What If The Kent State Shootings Never Happened?

The Actual History

On May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed college students at Kent State University who were protesting the Vietnam War and the recent American invasion of Cambodia. In a 13-second burst of gunfire, the guardsmen fired 67 rounds, killing four students—Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder—and wounding nine others. The tragedy happened after several days of escalating tensions on campus.

The events leading to the shootings began on April 30, 1970, when President Richard Nixon announced the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, expanding the Vietnam War. This decision sparked outrage across American college campuses, including Kent State. On May 1, protests at Kent State began peacefully but grew more intense as the day progressed. That evening, confrontations between demonstrators and local police erupted in downtown Kent, leading the mayor to declare a state of emergency and request National Guard assistance.

On Saturday, May 2, as tensions escalated, protesters set fire to the campus ROTC building. Ohio Governor James Rhodes ordered the National Guard to the university. Upon arrival, the guardsmen—many young and inexperienced—encountered hostile students who perceived them as an occupying force. Governor Rhodes inflamed the situation with rhetoric, calling the protesters "worse than the brownshirts and the communist element...we're going to eradicate the problem."

By Monday, May 4, the campus was effectively under martial law. Despite a ban on gatherings, approximately 2,000 people assembled on the university Commons at noon. The National Guard attempted to disperse the crowd using tear gas, but many protesters remained, some throwing the tear gas canisters back at the guardsmen. After about 20 minutes, a group of guardsmen retreated to a nearby hill, then suddenly turned and fired into the crowd. Most students were more than 100 feet away and many of those shot were simply bystanders or students walking to class.

The Kent State shootings shocked the nation and intensified divisions over the Vietnam War. In response, nearly five million students participated in the only national student strike in U.S. history, forcing hundreds of colleges and universities to close. Public opinion polarized sharply—some Americans blamed the students for provoking the guardsmen, while others saw the shootings as an unconscionable use of lethal force against unarmed civilians exercising their constitutional rights.

The shootings at Kent State, along with similar violence at Jackson State College ten days later where police killed two students, marked a turning point in public sentiment about the Vietnam War. The iconic photograph by John Filo of 14-year-old Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of Jeffrey Miller became one of the most defining images of the era.

In the aftermath, President Nixon established the President's Commission on Campus Unrest, which concluded the shootings were "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable." Legal proceedings dragged on for years. In 1979, the families of those killed and wounded reached a settlement with the state of Ohio, receiving a combined total of $675,000 and a statement of regret from the defendants, though no admission of wrongdoing.

The Kent State shootings have remained a potent symbol of the deep divisions in American society during the Vietnam era and the dangers of militarized responses to civil protest. The university now maintains a May 4 Visitors Center and annual commemorations to preserve the memory of this watershed moment in American history.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Ohio National Guard never fired on students at Kent State University on May 4, 1970? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the tragic 13 seconds of gunfire that left four students dead and nine wounded never occurred, potentially altering the course of anti-war protest movements and American political history.

Several plausible variations could have prevented the shootings:

First, Governor James Rhodes might have taken a less inflammatory approach. In our timeline, Rhodes, facing a primary election the following day, used harsh rhetoric calling protesters "worse than the brownshirts," which escalated tensions. In this alternate scenario, Rhodes could have employed more measured language and instructed the National Guard to exercise maximum restraint, prioritizing de-escalation tactics.

Second, the National Guard deployment itself could have been handled differently. Many of the guardsmen sent to Kent State were young, inexperienced, and inadequately trained for crowd control. Some had been on duty for extended periods dealing with a truckers' strike. In our alternate timeline, Ohio officials might have deployed better-rested, more experienced guardsmen with proper training in non-lethal crowd dispersal techniques.

Third, the tactical decisions on the ground could have differed. In reality, the guardsmen found themselves in a position where they felt cornered on a practice football field before retreating uphill and then turning to fire. Alternative formations and positioning could have prevented this perception of being trapped, removing the panic that may have contributed to the decision to open fire.

Fourth, individual leadership among the Guard officers could have made a crucial difference. Had a different officer been in command—one who maintained stricter fire discipline or who gave explicit orders not to load live ammunition—the tragedy might have been averted even amidst the chaos.

