Megan Kathleen McDonald

Dr. Steph Brown

English 306

14 September 2016

The May 4th Massacre

Extreme trust must be instilled in American voters when choosing a president to lead our country; for the people never know their exact intentions that they plan on executing after they are elected. Candidate Richard Nixon promised the American people an escape to peace from the Vietnam War. On November 3, 1969, American citizens were distraught when President Nixon announced on national television his new plan known as “Vietnamization” which ordered to draft and send 150,000 soldiers overseas in expansion of the Vietnam War. Young Americans in this time period acted in an ironic fashion because although they elected Nixon to bring them peace, he did not comply with these plans which lead to the citizens and especially the National Guardsmen to act out in an inappropriate and violent manner. The May 4^th massacre was an outcome of president Nixon’s expansion and lead to open fire on a college campus in Kent Ohio, ending in 4 tragic deaths and 9 injuries.

First, it is crucial to realize the relevant abuse of authoritative power that took place during the Kent State rally in 1970. Although 3 days’ worth of protests were executed in result of Nixon’s announcement on the Draft Lottery, the National Guardsmen took an extremely impulsive precaution during their duty on campus, resulting in pain and suffering nation wide. Despite the fact that this protest was indeed very violent, it is necessary to grasp the fact that these actions taken on not only protestors, but innocent bystanders as well, are what resulted in the May 4^th massacre.

Strong emotion is shown throughout this controversial matter being that antiwar protestors voicing their opinion and even innocent lives were put in danger, or lost completely. College is a self-enriching growth period in a person’s life. Being that students’ nation wide and more specifically, those involved in the Kent State shooting, were robbed of this opportunity displays reasoning behind their angry protests towards President Nixon. While National Guardsmen witnessed the several mass rallies’ that occurred, an article gives a better glimpse of the terror the students were facing when shots were fired by stating, “The crackle of the rifle volley cut the suddenly still air. It appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer. Some of the students dived to the ground, crawling on the grass in terror. Others stood shocked or half crouched, apparently believing the troops were firing into the air. Some of the rifle barrels were pointed upward” (NY Times). This quote undoubtedly appeals to emotion because of the sudden action that protestors and bystanders were forced to take in order to protect their own lives. This situation is extremely ironic to anyone involved because all adolescents nearby were shielding themselves from authority whose responsibility is to protect and serve citizens. After the round of riffle shots were fired, “a slim girl, wearing a cowboy shirt and faded jeans, was lying face down on the road at the edge of the parking lot, blood pouring out onto the macadam, about 10 feet from this reporter” (NY Times). The emotion that this quote illustrates in this 1970’s news report allows for people who were not on the scene to gain a personal perspective on this tragedy. The description of this young woman adds a sense of authenticity to those uninvolved on account of the harsh reality that her opinion was unreasonably oppressed. Sandy Scheuer, William Schroeder, Allison Krause, and Jeffrey Miller were all between the ages 19 and 20 that lost their lives as a result of destructive retaliation. Allison and Jeffrey participated in the antiwar protests; Sandy and William were walking from one class to another. The emotional toll that this bloodshed caused directly affected individuals and particularly the nation as a whole. The citizens’ emotions towards the Kent State shootings created a controversial issue that started “domino effect” of protests throughout United States. . It’s almost as if other wars began within America while trying to end the one in Vietnam.

            Factual evidence that has been gathered through FBI research and investigation states that all youth were unarmed at the scene of the protest. The first shot that began what was a horrific riot was fired by a National Guardsman. A research article regarding the disputed start to the shootings states, “There was an attempt to blame a mysterious sniper, of whom no trace was ever found; there was no evidence, on the ground, on still photographs or a film, of a shot fired by anyone but the Guardsmen” (The Ethical Spectacle). This accusation of an unknown individual possessing and firing a “mysterious sniper” allows for Guardsmen to shift the blame of their rapid fire onto those underserving. Guardsmen claim that the “sound of the sniper” was heard and that is what provoked them to fire. The suspicious sound of a rifle fire cannot be credible on account that there are no recorded witnesses, photos, or videos that prove this during the protests. In addition to this, Larry Shafer, Ohio National Guard on scene, told reporters his opinion over what had happened during his duty at Kent State. He states, “The Kent State shootings could have been prevented with proper leadership. There was never any real need for the National Guard to be in Kent in May 1970.” (Larry Shafer). The direct quotation from a National Guardsman member disagreeing with his own forces decisions, proves to American citizens that the situation that involved such fatality could have been easily avoided. The armament used at Kent State such as tear gas weapons and heavy duty rifles by Guardsmen should only be involved in military circumstances, obviously not a college protest. Clarity and credibility is given to those who were unable to witness this tragic event through evidence provided and the commentary of those who were involved.

            To some, 4 deaths and 9 injuries may not sound very destructive considering the lives that were taken in the Vietnam War. These adolescents’ names may sound like ordinary people, but these individuals’ lives were abruptly taken from not only themselves, but loved ones as well. In conclusion, the violent Cambodian Campaign and antiwar protestors at Kent State University did not deserve to be shot and this 1970’s nightmare provided a mere glimpse of incautious and rash actions that would take place by authority in the future. It is crucial to learn from this event, instilling in todays youth the certainty that it should be deemed right to be able to speak ones’ mind without any fear dwelling in their thoughts.

Works Cited

By Doing What Mitchell and Kleindienst Had. "Accounts." May 4 Archive -. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

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. "The May 4 Shootings at Kent State University: The Search for Historical Accuracy." Kent State University. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

"Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children." Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.

Kifner, John. "The New York Times." 4 Kent State Students Killed by Troops (n.d.): n. pag. Nytimes.com. Web. 14 Sept. 2016.