Recorded statement of Harold M. Mayer, conducted by the Commission on KSU Violence.

[Harold M. Mayer]: June 22nd, 1970. This is my statement, relative to the events of the weekend of May 1st through 4th. I am Harold M. Mayer, University Professor of Geography and also Chairman of the Commission on Kent State University Violence.

On the evening of May 1st, Friday, I was returning from a meeting in Cleveland, driving south on State Route 43 and turning east into Crain Avenue at about 10 p.m., and observed nothing unusual. On the evening of Saturday, May 2nd, I was visiting with a friend and colleague on Wilson and observed from a distance the reflection of the flames accompanying the burning of the ROTC building and observed the National Guard vehicles moving southward on Harvey and Wilson, between about 9 and 11 p.m. from the Armory at the north end of Harvey Avenue to the campus. On the evening of May 3rd, Sunday, I was involved in several of the events that occurred as follows:

About 1 p.m. I received two or three telephone calls at my home, announcing that there would be a meeting of “concerned faculty” in Bowman Hall during the afternoon starting at 3 p.m.. I arranged to attend the meeting and observed that there were about 60 or 65 people present. The principle concern of the meeting was “Get the National Guard off the campus.” Several of the members read a statement, which had been previously prepared. Such statement was signed by 23 members of the group present. I believe that the statement far exceeded the bounds of reason and propriety, and pre-judged the guilt of the organizations and individuals involved, ranging from the war in Southeast Asia through the president of the United States, the governor of the state, etc., and I believe that such a statement was premature and unsupported. One statement contained within the document indicated that the president of the United States was acting illegally. I do not believe that the faculty of this university or any part thereof has the right to declare an illegal act on the part of a public official, unless and until he is given a fair trial, so that such a statement is inflammatory.

At that point I walked out of the meeting along with several other of the faculty members in attendance. Shortly thereafter, a small group of faculty and students met across the hall in the office of Dr. Harold Kitner, Faculty Ombudsman, to discuss the events of the afternoon meeting informally. We all agreed that the statement which had been signed at the meeting was provocative and premature and all of those in attendance at Dr. Kitner’s office had joined in refusing to sign the statement and in walking out of the room, thereby terminating their involvement in that particular meeting. At that time, I asked Dr. Kitner how I might be helpful in connection with the events going on on the campus. He suggested that I participate along with several other students and faculty members in a continuing radio broadcast which was scheduled to be carried on from the campus radio station, WKSU, throughout Sunday evening. I agreed to do that and reported at the KSU Studio in the Music and Speech Building at about 7 o’clock that evening, prepared to spend as long as possible in the radio studio. Dr. Kitner had previously assured us that we would have military permission to go on the campus and to return home at the conclusion of the broadcast, in spite of the 8 o’clock curfew which had been imposed upon the town at that time.

At the radio studio there were four faculty members and four students. The other faculty members were Dr. Novotny of the Art Department, Martin Nurmi of the English Department, and Mr. Dubis of the History Department. We took turns, as teams, in broadcasting between about 8 and 11 o’clock that evening, receiving telephone calls at the studio and replying to the phone calls. None of the eight participants in the broadcast had received any instructions whatsoever as to the content of their remarks in response to the telephone calls that were coming in and which were broadcast over the air. Studio personnel, however, received the calls and we were informed that there was a seven second delay between the original speaking and the time at which the broadcast was transmitted on the air.

Mr. Dubis of the History Department, in reply to a telephone call, had mentioned the meeting which was held that afternoon in Bowman Hall and he read the statement which the 23 “concerned faculty members” had prepared and signed. Immediately on the conclusion of the reading of this statement by Mr. Dubis, I took the microphone and added quickly that the majority of the faculty members at the meeting, which in itself was not representative of the entire faculty, had indeed not signed the document which Mr. Dubis had read and were in disagreement with it, either in whole or in part. I believe that it was my duty to convey this information to the radio listeners in order to avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding relative to that document. I then added a statement to the effect that I believed that what was at issue was not the war in Vietnam, the ROTC on the campus, the presence of the National Guard, the political ambitions of the then governor, or the future of Kent State University. But rather, what was at stake was the future of the American way of life which involves the rule of law rather than the rule of individuals, and which involves, as a fundamental principle, due process. I said that the ROTC is just as disagreeable to me as to anyone else, but if we had to have a military protection, that there would be better ways to do it than to have it on a university campus. I also said that it was reprehensible to use force, no matter what the provocation and that the burning of buildings was no answer to the problem. I then reiterated that I believed that if the president of the United States was sincerely believed to be involving illegal acts, that the answer was to involve due process in the form of impeachment, making sure that he got a fair trial. I also said that the future of this country could not be left in the hands of demagogues, that, in fact, the constitution which involves due process and the protection of the rights of everybody in [decrying?] must be observed, that in decrying.

The broadcast continued through the evening. At about 11 o’clock, Mr. Nurmi, myself, and several others decided that the critical stage had ended and that we could safely go home. During the evening we had been receiving reports from outside the building as to the movements of student groups around the campus and at one point we were informed that some missiles had been thrown into the lower floor of the building. Since the radio studio did not have any outside windows, we had to rely on the report of observers who entered the studio from time to time during the course of the evening. About 10:30, we were informed that tear gas was present near the building and that it would not be safe to depart. We left about 11 o’clock and observed tear gas to the west of the building, along with the hovering helicopters, three of which were equipped with search lights spotting around the campus. On the way home we were stopped by the National Guard, but we informed them we were on the way home and they let us through. This concludes my statement.

×