THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY:
THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY
Kent University
May 4, 1970
Historical Accuracy
BY
JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY
On May 4, 1970, 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 4, 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 4 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.
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. 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 Scheuer, 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 4 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 1,000 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 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 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 protesters 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 3,000 people. Although estimates are
inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the
Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional
1,500 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 4.
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 4 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 10 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,
28 of the more than 70 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 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there
are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.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.
Full Story Here
![[Image: Y6W94yS.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Y6W94yS.png)
![[Image: yQpQh6K.png]](https://i.imgur.com/yQpQh6K.png)
![[Image: uXq1SwX.png]](https://i.imgur.com/uXq1SwX.png)
![[Image: K90wcdx.png]](https://i.imgur.com/K90wcdx.png)
![[Image: ffrOMEZ.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/ffrOMEZ.jpg)
It is Well with My Soul 
![[Image: ROJEI9m.png]](https://i.imgur.com/ROJEI9m.png)
![[Image: SyAa0qj.png]](https://i.imgur.com/SyAa0qj.png)