See full scan at the bottom of the page.
This multi-page packet—typed on both white and yellow paper—provides a remarkable glimpse of the activism unfolding across New York City and beyond in early May 1970. Building on prior “#NYU News” bulletins, these updates chronicle campus strikes, cancellations, and protest plans in response to the escalation of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and the killings at Kent State University on May 4. With calls for rallies, phone-ins, and strategic meetings, the leaflet reveals how rapidly students, faculty, and local communities banded together to protest the war and demonstrate solidarity with affected campuses nationwide.
Historical Context
The days immediately following Kent State were among the most volatile of the Vietnam War era on college campuses. President Nixon’s announcement of Cambodian incursions had already angered many students, but the shooting of four unarmed students at Kent State University by the Ohio National Guard on May 4 led to a nation-wide campus strike. Over 200 colleges and universities ultimately closed or were occupied by protestors in the days that followed. New York schools such as NYU, Columbia, Pace, Pratt, and the City University of New York (CUNY) all feature prominently in these leaflets, reflecting how the broader national unrest filtered down to individual classrooms, faculty senates, and student government rooms.
Strategy and Organization
- Coordination of Strikes and Closures
The leaflet details a wave of closures, cancellations, and campus-by-campus responses—ranging from no final exams at Pratt Institute to indefinite suspension of classes at Brooklyn College. It underscores how every institution charted its own course, but with a shared resolve to oppose the war and respond to Kent State. - Resource-Sharing and Infrastructure
Mentions of “food truck and medical supplies to Washington” or “transportation problems—900 seats on train” reveal the logistical hurdles of mounting large-scale protests. Volunteers rallied resources to aid those traveling to Washington, DC, for larger demonstrations, underscoring the emphasis on real-time, practical coordination. - Official Resolutions and Faculty Solidarity
One section references a “GSAS Resolution” at NYU’s Graduate School of Arts and Science, recommending suspension of formal operations and final exams while focusing on anti-war activism. Such statements demonstrate how faculty and administration often stood in solidarity with students, legitimizing the urgency of protest actions. - Multi-Level Organizing
From leafleting at churches and synagogues to staging workshops and calling for city-wide meetings, the leaflet highlights that these protests were neither isolated nor purely student-led. Cultural institutions, local government, and labor organizations were all potential allies in the fight to “stop [the war] economically.”
Language, Imagery, and Symbolism
- Typed Bulletin Format
These pages, clearly typed on a typewriter and duplicated quickly, reflect the immediate, urgent nature of protest communications before digital media. The mix of bold headings, all-caps announcements, and quick bullet points conveys the rapid-fire flow of information. - Inter-Campus Collaboration
Prominent references to “City News” and “National News” symbolize the bridging of geographic divides, with bulletins about Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, appearing alongside local updates. This underscores the interconnectedness of the protest movement. - Yellow Pages for Emphasis
While likely just available paper, the bright yellow sections intensify the sense of urgency. Visually, they stand out, suggesting these “More City News” notes are important updates requiring immediate attention, from campus closures to calls for national conferences of striking schools.
Efficacy and Legacy
As part of the broader wave of May 1970 campus activism, these bulletins were crucial in marshaling student, faculty, and community resources. Their power lay in enabling real-time, decentralized organization—key to sustaining large-scale protests that sometimes spanned multiple cities in a single weekend. The direct listing of phone numbers, addresses, and times for demonstrations allowed participants to act without delay.
While the immediate aim was to protest the war’s escalation and call attention to the Kent State tragedy, these documents also left a lasting influence. They illustrate how grassroots, hyper-local efforts could dovetail with national movements, ultimately pressuring policymakers to reckon with the mounting cost—political, social, and moral—of continued military engagement in Southeast Asia. Lessons in mobilizing across campuses, sharing resources, and sustaining cohesive protest efforts continue to resonate with modern activist networks.
Special thanks to the USC Digital Imaging Lab for their support in digitizing this item.
