Kent State: An American Tragedy

by Brian VanDeMark

A definitive history of the fatal clash between Vietnam War protestors and the National Guard, illuminating its causes and lasting consequences. On May 4, 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, political crosscurrents that had been building in America during the 1960s reached critical mass. Anti-war protestors sporting bell-bottomed pants and long hair hurled taunts and rocks at another group of young Americans―National Guardsmen wearing gas masks and rifles. At half past noon, violence unfolded with chaotic speed, as Guardsmen―many of whom had joined the Guard to escape the draft―opened fire on the students. Two reductive narratives one, that lethal state violence was aimed at Americans who spoke their minds; the other, that law enforcement gave troublemakers the comeuppance they deserved. For over 50 years, little middle ground has been found due to incomplete and contradictory evidence. In Kent State , historian Brian VanDeMark draws on crucial new research and interviews―including, for the first time, the perspective of the Guardsmen who were there that day―for a complete reckoning with the tragedy that bookended the ’60s. 28 illustrations

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Crime, Audiobook, Education

416 pages, Hardcover

First published August 13, 2024

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

“On May 4, 1970, on the campus of Kent State University in northeastern Ohio, the cultural and political crosscurrents that had been building in the United States for years reached critical mass. One group of young Americans, student protestors wearing bell-bottom pants and many with long hair, hurled epithets and rocks at another group of young Americans, National Guardsmen wearing helmets and gas masks and armed with rifles. About half past noon, a spasm of violence unfolded with chaotic speed as the National Guardsmen opened fire on the protestors. This was the day the Vietnam War came home and the sixties came to an end. American soldiers shot American students on American soil…”
- Brian Vandemark, Kent State: An American Tragedy

In one of the most famous pictures in American history, a fourteen-year-old runaway named Mary Ann Vecchio crouches over a body lying face-down on the ground. Vecchio is captured – by photographer John Filo, who’d win the Pulitzer Prize – mid-scream, her arms spread, clearly conveying two things at once: an emotion, horror; and a question: “What the hell is going on?”

The prone body is that of a man who appears to be sleeping. Yet even in the inherent stillness of a photograph, which stops time for a precise instant, you can see at once that this body is far too still. Indeed, in photographs taken from different angles, you can more clearly see the consequences of a .30 caliber, five-and-a-half inch high velocity bullet fired from an M-1 rifle. The bullet at issue entered the mouth of twenty-year-old Jeffrey Miller, exiting a final-heartbeat later from the base of his posterior skull. Unseen in Filo’s famous snap, but quite evident in others, is the considerable trail of blood that flowed away from Miller’s ruined skull like a river.

The picture was taken on May 4, 1970, on the campus of Kent State University. On that day, Ohio National Guardsmen faced off with students protesting the Vietnam War. During the course of twelve hectic seconds, during which sixty-seven shots were fired, four students were killed, and nine others wounded.

Like everything else about America’s involvement in Southeast Asia, the Kent State shootings sharply divided a nation. In the years since, it has come to symbolize a war – and a political milieu – so ethically compromised that the shooting of unarmed young adults was supported by roughly half the populace.

Almost fifty-five years later, with the survivors now old, and some passions cooled, Brian Vandemark’s Kent State provides a comprehensive – maybe even definitive – telling of one terrible day that has come to represent many terrible days.

***

In terms of structure, Kent State is an old-fashioned, A-to-Z chronological account. Vandemark feels no need to shuffle the timeline for literary effect, and avoids the tendency of many modern writers to insert themselves into the narrative, making their own research of a story part of the story. While I’m glad that not all books are the same, I like the sturdy simplicity of this one. The intrinsic power in this tale – kids in uniform trying to avoid shooting kids in Vietnam who end up shooting kids in bellbottoms – doesn’t need to be goosed.

***

Context is one of the things that Vandemark emphasizes. Kent State takes its time getting to the fateful day, with over a hundred pages passing before gunfire erupts. Vandemark uses this space well, carefully laying both the strategic and tactical groundwork for the eventual collision.

For example, the first – rather lengthy – chapter in Kent State is devoted to America’s seemingly irreconcilable divide in 1970, almost six years after something happened in the Gulf of Tonkin. During this opening, Vandemark spends a great deal of time on the Weather Underground, a militant organization that sought to overthrow the United States Government through a campaign of domestic terrorist attacks. Unsurprisingly – except, perhaps, to the Weathermen – setting off bombs here to protest the dropping of bombs there did not materially advance their cause.

After describing the big picture, Vandemark has a separate chapter on the political activity roiling Kent State itself, which spilled over into town. This included the usual peaceful protests, but also unlawful activities such as the burning of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) building. This triggered Governor Jim Rhodes into calling in the Ohio National Guard who – as Vandemark carefully notes – had a mere sixteen hours of riot training, and was armed with rifles and tear gas only, without any other non-lethal crowd-control implements. Things might have been vastly different had the Ohio State Patrol, well prepared in such matters, been sent for instead.

Even though I fully appreciate what Vandemark was trying to do, it’s important to note that even context has a context. Knowing about the Weathermen, the “Days of Rage,” and even the burning of the ROTC building is important historically, to understand the macro-events that broadly shaped micro-events. Nevertheless, this historical understanding is different from the first-person inputs absorbed by the National Guard, which fed into their perception of what was happening in front of them. In other words, on May 4, 1970, the National Guard did not shoot because of the Weathermen, who were not there, nor were they motivated by any act of arson, which had occurred two days earlier.

They shot off their guns because they were unprepared and poorly led, because they were scared or angry, because they did not like the rocks or swear words coming their way.

***

There were times in the first couple chapters where I started to wonder if Vandemark was heading down The Kids Had it Coming Road. But Vandemark – who wrote the marvelous Road to Disaster about the flawed decision-making that led to the Vietnam War – is Jesuitical in his approach. He interrogates everything, and takes perspective seriously.

This is borne out in a chapter that introduces us to the thirteen students shot at Kent State, with a focus on the ones who never saw May 5. He also lets you know why these men and women were pissed off.

The standard conservative argument about the turn in public opinion has it that college students only turned against the war once they lost their draft deferments. This is a pretty gross oversimplification, and leaves out one important factoid: the as-yet-nonexistent Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

In the mid-1960s, the songwriter P.F. Sloan created Eve of Destruction, memorably performed by Barry McGuire. It is a song catchy enough to appear on The Simpsons, and pointed enough to still slap all these years later. One of its many sharp lines goes like this: “You're old enough to kill but not for voting/You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you’re toting?” These two lines nicely encapsulate the true reason young people were against the war: they could be forced by law to fight in it, but were not yet old enough to vote for it.

Obviously, the United States is built on its own contradictions, but this one – which fundamentally warps the democratic process – has to be one of the worst. Just over a year after Kent State, of course, the voting age was finally lowered to eighteen.

***

The actual confrontation at Kent State is really well-handled. Vandemark skillfully breaks down the action, shifts between participants, and creates some coherence out of a chaotic moment on the quad. He also reveals a big “get,” identifying the man who likely fired the first shot, thereby igniting – unintentionally – all that followed.

In the aftermath, Vandemark follows the families of the dead and wounded, as well as certain of the survivors – especially Dean Kahler, who was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. These storylines are not only sad, but infuriating, as the families were subjected to hate mail telling them that their children deserved to die for the effrontery of being against an inexplicable war. Today, such toxicity – which ticks a lot of boxes on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist – is the norm. If we’re being honest, it’s what fuels huge swaths of the internet. Back in 1970, though, a person actually had to sit down at the kitchen table, get out a pen and paper, and laboriously express this opinion by hand.

