You have heard rumors of the existence of the Ⓐnti-Society.

No doubt you have formed your own picture of it.
You have imagined a huge underworld of conspirators,
meeting secretly in cellars, scribbling messages on walls,
recognizing one another by code words
or by special movements of the hand.

I tell you that the Anti-Society exist,
but I cannot tell you whether it numbers a hundred members,
or ten million.
From your personal knowledge you will never be able to say.

The Ⓐnti-Society cannot be wiped out
because it is not an organization in the ordinary sense.

Nothing holds it together except an idea
which is indestructible.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

The History of People's Park in Bloomington, IN.

There is a place in southern Indiana that some call “the Oasis of the Midwest”. It is a small plot of land located at the corner of Dunn St. and Kirkwood Ave. in a growing college town called Bloomington. Today the park is more of a graveyard for memories, as the town that was at one time a flowering community of artist, poets, musicians, activist and hippies is being consumed by corporate America. The charming and locally owned shops and cafes that had at one time lined Kirkwood have now been replaced by fast food franchises, townhouse apartments, and trendy clothing stores. But, in the not so distant past, Bloomington, IN. was a political hot spot of social change and if you were a hippie or a punk or a radical or just a traveler passing through the area, everyone knew that the small patch of land that the locals call Peoples Park was the place to be.

“Peoples Park is on the west coast” some of you might say, and you would be right. Let’s have a little history lesson for those of you who may not know about Peoples Park. To begin the lesson we must take our thoughts away from the Midwestern United States and think of going west to sunny California.

People's Park in Berkeley, California, USA is a park off Telegraph Avenue, bounded by Haste and Bowditch Streets and Dwight Way, near the University of California, Berkeley. The park was created during the radical political activism of the late 1960s. Today it serves mainly as a daytime sanctuary for Berkeley's large homeless population who take advantage of meals offered by East Bay Food Not Bombs. Some students make regular use of the basketball courts, and a wider audience is attracted by occasional concerts held at the performance stage. Beyond the homeless, few Berkeley residents use the community garden or other facilities.

The mythology surrounding the park is an important part of local culture. The surrounding South Campus neighborhood was the scene of a major confrontation between student protestors and law enforcement during May, 1969. A mural near the park, painted by Berkeley artist and lawyer Osha Neumann, depicts the shooting of James Rector, a student who died from shotgun wounds inflicted by law enforcement on May 15, 1969.

Origin of the park
In 1956 the Regents of the University of California earmarked a 2.8-acre (11,000 m2) plot of land containing residences for future development into student housing, parking and offices as part of the University's "Long Range Plan for Expansion." At the time funds were lacking to purchase the land, and the plan was shelved until June 1967, when the University acquired $1.3 million to take the land through the process of eminent domain. After taking control of the land, neighborhood residents were evicted, and demolition of the existing homes began.

By 1967 the University had altered its plan; the new plan was to build student parking lot and a playing field on the land. Demolition of the existing residences took over a year, and the University ran out of development funds, leaving the lot only partially cleared of demolition debris and rubble. It remained in this state for over a year, and as winter began the muddy site became derelict with abandoned cars.






Photobucket

On April 13, 1969, local merchants and residents held a meeting to discuss possible uses for the derelict site. Michael Delacour presented a plan for developing the under-utilized University-owned land into a public park. This plan was approved by those attending the meeting, but not by the University. Stew Albert, a co-founder of the Yippy Party, agreed to write an article for the local counter-culture newspaper, the Berkeley Barb, on the subject of the park, particularly to call for help from local residents.
Michael Delacour stated, "We wanted a free speech area that wasn't really controlled like Sproul Plaza was. It was another place to organize, another place to have a rally. The park was secondary." The University's Free Speech microphone was available to all students, with few if any restrictions on free speech. The construction of the People's Park involved many of the same people and politics as the 1964 Free Speech Movement.
On April 18, 1969, Albert's article appeared in the Berkeley Barb, and on Sunday, April 20, 1969 over 100 people arrived at the site to begin building the park. Local landscape architect Jon Read and many others contributed trees, flowers, shrubs, and sod. Free food was provided and community development of the park proceeded. Eventually, approximately 1000 people became directly involved, with many more donating money and materials. The park was essentially complete by mid-May.



