DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971 | 1971-11-12 American Report: Review of Religion and American Power Page 5

Transcribe
Translate

Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971

1971-11-12 American Report: Review of Religion and American Power Page 5

American REPORT 
REVIEW OF RELIGION AND AMERICAN POWER
A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT 
November 12, 1971

Kent State Revisited : An Appeal for Justice 
Lawrence Frank


about this issue....
Eighteen months ago, on May 4, 1970, four students were killed and nine others were injured on the campus of Kent State University by a volley of shots from the rifles of Ohio National Guardsmen. That much of the Kent Story is history, uncluttered by the debris which was to follow. 
Many American Report readers will ask and justifiably so perhaps "why a special supplement on Kent State a year and a half after the tragedy?" It;s a fair question, for the answers are not so obvious as the scope and comprehensiveness of this supplement, at first glance, might suggest. 
It is true that the story has already been told, in part, by investigations - Federal and state, official and unofficial. It has been told, in part, by pronouncements from public officials, It has been reported in the media and written about in more than a dozen books. But we feel, as attorney Steven Sindell writes elsewhere in this supplement, that "The Kent Story has yet to be written" 
This project began to emerge as a serious possibility last August shortly after Attorney General John Mitchell announced with a sympathetic nod to the families of the dead, that the Justice Department was ending its examination of Kent State The decision was disturbing for a number of reasons.
The President's Commission on Campus Unrest found the Kent State killings "unnecessary, unwarranted and inexcusable."
The Justice Department's summary of the 8000 page F.B.I report found that the claim by National Guardsmen that their lives were endangered by the students was "fabricated subsequent to the event."
 The F.B.I reported that no snipers fired at guardsmen. 
Of the students killed, the nearest to the Guard was 270 feet; the others were more than 300 feet away. 
Peter Davies, a New York City insurance broker, charged in a comprehensive study of the Kent shootings that "eight to ten" guardsmen "decided" in advance to shoot certain of the student protesters. 
All these factors in and of themselves, seem to be compelling reasons for a Federal Grand Jury to be convened. Add to that President Nixon admonition of March this year that "justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined."and Mitchell's pronouncement becomes even more puzzling. 
What all this actually does is raise questions of a much more fundamental nature, questions that affect not only blacks, students and other minorities but every American citizen These questions address themselves directly to the 
President's rhetoric about "justice delayed, justice denied, justice circumvented, justice mocked," and are manifested in some very concrete actions by this Administration. It makes crystal clear, in a way nothing else this Administration has done (or said) to date Mitchell's plea to the press last year to "judge us by what we do and not by what we say."
What is justice? More importantly, how is it perceived and administered by this Administration? Is justice, in the American tradition, applicable to some but not to others? The Kent State incident focuses these queestions in a unique and instructive way. 
Injustice and violence are not new elements in the fabric of American society. Ask the blacks. Ask the American Indian. Ask the dispossessed the powerless. They have always been the victims of a system abused by those in power. 
Many see Kent as an isolated incident, a part of history. Tragic, unfortunate but, some say, understandable if not necessary. After all, guardsmen were provoked into their lethal response. The President reinforced this interpretation when he said that the deaths "should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy."
But Kent is not an isolated event. Robert Lifton has raised some pertinent questions: Do you ever wonder about body counts in Southeast Asia? Do you see any relationship between My Lai, Kent State, Attica, Jackson State?. Do you see any connection between phrases used by GI's like "the only good dink is a dead dink," and earlier historical patterns of American racism. Does the easy killing of Vietnamese have something to do with the difference between the national outcry over Kent State and the relatively quiet response to Jackson State and Augusta?
These questions are examined implicitly throughout this supplement, and directly in a poignant essay by former U.S. Attorney general Ramsey Clark which begins on this page. 
The events surrounding Kent accenuate a national emergency that has been with us for so long as to be virtually chronic. Kent in many ways, is the essence of the American problem. 
This supplement addresses that problem. 
- Ron Henderson

