Chapter 3
The SDS was encouraged by the response of the students in C’dale. By the next school year, (66-67) there was a local SDS chapter. Rumors abounded that the Weathermen were also involved. It would be too tangentially lengthy to detail the development of the SDS and its sub/splinter group, the Weathermen. It shall suffice to say that both groups advocated great change in our systems. Both groups felt that at least some existing institutions must be dismantled and/or destroyed before improvement could start. The Weathermen splintered because they were more impatient than the main SDS group. The Weathermen, at least at times, advocated change through violence.
So we have the “First Annual SIU Riots” in spring, ’66, and then, a few months later, the creation of a local SDS chapter with rumors of Weathermen. At the time, the administration’s largest fear was the presence of “outside agitators.” This meant people coming to C’dale from parts unknown for the purpose of facilitating unrest.
To some extent, this fear was well-founded. There were sources of support and consultation outside of C’dale that assisted in organizing demonstrations, orchestrating events that pressured the administration, and teaching techniques of negotiation. But this potential led nowhere unless there were large numbers of locals who were motivated, angry, and competent. The administration was convinced that, except for these “outside agitators,” SIU students would remain preoccupied with good times, cars, and panty raids. The truth was that students were concerned and angry, especially about the draft, war, and related issues. This created the “gun powder,” and all that remained was for someone to light the fuse.
Many students, perhaps most students, did not actively participate in violent acts against persons or property. The same can probably be said about police and soldiers. Yet there was a significant and ever-fluctuating minority on each side that continued to support a hard line. All of the “fuse-lighting” events made tempers rise. The aggression was hard to keep in check. Both sides knew violent acts by their own group alienated “middle america” persons. Some did not care about what “middle america” thought, and believed it was more important to “send a message” by engaging in violent acts.
During the years 1964-72, there were buildings burned and/or bombed on many campuses all across the nation. Many in C’dale felt “it could never happen here.” Yet, in the spring of 1968, a bomb was detonated in the AG building, which extensively damaged the auditorium and other areas. Luckily, the explosion occurred when the building was unoccupied; the potential number of injuries was unthinkable. This event significantly raised the stakes, and all participants became very edgy.
Events leading up to June of 1969 are largely unknown to this author. Perhaps some readers can supply some information to fill the gaps. What happened that month in C’dale was an event that is usually mentioned only in whispers, even 30 years later. Although it affected everyone in C’dale at that time and for years to come, it is not allowed to be mentioned in the SIU Museum. The investigation was never closed, and never resolved.
There was a large building in the middle of the old campus. It was basically among old Davis Gym, Shryock Auditorium and Altgeld Hall. It was the oldest standing building on campus, about one hundred years old. It was the main classroom building. The English Department, among others, had its offices there. The building had a large clock tower. Its image was featured on the seal of the university, on brochures, etc. It was the central point of the campus. It was called “Old Main.”
At that time, SIU was on quarters, not semesters. Spring quarter began the last week in March, and exams were the second week in June. The day before the English exams were scheduled, the word on the street went out: “Old Main is burning.” The building was not only on fire, but engulfed in flames. Although it had a brick exterior, the interior featured many flammable materials.
Crowds gathered to watch it burn. Firemen were largely helpless. No one was killed or injured (as far as this author knows), but the building burnt to the ground. News of this traveled nationwide.
Meanwhile, in the mid-60′s, a special person was coming of age in Chicago’s far northwest suburbs. His father had an electrical contractor business. While still in high school, he got a part-time job at a nearby suburban FM station. He was independent-minded, strong-willed and very determined, traits that would later become the indispensable contribution to the ultimate goal. He graduated high school in 1967, and decided to attend SIU in the fall. The SIU he discovered was very much in flux.
The campus and community had not yet adjusted to SIU’s manic growth spurt. Housing for students was still in short supply. Trailer courts, makeshift temporary dorm space (accommodating as much as 3 or more in a regular room), administration buildings and temporary “barracks” were pressed into service for housing. The campus’ state seemed to be continually “under construction.” Buildings were always being built, sometimes in twos and threes. Despite all the construction, sidewalks and walkways ended up last in priority, so there was nowhere to walk except on the grass. Yet since the grass was perpetually torn up because of the construction, everyone had to walk on the dirt. Add to this mix that it seemed to rain A LOT in C’dale, which turned the dirt turned to mud very quickly, significant portions of campus regularly became quagmires.
Sometimes, wooden “snow fences” were laid on the mud to assist in walking through the mess. This worked out all right for the first 1,000 or so persons; not as well for the next 5,000. The construction of Schneider, Neely, Mae Smith, Allen, Boomer and Wright dorms, along with Trueblood and Grinnell Halls, created a significant “East Campus.” SIU was now split, with the Illinois Central Railroad tracks and US Route 51 right in the middle. Thus, students living at or visiting the east campus had to cross the tracks and Route 51 every time they wanted to get to the main campus area, to go to class, just about any university office, the University Center, the Arena, or Morris Library.
Now, there are walkway/bikeways/overpasses over the tracks and Route 51 that people use. In 1967 these were not there. In 1965, the university had approved construction of the overpass, and construction began that year. But construction was suspended in 1967 because proceeding with construction exceeded original cost estimates. Years passed, and students continued to fall victim to pedestrian/auto, and pedestrian/train collisions. The university bureaucracy still would not proceed with construction. Only after another major accident resulting in a student’s death in December 1969, along with vehement student demands for completion of construction, did the university finally move ahead.
In 1967, there were three main areas to cross. One was at Grand, where there were sidewalks, railroad crossing gates, and a traffic light at Route 51 (Illinois Avenue). That was pretty safe. Another was just west of Grinnell (where the first overpass was finally finished in October, ’70). This was where the most traffic (and the most danger) occurred. The third spot was between Wright and the Physical Plant (where an overpass was built in the late ‘80s). This one featured a hilly area that led down to (and up from) the tracks. When the “hilly areas” were barren (which was most of the time) and it rained (often) the hills became mudslides. When one noticed another student with a “muddy backside” there was a grunt of empathy because almost everyone had, at least once, attempted this route only to take a slide in the mud. In fact, this last crossing became known as the “Ho Chi Minh Trail,” named after the route in Vietnam that the insurgents traveled, famous for its “monsoons” and mud.
So it was clear to all who came there that SIU was a “work in progress.” The campus was evolving, and the many new and ongoing projects were threatening to certain administration and faculty personnel. Those who were unsettled by the changes were concerned about keeping the traditional priorities in order. Yet, there was continuing debate over just what those priorities were.
For years, some schools had been run as if serving student needs were afterthoughts. There was a rationale that what was good for administrators (and some senior faculty) was good for students. Concurrently, established protocols and procedures of decision-making and grievances, in place for years (even decades), were stubbornly defended by administrators and faculty. The old methods certainly offered administrative convenience to those in power. It also kept the defenders in control of most spending and personnel power.
The massive expansion of SIU was made possible by the support of, and promises of benefit to, unions, local and other contractors and vendors, certain politicians, and local businesses. All of these groups stood to enjoy financial and/or political gain from the massive influx of government dollars into C’dale. It was these interests (and not those related to higher education and the students who sought it) that coalesced to make the state commit the dollars to SIU, and it was these same interests that were represented on the SIU Board of Trustees. That being said, those in power were aware that state dollars would cease if there were no students. But, in the ‘60’s, there seemed to be an endless supply of students.
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 administration 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.
By 1967, the first element was already present.
