CHAPTER 14
SOCIAL BONDING AND SURPRISE DEVELOPMENT AT WIDB
There was an emerging social “scene” at the station. It was surprising that freshmen and other new persons would all be invited to station parties. The best ones had to be off campus, which meant hosting by the older members (had to be a junior or 21 to live off campus). Your writer’s first WIDB party was at Pat Becker’s and Kay Kessler’s on College Street. There was no smoking, except cigarettes. The music consisted of Turtles and Supremes albums stacked on the phonograph. Your writer had a porcelain-bowl worshipping experience involving Seagrams 7 (which he never consumed again) and waking up on the floor.
Less than 15 months later, your writer hosted his first “All U can smoke and drink for $1” party (with party tapes), which quickly morphed into the 40 keg “Cast of Thousands” parties at Lewis Park. But the 1971 party at Pat and Kay’s on College Street was exciting enough for a geeky 17-year -old freshman, who was flattered to be invited.
There were personal connections that resulted in station productivity. Robbie Davis and Katy O’Neill made a personal connection in December, 1971, which resulted in this:
This demonstrates the “all departments in motion” and the “hotbed of activity” that WIDB was. Almost every member was in late adolescence (or transitioning out of late adolescence) and thus encountering social, sexual, and other rites of passage. At the same time, there were radio and broadcast rites of passage, such as learning the concept of “tightness,” production skills, microphone technique, news gathering and reporting skills, people management skills, the art of the segue, and many other things useful not only for a future broadcast career but just about any career.
Far more important than the personal and career skills, WIDB offered rigorous training and experience in political, legal and bureaucratic skills, which were perhaps the most valuable and accidental education any of us could have received from the university. These came from the things we learned or had to learn to fight for WIDB’s survival and independence. None of those involved in this lengthy battle expected to be involved as they came to SIU and WIDB. People were dragged into this battle reluctantly. Most people just wanted to be regular students, and do their regular shift at WIDB, come to a meeting and/or party and that was the extent of it. That’s what Joel was doing in the spring of 71. Within less than 6 months, Joel was activated, pissed off, and leading the charge. What Joel went thru during that 6 months many of us also experienced. We started as just “regular students and members,” but then we got activated, pissed off, and joined the cause.
How did all of this come about? Recall the efforts to have a student radio station at SIU that started in 1959. Those who naively expected the university to quickly respond positively and in good faith were frustrated and disillusioned when they got indifference, incompetence, and outright hostility instead. It was obvious that many SIU professors and administrators cared very little about student development and student needs. Too many professors and administrators existed only to enhance their personal prestige and fiefdoms and to restrict and control students as much as possible. The university’s response strategy to student proposals was not much different than its response to any proposal for change from faculty or non-local public. The “playbook” was consistently applied and is in use to this day.
Although the purpose of this process is to cause improvements by facilitating and implementing meritorious proposals, this purpose was completely perverted. Instead, it became defending against and avoiding change, since change irritates the neuroses and insecurities of faculty, administrators, and sometimes locals and legislators. So with this in mind, this was the playbook:
1. Require that proposal be submitted in writing.
2. (After written proposal submitted) Deny it was received and/or require revisions and then deny that was received.
3. (After repeated submissions) Send letter acknowledging receipt, claim proposal is lengthy, will take long time (unspecified) to review
4. Do nothing further. Upon inquiry, claim it is “still being studied.”
5. (After repeated inquiries) claim “we already responded.” (Which turns out is original “it will take a long time to review” letter)
6. (After many more inquiries) claim actual response was completed, but lost. Do nothing further.
7. (After complaints filed, many more inquiries) Claim actual response was “found.” It says that “after extensive review, it is our reasoned determination that more study is needed.” Do nothing further.
8. (After repeated inquiries) Claim it is “still being studied,” When asked “By whom? When will they finish?” say you will check. Do nothing further.
9. (After repeated complaints and inquiries) Claim that “a committee is being assembled to study the proposal.” When asked “Who will be on the committee? Who will assemble it?” say you will check. Do nothing further.
10. (After repeated complaints and inquiries) Committee finally formed. Do nothing further.
11. (After repeated complaints and inquiries) Schedule first committee meeting.
12. Make sure committee has no regularly scheduled meetings by cancelling them at last minute. Have “informal meetings” instead when the “key members” have time.
13. (After repeated complaints and inquiries) Issue committee report, “After our lengthy and careful consideration, it is our learned determination that this matter needs more study.”
