In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • President William T. Jerome IIIWhy Bowling Green State University Remained Open after the Kent State Shootings
  • Joshua Casmir Catalano (bio)

In the spring of 1970, the nation was only a few months removed from Woodstock’s atmosphere of peace and love when events thousands of miles away in Vietnam triggered violence and bloodshed at home. Student movements and demonstrations were nothing new to the nation as the 1960s witnessed a series of such events from the civil rights sit-ins and freedom rides in the South to the free speech riots on the University of California–Berkeley’s campus; however, the National Guard’s killing of four students at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, shocked the nation and furthered the idea of fighting a war at home and abroad. In Ohio, all of the state residential universities closed for a period of time following the tragedy except for one: Bowling Green State University.1 Much has been written on why the [End Page 51] events at KSU occurred, but an equally important question is: Why didn’t they take place somewhere else at a school such as BGSU?

Unlike the situation that existed at KSU and many other college campuses, BGSU did not have an irreconcilable fracture between the college administration and the student body due to inadequate lines of communication. Instead, under the democratic leadership of President William T. Jerome, the BGSU administration kept communication lines open and maintained the trust of the student body. President Jerome openly listened to students’ concerns, quickly sought to resolve issues, and earned the admiration of the students. President Jerome’s ability to openly communicate with students and the community helped prevent BGSU from enduring the violent protests that plagued its fellow universities and kept the BGSU campus open despite civic and student unrest regarding the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, the Black Student Union demands, and other issues. This style of democratic leadership kept BGSU classes in session.

the erosion of student–administrator relations in the 1960s

During the 1960s, a schism occurred between college administrators and students. This separation was long in the making and rooted in the events of previous decades. Benjamin T. Harrison and other scholars argue that the student protests of the 1960s grew out of the “second 30 years’ war,” which encompassed World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II.2 This crucible, which contained the women’s suffrage movement, the participation of blacks in the military, and the wide acceptance of labor reform, created a new ideological foundation from which the New Left would arise.3 This New Left political movement sought to reform policy and public opinion [End Page 52] regarding issues such as gay rights, drugs, abortion, the environment, war, and gender equality.

The post–World War II generation grew up during a period of unheard-of affluence as their parents, scarred from the events of the previous decades, sought to provide a better life for their children. The sheer numbers of the baby boom generation, in combination with the Cold War economy, resulted in the creation of mega-universities. Following World War II, colleges and universities changed dramatically as attendance numbers skyrocketed. BGSU grew from an enrollment total of 3,883 in 1954 to 14,880 in 1970.4 Similarly, KSU grew from six thousand students in 1955 to twenty-one thousand in 1970, and Ohio State grew from nineteen thousand to fifty thousand students.5 With the extreme influx of numbers, universities adopted many of the bureaucratic models prevalent elsewhere in society where “students felt treated like IBM numbers.”6 The concept of in loco parentis (in place of a parent) developed as administrators adopted the role of the student’s parent while the student attended school. Students did not trust administrators and viewed them as merely another part of a larger power system already controlling society. Students saw these administrators as weak, and when they challenged them, their suspicions were confirmed.7

Conflict arose because the students, accustomed to their parents’ more relaxed style of discipline, rebelled against university administration and much of society itself. This generation of students saw the world as a mess...

pdf

Share