LSU frat members taunt Kent State Massacre

[dekeguy]

Perhaps we might review the bidding here. In 1970 tensions at Kent State were high and building. The night before the Kent State riot a mob burned down the ROTC building. On the day of the riot a howling mob of 2000 advanced on a handfull of National Guard personnel pelting them with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles. The guardsmen fell back but were blocked by a chainlink fence through which they could not retreat.
When threatened by imminent violent contact with an angry mob and with no place to go to get out of the way the guardsmen fired. As is obvious from the number of hits vs. the number of rounds fired most shots were over the heads of the rioters in an attempt to break up this very real and proximate danger to the guardsmen.
The Kent State community bears great responsibility for what happened. One cannot participate in potentially lethal actions and not expect a response from those on the receiving end of those actions. Particularly when the guardsmen were acting as the in loco police authority and the mob was involved in riot. The unpopularity of the Viet Nam War does not confer a license for riot and murderous actions on the mob.
Viewed in this light Kent State is hardly in a position to howl in protest over the comments referring to the riot by which they were the authors of their own calamity.
As to the sign itself, I am of two minds. It does not exactly follow the traditions of Southern Hospitality to a visiting team but on the other hand, on an undergraduate mindset level it points out the probable result of taking on a top rated SEC team. Granted that it may not be in the best of taste, but I don't know any DEKEs who carry around a copy of Emily Post.
Whether or not

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Perhaps we might review the bidding here. In 1970 tensions at Kent State were high and building. The night before the Kent State riot a mob burned down the ROTC building. On the day of the riot a howling mob of 2000 advanced on a handfull of National Guard personnel pelting them with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles. The guardsmen fell back but were blocked by a chainlink fence through which they could not retreat.
When threatened by imminent violent contact with an angry mob and with no place to go to get out of the way the guardsmen fired. As is obvious from the number of hits vs. the number of rounds fired most shots were over the heads of the rioters in an attempt to break up this very real and proximate danger to the guardsmen.
The Kent State community bears great responsibility for what happened. One cannot participate in potentially lethal actions and not expect a response from those on the receiving end of those actions. Particularly when the guardsmen were acting as the in loco police authority and the mob was involved in riot. The unpopularity of the Viet Nam War does not confer a license for riot and murderous actions on the mob.
Viewed in this light Kent State is hardly in a position to howl in protest over the comments referring to the riot by which they were the authors of their own calamity.
As to the sign itself, I am of two minds. It does not exactly follow the traditions of Southern Hospitality to a visiting team but on the other hand, on an undergraduate mindset level it points out the probable result of taking on a top rated SEC team. Granted that it may not be in the best of taste, but I don't know any DEKEs who carry around a copy of Emily Post.
Whether or not

Don't know where you got your facts about the May 4th incident, but I know this: they are wrong.

Try reading James Michener's Kent State: What Happened and Why or 13 Seconds: A Look Back on the Kent State Tragedy.

At no point were the guards trapped by a chain link fence. The guard had turned around and were returning back to their original position by the burned out ROTC building. The victims were 71 feet (closest) to 750 feet away. By picture evidence, it is clear that the guardsmen had a clear path to their original positions when they turned and fired. As for firing over the heads of the protestors, the guardsmen were near the top of a hill with the protestors in an area downhill from them. The guardsmen could have completely fired over their heads, but obviously chose not to do so.

Simply put, your chapter at LSU was in the wrong, and have admitted and apologized for it. Your rewriting of history to excuse them and blame the victims of the tragedy do not do anything to try and help this situation.

eta: And before you try and say the students followed the guardsmen, by all evidence, they were not following them in their retreat. The students involved in the protest thought it was all over and were standing around and talking when the shootings began.

[dekeguy]

I figured that my post would elicit some comments refusing to consider my point of view, so let's look at it point by point.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Perhaps we might review the bidding here. In 1970 tensions at Kent State were high and building.
-This is simply a matter of generally accepted fact reported by every source I have found.

The night before the Kent State riot a mob burned down the ROTC building.
-Again, a matter of fact. It did happen.

