|
Attracted by the new campus, cheap tuition, and (for some) draft exemption, new students kept coming to SIU. Many never graduated, but they paid their tuition, spent money with local merchants, and fulfilled their purpose. So, as long as the students kept coming and spending, priorities were "in order;" but only as long as the students "behaved themselves."
"Behaving" meant two things: (1) Not committing any crimes or violating criminal-like university rules; and (2) Not interfering with the established protocols and procedures of the university. If a student ran afoul of (1), he or she was branded a "criminal" by the administration; if a student breached (2) he or she was labeled a "troublemaker." Time after time, there were examples of the University making decisions based on what was perceived to be in the interests of the faculty, businessmen, politicians, administrators, and university protocol and procedures, with almost no consideration for what students needed.
One example was the expulsion of the panty raiders in 1966 and the stubborn insistence that students "must be taught a lesson." But this last-placed student priority was blatantly obvious in proposals that were exclusively for student benefit, with almost no perceived benefit for the "in-power” groups.
The stubborn refusal to complete the overpass construction for over three years while student after student were mowed down by speeding cars and trains is a pretty good example. Where was the benefit to the administrators and faculty (who rarely walked to East Campus)? It was a "small" (read: "cheap") project, and there were so many other projects that could put dollars into local contractors' and union and union members' pockets; how could this be a priority? It is inferred that only after the perception that defending and settling lawsuits became more costly than completing the project did construction finally move forward (after a teamsters' strike, major riots, and intense student pressure).
Keep in mind that money was not a problem (the way it is today) at SIU. There was a mindset that the university was expanding, the state was committed to fund this, and the state had the money. The university's budget increased dramatically each year, including a hefty construction/capital improvement component.
There were other sources of money besides the state. The university created certain "funds" that were earmarked for particular purposes. These were where the "fees" that students paid every quarter (in addition to tuition) were deposited. One example was the infamous "SWRF" fee. The "Student Welfare & Recreation Fund" became one of the more controversial fees. This is how it worked: each quarter, after one registered, a "fee statement" would be rendered. On it, your tuition was listed, along with a few bucks (5-15) for "SWRF." Other fees (such as the Athletic Fee) were also listed. Even if tuition was paid, one was not registered unless all fees were also paid.
The ostensible purpose of the SWRF fee was to erect a building containing recreation facilities for students. However, this fee was collected from almost all students, quarter after quarter, semester after semester, year after year, through the 60's and into the 70's, with still no new student recreation facilities. Students complained for years that they were paying for nothing. The now-infamous SWRF fund accumulated millions of dollars. Finally, in the mid 70's, after years of controversy and pressure on the SIU Board of Trustees, they authorized construction of the co-rec center with these funds. It was eventually completed in 1976.
Some argue that the administration and Board might never have authorized construction but for the years of riots and student pressure to use the funds and build a recreational facility. The Board and administration seemed to resent the student pressure, year after year, to abolish the required fee payments or build something that addressed students' needs. In a final rebuke to those who had made the co-rec center possible, the Board of Trustees, upon administration recommendation, voted to bar admission to the co-rec center to former students who had paid the SWRF fees and pressured the Board to build the building!
So we have this result---alumni who paid their hard-earned student dollars for years (and got nothing but empty promises in return) are now "barred" from the building they paid for--unless they pay "another" fee to get in. Meanwhile, current students pay much less--and get in free! If you ever visit C'dale and are so inclined, go to the co-rec building (north of Grinnell and east of the Blue Barracks) and hang around the front entrance. You might see and hear alumni walk by, point to the building and comment "I paid for this building, but they won't let me in unless I pay again!" What great continuing PR for the university with its alumni! By the way, the reason the Board and administration gave for barring former students was that they might "overtax the facilities." The day after this was announced Gus Bode said: "Too bad the trustees care about overtaxing the facilities. They never worry about overtaxing the students." Experiences like this jaded some students and discouraged them from working within the system to access funds earmarked for student needs.
Fortunately, some student fees went into funds that were more liberally administered. One of these was the so-called "Activity Fee." The "Activity Fee" was collected from each student every quarter they registered and paid tuition. This fee was designed to be spent each year to fund a variety of student activities. Even in the ‘60s, there was at least $100,000 collected and spent each year under this fund.
Procedures varied over the years that governed application and use of these funds, but generally speaking, the lion's share of this money was approved by the student senate based on applications from student organizations that had met certain requirements to achieve official status. Thus, in order to be eligible to even apply for funding, a group must be properly "organized." This meant there must be a proof of "need," for the organization (which could be a list of interested students, some kind of "constitution" or governing document, election and/or appointment of a governing body and officers, and official approval of these documents and processes). Usually, official approval meant student government as well as (university) administration approval.
This process was made to seem daunting for a reason. Although there was a pool of funds available, increased competition for the funds made life hard for those who had to decide. Also, once the funds were allocated, there were many regulations to follow in usage of the money. Allocation to a "fringe" group usually meant lots of headaches for the ensuing fiscal year. Finally, there was the issue of empowering a group that would be "troublemakers," ie, give the administation a hard time. It was easier to squelch a potentially threatening group by making the initial organization/recognition stage difficult, rather than suddenly refusing to fund an ongoing group.
In 1967, there were SDS groups on campus. While it is unknown if any of these groups applied for official recognition, these groups represented one end of the spectrum the administration perceived as "criminal." The inference can be drawn that any new group that might be perceived as similar to the SDS groups were not ushered to the red carpet fast-track.
Some readers may be older and have developed significant administrative skills, so establishing a new student group at a university may seem, from today's perspective, rather simple. But try to picture an 18-19 year old, with the impatience of youth, little bureaucratic experience, buffeted with the pressures of 5-6 classes, dorm living, as well as the party and opposite sex distractions that only C'dale can offer, and one may be able to conceptualize the challenge of the stiff learning curve and need for unlimited perseverance and discipline required to accomplish major bureaucratic tasks. Add these challenges to the goal of creating a new organization whose purpose was to serve students exclusively, in a specific area where the administration had tried and failed (but would not admit failure). Finally, this was an area perceived by administrators as threatening to the control of communications as well as university protocol, procedures, and powers. These were the "general conditions" faced by those trying to create a student radio station at SIU.
Because of the perception of danger from so many interested groups, there seemed to be infinite hoops to jump through, and new ones were created every day. From the administration/faculty point of view, five years to complete (or not complete) a project was not too long (as illustrated by the overpass and Co-Rec debacles). But to students, being able to sustain an effort towards a goal for five and more years was not realistic. A number of efforts to realize ANY major project to primarily benefit students ended in failure or abandonment. Many never got off the ground. Some died for lack of follow-up. A small portion became obsolete. A few demised for lack of interest. Factionalism was fatal to others.
The key to success seemed to be first, an unwavering vision by a creator who could remain both spiritually inspirational and bureaucratically skillful. Second, the passion and energy of a member-nucleus able to focus on a common goal. Third, the leader's ability to shepherd and marshall internal (members), and external (bureaucracy and others) elements towards that goal. Finally, a goal-oriented "can do" relentlessness, tempered by reasonable morals.
In 1967, the first element was already present.
|
|
|
