The Greening of the Scranton Commission

Abstract

May of 1970, four people were shot to death by National Guardsmen at Kent State University in Ohio, and two by policemen at Jackson State College in Mississippl. On June 13, 1970, a month following these killings and the first national student strike in United States history, President Nixon convened a silk-stocking Commission on Campus Unrest. Headed by former Governor William Scranton, the Commission's mandate was to dissent, disorder, and violence on the campuses of institutions of higher learning or in connection with such institutions, and to report to the President. 1 At least in terms of volume, the Commission was obviously productive, publishing several hundred pages of material. Qualitatively, its reports were hardly masterpieces; they deserve critical evaluation. In the main, however, they are commendable. They deserve respectful consideration. But the first official reception was neither respectful nor deliberative. In fact, the President did not react to the reports until mid-December, although the release of the major report was delayed about a week to enable him to review it prior to public circulation. When he finally responded, it was to demur than to pursue dialogue. Vice-President seems to have read the major report as soon as it was released; at least, he quickly reacted to it. It diffuses and dilutes responsibility, he is quoted as declaring. The report comes out ... contradictory, and equivocal. But it was clear enough for him to damn it as more pablum for the permissivists. 2 Unfortunately, Vice-President Agnew was right, though doubtless for the wrong reasons. To most readers, even after the lapse of than a year, the Scranton Commission's major report will seem imprecise, contradictory, and equivocal. Of course, any conscientious effort to study campus unrest and disorder was likely to yield some imprecision, especially since only three months were al-