The Kent State University May 1970 Shootings

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Reactions to the Shootings
Root Cause of the Shootings: President Nixon’s Military Policies on Vietnam War
The Post-War Memory
Lessons From the May 1970 Incident
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

One of the historical pieces that embeds in people of Ohio is the Kent State University shootings in the south of Cleveland. The firings, commonly referred to as May 4 Massacre, involved a gunfire near the University, which claimed three lives instantly and an additional one during hospitalization (O’Hara 322). Additionally, the massacre injured nine other students, one being permanently paralyzed by the unfortunate event. The killings happened during a peace demonstration organized to oppose the expansion of the Vietnam War by the US military into Cambodia. The university students had held a peace rally that also purposed to eject National Guard presence on the campus (Grace “Kent State: Aftermath” 233). For the first time in the US, an incident of student killing in an anti-war meeting was reported making Ohio have a unique feature in the May 4, 1970 incident. Many people condemned the shootings, and the global humanitarian agencies and other students across the US and the entire world, pointed the finger at the US military’s way of executing the shooting.

Reactions to the Shootings

What happened to be a political-ideological difference turned to be a violent exposure that affected students’ lives and disorganized the learning programs in Kent and other institutions. It was reported that there were around 28 National Guard armed personnel that fired more than 67 rounds for 13 seconds killing Allison Beth Krause, Jeffrey Glenn Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox, who was reported dead upon arrival at Robinson Memorial Hospital (Grace “Kent State: Epilogue” 88). On the following day, Tuesday, May 5, opinion polls would decide many candidates’ hopes into Senate. A message by Professor Ken Calkins dubbed ‘Don’t send a murderer to Senate’ saw a defeat for Governor Rhodes, who was notably behind the political tensions that had catalyzed the expansion of the Vietnam War (Broadhurst 285). As many influencers wished, Rhodes lost to Robert Taft despite many Ohio towns backing him.

The incident sparked a raft of reactions in Ohio and across the country. There were countless student protests in other States where many people started to condemn the shooting, which involved non-armed students (Grace “Kent State: Aftermath” 243). The government mobilized several US Marines and National Guard soldiers to contain the demonstrations, which saw a tough and heated opposition from the perpetrators and the majority. In New England, civil rights leaders such as Lance Buhl moved a rally opposing the killings in collaboration with other key parties like Roy Inglee and Bob Bresnahan (Grace “Kent State: Epilogue” 93). In a nutshell, the traumatic incident was not received positively in any of the country’s points. Many viewed that as the unnecessary imposition of War to the students who demanded to refrain of warfare.

In Oberlin College, students rushed to the administration block on the night that President Nixon was making a speech as one way of following what grounds had made the National Guard officers kill innocent lives. Other students became rogue to the extent of burning properties at Bowling Green State University (Broadhurst 303). Many students rekindled similar occurrences that led to the loss of lives for protestors in the learning environment at the hands of disciplined forces. In other parts of the southwestern section of the State, Miami University experienced the same fate as 1000 students demonstrated the Cambodian invasion by the US military, which led to the closing of the City’s streets (Grace “Kent State: Aftermath” 246). Generally, the May 4 Massacre caused mayhem in many parts of the US, which led to a state of tension in the country as many saw a lack of humanitarian approach towards solving political issues.

Root Cause of the Shootings: President Nixon’s Military Policies on Vietnam War

As mentioned in the previous sections, the massacre had been orchestrated by the policy by the US government through the military to invade Cambodia, a critical matter that many American intellects felt unnecessary. The Vietnam War, in this case, was the key factor that had allowed the thought of the Cambodian Invasion. In 1969, President Richard Nixon assumed office, and from his predecessor, he inherited the Vietnam War (Broadhurst 300). It is important to discuss the politics behind the May 4 Massacre so that a reader understands the basic concepts that had probed the decision to expand the War. Nixon had at one point announced the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam, a decision that was termed as an intention to please the American populace (Grace “Kent State: Epilogue” 66). However, he continued to conduct secret bombings on the northern side of Vietnam, which passed through Cambodia. According to President Nixon, anti-war movements were unpatriotic despite being elected by many students to end the War.