The most likely scenario combines these elements: a less politically motivated response from Governor Rhodes, better-trained guardsmen equipped primarily with non-lethal options, improved tactical positioning that avoided creating a sense of being cornered, and stronger command leadership that maintained discipline even under pressure. In this alternate timeline, the confrontation at Kent State reaches its peak tension but resolves without gunfire—perhaps through strategic withdrawal by the Guard or successful de-escalation by university officials who had more time to mediate.

Immediate Aftermath

Continued Campus Protests Without Martyrs

Without the shocking deaths at Kent State, the immediate trajectory of campus protests would have followed a different course. The student anti-war movement would have continued its momentum from late April 1970, when Nixon's Cambodia announcement initially sparked outrage:

Sustained but Diffuse Protest Energy: Rather than the concentrated nationwide explosion of protests directly triggered by the Kent State killings, campus demonstrations would likely have continued at a significant but less unified level throughout May 1970.
No National Student Strike: The massive national student strike that involved approximately five million students across more than 900 campuses would not have materialized with the same intensity. Without the galvanizing martyrdom of four students, the coordination and emotional urgency that fueled this unprecedented strike would have been absent.
Reduced Media Coverage: The Kent State confrontation would have received typical coverage as one of many campus protests, rather than becoming the iconic, defining moment of the student anti-war movement captured in Pulitzer Prize-winning photography.

Kent State itself would have remained just one of dozens of universities experiencing unrest, rather than becoming permanently associated with the ultimate cost of political dissent.

Nixon Administration Response

The Nixon administration's trajectory would have been subtly but significantly altered:

Continued Hardline Rhetoric: Without the public relations crisis created by the deaths of four white, middle-class students, the administration would likely have maintained its aggressive stance toward protesters. Nixon's infamous comment calling student protesters "bums" would not have been tempered by the sobering reality of dead students.
No Presidential Commission on Campus Unrest: The Scranton Commission, established as a direct response to Kent State and Jackson State, would never have been formed. This means its moderating conclusions about excessive force would not have entered the public discourse, potentially allowing more aggressive tactics against protesters to continue.
Different White House Atmosphere: The bizarre episode where Nixon made an impromptu 4:00 AM visit to the Lincoln Memorial to speak with protesters camping there occurred partly in response to the national turmoil following Kent State. Without this catalyst, Nixon might have remained more insulated from direct contact with the anti-war movement.

The Cambodia campaign itself would have proceeded without the domestic political crisis that Kent State created, potentially allowing the administration more leeway in its Southeast Asia operations in the short term.

Public Opinion Dynamics

The absence of the Kent State shootings would have substantially affected how Americans viewed both the anti-war movement and government authority:

More Gradual Opinion Shift: The dramatic shift in public sentiment that occurred when many middle Americans suddenly saw the human cost of suppressing dissent would not have happened so abruptly. Support for Nixon's handling of the war, which dropped significantly after Kent State, might have declined more gradually.
Continued Polarization Without Reconciliation: The shootings, while initially polarizing, ultimately led many moderate Americans to reassess the moral costs of the war and government repression. Without this moment of national reckoning, the divide between hawks and doves would have remained starker, with fewer conversions among the middle ground.
Different Media Narrative: Without the iconic imagery of Kent State—particularly John Filo's photograph of Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over Jeffrey Miller's body—the visual representation of the war's domestic impact would have been markedly different, potentially focusing more on militant protesters rather than student victims.

Polls taken immediately after Kent State showed Americans divided on whether the protesters or National Guard were to blame, but the lasting impact was a growing discomfort with violent suppression of dissent. Without this incident, public opinion might have remained more comfortable with aggressive responses to campus unrest.

Effects on Subsequent Protests

The immediate tactical and strategic responses of protest movements would have evolved differently:

Less Militant Tactics by Authorities: Law enforcement and National Guard units nationwide underwent significant tactical revisions after Kent State to avoid similar tragedies. Without this watershed moment, the development of less lethal crowd control methods might have progressed more slowly.
Different Protest Strategies: Student protesters, who in our timeline were sobered by the reality that authorities might use deadly force, might have continued more confrontational tactics without this clear demonstration of the potential consequences.
Jackson State in Context: The killing of two students at Jackson State College on May 14, 1970, would have stood as the primary example of deadly force against student protesters, rather than being overshadowed by Kent State. This might have focused more attention on the racial dynamics of protest policing, as the Jackson State victims were African American.

