Kent State Shootings, Part 1

Let me preface this post by saying that the letters posted here are owned by me personally. I purchased them from an auction after Professor Knopf died. Mr. Knopf was a highly intelligent man who took maticulous care of his written material, be it letters, books, history papers, etc. His wish upon his passing was that the entire contents of his house be auctioned off and the proceeds go to set up a scholarship in his name at Ohio State University. That being said, I feel I have Mr. Knopf's permission to do with this material what I wish. I can only assume that if he wanted to keep his personal correspondence private, he would have had the material destroyed or given to certain individuals, but not left for just anyone to obtain.

I will be posting material not original to Knopf but rather sent to him by his student that he corresponded with. After great thought, I have decided to post this as well in an effort to give you as complete a picture as possible. Leaving out certain things will only result in confusion.

**Permission to use the material posted in this blog and the following blogs must be received by me, in writing, before it is used in any capacity in any medium.**

It is not my intention to be irresponsible with this material and therefore some names will the abbreviated into initials only. Nor, is it my intention to violate any one person's privacy. However, I found this information so intriguing and riveting that I couldn't resist posting it. I hope you find it just as interesting. I know it is a lot of information to read and take in. In my opinion, it's worth it.

If you know nothing about the Kent State Shootings of 1970, then please familiarize yourself with the events before reading....might make reading the following posts more understandable and interesting.

So, in the spirit of Amendment #1, here goes.....

This letter was written by Professor Richard C. Knopf to Joseph Kelner, author of: The Kent State Coverup on January 4, 1984.

Dear Sir:

I have just completed reading your The Kent State Coverup, a most interesting account of your parrying with the partisans of Jim Rhodes. However, this letter is directed to you, not for what is included in your book, but rather, for what is not there.

My own association with May 4 and the events which led up to it is a rather close one. However, I shall not regale you with my own observations and activities during that tragic week-end, but, rather, I should like to raise a question and, hopfully, peak your interest.

The query: Who was (is) "SS"?

During the whole aftermath of May 4--including the Scranton hearings and National Guard trials, not once did I note any references to "SS". As a matter of fact, after one of the trials in which an old friend of mine, Gus Lambros, was a defense attorney, I asked him if the name of "SS" had come up. He answered in the negative and then I related to him the story which I want to tell to you. He was interested and surprised, but, I fear, did nothing about it; perhaps there was nothing to be done.

However, here is the story for what it is worth: During the academic year 1969-1970, I was a Professor of History at Kent State University. As such, I was assigned a number of graduate assistants, among whom were "JG" and "SS".

"G" I had known for some time as a graduate student in the department. However, "S" (whose picture is on p. 184 of your book) was new that year.

Almost from the beginning, "S" was considerably different from the other graduate assistants in the History Department. Granted it was a time of considerable feeling re: Viet Nam and other social issues among both faculty and students. Kent, like other large campuses, had its' share of both reform and radical elements. Frankly, I shared many of the concerns of the time, but "S" seemed to be in the forefront of the most radical campus elements; as a matter of fact, his work for me as a graduate assistant suffered so badly from his non-academic activities that I complained to the departmental chairman about his lack of enthusiasm for his departmental work.

It was at this point that I was informed that he was a "special" student; to wit, (1) he did not possess the required prerequisites for a departmental assistantship, but had been assigned to the History Department by the university administration; (2) he was not paid out of departmental funds (as was the case with the other assistants) and (3) succinctly, we were to ask no questions about him.

Obviously, this made me rather wary, especially as his work (grading papers) for me was carried out with a most cavalier attitude.

Meanwhile, "S", though holding (at least to my knowledge) no official position in any radical group, worked tirelessly as a campus agitator. Again, my concern was not his campus activity, but his dereliction of his duty to me and the department. (In addition, in the three-plus quarters he was at Kent, his own classes were all "incomplete"--he finished not one single course in which he was enrolled.)

In the Spring Quarter of 1970, "S" and another of my graduate assistants, "JG", became friends. "G" was the docile follower; "S" was the leader. "G" was (and is) a well-meaning, good soul who came under the influence of "S", the agitator.

At any rate, what is often forgotten, but, I think, of primary significance in the whole of the May 4th affair is that the events which led up to the Monday killings were initiated by "S" (and a meekly following "G") on the preceding Friday afternoon when "S" led a rally--among other things burning a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

To this point, you might well ask, what is so different about "S's" behavior and that of hundreds of other student radicals across the land.

The acts themselves, designed to be symbolic protests, were not, indeed, unusual.

But let us get on with the story.

After a hectic summer, when the fall quarter of 1970 began, "S" was again assigned to me as a graduate assistant. However, about two weeks into the quarter, he asked me if he could have a few days off; he was to get married to a girl in upper New York state. This obviously, was not a peculiar request and I okayed his absense, congratulating him on his impending wedding. That was the last we ever saw or heard of "SS"!

Hopefully, by now, you have understood my concern and curiosity in the whole "S" affair. Frankly, I have felt ever since that he was a "plant" perhaps by the F.B.I. or other government agency; that he was supposed to infiltrate the Weathermen, S.D.S., or other campus radical groups. Further, I am (at least to this moment) convinced that he not only did an intelligence job, but, perhaps, did it so well that it led to the whole series of tragic events culminating on May 4th.

I think that it is more than happenstance that "S" took the lead as an agitator, but then faded out completely from the picture. For me it is interesting that Miller, Krause and "G" (who was a student of mine), among others, come in for considerable criticism for their radical activities, but that "S" is either completely omitted or, at most, only mentioned in passing. That he came on the scene at Kent under the most peculiar of circumstances and then disappeared as mysteriously presents a most interesting puzzle.

One might ask why "S's" activities have never been mentioned before. I think there are several reasons, depending upon one's point of view and/or knowledge of "S":

1. No one could believe that he was instrumental in the agitation which led to May 4th. (From my point of view, the facts belie this.)

2. That the peculiar circumstances of "S's" presence on campus were a secret known only to top administration.

or

3. That there has been a fear of "opening a can of worms" should "S's" mission be revealed.

Perhaps none of the above is a true statement and perhaps "S's" role is a matter of circumstances only. Yet, for over a decade, I (and others) have had a haunting feeling that the real coverup is not as you have maintained in your book (frankly I think it was not a coverup--the trial--but a miscarriage of justice), but surrounds "S".

Whether the real truth or identity of "S" (or a fair assessment of his activities) are ever to be known is anyone's guess. However, the whole train of events, from "S's" appearance on campus to his departure, lend credence to the thought that he was more than just another radical. That he had, at least from an agitator point-of-view, a great influence over the events of that year--and most especially that first week of May--one just cannot deny. To me, the amazing and mysterious point is that he is given no serious attention in the aftermath; it is almost as if he had never existed.

Well, Mr. Kelner, that is my story in which you will, perhaps, have a passing interest. I could have bothered you with a recital of some of the bizarre happenings of that week-end, to which I was both a participant or observer, but I felt, especially having read your book (plus a number of others including Michener's "novel") that you might be interested.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Knopf

Emeritus Professor of History,

Kent State University