Violence: The American Way of Having Its Way
by Ramsey Clark 

There is a clear, common thread among such seemingly unrelated phenomena as the fire bombing of Dresden in 1945, our military expedition in Indochina, the use of B-52's in Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam, the deaths of prisoners and guards of Attica and San Quentin, the police killings of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, the 12 percent rise in violent crime in the first six months of 1971, our glorification of guns, the shooting of students at South Carolina State and Jackson State colleges and the deaths of four young Americans at Kent State. 
The thread is more than the presence of violence. It is more than the Government's use of violence. It is more than the unquestionable excessiveness and lawlessness of the violence used. It is the acceptance of violence by the people. Is violence an acceptable problem solver for Americans? Is violence the American way of having its way> The qualities of character that call for shooting looters, condone shooting students. As we live by violence so shall we die by it. 
More than most, the deaths of four young lives at Kent State show how we justify, perhaps desire, violence . Of Viet Na and Attica, we rationalize violence as necessary to protect "our boys" from evil and alien forces. The body count, the death penalty, and the long penitentiary sentence all involve people we teach ourselves to hate and fear. We deny their humanity and personal worth and congratulate ourselves on their deaths. 
But then one warm sunny day in May we turned our violence on our own - white middle class, college students. Many Americans believe we were outraged as a nation. Many Americans were outraged, but emotions were mixed. Do not forget the gratification some got from the police beatings of youths at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. 
For all the expressed outrage following Kent, what did our system of government representing the people do? The Portage County Grand Jury, directed by the state attorney general, ignoring Constitutional rights to a fair trial unprejudiced by pretrial publicity, issued a scathing denunciation of students and University administration that was full of anger and hatred. It in 

"....Violence is a strong emotion. It does not make nice distinctions. It replies with gunfire to the plea. 'Don't Shoot, We Are Your Children' when its fury is unleashed. Until we recognize our common humanity with the villagers of Viet Nam, North and South, the prisoners of Attica and San Quentin, and the students of Jackson State and Kent State, we shoot our own children."

dicted students, student leaders, and others for their roles on those fatal days Some indicted were those who tried hardest to prevent violence. Perhaps that has become the most dangerous crime in America. 
The Federal Government sided with the violent forces, failed to enforce Federal law, and abandoned any role of moral leadership. It has not even called a Federal Grand Jury to review the facts that torment millions of Americans. Does this mean it would not be good politics in so important a state as Ohio and so symbolic an occurrence as Kent State to indict members of the National Guard? Does it mean that astute observers of public opinion believe most voters favor noninterference with official violence?
The moral is clear: do not fool around with the peace and dignity of our system of justice or you may be shot with high powered Army rifles and indicted if you survive. 
Our continued course in Indochina is a violent course. Peace there is the cause for which Allison Krause, Jeff Miller, Sandy Scheuer, and William Schroeder gave their lives, The withdrawal we profess is a violent withdrawal. More than just the massively capricious violence of our lashing out in Cambodia and Laos and substituting technological violence of the B-52 from the air for personal violence of soldiers on the ground, Vietnamization is itself a violent resolution. It seeks to change an American war into an Asian war. It seeks continued war, violence and death. We should, as we can, withdraw immediately, but above all we should, as we can, withdraw non violently. 
The ambiguous nature of our withdrawal and the promise of continued violence as manifest 
[Cont p. 9-8 Col. 3]

Saving...

