Kent State and the Ohio National Guard

I received a comment regarding the Kent State Shootings that I would like to draw attention to.

"M" wrote the following:

While it is certainly true and tragic that four students were killed and nine others injured, no one ever seems to consider the impact that this incident had on the lives of the Guardsmen there that day.

Someone very close to me was one of them. Here are a few relevant facts that no one seems to either be aware of or address:

1. These Guardsmen were, for the most part, young. Very young. Most of them the same age as these students.

2. They were not fully trained soldiers. This was time of war when training was for "real soldiers".

3. There was rioting in the streets of Kent happening at the time. From what I have been told by my Mother, who was there, (so was I as a baby) when she and my Grandmother were travelling through town via car, they were in fear for their lives. There was much destruction. The car was almost overturned with all three of us in it.

4. The Guard Unit that my relative was in had spent much of the previous week camped out alongside the highway in an attempt to curb violence resulting from a Teamsters strike. There were death threats that had been made against the non-union drivers. This is why these units were armed as they were.

5. The climate at the University at that time was being, at a minimun affected, if not controlled, by subversive and violent groups who had been on Campus for some time prior to May 4th. Groups that were infamous for their dissention and violence. They had created a firestorm of emotion in an otherwise peaceful community. Deliberately. As these letters so chillingly seem to point out.

6. The Guardsmen were under attack. They weren't monsters who came with the intention to cut down some "hippie protesters". They were in fear for their own lives as well. No one knew if there were firearms in the crowd of students or not. They were told to "expect anything".

In retrospect, I think that it should be considered that there were other factors certainly at play on May 4th. These Guardsmen were not some bloodthirsty killing machine turned loose to murder innocent students.

They were young, ill-equipped to handle such a volatile situation, frightened and completely ignorant of what to expect. Most of them were also natives of this area and had never seen anything like what was happening that week.

If our Government had a hand in this plot (which seems very likely) I am completely convinced that these young men were only pawns.None of them died that day, but they were adversely affected as well.

There was much emotional trauma on their end too. This was just a tragic situation all the way around. Their lives were changed forever as well. I can personally see that whenever this subject comes up in my family. My relative is a good and decent man who would never calculate and deliver violence willingly to another human being and to have been put in a situation where he had to be involved in something so alien to him with the outcome so horrible and far-reaching has impacted him forever.

I am sure that this doesn't compare with the despair of these families at the loss of a loved one. I would never be so callous to even hold the two up side by side. I only hope that someday all of this can come out in the open and that people will see that these young men were not evil. They didn't go there that day with intentions of destruction. They have been painted as something that they were not.

I can't shed any light on the thoughts and intentions of their supervisors, but I can say that these young men were ignorant of any longer-reaching, sinister undercurrent.

Respectfully,

M

M,

Thank you so much for taking the time to leave such a thoughtful comment. You gave me a lot to think about and I would first like to say that I am so sorry for the trauma your relative has gone through.

You know, to be honest, I never thought much about the Guardsmen or what they went through. You helped me do that today and I appreciate it.

I have tried to be careful to give any opinion regarding May 4th because I wasn't there and I wasn't born until 1971; therefore, I certainly don't have an idea what the climate of the times must have been like. I do recognize that May 4th and the events leading up to it must have been shocking, frightening and something that escalated to a point that no one expected or was prepared to deal with.

I don't think the Guardsmen were evil, blood thirsty individuals who were hell bent on killing. You helped me understand that more than likely they were young men who were scared, ill prepared and probably given commands that were not appropriate.

I have no doubt their experience on May 4th is close to the surface and something that doesn't escape their thoughts often. I have compassion for them and hope that they have been able to find personal peace regarding their involvement on that day.

I am surprised at how passionate people still feel about this subject. I never expected to hear from people regarding this. Maybe I have because there is a lack of healing. Maybe everyone was and is too busy blaming and accusing rather than communicating and treating others with compassion and understanding.

Is there any difference between a student standing up for their convictions and a Guardsmen of the same age standing strong in the face of chaos out of a strong sense of conviction and duty?

My best to the families and individuals involved in the tragic events of May 4th. To the Guardsmen who are tortured about what they were asked to do and to the students who felt needlessly attacked. I think the true culprits are the people who weren't seen that day - the ones who gave orders, made decisions based upon politics and escaped consequences for their actions.

Thank you M. I wish you and your family the very best.

AKM

Kent State Shootings and Steven Sharoff

In April, I posted some information regarding the Kent State Shootings. For the privacy of certain individuals, I used only their initials in my postings.

Much to my surprise, I have been able to communicate with one of those individuals. Steven Sharoff. He has read Mr. Knopf's letters regarding himself and has sent me an email response regarding those letters. He has given me permission to post his response and I am quite grateful to him for his time and communication.

I will let you come to your own conclusions, but I believe Mr. Sharoff. He has been quite gracious and I hope you find his response enlightening.

I have read Prof. Knopf's material and am, frankly, astounded. It is filled with suppositions and inaccuracies. I never hid nor disappeared. My movements can be traced very accurately. I left KSU because my thesis topic on the May 4 incident was not approved by a split history department and for no other reason. (My advisor can prove that.) I did indeed finish many courses at KSU and have the transcripts to prove it (and several advanced degrees I might add!).

I never worked for the FBI or any other govt agency, unless you count being a probation officer in my tiny county in NY for a year or so before going back to grad school where I spent the next 3 years.

The truth is so simple that people like Dr. Knof are unable to believe it: I wandered into the middle of a situation and became heavily involved in it. (JG and TB were both great guys and didn't follow me. In fact it was one of their ideas to bury (not burn) the constitution.) You can call it destiny or fate or whatever. None of it was planned. I saw what I considered to be a miscarriage of justice when the U attempted to kick SDS off campus and I became, by accident I can assure you, the leader of CCC. I was never very radical nor, at the same time, was I very pleased with what was going on in Vietnam to put it mildly.

As far as the assistantship is concerned, Dr. Knof was right; it was unusual. That was due to Dr. Lou Harris, the Provost. My relationship with Dr. Harris was very interesting and began with an invitation and visit to his home. Basically he wanted to know how I became involved in all of what I was involved in. I had absolutely nothing to hide and so told him and he believed me. (Dr. Harold Kitner was also at that meeting.) When the next day it was reported by the VP of student affairs that I was seen at a regional SDS meeting the night before, the same night I spent the evening at Dr. Harris, I realized just what kind of people I was dealing with. I have alwasy thought very highly of Dr. Harris and believe to this day that has his council been sought, the incident at KSU may never have happened.

Last, if I was an "agent" do you think that I would have gone before the govt panel on KSU or let myself be interviewed by James Mitchner or appeared in the Time-Life series? I'm surprised that Dr. Knof, as a historian, didn't do better. (I did in fact spend 5 years in Europe working for the U of Maryland who had a contact with the military. So the tidbit about my being on a base in Germany for a brief time is probably true.)

There is lots more and I'd be happy to have a conversation with you and/or the other correspondents.

Sincerely,Steven Sharoff

Thank you and Best Wishes, Mr. Sharoff.

AKM

Final thoughts on the Kent State Shootings

Right now I will try to refrain from giving my opinion about the Kent State Shootings of May 4, 1970.

What matters is that this May 4th, 37 years ago, 4 students lost their lives for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and/or for standing up for their convictions....something we are free to do as citizens of this great country.

In addition, numerous students were injuried and those students as well as countless others will bear the physical and emotional scars caused that day for the rest of their lives.

This is part of our history that should never be forgotten and taught to our future generations.

I will never understand why or how shooting unarmed students ever seemed like a solution to a problem.

Could this happen again?

Hopefully, we have learned.

I hope you all found the posts regarding the Kent State Shootings intriguing and something that stimulated thought.

AKM

Kent State Shootings, Part 6

The correspondence between "TG" and President Schwartz ends with this post.

April 24, 1990

Dear Dr. Schwartz:

Thank you for your recent letter of April 13, that came in response to my concerns. I appreciate the time you took to write a personal reply.

The plan to announce four scholarships (which I understand has been in existance since 1978) this upcoming May 4 in the names of Allison, Jeffery, Sandra and William comes as welcome news as does your intention to have their names read at the beginning of the memorial dedication. These are positive steps.

I remain perturbed, however, by the seeming lack of commitment to having the names of those slain on May 4 engraved on the memorial. Your statement that "the designer has chosen not to do that, and I have spoken to him about that on several occasions" leaves it unclear as to whether the decision to include the names rests with your office or with the architect. Since the University already had one designer replaced and the current architect reduce the scale and type of memorial from a cost of $1,300.00 to one costing $100,000, I must conclude that your office has some authority in this matter. After all the designer is working at the pleasure of the University, not the other way around.

Moreover, the scholarship plans need not and indeed are not in conflict with the compelling need to have Allison, Jeffery, Sandra and William's names on the memorial. Both should be done, for in that way we can have a living memorial to aid current students and a visual and substantive memorial, that is accessible to all.

Likewise, I must respectfully state me dissatisfaction with the plans to simply inscribe the words "Inquire", "Reflect" and "Learn" on the memorial structure. Such an inscription does not educate the unknowing and will only help ensure that coming generations will not "Learn" what happened at Kent State.

There exists not a monument in this country of which I am aware, that fails to include either the names of those being memorialized and/or an educational plaque that informs the visitor of the purpose of the commemorative structure. As recently as two days ago a monument was dedicated in my hometown that bears the names of over 30 Syracuse University students who lost their lives in the air disaster over Scotland. What is more, scarcely a visitor leaves the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington unmoved by the visual impression left by 58,000 individual names engraved in polished black granite. "The power is in the names," more than one has said. No visitor to that memorial ever truely leaves "the words behind."

These proposals I and others have made would not cost the University either financially or politically, but it would mean a great deal to the families as well as effected alumni like myself, Jim Russell, Joe Lewis, John Cleary, Alan Canfora, Doug Wrentmore and perhaps others. Such a small gesture by your office would mean a great deal and would make possible my participation in a ceremony that should be a time of some healing for those of us who were most wronged.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

"TG"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 30, 1990

Dear Mr. "G":

After a very long conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Martin Scheuer on Wednesday of last week, a granite plaque with the names of those killed and wounded on

May 4, 1970 was installed on the memorial site, a few feet from the memorial itself. Mr. and Mrs. Scheuer helped me to choose the exact site. It will be virtually impossible to visit the memorial without seeing the granite plaque. It is of the same granite as the memorial. The plaque was installed on Thursday, within twenty four hours of my conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Scheuer. Friday's Plain Dealer carried a picture of it on the front page.

To be clear on another point, while Bruno Ast, the architect "works for" the university on this project, I have not, nor has any other office of the university or member of the Board of trustees ever asked for design modifications. It is true that we asked for a new design after it was concluded that we could not pay for an earlier design. (The design which has been completed cost $200,000. It has been paid.) The designer's wishes about the names on the memorial itself are his and have been his since he was declared the winner of the competition. It is true that I have agreed with him. It is not true that I insisted on his position. The plaque that has been installed was essentially my idea. Mr. Ast has no objection to it.

I hope that this letter is a satisfactory reply to your concerns, and I would like to have the opportunity to meet you at the memorial dedication.

Sincerely,

Michael Schwartz

Kent State Shootings, Part 5

The correspodence between "TG" and President Schwartz continues:

April 13, 1990

Dear Mr. "G":

I have received your very king and thoughtful letter. At the outset let me say that, I do hope that you'll join us for the dedication of the memorial. Let me directly go to your questions.

