The woes of the country continued through most of the years covered in this chapter. The struggle in Vietnam continued month after month with no victory in sight and, finally, in 1975, the troops came home. We apparently had lost a war. We continued to lose faith in the integrity of our elected officials. Vice-President Spiro Agnew resigned, an event topped only by the resignation of President Nixon. Gerald Ford became President. Things seemed to settle down in Washington, but even the great celebration of the bi-centennial in 1976 could not help him win reelection. It was time for a change, the people said. He was replaced by democrat Jimmy Carter, who had promised a more responsive government. He created quite a media event at the inaugural parade when he left his limousine and walked the parade route. But his country boy charm and his promise of a better America couldn't stand up to rising unemployment, huge inflation, and the capture by Iranians of 53 American citizens. An attempt to rescue the hostages went bad. Along the way, there were many other acts of terrorism, and the hi-jacking of airplanes. Patty Hearst was kidnapped. Many fell ill to the "legionnaires" disease, and something called "aids" was threatening people, mostly in Africa. There was mass suicide in Guyana. John Lennon was slain. An oil embargo resulted in long lines at the gas pumps and a speed limit of 55 mph. Mt. Helen erupted and so did Three Mile Island. By mid-1980 Carter's approval rate had fallen to 21 percent. Voters rejected him in favor of Ronald Reagan, who promised tax cuts, a hard line foreign policy and a renewal of pride in a stronger America. On college campuses the residue of the protest movement could be found in greater student representation in governance and in the increasing informality of dress (which was now being adopted by many faculty members.)

Of course there were some higher moments. Americans found time to celebrate the bi-centennial in 1976. The Alaskan pipeline was completed. U. S. and Soviet astronauts met in space, Voyager I went to Jupiter and then to Saturn, and Columbia became our first "shuttle" to orbit the earth. The first test-tube baby was born.

This snapshot of events of the seventies is given in order to better understand the impact of new technology. News coverage by radio and television made it possible for a listener or viewer to be in on every breaking story almost from the beginning, and there seemed to be no end to their number. Reporters and photographers were able to cover almost anything, anywhere, thanks to the miniaturization of equipment. The bulky 16mm sound-on-film cameras were replaced by much smaller video cameras, recorders and accessory equipment. Stories could be taken back to the station for editing on the new video editors or, in many large cities, they could be sent by direct microwave and, later, by satellite. The process was called "ENG" -- electronic news gathering. Events were put on video tape, which had been reduced in size from a cumbersome 2 inches (in width) to 1 inch, then 3/4 inch and, finally, to 1/2 inch. The machines which housed the tape dropped from home refrigerator size to that of a small suitcase. Cable television began to make serious inroads on the audiences of the established networks after Home Box Office parked a satellite in space, bringing first-run movies. Cable systems began to be found in most cities of any size, and for those people who lived in the country there was the possibility of a satellite dish in the back yard. The new technology found in a compact disc recording made listening to music on the radio an even more pleasant experience, whether in the home or on the beach with a "boom box."

In this period we had "disco fever" and discovered sushi, pantsuits and streaking . We embraced and then quickly rejected the polyester "leisure suit." As often happens, the world of entertainment helped to make us forget our problems. We screamed in fright at the movie "Jaws," and marveled at the technology and excitement of "Star Wars." Bo Derek certainly was a "Ten." On television, Farrah Fawcett re-defined what a woman's hair should look like. Norman Lear brought humor to bigotry in "All In the Family," and the insanity of war was the subject of the somewhat black-comedy of "Mash." We loved Mary Tyler Moore. We thought about our ancestors after viewing "Roots." And those of us who taught broadcasting wondered how we could have been so stupid as to go into education when it was revealed that Barbara Walters would get a one million dollar television contract in 1976.

Unfortunately, this explosion of technology and interest in communications only created additional problems for schools which offered a curriculum in broadcasting and film. At the beginning of this period, most schools were still without color capability, and there were always new devices which had to be added to the equipment "wish list." But there was one good thing: Thanks to new technology and competition, the cost of most equipment -- especially cameras, recorders and editors -- was coming down along with the size. This is probably the only reason that the University of Kansas was able to keep an academic program in broadcasting alive. But it wasn't easy, as we shall see.

A. Administration and Budget.

1. General Administration.

A new Chancellor arrived on Mt. Oread in the fall of 1973. The faculty hoped that Archie Dykes could continue the move toward "normalcy" which had been started by Raymond Nichols, and that the University would receive more favorable treatment from the Legislature. Dykes was hard working and effective, although there was no outpouring of new funds from Topeka. There were changes at other administrative levels in this period: Amby Saricks, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, was followed in that office by Ed Bassett, Ron Calgaard, Ralph Christoffersen and Deannell Tacha.

Del Brinkman became acting Dean of Journalism with Bassett's departure to Strong Hall, and he was chosen as Dean in the summer of 1975. Lee Young and Susanne Shaw served as Associate Deans at one time or another in this period. Bobby Patton remained as the Chair of the Department of Speech and Drama.

The School of Journalism continued to grow. By 1974 the credit hour yield was up 22 percent, bringing about a discussion by the faculty for tougher entrance requirements in order to limit growth and reduce faculty overloads. By the fall of 1980 there were 624 undergraduates, an increase of 20 students, and 23 more graduate students, bringing that total to 69.1 Over on the "College side" the Department of Speech and Drama had one of the largest increases -- by 1977 it had 500 undergraduate majors and 200 graduate students in its four divisions, many of them in RTVF.2

With continued growth -- and the whole campus was growing -- came increasing problems of support. It seemed that every academic unit lacked something: Facilities, faculty, staff, equipment or maintenance funds. It was the responsibility of the central administration to collect information as to needs, prioritize it, and then make requests to the Legislature. And so there was no let-up in the demand for information. Each unit was asked (it seemed almost every year) to study the positive and negative aspects of its program, to look into the future, and then to formulate wish-lists.

In addition, many units, on their own, studied various ways in which they could achieve greater visibility which, in turn, might produce more positive action relative to their needs. For example, perhaps a different department or school structure might be seen as more efficient, more "in tune" with the outside world. This might result in more students, thus enlarging the "power base." And so, in Journalism, there was preliminary discussion of a name change, perhaps to include something about "mass communication," but nothing happened until years later. The Department of Speech and Drama faculty began to discuss the concept of a "division," as used by the biological sciences, and this also happened years later. Speech and Drama also desired to re-name their inner academic units; for example, it was proposed in 1980 that "Speech Communications and Human Relations" become "Communications Studies."

The faculty members of Radio-TV-Film were, by this time, veterans in doing self-studies and creating special reports, the latest of which had been produced in the spring of 1973 (see Chapter IV.) At that time the final consensus was that we should continue with the present structural-administrative arrangement. However, in that same year the perceived lack of significant response from Strong Hall convinced some of the faculty that further discussions should be held. I was to be on sabbatical that fall, but I encouraged the group to continue to look for ways to bring greater visibility and support to the program.

A few discussions were held, and at the end of the fall semester Professor Dart wrote a memo to Dean Bassett proposing several changes:3

1. The "University Radio-Television-Film Committee should be dissolved, since it had been some years since the university had called upon the committee as a whole to establish university policies in regard to RTVF.

2. There would be two separate academic programs in RTVF -- one in journalism would had two sequences: Broadcast Journalism and Broadcast Sales-Management. The one sequence in speech and drama would be called Film and Broadcasting. Each would have a sequence head.

3. The joint academic appointments would continue for those faculty members who taught both speech or journalism courses and/or cross-listed ones.

The memo did attract a response. Academic Affairs directed that upon my return from sabbatical a "University Committee on Reorganization of RTVF" would be named to study the proposal and any other matters, and report by March, 1974. The committee consisted of most of the RTVF faculty members and representatives of both Journalism and Speech, and I was to be the chair. There were a number of long meetings, and many ideas about structure were considered.

For example, should the total program go into Journalism? This would be the most "professional" arrangement, but there could be drawbacks: For example, the School was having no great success in getting additional funding and RTVF would be competing with the other sequences for additional support in a much more direct manner. How would the student credit hours be handled since the greatest yield was now from Speech? And how happy would Journalism faculty be with a program involving "Film Studies"? Control of the RTVF maintenance and production budgets -- historically separate from other sequences in Journalism -- might be lost.

There was limited discussion of placing the total program in Speech. There would be the same fights about the budget. The idea of "news" in Speech would be as foreign to them as "film studies" in Journalism. More important, the move might endanger the concept of professionalism.

There were no limits to the range of our discussions. Thus, why not establish a College or School of Communications, bringing together Journalism and Speech, with all of the divisions and sequences as equal partners, including RTVF. It surely would improve our visibility. But preliminary conversations with the heads and major professsors of these major units indicated very quickly that the uniqueness now enjoyed by each of them would be endangered. (For example, it was "unthinkable" to place the nationally known William Allen White School of Journalism under a "Communications" label.) Also, it was noted that not all existing colleges of communications were happy places. But before abandoning a separate school idea the Reorganization Committee also discussed the possibilities of a School of Radio-TV-Film: Let's go solo! But then RTVF would be the smallest such unit on campus, and while visibility would be much greater we would be at the bottom of the budget pool.

The committee members began to realize that maybe, with some additional tinkering, the structure we had been living with since 1955 might still be the best. This thought was reinforced when conversations with both Patton and Basset indicated that neither wished "to inherit the program and that a shared, coordinated program should be continued but with improved lines of organization and budgeting."4

The Reorganization Committee report was delivered March 11, 1974. Some items mirrored the Dart memorandum, while others were new. It was approved by Patton and Basset and forwarded to Dean Waggoner of the College and Amby Saricks, V/C for Academic Affairs.5 The basic recommendations were:

1. The University Radio-TV-Film Committee should be dissolved "in terms of any delegated and/or inferred jurisdiction over campus-wide RTVF programs and activities."

2. A Radio-TV-Film Committee (the present one) should be continued and "charged with the administration of the academic programs and lab activities of the area and to coordinate the work of this area with other programs of the university, and especially with the radio stations and instructional television."

3. No split in the program was desirable "but all avenues should be explored to make the program more efficient under an umbrella structure." Split appointments were not only desirable but there should be more of them.

4. KANU should continue to be a part of the academic program and budgeted through the School of Journalism. (Note: This part of the report was not accepted by the administration.)

5. The graduate program should continue as before, a separate degree program from those in Journalism and Speech, but administered through the latter area by the RTVF committee.

Only one faculty member voted against the recommendations, feeling that it perpetuated the "floating position" of RTVF, making it an "orphan in shaggy clothes that is infrequently given a new patch to cover an old hole."6 The rest felt that although "patching" was probably painfully accurate, the "floating position" of the program was not the reason for it.

However, this was not to be the end of the discussion of structure. In February, 1975, the RTVF Committee sent a note to the Dean of Journalism, indicating that we had not been given an adequate chance to provide input into the proposed remodeling of Flint Hall.7 A few months later the Faculty Committee of Journalism had a retreat to discuss all matters relating to journalism education. John Bremner, the chairperson of the committee, asked many questions about RTVF which seemed (to me) to reveal a lack of basic understanding of the RTVF program. I responded, feeling a bit on the defensive.8

Bremner asked for an explanation of the rationale for the joint program with Speech, which I attempted to do. I placed emphasis on the professionalism of our program and the placement of the basic OOE budget in the professional school --Journalism. He asked if Speech was happy with the structure, and I replied that they seemed to be quite comfortable in all of it. Bremner then asked if the program might not be better off all in Journalism and so I repeated the discussion points of the previous year. The new Dean (Del Brinkman) wondered if there might be an "image" problem -- a lack of visibility both to administration and the students. My response was that the RTVF majors through both Journalism and Speech seem to know who they are and that any image problem would relate more to how we were perceived by central administration.

There was no action taken at this meeting, but it did provide an opportunity to discuss many aspects of the program and to answer some of the concerns expressed by faculty members from other sequences. The Dean seemed to be supportive, and in the end there was agreement that he should continue to pressure the administration for planned equipment replacement.