Reminds me of another savage line from Eve of Destruction: “Ah, you may leave here for four days in space/But when you return, it's the same old place/The pounding of the drums, the pride and disgrace/You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace/Hate your next door neighbor but don't forget to say grace.”

***

Displaying a keen sense of empathy, Vandemark also explores the feelings of the soldiers, many of whom were distraught over what had happened – and who received hate mail as well. Without doubt – through forensics and admissions – some of the soldiers intentionally fired directly at individuals. Others, however, had fired in much more random fashion, as evidenced by the looping trajectories and long distances at which the victims were struck.

***

Vandemark rounds out the second half of Kent State with an efficient recounting of the official investigations, the criminal trial of eight Guardsmen, and a subsequent civil trial. As for the verdict of history, he puts the blame on the governor, for calling the Guard in the first place, and on the Guard’s commander, Brigadier General Robert Canterbury, who doused this particular fire with gasoline. With the generosity of viewpoints, though, the reader is given substantial material from which to drawn their own conclusions.

***

The right of protest against the government is the preeminent right in American life. It is, after all, embodied in the First Amendment, with almost all of the Founders’ initial grievances against Great Britain centered on an inability to participate in legislative affairs that impacted their lives. Despite this, the Kent State shooting demonstrated Americans’ uncomfortable relationship with a central facet of the democratic process. A huge number supported the mowing-down of unarmed college students, simply because they disagreed with them.

On September 18, 1787, a man named James McHenry – a delegate to the Constitutional Convention – recorded in his diary an exchange between Elizabeth Willing Powell and Benjamin Franklin. “Well Doctor,” Ms. Powell allegedly said, “What have we got – a republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin replied: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

All these years later, it is manifestly unclear if we still want to.

[Larry (LPosse1) · Rating 5 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Review of Kent State: An American Tragedy by Brien VanDeMark

Kent State: An American Tragedy is an extraordinary book—both deeply informative and emotionally powerful. Brien VanDeMark has crafted a nuanced, fluidly written account of one of the darkest days in American history: the May 4th, 1970 shootings at Kent State University. As someone born in 1965, my understanding of the event had long been shaped by the haunting lyrics of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s “Ohio.” This book shattered that limited framework and replaced it with a vivid, multifaceted portrait of the tragedy.

What impressed me most was VanDeMark’s meticulous research. Drawing from a wide range of newly uncovered sources and personal interviews, he brings to life not just the students and victims, but also the National Guardsmen—too often overlooked or vilified without nuance. His even-handed approach doesn’t excuse the tragedy, but it does contextualize it with empathy and depth. One unexpected discovery: Chrissie Hynde of The Pretenders was a Kent State student at the time. ( sorry, I’m a music nut) Another revelation was the bravery of a Kent State professor, Glen Frank, who, hours after the shooting, prevented further violence by calming a potentially explosive standoff. These kinds of moments, tucked throughout the narrative, elevate the book beyond historical account into the realm of moral reckoning.

VanDeMark’s writing is fluid and compelling—this is a true page-turner. I was especially struck by how he captured the broader national mood of anger, fear, and generational divide. The brutality shown toward the students—and sometimes toward the Guardsmen themselves—underscored just how fraught and fragile our democracy can be in times of internal crisis.

Kent State: An American Tragedy is an essential read. It doesn’t just recount history—it brings it alive in all its tragedy and complexity. This book taught me more than I ever expected and left me with a deeper understanding of a painful but crucial moment in American history. Compelling and worth the read!

[Kate O'Shea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Being a Brit I had heard of Kent State and seen the iconic photograph but that's all I knew. Now I think I know more about the unfairness of the justice system, the irresponsibility of so-called leaders and the vicious hatred some people bore towards unarmed children. And yes I do call them children because they had hardly begun to live.

Brian VanDeMark has written an absolutely stunning book that deserves a place on school curriculums in order that we are all aware of how a few bad judgements can have devastating consequences.

VanDeMark sets the scene of this tragedy in the context of the Vietnam War, the incursion into Cambodia, the actions of The Weathermen and other radical groups and juxtaposes it with the words of family, friends, students, professors as to who the students really were.

What broke my heart wasn't just the senseless killings of these children but the backlash afterwards (and that apparently continues). We are idiotic enough to believe that the internet invented trolling. If you think posting derogatory remarks is bad then ask yourself what kind of person takes the time to put pen to paper, marshal their thoughts and then post some vile remarks to the parents of the four students who died. That takes a sickness of a magnitude I can't begin to imagine.

Brian VanDeMark lays out the pain and suffering of all those involved that day including the guardsmen who were poorly trained, exhausted, leaderless and given the task of policing a student protest - none of which they'd been trained for. Add to that the hysteria of the day and the fact that the guards were given live ammunition, which the students hadn't been inforned of.

This was a senseless tragedy but one, given the gun laws in the US, that was merely waiting to happen.

I found this an exceptionally well researched and sensitively written book. I have not broken down in tears so often over any book I've read before.

Very very highly recommended whether you know about Kent State or not. I listened to the audio which was beautifully read by Daniel Henning.

Thankyou very much to Netgalley, Highbridge Audio and RB Media for the audio advance review copy.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you, NetGalley, for granting me a free copy of this audiobook in exchange for an honest review.

Before Watergate blighted Richard Nixon’s presidency, before mass shootings became endemic in the United States, before May 4th was adopted as a pop culture holiday, there was the tragedy at Kent State. The 1970 shooting left four college students dead and thirteen more wounded when National Guardsmen opened fire on an antiwar campus protest. Why they did it, how it happened, and what came after are at the heart of Brian VanDeMark's excellent monograph, Kent State: An American Tragedy. Largely eschewing national politics in favor of a more personalized focus on the people involved, VanDeMark familiarizes the audience not only with the victims and their families, but also with the perpetrators. Most importantly, he provides key context that is often forgotten or overlooked when revisiting the tragedy, such as Nixon’s failed promise to deescalate the war, the violent radicalism of leftist groups like the Weathermen, and the arson attack on Kent’s ROTC facility shortly before the shooting, which was what prompted the deployment of the National Guard in the first place.

In a way, Kent State benefits from its recent publication, allowing the passage of time to bring new perspectives. Given the Vietnam War’s disastrous ending, academics have typically valorized the antiwar movement and bought into the romantic notions young protesters espoused about it. But the hippies, the antiwar movement, and the activism of the 1960s and 70s in general have run head-first into the privilege discourse of the last 10-15 years, and with good reason. Would anyone other than a privileged college student be brazen enough to throw rocks at someone holding a gun? Most of the guardsmen were young adults themselves, drafted into the service while their peers were free to pursue their educations. For the first half of the book, VanDeMark shows why the antiwar movement had become so loathed, culminating with the shooting, which was driven by a combination of miscommunication, inexperience, and failed leadership.

The book shifts gears during the second half, detailing the falling-out of the shooting and the pain endured by the survivors and the families of the fallen. The lack of compassion extended to them was shocking. Parents received hate mail smearing their children as communists who got what they deserved. Friends, colleagues, and occasionally relatives openly condemned the victims for even being at the protest in the first place. The justice system was ineffectual at best, and it would be years before the plaintiffs would receive even partial compensation via a civil suit. (In a cruel twist of fate, many of the parents of the slain students then went on to live uncommonly long, haunted lives). If there is any silver lining, it is the feelings of forgiveness that many survivors found later in their lives, having come to see the guardsmen as scared kids just like themselves.