Photobucket
Frank Bardacke, a participant in the park's development, stated in a documentary film called Berkeley in the Sixties, "A group of people took some corporate land, owned by the University of California, that was a parking lot and turned it into a park and then said, 'We're using the land better than you used it; it's ours'".
On April 28, 1969, Berkeley Vice Chancellor Earl Cheit released plans for a sports field to be built on the site. This plan conflicted with the plans of the People's Park activists. However, Vice Chancellor Cheit stated that he would take no action without notifying the park builders. Two days later, on April 30, he decided to allocate control over one quarter of the plot to the Park's builders. On May 6, 1969, Chancellor Heyns held a meeting with members of the People's Park committee, student representatives, and faculty from the College of Environmental Design. He set a time limit of three weeks for this group to produce a plan for the park, and he reiterated his promise not to take action without prior warning.
"Bloody Thursday" and its aftermath
During its first three weeks, People's Park was enjoyed and appreciated by University students and local residents alike. Telegraph Ave. merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to improve the neighborhood. Objections to the expropriation of University property tended to be mild, even among school administrators.



Photobucket
Governor Ronald Reagan had been publicly critical of University administrators for tolerating student demonstrations at the Berkeley campus, and he had received enormous popular support for his 1966 gubernatorial campaign promise to crack down on what was perceived as the generally lax attitude at California's public universities. Reagan called the Berkeley campus "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants."
Reagan considered the creation of the park a direct leftist challenge to the property rights of the University, and he found in it an opportunity to make good on his campaign promise.
Governor Reagan overrode Chancellor Heyns' May 6, 1969 promise that nothing would be done without warning, and on Thursday, May 15, 1969 at 4:45 a.m., he sent 250 California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park. The officers cleared an 8-block area around the park while a large section of what had been planted was destroyed and an 8-foot (2.4 m) tall perimeter chain-link wire fence was installed to keep people out and to prevent the planting of more trees, grass, flowers and shrubs.



Photobucket
Beginning at noon, approximately 3,000 people appeared in Sproul Plaza at nearby U.C. Berkeley for a rally, the original purpose of which was to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several people spoke, then Michael Lerner ceded the Free Speech platform to ASUC Student Body President Dan Siegel because students were concerned about the fencing-off and destruction of the park. Siegel said later that he never intended to precipitate a riot; however when he shouted "Let's take back the park!," police turned off the sound system. This angered some people, and the crowd responded spontaneously, moving down Telegraph Avenue toward People's Park chanting "We want the park!"
Arriving in the early afternoon, the protestors were met by the remaining 159 Berkeley and University police officers assigned to guard the fenced-off park site. The protestors opened a fire hydrant, the officers fired tear gas canisters, some protestors attempted to tear down the fence, and bottles and rocks were thrown. A major confrontation ensued between law enforcement and the crowd. Initial attempts by the police to disperse the protestors were not successful, so more officers were called in from surrounding cities.



Photobucket
Reagan's Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, a former district attorney from Alameda County, had established a reputation for firm opposition to those protesting the Vietnam War at the Oakland Induction Center and elsewhere. Meese assumed responsibility for the governmental response to the People's Park protest, and he called in the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies, which brought the total police presence to 791 officers from various jurisdictions.
Under Meese's direction, the police were permitted to use whatever methods they chose against the crowds, which had swelled to approximately 6,000 people. Officers in full riot gear (helmets, shields and gas masks) obscured their badges to avoid being identified and headed into the crowds with nightsticks swinging.



Photobucket
The most aggressive were the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies—later dubbed "The Blue Meanies"—who resorted to using shotguns loaded with "00" buckshot. "00" buckshot consists of lead pellets that are much larger, and thus more lethal, than the birdshot that is occasionally used for crowd control. The Alameda County Sheriff's deputies used shotguns to fire "00" buckshot at people sitting on the roof at the Telegraph Repertory Cinema, fatally wounding student James Rector and permanently blinding carpenter Alan Blanchard. Neither man was a protestor.