Three years later (1978) Prof. Calder Pickett chaired a committee to prepare self-study materials for the upcoming journalism accrediting visit. In the section on RTVF he noted several items. First, RTVF always seems to be behind in equipment allocations, compared to other areas of the university, and Jolliffe Hall was not "plush quarters" for the TV lab. Several other statements seem to indicate that in 1978 the structure of RTVF was understood and accepted. He said, "though the arrangement seems cumbersome on occasion, it seems...quite comfortable." Additionally, "RTVF faculty works closely together, meets regularly, probably is more unified in this sense than any sequence in the school." And finally, "RTVF once seemed isolated from the rest of the school; increasingly this does not appear to be a problem."9

In 1980 central administration once again asked all University units to do a self-study. The RTVF Committee did so, asking many of the same questions that were posed in 1973-74. Should we be completely in Journalism or in Speech? Should we have a separate school of RTVF, or go for a larger school of communications? The conclusions also were the same; there seemed to be no advantage in a different structure at that time.10

Nevertheless, some events or developments provided some evidence that the structure which had seemed to serve so well might not last very long. For one thing, the RTVF faculty was concerned about matters of tenure and promotion. There seemed to be an increasing difference in the promotion yardsticks used by Journalism and the College of Arts and Sciences. Journalism emphasized teaching and service, giving tertiary consideration to research, while the College considered research to be of primary importance. The difference of standards created a possible problem for any RTVF faculty member with a joint appointment going up for promotion: The person would have to be approved by the promotion committees of both units. (That is, the candidate would have to have the approval of the committees in Speech and the College as well as the committee in Journalism before reaching the University promotions committee.) We thought that this subjected the person to different standards and double jeopardy. Too many hurdles.

Permit this short digression on the subject of tenure: In order to strengthen the promotion files of RTVF candidates, the RTVF Committee recommended that a strong case for the consideration of "creative" work as "research" be a part of the School statement on promotion. The following statement was accepted: "The value of creative production, such as writing and direction of a radio or television program or a film, is recognized by the School of Journalism as publication. Many productions, especially documentaries, call for high standards of research and creative effort...Further, it should be counted as "publication" if the program is accepted beyond the campus community."11

Another emerging problem of joint appointments was budgetary. Both Speech and Journalism were having problems in providing similar percentages for faculty raises and stipends for graduate assistants. A professor with a 50-50 appointment might not get the same raise from each side in a given year. These matters were discussed with Dean Brinkman and Prof. Bobby Patton, but there seemed to be no immediate solution to the problem. The creation of "lines" for graduate assistants also was very difficult. For example, in October of 1980, Dale Gadd asked Journalism for a teaching assistant to handle work in a cross-listed course. The Dean noted that funds for graduate assistants come from "shrinkage." ("Shrinkage" was a relatively new budget term/concept employed by central administration; usually it meant that each unit might or might not keep certain funds.) Therefore, he said, "split administration exists in broadcasting and (that) makes it difficult for the School to justify such requests."12 Dean Brinkman was not totally negative. He hoped that RTVF might receive significant help connected with the new building (a development which will be discussed later in this chapter.)

RTVF was not the only unit with problems related to split appointments. Budgeting was becoming too difficult at a time when the University was under financial stress. But for us the question came to a head two months later. Dean Brinkman announced, after discussions with Bobby Patton of Speech, the V/C for Academic Affairs and myself, that it was probable that faculty members with joint appointments would be asked to "choose" a single academic home, while otherwise leaving the RTVF administrative structure intact."13 After further discussion a "Memorandum of Understanding" was reached by all participants -- the V/C forAcademic Affairs, the Dean of Journalism, the Chair of Speech and Drama, and members of RTVF. The agreement did not end the area study concept, but several important changes were made. The major points were as follows:14

"Given the growing complexity of administration and budgeting, it seems that the best interests of the faculty involved (as well as those of the program and students) will be better served by (1) eliminating the split appointments, (2) replacing them with courtesy appointments, while (3) still continuing the concept of a "major" through either Journalism or Speech." (As it turned out, all of the faculty on joint appointment chose to be a part of Journalism.)

"The Director of RTVF who has functioned as the Chairperson (division or sequence head) of RTVF will continue to represent the RTVF program and will report to the Dean of Journalism." (This would not deter Speech from finding new ways of administering the program in Film Studies.)

It was agreed that for the present time the graduate program of RTVF would continue under the Speech umbrella, but administered by RTVF. In addition, "certain radio and television courses and an undergraduate major emphasis will continue to be possible through the Department of Speech and Drama." The film studies courses and emphasis would not be affected.

Also it was agreed "that subsequent and inevitable changes in the data base should not be used in any analysis and judgment of the School or Department which would violate the spirit of the joint program." (As we shall see in the next chapter, this was the first part of the agreement to unravel.)

Finally it was agreed that study would be given "to find additional ways of creating visibility for RTVF, including the possibility of a partial name change for the School of Journalism and Public Information." (Several months later the name of the School did change -- to the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications.

While it would seem that there was a constant discussion on matters of structure, the truth is that there were many other things going on. We taught classes, introduced new courses and changed or deleted others, hired faculty on new lines, fought successfully for equipment, moved our labs to remodeled space in other buildings, planned a new communications building, produced program materials and advised students.

One other matter of administrative structure should be noted -- the relationship of station KANU to RTVF and the School of Journalism.

As noted in the preceding chapters, KANU (and KFKU) had been placed under the aegus of RTVF and Journalism in 1955 in order to provide radio intern possibilities for radio majors and to give the station a stronger "base" in the budget process. In the early years this arrangement arguably may have kept the station alive. But as the station continued to grow (helped considerably by the appearance of a national public radio system in the late sixties) so did its needs for a larger budget. As noted in Chapter IV, Dick Wright was concerned that the University (and RTVF and Journalism) was not responsive enough to their needs. In 1974 the engineer, Tom Doyle, wrote to the RTVF Committee. He listed the needs of a professional station and suggested that perhaps it wasn't a good idea to be a part of an academic program.15 I replied to Tom, sympathizing with the problems and suggesting that we all meet to discuss them. In so doing I also noted that "if the station went its own way it still would have an obligation (in my opinion) to provide internship opportunities for the advanced (qualified) students."16 The meetings did not result in any immediate changes, but in 1979, five years later, the responsibility for the stations was re-assigned to the Vice Chancellor for Research, Francis Horowitz, and their operating budgets were removed from the J-school. (In the meantime, in 1976, Dick Wright had resigned in order to accept a teaching appointment in the School of Fine Arts. He had been replaced by Howard Hill.)

There was also the question of how to handle "Film Studies" --almost another area study program. With the departure of Richard MacCann in 1969 the new sequence in "Film Studies" through Speech and Drama began to decay. By 1971 it had been allowed to lapse, although courses in film history and film production continued to be taught. But apparently the concept of studies in film was appealing because professors in other departments expressed a desire to introduce a variety of film courses. Prof. Richard Colyer (English) had taught a course in the esthetics of film, and Prof. Juan Pierre Boon (French) wished to do a course in the development of film in France. They approached the RTVF Committee with a suggestion that the College of Arts and Sciences offer a new film studies program under the aegus of a new college committee. In the spring of 1974, after several meetings, it was decided that Colyer would have a "courtesy appointment" in Speech and Drama and be a member of the RTVF Committee. Later, if it was appropriate, RTVF could reconsider reinstating the film studies sequence.17 Yet, at the same time, and perhaps in reponse to Colyer and Boon, the College created a "Committee on Film Studies" to act as an informal coordinating body, thus adding a bit of confusion to administrative structure. But Colyer was able to put together several courses, some of them cross-listed and taught by people in other departments. Boone, for example, offered a course, French 520 (3) The Development of Film in France, in 1976. In that same year Colyer was named to coordinate the film program (non-production) reporting to the Chair of the RTVF Committee.18

The ambiguous structure of film studies became more sharply defined in 1978 with the arrival of Charles (Chuck) Berg, who joined the faculty of Speech and Drama and the RTVF Committee. He had a very strong background in film and and he took over the responsibilities previously held by Colyer. He and Colyer immediately began plans to revive a major option in Film Studies. A formal request for action was sent to the College of Arts and Sciences in February, 1979, and then to the V/C for Academic Affairs, Ron Calgaard, and it was approved in the spring.19 In October, Berg became the "Director of Film Studies," serving under the RTVF Committee. And so, by the end of 1979, there were two major options in Speech and Drama -- "RTVF General Option" and "Film Studies." Faculty members participating in this program were Berg, Colyer, Boon, Halina Findlay (Slavic Languages), Ed Ruhe (English), Ted Wilson (the College Office), Peter Dart and myself.

2. The Budget.

These were tough years for the University to get extra funding to help growing programs such as the one in RTVF. The news always seemed to be negative. For example, in 1976-77 KU received $100,000 for equipment, yet requests from all units came to $1,400,000.20 In that year the Chancellor reported that the state was "in trouble" from a two million dollar overrun and it would be difficult to maintain the status quo in the budget. And almost every year the Dean of Journalism would have a dismal report on budget expectations.21 Visits to the faculty by representatives of central administration were not encouraging. Thus, V/C Christoffersen said, in 1979, that the University "has a terrible situation with respect to equipment."22 (At the time I was trying to find out if replacement of worn-out equipment on a regular basis was part of the "new formula" for funding. Obviously it was not.)

But even with this dark budget picture, RTVF did receive a great deal of money for the replacement of wornout equipment and, finally, the addition of color television equipment. The gloomy memos of the late sixties and early seventies were replaced with persuasive proposals, and there was great support from RTVF alumni and area professionals.

Strong Hall requested many reports and studies during this period, apart from the formal budget procedure (which always encompassed two years.) All of them directed each unit to describe its mission, assess its strong and weak points, predict future needs and make various wish lists. And all had a bottom line -- the budget: What financial support would each unit need for faculty, staff, facilities, equipment, operations and maintenance? There was a "self-study" request for 1973. The next year was called a "new program" request. In 1975 we were asked for a five-year budget plan, and a "program proposal" was the title of the 1979 request.

RTVF and the School of Journalism took these requests seriously. After all, it was one more opportunity to try to show that our needs were real and important. RTVF had several strategies in answering the various requests and in presenting additional reports for consideration. One was to document the inadequate support of the past, which could be done every time because we were always under-funded. For example, in 1973, it was noted that since 1965 the undergraduate SCHR had increased 196 percent, the number of majors had increased 310 percent at the undergraduate level and 64 percent at the graduate level, BUT general maintenance support was down by 4 percent! And in 1977 we noted that 9.3 faculty had "produced" an SCHR of 3039, or an FTE of 326.77 --a very significant figure.23 Since budgets were increasingly tied to SCHR "production" it was hoped that such data would be effective. The inadequacy of space was easy to document because it was so apparent. It was almost the same with equipment; color television had been around (in 1978) for 18 years and almost all television homes had color receivers, but we had no color production capacity.

Another strategy was based upon the demands of the future. Because of the exploding development in electronic/film communications there always was plenty of ammunition. For example, in 1973 we predicted rapid changes in technology -- increased minitiarization and portability of equipment, expansion of cable television with significant local programming, and the growth of public radio and television. These things were happening and were already placing greater demands on the program. As pointed out in 1973, "if the communications environment changes...then the professional of tomorrow must have even greater depth and breadth within the total field of aural and visual communications. There must be flexibility (and) the ability to adapt to -- and have an influence on -- the changes in the media."24 By 1979 the "futures" section included predictions on the increased use of computers in management and production, the growth of local news through the use of satellites connecting the news van and station, and the growth of programming produced by cable companies.25 Again our crystal ball was clear.

RTVF tried to use "the future" in a proposal which was written after approval had been given for the color equipment and remodeling of Jolliffe. The RTVF Committee suggested that we could be an outstanding center of production for the University, provided there would be a commitment of resources for program production and operations on an annual basis. And -- oh yes -- a production van would be necessary. The cost estimate was $335,000.26 There was no response; the central administration must have thought the approval of color TV had put us in a state of euphoria!