VanDeMark's reliance on first-hand accounts, especially when delivered in an audio format, makes for a compelling listen, although there are some drawbacks. Can we be certain that every detail of the shooting, and the days leading up to it, definitely happened as described, given how details tend to blur in times of chaos? Is every eyewitness trustworthy? Being an audiobook, there’s no bibliography to reference. And even if there were, VanDeMark's decision to quote all his sources directly, rather than present them as claims or allegations, gives the impression that these are all verified accounts. From a historical perspective, it’s shaky ground. As a story, however, Kent State is engrossing, harrowing, and at times emotionally overwhelming. It’s an excellent history of a calamity that has since been overshadowed by more recent events, and VanDeMark accomplishes the remarkable feat of transporting the reader to May 4, 1970, allowing them to fully grasp the tragedy that brought an end to the idealistic 1960s and become symbolic of one of the darkest periods in American history.

[Brandi Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've written a review for this incredible book in my head at least a half dozen times. Usually at 3 AM or while I'm supposed to be concentrating on something else entirely.

In the end, I can't write anything better or cover all the complexities of this horrible tragedy like my GR friend Matt can. He's one of the best writers here, that's for sure. Many of the books I've searched out, especially non-fiction, have been because of Matt's compelling reviews. So, with that said, I encourage you to go check out his review of Kent State. If I was smarter I'd post a link to it... (maybe Devin can help me with that later lol)

And, if you get the chance, I highly recommend reading Kent State. I wasn't around when this all happened and it was something I needed to learn more about. This book will stay with me for a long time.

[Bill Bookworm · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was really well done; very thorough, fair, and moving. Would highly recommend to anyone interested in the topic or time period.

On May 4, 1970, Ohio national guardsmen shot and killed 4 students and injured 9 others at Kent State, after being called to campus to maintain order during anti-war protests. There is plenty of blame to go around but the single worst decision was to send the the guardsmen in with live ammunition.

What most surprised me was how many people backed the Guardsmen in the days and years following the shooting. The victim’s families endured shocking comments from neighbors, colleagues, and random strangers, all along the lines of “I wished they had killed more” and “they deserved what they got.” The majority of people in Ohio said the Guardsmen were justified in their actions. That would eventually change as time and subsequent events gave perspective.

One Princeton connection: a statue was commissioned in 1978 for a memorial on campus. The sculptor chose to depict Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac from the Old Testament as a metaphor for the shooting. Critics called it an explicit condemnation of the shooting and the university rejected it. It was then donated to Princeton where it has stood ever since. It would take decades before Kent State would install a memorial on campus.

Other things of note / to remember:
- Kent State briefly changed its name to Kent in the years following as part of a rebrand to fix its PR issue and pretend the shooting didn’t happen. That didn’t work
- We spent a lot of time on the Weathermen in the first couple chapters, which I didn’t know much about and gave context to what the “law and order” crowd was so afraid of
- The legal fights after the shooting mostly focused on the individual guardsmen who fired. But the man who had overall control of the guard that day faced almost no consequences aside from not getting an award later in his career, and I suppose now getting skewered in this book
- This book answers the central, previously unknown, question of the incident — who started the shooting
- The CSNY song Ohio gets only a few lines in this book. I didn’t realize it was written recorded and released so soon after the shooting — rush-released in June 1970
- Students had burned down the ROTC building a few nights earlier. ROTC buildings were burned at campuses across the nation including Princeton

[KB · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was certainly familiar with the famous picture of Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of Jeffrey Miller, one of the victims of the 1970 Kent State shooting, but knew very little of exactly what happened. A war protest gone tragically wrong? Brian VanDeMark lays all the details out chronologically, going over the before, during and after of the May 4 shootings.

Last year I read VanDeMark's Road to Disaster: A New History of America's Descent into Vietnam, and I'd say this was not only perhaps the best book on the Vietnam War I've read, but one of the best books in general I've read. I was floored by how good it was. Of course I was looking, and hoping, for the same quality with Kent State. Something actually didn't gel for me right away with this book, however. As I kept reading, though, it all came together. I don't think this quite reaches the heights of Road to Disaster, but it comes close.

When covering an event such as this, I think it's reasonable to worry about the author's portrayal - are they going to take a side? Will there be any bias? But I feel like VanDeMark was very objective. You get the perspectives of the students, men of the Ohio National Guard, and the students' families. You're also not thrown directly into May 4, but get some lead up to understand how things came to be the way they were.

And VanDeMark's handling of what happened on that day is excellent. He builds a clear picture from multiple perspectives, and walks readers through the movements and actions of students and guardsmen. It's incredibly tense, and you can feel the situation deteriorating until it devolves into the shooting. Aggravated and angry students, some hurling insults and threats, some hurling rocks. Scared and poorly trained guardsmen in gas masks they could barely see through, without any clear leadership.

This section, and a couple that come later, really hit me hard. There were several times I was fighting back tears. VanDeMark does not spare readers details of the students who were shot. It's not gratuitous or meant merely for shock value, but drives home the brutality: "Another student who was a Vietnam veteran said, 'Hell, I was in Nam for a full tour and never saw anyone shot down. I had to come back to my own campus to see kids killed.'" His detailing of the "Fire in the air!" order is also extremely well done.

And I was shocked, though perhaps I shouldn't have been, to reactions to the shooting. 4 students dead and 9 more injured, and many people blamed the students. They wrote letters to the families, or even said things directly to their faces about how more students should have been killed. Or that they deserved it. Communists. Un-American. We know that the relative anonymity of the internet emboldens some people to say hateful things, but this is evidently nothing new.

VanDeMark concludes by going through the legal battles over the shootings which dragged on for years, and how the shooting was viewed and later memorialized. Kent State wonderfully filled in a gap for me of such an important event. It's clear, engaging and thorough. Somewhere between a 4 and 4.5 in reality.

[Lydia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I decided to read an ARC of this rather than any of the previously published works on the Kent State shooting because I hoped it would be the most up to date narrative of events and place the shooting within a wider context of events both around 1970 and today. There is a major missed opportunity here to draw parallels between the divided nature of America in 1970 and today, especially in light of the events of Jan 6 2021. The “new revelations” about the shooting fail to impress, even if they add more pieces to the overall puzzle. Ultimately this book is a dry recitation of facts and quotes that does not add any new understanding to the event.

[Mary Anne]

5 STARS

How this book ended up on my TBR: My library is fantastic and, like many libraries do, it pulled this book out and set it on a display shelf. I was not alive for this event and have certainly heard about it. Given the difficult climate in the US these days, I thought this would be a timely read. Boy was I right.

There are certainly several books about the conflict between the Ohio Army National Guard and Kent State students in May of 1970. VanDeMark published this book in 2024 as a result of new information that he acquired in a series of interviews with Matt McManus, who at the time was a platoon sergeant in Company A, First Battalion, 145th Infantry Regiment of the Ohio Army National Guard, and VanDeMark stipulates that McManus' interviews both reinforce facts and perspectives while also answering a big question that multiple parties still had: why did the shooting begin?

