Democratic Narrative, History, and Memory

Kent State and Historical Memory

8 democratic narrative, history, and memory Kent State and Historical Memory Thomas M. Grace As news spread in May 1970 of the fatal shootings at Kent State University (KSU), outragedstudentsthroughoutthecountrywentonstriketoprotesttheviolentsuppression of peaceful dissent, while countless other people expressed the view that Kent’sprotestersonlygotwhatwascomingtothem.Inmanywaysthesimultaneous outrage and backlash framed the subsequent debate over the memory and meaning of Kent State: Were the students casualties of a deliberate act of injustice that must be remembered in order to be rectified? Were they unarmed combatants in a war to stop a war? Were the students themselves primarily responsible for what happened—the killings an object lesson in what happens when dissent turns into confrontation?Orwasitalljustatragicmistake(likethewaritself,assomebelieved), thewoundsof whichcouldbehealedonlythroughactsof publiccommemoration? The initial phases in the long battle over the memory of the Kent State killings pitted those who labored to highlight the political significance of May 4 against those who preferred to first enshrine it as a day for mourning and reflection and later neutralize its meaning.Those who insisted on blaming the students also had a large stake in the memory war and sought to either deactivate the importance of the shootings or deny them political worth. Political antagonists who clashed at Kent State following May 4 included members of the antiwar movement at Kent and elsewhere, for whom May 4 became a symbol of the justice of their cause and the immorality of the American government; Kent State University authorities, who wanted to redirect and defuse the political significance of the shootings and, in 1977, ultimately to literally bury their memory; Governor James Rhodes and the OhioNationalGuard,whosoughtnotonlytoexoneratethemselvesbutalsotoshift the blame to the students and to the plaintiffs in criminal and civil damages cases against the National Guard and officials considered responsible for the shootings. 8 Kent State and Historical Memory 9 Whilebeyondthesevaryingantagonistswasalarge,anonymouspopulationengaged in or concerned with the events of May 4, the groups just named were most closely connected to the conflict at Kent State and figure most prominently in how the day is remembered in history and public memory.1 History says that the past is a cluttered place that rests on contested terrain. From the observance of the first anniversary of the killings in 1971 until 1975, the ongoing war in Southeast Asia and the campaign against it coincided with a battle overthememoryof theshootingsatKentState.Forfivesuccessiveanniversariesand beyond, antiwar activists clashed with the KSU administration over whether May 4 would be a battle cry for justice or simply a day for remembrance and sorrow. As a result of the killings and the persistence of antiwar activism, some left-of-center witssoondubbedtheschool“KentPoliceStateUniversity”andregardedtheshootings as a clarion call to further action.2 This condemnation of KSU had sufficient staying power that in the 1980s, university officials eager to escape the heavy hand of the past were considering advice to drop “State” from the school’s name.3 Theassociationof theuniversitywithinfamypersistedbothdespiteandbecause of efforts by interested parties—notably the university administration, Governor James Rhodes, and the Ohio National Guard—to advance agendas very different fromthatof theantiwarleft.Someof thesepartiessoughttodominateinterpretation of the day or erase its memory, either by building over the site of the shootings or by altering the university’s name. Others sought to shed their association with the events of May 4, by demonizing and indicting Kent’s antiwar cohort and, later, by covering the ground where the protesting students were shot. Such efforts failed, however; far from giving authorities control of the message or the meaning of May 4, they galvanized opposition. After reporting the death of the students, the local paper, whose publisher was the president of Kent State’s board of trustees, issued afront-pageeditorialcallingfor“thesternestrepression,”whilethePortageCounty grand jury that indicted antiwar students devoted paragraphs in its report to the vulgarities chanted by the protesters, but made no mention of the fatalities.4 Thatthekillingslaterachievedsuchprominenceincollectivememoryhadmuch todowiththescopeof thereactionbyAmericanstudentsintheimmediatewakeof thefatalshootings.Numbersoutlinethemagnitude:studentsstageddemonstrations of some sort on better than half of all college campuses; more than five hundred universities closed for a period of time; and Kent State and fifty others were shut down for the remainder of the academic year. Historians know the statistics, while protesters—estimated at 4,350,000 people—can still call to mind their participation .5 ReactionfirsttotheUnitedStates’invasionof CambodiaandthentotheKent killings touched every corner of Ohio and the nation. Mostof thisiswelldocumented.Whatislessknownistheroleplayedbyformer KentStatestudentsorthoseconnectedwithitscampusactiviststospreadthestrike, 10 democratic narrative, history, and memory which helped position the shootings in the public consciousness. Often they did so asindividualsratherthanasrepresentativesof aparticularorganization.AtAkron University,BillWhitaker,onceassociatedwithKentState...