Another strategy was that of program comparison. The university itself was using this when they promoted the concept of "peer" institutions. In like manner, we compared our program in RTVF to that of certain universities in the Big 8 and Big 10, drawing the data from the "Niven Reports" of the Broadcast Education Association. Thus, in 1976, we concluded that we were the largest program in the Big 8, with 197 undergraduate and 22 graduate students (MA) compared to runner-up Missouri with 149 and 21. And this with 6 fulltime faculty compared to 8 for Missouri. Also, we noted that KU had more majors than all of the Kansas schools combined. We even looked good against the Big 10: Most of the schools had PhD programs, but at the undergraduate and MA level we were larger than Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa, and almost always we had the fewest number of fulltime faculty.

Other strategies for increased support were tried. RTVF submitted several program grant applications, and were successful with a few. Thus, in 1974-75 it was possible to purchase the transmitter for the new FM station, KJHK, and numerous small items from a "Title VI" grant -- a total value of $24,485.8 We were able to get a renewal of the Commonwealth Theatres' grant (which had begun in 1968) for student film production: There would be $1500 for 3 years, a total of $4500. However, attempts to get a similar grant in 1981 failed when Commonwealth expressed concern that film might not be a future emphasis, given the split of the faculty. It was not renewed, despite our assurances that film would continue.28

Some help was available from the Stauffer fund in Journalism. (The Stauffer family had given $1 million to the J-school in 1979.) This endowment provided over $42,000 worth of portable color television cameras and accessories in 1979.29

In 1975 the Legislature discussed a state system for public television, and for a short time there was hope that KU would be included. The final plan provided new transmitter locations in several parts of the state (almost the same locations the RTVF Committee had suggested a decade earlier.) The two existing stations would be upgraded. However, there was NO mention of facilities or program production equipment for KU, nor for Wichita State or Kansas State. No explanation was ever given (at least to Dean Brinkman or me) as to why we were passed by.30 (It should be noted here that KU was not eligible for any television grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because it did not have a TV station on the air.)

There was another strategy -- begging. In 1976 the RTVF Committee wrote to area RTV stations, hoping to get an equipment matching grant. We suggested that KU would provide matching dollars if the stations could contribute $25,000. For the most part this failed. The managers sympathized but felt that they could not commit funds to just one university in the state. But Dale Larsen, of KTVH, Hutchinson, provided a gift of $1,00031 and Mr. and Mrs. Cloud Cray of Atchison gave $2,531.5032 for the broadcast news area. Small gifts, but gratefully received. In 1978 letters were written to the national networks, asking for used equipment. In spite of good contacts, nothing happened; apparently every other school in the country was trying the same gambit. However, there was some success in "borrowing" some 16mm sound-on-film portable cameras for news from KMBC-TV, thanks to the efforts of two good friends of the program employed by the station, Ridge Shannon and Jack Kelly.33 KMBC, of course, was now using color video cameras for its news coverage.

We may not have received much financial help from area broadcasters but they, along with more than 150 alumni, provided invaluable support at the time a very large request was made to the regents and legislature for color TV equipment. In the spring of 1977 I wrote to our alums and members of our professional advisory board, requesting a "show of support" so that we could be a top priority. It was noted that, "the present black and white television equipment is obsolete, unreliable and almost totally useless in producing a proper lab experience for those students who hope to enter this field.....(and) new equipment will help the student learn the use of color in production."34 There was great response and, as will be noted later in this chapter, RTVF finally received significant color television equipment.

Meanwhile, letters were written relating to the Film Studies program in Speech and Drama. In 1979, one member of the faculty wrote to KU alum and former film star "Buddy" Rogers to see if he was interested in providing financial support.35 Rogers was helpful in pressuring the administration. He also appeared at several local functions, and he joined the "Chancellor's Club." But there was no outpouring of significant dollars.

Another type of "begging" took place at KANU. In 1973 the station launched its first "Campaign for Excellence" and collected $7,000. Two years later the campaign brought in $21,000. (The campaigns continued, usually twice each year, and by the last half of the nineties were bringing in pledges totalling six figures.)

One other strategy was discussed in this period -- combining the equipment and facilities of RTVF and Instructional Television. The details of this proposal may be found in the section on "Facilities." Suffice to say here, the merger never took place, primarily because of budget limitations.36

It would seem from this dreary tale that the various strategies were not successful, but this was not entirely the case. In 1978 the "color barrier" was broken and RTVF received significant funding for equipment. The developments in television technology helped us get more bang for the buck. More sophisticated cameras, recorders and editors were actually cheaper and of far better quality than in the past years and we could afford to buy truly professional gear. In 1976-77, RTVF received a special equipment allotment of $33,497, another one of $4,390 in 1977-78, and the color breakthrough allotment of $126,025 in 1978-79.

Unfortunately there was little success in increasing the maintenance budget and, given the influx of new, quality equipment, this was of great concern. As noted in a 1978 report, "We have a new cadillac but no gas to go anywhere."37 In four budget years (1976-1980) maintenance barely increased from $17,590 to $20,300. Not even enough to compensate for the high inflation rate of the times. There was a special problem with motion picture film -- the cost of silver (which coated the film) had risen to astronomical heights resulting in much higher costs for film stock and film processing. There was some concern that we might not be able to continue production opportunities in film and, for the time being, the added costs of film and processing would have to come from the student's pocket.38

Years earlier --1973 -- one alumnus had made a significant gift which helped the students interested in film. Jerry Smith was a film writer and director who had found success in doing motivational films and commercials. "Jerry Smith Productions" gave $1,000 to provide for the production expenses of a student project which had the approval of the RTVF Committee.39 The gift was repeated in 1974 and 1975, and several students were able to produce project films for the Masters degree. (Other important gifts were received from graduates of the RTVF program, and these are discussed under the section on "The Students.")

Funding for TA's and student part-time assistance increased minimally, and it was not possible to compete with other universities in the recruitment of strong graduate students.

On the other hand, the new student station, KJHK, obtained good support from the Student Senate. This organization, through the fee system, provided adequate maintenance funds and a lot of equipment, including a new higher power transmitter. The money didn't come automatically. Each year the student manager and faculty supervisor would have to appear before the Senate budget committee to state their needs. In this political atmosphere no one could be sure of the final allocation until a final vote was taken.

In 1980, additional developments relating to the possibility of a new building for RTVF resulted in greater visibility for our program, additional equipment and a new faculty line (but little improvement in maintenance funds.)

Perhaps a "budget snapshot" might be of interest, showing the level of funding for RTVF in 1977-78. The budget still was part of the School of Journalism, but it was separate from other sequences, carrying the numbers 2353-6002, 2353-1700 (income), 1640-6002 and 1640-1700. Sources other than Journalism are noted.

B. Faculty and Staff.

The quality of the faculty had always been good (as rated by the AEJ) but there weren't enough people, and some of them were "light" in professional experience. In the period of 1973-81 this would change for the better. (It had always been clear from the data and accrediting reports that we needed help, and we finally got it.) There were four fulltime faculty in 1973. By August, 1981, there were six fulltime and six related faculty. There were, obviously, a number of changes through the years. Most people who left did so in order to accept a faculty position with higher rank and/or more responsibility. Some left to join the industry. One died.

In 1973, Dale Gadd was able to move to a tenure track position after a one-year appointment. But Dave Dary, who had taught the news courses, became Director of University Public Relations which cut down his teaching assignments considerably. The news line was filled in the fall of 1974 by Paul Smeyak. Paul had both advanced degrees and good experience in broadcast news. Dave Dary had started to bring some rigor into the courses and Smeyak was even more of a task master. He was an excellent teacher, and at last (we thought) there would be stability in this area. But he was too good not to be noticed, and in 1978 he accepted a position as head of the RTV program at Florida State. Once again Dary was able to pick up some of the slack because he had, in 1975, returned to the J-school fulltime. However, his primary responsibility remained in the News-Editorial sequence.

Elizabeth (Betty) Czech had done an excellent job of improving student skills in writing and had prepared them well for the responsibilities connected with an on-air radio station. But in 1975 she left to go back to her roots, accepting a tenured position at the University of North Carolina. Her husband had died the year before, and she felt the need to be closer to her family. We were able to fill her line with Ernie Martin, an outstanding research person -- a PhD who had been working with the leading broadcast consulting company in the country. Ernie came in the fall of 1975. He became the supervisor of KJHK at its critical start-up, and he taught the graduate research courses for RTVF and for the School of Journalism. Martin would stay until 1978, when the lure of commercial broadcasting became too much. He became Vice President for Research of the Cox Broadcasting Group, headquartered in Atlanta. When he left, Dale Gadd accepted the responsibility of faculty supervisor of KJHK.

In 1975 Tom Hedrick returned to the academic life after many years as a play-by-play announcer for both university and professional sports. He replaced Jerry Bailey, who had decided to move on to other responsibilities in commercial broadcasting. Tom taught in the performance area and once again directed the KU Sports Network.

Francis Ellis continued to teach the beginning module in cinematography until it was scrapped. When that happened he assumed greater responsibility for the supervision of all film equipment, the film labs and the processing and printing of film stock. Rod Davis, who had been the basic engineer for the program since its inception in 1955, continued to be responsible for the television lab in Flint, and he also took care of all of the equipment at KJHK. It became an unworkable stretch, especially when the new color TV labs opened in Jolliffe Hall and the black and white studio remained at Flint. A new engineer, Rick Lucas, was hired in 1979 to supervise all of the new color television equipment and the studio at Jolliffe Hall, while Rod Davis continued to be responsible for the B/W studio at Flint plus KJHK.

There were no changes in the faculty and staff in 1976, and only a few in 1977. In that year, Richard Colyer, an Asst. Prof. of English, asked for a joint appointment in Speech and Drama. He was interested in teaching courses in the area of film studies. At the same time that the courtesy appointment was made available for Colyer, the Department of Speech and Drama was given a new faculty line for a fulltime person in film and a search began. Also in that year, Richard Wright resigned as the manager of KANU in order to accept a fulltime appointment as an Asst. Prof. in the School of Fine Arts, where he would teach classes in jazz history. Wright continued to air his very popular saturday morning programs of jazz on KANU. Howard Hill, a graduate of Kansas State and a man of considerable experience in radio broadcasting, was hired to be the new manager of KANU. He also supervised some of the interns at the station.

There were many changes in 1978. Charles (Chuck) Berg was appointed on the new film studies line, as an Asst. Prof. of Speech and Drama. He would teach the courses in film history and, later, in "pop" culture. Because of his presence and background it was possible to reinstate the major option in Film Studies which had been dropped with the departure of Richard MacCann. An interesting side-bar on Prof. Berg: He had been an undergraduate at KU and had become very interested in film as a student of MacCann. Later he finished a doctorate under MacCann at Iowa and then taught at Queens before returning to Mt. Oread.

The faculty line left vacant by Ernie Martin was filled by Mae Sunada. For many years, she had been the head of the continuity department at a large network "owned and operated" station in Los Angeles. Prior to this appointment she had decided to leave commercial broadcasting and work for an advanced degree with the ultimate objective of teaching at the college level. The job description at KU called for someone with at least a master's degree and a few years of experience. The search committee was most impressed with her resume, and decided that her many years of experience were worth as much or more than the degree. She was hired with the proviso that she finish the masters degree. It proved to be a wise decision. She was a demanding teacher and she was an expert in the areas of operations and continuity writing. Woe to any student who missed a deadline or handed in a late paper; this just wasn't done in broadcasting and so it was not acceptable in class! Unfortunately, Mae became terminally ill of cancer, and she died in Lawrence in June, 1980.

By 1978 it was proving difficult to find someone with advanced degrees plus experience in the area of news. Prof. Gadd, speaking for the search committee, reported that "the salary simply was too low to attract anyone who had significant professional experience in news.40 The search continued. Meanwhile, it was critical that there be someone on the staff to work with color television production in the new studio. And so, while the national search for a news person was in progress, we were able to hire Hal Himmelstein for one year on a non tenure-track appointment. Hal was already at KU, finishing a masters degree in RTVF. He had some experience in color television production and he did an outstanding job of supervising the new color television studio at Jolliffe Hall.