14. Do nothing further.
This is an extreme version of the “procrastinate, stall and delay” strategy. It is designed to discourage, frustrate and generally disabuse anyone seeking changes. It does make sense to deliberately make it difficult to make changes in foundational powers and goals (such as constitutions). This can help maintain consistency at a basic level for a nation, corporation, or other organization. It certainly makes sense to set a high bar to amend the US Constitution, for example, since changes must be carefully considered and be supported by a broad consensus.
It might also make sense, in a university setting, to consider carefully changes to its primary mission or basic policies of fairness and due process. But SIU chose to make it very easy to change its core mission and foundational policies by ignoring and selectively enforcing them (as well as inconsistently interpreting them). Thus, the “rules” meant to restrict powers of SIU officials were perverted for repeated abuses of power, overtly and tacitly supported by trustees and legislators. Even worse, the rules and tactics to discourage change were strictly enforced against those who had the greatest desire for change (and power too–more later). Something had to give, and it would not be the students.
All of us at WIDB in 1971 had been educated in the ’60s where we were indoctrinated with our “constitutional rights” and freedom of expression was a big one. Many of us had attended high schools where newspapers were impounded and friends were suspended or expelled for just wearing an armband. At some of our radio stations, music was censored. That was high school, and now at college, (perhaps as an adolescent rite of passage) we wanted to be in charge of the music we played and info we disseminated. We also wanted to be in charge of assessing and programming students’ needs. Judging by the survey results, we were very successful.
But almost everyone at WIDB was primarily focused on music, news, national events, on-air personnel, station sound, their personal skills, advancement of goals, and social things. Many came to WIDB with these things in mind. No one came to WIDB to be in a bureaucratic war or learn the skills needed to defeat an entrenched dysfunctional perverted bureaucracy. But, just as in the past, the university’s intransigence and distain for student needs and rights aroused what the university most feared.
in 1966 the university’s intransigence in reinstating the expelled panty raiders led to the “First Annual SIU Riots” with student mobs overturning and burning National Guard jeeps. When “law and order” advocates had their way in 1970, refusing to close the school and ordering police to gas the dorms and beat the students as they ran for their lives, it did not, by any measure, solve the problem, quell the disturbance, nor did it “teach students a lesson” about who had the power. Instead, as we know, 10,000 students took over the city and university and forced the university to close.
To this day, it is felt by many that the administration and President Morris “caved” to the students and “betrayed” the local citizens, police and troops by rewarding criminal activity. Many felt that anyone against the war was a communist, terrorist, traitor, criminal, unpatriotic, and should be attacked, arrested and/or deported to Russia. They did not understand why the 10,000 who defied curfew were not arrested, expelled and deported. Many of these supported the martial Law that was declared in Carbondale, and felt this should be in effect all the time, to keep students under control.
But no one in Southern Illinois or even Chicago had a place to process and incarcerate 10,000 arrestees. There were 6 jail cells at the Carbondale police station, maybe another 30 at Jackson County jail. What about the other 9,960 arrestees? Take them to St Louis? About 200 buses would be needed. Also, about 7,000 more police would be needed. The bottom line is that if almost 50% of the population jointly defies authority and law, it is impossible to prosecute more than a small percentage. it does not matter what the law happens to be, it is just reality.
The “law and order” folks could not accept this. Someone sold them out. The violators must be punished. President Morris was blamed for not maintaining the police state in Carbondale, not suddenly hiring 7,000 police and not immediately creating the largest prison in Illinois. After the greatest 22 years of SIU, Morris was pushed out in less than a year. The “law and order” people wanted new leadership to be “tough on students” and “teach students who is the boss.”
Just as President Morris was deposed and the “law and order” forces were gaining influence, WIDB submitted its proposal to sell advertising. Just as the proposal was being considered, Wilbur Molton (who had been helpful to WIDB) was encouraged to leave and was ultimately replaced by new hardliner George Mace, who masterminded deliberate disruptions in the student fee allocations designed to strangle student informational, expression, and political activities. Many students were unaware of this history and its implications.
Joel certainly was aware that the riots happened, that they helped establish WIDB, that the school was forced to close, and that was over a year before, (a very long time when you’re not yet 20). So it seemed like ancient history to Joel, Robbie and Charlie when the first proposal was submitted in the summer. No one was aware of this “full head of steam” that was gathering to, essentially, passive-aggressively and sometimes even directly “counter-attack” students.