VanDeMark's main goal is to provide historical perspective. He doesn't want to call one group victims and another group killers. Instead, he compiles interview transcripts, court proceedings, and other documents to paint a more complex picture of the events leading up to, during, and following May 4th, 1970. As someone who didn't know the details of the encounter, I found this book to be incredibly informative. VanDeMark quickly establishes the atmosphere of the late 1960s, with special focus on the war in Vietnam and the draft. He also provides thorough descriptions of what happened on the Kent State campus on the days leading up to the tragedy. While it's absolutely clear that the author has significant distaste for the then governor, James Rhodes, and General Robert Canterbury (for good reason, imo, as they appear to be awful people), he is a lot more empathetic toward those who served in the Ohio Army National Guard, the students on campus, and the family and friends of those who were shot and/or killed. No one was found criminally guilty of what happened on that campus.

I was absolutely flummoxed and astounded when I read this book. I guess I assumed that society recognized the horror of students being shot and killed on their campus. What I hadn't prepared for was the absolute hate and vitriol that these students and their families received from their communities. Parents disowned children; folks literally told students to their faces that they wish more of the student protestors had been killed. Three of the slain students were Jewish, so you can just imagine the hate mail that those families received. And I kept thinking: how? How can it be that whole communities are so thoroughly against these young people? And, of course, the answer is complicated, but I think some parts are simple. The first, of course, is that there is a great swell of patriotism during a war, especially if some sons in your family are fighting and dying across the world. The second is that those who aren't fighting and are, in fact, complaining about the war and not being drafted are somehow privileged and should keep quiet in their privilege, or so the message goes. Instead, these students are horrified by the stories they're hearing, especially from their own friends and loved ones who may not return from Vietnam, and if they do, they don't return the same as when they left. So to an especially conservative community in Kent, Ohio, these kids are just as Nixon declared them: bums. It just... it hurts my heart so much that the reaction of some people to the shooting is "FAFO; you got what you deserved". In this year 2025, I see a lot of that vitriol happening in our media today, and I suppose this book helps me to remember that I may strongly disagree with some folks and think that their behavior is absolutely inexcusable, but they are still human in some way. And some horrible people benefit from using the "us vs. them" mentality.

I felt like VanDeMark spent a lot of time on the perspectives and histories of the thirteen students who were shot and/or killed. A very appropriate amount. But he also spent time on some of the guardsmen, and that felt appropriate too. He established their humanity and all of the mistakes that led to some of them assaulting student protestors on campus. They were sleep-deprived; they had just come from another protest, albeit one that didn't take place on campus; they had not a lick of training for anything close to a student protest; many were young men who wanted to serve their community and not get sent to Vietnam; they received terrible orders from terrible leaders; they had war weapons they didn't know how to use and subpar defensive equipment.

Some reviews fault the author for not putting this book in 2024 context. While I think the author could have gone that way, I think it's dumb to expect that he would or should. This book had a clear purpose, and there are many other books and resources that can make the connection. If you want to learn more about what happened on May 4th, 1970, at Kent State University, this is an excellent resource. I highly recommend it.

--

PS. My days on GoodReads are likely numbered. If you all ever go to The StoryGraph, let's be friends there! Here's my profile.

[Sharon Penny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vandemark’s account of the day of May 4 1970 is of course even more horrifying than expected. But the long tail of that awful day has perhaps been forgotten, and this book reminds us that, to be glib, shit has been fucked for a LONG time. The lack of any real justice, that there was so little public support, that the victims and their families suffered for so long was difficult to read (but maybe not unsurprisng if you’ve lived here for any amount of time). A must-read for anyone, even if you think you know the story.

[Robert Sparrenberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

I know the song and tidbits about what happened that May 4th. Now I know the whole story. This was hard to read at times. The shooting destroyed so many lives and not just the four students who were killed. I kept reading and the song kept going in my head. Even as I type this, “four dead in Ohio.”

Highly recommend.

[Jacob Medina · Rating 4 out of 5]

A definitive look at an event that still stirs up pain and controversy.

“You can’t buck the system, so why try?”

[Bill Woodburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

At a time when our fearless leader is dispatching armed troops on American soil, it was interesting to revisit what the results were in the past. What could possibly go wrong?

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a happy book. That shouldn’t count as a spoiler however. Confirms they, the guard, the authorities, the government got away with murder and mutilation.

I was annoyed that the author, as he was setting the stage leading up to the shootings, seemed to equate wearing bell bottomed pants and longer than military cut hair styles as reasons for the national guard and public to be threaten by or scared of college students.

The author is also inconsistent at convenient times in how he uses stats. For instance he both downplayed SDS on the Kent State campus by its number of members while also saying KSU had one of the largest chapters.

I became annoyed enough at what seemed to be intentional leading or bias that I looked up the author’s bio midway through the book. A career military perspective. Explained a lot.

I knocked a star off my review because there is no reason not to number the endnotes in the text. Particularly when explanatory footnotes are used pointing out several things throughout, like all of the lies the guard told under oath and got away with. A reader shouldn’t have to hunt and search what text is supported or sourced and what is the author’s opinion or interpretation.


Events since 1970 KSU involving the police and government response to free speech and nonviolent protest that runs counter to the authoritarian and conservative establishment paradigm, show little has been learned or changed.

The book isn’t a necessary read except for May 4 junkies and as a how-not-to or perhaps more accurately a how-to book on oppression and murder: Prevaricate until you have confused facts so much that you believe the truth, as the guy who fired the first shot tells us in the opening, won’t help anyone if you wait long enough for it to come out. I disagree.

[Linda Rae · Rating 4 out of 5]

4+ stars. This should be required reading at every college.

I didn't know much more than the basics about the killings at Kent State, but this book brings multiple perspectives of the event that lead to four students being shot in cold blood by members of the Ohio National Guard.

It was illuminating to understand the killings from the POV of the National Guard members as well as the families. I had no idea of the vitriol that the "Silent Majority" of conservative Americans had against the students who were rebelling against the Vietnam War, the military -industrial complex and the breakdown of faith in government. It's been over 50 years but the divide in America then certainly echoes our divided society today.

[Ken Gross · Rating 5 out of 5]

WOW!

I attended Kent State from 1984 to 1989, and I had opportunities to meet Alan Canfora and Dean Kahler serval times. Unfortunately, in my youth, I really didn't appreciate all that was the Kent State Massacre. I think that this book really helped me understand not only what happened in 1970, but also the reactions that I experienced in the mid- and late-1980s, as well as my personal beliefs and the political winds today in 2025. Themes from the past echo into the present and reverberate into the future, apparently.

Somehow I ended up with an uncorrected advance copy from a second hand bin at a local library (but not my library, btw). Normally, I'd complain about editing since I was an editor in a former life (you can read a few of my past reviews). I will not make such comments in this case, and given my experiences at Kent State, this copy will not end up in a second hand bin again in my lifetime.

This is one of the most gut-wrenching books that I have ever read. I wanted to cry every ten pages because this has to be one of the most horrific events in the United States since World War II. This book is very well researched, encompassing materials from several different archives and previous accounts. As an advance copy, I did not have the benefit of a bibliography, complete notes, nor other references, but I suspect that the author conducted numerous interviews with people present at the events including members of the Ohio National Guard. This is a book filled with anguish, and is a very painful read, no matter how one reads the events.

Given the turmoil of today's politics (2025), I find the conflict, arguments, hatred, and pain of the past equally relevant to the events of today. It seems that we have learned very little from the past, and I hope and pray that we do not repeat our mistakes.

Thank you, Brian VanDeMark, for revealing to me, for opening my eyes, that which I neglected to understand during my attendance at Kent State, and for putting into context my experiences in line with the morals that I hold today.

