Chapter 12 | Section 2
Vietnam and the Antiwar Movement
Free speech and other issues like civil rights remained important to many Oklahoma students, but by the mid-1960s the biggest issue for many activists was the Vietnam War. Even today this topic can be hard to discuss. It is important to think about it from many points of view. It is important to understand why the United States sent soldiers to Vietnam. It is also important to understand why some had such strong opposition to the war. America’s involvement in Vietnam happened as part of the Cold War policy of containment (discussed in chapter 10). The United States sent troops to protect South Vietnam from North Vietnam. North Vietnam was under communist control and the United States wanted to keep South Vietnam from becoming communist. The involvement of the American military was gradual. At first only some military advisors were sent to train South Vietnamese soldiers. However, by 1965 American troops were on the ground. By 1973, 58,000 Americans had been killed and over 1,000 of them were Oklahomans.
Supporters of American involvement in the war argued that stopping the spread of communism was necessary to protect the safety of the United States. Those who opposed the war said it was not necessary. Instead, the United States should let the Vietnamese people make their own decisions about their form of government.
Student protests took many forms, from silent vigils and displaying signs to engaging in property destruction and violence. In Oklahoma, most of the protests were small and peaceful. The sign worn by this student at the University of Oklahoma in 1970 posed a simple challenge: “If you are satisfied with the world, let it be; but I suggest that you take the time and look until you really see!!”
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
This sign, posted in 1966 at the University of Oklahoma, represents an important part of student activism, the holding of prayer vigils or silent vigils. These were opportunities for students to come together in a respectful and reflective way to express their concerns. The sign called for students to hold a prayer vigil every Wednesday at noon to “express our sorrow and our protest” over the Vietnam War.
Men as young as 18 could be drafted into the armed forces, but they could not vote until they were 21. This meant that men under the age of 21 could be forced to fight but would not get to vote for the politicians who made decisions about war. Some Oklahomans who served in Vietnam supported the war because they believed it was necessary. Others did so for the simple reason that their country was at war, and it was their patriotic duty to serve. But other Oklahomans believed it was their patriotic duty to oppose the draft and the war. Some, like Joe Gilchrist (Rosalyn Gilchrist’s son, who later changed his name to Coleman), even went to jail because of their efforts to oppose the war. Some Vietnam veterans came home and got involved in the antiwar movement because they had come to see the war as unjust or unnecessary or both. Other veterans were angry at antiwar protestors and felt let down by their country. It did not seem fair that they were treated badly and criticized for serving their country. For both those who supported the war and for those who opposed the war, the protests that took place left a lasting impact on their lives and beliefs.
By the late 1960s, the antiwar movement was strong on university campuses. Many students increasingly saw the Vietnam War as unjust and unnecessary. They called for soldiers to come home and for an end to American intervention in Vietnam. This 1967 photo captures OU students holding up signs and protesting the war.
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Vietnam Veteran by artists Jay O’Meilia and Bill Sowell, is an eight-foot bronze likeness of a soldier wearing a 1960s combat uniform. The statue is a tribute to the Oklahomans who served in the Vietnam War. It is the centerpiece of the Oklahoma Veterans Memorial, which also features four panels of rose granite featuring a bas-relief scene of each of the wars fought since Oklahoma became a state: World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. Names of Oklahoma service members are inscribed on each stone. Flying over the memorial are eight flags: five representing the five branches of the armed forces, the MIA-POW flag, the Oklahoma State flag, and the flag of the United States.
Courtesy of the Capitol Art Collection, Oklahoma Arts Council.
Oklahomans Responding to Kent State
The longer the war lasted, the more troops went over, and the more the casualty count mounted. Americans watched all of this unfold on TV. The longer it went on, the more unpopular the war became. Protests increased. But parents and friends of soldiers serving in Vietnam were angry about the protests. Some Oklahomans said the protests were not fair to the young men who were risking their lives by fighting for their country instead of going to college or starting a career. When President Richard Nixon took office in January 1969, he said he would end the war in Vietnam. By that time, one popular antiwar slogan summed up how many Americans and Oklahomans felt: “Get the hell out of Vietnam!”