The remainder of 1970 would have seen continued protests without the unifying grief and outrage that Kent State produced, potentially resulting in more numerous but less coordinated actions against the war throughout American campuses.

Long-term Impact

Evolution of the Anti-War Movement

Without the Kent State shootings as a turning point, the anti-war movement's evolution through the 1970s would have followed a distinctly different trajectory:

Prolonged Militant Phase: The shootings in our timeline marked the beginning of a transition from confrontational tactics toward more political and electoral strategies. Without this sobering event, more militant elements of the movement might have maintained their influence longer, potentially pursuing more aggressive direct action campaigns.
Differential Mobilization: Kent State dramatically expanded the anti-war coalition to include many previously apolitical students and faculty. Without this catalyst, the movement might have remained more ideologically concentrated but less numerically powerful, comprising committed activists rather than the broader coalition that emerged post-Kent State.
Less Cultural Resonance: The profound cultural impact of Kent State—immortalized in songs like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young's "Ohio" and countless artistic works—would be absent. This cultural dimension significantly extended the movement's reach beyond political activists to the broader public consciousness.
Alternative Watershed Moments: Without Kent State defining the domestic cost of the war, other events might have assumed greater historical significance. The 1971 Winter Soldier Investigation or the 1971 May Day protests in Washington DC might have become the defining moments of late anti-war activism.

By the mid-1970s, the anti-war movement would likely have remained more fragmented without the unifying tragedy of Kent State, potentially maintaining its activities at a steadier but less publicly visible level until the war's conclusion.

Impact on Nixon Administration and Watergate

The absence of Kent State would have had subtle but significant effects on the Nixon administration's subsequent trajectory:

Different Internal Security Priorities: The Kent State shootings intensified the Nixon administration's concerns about domestic unrest, contributing to the climate that produced the "Huston Plan" for expanded domestic surveillance and the later Watergate-related "plumbers" operations. Without Kent State escalating these fears, the administration's illegal activities might have taken different forms or had different timelines.
Political Calculus for 1972: Nixon's dramatic decline in approval ratings after Kent State (dropping from 57% to 47% in Gallup polls) temporarily weakened his political position. Without this setback, his 1972 reelection strategy might have been less focused on cultivating the "silent majority" and more on promoting his foreign policy accomplishments.
Congressional Relations: The post-Kent State period saw increased congressional assertiveness regarding war powers, eventually culminating in the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Without the catalyzing effect of Kent State highlighting executive overreach, Congress might have moved more slowly to reassert its constitutional role in war-making.
Vietnam Policy Timeline: The public opinion shift after Kent State contributed to pressure for accelerated withdrawal from Vietnam. Without this pressure, Nixon and Kissinger might have maintained a more prolonged withdrawal timeline, potentially altering the final peace agreement terms.

The complex factors that led to Watergate would still have existed, but without the intensified domestic surveillance priorities that Kent State helped trigger, some specific components of the scandal might have unfolded differently.

Educational Institutions and Campus Activism

The long-term relationship between universities, students, and political activism would have developed along an alternate path:

Campus Security Approaches: The militarization of campus security and police responses to protests evolved significantly after Kent State, with institutions developing more sophisticated, less confrontational protocols. Without this watershed moment, campus security tactics might have continued more aggressive postures toward student demonstrations.
Institutional Self-Examination: Many universities underwent profound soul-searching after Kent State, reassessing their relationships with military research, ROTC programs, and institutional neutrality. Without this catalyst, the academic world's distancing from military connections might have progressed more slowly or taken different forms.
Student Government Evolution: Post-Kent State, student governments gained significant influence in university governance. The absence of this legitimizing moment for student voices might have resulted in less institutional power for student representatives through the 1970s and beyond.
Memory and Commemoration Politics: Without annual Kent State commemorations becoming fixtures of campus life, the ritualized remembrance of 1960s activism might have taken different forms, potentially focusing more on celebrations of movement victories rather than memorializing martyrs.

By the 1980s, campus activism might have carried different associations—potentially maintaining more confrontational traditions without the cautionary legacy of Kent State tempering tactical choices.