American REPORT REVIEW OF RELIGION AND AMERICAN POWER A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT November 12, 1971 Kent State Revisited : An Appeal for Justice Lawrence Frank about this issue.... Eighteen months ago, on May 4, 1970, four students were killed and nine others were injured on the campus of Kent State University by a volley of shots from the rifles of Ohio National Guardsmen. That much of the Kent Story is history, uncluttered by the debris which was to follow. Many American Report readers will ask and justifiably so perhaps "why a special supplement on Kent State a year and a half after the tragedy?" It;s a fair question, for the answers are not so obvious as the scope and comprehensiveness of this supplement, at first glance, might suggest. It is true that the story has already been told, in part, by investigations - Federal and state, official and unofficial. It has been told, in part, by pronouncements from public officials, It has been reported in the media and written about in more than a dozen books. But we feel, as attorney Steven Sindell writes elsewhere in this supplement, that "The Kent Story has yet to be written" This project began to emerge as a serious possibility last August shortly after Attorney General John Mitchell announced with a sympathetic nod to the families of the dead, that the Justice Department was ending its examination of Kent State The decision was disturbing for a number of reasons. The President's Commission on Campus Unrest found the Kent State killings "unnecessary, unwarranted and inexcusable." The Justice Department's summary of the 8000 page F.B.I report found that the claim by National Guardsmen that their lives were endangered by the students was "fabricated subsequent to the event." The F.B.I reported that no snipers fired at guardsmen. Of the students killed, the nearest to the Guard was 270 feet; the others were more than 300 feet away. Peter Davies, a New York City insurance broker, charged in a comprehensive study of the Kent shootings that "eight to ten" guardsmen "decided" in advance to shoot certain of the student protesters. All these factors in and of themselves, seem to be compelling reasons for a Federal Grand Jury to be convened. Add to that President Nixon admonition of March this year that "justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is justice circumvented, justice mocked and the system of justice undermined."and Mitchell's pronouncement becomes even more puzzling. What all this actually does is raise questions of a much more fundamental nature, questions that affect not only blacks, students and other minorities but every American citizen These questions address themselves directly to the President's rhetoric about "justice delayed, justice denied, justice circumvented, justice mocked," and are manifested in some very concrete actions by this Administration. It makes crystal clear, in a way nothing else this Administration has done (or said) to date Mitchell's plea to the press last year to "judge us by what we do and not by what we say." What is justice? More importantly, how is it perceived and administered by this Administration? Is justice, in the American tradition, applicable to some but not to others? The Kent State incident focuses these queestions in a unique and instructive way. Injustice and violence are not new elements in the fabric of American society. Ask the blacks. Ask the American Indian. Ask the dispossessed the powerless. They have always been the victims of a system abused by those in power. Many see Kent as an isolated incident, a part of history. Tragic, unfortunate but, some say, understandable if not necessary. After all, guardsmen were provoked into their lethal response. The President reinforced this interpretation when he said that the deaths "should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy." But Kent is not an isolated event. Robert Lifton has raised some pertinent questions: Do you ever wonder about body counts in Southeast Asia? Do you see any relationship between My Lai, Kent State, Attica, Jackson State?. Do you see any connection between phrases used by GI's like "the only good dink is a dead dink," and earlier historical patterns of American racism. Does the easy killing of Vietnamese have something to do with the difference between the national outcry over Kent State and the relatively quiet response to Jackson State and Augusta? These questions are examined implicitly throughout this supplement, and directly in a poignant essay by former U.S. Attorney general Ramsey Clark which begins on this page. The events surrounding Kent accenuate a national emergency that has been with us for so long as to be virtually chronic. Kent in many ways, is the essence of the American problem. This supplement addresses that problem. - Ron Henderson Violence: The American Way of Having Its Way by Ramsey Clark There is a clear, common thread among such seemingly unrelated phenomena as the fire bombing of Dresden in 1945, our military expedition in Indochina, the use of B-52's in Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam, the deaths of prisoners and guards of Attica and San Quentin, the police killings of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, the 12 percent rise in violent crime in the first six months of 1971, our glorification of guns, the shooting of students at South Carolina State and Jackson State colleges and the deaths of four young Americans at Kent State. The thread is more than the presence of violence. It is more than the Government's use of violence. It is more than the unquestionable excessiveness and lawlessness of the violence used. It is the acceptance of violence by the people. Is violence an acceptable problem solver for Americans? Is violence the American way of having its way> The qualities of character that call for shooting looters, condone shooting students. As we live by violence so shall we die by it. More than most, the deaths of four young lives at Kent State show how we justify, perhaps desire, violence . Of Viet Na and Attica, we rationalize violence as necessary to protect "our boys" from evil and alien forces. The body count, the death penalty, and the long penitentiary sentence all involve people we teach ourselves to hate and fear. We deny their humanity and personal worth and congratulate ourselves on their deaths. But then one warm sunny day in May we turned our violence on our own - white middle class, college students. Many Americans believe we were outraged as a nation. Many Americans were outraged, but emotions were mixed. Do not forget the gratification some got from the police beatings of youths at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. For all the expressed outrage following Kent, what did our system of government representing the people do? The Portage County Grand Jury, directed by the state attorney general, ignoring Constitutional rights to a fair trial unprejudiced by pretrial publicity, issued a scathing denunciation of students and University administration that was full of anger and hatred. It in "....Violence is a strong emotion. It does not make nice distinctions. It replies with gunfire to the plea. 'Don't Shoot, We Are Your Children' when its fury is unleashed. Until we recognize our common humanity with the villagers of Viet Nam, North and South, the prisoners of Attica and San Quentin, and the students of Jackson State and Kent State, we shoot our own children." dicted students, student leaders, and others for their roles on those fatal days Some indicted were those who tried hardest to prevent violence. Perhaps that has become the most dangerous crime in America. The Federal Government sided with the violent forces, failed to enforce Federal law, and abandoned any role of moral leadership. It has not even called a Federal Grand Jury to review the facts that torment millions of Americans. Does this mean it would not be good politics in so important a state as Ohio and so symbolic an occurrence as Kent State to indict members of the National Guard? Does it mean that astute observers of public opinion believe most voters favor noninterference with official violence? The moral is clear: do not fool around with the peace and dignity of our system of justice or you may be shot with high powered Army rifles and indicted if you survive. Our continued course in Indochina is a violent course. Peace there is the cause for which Allison Krause, Jeff Miller, Sandy Scheuer, and William Schroeder gave their lives, The withdrawal we profess is a violent withdrawal. More than just the massively capricious violence of our lashing out in Cambodia and Laos and substituting technological violence of the B-52 from the air for personal violence of soldiers on the ground, Vietnamization is itself a violent resolution. It seeks to change an American war into an Asian war. It seeks continued war, violence and death. We should, as we can, withdraw immediately, but above all we should, as we can, withdraw non violently. The ambiguous nature of our withdrawal and the promise of continued violence as manifest [Cont p. 9-8 Col. 3]