Nursing Home Committee, “Local Nursing Home Called Grossly Inadequate,” Grassroots, October 19, 1976, Oversize Box 1, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

7.

The EBGP’s approach resonated with what the medical anthropologist Annemarie Mol calls “the logic of care,” in which providers “strive for improvement while simultaneously respecting the erratic character of disease.” Such an approach refuses a “logic of choice,” in which access to information and, subsequently, medical intervention are the only necessary conditions to achieve a state of health (Logic of Care, 8–11, 26–29).

8.

The historian Jesse Ballenger argues that ideas of dependency were increasingly stigmatized after midcentury, as new ideas of active retirement (ironically intended to destigmatize aging itself) denaturalized the forms of dependence or frailty that often emerge with old age. At times the national Gray Panthers agenda neatly embodied this narrative (Self, Senility, and Alzheimer’s Disease, 113–52). Relatedly, George Weisz argues that the concept of “chronic disease” first emerged as a policy construction meant to encourage a research agenda on diseases that curtailed productivity over time. Many charges leveled at the elderly aimed particularly at their disease burden, linking it to gradual decline (Chronic Disease in the Twentieth Century, 77–101). The EBGP was also indebted to the burgeoning disability rights movement, which was gathering momentum in Berkeley at the same time. For more on the rise of disability rights activism, including efforts to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities in policy making, see Scotch, “‘Nothing about Us without Us’”; and Pelka, What We Have Done.

13.

For more details about Kuhn’s work and the founding of the Gray Panthers, see Sanjek, Gray Panthers, 11–30.

14.

Letter from Marion Koch to Lillian Rabinowitz, July 1, 1974, Folder 1, Box 29, Gray Panthers Records.

15.

Mary Ann Hogan, “At 72, Lillian Rabinowitz Has Just Begun to Fight,” Tribune, May 4, 1983, E-4, Folder 31, Box 3, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

16.

Janet Silver Ghent, “The Gray Crusader,” Oakland Tribune, May 12, 1992, B1, Folder 31, Box 3, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

17.

The first major project conducted by the EBGP was a survey of Berkeley’s nursing homes, leading to the closure of two substandard facilities. See Sanjek, Gray Panthers, 60.

18.

Though Kuhn and Rabinowitz were aligned in their principles, Kuhn wanted to see more direct action emerging from Rabinowitz’s leadership. In a letter to a colleague written shortly after the EBGP’s founding, Kuhn wrote, “I do hope you can look in on the Bay Area group occasionally. It does need an activist slant.” Letter from Maggie Kuhn to Tish Sommers, November 1, 1974, Folder 5, Box 29, Gray Panthers Records.

19.

Many Gray Panthers members understood their own political ideals to have been forged with the passage of the New Deal and saw their values reflected in the rollouts of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. For more on the racialized, gendered, and classed exclusions that shaped the development of the social safety net in the United States, see, e.g., Gordon, Pitied but Not Entitled; Klein, For All These Rights; Nadasen, Welfare Warriors; and Seiler, “Origins of White Care.” 

20.

Lillian Rabinowitz, quoted in Harriet Polt, “A Gray Panther Strikes Back,” Berkeley Monthly, July 1984, Folder 31, Box 3, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

27.

Rabinowitz, quoted in Jean Jernigan, “A Health Plan for the Elderly,” January 1976, Folder 16, Carton 31, San Francisco Foundation Records, BANC MSS 88/124c, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

28.

Rabinowitz quoted in Jernigan, “A Health Plan for the Elderly.”

29.

“Amendment to Contract.”

30.

“Amendment to Contract.”

31.

Ann Squires, quoted by Chris Delsol, “Grey Panthers Fight Old Age Myths,” Berkeley News 1, no. 3, n.d., Oversize Box 1, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

32.

As noted above in n. 17, the EBGP’s first project as an organization was a study of local nursing home conditions. The EBGP remained preoccupied with the isolation that elderly patients experienced when access to medical treatment was available only in nursing homes, which required dislocation from their existing homes and communities.

33.

“A Visit to the Over 60 Health Clinic,” n.d., Folder 18, Box 2, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

34.

Johanna Cooper, “Inspiring Local Clinic Serves Elderly,” Health Sciences Journal, April 1977, Oversize Box 2, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

35.

“Over 60 Health Clinic Proposal Summary,” Folder 25, Carton 103, San Francisco Foundation records.

36.

“A Visit to the Over 60 Health Clinic,” n.d., Folder 18, Box 2, Berkeley Gray Panthers records. While other groups of health radicals, such as the Student Health Organization (SHO), incorporated advocacy visits into their practice, the visits were seen strictly at the level of individual support rather than as critical forms of research and strategy. For more on SHO advocacy visits, see Rogers, “‘Caution,’” 17–19.

37.

Over time the Over 60 Health Clinic grew into LifeLong Medical Care, a network of fourteen community clinics serving the Bay Area (www.lifelongmedical.org). Though the programs have expanded in many ways, they have continued their commitment to geriatric care.

38.

Frances Adler, “Rabinowitz’ Resolve behind Panthers: Berkeley Woman a Lifetime Crusader for Causes,” Senior Spectrum, September 1988, 22, Folder 31, Box 3, Berkeley Gray Panthers records.