[Steve B · Rating 5 out of 5]

The tragedy on May 4, 1970 at Kent State University was perhaps the apex of the anti-war movement in the US. 4 students killed and 9 wounded by the Ohio National Guard.
We are a partisan nation today but the Vietnam War 'divided' Americans like no issue other than the Civil Rights movement.

VanDeMark does an incredible job of setting the stage - nationally and locally - to give us a real sense of the impact of the war on all parts of American society. But, he then gives the reader the back story of the students, their families, the guardsmen, the locals. VanDeMark sets the stage by detailing the days leading up to May 4 and why the students were so upset and why Governor Rhodes called in the Guard. A minute by excruciating minute is detailed on the day of the May 4 protest and killings. He then explains the subsequent court cases, the impact of the event on the survivors and the way in which the university has tried over the decades to put the event in a proper perspective.

A wonderful well written book about a disturbing event and a period of our country's history that tore us apart.

[Tammy Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

An in-depth telling of the tragic events on May 4, 1970, at Kent State University.
From the tumultuous 60s to the days leading up to May 4, 1970, to the aftermath and search for truth and accountability, the author puts you front-row in American History. He shares the stories of the families who lost loved ones on that day, how they struggled with the loss, and their lifelong desire to learn the truth.
The thing that I really had a hard time comprehending was that so many Americans thought that the Ohio National Guard should have killed more protesters. I know it was the mentality at the time. Men were starting to wear their hair long and were seen as bums, when all they wanted to do was express themselves and get a good education.
It is pointed out throughout the book that the National Guard soldiers were the same age as the college students protesting.
I knew about Kent State but learned a lot more with this book.

[Tom Sparrenberger · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always wondered what exactly happened at Kent State between students and the Ohio National Guard. This book provides well researched details of the background/leadup to the fateful day of Monday, May 4, 1970 and the incredibly sad aftermath. The human toll of the tragedy impacted so many lives. So many were bitter/angry for decades after for a variety of reasons but I found a quote from a Kent State students years after the tragedy who was struck by a bullet and survived powerful. The student said - "I had five great years at Kent State and one really bad day." The book is well worth the read.

[Joan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a had read. I think it is very thorough but it also brings up a lot of emotions - from the descriptions of the damage of the bullet wounds to the direct quotes from those on both sides - I was a mess with opinions.

Definitely would recommend it though! It provides insight into both sides of the event without telling you what to think one way or the other. I, personally, do blame the guard and think they had no business having loaded weapons on a campus, let alone being on the campus itself.

[Alec Georgoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an Ohioan and son of a Kent State alumna, I always knew that the shootings happened but knew next to nothing about the details. This book does a great job of showing all sides of the events that happened and detailing both the lead-up to and aftermath of May 4, 1970. I would have liked to see a bit more historical context about previous campus protest movements and anti-war movements in general, but overall a good read.

[Carol Dimitriou · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding, even-handed history of the Kent State tragedy. It brought back so many memories of our divided nation because of the Vietnam War. But, unfortunately, our nation is again divided, by politics and lies. Our democracy recovered after Kent State; will it recover now?

[Joann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember clearly this event and the shock that carried through the nation. This book is very informative, presenting both sides, the protestors and the Guard and the long, long aftermath of May 4, 1970. Had those in charge been willing to step forward and listen carefully to the concerns of the protestors, there would have been no need to bring in a contingent of a very worn out, weary Guard. Neither group should have been in the same place at that time. I am much better informed for having read this book.

[Kevin Schafer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Found this via the New Yorker.

It is a rare occasion when a non-fiction book is as heart pounding, tension rising with each page as much as a thriller, but this book makes a historical event come to life in an authentic and captivating way. This book is meticulously even-handed, reinforcing the dual nature of the tragic events- both for the National Guardsmen and the students of Kent State.

[Melanee Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read (though dry and academic) that has changed the way I think about the Kent State tragedy. This should be strongly recommended reading for any young political activists today.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do not know why Kent State affects me so. I was so young at the time that I have no active memories of the events as they transpired. I might first have heard of the story watching an NBC television movie sometime in the early eighties.

Four people dying is tragic, those wounded had the rest of their lives changed forever but, in today’s world young people getting killed and maimed in large numbers is sadly, tragically, all too commonplace.

Of course the deaths at Kent State were at the aegis of the state not some lone psychopath. The feeling of absolute incompetence never goes away either. The politicians trying to appear tough, the ineptitude of the leaders of the guard, it all feels preventable.

This book offers a new piece of evidence of what might have set off the firing. It’s plausible, but it changes nothing other than adding to the tragedy fifty years later. The possibility that the first shot was meant to prevent injury but instead led to it is just one more failure.

I made many, many, notes which are below.

In the foreword the author states that the Kent state shooting gave rise to two competing narratives, that oversimplified the motives and characters of the people involved, lacked nuance, and ignored ambiguity, complexity, unpredictability, confusion, CHAoS, and cruel pathos. One narrative to pick the shooting is lethal violence in the name of the state directed against those who sought to defy its wet. The other narrative depicted picture of the sthe author states that the Kent state shooting gave rise to two competing narratives, that oversimplified the motives and characters of the people involved, lacked nuance, and ignored ambiguity, complexity, unpredictability, confusion, chaos, and cruel pathos. One narrative depicting, the shooting is lethal violence in the name of the state, directed against those who sought to defy its read. The other narrative depicting the shooting as law-enforcement, giving troublemakers to come up and stay deserved. for more than 50 years, little to no middle ground has existed between these competing narratives. Opinions remain as sharply drawn as ever. Most Americans, when they look at Kent state, have not allowed themselves to understand the opposing viewpoint or to accept shared responsibility.

In 2024, with much of our narrative, both politically and culturally, is anything much different between the opposing sides?

The book opens with a chapter titled “the divided America of 1970“, and explains how we got to the events of Kent State. Writing about the first protest against the war in 1965 he describes that “most of the young men wore ties, and mostly young women wore skirts. they were polite affairs.” When a Rutgers professor declared “I do not fear or regret the impending Vietcong victory in Vietnam,” a letter, a reply to the New York Times stated “the victory for the Vietcong, which Professor Genovese welcomes would mean, ultimately, the destruction of freedom of speech for all men for all time, not only in Asia, but in the United States as well. Any individual employed by the state should not be allowed to use his position for the purpose of giving Aiden comfort to the enemies of the state.” That writer was future republican president, Richard Nixon.

Hyperbolic. March? Yes and that was in 1965 things were about to get much much worse. I do find it interesting however, that in Nixon’s letter, he talked about the destruction of freedom of speech. At the same time he was criticizing the professor, for his use of said freedom of speech.

The 1967 in march on Washington. The closure of Columbia University. Chicago, 1968. These are all events very familiar to people of the time in those who have studied it.
One aspect perhaps not talked about much of the time is how these events, the divisions, the protest, took George Wallace from a one issue candidate, that being race, in allowed blue-collar Americans to see that decency and social order or coming under assault in more general terms. It is not hard to take the platform of George Wallace, and see how it was the template of the southern strategy that became the SpringBoard to the new conservatism of the republican party

The Weatherman and their excesses are given much space. Growing out of SDS and both rage and disappointment over the ineffectiveness of peaceful protest their excesses did nothing to diminish the divisions of the country.

Their excesses allowed the Nixon administration to lump all protesters in with the radicalism, violent actions of the Weathermen.