In the meantime the news search continued. By January, 1979, no viable candidates had surfaced and so the committee rejected all the applicants and re-opened the search. This time the degree requirement was lowered to the masters level and the level of required professional experience in news was raised. The strategy had seemed to work in the case of Mae Sunada and so it was tried once again. This time the search was successful. George Rasmussen was offered the position, and he started teaching in the fall of 1979 as an Asst. Prof. of Journalism. Rasmussen had extensive experience as a news director at a television station in Boston and he also had produced a number of motion picture documentaries. It was a long jump from the east coast and his sailboat on Cape Cod to the plains of Kansas, but the timing was good -- the Rasmussen children were ready for college and he was tired of the daily grind of a metropolitan television station. (In 1979, two members of the faculty -- Mae Sunada and George Rasmussen -- represented 43 years experience in commercial broadcasting.)

There was some extra money available because of other vacancies in the School of Journalism, and the Dean decided to use the funds to bring in a series of industry professionals for short courses. Thus, two former students, Hoite Caston and Richard Kelton, by then professionals in film, came back to give short seminars. Elmer Lower, a former president of the news division of a national network, visited in November of 1979, and he would return many times in the next ten years, once for a semester. Art Kean, who had taught briefly in Theatre and RTVF at KU in the fifties, returned to offer a two-week seminar in television production and writing in October, 1979. By that time Art had a number of screen credits to his name. In like fashion, famed film and television producers Bud Yorkin and Norman Lear made professional visits, much to the delight of the RTVF majors.

In looking for a replacement for Mae Sunada the search committee decided that once again the job description would stop short of a PhD so long as there was significant professional experience. This time the search was for someone who could teach in the area of management and who also had experience with the new area of cable television -- reflecting the suggestion of the RTVF Advisory Board. Sam Elliott was hired, beginning in the fall of 1980. He seemed to have admirable qualifications -- a masters degree in business administration from KU, long experience in radio station management (his father had been a pioneer Kansas broadcaster) and actual ownership of a cable system in western Kansas. Elliott also would take on the supervision of KJHK some years later, when Gadd resigned from the faculty.

The last person to be hired in this time period was Janice Platt. She joined the faculty as an Assistant Professor of Journalism (the first appointment that was not "joint" with Speech.) She had just finished her doctorate at Missouri, where she also had won the Chancellor's award as the outstanding TA. She would teach the beginning course and television production.

Through all of this period Mrs. Pat English continued as the "department secretary." Because of the growing size of the RTVF area -- more faculty, more students, greater lab operations -- the School also provided funds for parttime student help in the office as well as in the several labs.

To summarize, a number of faculty members were connected with this program in the period from 1973 to August, 1981. An asterisk following the name indicates they were no longer with the program by the latter date. Fulltime members were:

Charles Berg (PhD, Assoc. Prof. of Speech and Drama.
     Elizabeth Czech* (PhD), Assoc. Prof. of Speech and Journalism.
     Peter Dart (PhD), Prof. of Speech and Journalism.
     Sam Elliott (MBA), Asst. Prof. of Speech and Journalism.
     Dale Gadd (PhD), Assoc. Prof. of Speech and Journalism.
     Hal Himmelstein* (MA), Lecturer, Speech and Drama.
     Bruce Linton (PhD), Prof., Speech and Journalism.
     Ernie Martin*(PhD), Asst. Prof. Speech and Journalism.
     Janice Platt (PhD), Asst. Prof. Speech and Journalism.
     George Rasmussen (MA), Asst. Prof. Journalism.
     Paul Smeyak* (PhD), Asst. Prof. Journalism.
     Mae Sunada* (MS), Asst. Prof. Speech and Journalism.

The following related faculty taught courses and were members of the RTVF Committee:

Richard Colyer (PhD), Asst. Prof. of Speech and English.
     David Dary (MS), Asst. Prof. Journalism.
     Francis Ellis Lecturer, Journalism.
     Tom Hedrick (MA), Lecturer and Director, Sports Network.
     Howard Hill (MA), Director, KANU.
     Glenn Price (MA), Asst. Prof. and Asst. Chair, Speech and Drama.
     Tom Rea (PhD), Prof. Speech and Drama.
     Richard Wright (MFA), Asst. Prof. Fine Arts.

C. Curriculum.

1. The Undergraduate Program.

The RTVF Committee was engaged in a what seemed to be a continual study of the curriculum in this period. Discussions were prompted by the several requests from the administration that each unit do a self-study, as described earlier. They also were a result of administrative policies, such as the increasing use of SCHR yield for budget purposes or a directive from the Regents to re-number courses. As discussed in Chapter IV, the amazing changes in technology made course changes necessary, as did the appearance of new faculty members with new or different areas of expertise. Finally, some discussions were necessary to prepare materials for the accrediting process in Journalism (it was reaccredited in 1978) and for meetings of the RTVF Advisory Board.

A number of courses were revamped or even dropped from the curriculum, and new ones were added. The courses required for a major in RTVF, whether through Journalism or Speech and Drama, were changed and a new option was offered through the latter program. Several of the important changes will be discussed in this section, and a listing of the requirements for two different years of the period can be found in the appendix.

First, as to the "modules." As Prof. Dart noted, RTVF never did receive the type of equipment that was envisioned when planning them.41 (Basic to the whole concept were study carrels equipped with audio/video playback and many small portable video cameras and recorders, none of which materialized.) Modules continued to change in credit, several were merged, and some were expanded to a full semester. Finally --and with regret -- the concept was abandoned. We returned to production courses of three or four hours credit. Jo/Sp 585, Color Television Production (3) was approved in 1978 (coincident with the arrival of the color television equipment) and in 1980 the basic television production course moved to 3 hrs with a new number, 482. In that same year a four hour course in film production (Jo/Sp 481, Film Production I) was introduced.42

Was the "modules" concept wasted effort? I think not. The students did learn basic production in an efficient manner, and their work in the advanced courses was, we thought, of significantly higher quality. Also, the faculty became much more efficient in the teaching of basic production skills. The modules would have been even more effective if the proper equipment had been available. Would they work today? Probably. Labs are very well equipped. And while the students today are not as "technically disadvantaged" as those of 1972 (indeed, most are quite at home in the computer world), the new equipment and technical procedures of production are very complex. Also, basic skills in video production are needed by all students who wish to work in the field of modern communications.

A new course in radio programming and sales was added in 1975, to be taught by a new professor, Ernie Martin. In 1980, the faculty began planning for a course in cable television. The next year a new course, Jo 596 (3) Cable Television, was approved and it was taught by a new faculty member, Sam Elliott. This action effectively answered a criticism from the RTVF Advisory Board that we were not paying enough attention to the impact of cable.43

Two core courses for the new Film History area were revised in 1978: Sp 381, History of the Motion Picture, became 381, History of the Silent Film; Sp 382, History of the Motion Picture--Europe, became 382, History of the Sound Film; and Sp 383, History of the International Film, was added. All were three hour courses.

A new course was added to the Speech side in 1980 -- RTVF 580 (3) American Pop Culture of the 1930's. It also was cross-listed in the departments of Humanities and Music History, with team teaching by Chuck Berg, Richard Wright and Richard Hardin.

A very interesting experiment in teaching began in the spring of 1980, which gave some additional credence to the umbrella concept of the program. Tom Rea, of the Division of Theatre in Speech and Drama, offered a course in Television Acting, Sp 705; I offered a course in Television Directing, Sp 682. We taught both courses in team fashion, meeting at the same time in the television studios. Tom's students were all actors with considerable stage experience but with no knowledge of the special demands of acting in front of a camera. At the same time, my students had directing experience relating to news and documentary programming, but none in working with live talent in a dramatic situation. We picked theatrical scenes which would challenge the actors. For the most part the scenes were relatively simple to produce in our studio, making it possible for the directors to concentrate on getting a performance from an actor and planning the "blocking" (actor and camera movement.) It was a wonderfully successful experiment and it lasted for several years, until the untimely death of Prof. Rea.

Along with the changes in courses came several changes in the requirements needed to fulfill the options. Several of the major changes will be noted here, but the reader may find the full listing of requirements for two of the years in this period in the appendix.

By 1979 a student could choose two major sequences in Speech and Drama. The "General Option" consisted of a core of six courses, plus six hours from either a group of courses in performance and production or a group in social issues and criticism. The "Film Studies" option required courses in film history, aesthetics and writing. On the Journalism side no new sequences were introduced. The existing ones had changes, both in title and required courses. Thus, in 1976, the emphasis in Broadcast Sales/Management became, simply, Broadcast Management. But it changed again, in 1979, to Operations-Sales/Management, to reflect the importance of daily operations and programming.

Several problems related to the curriculum continued to bug the RTVF Committee. There was a running battle in the School of Journalism over the "35 hour" requirement. (Students in the School could count only 35 hours of journalism toward the hours needed for graduation, and the faculty members and students of the RTVF and Advertising sequences where especially concerned.) In 1973 the faculty had voted that all RTVF courses had to count as Journalism -- even film history courses. The faculty from RTVF continued to argue that the latter courses were hardly professional in nature and, in 1975, the faculty finally agreed to exclude them from the list.44 (New film history courses introduced in 1979 also were excluded.) We also argued that the 35 hour limit itself was unrealistic, considering the increasing range of courses related to electronic communications. In this we were partly successful -- the School Committee retained the limit rule but approved the concept of "being flexible" on a case-by-case basis when necessary.45 The general faculty voted to approve.

The crosslisting of some RTVF courses with Speech and Journalism sometimes caused problems. For example, as student credit hours began to be very important in budget decisions the "ownership" of such credit became more important. Any new course clearly had to be Speech or Journalism or it would be crosslisted. Even older courses were reconsidered. Thus, Speech 280, Introduction to Radio and Television, was not crosslisted, but when this course became a"Principal" course in the College, resulting in a significant increase in enrollment by non-majors looking for an interesting course to fulfill a requirement in the College, Journalism desired crosslisting. By having the course crosslisted, Journalism hoped to be able to attract a few college enrollments thereby increasing its student credit hour production. This did happen, but most freshmen and sophomores elected to enroll under the Speech number, giving Speech the greater SCHR yield. But to complicate matters, the salary of the instructor was equally split between Speech and Journalism, which hardly seemed fair, at least to Journalism. This general problem was never solved completely, and it became a subject of concern in the "Memorandum of Understanding" which was discussed in a previous section of this chapter.

The internship program, which had begun in 1958, continued to grow in popularity. Students were gaining valuable experience at many stations, cable systems, production houses and advertising agencies. However, there were some problems that still seem to be of concern. First, should an intern be paid? In general, the faculty and students preferred this type of arrangement even though the student might not receive credit. Aside from the welcome money, by being paid the student would be considered a professional, and later this experience would look good on the record. Of course, for several reasons -- mostly economic -- the companies preferred to have interns who were working for credit.

With the "credit system" the questions became, how many hours of an internship could be credited to graduation, what should the nature of the work be, and how much of it should be required for each hour of credit earned? The policy of the School of Journalism in this period was that the maximum credit for the three intern courses (188, 388, 688) could not exceed six hours toward graduation. As to the nature of the work, the student needed to be given experiences which would go beyond being a lacky or "gopher" -- experiences actually worth credit. And there had to be a reasonable limit on the hours worked. By the mid seventies both KU and K-State had developed a working agreement with Kansas broadcasters whereby the student would work for 48 hours for one hour of credit, with a maximum of two hours at each enrollment. In addition, a representative of the station would provide a written report on the performance of each intern.

The courses being offered by RTVF in any given semester continued to be listed separately in the printed course schedules under the heading "RTVF" as well as under the appropriate department or school, for the convenience of the student. This gave the full picture of the offerings. There had been no problem with this procedure, but as printing costs moved upward there was pressure to remove the separate listings from the formal catalogs of each school or college. The RTVF Committee responded to the administration by noting that RTVF was a complex program, and that 22 years of experience had shown us how easy it was for students to become confused as to requirements and crosslisting. Bobby Patton of Speech and Del Brinkman of Journalism both endorsed our arguments and the separate listings continued.46

RTVF was a complex program to understand, and our many changes of courses and requirements certainly did not help matters. Therefore, the advising process became even more important than usual. The J-school had a well deserved reputation for careful advising, but the changes provided quite a challenge. In my opinion, the RTVF faculty were very aware of the dangers of misinformation or lack of information, and they were willing to make an extra effort to see that no one got into trouble.