Photobucket
As the protestors retreated, the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies chased them several blocks down Telegraph Avenue as far as Willard Junior High School at Derby Street, firing tear gas canisters and "00" buckshot into their backs as they fled. At least one tear gas canister landed on the school grounds. Many people, including innocent bystanders, suffered permanent injuries, some with as many as a hundred lead pellet wounds in their scalps, necks, backs, buttocks and thighs. One man, John Willard, lived for years in intractable pain with lead pellets lodged near his spine.



Photobucket
At least 128 Berkeley citizens were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by law enforcement. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested. Many more protestors and bystanders were treated for minor injuries. Local hospital logs show that 19 police officers or Alameda County Sheriff's deputies were treated for minor injuries; none were hospitalized.
The authorities initially claimed that only birdshot had been used as shotgun ammunition. When physicians provided "00" pellets removed from the wounded as evidence that buckshot had been used, Sheriff Frank Madigan of Alameda County justified the use of shotguns loaded with lethal buckshot by stating "... the choice was essentially this: to use shotguns—because we didn't have the available manpower—or retreat and abandon the City of Berkeley to the mob." Sheriff Madigan did admit, however, that some of his deputies (many of whom were Vietnam War veterans) had been overly aggressive in their pursuit of the protestors, "as though they were Viet Cong."
Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops— ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty. The Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 against the decision to occupy their city, however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guardsmen sent tear gas canisters scuttling along the street toward any group of more than two people together.



Photobucket
On Wednesday, May 21, 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the University campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.



Photobucket
During the Peoples Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protestors from planting flowers, shrubs or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD. A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Initially, Guardsmen were occasionally seen walking hand in hand with young Berkeley women, and they often expressed sympathy with the protesters. After about a week, however, local National Guardsmen were sent home and replaced with National Guardsmen from the more conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles; this "fixed" this problem in the view of the governor's office. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence.
A curfew was established, and protestors jumped fences after dark to plant flowers in the guarded lots. Guardsmen destroyed the flowers each morning. Some protestors, their faces hidden with scarves, challenged police and National Guard troops. Hundreds were arrested, and Berkeley citizens who found it necessary to venture out during curfew hours risked police harassment and beatings. Berkeley city police officers were discovered to be parking several blocks away from the Annex park, removing their badges/identification and donning grotesque Halloween type masks (ironically including pig faces) to go inflict violence upon citizens they found in the park annex.
Flower Children vs.The Establishment; these differing perspectives mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual mores, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of The American Dream.
In a University referendum held soon after, the U.C. Berkeley students themselves voted 12,719 to 2,175 in favor of keeping the park.
On May 30, 1969, 30,000 Berkeley citizens (out of a population of 100,000) secured a Berkeley city permit and marched without incident past barricaded People's Park to protest Governor Reagan's occupation of their city, the death of James Rector, the blinding of Alan Blanchard and the many injuries inflicted by law enforcement. Young girls slid flowers down the muzzles of bayoneted National Guard rifles, and a small airplane flew over the city trailing a banner that read, "Let A Thousand Parks Bloom."



Photobucket




Almost a year after 'Bloody Thursday' and the death of James Rector, addressing the California Council of Growers at Yosemite, Reagan defended his actions, saying: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement." Less than a month later, on May 4, 1970, similar violence erupted at Kent State University, killing four students and seriously wounding nine.

No police officers, Alameda County Sheriff's deputies or National Guardsmen were disciplined for their actions in the Bloody Thursday incident.



Photobucket

What do all of these events that took place in Berkley, CA. at the end of the 1960’s have to do with a little plot of land all the way over in Bloomington, IN.? Well boys and girls, gather around and settle down for the rest of our little history lesson.

History of “The Park”
A very leftie guy named Larry Canada owned the corner building at Kirkwood Ave. and Dunn St. and in 1968 that housed a business called “The Black Market”. It was a place to find records, zines and even art for and by mainly African Americans of the time, he invited all the leftie groups to move in. There were books and classes offered as well. During, I believe, Christmas vacation 1969 when everyone was gone the local K.K.K. burned it to the ground and no one was ever caught.



