May 4, 1970: Kent State Exploded
The events of May 4, 1970 can be attributed to virtually countless causes. One of the most influential occurrences leading up to this fateful day is the speech presented by President Richard Nixon on April 30, 1970. During this speech, President Nixon announced his plans for the invasion of Cambodia, with the stated goal of “cleaning out major North Vietnamese and Vietcong-occupied territories, these sanctuaries which serve as bases for attacks on both Cambodian and American and South Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam” (Nixon). A speech such as this is very effective for several reasons. First of all, it tugs at the heart-strings of . Nixon is trying to look into the eyes of each and every viewer and question their view about their homeland. For example, when Nixon says that “it is not our power but our will and character that is being tested tonight,” he obviously is persuading Americans into thinking that the only choice is no choice.
In further discussion of the Nixon speech, and other speeches in general, Rohler and Cook’s Great Speeches book becomes increasingly valuable. Rohler explains that a good speaker has control over the resources at his disposal. “These involve the three forms of proof: ethos, the speaker’s reputation or personal credibility; logos, the rational arguments and evidence that the speaker gives to support his claims; and pathos, the psychological or emotional appeals that the speaker makes to an audience” (4). The three forms of proof play an enormous role in the persuasion techniques of Nixon in this particular speech. Even with the war creating certain national tension, his ethos remains high due to the older-adult generation’s willingness to give complete trust to the president, regardless of who it is. Nixon’s logos obviously seemed to be flawed in the minds of the college generation, but the aforementioned older generation bought into his reasoning. Possibly the most powerful form of proof for Nixon was his pathos. The emotional aspect of a speech that questions patriotism and strength becomes very passionate and compelling.
Staying consistent with the analysis of specific speeches, it is only fitting that the famed Kent Fire House address by Governor James A. Rhodes is brought to the forefront. Occurring on May 3, 1970 in Kent, Ohio, Rhodes raised the bar locally in terms of unrest. His comments speak volumes. “We’re going to put a stop to this for this reason: the same group that we’re dealing with here today, and there’s three or four of them, they only have one thing in mind, that is to destroy higher education in Ohio. And if they continue this, and continue what they’re doing, they’re going to reach their goal for the simple reason: that you cannot continue to set fires to buildings that are worth five and ten million dollars because you cannot get replacement from the high general assembly”. Much like Nixon’s strategy merely days earlier, Rhodes seems to use his authority in an attempt to persuade the emotions of the citizens. By making outlandish claims and predictions of impending doom, Rhodes paints a picture of destruction that many members of the older generation bought into fully. Furthermore, with Rhodes’ solution being even more extreme than the events that he was responding to, it would be sure to ruffle many proverbial feathers in the community. Rhodes’ responded with the comments: “We are going to eradicate the problem. We’re not going to treat the symptoms. And as long as this continues, higher education in Ohio is in jeopardy. And if they are continued to give permissive consent, they will destroy higher education in this state”. As utterly ridiculous as these claims sound in hindsight, it is easy to document how so many people were able to believe in Governor Rhodes. His word, much like Nixon’s, was not to be questioned. Questioning authority at that level was almost considered to be non-patriotic. Rhodes had the goal of ruling with an iron fist. However, a day later, he would be dealing with much more than fists.
In his book Persuasion Anaylsis: A Companion to Composition, Hugh Rank suggests that “association techniques link the person, the party, or policy or product with something already hated or feared” (139). Rank also goes on to explain how “such associations can trigger intense emotions and feelings” (139). Nixon and Rhodes cater to this topic of association in their speeches, both directing their goals and claims at the American people. The same technique can be utilized on a smaller scale, but with the same effect. For instance, Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s esteemed Vice President, chose to use the association technique at a Republican party dinner merely weeks after the tragedy at Kent StateUniversity. On May 22, 1970 in HoustonTexas, Agnew decided to make some bold claims. Explaining that “life is visceral rather than intellectual. And the most visceral practitioners of life are those who characterize themselves as intellectuals. Truth is to them revealed rather than logically proved. And the principal infatuations of today revolve around the social sciences, those subjects which can accommodate any opinion, and about which the most reckless conjecture cannot be discredited. Education is being redefined at the demand of the uneducated to suit the ideas of the uneducated. The student now goes to college to proclaim, rather than to learn. The lessons of the past are ignored and obliterated, and a contemporary antagonism known as Ã?¯Ã?¿Ã?½The Generation Gap.’ A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals”. Association at this level may seem difficult to understand for some people, but the message rings loud and clear to anyone who took the chance to actually listen and comprehend what a statement like this actually means. Agnew takes great care in associating the beliefs of the older generation and meshing them with the belief that college students are an “effete core of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals”. Not only is this type of association deeply flawed, but it is downright ridiculous to make a sweeping generalization of this magnitude. Undoubtedly, this type of speech made it seem acceptable to place blame on the students wholly after the events of May 4, 1970. It is important to understand the positioning and lack of questioning around the country at this time in history. In my opinion, the only credible piece of information in Agnew’s speech is his proclamation that the generation gap actually exists. Other than that, Agnew is busy using associative language in an attempt to persuade the audience into agreeing with his views.