2. The Graduate Program.

The graduate program continued to grow. From 1958 through 1981 the Masters program had been completed by 108 candidates. Twenty eight received the Master of Science degree (a project rather than a thesis -- first offered in the fall of 1973) and 80 received the MA.

When the graduate program was initially approved the Dean of the Graduate School, John Nelson, felt that it should have a single academic home, unlike the undergraduate program. It was assumed that the separate degree might provide greater visibility and result in faster growth. He assigned it to the Department of Speech and Drama rather than to Journalism, which was acceptable to both Dean Waggoner and Dean Marvin. The major reason for this action was that Speech and Drama was willing to accept a separate graduate program with a degree labeled "RTVF." This was nothing new -- there already were several "independent" programs in that department. Journalism, however, wished to continue offering only a degree under the broad title of "Journalism," which (to us) did not adequately describe the new program. As RTVF grew there were occasional discussions about including it in Journalism, but the faculty therein still did not want to have the separate degree. The RTVF people, of course, were quite happy to continue the status quo and hope for greater visibility.

This does not mean that there was emnity or jealousy. In fact, at various times there was a great deal of cooperation between the programs, starting with the reality that most of the faculty members held joint appointments. At one time Dennis Lynch taught a beginning research course for RTVF which also was used by Journalism. And, late in the period, the courses in research methods taken by RTVF graduate students were those that were offered and staffed by Speech Communications and Human Relations.

Perhaps the most important change in this period was the addition of the non-thesis, project degree -- a Master of Science in RTVF -- first offered in the fall of 1973. There were two possible paths: Emphasis in Community Broadcasting, and Emphasis in Non-Theatrical Film. The MS candidate had to complete 33 hours of graduate work, pass a comprehensive written exam and an oral exam, complete a fulltime internship or employment experience of at least 4 months and show evidence of creativity in the work.47

An additional option was added to the MA degree in 1978 -- Broadcast Administration/Operations. This was open only to a student who already had experience in professional broadcasting. It was felt that this might be an attractive option for some of the professionals nearby, especially in the Kansas City area, and some courses could be taught in Kansas City rather than at the Lawrence campus. The new option also might help solve a fairly common problem: How can a program such as RTVF (or Journalism or any professional area) offer graduate courses of an advanced and professional nature to students with significant professional experience beyond the BA or BS as well as to those with absolutely no professional experience, and perhaps not even coursework in the field at the BA level. The usual procedure for those students with little or no background was to require them to take several of the key undergraduate courses before attempting advanced work -- a requirement probably not needed for a person with significant professional experience.

The numerous changes of degree options, requirements, courses numbers and content and miscellaneous ground rules made it necessary to publish a new "procedures guide" for the candidate. There always had been such a guide, but in this period it was necessary to revise it twice -- in the mid-seventies and again in 1980.

D. Students.

The Legislature,and Regents were, by the mid-seventies, using numbers and formulas as a basis for budget decisions. One such number was that of the yield of student credit hours from each class in every department. More SCHR yield meant that more dollars would be available. That was the theory. Unfortunately it didn't always happen. However, the drop-off of SCHR -- even a few hours -- always seemed to result in a budget cut. At times it seemed to the academic units that it was a no-win situation: Increased numbers never resulted in quite enough dollars, but decreased numbers meant cuts. The strategy was obvious -- go for as much credit hour yield as possible and hope for the best.

Another important measuring stick was the number of majors in an academic program, both undergraduate and graduate. More majors meant more classes, more sections, and greater SCHR yield.

RTVF was doing fairly well in the numbers game. As noted in the section on curriculum, there was a significant increase in SCHR -- over 3000 total hours. Some of this was due to increased enrollment in Sp/Jo 280, which had become a "principal" course in the College. Also, the number of majors shot up in the beginning of this period (and then leveled off in the late seventies when the whole University experienced an enrollment decline.) By the fall of 1980 there were 112 RTVF majors through Journalism and 130 through Speech and Drama. The Speech total was helped by strong growth in the new area of "Film Studies" -- 60 majors. Also in that year there were 40 graduate students.48

Why the growth? There is no specific answer, but one may speculate. Perhaps the biggest reason is that the media were, more than ever, in the public consciousness. Vietnam, the cold war, Watergate and other issues fed the public interest in news. More young people began to consider a career in the media. We tried to capitalize on this interest by developing brochures to "brag" about our program. And with the addition of color television equipment, it was possible to be quite positive about the "professional" educational experience awaiting the potential student.

In the early seventies the Office of Academic Affairs encouraged departments to develop strategies for the recruitment of minorities, and undoubtedly some majors appeared because of these efforts.49

More women were attracted to the program, especially in the later years of this period. A number of women's organizations (especially NOW) had been calling attention to the low profile of women in broadcasting. The FCC began to demand that more information as to the employment of women be included in the re-licensing documents. As a result, more women could be seen and heard as news reporters, anchors and general talent. They were getting more important jobs as advertising executives, writers, directors and producers. At last, when advising young women on media career possibilities, we could be much more positive about what was available.

To a lesser degree the same was true in regard to racial minorities. There was similar pressure from the FCC to provide significant job opportunities for them. Stations responded quickly. At first the pressure was to hire almost anyone who could look reasonably good and who could read a teleprompter, regardless of educational background or media experience. The results were mixed. Slowly there was improvement in quality as more minority people, especially blacks, began to go to college, where many of them chose to major in some aspect of communications.

Scholarships provided another avenue for studying at KU. The School of Journalism had developed a large number of scholarships, and the RTVF students (in Journalism) were eligible for some of them, especially the awards given in the name of Rolla Clymer.

More scholarships were developing specifically for RTVF students. In 1975 a very promising young major, Fred Hesser, was killed while working at a parttime job in Lawrence. His parents established a scholarship in his name to be given to a student who showed an outstanding sense of responsibility and professionalism.50 It was a great help for many years. In 1981 two alumni, Jay and Marcia Cooper, who had married after graduation, provided an award in "radio performance." In 1981 another alumnus, William Harmon provided a $1000 scholarship to be given in my name, as a tribute to my teaching -- obviously very heartwarming to me as well as to the student who received it. The Country Music Association provided an annual scholarship of $1000 which ran for several years.51

Several students competed successfully for significant scholarships which were awarded by the National Association of Broadcasters. Lisa Blinzer and Keith Severedge won two of the ten awards which were given in 1979. Another source of help for students were the scholarships and internship opportunities provided to both KU and K-State by the Kansas Association of Broadcasters.

Potential majors may also have been attracted by increased opportunities to experience an internship while in school -- getting that invaluable professional experience. The internship program had been greatly expanded, and by the seventies many stations and other communications companies were providing opportunities for students to work for pay or for credit. It was especially satisfying that more opportunities were being made available at KANU-FM, especially for graduate students in the area of news.52 By 1976 the station was at last fulfilling a role to which it had been assigned in 1955.

So, how were all of these students doing after they graduated? By 1976 the RTVF program had been in existence for over twenty years. In the period of 1955-1975 there were 591 graduates who had majored in RTVF, and it was time to chart their progress. There was no money to do a fullscale mailing, but by using the records of the Alumni Association and by going through the unsolicited correspondence or calls from alums it was possible to conclude that at least 42 percent worked in communications. (The RTV Committee felt certain that the percentage was even higher but it couldn't be documented; therefore, all "unknowns" were considered to be working outside of communications.) Thirteen percent of the known alums were in higher management -- station managers, owners, film company owners, etc.. Twenty three percent were in news and sports -- a surprising number considering the fact that the news area had not been a strong. Eleven percent were in higher education. The remainder were in many miscellaneous areas including sales, marketing and promotion. And in the materials supplied to the Commonwealth Corporation for the film grant (mentioned earlier) it was noted that there were a large number of alumni working in the medium of film -- primarily as writers, directors and editors. There were, for example, twenty former students in high level positions in film companies in Kansas City, Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles and even Hong Kong.53 A later study, in 1979, showed that 174 graduates were working in Kansas media, and 345 were working in other states and foreign countries.54

By 1980 the RTVF Committee authorized an annual recognition for an "outstanding graduate" of the program, which would be given at "Telecommunications Day." The first one was awarded to Bill Kurtis, an outstanding network news reporter, anchor and writer, then in Chicago. He was especially noted for his work as an investigative reporter. In 1981 the award went to Terry Shockley, of Madison, Wisconsin. Terry had started his career as a radio time salesman, and by the time he received this honor he was President of the Wisconsin Television Network. (It is beyond the resources of this writer to attempt to list all of the graduates of the RTVF program and their accomplishments. Among them are the owners of radio, television and film companies, network anchors and correspondents, nationally known play-by-play announcers, writers and directors who have produced films for television and theatre release, teachers and many more in all types of media positions. The appendix contains a listing of those alums who have received special recognition from RTVF.)

E. Laboratory Operations: Facilities and Equipment.

1. Facilities.

At the beginning of this period (fall, 1973) RTVF had facilities all over the campus: Most of the faculty offices were in Flint, while labs or classes were taught in Flint, Hoch, Sudler Annex, KANU and Murphy Hall. There was an audio production lab in the basement of Hoch, in space formerly occupied by KUOK, which had moved that spring to the remodeled Sudler Annex. Film editing was in the old TV control room area above the Hoch stage ("stage left") and also in a study carrel on the second floor in the front of the building. The TV studio and control room was in Flint, in space formerly used by the University Press.

As in previous years, the RTVF Committee and the Dean of Journalism continued to push for new space -- ideally a communications building for RTVF. The response to our several requests was roughly in the form of, "yes, we agree there is a need, but other (more important?) programs have priority." Possibly one reason for not making the list is that there was a proposal to merge the facilities of RTVF with those of Instructional Television. Discussions dragged on for a year before being terminated. But even if RTVF had made the priority list our space problems were in need of faster solutions. (The time span to make the priority list, get funding, plan the building and then build it could be measured in years, probably a decade.) The short-term answer was to get the present RTVF space remodeled and to find additional space, which also would have to be remodeled. Here we were reasonably successful.

The first move came in the fall of 1974, but it was not initiated by RTVF. Station KANU was badly in the need for additional space for offices and record storage. They requested the use of the old TV control room area in Hoch, then being used for film editing. RTVF agreed to vacate the space providing the administration could find better and more permanent quarters for film editing. A temporary move was to CRINC, on west campus. Later, the search for better quarters turned up the possibility of using the second floor of Jolliffe Hall. It had been a scholarship hall and the original small study rooms would make excellent editing "bays." (The first floor was being used by a Head Start program.) Jolliffe was an old building, but structurally sound. In 1976 the administration approved our request to more the television studio from Flint to the first floor of Jolliffe, which would be remodeled to house the new color equipment. The black and white TV equipment remained in Flint until 1981 when that, too, moved to Jolliffe along with the 16mm film processing and broadcast news.

In the meantime, changes were taking place in Flint Hall. These were gradual at first, but accelerated to a remodeling of the whole building. In 1974, $200,00 was appropriated to create new offices and a multi-media classroom out of the third floor attic-storage area. In the summer of 1975 some changes were made in several areas assigned to RTVF -- the TV studio area, the basement room that housing the 16mm processor and the offices in 217. Then came the big one: Complete remodeling of Flint. It had been remodeled in the late forties to be the home of Journalism, but it also housed the University Press and a unit from the School of Fine Arts on the ground floor. Except for the remodeling just described and other changes to accomodate RTV in the fifties, very little had been done. It was more than ready for a complete overhaul. When it became obvious that the Industrial Design and Ceramics units of Fine Arts were to move to the new Fine Arts building the Dean of Journalism asked for -- and received -- the assignment of that space for Journalism. Requests were made for the funding of a complete renovation, and in 1979 the Legislature approved $864,000 for that purpose. After what seemed to be an eternity, funds became available, and work began in the summer of 1981. During the renovation the faculty and classes would have to be housed elsewhere. Most of the RTV faculty were moved to Blake Annex; faculty from other sequences went to Carruth-OLeary.

As mentioned earlier, there were a number of discussions and requests relating to more functional and permanent quarters for RTVF. By 1979 it looked as if our prayers might be answered -- not by the State of Kansas but by an alumnus. He would provide the money to build a modern communications building on the West Campus to house RTVF, KANU and Audio Reader. In fact, discussions and plans had progressed to a point that when assignments were made for housing in the remodeled space of Flint RTVF would not be included. This program would move to the new communications building, probably in 1983. In the meantime it would continue to use Jolliffe Hall and Blake Annex.

