June 7, 1990
Dear "T":
I just returned to the Island yesterday afternoon and found your welcome letter and it's enclosures of May 21st. Thus the reason for my tardy response.
This will probably be a rambling note, but will try to address some of your comments and my own thoughts on the enclosures. (I might be repeating myself from earlier letters, but don't have the copies of our former correspondence; thus will aks that you bear with me.)
You and I both agree that it was a good thing for Dick Celeste to address the May 4th rally and dedication at Kent. I wrote to him thanking him for his remarks, noting, though, that htey should have come from Jim Rhodes a good many years ago. (Dick is a neighbor of mine here on the Island.) If such a move had been made years ago, it might have assuaged the hurt somewhat, but Jim ( a neighbor of mine in Columbus) is a died-in-the-wool shoutheastern Ohio hill-billy who is stubborn as hell--and not too bright, despite his political success. (He is also as crooked as the perverbial dog's hind leg!) Also, as you so cogently write, the various Kent administrations from 1970 to the present time have left much to be desired, not only insofar as the May 4th issue is concerned, but on most other aspects of the university. (I fear that the inept admnistration will probably continue so long as the Board of Trustees continues to be composed of locals who have no interest or investment in the university.)
As far as "SS" is concerned, the fact that he still exists does not change my contention that he was the tool of the F.B.I. (or other governmental agency). Perhaps it is the reason that he has been unheard of for so long. Also, I have wondered, over the years, that in none of the court hearings or court cases was he ever called or his name even mentioned. I find this particularly distressing considering the major role he played in the events leading up to May 4th and the fact that he photographically appears over and over again. I cannot bury the feeling that borth sides in the hearings and court cases were warned to stay away from him (and others who may have been included in the counter-activities). How a campus that, admittedly, was seething with government agents could go completely unnoticed during the immediate aftermath of May 4th baffles me. As I think I noted to you earlier, the lawyers for both sides (the N.Y. attorney for the plaintiffs) and Gus Lambros for the Guard, both told me that they had never heard of "S", nor had his name ever come up. I find this difficult to swallow. To me, "S" is but a symbol, one among what must have been many agents, of the government undercover operation. I cannot help but believe that both sides in the hearings and court cases were instructed not to pursue this particlar--and, obviously, sensitive element. Making the complete issue the Guard vs. the students is far too simplistic. Likewise, I cannot accept the idea that he 72 acknowledged F. B.I. agents who were on the campus after May 4th ( and into the full quarter, 1970) had not been there before May 4th. I tink that I told you that, on May 4th, when I returned home to Ashtabula on that evening, my telephone had already been tapped (and remained so for two weeks) by the F.B. I. This I learned from one of my students who was a repairman in the central telehpone exchange who told me about the tapping on May 5th. (I might mention, if I have not before, that all of the members of the faculty __?__ of which I was one--were similarly tapped.) I cannot be shaken from my belief that this action--the tapping--was planned well in advance; otherwise how could it have been done prior to 8P.M. on May 4th, 83 miles away in Ashtabula?
Of course, as I have pointed out to you earlier, I do feel that things, on the part of the "law-and-order" crowd got out of hand on May 4th; I cannot bring myself, even at this late date, to believe that the carnage which took place was planned, even though the idea of the Guard having loaded rifles still plagues me considerably; one does not go into a situation with live ammunition unless it is expected that it might be used. Frankly, I think that such action--the ordering of loading the firearms--was just stupidity on the part of the Guard officers. (Having served with a National Guard unit during WWI--I was not a Guard member, I realize how very ignorant and poorly trained the Guard was/is.) Yet, it was the officers who ordered the arming of the troops and they must take the blame--no matter what a court may say--for what happened on May 4th.
As I think I told you before (pardon the ramblings of an old man, who forgets far too easily), after leaving the Commons at noon of May 4th, I was standing talking with one of my 354 students just outside Bowman hall when the shots rang out. The boyfriend of the young lady with whom I was talking came running up to us, shouting "the soldiers have killed some student," tears running down his cheeks. Frankly, I could not believe it and made what, a little later, I would consider a most unfeeling statement: "Thank God, it is your generation and not mine." However, as I was walking up to my office in Bowman , one of my old students, who had hit the pavement in the parking lot, came rushing up to tell me that, in fact, the Guard had fired in the students.
As you might imagine, my statement, which I had not intended to be callous, certainly seemed so. Fortunately, a couple of years later, the young lady, just about to be graduated, came into my office; my words had troubled her as much as they had me. Thus I was able to unburden my own feelings of guilt and I was so glad that she had stopped by.
In one of the articles ou included, there was a mention of the Faculty Observers. Contrary to what the articles seemed to indicate, this was meant by the Faculty Senate to be a means of trying to keep repercussions to May 4th at a minimum. As a matter of fact, I think that is was Glenn Frank who made and supported the proposal to organize this group. Perhaps, in the minds of some, this was to be an informer group, certainly that was not the intention of the Faculty; quite the contrary. It was to be a means of off-setting the government-inspired and organized informers who were presumably still on the campus. Insofar as I know, the Faculty Observer group never functioned as an informer group--as a matter of fact, had little effect one way or another.
I suppose, in short run, the only positive movement resulting from May 4th was an earlier end to the war in Southwest Asia. I have no doubt that the carnage on the Kent campus hurried the end of the carnage in Viet Nam. But what is more worrying, for me at least, is that the real lesson of Kent State has never really been learned; that the American public, still feels that violence and force is justified in putting down protest. Americans, for all their sooth-saying about democratic idealism, are far from achieving that goal.
Well, I've bored you long enough. Am goin to drop a note to "JG" re: "S"; I think that he will be interested in knowing what happened to his old "buddy", though I'm sure that he shares my supspicions of "S's" informer involvement.
Finally, congratulations on your M.A. in History. Am interested in your thesis topic, though, perhaps you could/should have used your own experience in that case.
I'm going ot be on the Island until the 26th of this month. At that time, I'll return to Columbus for a couple of weeks. I don't like to be here either on Memorial Day or the 4th of July. However, will be coming back on the 6th of July and, for the most part, will be here until the middle of November. I certainly would hope that you might make it out this way. Just drop me a line, if you can. It is on the whole, a restful, stress-free place to be, aside from the holidays. Meanwhile, please accept my thanks and best wishes--and extend the same to your folks.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Knopf
Please pardon the poor typing and rambling.
Visitors since May 3, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment