The First Amendment: Tragedy at Kent State

In today’s readings I examined the issue of free speech in political protests. I am specifically looking at the tragic events at Kent State University in Ohio that occurred on May 4th, 1970. The United States was in the midst of the widely opposed Vietnam War and the students were protesting the recent invasion of Cambodia that furthered the war. President Nixon had been in office for about two years and one of his political promises in the previous election was to end the Vietnam War. During his first year as president the war seemed to be dwindling down, however this attack on the Viet Kong Headquarters in Cambodia was a far cry from his campaign promises. This, not surprisingly, outraged students at the University who opposed the war and therefore students began to exercise their First Amendment Right to free speech. The events that led up to the tragic day started with Nixon’s radio address to the nation on April 30th, 1970 making the announcement that the US was indeed invading Cambodia. The Friday evening following the announcement began with students protesting in the streets out downtown Kent and was compound when the mayor announced they would close the bars early due to the protests. This only perpetuated matters sending even more students that had previously been drinking in the bars into the streets causing fires, broken store windows, and violence against police. Decisions were made to bring in the Ohio National Guard to help with the protesters and preserve the peace. The Students organized an anti-war rally to be held on May 4th in the University commons area at 12 noon. The University had made the decision to ban the rally from taking place. Protesters ignored the demands of the University officials and the protesters began to rally in the common area. Ohio National Guard troops were order to break-up the mob and were met with rocks, bags of feces, and bottles thrown at them. The troop’s initial attempt to break up the group was unsuccessful so the general ordered the troops to load their weapons but instructed not to shoot unless command was given. As the troops where breaking up the mob shots were fired by the troops and 4 died and 9 more were wounded. Interviews with troops afterward indicate that there was no command to fire given yet some troops felt that the command was given by the initial shot fired however unspoken. The gunfire only lasted 13 seconds yet 61-67 shots were fired. Criminal charges against the soldiers were dismissed in court; however civil judgments were awarded to the families of victims paid for by the state. I have many issues with what took place that tragic day. First, I do not agree with the university’s decision to ban the anti-war rally; in my opinion that greatly infringes on ones right to free speech and fundament right in the Bill of Rights. Secondly, I feel that the protesters should have been less destructive and more peaceful in their actions. However, I do not feel that the actions of the troops to use lethal force on the group is justified in any way. Taking a course is social psychology this semester has open my eyes to the influence of groups and the power of situations and I can’t help but wonder if some social psychological factors were at work in this particular situations. I tend to have a positive outlook when I think about the human nature of people and try to assume that most people are good people. So I wonder if a shot could have been fired accidently by someone who causes the troops to react by firing their weapons as well. I think it is important to be sure and observe the rights of people in times of protest and it is the responsibility of the US Army to teach our troops about the power of such influences can have on groups.

Breaking New Ground

This week’s reading reflection is an excerpt from Sidney Poitier’s autobiography “Measure of a Man.” Sidney Poitier was an African American actor in the late 1960’s and in chapter six of his book he describes some cultural injustices he experienced. Poitier talks of issues of being African American in the film industry and the types of discriminations he encountered when dealing with movie production companies and his fellow actors. There was a particular film that was in the process of being approved by Columbia Pictures in which an African American doctor goes to meet the Caucasian family members of a woman he was romantically interested in. Given the times of the culture this was a rather taboo subject, which made it difficult to get approved by the production company. Poitier then goes on the describe meeting the other white actors he would be working with in the film. Mr. Poitier visits actress Katherine Hepburn’s house to meet for her for dinner and to talk about the film. Throughout the course of their meeting Poitier describes to us how he could feel her judging him by every comment he made. Although Hepburn was rather liberal, her experience with African Americans was limited to the maids and service people she had hired to work for her. Poitier then goes on to meet Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn together for dinner, in which Hepburn seemed a lot milder in her demeanor. Throughout the chapter Poitier focuses on the issues and discrimination African American’s still faced as society was changing. He makes a strong argument about the anger and hatred he experienced and the importance of turning these negative energies into positive forces that will ultimately mold society to be a more accepting place. Poitier describes the implications of the negative thoughts and the problems they add to society. Going on, he gives a vivid account of meeting racism though police officers for merely being on the wrong side of town and being threatened with murder if he didn’t walk all the way home without looking back. I definitely have a lot of respect and admiration for Poitier and the injustices he experienced. I am particularly fond of the way he chose to look at situations in which he endured negative situations and discriminations. Looking at situations that, without a doubt, would have caused him anger he explains the importance of changing it into something positive that would benefit society. This is nothing short of amazing to me and he paved the way for society to be more accepting of African Americans in today’s society. Without actors and actress like Poitier it is difficult to gauge what our society would be like today. His perseverance and drive to deal with social issues through the media definitely, in my opinion, has made us more accepting of people in general. If it we didn’t have people like Poitier that pressed the societal boundaries then society would not be as ever changing as it is today.