That is the broad picture of the many changes which took place. In the interest of a historical record, several of these will now be discussed in more detail.

First, the proposed merger of equipment and facilities with ITV. This proposal had come about as a result of the work of the Communications Task Force which had been appointed by Chancellor Nichols in 1972. In 1973, Chancellor Dykes directed that the Task Force Committee continue to explore possible solutions to the sorry state of campus A/V equipment and facilities. In the spring of 1974 this Committee suggested to the Chancellor that a solution to one problem might be the merging of the equipment and facilities of RTVF and ITV, probably to be housed in the ITV space in the old post office in downtown Lawrence.55 The Chancellor asked Executive Vice Chancellor Shankel to meet with the Committee for further discussions.56 These continued for almost a year, by which time a proposal had emerged wherein there would be an "Audio-Visual Resources Center." RTVF class labs and production work would be a part of it. Moreover, the Center would be responsible for, "the coordination of all purchases, maintenance, rental and general development of audio-visual resources for the Lawrence campus."57 Such a large unit might even need additional space, such as old Green Hall. The grandiose plan soon fell apart, the victim of sober second looks. A major problem was that the administration made no promises about funding or priority; this could easily be another case of "making do" but under a different umbrella. The RTVF faculty feared that the academic program would soon be swallowed by the demands for A/V service and that studio time for classes and class projects would be extremely limited. With regret, and with the blessing of Dean Brinkman, the RTVF Committee withdrew its support. RTVF would now return "to the basic task of asking for equipment and space to support the academic program...(to function) as an academic program and not as a service department."58

In the meantime, film editing had to move. The search for this space was especially frustrating. One administrator would indicate that a certain space was available and then another would tell us it was not. (In my annual report I noted that "some of us find much confusion and lack of communication below the offices of the 'big three' and hope that some attention will be given to this matter in the future.")59 Finally, temporary space was found, and on Sept. 2, 1975, Building and Grounds moved all of the equipment from Hoch to CRINC. It was agreed that this was a temporary move. Thank goodness. We were given two small rooms for editing and another room to serve as a small classroom. Minimum size, but acceptable. The location, however, was very inconvenient. Several times a week faculty members and as many as 15 students had to leave the main campus and get to the space almost a mile away and then find a parking place. Experiencing this situation for a year made everyone aware that physical separation from the main campus could be a major problem. It justified the concern the faculty had when considering the off-campus merger with ITV. And in 1980, when plans were being made for the communications building on West Campus, the issues of transportation (bus?) and parking received a great deal of attention.

Dean Brinkman was quite aware of our problems with the space in Flint Hall. There wasn't enough office space, there was no lab for broadcast news, and the lack of adequate circulation of fresh air made the 16mm film processing space rather dangerous. In June, 1975, he announced that money had been appropriated to take care of several problems. Some office stalls would be created in 217, taking the space from a large reception area. By using some space from the TV studio, two small rooms would be constructed to house a small audio production room and an announce booth from which to originate news stories for KJHK. A fresh air ventilating system would remove the dangerous fumes which collected when the film processor was used.60

During the 1974-75 school year the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs searched for different quarters for film editing. We were shown two houses -- formerly private homes -- owned by the Endowment Association and adjacent to the east side of the campus. These were in terrible shape and were unacceptable to the RTVF Committee. No one wanted to teach there and certainly no one wanted to have an office there. In the spring someone mentioned Jolliffe Hall, a former scholarship hall. This building was located down the hill below Watkins Scholarship Hall, about a block from 14th street. The exterior was grim and the first floor was being used by the Head Start Program. The University had been doing very little to maintain the appearance of the building since it was scheduled for demolition "sometime in the future." But it had several positive points: The second floor consisted of a series of study rooms off of a central hall. These would make excellent editing room, and even an office or two for any faculty who wished to be there. Two larger rooms at the front of the building would be good for the storage and checkout of 16mm film cameras and other equipment. There were bathroom facilities. There was an adjacent playground (for Head Start) which could become a parking lot. The building seemed to be structurally sound in spite of the peeling paint on the exterior. Also, it was a short walk (albeit on a steep hill) for faculty and students alike.

Academic Affairs agreed to the move, and some remodeling began. The second floor was cleaned and painted and film editing moved in during the summer of 1975. In 1976 all of the second floor wiring was brought up to code, and many receptacles were added. After a few months in the building it became obvious to several people that Jolliffe had the potential to be our next "temporary" production space for television. In a memo, Prof. Peter Dart recommended that we ask for the whole building. The large dining room and kitchen area on the first floor could be remodeled into a good studio and control room for the color equipment, and a second studio could be made out of the large adjacent living room. The front rooms were good for storage of television equipment. Access to the front and rear of the building (for the loading of equipment) was excellent, although the parking area was small. The move also would create additional space in Flint for the expansion of other programs in Journalism.61 I passed on the request to the Dean, noting that while we retained some interest in (old) Green Hall we had found Jolliffe satisfactory for editing and, with proper remodeling, it could be good space for television.62 (It should be remembered that these discussions took place before there was any possibility of a new building.)

Vice Chancellor Christoffersen responded positively to the Dean's request for the additional space, and he noted that assuming the building would be found structurally sound "it might qualify for consideration as one of the University repair and improvement projects."63 To our relief Jolliffe was found to be structurally sound, except for the sleeping porch which had been attached to the rear of the building.64 It was estimated that the project would cost $86,200, plus another $30,000 to convert the playground to a parking lot -- a very good deal because a new building of comparable size (3,000 sq. ft.) would cost a minimum of $720,000.65

Even so, RTVF was asked to prioritize the request. The first priority was to remodel the first floor for the television studios and control rooms. The second stage would put the broadcast news lab on the second floor, with film. The last would be to remodel the basement to house KJHK. We also asked that every effort be made to save the sleeping porch.66 The Committee suggested that some savings could be achieved by salvaging the control room double windows and the light (pipe) grid from the original studio in Hoch basement. We also learned that a large amount of computer flooring had been salvaged in the remodeling of the engineering building, which would be perfect for the control room floor. The central administration approved these suggestions and made another one -- the air conditioning unit from the Computer Center, which was being replaced, was the right size for Jolliffe.

On June 30, 1977, the administration agreed to remodel the first floor, but only the area for color television. The work would include upgrading plumbing and electric power. There was no indication that the other stages of remodeling would follow. Work would begin in November, 1978, and perhaps the space would be ready in the spring.67 November rolled around but there was no sign of any activity. I mentioned this to Dean Brinkman who prodded Max Lucas. He replied that the holdup had been caused by the lack of a final decision about the use of the air units. These had now been assigned to us and work would begin immediately.68 Of course, there was no way the studio would be finished for the spring semester.

RTVF wanted every square foot of space it could get, so it was a major disappointment to learn, in January, that the sleeping porch was kaput -- it could not be salvaged. A loss of 900 square feet. However, we asked that a new, one-story room be built on the old foundation, which would provide 126 square feet, enough to house the slide and film projector units. This was approved January 27, 1978.69 The remodeling was finished during the fall semester, 1978, just in time for the installation of the new color television equipment. The space was operational in December. It had been two and a half years from the time of our first memo asking for the rest of the building. And this was just for the first phase!

An open house was held in March, 1979.70 At one time the Associate Dean of Journalism, Dana Leibengood, asked me what I really thought about Jolliffe. I replied that it was "seedy luxury." The appearance -- certainly the exterior -- "looked like hell," but, comparing it to the various quarters we had occupied in the previous twenty years, there was ample space, it was all ours and, with luck, all labs (excepting KJHK) would soon be together.

Of course, a year later came the announcement that RTVF would have a new building on west campus. This meant that any additional space provided for RTVF would be temporary, and there would be some reluctance to put money into extensive remodeling. But a new building would not be operational until at least 1983, and the B/W TV studio, broadcast news lab, and 16mm processor had to be out of Stauffer-Flint by May of 1981 so that remodeling could begin there. Where would they go?

The proposal for additional remodeling at Jolliffe had not been approved, and there was no response to our suggestion that the living room area would be a good B/W studio. In fact, the old idea about using space in the old post office was revived. And once again RTVF objected by listing the negatives: Students would have to have access late evenings and weekends; student transportation would be difficult; there was no parking for them, so why not reconsider remodeling at Jolliffe?71 Then another suggestion was floated: Perhaps it would be possible to work out an arrangement with Sunflower Cablevision whereby, in exchange for the use of their space and some equipment, RTVF would provide programming produced by the students. "Wait a gol-durned minute," I fumed in a note to the Dean, '"the classes to be moved (from Flint) are the beginning classes and they can't produce the time of day!"72

V/C Tacha finally decided that funds could be found to remodel the remaining first floor area into a studio and control room. Work started on this phase in the spring of 1981. The next and last stage was approved that year: The basement of Jolliffe would be remodeled to house the Broadcast News lab, the 16mm processor and printer and a classroom.73 It was estimated that the cost would be $22,011 for materials and labor.74 Some money was saved by using the light battens and some of the control room windows from Flint Hall, which worked fine. But other construction was not so satisfactory. For example, there was considerable leakage of sound from one studio to the other, "thanks to the marvelous job of engineering which dictated that our air conditioning return-air would be workable by poking holes in the doors (between them.")75 Our feelings about Jolliffe were perhaps best expressed by one of the engineers: "We have been in more holes than Gophers, and I consider this just another Gopher hole, but I'm not complaining."76 He knew it was our best hole to date.

The last move for RTVF was, perhaps, the most emotional. In May, 1981, most of the Journalism faculty had to move out of their offices in Flint Hall so that remodeling could begin. Many of them moved to Carruth-Oleary. Two RTVF faculty members, -- Peter Dart and George Rasmussen -- moved to Jolliffe Hall, along with Francis Ellis. Rod Davis and Rick Lucas (engineering) were already there. The remainder of the RTVF faculty (with the exception of Chuck Berg, who had an office in Wescoe) moved to Blake Annex. The other Journalism professors (from the other sequences) knew that they would return to Stauffer-Flint, to a familiar exterior and wonderfully new space inside. But for us in RTVF there would be no return. The Jayhawk Journalist published an article about the move, in which several professors shared some memories of Flint Hall. I said, "What will I miss most? Twenty-six years of the best view on campus -- the north office which looks down through that magnificent pine tree down to the lawn, walks and buildings of the central campus. I'll miss our pet squirrels who come to the window for a handout of nuts."77 Later in the article I went on to say that, "There are quite a few things I won't miss at all: the water which drips on my desk every time we have a heavy rain; my drooping plants, victims of wild changes in temperature regardless of thermostat settings; the acoustical tile decor of my office -- remnants of the control room of KUOK, circa 1955; and the lectures of John Bremner, feeding through the walls of 216, in spite of that acoustical tile."78

It was a wrenching experience, no doubt about it. The RTVF people would not come back to Flint; eventually they were going to a new building, or so they thought at the time. There would be no coffee breaks with friends from the other sequences, no quick conversations between classes. It would take a special effort from all concerned to maintain a close relationship. I commented on this in another issue of the JJ: "I guess that with the move to Blake Annex we are in a weaning process. But even when separated we will always be a part of the School."79

Blake Annex was a WWII wooden building directly across the parking lot from the Chancellor's residence. There was actually a double move. First, we moved to a very large room where the several faculty members and our secretary had desks and file cabinets. It was necessary to stay there through the summer of 1981 until the engineering people moved out of their offices into their newly remodeled building. In October we moved into their vacated space. Blake Annex had enough space to house the faculty of RTV, even those who also maintained desks at Jolliffe. There also was room for three large classrooms, so we did not have to go back to Flint to teach most of the coursework. I remember a new faculty member, Janice Platt, remarking that she thought Flint was in a pretty shabby state but it looked like a palace compared to Blake Annex. As Rod Davis would put it, another "gopher hole." But we took comfort in the thought that we would be there only until about 1983 and then we would move to our own, new, state-of-the-art communications building. (At that time we would have been crushed to know that RTVF offices and many classes would continue to be in Blake until the fall of 1989.)