The whole idea of “counter-attacking the students” is completely illogical. The students who took the streets and closed the school were mostly gone by Fall ’71, so the students they were “counter-attacking” just got the message that the university, locals, and police hated students. After this “counter-attack against students” began, enrollment dropped over 20% in 30 months, and the new “law and order” SIU President was forced to resign in disgrace. So the “law and order” approach failed in 1966, failed miserably in 1970, and then failed again in 1971-74. Each time it was tried, it damaged the university. It made no sense to keep trying it when it was so flawed and costly, so contrary to the mission and policies of the university and state, and so completely out of step with everyone but an isolated small number of locals, administrators trustees and legislators who were determined to misuse state money to advance their personal social and political goals. And they did it repeatedly, flagrantly, and at times, notoriously.
To everyone at WIDB’s knowledge, no one at WIDB was involved in any criminal activity during the riots in 1970. There was no “WIDB Float” in the march of 10,000 that defied the curfew. Things had been quiet (over 15 months) since that time. No one at WIDB could conceive how or why the administration would take a hard line against WIDB. But this unexpected hard line was exactly what was needed to arouse and motivate WIDB to fight its longest and most significant battle. After the initial shock of Dr. Kurtz’s opposition to WIDB sales, only a few senior WIDB members were involved. Robbie was impatient to start selling, and he had a low tolerance to getting the runaround. Pat Becker was Office Manager – though she was interested in sales – and helped Robbie and Joel survey the Carbondale merchants.
The sales proposal was revised and approved by the WIDB Board at its meeting on October 14. It was submitted to the future new hard-line Dean of Students George Mace (then he was an Assistant to the President) later in October. Then came the so-called Southern Illinois Broadcasters Association letter to President Layer in mid-November, with Layer responding in December apologizing to the SIBA and offering to meet with them. WIDB was not even allowed to communicate with the president, let alone meet with him, let alone having him apologize and roll out the red carpet.
At the very same time WIDB was revising, passing, and advocating the Advertising Proposal, (Mid-October-November), SIU’s search for President Morris’ replacement continued to use up thousands of dollars. The highly paid executive search firm Richard Quaintane and Associates had won an extension of their SIU contract since they were not able to find anyone who wanted the SIU job or was tough enough against students. They finally found a candidate for SIU President that seemed to fit the trustees’ bill and was willing to take the job.
After this “nationwide search,” the Board of Trustees finally selected David R. Derge, a refugee from the Nixon administration. Derge was hired from Indiana University, where he gained a reputation for crushing protests to “teach students a lesson.” As a Vice President there, he forced police to arrest students for protesting a 67% tuition increase (of course all were acquitted and sued the school). But Derge, fresh from the “law and order” Nixon administration and using state resources to crush students, was the darling of the SIU Trustees who were determined to bang their heads against the wall in yet another failed effort costing millions of state dollars to advance their personal agendas to “teach students a lesson.”
Some perspective: Morris became SIU’s leader in 1948 and embarked on a 22 year very successful mission to expand a small rural college into a modern University. Enrollment increased over 600%. Morris expanded educational offerings kept tuition low and oversaw a transition where students were recognized as adults and afforded more power, resources and freedom by the university. SIU was (at Morris’ departure) the 18th largest university in the US.
Derge became SIU’s leader in February 1972 and embarked on a 25 month war on students, faculty, and administrators. He hired people like John Huffman (who was facing a lawsuit for his role in the student murders and repression at Kent State). Derge reduced educational offerings, fired 50% of administrators, and 103 tenured faculty who dared to disagree with him. Student clubs were suddenly not allowed to copy anything “that might reflect poorly on the university.” Students were threatened with arrest for attempting to get something copied. Derge encouraged arresting authorities to be as tough on students as possible. Police viciously attacked a WIDB newsman in May, presumably fueled by Derge’s general orders.
Derge had turned a relatively sedate functional and nurturing SIU into a war zone of fear and loathing. Within 12 months, enrollment plummeted 20%. Within 25 months, the Board of Trustees forced Derge to resign (University propaganda fraudulently claims he “retired”) and embarked on another hundred-thousand dollar multi-year “search” for a new president.
It was this mentality to misappropriate state funds to “punish students” that was SIU’s downfall that has continued to this day. FY2020 enrollment is 70% down from when Derge came in, due to a steady decline starting in 1972 (there was an uptick in the 80’s but after the Board brought in John Guyon to outlaw Halloween and punish students, enrollment resumed plummeting.)