Photobucket

The building was eventually demolished and the vacant property was left abandoned for many years.
In 1967 Indianapolis native Kathy Noyes moved to Bloomington from Boston, where she had been enrolled in school. She was recently divorced from her husband, who had enlisted in the army after receiving his draft notice. She had an inheritance from her father, Evan Noyes, an executive with the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and nephew of the company’s founder. In Bloomington Noyes met Larry Canada, a local boy, who in her own words “swept me off of my feet.” They got married in Beck Chapel on the IU campus.
The northeast corner lot now known as “Peoples Park” was originally to be the home of “The Fated Calf.” a franchise restaurant, but those plans fell through. The vacant lot became over run with trash and litter and became an eyesore for the community. Then the local hippies and activist squatted on it and in March of 1970 turned it into Peoples Park'. The project was headed by Tom Canada the little brother of Larry Canada. Tom was quoted the by the Herald Telephone as saying “What we want to do is turn it into a park for the people. We want to plant flowers and put in benches. Anybody can use the park.”



Photobucket
A troubled history
Kathy Noyes Canada did more than just buy a farm and settle down to the joys of country living. Her husband had a vision of creating a new community in southern Indiana where people could come from all over the country and live freely off of the land. The Canadas bought several farms amassing about a thousand acres. Word went out that anyone could come live there for free. It did not take long for strangers from far places as distant as Washington D.C., and San Francisco to find there way there. Maybe that is where the “Oasis of the Midwest” title originated.
The FBI focused on the area because of Larry Canada’s friendship with Rennie Davis, one of the original members of the SDS, Davis and Canada were suspected of being part of that groups plot to plant a bomb in the nations capital. FBI came to Bloomington, specifically to Peoples Park looking for evidence that might be used against Canada. Local police arrested a few residents for possession of marijuana, but Kathy Canada suspected that they were more interested in finding out about her husbands political activities than they were in prosecuting people for pot. Black helicopters could be seen and heard in the skies above southern Indiana. After several months of surveillance, FBI agents arrested Larry Canada while he was sitting in Bloomington’s Peoples Park, on land also owned by him and Kathy.

As far as Kathy Canada was concerned, the situation was going downhill quickly. She had a small daughter to take care of and she was beginning to get frightened. One night in June 1971, someone burned a cross in a field opposite her house. Her neighbors received Ku Klux Klan literature in the mail. Finally Kathy divorced her husband.
In the 1960s a group of people lived in and around town who were connected in one way or another with the university people or with people who were, and who formed a viable cultural alternative to the local academic and business community. They were looking for a way out of straight society, a money-based economy, and all of the problems that went with the conventional lifestyles. Longtime residents were disturbed by newcomers who were drawn by Bloomington’s hospitality or attractiveness. What began as a peaceful cultural experiment turned into a battle between conflicting age groups and worldviews. Members of the counterculture took it all in as they continued to live their lives quietly on Bloomington’s streets, in country houses, and on nearby farms.





Photobucket
The “Park” has went through its rough times over the years as well. In 1975 Larry Canada was poised to sell the park to a corporate firm who was in turn going to build a three story concrete business structure. According to an article in the Indiana Daily Student dated June 19, 1975 he changed his mind and gave up a “$2 million signed lease” for a space in the structure because of public opposition. He was also quoted as saying “There’s no reason that I as an individual should have to supply the public with something that is the responsibility of the city.”
Eventually Kathy Canada did donate the park to the city on the condition that the property always remain a park or it would be returned to her estate, and not long there after about 45 percent of the park was lost when the back field was paved over to make a parking lot.



