• Transcribe
  • Translate

Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971

1971-11-12 American Report: Review of Religion and American Power Page 20

More information
  • digital collection
  • archival collection guide
  • transcription tips
 
Saving...
16-S AMERICAN REPORT NOVEMBER 12, 1971 [underline] SUMMARY OF SPECIAL REPORT ON KENT STATE[/underline] President's Commission On Campus Unrest [italics] On June 13, 1970, following violent deaths at Kent State University in Ohio and Jackson State College in Mississippi, President Nixon established the Commission on Campus Unrest. Following is the Commission's conclusion on its special report on Kent State.[/italics] Kent State was a national tragedy. It was not, however, a unique tragedy. Only the magnitude of the student disorder and the extent of student deaths and injuries set it apart from other similar occurrences on numerous other American campuses during the past few years. We must learn from the particular horror of Kent State and insure that it is never repeated. The conduct of many students and non student protestors at Kent State on the first four days of May, 1970 was plainly intolerable. We have said in our report, and we repeat: violence by students on or off the campus can never be justified by any grievance, philosophy, or political idea. There can be no sanctuary or immunity from prosecution on the campus. Criminal acts by students must be treated as such wherever they occur and whatever their purpose. Those who wrought havoc on the town of Kent, {Photograph of National Guardsmen with rifles} those who burned the R.O.T.C. building, those who attacked and stoned National Guardsmen, and all those who urged them on and applauded their deeds share the responsibility for the deaths and injuries of May 4. The widespread student opposition to the Cambodian action and their general resentment of the National Guardsmen's presence on the campus cannot justify the violent and irresponsible actions of many students during the long weekend. The Cambodian invasion defined a watershed in the attitude of Kent students toward American policy in the Indochina war. Kent State had experienced no major turmoil during the preceding year, and no disturbances comparable in scope to the events of May had ever occurred on the campus. Some students thought the Cambodian action was an unnacceptable contradiction of the announced policy of gradual withdrawal from Viet Nam, or that the action constituted invasion of a neutral country, or that it would prolong the war. Opposition to the war appears to have been the principal issue around which students rallied during the first two days of May. Thereafter, the presence of the National Guard on campus was the focus of discontent. The Guard's presence appears to have been the man attraction and the main issue for most students who came to the May 4 rally. For students deeply opposed to the war, the Guard was a living symbol of the military system they opposed. For other students, the Guard was an outsider on their campus, prohibiting all their rallies, even peaceful ones, ordering them about, and tear gassing them when they refused to obey. The May 4 rally began as a peaceful assembly on the Commons-the traditional site of student assemblies. Even if the Guard had authority to prohibit a peaceful gathering-a question that is at least debatable-the decision to disperse the noon rally was a serious error. The timing and manner of the dispersal were disastrous. Many students were legitimately in the area as they went to and from class. The rally was held during the crowded noontime luncheon period. The rally was peaceful, and there was no apparent impending violence. Only when the Guard attempted to disperse the rally did some students react violently. Under these circumstances, the Guard's decision to march through the crowd for hundreds of yards up and down a hill was highly questionable. The crowd simply swirled around them and reformed again after they had passed. The Guard found itself on a football practice field far removed from its supply base and running out of tear gas. Guardsmen had been subjected to harassment and assault, were hot and tired, and felt dangerously vulnerable by the time they returned to the top of Blanket Hill. When they confronted the students, it was only too easy for a single shot to trigger a general fusillade. Many students considered the Guard's march from the R.O.T.C. ruins across the Commons up Blanket Hill, down to the football practice field, and back to Blanket Hill as a kind of charade. Tear-gas canisters were tossed back and forth to the cheers of the crowd, many of whom acted as if they were watching a game. Lieut. Alexander D. Stevenson, a platoon leader of Troop G, described the crowd in these words: "At the time of the firing, the crowd was acting like this whole thing was a circus. The crowd must have thought the National Guard was harmless. They were having fun with the National Guard. The circus was in town." The actions of some students were violent and criminal and those of some others were dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible. The indiscriminate firing {Political cartoon, Nixon and (?)Agnew holding paper titled "Reports of THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION on CAMPUS UNREST" caption below cartoon: 'Don't Worry, Chief-We're Going To Find The Radical Nut Who Appointed That Commission'} of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable. The National Guardsmen on the Kent State campus were armed with loaded M-1 rifles, high-velocity weapons with a horizontal range of almost two miles. As they confronted the students, all that stood between a guardsman and firing was the flick of a thumb on the safety mechanism, and the pull of an index finger on the trigger. When firing began, the toll taken by these lethal weapons was disastrous. The Guard fired amidst great turmoil and confusion, engendered in part by their own activities. But the guardsmen should not have been able to kill so easily in the first place. The general issuance of loaded weapons to law enforcement officers engaged in controlling disorders is never justified except in the case of armed resistance that trained sniper teams are unable to handle. This was not the case at Kent State, yet each guardsman carried a loaded M-1 rifle. This lesson is not new. The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders and the guidelines of the Department of the Army set it out explicitly. No one would have died at Kent State if this lesson had been learned by the Ohio National Guard. 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 given, and there was inadequate fire control discipline on Blanket Hill. The Kent State tragedy must mark the last time that, as a matter of course, loaded rifles are issued to guardsmen confronting student demonstrators. Our entire report attempts to define the lessons of Kent State, lessons that the Guard, police, students, faculty, administrators, Government at all levels, and the American people must learn-and begin, at once, to act upon. We commend it to their attention. ________________ ________________ "We urge that the President exercise his reconciling moral leadership as the first step to prevent violence and create understanding. It is imperative that the President bring us together before more lives are lost and more property destroyed and more universities disrupted.... "We recommend that the President take the lead in explaining to the American people the underlying causes of campus unrest and the urgency of the present situation. We recommend that he articulate and emphasize those values all Americans hold in common. At the same time we urge him to point out the importance of diversity and coexistence to the nation's health. "To this end, nothing is more important that an end to the war in Indochina. Disaffected students see the war as a symbol of moral crisis in the nation which, in their eyes, deprives even law of its legitimacy. Their dramatic reaction to the Cambodian invasion was a measure of the intensity of their moral recoil." -The President's Commission on Campus Unrest
 
Campus Culture