But the worst protests were still to come. President Nixon did not have a plan to quickly end the war. His plan was to withdraw American soldiers slowly and replace them with South Vietnamese soldiers. This process was referred to as Vietnamization. By spring 1970, many students were disappointed and angry that the war was continuing. And so they increased the number and intensity of protests. And when the president announced at the end of April that the war was widening into Cambodia, students grew even more frustrated. There were more clashes between police and protestors. Many states used their National Guard to keep the peace or break up student gatherings. People on all sides grew angrier and more fearful of what might happen next. Then the unthinkable happened.
Students from Oklahoma City University gather around City Hall in 1970 in a peace march to protest US interventions in Cambodia and the Kent State shootings. The killings of four Kent State students by the National Guard in May 1970 sparked student demonstrations and violence across the country.
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Protests increased in the spring of 1970, and some were violent. Several states called up their National Guard units to stop the violence. In Ohio, the National Guard was sent to the campus of Kent State University. Protests there had increased, and the administration was worried about violence. An antiwar protest occurred at Kent State on May 4, 1970. The National Guard was there. Guard members yelled out for a large group of students to disperse, but not everyone could hear them. Many of the students were simply walking across campus and not part of any protest. Eventually, the National Guard opened fire and killed four unarmed students. Thousands of students across the country were left shocked, angry, and scared.
Students held prayer vigils. They wept. They led protests. They refused to go to class. Some became violent. Hundreds of schools across the country closed because of violence or fear of violence. Oklahoma schools stayed open, but students were angry. They could not understand how something like the Kent State killings could happen. The overreaction by the National Guard shocked them. Even students who had never protested anything before got involved. Thousands of Oklahoma students participated in vigils. They talked about how the same thing could have happened to them, just for walking across campus on their way to lunch or their next class.
Students continued to find ways to express their frustration over the ongoing war in Vietnam. It was never far from the minds of the young people who were most directly affected by it, whether they supported America’s involvement in the war or not. Even college football games were not immune from the long shadow of Vietnam, as demonstrated by this photo of the Oklahoma State University Marching Band forming a peace symbol during a halftime performance in 1971 at Lewis Field.
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Several Oklahoma colleges and universities held events to mourn the deaths of the Kent State students. The biggest protests took place at OU during the week of May 5-12, right after the shootings took place. OU chief of police Bill Jones had received a call from a security officer at Kent State who told him about the death of the students. Jones knew that OU students would identify with students at Kent State, and he worried about what might happen on campus. Colonel Leroy C. Land, the ROTC cadre commander at OU, later wrote to Governor Dewey Bartlett defending the students for the unrest that took place at OU.
Colonel Land explained that “few people outside university life realize how deeply disturbed young people have been over the Cambodian intervention and the Kent State killings.” He added that it was not a matter of if the students would protest, but what those protests would be like. During the week of protests at OU, Jones and Land developed a shared goal: to keep students safe while allowing them to express their anger and sadness.
Even though social media did not exist during that time, word traveled fast about the death of the Kent State students. On the night of May 4, students at OU attended a candlelight vigil to honor those who were killed. The next day, students kept talking about what had happened and they decided to organize a protest for that afternoon. The May 5 protest turned out to be the most dangerous student protest in the history of the state. The administration said that the demonstration was peaceful at first. The students headed to Brooks Field, where ROTC cadets were practicing for their May 12 parade and ceremony. Some students who opposed the war in Vietnam did not like ROTC programs because they trained future military leaders. As students walked toward the field, the number of people increased to at least a few thousand, and the tone began to change. Mike Wright, one of the OU students at the demonstration, said he did not see anyone throwing things or trying to hurt the cadets. However, there were reports that students were cussing at the cadets, crawling between them, and squirting them with water guns. As the crowd got larger, the concern of Chief Jones and his men grew.