Photobucket
In 1978 the “sitting walls” were added to the side of the park that faced Kirkwood Ave. New tables were added at this time as well as the first paved walk ways.
Then again in the eighties the park was stripped down and sterilized even more when nearly all of the original trees were uprooted and replaced with friendlier saplings while the majority of the grass was covered over with brick and pavement.
In the 1990’s police became concerned that the park was being used for loitering and drug traffic. It was rated by High Times magazine as the number five spot in the nation to score drugs. The city sought suggestions on how to make the park safer and more attractive. Fore the past two decades it has been a constant back and forth battle between local politicians and the people as to whether the park would be turned into commercial real estate or remain a park for the people. Police presence was increased over the past few years and there are even tales that the Park was under constant video surveillance. I have spent a good number of days in “the Park” just hanging out with friends and drinking (back when I did drink) or smoking some heady weed whenever I was in the area. I have made out with lovers and friends on the stone sculpture known as the U-ie and once had my check bone fractured when I got into some kind of drug induced drunken altercation. A lot has changed over the years. I no longer drink or use drugs these days and the park has become a concrete covered area that resembles a parking lot than a park. Everything changes with the passing of time I suppose.
I have even been hearing rumors that the park was recently "incorporated" by the Indiana University campus. These are as of this writing nothing more than rumors however. This could spell out bad news for the future of "Peoples Park" if these rumors prove to hold any truth.
Today, few of the people in People’s Park know the history of the place- the hippie head shops of the 1960s, the Black Market and the Klan firebombing in 1968, the connection with the Canadas. Ask people today what Bloomington is like and about “Peoples Park” and you are more likely to hear about the town’s links with the university, and especially with its nationally known basketball team. Then there are others that will say when asked “Bloomington,” with an odd knowing look in their eyes, “why, that’s the town where all the hippies were in the 1960s,” and then smile that strange little smile.



Photobucket

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Anti-Society is Anonymous!


The Resistance has been effect, the Revolution has began! We of the Anti-Society have been working towards and waiting for this time to come. We have trained ourselves in the arts of Urban and Wilderness survival. We have operated and lived our lives outside of the confines of today's societies and governments. We have striven to educate and enlighten ourselves and others. We are legion! We do NOT forgive! We do NOT forget! We are the Anti-Society, and we too are Anonymous!


Sunday, October 16, 2011

An enduring history lesson for the "occupyers" of today!

Mary Ann Vecchio gestures and screams as she k...Image via Wikipedia
Four decades ago today, members of the Ohio National Guard shot dead four students at Kent State University.

The incident is today seen as the moment the free-spirited idealism of the Sixties collided head-on with the state’s deadly coercive powers. A nation’s youth, attempting to exercise their rights to free speech and assembly, were deliberately gunned down by their own government.

That the deaths were immortalized in iconic photos and the song Ohio by the band Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, which still receives substantial airplay today, has solidified the incident’s stature as a signature moment in modern social and cultural history.

To all of those who are "Occupying" everywhere across the globe, we of the Anti-Society support your ideology of exercising and/or demanding your freedom and do here and now voice our solidarity with each and every one of you brave and beautiful people. It is exciting to see so many people waking up from the slumber at once in masses! Awaken, and shake the sleep from your senses! Tell me, what do you remember? Do you remember?

THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH
FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY

BY

JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY




On May 4, l970 members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4th, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.

In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4th and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970 at Kent State University.(1)

Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses,(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.

This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4th shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.

WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?

The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970 by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.

Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.

Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.

The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?

Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.

Sunday, May 3rd was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protestors and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.

WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?

At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.

Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.

WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4th. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.

The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4th rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.

WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about ten minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, twenty-eight of the more than seventy Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13 second period.

HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?

Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.

Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13 second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about sixty feet; he was standing still with his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.

WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?

The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.

The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.

The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:

In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.

Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.

We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.


A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."

WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?

While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13 second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.

Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about twenty minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.

Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.

The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.

WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?

A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a fourteen year old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.

The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.

John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.

WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?

Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.

First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.

Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.

Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.

Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State ten days after Kent State.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?

Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4th shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4th events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.

(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4th? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?

(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?

(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?

(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?

(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?

(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?

WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?

In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."

The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4th at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.


Now a little word of warning to ALL of you the PEOPLE! If I were a tyrannical government who wished to oppress any opposition to my ruling power, I might orchestrate events so as to cause a mass "non-violent and peaceful" (stressing peaceful and non-violent to ensure that my opposition will pose no physical or substantial threat) gathering of all of those who oppose my tyranny and oppression, so that I might swiftly and expediently with unsuspected force and necessary violence exterminate those who might resist my reign or cause any future dissent against such. At the very least, I would make sure to take full advantage of such a mass gathering of those whom oppose my oppression.