On behalf of the university, I have written to the parents of Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder, announcing that a four year, full tuition and fee scholarship in the Honors College has been named for each of the four students. The scholarship will be awarded to bright students and I've invited the parents to add any stipulations to the awards that they may choose. These four scholarships, named as they are, represent living memorials to ensure that the students who died here will never be "nameless victims." At the dedication, the very first order of business will be to announce the four scholarships and to read the names of the four students: Allison, Jeffrey, Sandra and William.

I cannot assure you that the names of the four students will be engraved on the memorial. The designer has chosen not to do that, and I have spoken to him about that on several occasions. On the memorial, the words, "Inquire", "Learn", and "Reflect" will be engraved as will the date May 4, 1970.

As for our responsibility to see to is taht future generations are informed about what happened at Kent State on May 4, 1970, a distribution box, made of granite, has been erected on the memorial site. The box contains a brochure, which we have been distributing for about ten years, which describes carefully the events of May 4. As you may remember, the names of the slain students appear several times in the brochure. Over 100,000 of these brochures have already been distributed. They are authored by Professors, Jerry Lewis, Thomas Hensley and Glenn Frank. The brochure has just been revised to include a statement by the Scranton Commission.

I believe that the purposes that you wish to achieve and those that I have tried to achieve are the same. I've created living memorials through namde scholarships as an alternative to engravings in stone. And we have created a written work that visitors can take with them as opposed to reading a plaque and then leaving the words behind.

In brief, I think that we have achieved the same goals but used slightly different methods. I hope very much that you'll see a unity in our purpose and that you'll agree to come to the dedication.

Sincerely,

Michael Schwartz

Kent State Shootings, Part 4

The rests of the posts will be correspondence between "TG" and the Kent State University President.

March 30, 1990

Dear Mr. "G",

As you know, one year ago Kent State University broke ground for the construction of the May 4 Memorial designed by Bruno Ast of Chicago. The construction is now virtually complete, and we are planning the formal dedication of it on May 4, 1990, at 11:00 a.m. Former Senator George McGovern has agreed to speak at the dedication. I expect the ceremony to last about one hour.

I invite you and a guest to join the platform party for the dedication ceremony. The University will be glad to reimburse you for your travel expenses. Please send them to my attention.

During the ceremony, Dean Kahler will introduce you and the other May 4 families. If you can attend, the members of the platform party will gather at 10:30 a.m. in Room 115 Taylor Hall to be escorted to their seats.

After the dedication ceremony, you are invited to join the speakers, other members of the platform party and special guests at a luncheon to be held in Room 306 of the Kent Student Center. The pre-luncheon gathering will begin at 1:30 p.m. with lunch served at 2:00 p.m. The late hour for the luncheon was decided upon to allow our guests the opportunity to participate in the May 4 Task Force program if they choose. Unfortunately, I can not share the schedule of that program with you at this time as it has not been finalized.

A special parking permit for May 4, campus map showing the designated parking area, and a RSVP card are enclosed for your use.

I look forward to hearing from you, hoping that you will accept these invitations.

Sincerely,

Michael Schwartz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 10, 1990

Dear President Schwartz:

This letter is intended both to thank you for your kind offer to attend the upcoming dedication of the May 4 Memorial as well as to ask some pertinent questions about the monument. Given the lack of any chance for previous consultation. I will use my response to raise several necessary points.

Upon first learning in 1984 of plans by my alma mater to erect a tribute to the students slain in 1970 I felt, perhaps for the first time since the shootings, a sense of understanding on the part of Kent State University. During a speech on

May 4, 1984 I praised your administration for having a new sense of openness and I spoke of the opportunity to right past wrongs.

While much has transpired since that time, much of which quite frankly has troubled me and others who were wounded on May 4, I continue to nourish hope that the memorial ceremony can be a time of some healing. Certainly it is my preference that this be so.

Before we can better come to terms with the memories of May 4 in the year 1990, however, we must ensure that those who were killed by National Guard gunfire twenty years ago are suitably and properly remembered. For this reason I can only accept your offer under two conditions. First, I ask for assurances from your office that the names of Allison Krause, Jeffery Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder are engraved on the memorial. These four students were not nameless victims and they should not be the forgottne dead of Kent State.