The situation got worse when OU student Keith Green began waving a red flag. A law student in the crowd identified it as a Vietcong flag and said it violated state law. Chief Jones ordered his officers to arrest Green. This made the student protesters angry. They surrounded the police car that Green was in and let the air out of its tires. One person even tried to ignite the gas tank, which would not have helped Green or anyone else. One of Chief Jones’s officers lost his gun as this was happening, and no one knew where it was for several minutes (though a student soon found and returned it). Bill Moffitt, the newly elected study body president, climbed on top of the police car and began yelling at the crowd to calm down. By this time, hundreds of students had surrounded the car. The situation was getting worse.
Earlier that afternoon Chief Jones had contacted Governor Bartlett to ask for support from the highway patrol in case things got out of hand. The governor sent thirty-five extra officers to Norman and placed the National Guard on alert. Chief Jones felt he had no choice but to call for backup from area law enforcement when students surrounded the police car with Green in it. The result of this entire situation was scary for everyone. Over one hundred law enforcement officers swarmed Brooks Field and used heavy batons to move students out of their way. These officers headed toward the car that held Green and the officers guarding him. They were able to secure Green and escort him to jail in another police car. There followed several clashes between students and police. One student went to the hospital with injuries and dozens of others suffered less serious cuts and bruises from the police.
Dewey Bartlett served as governor of Oklahoma from 1966 to 1970. In the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and in fear of antiwar protests, Governor Bartlett established the Office of Inter-Agency Coordination (OIC) to spy on Oklahomans deemed “radical,” without the knowledge or consent of the legislature. Some critics called the OIC the “Sooner CIA.” This scandal was one of the factors that led Bartlett to lose his 1970 reelection bid to Democrat David Hall.
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
In the aftermath of the Kent State shootings, students across the country demonstrated against the violence that had taken place. Some particularly tense protests occurred on the OU campus during this time. This photo captured protesting students during a brief clash with law enforcement at OU in 1970. Following this protest, university officials worked closely with the whole campus community to avoid further violence.
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.
As scary as all this was, a few good things happened as a result. Chief Jones, Colonel Land, and OU president Herb Hollomon decided they needed to work together with the students to stop any more violence. Chief Jones met with student leaders. They came up with a plan to have students, faculty, and staff volunteer to be peace marshals to help keep things from getting out of control again. Chief Jones admitted that arresting Green was a mistake given the way the students reacted. He said they had to find a better way. Kent State was a reminder of how not to respond to student protests. Jones believed it was important moving forward to handle any similar situation without involving the National Guard or state police.
For the rest of that week, things were tense at OU. Governor Bartlett proposed a different approach. He wanted to stop the students from gathering in large numbers. Afraid of more violence and property destruction, the governor wanted to put National Guard troops on campus. Many other Oklahomans agreed. But what Chief Jones and Colonel Land seemed to understand better than the governor or others was that students were too upset to remain quiet. Protests were going to happen. Jones and Land continued to want to work with the students to allow them to voice their feelings while keeping them safe. And they succeeded. No one was killed. And no one else was sent to the hospital for injuries that week.
Moffitt and other student leaders worked with the administration and Chief Jones to prevent future violence. By most standards we might consider this a great success, but not everyone was convinced. The fear of protests and property damage was real for many Oklahomans. One angry Oklahoman, Norman Bayless, wrote to university officials to say that National Guard troops should be kept on campus to “keep Radical Bastards from destroying Tax Payer property.” He also suggested that protestors be hanged or placed in concentration camps. This is one example of an extreme reaction to student protests.
Chief of police Bill Jones was the head of campus security at the University of Oklahoma at the time of the Kent State shootings. Jones wanted students and law enforcement to work together to maintain public safety. He also defended the right of students to protest and express their feelings. Here Chief Jones (standing) talks with a group of OU students.
Courtesy of the Oklahoma Historical Society.