DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971 | 1971-11-12 American Report: Review of Religion and American Power Page 26

Transcribe
Translate

Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971

1971-11-12 American Report: Review of Religion and American Power Page 26

22-S  AMERICAN REPORT  NOVEMBER 12, 1971


{photograph of older man holding sign which reads: LAW without Justice IS THE WORST FORM OF Violence. Lawrence Frank}

N.C.C. Board Passes Resolution on Kent
   [italics] The following is a resolution "on due process in respect to the Kent State killings" passed by the General Board of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. on September 10, 1971, in New Orleans.[/italics]
   [bold]WHEREAS:[/bold] 16 months have passed since four students were killed by Ohio National Guardsmen on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio, and
   [bold]WHEREAS:[/bold] The Attorney General of the United States has announced that-though the killings were "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable"-the Department of Justice would take no further action to determine who was responsible, and
   [bold]WHEREAS:[/bold] The parents of the four students killed, the students who were wounded, and the Guardsmen who had been blamed for the killings are thus denied an adequate forum in which to test under compulsory process, immunity statuses, and the rules of evidence the several allegations arising out of the events;
   [bold]THEREFORE:[/BOLD] The General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. urges:

1. That the Attorney General of the United States reconsider his decision and call a Federal Grand Jury to afford those wronged a suitable forum for weighing the charges of conspiracy and murder brought against Ohio Guardsmen and authorities;
 
2. That is the Attorney General considers the laws of the United States to be inadequate to protect citizens from violence by persons acting under color of law, he propose additional legislation to correct that inadequacy;
 
3. That the appropriate committees of Congress investigate this occurence and others like it with a view to determining the adequacy of present statutes, and; 

4. That the aggrieved parties continue to seek a remedy in the civil courts;

[bold]AND FURTHERMORE:[/bold] The General Board authorizes the Department of Social Justice of the Division of Christian Life and Mission to receive and disburse contributions for the securing of justice in the Kent State case as part of its fund for securing due process of law.


Kent State: Why the Church?
by John P. Adams
   Why should the church be concerned with events like those which took place at Kent State University and Jackson State College in 1970? That is a question that has been raised repeatedly in recent weeks, especially since one of the denominations involved in the issues arising out of these incidents has been sued. Many persons make the assumption that the killing of students at Kent State and Jackson State is a fact with which only the Government should be concerned-that the Government at some level, though one agency or another, will appropriately investigate and then give the whole matter proper disposition.
   The church, it is maintained, should be busy with the business of "reconciliation" while others are doing the investigating. yes, surely reconciliation can never require that the facts be glossed over or the truth be hidden. Reconciliation cannot be purchased at the price of injustice. Reconciliation is not a smoothing over and a return to normal. It is, more, advancing in the power of love toward new truth which effects fresh relationships. 
   Consequently, when various Governmental agencies issue varying reports with conflicting testimony about an event in which human life was irresponsibly taken, the church must focus on that as a fact to be dealt with in the process of reconciliation. Otherwise, "getting back to normal," if that is what reconciliation means to some,  would require us to believe that it is normal for unarmed students to be killed on their own campuses by armed agents of the Government.
   The killing at Kent took place at high noon on a bright, sunny spring day. Nearly 3,000 photographs, it is said, were taken of the confrontation between the Ohio National Guard and the students at Kent State University on May 4, 1970. On that day, Ohio National Guardsmen, armed with M-1 combat rifles, advanced on an assembly of students which both the Scranton Commission report and the Justice Department Summary of the F.B.I. report said was initially peaceful and quiet. Within half and hour of that advance, four students were killed and nine were wounded. 
   That event is a graphic example - perhaps the clearest and most classic illustration - of the irresponsible and unlawful use of firearms by a Government against its own citizens particularly - but they are usually without witnesses and rarely photographed. At Kent State there were hundreds of witnesses, and prize winning photographs depict the entire event. Consequently, the Kent event must not be allowed to fade into the past until the real truth is known about the shooting and until responsibility for it is determined. 
   If a state governmental whitewash is allowed to stand as the only expression of justice relating to the killing, then a single, simple signal is sent across the country to all those who have official authority to use firearms in their contact with citizens: "You can fire indiscriminately and kill with impunity." Needless to say, no society which desires to stand and be stable can permit the sanctioning of the abuse of official power.
   The Attorney General of the United States, in agreeing with the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, called the shooting at Kent, "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable," and then announced that the case was closed. That cannot be satisfactory, for it furnishes a [italics] warrant [/italics] to kill for those who, in their official capacities, decide that it is [italics]necessary[/italics] to shoot and who can make up the [italics] excuses [/italics] afterward.   
   Justice Louis Brandeis, who sat on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916-1939, once wrote in an opinion, "Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
   Little has been said about the fact that the few anarchistic acts of youthful protestors have followed so closely those instances of law breaking by the Government. In a time in which we are urging young people to renew a faith in the so-called "system," it is absolutely essential that the Government demonstrate that justice is not a political tool to protect some and punish others. 
   The Report of Lawlessness and Law Enforcement, issued by the United States Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement in 1931, said, "Respect for law, which is the fundamental prerequisite of law observance, hardly can be expected of people in general if the officers charged with enforcement of the law do not set the example of obedience to its precepts."
   The 1931 report became emphatic about this effect when it said; "This official law breaking...recalls the story of the Dukhobor who tried to go naked in the streets of London. 'A policeman set out gravely to capture him, but found himself distanced because of his heavy clothing. Therefore, he divested himself, as he ran, of garment after garment until he was naked; and so lightened, he caught his prey. But then it was impossible to tell which was the Dukhobor and which was the policeman.'" When it becomes almost impossible to distinguish between whose who break the law and those who have the responsibility for enforcing the law, the church - and all other parts of the society - must be concerned and must be involved in finding the correctives.
   It has been suggested that the killing of students in May, 1970, actually was effective in quieting the campuses and in restoring order by causing students to return to their books instead of demonstrating their concern for the brutality of the Viet Nam war and the injustices to the poor in their own country. Those who believe this point to the "campus calm" during the past year. 
   In the middle of the condensation of James Michener's book, "Kent State: What Happened and Why," in the April issue of the [italics]Readers Digest[/italics], an advertisement for Othrno Chevron Chemical Company was placed. In advertising insecticides for the use in gardens, black bold word said, "The balance of nature is predicated on the fact that one thing dies so that another may live." Some believe that this is what happened. Some believe that the shooting of students at Kent was necessary in order that other students could live and the society could be preserved. Yet, no reference is made to the depression and despair, the agony and the anguish, which have been sharply felt by so many students. 
   The frustration of students, so openly expressed in 1970, have been driven to the inside and burns there within in them. As young people search for ways to creatively and constructively express their concerns, channels must be opened. The "system" now has a heavy burden of proof. It must show that dissent in a democratic society is not dangerous. It must open a process that was closed by bullets in May of 1970.
   The lowering of the voting age may have been one way by which a channel was opened, and the youth may answer the bullets with ballots. As a result, even though some governmental leaders tried to maintain power "out of the barrel of a gun" (as Mao Tse-tung suggested), the young may balance that power by pulling of voting levers and help determine the new leadership of the country. The whole community, including the church, should be concerned with the psychic vacuum that was left in the lives of the young across the nation after May, 1970, and must give encouragement and strong support as youth attempt once again to participate in the political process. 
   Yet it must be understood that the protection of the rights of citizens is not only for the benefit of the young, nor can it be accomplished by them alone. It is for every American citizen of every age. The message is clear. No citizen is safe when certain citizens can be summarily executed. When these rights are deprived by the gun, we have taken a long step forward full