The radio lab, KUOK, (later KJHK) remained in Sudler Annex for this entire period. All remodeling had been completed by September, 1974, and"broadcasting," still by wired wireless, began shortly after. In December came the good news that the administration would support an application for a construction permit to put a low-power educational FM station on the air in place of the wired programming to the dorms. New call letters would have to be found, since "KUOK" was not available. We settled on "KJHK," as shorthand for "Jayhawk."The good news came from the FCC on September 4, 1975. The RTVF Committee had, in the meantime, negotiated an exercise with the National Guard, wherein the "Flying Cranes" would bring a helicopter to "hang" the antenna on an existing tower behind Marvin Hall, the engineering building. The radio signal would go by telephone line from the station to the tower. Our engineer, Rod Davis, volunteered to climb the tower and guide the antenna to its position and secure it properly.80 (He told me later that when the antenna was dangling above his head it was a "scary situation," and he was wondering how he could have been so stupid as to volunteer. I didn't tell him that at the same time I was wondering how I could have been so stupid as to let him do it!) The mission was successful and September 22nd was targeted as the air date. In 1977 the license for the station had to be renewed, and there were no problems in completing the procedure. But we were broadcasting on a power of only 10 watts, which provided a signal that traveled just a few miles beyond the city limits. The FCC helped to solve this problem by requiring that by 1979 all lowpower stations had to increase to 100 watts.81 This meant that a new transmitter had to be funded, purchased and installed in the transmitter "shack" which had been built at the base of the engineering tower. Funding was provided by the Student Senate and the station went to higher power in the fall of 1979. It should not be assumed that these funds came easily -- there were several hearings, and it didn't help matters that there was disagreement in the station staff as to how "alternative" to be.

In the meantime, a few changes had been made in the layout of the station. A new production studio was installed on the upstairs level and the music room (library) was moved to the first floor, closer to the air studio. A few two by fours, a piece or two of wallboard, "egg crate" type foam on the wall and a bit of paint. All of the changes were strictly unofficial, carried out by the engineer and student staff members. The "midnight construction" was done at very little expense and made the use of the space much more efficient. I suspect that several hides could have been nailed to the wall, including mine, if this had been known in certain administrative offices!

The possibility -- perhaps probability -- of a new communications building has been mentioned above. Actually planning was occuring in 1980 and 1981, but the concept had its beginning as early as the summer of 1976. In the spring of that year Dean Brinkman and I had been invited to Junction City to see the cable installation and the radio station owned by Ralph "Bud" Weir, a member of the RTVF Advisory Board. During that visit the Dean and I talked about the positive and negative aspects of the RTVF program, including the critical need for space.82 In the next few months, as a member of the Advisory Board, Weir received a number of documents containing more specific information about the program. Weir could not attend the fall meeting of the Board, but late in the fall he came to Lawrence to see what we were doing. In a follow-up letter to his visit I said, "I share your concern about space...certainly the ideal would be a communications building, properly designed from the first brick."83 I offered my perception that Governor Bennett was not going to be able to solve our space problems because of the poor fiscal condition of the state, and added what I hoped was an idea that might be appealing to him: "At such times we turn to the private sector. If people like yourself can get behind us -- to express an interest in the improvement of our program, or more, if possible -- then perhaps something will happen."

If this was the seed it took a long time to germinate. In the spring of 1979 -- and perhaps earlier than that -- Mr. Weir, Dean Brinkman and Chancellor Dykes had some preliminary discussions about providing funds for a communications facility. (It seems that Weir had sold considerable holdings of cable television companies in seven states to Norman Lear, of "All In the Family" fame, and that quite a few million dollars had changed hands.) It was obvious that both Mr. Weir and his wife were interested in making a contribution which would have a lasting impact, but they were not about to make a quick decision. In July the discussions had moved along enough that I could tell that faculty that, "the interest is strong enough that he wishes to have more specific information about our program -- it's strengths and its weaknesses, and the relationship of a new building to the program."84 (At this time only central administration, some members of the Endowment Association, the Dean and myself knew the identity of the potential donor, and a public announcement would not be made until August, 1980.)

That information was quickly gathered and sent on to Mr. Weir. Luckily, the material was not new and it only had to be re-packaged. One member of the administration called the document, "a thoughtful and thorough summary of Radio-TV-Film."85

Discussions continued, involving several members of the administration and representatives of the programs who would occupy the building -- RTVF, radio stations KJHK and KANU, and Audio Reader. (The members were: Del Brinkman, Dean of Journalism; Ralph Christoffersen, V/C for Academic Affairs; Howard Hill, Manager, KANU; Rosanna Hurwitz, Director, Audio Reader; Keith Lawton, Director of Facilities Planning; Bruce Linton, Director of RTVF; Edward Meyen, Assoc. V/C for Research; Todd Seymour, President, KU Endowment Association; Deanell Tacha, Assoc. V/C for Academic Affairs; and Allen Wiechert, University Director of Facilities Planning.) It should be noted that at this time the west campus was listed as the possible location for the new building.86

In January, 1980, the committee produced the first statement about a "Communications Facility." A beginning section contained a description of general need and philosophy of use. Another section described the general needs of each occupant as to space for studios, edit rooms, storage, offices, etc., and technical requirements, such as acoustical control, air conditioning, power, studio lighting and floor treatment. The statement also contained a projected schedule for planning and construction, as follows:

October, 1980: Schematic design to be started.
     February, 1981: Design development.
     September, 1982: Bids taken for construction.
     November, 1982: Contruction to begin.
     May, 1983: Occupancy.

During the spring of 1980 the Committee tried to pin down the space requirements for each occupant. Of course, each program wanted more space than would be possible. We were like starving children invited to a Thanksgiving feast; the plate couldn't hold all that we wanted to pile on it. RTVF needed space for offices and classrooms. We envisioned TV studios, control rooms, and video editing cubicles. For film there would be film editing rooms and one for audio production. Serving both would be equipment storage and checkout, a learning center (carrels), a graphic arts center and a garage for the remote truck. KJHK would have studios, news labs, production room, music library and offices. For this RTVF would require a minimum of 15,576 sq. ft. The requests from KANU and Audio Reader are not described here, but they were almost as large.

After more specific information became available as to the possible size of the gift and cost of construction, it was obvious that each program occupant would have to cut down. RTVF deleted a general classroom and then combined the checkout rooms of TV, film and radio to knock out 1,095 sq. ft. At the same time we noted that in our opinion (obviously unprejudiced!) the space request from KANU was "terribly inflated," with studios and production rooms larger than KJHK and "offices that didn't conform to the accepted formula for size."87

In the meantime, negotiations had continued between the Weirs, the Endowment Association and central administration. The "point man" in communicating with the Weirs was Del Brinkman. Only he knows how many hours were spent in delicate conversations with them -- trying to consider their legitimate interests and our needs while at the same time maintaining the integrity of higher education. For the building was not yet a "done deal." At one point, in the summer of 1980, the Dean informed me that a "critical meeting" would be taking place. This sounded somewhat alarming, and I was concerned enough to write to both him and the Vice Chancellor, to make sure that the everyone understood that the main goal (for RTVF) was significant support. "We don't want to lose the possibility of substantial aid to our academic program because of a possible 'building or nothing' attitude on the part of KU." After all, we could do many things with a strong endowment.88 Even after the Weirs approved the building concept there were many details to be wrapped up.

The negotiations were completed successfully, and finally the time came to make it all public. At a luncheon on August 8, 1980, Chancellor Archie Dykes announced a gift of $3.5 million from Ralph (Bud) and Barbara Weir. The 40,000 sq. ft. building would house the academic programs of RTVF, stations KJHK and KANU, and Audio Reader. As Del Brinkman remarked, "The gift provides a tremendous breakthrough for our broadcasting program. It should be the spring board for building one of the finest academic programs in broadcasting in the country."89

The fall of 1980 was a busy time for each of the future building occupants. It was necessary to be quite detailed about many concepts or plans which to that point existed only in general form: For example, what equipment would be in the control room, how much space would it occupy, and in what configuration? What would be the ceiling and grid height in the studio? How much electrical power would be needed for all of the electrical equipment and studio lighting, and how much heat would be generated? The list seemed endless. At the same time the committee had to imagine future problems. As reported in one faculty meeting, "The RTVF committee is working on plans for the new building, making projections on equipment and class schedules and looking at possible curriculum changes."90

As the plans jelled it became obvious that more space cuts were necessary. The RTVF space came down to 11,000 sq. ft. but KANU and Audio Reader suffered more severe cuts, ending with 5,000 and 3,000 sq. ft. respectively. (I was told that RTVF might regain 2,000 sq. ft. if the funds designated for site preparation were not all spent.)91

All of this discussion and planning for a new building had both positive and negative aspects. Certainly the attitudes and opinions of the Weirs carried a lot of weight, both positive and negative. They had no interest in spending $3.5 million in support of a program that might go nowhere; they wanted their name attached to one that was going to be on the cutting edge of education for careers in communications. They had a number of suggestions which reflected their vision of the future of electronic communications and the preparation of students, and some which were related to construction details. As to the former, they wanted assurances that the University would provide significant support for the program. They hoped that more attention would be paid to cable television in the curriculum. They voiced concern that the national visibility of the RTVF program would be impaired if it were but a part of the "William Allen White School of Journalism and Public Information."

Most of the suggestions were handled easily, but concern about "visibility" was a different matter. Actually, there had been some early discussion of a possible name change for the School, but thanks to the Weirs (or no thanks, depending on one's point of view) the discussion moved to the front burner on high heat. In an emotional faculty meeting some professors were indignant, claiming that educational decisions were being unduly influenced by potential donors. (The School of Journalism was no stranger to problems which might result from gifts. In 1979, Oscar Stauffer endowed the School with #1 million. About the only condition was that the funds could not be used for anything that could be paid for by state funds. Even so, in 1982 the newly remodeled Flint Hall was renamed "Stauffer-Flint Hall.") During discussion about the name of the School, professors from RTVF reminded the group that the RTVF faculty had been on record as supporting a name change long before Mr. and Mrs. Weir entered the scene. One can only speculate as to the real impact of the Weirs on this issue; the fact remains that a majority of the faculty did approve a motion that the School would be renamed the "William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications." In my opinion, and with the benefit of hindsight, the action came none too soon; the traditional media were to become forever changed by the continuing revolution in technology.

On the whole, the Weirs were delighted with the architect's vision of the building. It would be beautiful as well as functional. In regard to construction, Mrs. Weir wanted to be sure that the roof of the building would have red tile, thus continuing the roofing treatment found on the main campus to buildings on the west campus. There was no controversy on this matter! Also, Mr. Weir wondered if a "museum" of broadcasting artifacts could be worked into the space later -- perhaps in the atrium area. The museum idea was postponed for later discussion, which never took place.

The Weir proposal generated a number of other positive responses. The general publicity resulted in much greater visibility for RTVF on the campus. The central administration made a commitment to provide greater support for the RTVF program, in terms of general funding and increased faculty lines. In the fall of 1980 we were informed that we would be able to replace Prof. Sunada (who had died) and, in addition, we could look for someone to teach in the area of cable communications.92 There also was increased visibility beyond Mt. Oread. RTVF colleagues around the country, became much more aware of the RTVF program at KU. And from the mail inquiries received from many parts of the country, it was obvious that high school and college students were thinking of KU as the place to get an undergraduate or graduate degree.

The major negative of the proposed building was its location on west campus. This would be the first building to house classes and labs for undergraduates at a site far from the main campus. How would we get the students back and forth? How could class labs be scheduled to minimize this transportation problem? What about class size? (For example, Sp 180, Performance, had several sections involving more than 100 students and a studio and TV cameras were essential.) Such discussions were happening as early as the fall of 1980. Lists were made of the courses that had to be taught there and several plans for block scheduling were discussed.93 And while most of the RTVF faculty were excited about working in a professionally designed and equipped building, they were apprehensive about working so far away from the other faculty members in Journalism and Speech and Drama.

Through the spring and summer of 1981 the architects developed the plans and working drawings for the new building, which by now was informally referred to as the "Weir" building. During this time, especially when teaching classes in Jolliffe and Blake Annex, or keeping office hours in Blake, the RTVF faculty could dream about the new space which would be theirs in 1983.