Divide, Divide, divide is always the mantra. If either side can move those in the middle to their side by the radical words and actions of those few on the extremes they will do so. Look at our current election. It never changes

An important quote from former Weatherman Brian Flanagan “ if you think that you have the moral high ground, that is a very dangerous position. You can do some really dreadful things”

Again, nothing ever changes, the end justifies the means is always the end result of fanaticism

and plenty of people we’re ready to be divided. 60 years later it’s hard to remember or certainly for those who weren’t involved or alive at that time they may not realize who the parents of these protesters were. The parents of these young people in college in the late 60s were people who had come through the depression, World War II, and it was simply not fathomable to them, who had undergone so much, that their sons and daughters were “throwing it all away.”

There is always a clash between generations, but the Nixon administration chose to use that, amplify that, for their own political purposes.

These same divisions exist now, and are amplified in the same way. Take out the word weatherman and substitute a liberal group from today, albeit one that is not violent, but just disrespectful of the cultural norms of the previous generation. “ blue-collar workers and middle-class conservatives so nothing of themselves in the weatherman, whose actions as reported in the media, lead conservatives to generalize about all antiwar protesters. Conservatives were not waiting to be enlightened by a radical vanguard. What move them, what their attitudes were, could not have been more different. They decorated their hardhats with a flag, the cows and the motto “for God and country.“ Th They built the schools that protesters wanted to burn down. They felt deep anticipate toward elites, especially radical elites with college draft deferment. Many of them had served in World War II or Korea and viscerally despise antiwar protesters. They watch, family, friends, and neighbors, draft to fight for America, in a vicious, an unpopular war, only to see us at service demeaned by what they considered a bunch of pampered, overprivileged, flag, desecrating, snot houses. To work and class white, antiwar protesters were supposed to never toiled, just look for trouble. to conservatives, the days of rage in the Greenwich village explosion revealed a movement that had to generated into nihilistic violence. They Sara Creuset, not to write wrongs, but to terrorize citizens. Blue-collar Americans, who probably still with hands over their hearts during the playing of the national anthem, at sporting events, so long hairs, as unpatriotic draft dodgers, and to them draft dodging, was nothing more than old fashion, cowardice based on the fear of facing enemy rifles, in the jungle, the Vietnam. They saw respect for the military replaced by contempt. They saw chair, a symbol of patriotism, such as the flag, this mess, desecrated, even burned, some protest , they saw militance not as equally patriotic citizens with very different politics, but as bums, rotten, apples, nihilistic, anarchist, “The Enemy.”

By the spring of 1970, America was divided into warring camps that spoke the same language, and share the same nationality, but could not, and would not try to, understand each other. Each side refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the other, and believe that those who disagreed with them were acting in bad faith, if not part of a sinister conspiracy. It was a tense, suspicious, and combustible atmosphere that required only a spark to ignite a tragedy. “

As I read that last paragraph, six days before the election of 2024, one feels history turning and folding in on itself.

The events of that fated weekend have, as they say, many fathers. It is worthwhile to note,however, that the words of political leaders, both nationally and locally, did nothing to lower the temperature of events. In fact they exacerbated it. On Friday, May 1, the night after his Cambodia speech Nixon, while visiting the pentagon, gave an off tne cuff remark evidently not realizing his remarks were being recorded. In them he contrasted “ kids who are just doing their duty“ in Vietnam with “these bums” - “ The luckiest people in the world, going to the greatest universities“ - “blowing up the campuses.”

Also inflaming the situation and with more power to immediately use his power to send events in the wrong direction was Governor Rhodes. With a hotly contested primary for the Republican nomination for Senate happening on May 5th, Rhodes did everything in his power to position himself as the take charge, law and order candidate. On Sunday while events calmed on campus in the light of day Rhodes spoke to reporters at the Kent Firehouse Number 1 saying in part “ we’ve seen here in the city of Kent probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violent yet perpetrated by dissident groups. We’re going to put a stop to this. We’re going to use every part of law-enforcement in Ohio to drive them out of Kent. We are going to eradicate the problem.” He paused a moment and then went even further “ they are worse than the brown shirts and communist element and also the night riders in the vigilantes they are the worst type of people that we harbor in America. No one is safe it’s just that simple no one is safe.“ Instead of exerting a calming influences his table something theatrics added fuel to the fire students felt that he had equated them with Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.

One female student was quoted “If tne President thinks I’m a bum and the Governor thinks I’m a Nazi, what does it matter how I act.”

Would Rhodes have acted differently had his primary, in which he was trailing, not been in three days. Truthfully, probably not. The division between the generations was at a pretty extreme point. It is a question to ponder, however.


The events of May 4 are a comedy of errors but not the least but funny. These guardsmen had been in duty for a week, these were for the most part not fully trained soldiers and they had never been the main enforcement at riots and strikes and other times they had called out.

General Canterbury was both overmatched and brazenly confident of his abilities. The soldiers were put in a terrible position. Of import to anger is how much he lied in later testimony. At least according to multiple statements of his officer subordinates as to what he ordered and when.

We learn some new information in this book. Over the last decades we have heard rumors of orders to shoot or a small cadre of the soldiers deciding they had had enough.

If Sargent McManus is to be believed it was nothing with such malice aforrethought.

Canterbury had marched the men into a trap by the athletic playing fields. Penned in on three sides they were pelted with rocks, pipes and all sorts of materials from a nearby construction site.

A decision to March back up zblanket Hill through the quad and back to the burned out ROTC building. As they did many students followed, getting closer and closer. The soldiers using gas masks could barely see. McManus saw some of his soldiers kneel and aim. It was a bluff, an attempt to get them some room. The students were convinced that they did not have live ammunition in their guns. Canterbury had not had the troops make the requisite announcement, stating the fact that they were live bullets in the guns of course even if they had with people and believe them, would have been heard, as the loudness and the decibel level w was extreme

When McManus saw his men kneel, he thought they were going to fire, so he screamed in the air in the air and took his pistol and shot it in the air. In the confusion, nothing was understood clearly. It is a general consensus that at this time, hearing that initial shot, some of the soldiers fired, thinking there had been an order, this laugh, McManus for the last 40 years, feeling an extreme guilt over his actions, and in truth, in his misrepresenting the facts at the times of the original hearings. In trying to prevent a catastrophe, his original shot appears to have been the spark.


As soon as the shooting started Major Harry Jones could be seen racing up the line of soldiers, at considerable risk to himself, beating the men with his stick to get them to stop firing. The book states “ many guardsmen had to be shaken by the shoulders to make them stop.” Which implies that even if the firing started accidentally a bloodlust set in one firing began.

Sixty seven bullets traveled, some nearly a mile away, striking many, killing four. The book gives a play by play, a detail of each victims location and actions leading up to the firing. Two of the four dead could not in anyway be considered as more than bystanders, people in the wrong place. Only Jeff Miller could be called a real combatant in the activities of the day but that should in no way construe that the end result was deserved. Later, in testimony, some soldiers admit they aimed into the crowd, some at certain students. Lies told about Jeff Miller started almost immediately led by the planting of an old revolver on his person by Csptain Ron Snyder. Snyder lied in statements over and over, then under oath to the grand jury before recanting at the civil trial and admitting his perjury. He was never prosecuted

Having read James Michener’s book on Kent State one of the more remarkable sections to me has always been the aftermath, the public opinion, the letters to the editor and such. This is a conservative country, by and large, and that is borne out in the response.

Some of the injured were blamed as guilty by family members and loved ones. Human nature requires for many a reason for atrocities. To believe that soldiers could injure and maim innocents is to disconcerting. Wild rumors spread about Allison Kraus and her hygiene and sexual promiscuity. Sandy Schuer was a radical communist. Jeff Miller had a gun. None of this was true.