American Civil-Military Relations

Perhaps the most profound long-term impact would have been on the relationship between civilian society and military/law enforcement authorities:

National Guard Reforms: Major reforms in National Guard training, equipment, and protocols for civil disturbances were directly prompted by Kent State. Without this tragic failure, the professionalization of Guard units for domestic operations might have developed more slowly or emphasized different priorities.
Civilian Control Doctrines: The Kent State shootings prompted significant reconsideration of when and how military forces should be deployed against civilian populations. Without this lesson, military doctrine regarding domestic operations might have maintained more aggressive postures toward civil unrest.
Law Enforcement Militarization: While police militarization ultimately accelerated in later decades, Kent State temporarily slowed this trend by highlighting its dangers. Without this cautionary example, the timeline of increasing tactical equipment and military-style training for civilian police might have accelerated earlier.
Public Trust in Authority: The fundamental breach of trust represented by government forces killing unarmed students significantly contributed to declining public confidence in institutions during the 1970s. Without Kent State, the erosion of trust might have been more gradual or focused on different aspects of government misconduct.

By the twenty-first century, American approaches to protest policing might have evolved along significantly different lines without the cautionary legacy of Kent State informing generations of law enforcement leaders and military officers.

Long-term Historical Memory and Political Culture

The absence of Kent State would have created a different framework for understanding the legacy of the Vietnam era:

Collective Memory Formation: Without Kent State providing a clear domestic martyrdom narrative, the American understanding of the Vietnam War might have remained more focused on overseas casualties and political failures rather than the war's domestic costs.
Political Polarization Patterns: Kent State temporarily bridged some divisions by making the human cost of political repression visible to mainstream America. Without this unifying tragedy, the polarization between "counterculture" and "establishment" might have maintained sharper boundaries.
Documentary and Artistic Legacy: The extensive cultural production centered on Kent State—from multiple documentaries to art installations, literature, and music—has significantly shaped how Americans understand the Vietnam era. Without this focal point, the cultural memory of the period would be distributed differently across other events and themes.
Educational Curriculum: Kent State has become a standard component of American history education about the Vietnam era. Its absence would leave a significant gap in how students learn about the domestic impacts of the war, potentially emphasizing different aspects of the conflict.

By 2025, the absence of Kent State from our historical memory would have created subtle but meaningful differences in how Americans conceptualize government authority, the costs of war, and the legitimacy of protest movements.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Thomas Hammond, Professor Emeritus of American Political History at Columbia University, offers this perspective: "The Kent State shootings crystallized the moral contradictions of the Vietnam War for many Americans who had previously been ambivalent. Without this clarifying moment, I believe we would have seen a more protracted but less dramatic shift in public opinion. The anti-war movement might have maintained its more radical elements longer without the sobering effect of seeing American students killed on American soil. Nixon, without the temporary setback Kent State caused, might have pursued an even more aggressive approach to domestic dissent, potentially accelerating the paranoia that ultimately manifested in Watergate. Sometimes tragic events serve as necessary course corrections in a democracy, and without Kent State, that correction might have come through different, possibly more destructive channels."

Dr. Melissa Sanchez, Director of the Center for Protest Studies at the University of California, provides a contrasting analysis: "While Kent State undoubtedly galvanized immediate anti-war sentiment, I believe its long-term impact was actually to constrain protest tactics through the implicit threat of lethal force. Without Kent State, we might have seen a more sustained, confrontational protest movement throughout the 1970s that could have more effectively challenged not just the Vietnam War but broader systems of power. The absence of Kent State might have allowed for a more gradual, organic evolution of protest strategies rather than the abrupt shift toward electoral politics that followed the shootings. Additionally, without Kent State's overwhelming presence in our historical memory, the equally important Jackson State killings might have received the attention they deserved, potentially centering racial justice more prominently within anti-war activism."

Colonel James Randall (Ret.), former National Guard officer and military historian, provides a security-focused perspective: "The Kent State tragedy fundamentally transformed how the National Guard approaches civil disturbances. Without this watershed moment, I believe we would have seen a slower evolution in tactics, training, and equipment for managing civil unrest. The hard lessons learned at Kent State—about chain of command, rules of engagement, and the dangers of deploying inadequately prepared troops—might have instead been learned through a series of smaller incidents over a longer period. Ironically, while Kent State appears to be a failure of military discipline, it ultimately led to more professional, restrained approaches to civil disturbances. Without this catalyst for reform, we might have seen more frequent but less lethal confrontations between military forces and civilians throughout the 1970s and beyond."