Secondly, whiel there has been a controversary about the size of the memorial, what is of equal importance is that which is inscribed or conversely not inscribed on the monument. To have nothing engraved on the May 4 Memorial is to invist future ignorance of the circumstances of the campus killings. While this may be what is intended, I suggest that decades from now both students at and visitors to the university need to learn from a plaque on the memorial of how four Kent State undergraduates were slain by Ohio National Guard in a May 4 protest against the U.S. invasion of Cambodia. We have a joint responsibility to inform future generations of what occured at Kent State. By doing so, we here in the present can make some small measure of peace with the past. We owe that to the families of the slain students, to ourselves and to posterity.

With the upcoming dedication you are in a unique position to assuage some of the pain of 20 years and also be remembered as the Kent State President who bound up the university's wounds. It is my earnest wish that you will do so.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your letter and invitation of March 30 and will anxiously await what I hope will be a favorable reply.

Sincerely,

"TG"

Kent State Shootings, Part 3

I will post Professor Knopf's response to "TG" and then "TG's" correspondence with the Kent State President.

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.

Kent State Shootings, Part 2

In response to Professor Knopf's letter, Mr. Kelner had this to say.

January 12, 1984

Dear Professor Knopf:

I read with great interest your letter relating to "SS". His name never was brought to my attention in any context whatever during the Kent State litigation.

I found your summary of events to be very intriguing and I thank you for the interesting summary which you sent.

With all good wishes,

Joseph Kelner

Moving on....

The following is correspondence between a student of Knopf's and Professor Knopf. Incidentally, this student was injuring in the Kent State Shootings. In addition to the correspondence between Knopf and the student; I will be posting correspondence between the student and the President of Kent State University regarding the memorial for the events that transpired on May 4, 1970.

May 21, 1990

Dear Dr. Knopf,

You can't imagine how much I appreciate your letters and the clippings. How kind of you to think of me. had it not been for your efforts I never would have seen the many articles you collected and passed along to me. The one piece from The Cleveland Plain Dealer , provided my first picture of the memorial plaque. There is much that I have said on the subject of Kent's effort to memorialize the deceased students. The enclosed letters I exchanged with President Schwartz should be self-explanatory. While all should be of some interest, perhaps the most telling is the final letter, dated April 30.

When I saw Martin and Sarah Scheuer at the candlelight vigil on May 30 they indicated that their meeting with Schwartz (referenced in the April 30th letter) was arranged at this request. Their version of the sessions had Schwartz (after months of public and private pressure to affix a description plaque and tablet of the names of the slain students) as being __?__ what he could do to enhance the memorial. They indicated that the granite tribute would mean nothing without Sandy's and the other three names on the memorial. He acted as though the suggestion was a novel one and then promised it would be done "within 24 hours". They are convinced it was in the works for some time and that Schwartz waited until he had a better idea of how the political winds were flowing. I don't pretend to know how long it takes to prepare such a tablet but I imagine one usually doesn't do so literally overnight. Through this experience I came to realize why some so dislike Schwartz.

One final impression. I was terribly impressed with the presence of and the remarks by Gov. Richard Celeste. Having been at 15 of 19 anniversary programs I found his forthright statements to be among the most significant ever made on May 4th at Kent.

On another subject I learned recently (I was at the Organization of American Historians Conference in Wash, D.C.) that "SS" is now teaching at an army base in West Germany. I had not previously been aware that "S" was interviewed at length in the final book kinstallment of the Time-Life serious on Vietnam. I have yet to read the piece but that would explain why his name was used in the Time-Life promotional brochure I sent you some months ago. Evidently "S" is well aware of the suspicions that exist about him. Does this explain, at least in part, his absence from the U.S.?

I hope to continue our correspondence for it enforces my conviction that Kent State University's strength always lay in it's faculty rather than it's administration. Thanks again for your support and 20 years of thoughtfulness.

Best Regards,

"TG"

P.S. I obtained my M.A. in History on May 20th.

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