General Canterbury was strongly at fault. His statements in investigations are strongly at odds with almost every other participant, serving to obfuscate the truth and repel blame.

Reading the notes from the parents of the deceased, how their lives were shattered, it’s still heart rending. Every death is tragic to those who love the dead but there seems a special pain to losing a child not in war, not in an accident, but to a shooting such as this.

Today’s equivalent would be a school shooting I suppose but even that is. Or administered by an agent of the state.

I suppose one can look at the divisions and fissures in our country of 2024 and point to many different moments and say “this was where it all went wrong.” Kent State happened, after all, in 1970. The preceding seven years alone had seen a country riven by war, assassinations, and culture clashes.

Consider a speech given by Army Chaplain Major John Simone of the Ohio guard just one week after the shootings. Speaking to a Kiwanis club luncheon undoubtedly filled with supporters of the soldiers actions he said :

“ I am sure that some of you in this room wanted us to kill more…The younger generation is naive, life is not that simple, but (their) elders run from change by placing the responsibility for every rocky event on some Communist conspiracy. The older generation that wields power now has sold out to its fear of Communism. Perhaps the middle generation can gain the power and achieve the maturity which is not afraid of criticism or change. If we do not, life will go on as usual-there will be more Kents and Jacksons and Vietnams and Cambodias and with each new horror the solid middle class will become smaller and smaller until there is nothing left but two unspeaking and unspeakable extremes tearing the guts out of this great country. “

Might Kent State and America’s reaction to it have been the death knell of any semblance of the post war American unity.

One could write all day. Fifty or more years later this event is a scar across our history.

[Frances · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellently researched and written. He did a great job of describing the country and the political attitudes at that time. It was an emotional and riveting book. I remember this when it happened. He did a wonderful job presenting both sides. Very insightful

[Brandon Westlake]

I initially believed that this book would focus on the events of that day and the wider significance of the the shootings for the college and anti-war movement, but it was immediately clear that this book was much more than that. It is an examination of 1960s radicalism, the debate about use of force, and the subsequent struggle to find justice and meaning.

First, the book does a great job of placing the events of Kent State into context, something that I thought was more simple than it really was. To understand Kent State, VanDeMark makes the argument that one must grasp the nature of the growing radical movement, growing from SNCC in earlier years. The story is a complexity one that VanDeMark writes about with clarity and through a compelling narrative. The radical outgrowth of the counterculture, like the Underground, here play an important role. The growing leftist movement of the time found a spot at Kent State, showing that the shootings there were not a random act of violent chance, of the four students being ones unfortunately to die at the hands of trigger-nervous National Guardsmen.

Protests has been occurring on campus before the larger protests, with guardsmen called in and an ROTC building being burned. VanDeMark makes the case that at the time, no one would have thought that bringing troops in to quell the protests would have seemed too far out of the norm, especially for those on the other side. Even those marching that day were not surprised to once again seen uniforms standing across the quad. It's a significant component of the story that has been left out. To understand Kent State, VanDeMark shows that there is a larger explanation.

His descriptions and evidence from McManus is well-integrated into the book. It was shocking to read his accounts and to follow him trying to find peace with the past. At one point, he states that he believed that the guardsmen were to "fire in the air"

VanDeMark also connects this story to the larger political narrative, linking Kent State with the infamous Hardhat Riot. Tragically, those students who were confronted by construction workers in Manhattan were mourning the loss of a Kent State student. It makes the political gesturing following the event even more sobering.

This is a much needed narrative of an tragic event that has never quite received its due attention. VanDeMark fills in the gap of Vietnam and 1960s historiography, while showing that exploring the complexity in history can provide new avenues of connections between events in the past.

[David Partikian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Is there any more hackneyed cliché than “history repeats itself”? The rift in the American political landscape is gaping and divisive, so much so that many Americans either obsess over the news or try to avoid it entirely to retain some semblance of serenity. Brian VanDeMark’s comprehensive look back at events surrounding 12.53 seconds on May 4, 1970, Kent State: An American Tragedy has appeared at a perfect moment, allowing Americans to put the present in proper historical perspective.

VanDeMark accomplishes the nearly impossible: conveying the events of that fateful day without blatant judgment and with an encyclopedic attention to detail—the footnotes are not to be glossed over--that leaves a reader overwhelmed with how nuanced this tragedy remains after more than a half century. It is far more complicated than a Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song, or the knee-jerk opinions which either blame the National Guardsmen or student “protestors” (quotations utilized because some victims were onlookers).

To be clear, there are incompetent villains in the tragedy who don’t withstand any reasonable assessment and scrutiny, particularly the Governor of Ohio, Jim Rhodes, and--most notably and damning—the on-site General of the National Guard, Robert Canterbury who somehow escaped without a prison sentence; there was never an official order given to fire, just panic by one guardsman that set off a chain reaction. The issuing of live ammunition to poorly trained National Guardsmen as well as the decision to disperse a crowd that was largely peaceful on that Monday (though the crowd two days prior was emphatically not), is an example of utter incompetence. With the passage of time, his name should live on in infamy.

VanDeMark is at his best when describing the predicament of the guardsmen. Poorly trained and lacking in sleep due to being deployed for too many “emergencies”—including a union strike the week prior-- by a “Law and Order” governor, the guardsmen were largely victims of the system that “trained” them. I ended up having tremendous sympathy for the guardsmen, having been through countless training sessions in “The Use of Deadly Force” and “Warning Shots” during my professional career. Note: there is no use of warning shots for a face-to-face encounter, something readily apparent to anyone with any semblance of military training. That these guardsmen lacked these basic training essentials is completely damning, especially when gas masks are utilized. This is not to exonerate any specific guardsmen—if one or a few had malicious intentions, he has certainly not confessed—but it allows us to see them with empathy. Gas masks greatly restrict vision, much more so for anyone with eyeglasses (many guardsmen had glasses and, thus, were virtually blind). This makes the panic response more understandable.

As with any book dealing with an infamous historical incident in American history, the description of circumstances leading up to the event and the event itself are more compelling than later chapters that deal with victims trying to attain some semblance of justice, though the reticence of the University to cope with the past adequately for almost two decades is sad but understandable. VanDeMark’s matter-of-fact citation of the steady stream of hate mail that the victims’ families received is indicative of the cancerous hate exploited, mostly by the Right today, and evidence that little has changed in U.S. politics.

VanDeMark’s precise summary of reasons for the student protests are very informative to those readers who were not in diapers in 1970*: the Viet Nam War, the then very recent U.S. incursion into Cambodia, the ending of the student deferments, and the implementation of the draft lottery system. Nor does VanDeMark shy away from the inevitable and obvious conclusions that there were violent and radical elements of the Counterculture and anti-war movements, specifically the SDS and the Weathermen (The Weather Underground), who managed to blow up a building in Greenwich Village just a couple of weeks prior to May 4, 1970.

Kent State: An American Tragedy appears at a perfect moment to let Americans reflect on college protests and the use of force. While many discerning Americans can see through the farcical charade performance by a Right-wing demagogue opportunist like Elise Stefanik, it is necessary to revisit Kent State to understand the complex predicament that university presidents and mayors have to deal with today. The current Palestinian demonstrators come across as clueless spoiled brats when contrasted with those protesting at Kent State (where three of the four dead were Jewish). No single group of students were harassed at Kent State during the protests and no one was prevented from attending classes; only about 10% of the student body was either actively protesting or watching as onlookers that day. And, black students were conspicuously absent, since they knew better or advised by those who knew better:

An African American professor sat in his office that morning waiting for his weekly conferences with students. One of Rudy Perry’s lieutenants entered and abruptly aid, “Professor, you’ve got to get off this campus right now.” “What are you talking about?” “Off. Get off.” “Why?” “There are guardsmen out there. They have loaded rifles.” “What are you talking about?” “Professor, you may be an intelligent man. But there are some things you don’t know. I’m from Newark, New Jersey. And I do know. You get the hell off the campus." The professor left. Page 113-114).

