The Kent State Vietnam War Protests

The killings at Kent State in 1970 were outcome of a clash between the Ohio National Guard and Vietnam War protestors who had assembled at the University. Nixon had been elected to the White House in 1968 following the assassination of his opponent Robert Kennedy during the campaign. With the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, and MLK, Jr., still fresh in the public consciousness, students were very vocal and critical of the government.

Plus, students were upset about the ongoing draft and as well as the recent Mai Lai Massacre, which had outraged Americans at home. Many were especially suspicious of Nixon, who had pledged to end the Vietnam War but seemed to be going against that pledge when the U.S. began bombing Cambodia in 1970. In response to Nixon’s announcement of a Cambodian Incursion, students across the U.S. engaged in walk-outs, sit-ins and protests on campuses. Kent State students had long been active in protesting the War.

They were frustrated and rowdy. The day following Nixon’s televised announcement of the bombing of Cambodia, a rally was held at Kent State where hundreds of students demonstrated and protested Nixon’s actions. The crowds grew and turmoil hit the streets when a troublesome group began vandalizing the town. The Mayor of Kent called a state of emergency as the crowd clashed with police late into the night in the town.

Police used tear gas to disperse the crowd, which was pushed back to the Kent State campus, where “most of the dissident groups” had formed, according to Governor Rhoades, who also reported that many business owners in town received threats of violence from protesters if they did not join in the protest (Means 46). There was a great deal of tension between student dissident groups and the townspeople. Rumors ran wild that Kent State students were plotting against the tow (Means 48).

A curfew was put in place by the Kent Police Department and Rhoades declared, “We are going to eradicate the problem. We are not going to treat the symptoms” (Means 47). It was an ominous pronouncement that foreshadowed the deaths to come. By the time a fire broke out in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps building on the Kent State campus, the Ohio Army National Guard had already been called.

Two days later on Monday, May 4th, 1970, “two thousand people had gathered in the vicinity of the Commons” and “many knew that the rally had been banned” by the University administrators who were anxious to disperse the growing crowds intersecting and merging on the campus from points all across the country (Kent State). The college had become a focal point for a variety of activists, protestors, spectators and mischief makers.

The Guard arrived to disperse the crowds and when the crowds would not disperse, the Guard marched on them with rifles drawn. The crowd fled the Commons. The Guard then hesitated before retracing its steps. During its retreat, several members of the Guard stopped and opened fire on the crowds still remaining. In total, it was estimated that the Guard fired 61 shots into the remaining crowd at 12:24 pm, which resulted four deaths.

The President’s Commission on Campus Unrest concluded that “even if the guardsmen faced danger, it was not a danger that called for lethal force. The 61 shots by 28 guardsmen certainly cannot be justified. Apparently, no order to fire was give” (Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest 280).

Three lessons that can be learned from the event and others like it that have transpired over the years are: 1) better training of the National Guard is needed so that the use of lethal force is only applied when absolutely needed; 2) activists and protestors must make an effort to root out from their midst individuals who use protest events as excuses or opportunities to air their own personal grievances against the state in violent or destructive means, as these means invariably raise the ire of the state, which leads to an escalation of tensions; protests and demonstrations can be tolerated—but the setting of fires and the disobeying of lawful orders with violent reactionary demonstrations will beget more violence; 3) when a nation’s leaders take it upon themselves to skirt the bounds of modesty, truth and justice, the nation’s people will react and call these leaders to attention: no one is above the law, and for a country and its citizens to get along peacefully, there must be mutual respect and consideration shown; the violence at Kent State showed a wide gap between the leaders of the nation (most visibly represented by Nixon) and the citizens of the nation (most visibly represented by the Kent State students).

In conclusion, the killings at Kent State resulted from a conflation of circumstances and ratcheting tensions. Many.