On the day of the riot a howling mob of 2000 advanced on a handfull of National Guard personnel pelting them with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles.
-There was a riot. Most estimates place it at plus or minus 2000 participants. The mob did pelt the guardsmen with bricks, rocks, and bottles. I presume we can take it that we all know the potential of being struck in the face with a brick or rock or bottle?

The guardsmen fell back but were blocked by a chainlink fence through which they could not retreat.
-If you disagree, fine. There is always room for interpretation. I based my comment on published articles, overhead photos, and conversations with people who were actually there.

When threatened by imminent violent contact with an angry mob and with no place to go to get out of the way the guardsmen fired.
-Even if we grant that there might have been an escape path, which is open to discussion, the guardsmen were threatened by violent contact with an angry mob. Consider the bricks, rocks, and bottles.

As is obvious from the number of hits vs. the number of rounds fired most shots were over the heads of the rioters in an attempt to break up this very real and proximate danger to the guardsmen.
-One must consider the number of rounds fired against the number of actual hits. If the guardsmen had intended to fire for effect into the mob there would have been dozens of casualties. Thank God this did not happen.

The Kent State community bears great responsibility for what happened. One cannot participate in potentially lethal actions and not expect a response from those on the receiving end of those actions.
-Seems pretty obvious to me.

Particularly when the guardsmen were acting as the in loco police authority and the mob was involved in riot.
-The Guard, called out by the governor, was acting not as soldiers but exercising police powers of riot control and suppression.

The unpopularity of the Viet Nam War does not confer a license for riot and murderous actions on the mob.
-I stand by this comment. There is a great deal of difference between peaceful assembly and riot.

Viewed in this light Kent State is hardly in a position to howl in protest over the comments referring to the riot by which they were the authors of their own calamity.
-This is admittedly a tough minded statement but viewed in a broader context it likewise stands as written. If one throws a riot one cannot reasonably claim victimhood when things work out very badly. The root cause of the tragic incident was the action of the mob in rioting.

As to the sign itself, I am of two minds. It does not exactly follow the traditions of Southern Hospitality to a visiting team but on the other hand, on an undergraduate mindset level it points out the probable result of taking on a top rated SEC team. Granted that it may not be in the best of taste, but I don't know any DEKEs who carry around a copy of Emily Post.
Whether or not

-I'll grant that the sign was in poor taste but not much more than that. My concern is that we have become so PC as to have lost sight of the simple fact that the real world is a tough place.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

I figured that my post would elicit some comments refusing to consider my point of view, so let's look at it point by point.


-I'll grant that the sign was in poor taste but not much more than that. My concern is that we have become so PC as to have lost sight of the simple fact that the real world is a tough place.

Do you feel all better now?

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

Do you feel all better now?

Oh, so much better. Thank you granny.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Oh, so much better. Thank you granny.

That's great! Your chapter at LSU was still out if line, but at least you got it all out.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

I'll grant that the sign was in poor taste but not much more than that. My concern is that we have become so PC as to have lost sight of the simple fact that the real world is a tough place.

The reaction here is, as is per usual with non-PC activities carried out on college campuses, completely over the top. Sure, the chapter apologized, but it's not likely they did so out of remorse, but rather because they felt it would be easier if they did so than to stand by their remarks.

That said, should a public school be in the business of punishing students and organizations for the content of their speech? Where's that line between wanton violations of these students' constitutional right to say stupid/offensive things vs. the school's powers regarding student conduct?

Our organizations tend to approach schools who are punishing or threatening to punish our constituent groups for offensive speech or behavior in a manner which seems to suggest the schools actually have such power.

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that.

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Perhaps we might review the bidding here. In 1970 tensions at Kent State were high and building. The night before the Kent State riot a mob burned down the ROTC building.
- Not in dispute. Tensions were high on many college campuses that weekend. This was due to Nixon's announcement that US troops would be going into Cambodia.