(Cont. p. 24-S, Col. 1)

SUBSCRIBE TO AMERICAN REPORT

Saving...

22-S AMERICAN REPORT NOVEMBER 12, 1971 {photograph of older man holding sign which reads: LAW without Justice IS THE WORST FORM OF Violence. Lawrence Frank} N.C.C. Board Passes Resolution on Kent [italics] The following is a resolution "on due process in respect to the Kent State killings" passed by the General Board of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. on September 10, 1971, in New Orleans.[/italics] [bold]WHEREAS:[/bold] 16 months have passed since four students were killed by Ohio National Guardsmen on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio, and [bold]WHEREAS:[/bold] The Attorney General of the United States has announced that-though the killings were "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable"-the Department of Justice would take no further action to determine who was responsible, and [bold]WHEREAS:[/bold] The parents of the four students killed, the students who were wounded, and the Guardsmen who had been blamed for the killings are thus denied an adequate forum in which to test under compulsory process, immunity statuses, and the rules of evidence the several allegations arising out of the events; [bold]THEREFORE:[/BOLD] The General Board of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. urges: 1. That the Attorney General of the United States reconsider his decision and call a Federal Grand Jury to afford those wronged a suitable forum for weighing the charges of conspiracy and murder brought against Ohio Guardsmen and authorities; 2. That is the Attorney General considers the laws of the United States to be inadequate to protect citizens from violence by persons acting under color of law, he propose additional legislation to correct that inadequacy; 3. That the appropriate committees of Congress investigate this occurence and others like it with a view to determining the adequacy of present statutes, and; 4. That the aggrieved parties continue to seek a remedy in the civil courts; [bold]AND FURTHERMORE:[/bold] The General Board authorizes the Department of Social Justice of the Division of Christian Life and Mission to receive and disburse contributions for the securing of justice in the Kent State case as part of its fund for securing due process of law. Kent State: Why the Church? by John P. Adams Why should the church be concerned with events like those which took place at Kent State University and Jackson State College in 1970? That is a question that has been raised repeatedly in recent weeks, especially since one of the denominations involved in the issues arising out of these incidents has been sued. Many persons make the assumption that the killing of students at Kent State and Jackson State is a fact with which only the Government should be concerned-that the Government at some level, though one agency or another, will appropriately investigate and then give the whole matter proper disposition. The church, it is maintained, should be busy with the business of "reconciliation" while others are doing the investigating. yes, surely reconciliation can never require that the facts be glossed over or the truth be hidden. Reconciliation cannot be purchased at the price of injustice. Reconciliation is not a smoothing over and a return to normal. It is, more, advancing in the power of love toward new truth which effects fresh relationships. Consequently, when various Governmental agencies issue varying reports with conflicting testimony about an event in which human life was irresponsibly taken, the church must focus on that as a fact to be dealt with in the process of reconciliation. Otherwise, "getting back to normal," if that is what reconciliation means to some, would require us to believe that it is normal for unarmed students to be killed on their own campuses by armed agents of the Government. The killing at Kent took place at high noon on a bright, sunny spring day. Nearly 3,000 photographs, it is said, were taken of the confrontation between the Ohio National Guard and the students at Kent State University on May 4, 1970. On that day, Ohio National Guardsmen, armed with M-1 combat rifles, advanced on an assembly of students which both the Scranton Commission report and the Justice Department Summary of the F.B.I. report said was initially peaceful and quiet. Within half and hour of that advance, four students were killed and nine were wounded. That event is a graphic example - perhaps the clearest and most classic illustration - of the irresponsible and unlawful use of firearms by a Government against its own citizens particularly - but they are usually without witnesses and rarely photographed. At Kent State there were hundreds of witnesses, and prize winning photographs depict the entire event. Consequently, the Kent event must not be allowed to fade into the past until the real truth is known about the shooting and until responsibility for it is determined. If a state governmental whitewash is allowed to stand as the only expression of justice relating to the killing, then a single, simple signal is sent across the country to all those who have official authority to use firearms in their contact with citizens: "You can fire indiscriminately and kill with impunity." Needless to say, no society which desires to stand and be stable can permit the sanctioning of the abuse of official power. The Attorney General of the United States, in agreeing with the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, called the shooting at Kent, "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable," and then announced that the case was closed. That cannot be satisfactory, for it furnishes a [italics] warrant [/italics] to kill for those who, in their official capacities, decide that it is [italics]necessary[/italics] to shoot and who can make up the [italics] excuses [/italics] afterward. Justice Louis Brandeis, who sat on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916-1939, once wrote in an opinion, "Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Little has been said about the fact that the few anarchistic acts of youthful protestors have followed so closely those instances of law breaking by the Government. In a time in which we are urging young people to renew a faith in the so-called "system," it is absolutely essential that the Government demonstrate that justice is not a political tool to protect some and punish others. The Report of Lawlessness and Law Enforcement, issued by the United States Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement in 1931, said, "Respect for law, which is the fundamental prerequisite of law observance, hardly can be expected of people in general if the officers charged with enforcement of the law do not set the example of obedience to its precepts." The 1931 report became emphatic about this effect when it said; "This official law breaking...recalls the story of the Dukhobor who tried to go naked in the streets of London. 'A policeman set out gravely to capture him, but found himself distanced because of his heavy clothing. Therefore, he divested himself, as he ran, of garment after garment until he was naked; and so lightened, he caught his prey. But then it was impossible to tell which was the Dukhobor and which was the policeman.'" When it becomes almost impossible to distinguish between whose who break the law and those who have the responsibility for enforcing the law, the church - and all other parts of the society - must be concerned and must be involved in finding the correctives. It has been suggested that the killing of students in May, 1970, actually was effective in quieting the campuses and in restoring order by causing students to return to their books instead of demonstrating their concern for the brutality of the Viet Nam war and the injustices to the poor in their own country. Those who believe this point to the "campus calm" during the past year. In the middle of the condensation of James Michener's book, "Kent State: What Happened and Why," in the April issue of the [italics]Readers Digest[/italics], an advertisement for Othrno Chevron Chemical Company was placed. In advertising insecticides for the use in gardens, black bold word said, "The balance of nature is predicated on the fact that one thing dies so that another may live." Some believe that this is what happened. Some believe that the shooting of students at Kent was necessary in order that other students could live and the society could be preserved. Yet, no reference is made to the depression and despair, the agony and the anguish, which have been sharply felt by so many students. The frustration of students, so openly expressed in 1970, have been driven to the inside and burns there within in them. As young people search for ways to creatively and constructively express their concerns, channels must be opened. The "system" now has a heavy burden of proof. It must show that dissent in a democratic society is not dangerous. It must open a process that was closed by bullets in May of 1970. The lowering of the voting age may have been one way by which a channel was opened, and the youth may answer the bullets with ballots. As a result, even though some governmental leaders tried to maintain power "out of the barrel of a gun" (as Mao Tse-tung suggested), the young may balance that power by pulling of voting levers and help determine the new leadership of the country. The whole community, including the church, should be concerned with the psychic vacuum that was left in the lives of the young across the nation after May, 1970, and must give encouragement and strong support as youth attempt once again to participate in the political process. Yet it must be understood that the protection of the rights of citizens is not only for the benefit of the young, nor can it be accomplished by them alone. It is for every American citizen of every age. The message is clear. No citizen is safe when certain citizens can be summarily executed. When these rights are deprived by the gun, we have taken a long step forward full (Cont. p. 24-S, Col. 1) SUBSCRIBE TO AMERICAN REPORT