If VanDeMark is to be faulted for anything, it is for relegating the violence and deaths at protests at black universities in the same era to mere footnotes, though—to be fair—this flaw is indicative of blind spots in America’s consciousness and would have detracted from the focus on Kent State. The exclusion or demotion to footnotes was certainly a conscious decision to keep the focus on May 4, 1970.

Finally, it was impossible to read this book without feeling utter disgust and revulsion for the violence that takes place in American schools on virtually a daily basis today. VanDeMark’s excruciating descriptions and attention to detail makes it painfully clear that there is no “good” wound with an M-1 rifle, which is an instrument meant to kill or incapacitate (certainly there is no survivor of Kent State bragging about a grazed ear). All those wounded at Kent State suffer pain and discomfort every day of their lives. It is telling and truly sad that, before Kent State, there was only one notable instance of gun violence or multiple deaths on a U.S. college campus or school due to firearms. Yet, beginning in the late 90’s, American schools, which should be about potential and future, are in crisis and need “active shooter” drills. Our schools have become firing ranges rather than places of learning. All of our children are potential victims on a daily basis. While no one was every punished for Kent State, we—as a nation—have insured government agents have never used deadly force on a college campus again; the mere thought of it is unthinkable, as the recent protests over Palestine illustrate. Yet barely a week can go by in the U.S. without some random shooter killing elementary school students, middle school students, or college students. The epidemic is of such proportions that in another fifty years there can’t even be a book focusing on one specific school shooting. Or the lives of four victims. Or the specific wounds of 13 other victims. The carnage is too great. There can only be a book on the phenomenon of school shootings and the inability of U.S. politicians to reflect and act. Therein lies tragedy that eclipses the tragedy of Kent State.

-------------
* I was too young to remember the events of Kent State when they occurred. My partner was born less than two weeks after. My first introduction was the song “Ohio,” and, later, when my wonderful High School English teacher, Dr. Pamela Sheldon, spoke to us high school students about being there and how creepy the presence of the National Guard was.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an impressive and empathetic look at what happened at Kent State, why it happened, the results and its legacy. Vandemark often relies on previously conducted interviews and secondary materials, but he also does his own research and interviews, most notably with a member of the national guard who played a key role on that day. The main focus is on the 13 students who were shot at Kent State - the four dead and nine wounded. VanDeMark even gives an entire chapter to a brief description of them prior to May 4. They fell into three main groups: 1) some of the more militant activists, 2) some Jewish activists (3 of the 4 killed were Jewish students), 3) and some more general anti-war sorts who happened to be there.

The book starts off with some background: by 1970, the Vietnam War was very unpopular, and some of the more strident opponents had been radicalized into Weatherman support for violence. That was rare, but it was in the atmosphere (and could be used to demonize all protesters). Kent State itself had been a normally "square" state university, but the student body was increasingly anti-war, though that doesn't mean most were activists.

At the start of May 1970, Nixon announced the US had entered Cambodia, and all hell broke loose across US campuses. Kent State had some minor rioting in town (the town of Kent, naturally) that culminated when protesters burnt down the campus ROTC building. Some felt that it would all be over, but nope. The governor denounced them as Nazis and communists. The national guard was placed on campus, with the leaders of the guard making all sorts of tough talk and demonizing of the protesters. For many on campus, this just created a new round of anger. It was less about Vietnam now and more about not wanting the guard on campus.

The guardsmen themselves were poorly trained and very poorly led. The guys running it seemed to be more about bluster than having any real clue what to do. On May 4, all campus protests and gatherings had been declared verboten, and when students gathered anyway by Blanket Hill, the guard moved off of the area around the burnt out ROTC and toward Blanket Hill. They'd been given little to no training on what to do in a circumstance like this. There wasn't really much of a plan beyond making a show of force. Oh, and they'd been issued live ammo. Instead of intimindating the students, this just angered them all the more. Most just milled about, but some threw rocks at the guard and some screamed "KILL THE PIGS!" and things like that. The guardsmen were scared and some couldn't even see very well in their gas masks. At one point they were ordered to kneel on the hill, while pointing rifles at the students, like they were going to open fire. Then they got up and started walking back to the ROTC. All this did was antagonize and motivate students further, who moved closer to the guard as they walked away. Finally, the guard turned back towards the students. That's when it happened.

A guardsman sergeant named Matt McManus who VanDeMark interviewed admitted to firing the first shot. He said he wanted to get the men to fire up in the air, away from people, mostly to scare the students away. He fired his first shot to get the attention of the guardsmen and ordered them to fire in the air. But the guardsmen couldn't hear that well in the noise, they were scared, they heard a shot, heard someone yelling to shoot - in 12 seconds, about 70 shots came out in fairly disorganized manner. Many later said they just fired because they guy next to them had opened fire. Some said they either aimed intentionally at the ground or intentionally over the heads of students - but both methods probably back fired. Some bullets hit the ground, dug in, dug out, and went towards the students, causing at least a few woundings. As for firing over people's heads, well, the guardsmen were still on a hill, and most of those shot were further back in the crowd, so that's probably how/why they got shot.

There was nearly a second, bigger shooting, too. The crowd scattered after the shots, but not for too long. And now - they were even more upset. People lay dead, dying, and wounded -- man, fuck those pigs. They were even more hostile. And some of the officers in the guard were even more bellicose. A few faculty got involved trying to calm the situation, asking people to leave. But there still might've been a second incident had not state highway patrolmen showed up around then. They had training on how to handle crowds with non-lethal means. The groups were separated and the situation came to an end.

Some of the hardest reading in the book came in the post-massacre sections. Plenty of people were perfectly happy this shooting happened. Relatives of the kids shot were told to their face that their kids deserved it. Hate mail poured in. Some kids were treated poorly in the hospital. Nasty, fictional rumors swirled about the deceased. A series of investigations and trials proceeded. No one was found guilty. In the last civil trial, a note of apology was signed by some, but that was it. Many of the victims and their families became extremely jaded and made cynical by it. In a final chapter on the incident's legacy, it appears that the wounded survivors typically were able to make some peace with what happened, though it took decades in some cases.

Criticisms of the book? While we get a clear sense of the victimes, the guardsmen typically come off more like a generalized blob. We hear different things about them based on whose saying it. Sometimes they sound completely indifferent to what they did. Other times we're told they were devastated by it in various ways. VanDeMark notes there was a code of silence among the guardsmen on it, so it's probably hard to get more at them.

Beyond that, the chapters on the trials probably went a little longer than needed to. One side aspect I would have liked to see explored a bit more: VanDeMark notes how the gathering on May 4 was essentially all-white. KSU's black students knew to stay away if guardmen were pointing guns because they'd be the first targets. I would be a bit more interested to see what that segment of the community felt about the entire incident. I get that's a side matter, but the book concludes that May 4, 1970 marked the end of the 1960s and student activism - well, what did it mean for black activism?

Still, overall, this was an excellent book. Please note I am giving it five stars here.