On the day of the riot a howling mob of 2000 advanced on a handfull of National Guard personnel pelting them with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles.
-Yeah, no. A large group of students had called for a protest on the campus commons area. The protest started with about 700 students (they were protesting the war and the presence of the guard). By all accounts (even the Ohio National Guard), the protest was peaceful. Unfortunately, the protest occured at noon, just as 11 am classes were dismissing. Because of this, students who normally walked through this area swelled the crowd to about 2000. Most stayed to see what was happening. The National Guard then decided to dispence the crowd. They made an announcement to disperse which was greeted by boos and cat-calls. The Guard then moved out and began to fire tear gas. Most of the crowd left, with some of the crowd throwing back the canisters and throwing rocks they had picked up off the ground. Local tv stations filming the incident show that the vast majority never hit any of the Guardsmen and that the students were moving away. Definately not "advancing" and "pelting with potentially lethal bricks, rocks, and bottles".

The guardsmen fell back but were blocked by a chainlink fence through which they could not retreat.
- Again, yeah, no. The Guard did not retreat, but continued to follow the students up the hill of the Commons. All photos and newsfilm show the students were the ones who were retreating away from the Guard. Yes, students did pick up rocks from the ground, but all eyewitnesses have stated that there was too much distance to hit the Guardsmen. The Guardsmen followed the students up the Commons hill and over the top. The Guardsmen then continued straight, not realizing that they were marching onto a baseball practice field. Once they reached the field, the Guard realized that they could not go straight. All photos and eyewitnesses state that the students were all very far from the Guard and no threat at this time. The Guard was not backed up or trapped against the fence. They were not surrounded. Photos taken by students in Prentice Hall bear this out.

When threatened by imminent violent contact with an angry mob and with no place to go to get out of the way the guardsmen fired.
-I rarely say this, but OMG, are you kidding me? At the time of the shooting, the Guard was in full retreat back to their base at the burned down ROTC building. While some students were yelling and cheering, thinking the Guard had given up, the vast majority were milling around, discussing the incident, or walking to class. From all photographs and eyewitness, and even the GUARDS OWN TESTIMONY, there was no one within 25 yards of them in the rear, and no students between them and their base. At the top of the hill, one Guard turned around and began firing, followed by the others.

As is obvious from the number of hits vs. the number of rounds fired most shots were over the heads of the rioters in an attempt to break up this very real and proximate danger to the guardsmen.
-As pointed out in numerous articles, if the Guard felt surrounded and trapped and the fence, why didn't they shoot there? If they were in fear of their lives when they were returning to their base and began shooting, why were the majority of victims on a parking lot that was over a football field length away? There was neither a real or approximate threat.

The Kent State community bears great responsibility for what happened. One cannot participate in potentially lethal actions and not expect a response from those on the receiving end of those actions. Particularly when the guardsmen were acting as the in loco police authority and the mob was involved in riot. The unpopularity of the Viet Nam War does not confer a license for riot and murderous actions on the mob.
- There was no riot. After the shootings occured, there was the chance of one, but 3 KSU professors literally put their bodies between the students and the Guards, and talked the students into leaving.

Viewed in this light Kent State is hardly in a position to howl in protest over the comments referring to the riot by which they were the authors of their own calamity.
-About half of the victims, killed and injured, were not involved in the protest. They were walking to classes. I'm guessing you think of them as collateral damage?

As to the sign itself, I am of two minds. It does not exactly follow the traditions of Southern Hospitality to a visiting team but on the other hand, on an undergraduate mindset level it points out the probable result of taking on a top rated SEC team. Granted that it may not be in the best of taste, but I don't know any DEKEs who carry around a copy of Emily Post.
Whether or not

Again, please cite your sources. Mine are:
*Kent State: What Happened and Why - James Michener
*The President's Commission on Campus Unrest (which called the shootings "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable.")
*13 Seconds: A Look Back at the Kent State Shootings - Philip Caputo
*13 Seconds: Confrontation at Kent State
*The Kent State Coverup (about the civil suit)
numerous newspaper and magazines published at that time that I read in writing my thesis about student involvement on campuses.

IMO, I don't think the men of DKE at LSU were thinking clearly and had no idea about the depth of feeling that the May 4th events have for the students at KSU. I don't think they meant any harm. It was just a joke that fell flat.

My apologies to the GCers for my lengthy diatribe. I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your server.