Understatement can also be an influential tool of language-based persuasion. Defined as “the recognized discrepancy between statement and fact. . . the writer’s apparent emotional response to what he is describing or discussing is markedly less than would normally be expected” (Altick 167). As with most writings that have political significance, some form of understatement or overstatement exists. This may not seem very evident to the naked eye, but when compared with similar sources covering the same events, the naked eye becomes more skilled at noting these occurrences.
While glaring deficiencies ring true throughout his book, James Michener definitely utilized understatement in a passage that we actually discussed in class. This discussion is what ultimately tipped my hand to research this particular topic. Michener writes: “The administration appears to have been pusillanimous in its response to the arson, and lacking in foresight in that it made no effort beforehand to warn students that the Guard might be called to campus. The fact that Dr. White was unable to return in time to assume command of a rapidly deteriorating situation on his campus was unfortunate” (224). To the naked eye, this excerpt may not seem to have much deficiency. However, when pitted against another source, perhaps even a more reputable one, Michener’s use of understatement becomes highly apparent.
Arguably, the more reputable source in question is The President’s Commission on Campus Unrest, chaired by William Scranton. In describing the same situation as Michener, Scranton’s report reads: “The university had made no effort beforehand to prepare the students for the possibility that the Guard might come to the campus. Administration officials had met with student leaders several times during the day, but the discussions were confined to the subject of dances and other diversionary social events. There was no discussion of what might happen if another disorder occurred – a subject administrators discussed only among themselves or with city officials. President White and his wife were at the home of his sister-in-law in Mason City, Iowa, all day Saturday. After repeated telephone conversations Saturday morning with his aides in , he called for the KentState airplane to be sent to bring him back to his troubled campus. He took off for Ohio early Sunday morning” (252).
In comparison to Michener’s version, the Scranton Commission seems to be much more clear and thorough. Also, it is worth noting Michener’s use of the word pusillanimous in his description of university administration. Most people do not know the definition of that word, making his depiction even more understated that originally anticipated. The discrepancy of facts, largely based on the language used, also makes Michener look less credible. For instance, he seems as if he is looking to take the heat off of President White by saying he was “unable” to return to campus in a timely manner. Again, language can create a false assumption with particular words and phrases.
The goal of this research project is to raise the level of awareness for language usage. Whether reading critically or listening intently, it is important to be cognizant of various language cues and techniques that are specifically designed to persuade or perhaps even mislead the reader or listener. The events of May 4, 1970 will never be forgotten. It is my hope that as we advance through the years, more truths will be uncovered and that inconsistencies in language can be explained. The truth deserves to be heard as it happened.
Works Cited
Agnew, Spiro. “Address on War.” Republican Dinner. Houston. 22 May 1970. 14 Apr. 2006 .
Altick, Richard D. Preface to Critical Reading. 5th ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Michener, James A.Kent State: What Happened and Why. Random House, 1971.
Nixon, Richard M. ” Speech.” WashingtonD.C.30 Apr. 1970. 15 Apr. 2006 .
Rank, Hugh. Persuasion Analysis: a Companion to Composition. First ed. Park Forest, Illinois: The Counter-Propaganda P, 1988.
Rhodes, James A. “Governor Rhodes’ Speech At Press Conference.” Fire House, Kent, OH. 3 May 1970. 15 Apr. 2006 .
Rohler, Lloyd E., and Roger Cook. Great Speeches for Criticism and Analysis. Greenwood, Indiana: Alistair P, 1988.
Scranton, William W. United States President’s Commission on Campus Unrest. Government Printing Office, 1970.