References

Ballenger, Jesse.
Self, Senility, and Alzheimer’s Disease in Modern America: A History
.
Baltimore
:
Johns Hopkins University Press
,
2006
.
Batza, Katie.
Before AIDS: Gay Health Politics in the 1970s
.
Philadelphia
:
University of Pennsylvania Press
,
2018
.
Bay Area Census
. “
Population by County, 1860–2010
.” www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/historical/copop18602000.htm (accessed
April
6
,
2020
).
Butler, Robert. “
Age-ism: Another Form of Bigotry
.”
Gerontologist
9
, no.
4
, pt. 1 (
1969
):
243
46
.
Chowkwanyun, Merlin. “
The New Left and Public Health: The Health Policy Advisory Center, Community Organizing, and the Big Business of Health, 1967–1975
.”
American Journal of Public Health
101
, no.
2
(
2011
):
238
49
.
Dittmer, John.
The Good Doctors: The Medical Committee for Human Rights and the Struggle for Social Justice in Health Care
.
New York
:
Bloomsbury
,
2009
.
Gordon, Colin.
Dead on Arrival: The Politics of Health Care in Twentieth-Century America
.
Princeton, NJ
:
Princeton University Press
,
2004
.
Gordon, Linda.
Pitied but Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890–1935
.
New York
:
Free Press
,
1994
.
Hancock, Ilona. “
‘New Politics’ in Berkeley: A Personal View
.” In
Experiment and Change in Berkeley: Essays on City Politics, 1950–1975
, edited by Nathan, Harriet and Scott, Stanley,
363
408
.
Berkeley, CA
:
Institute of Governmental Studies
,
1978
.
Hoffman, Beatrix.
Health Care for Some: Rights and Rationing in the United States since 1930
.
Chicago
:
University of Chicago Press
,
2012
.
Houck, Judith. “
The Best Prescription for Women’s Health: Feminist Approaches to Well-Woman Care
.” In
Prescribed: Writing, Filling, Using, and Abusing the Prescription in Modern America
, edited by Greene, Jeremy and Watkins, Elizabeth,
134
56
.
Baltimore
:
Johns Hopkins University Press
,
2012
.
Klein, Jennifer.
For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America’s Public-Private Welfare State
.
Princeton, NJ
:
Princeton University Press
,
2006
.
Kuhn, Maggie, Long, Christina, and Quinn, Laura.
No Stone Unturned: The Life and Times of Maggie Kuhn
.
New York
:
Ballantine
,
1991
.
Lefkowitz, Bonnie.
Community Health Centers: A Movement and the People Who Made It Happen
.
New Brunswick, NJ
:
Rutgers University Press
,
2007
.
Loyd, Jenna.
Health Rights Are Civil Rights: Peace and Justice Activism in Los Angeles, 1963–1978
.
Minneapolis
:
University of Minnesota Press
,
2014
.
Marmor, Theodore.
The Politics of Medicare
. 2nd ed.
New York
:
de Gruyter
,
2000
.
Mol, Annemarie.
The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice
.
London
:
Routledge
,
2008
.
Nadasen, Premilla.
Welfare Warriors: The Welfare Rights Movement in the United States
.
New York
:
Routledge
,
2005
.
Nelson, Alondra.
Body and Soul: The Black Panther Party and the Fight against Medical Discrimination
.
Minneapolis
:
University of Minnesota Press
,
2011
.
Nelson, Jennifer.
More than Medicine: A History of the Feminist Women’s Health Movement
.
New York
:
New York University Press
,
2015
.
Nibbe, Niki A.
Beyond the Free Clinics Origin Myth: Reconsidering Free Clinics in the Context of 1960s and 1970s Social Movements and Radical Health Activism
.” Master’s thesis,
University of California
,
San Francisco
,
2012
.
Pelka, Fred.
What We Have Done: An Oral History of the Disability Rights Movement
.
Amherst
:
University of Massachusetts Press
,
2012
.
Rogers, Naomi. “
‘Caution: The AMA May Be Dangerous to Your Health’: The Student Health Organization (SHO) and American Medicine, 1965–1970
.”
Radical History Review
, no.
80
(
2001
):
5
34
.
Rorabaugh, W. J.
Berkeley at War: The 1960s
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
1989
.
Sanjek, Roger.
Gray Panthers
.
Philadelphia
:
University of Pennsylvania Press
,
2009
.
Schlesinger, Mark. “
Medicare and the Social Transformation of American Elders
.” In
Medicare and Medicaid at Fifty: America’s Entitlement Programs in the Age of Affordable Care
, edited by Cohen, Alan, Colby, David, Wailoo, Keith, and Zelizer, Julian,
119
44
.
Oxford
:
Oxford University Press
,
2015
.
Scotch, Richard. “
‘Nothing about Us without Us’: Disability Rights in America
.”
OAH Magazine of History
23
, no.
3
(
2009
):
17
22
.
Seiler, Cotton. “
The Origins of White Care
.”
Social Text
, no.
142
(
2020
):
17
38
.
Starr, Paul.
Remedy and Reaction: The Peculiar American Struggle over Health Care Reform
.
New Haven, CT
:
Yale University Press
,
2011
.
Tomes, Nancy.
Remaking the American Patient: How Madison Avenue and Modern Medicine Turned Patients into Consumers
.
Chapel Hill
:
University of North Carolina Press
,
2016
.
Weisz, George.
Chronic Disease in the Twentieth Century: A History
.
Baltimore
:
Johns Hopkins University Press
,
2014
.