It is vital to mention that many students were peaceful during President Nixon’s early months as the US president hence, giving him time to execute his policies to end the War. The challenge came due to Nixon’s craving to win in Vietnam. Thus, he could not withdraw from the War that easily due to political significance it had on his legacy. The president then enacted counterintelligence strategies to monitor the revolutionary and campus radicals who were opposing the War (Eszterhas and Roberts 23). At this point, Nixon had increased surveillance operations in April, a month prior to the May 4 Massacre. However, the military policies set by Nixon were widely accepted, but they did not seem to be realistic since he had announced the invasion of Cambodia to stop North and South Vietnam wrangles.

At the moment of invading Cambodia, many universities and colleges erupted in protest, among them being Kent State University, University of Maryland, University of Wisconsin, among others. Therefore, the political projections mentioned in this section were the key issues that made students protest against the military stand in the Vietnam War. The injured and killed students during the May 4 Massacre had their troubles rooted in these key agendas during President Nixon’s early term (Eszterhas and Roberts 73). If President Nixon had not initiated the plan to send US ground troops to navigate the War, the shootings would not have occurred. The reason is that students had hopes in diplomatic manifestos the leader had when it came to the War.

The Post-War Memory

The May 1970 shootings have never been forgotten in the US, as many people know what transpired that day. Each spring, Kent State University hosts memorial events during the week where May 4 falls. The retrospective ceremonies are intended to remember the University’s dark day and as one way of keeping the peace that will prevent such occurrences in the future. Since the Vietnam War era, the Kent State has changed as many people campaign for unity and historical reconciliation (Grace “Kent State: Fire in the City, Vigils on the Campus” 83). The victims of the shootings are no longer mourned but celebrated as one way of encouraging liberal-minded people in political, social, and economic matters. The framework of post-war memories is not ignoble as the US history is enriched with contributors to national agendas that drive the country in many perspectives (Eszterhas and Roberts 129). It is important to have the memory activities during the commemoration to preserve the unsettled aspects that cause conspiracy, renewal, and national progress.

Lessons From the May 1970 Incident

Through the incident, many people condemned President Nixon’s military plan to the Vietnam War, which saw moderation of the major happenings during the battle. At this point, the reader learns that triumph in intense political matters may be orchestrated by liberty to express oneself through key events that probe change of tactics towards a given event (O’Hara 308). The anti-war signs and the Kent Committee to end War in Vietnam enable the audience to understand that the humanitarian approach to warfare started a long time after the Second World War. Many efforts were made to end the Vietnam War, which means the shootings would not have happened; hence, no lives could be lost. People also learn that political significance necessitates decisions that alter the way issues are handled (O’Hara 311). Many political actions come to commence a journey towards changing the welfare of societies. It was inhumane to shoot innocent lives, unarmed and focused on anti-war, an issue which President Nixon’s tenure should have embraced.

Conclusion

The Kent State University May 1970 refers to the day-light shootings executed by the US National Guard, a section within the country’s military paraphernalia. Four students died, while nine others were critically injured as a result. The students were protesting against President Nixon’s military invasion of Cambodia to end the Vietnam War. There were many protests over the country where learning was disrupted in various universities and colleges from the incident. In a nutshell, the May 4 Massacre was orchestrated by political issues running in the country then. Those who got harmed and killed are part of the US celebrated personnel during the 20^th century, which marked the journey of political revolution that shaped America significantly.

Works Cited

Broadhurst, Christopher. “We Didn’t Fire a Shot; We Didn’t Burn a Building”: The Student Reaction at North Carolina State University to the Kent State Shootings, May 1970″. The North Carolina Historical Review, vol 87, no. 3, 2010, pp. 283-309.

Eszterhas, Joe, and Michael Roberts. Thirteen Seconds: Confrontation at Kent State. Gray & Company, Publishers Cleveland, 1970.

Grace, Thomas M. Kent State: Aftermath. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016.

Grace, Thomas M. Kent State: Epilogue. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016.

Grace, Thomas M. Kent State: Fire in the City, Vigils on the Campus. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016.

O’Hara, John Fitzgerald. “Kent State/May 4 and Post-war Memory”. American Quarterly, vol 58, no. 2, 2006, pp. 301-328.

Click Here To Order Now!