2. Equipment.

There were many advances in communications equipment during the seventies, most of them related to television. Color video cameras and recorders were available in much smaller, portable form. Satellites were in place to receive and pass on the video signals from almost any location. Remote trucks could send the signal skyward to a satellite or straight-line to a station via microwave. As a result, by 1979 only 11 percent of the stations used film for television news.94 Moreover, it was becoming easier to buy quality equipment at a relatively lower price -- an important trend, especially for university users. For example, in 1957 KU purchased two studio video cameras for $25,000 each. These were vidicon-type, industrial quality, marginal for broadcast use. In 1978 we purchased a state-of-the-art professional color camera for $40,000. Two years later portable color cameras of even better quality were available for under $15,000. In my opinion, if the combination of new technology and competition had not resulted in reduced prices KU may never have gotten color equipment.

The upturn in our fortunes may have been signalled in 1976 by a note from Ron Calgaard, the V/C for Academic Affairs, who asked, "what equipment would be necessary in order to have a quality television program in RTVF?"95 In response, RTVF submitted a request for equipment which totalled $120,895. It took two years for this request to be approved and funded, but upgrading began in 1977 when it became possible to purchase a Panasonic portable color camera and tape recorder.96

The breakthrough came in 1978 when we purchased enough equipment to create a broadcast quality color television studio with video editing capability which was then installed in the new studio and control room in Jolliffe. The Delcom company got the bid and made a turnkey installation of the following major items:

2 Hitachi studio color cameras.
     1 Hitachi portable color camera.
     1 Editing system, 3/4" vido.
     1 Control room switcher and chromakey unit.
     1 Character generator.
            Color monitors and camera mounts.

In the following years RTVF received additional portable color cameras, distribution amplifiers, monitors and color editing systems. As reported to COCOA in June 1978, the following was the value of our equipment, not including the $100,000 for the color equipment, on order:

   For the first time in the history of the program we did not have to apologize for the television equipment. A memo to the faculty made the point: "We have a chance to do some fine teaching, produce some good programming and in every way act as proper custodians for some damn fine gear. Let's don't blow it."97

This new equipment prompted a review of security measures in Jolliffe, with mixed results. Sgt. Longaker, of the KU police department, met with all of the faculty, staff and graduate assistants to go over all security procedures. However, the precautions did not prevent a robbery in 1978. On a cold winter night there was a break-in and a number of 16mm cameras and accessories were stolen -- worth around $1300. Either the television equipment was more secure or it wasn't wanted. Several weeks later the equipment was recovered. It had been buried, wrapped in plastic, in a field outside of town. Perhaps the strategy was to wait a few weeks before seeking a buyer. The robber(s) entered through a ground-level window, and so RTVF made an immediate request for funds to bar all of the windows at that level. The request seemed to take a lot of time to wind through the labyrinth of Strong Hall before $6000 was provided to carry out the plans.98 In the meantime, most of the equipment was replaced because it was rusted and unusable. The rest was cleaned and placed in service.

Equipment could be lost by theft and also by the wear and tear of heavy use by students who often were careless or who paid little attention to familiarization procedures. The mind-set of the faculty was probably similar to that of a woman who has acquired very expensive jewelry: She wants to wear it but is terribly afraid of losing it or having it stolen; we wanted the equipment to be used but were concerned about what could happen to it, especially on remotes. A series of memos provided everyone with reminders that students should not use the equipment until we were satisfied they knew how to operate it and would be careful. Thus, "We have to be tough, guys, or this equipment will go down the drain in a couple of semesters. I know it can be done (because)...we've had the Arriflex for over 20 years."99 (The Arriflex was a professional quality 16mm film camera.) Students who checked out equipment were required to sign a form which said, among other things, that they would be liable for any damage which might occur while it was in their possession.

More equipment certainly would be needed regardless of our care. As the plans for the new building were being completed in 1981, the RTVF Committee called attention to the fact that additional color equipment would be needed and it might be necessary to replace much of what we had. For example, new cameras, new editing systems, dimmer controls for the lighting, a cyclorama curtain and new office equipment. From past experience we knew that this would be a long process -- a feeling which was confirmed when the new Chancellor, Gene Budig, visited the School of Journalism. I asked about funding the equipment for the new building. He replied that (as usual) the first budget priority was for merit salary increases for the faculty, and as for equipment, "the strategy will be to obtain a combination of state and private funding."100 Also, as usual.

There were no requests for major items of equipment in this period, because the priority was to bring in color television. The 16mm film cameras and audio recorders were of professional quality and in good condition. However, smaller items, such as lenses, splicers, portable lighting and syncronizers were replaced. Film production activity did receive a boost when Calvin Company of Kansas City offered RTVF a 16mm printer to go with the film processor already in use The $1000 to pay for it came from non-state funds. Now students, especially in the first production course, could shoot more film and have it processed and printed at a very low cost to them.

This was a significant period for the student radio lab. The University had provided two small floors of new studio space in the remodeled Sudler Annex. In 1974 the FCC created spectrum assignments for low power FM, and so KU requested a license to broadcast a signal of 10 watts (the highest possible) on channel 90.7. It was made possible only because the Student Senate was willing to provide a special appropriation to pay for the transmitter. The station, with the new call letters, KJHK, began broadcasting October 1, 1975. In 1978 the FCC decided that all the low power stations had to increase the power to 100 watts or go off the air. Again the Student Senate provided the funds for a transmitter. This obliging group also paid for new stereo equipment (1977), a new audio production board and professional tape playback units.

F. Laboratory Operations: Program Production.

There were a number of problems associated with student RTVF labs, and there still are. One was/is supervision. There must be enough supervision of a lab operation to provide a learning atmosphere while at the same time keeping students from mis-using or abusing expensive equipment. It was fairly easy to cover daytime hours (except weekends) but the nights were another story; graduate student assistants could be scheduled as supervisors, but there wasn't enough money to cover all the hours desired by the students. Thus, station KJHK was on the air through the wee hours. It was impossible to cover all of the on-air hours, so fingers were crossed. Tightly. Many things could go wrong -- fire, equipment damage, personal assaults -- but nothing happened. At least nothing happened that was reported!

The situation was slightly better in the film and TV labs. Of course, students editing film or working in the studio wanted to work all night if a "due date" was imminent. The Committee adopted a simple rule that seemed to work: It said that facilities had to be vacated when the supervisor was scheduled to leave. Of course, the closing was never at a time convenient for the students, but sometimes the supervisor could be persuaded to stay a little longer.

The greater lab activity of the seventies required the review of several long-standing policies, some of which were revised or clarified. For example, there was widespread interest around the campus when it became known that RTVF would have a color television production facility. In late 1977 Ron Calgaard, the V/C for Academic Affairs, asked about our ability to provide A/V services for the University. A year later an assistant Dean in the College suggested that RTVF now was the unit which could provide such services. The reply was the same to both: With certain limitations RTVF could offer a production service to other areas of the University or to outside organizations, BUT it had no responsibility to do so. The limitations were clearly stated:101

1. Projects were secondary to the teaching mission of the area.
     2. Acceptance of the project was based, in part, on its value as a student learning experience.
     3. There could be no guarantee of professional quality since students would be heavily involved in the production.
     4. Clients were subject to production charges (For example, the charge for a scripted film production was $1,000/finished minute.)

One gray area connected to this was the relationship -- if any -- of the RTVF "contract production"to the office of Research Administration. On all University research projects funded from outside sources there was a standard percentage which went to RA for "overhead." Most of the time this office took a very common sense attitude concerning production funds in RTVF: On small projects they looked the other way; on large projects -- the definition of which was another gray area -- the overhead had to be paid.

Finally, this problem: To what extent did the student have "ownership" of the film or television program which he/she had produced? The University legal counsel ruled that if a project was done with University equipment, using University facilities, it remained the property of the University. However, a dub or print of the project would be the property of the student. Later this was amended to give the student a share of any income from distribution or sale of prints.102

1. Radio Programming.

Prior to the station going on the air as KJHK, the faculty advisors (Betty Czech, followed by Ernie Martin) had put together a very specific constitution which clearly stated the philosophy of the station, its structure and chain of command and operating procedures. An important premise stated that KJHK was a training laboratory of the School of Journalism, and ultimate decisions were in the hands of the RTVF Committee and the School.103 The existence of a constitution proved to be very important. It was evidence of our serious intent in matters before the FCC and, years later, it helped settle a jurisdictional dispute between station management and some dissident students. (In succeeding years parts of the constitution and by-laws would change, but not the basic premise.)

October 1, 1975.104 At last the student broadcasters could experience the thrill (and the responsibility, as they soon would learn) of reaching any listener in Lawrence whose radio was tuned to 90.7. The feeling must have been something like that experienced by a kid who had been playing sandlot football, then later began to play on a real team in a stadium filled with real fans who could jeer as well as cheer: There was a lot more than they thought to serious broadcasting! The faculty supervisor, station managers and staff struggled to teach better broadcasting habits to replace the bad ones which had developed on "wired-wireless." ("Who cares what I do, no one is listening.") Certainly in the first years there were noticeable differences in the ability of the on-air students to handle equipment, read copy in an intelligent manner and to ad-lib record introductions. This slowly changed for the better. It was very rewarding, one morning, to have a professor from the news-editorial sequence stop in the RTVF office to report that he had been listening to the radio and was astounded to realize that the professional-sounding newscaster was a student on KJHK. Within a very few years the station was winning awards for news and music in competition with other university radio stations.

There were some embarrassing slips, however. One of the worst happened on an obviously boring news day. Two studens in the news lab thought up a bogus story about an atom bomb being dropped on a town in Iowa. (The "lead" was, "The entire town of Waterloo, Iowa, was destroyed today...") It was just a joke (they said later) but somehow a student newscaster picked up the item and included it in his newscast without checking any sources. This had to be the newscast listened to by a student from that town. Naturally, he was terrified for the safety of his family and he made some phone calls which revealed the hoax.105 The incident made the news wires and the FCC investigated. The Commission ended up sending a warning letter -- a very light reprimand considering the fact that there could have been a hefty fine and a revoked license. One reason for the lighter "sentence" was the fact that the faculty had acted quickly to change the newsroom procedures and to punish those responsible. They were dropped from the staff and Jo 490 class and suspended for the remainder of the semester. Some of the faculty, with tongue in cheek, felt that the real sin of the newscaster was that he didn't make it the lead story!

There were two early threats to the station's existence other than the bomb incident. In 1978 the "Duopoly" rule of the FCC was applied to educational FM radio stations. The rule stated that a station owner could not have two stations in the same market. The University owned three -- KANU-FM, KFKU-AM and KJHK-FM. Upon investigation it was learned that the FCC might make an exception if it could be proved that the stations had significantly different programming and broadcast missions. With the assistance of the University Counsel, Mike Davis, KJHK filed a petition which argued that indeed each station was programmed for a different purpose and each reached a significantly different audience. The Commission agreed.106

The other hurdle related to a new Commission rule which stated that all educational FM stations had to have a minimum of 100 watts power. As previously mentioned, it was a measure of student interest in the station and its programming that the Student Senate appropriated the necessary funds for a new transmitter which could put out the stronger signal. The transmitter had the capacity to go to 1000 watts in the future, if desired.

The early station managers were Paul Hulse, Don Krobot and Steve Doocy. More than 100 students were involved each semester. KJHK was on the air from 6:00 a.m. to 2;00a.m. weekdays, and from 9:00a.m. to 2:00a.m. weekends. An early survey showed that 15% of the students were regular listeners. They obviously liked the idea of a "sound alternative" to the typical music station of the day -- a mix of progressive music and jazz, plus other artists who didn't get heavy radio "play" elsewhere. Also, the audience could hear a lot of news about KU activities which did not seem to make the newscasts of KANU. By 1981, the College Media Journal ranked KJHK in the "Top Seven" in the country.

2. Television Programming.

Between 1973 and 1978 there was very little distribution of video programming. Attempts to do so usually ended in failure because of the poor condition of the black and white television equipment. For example, one program had to be abandoned because the videotape continually stuck to itself in the recorder.107 One can imagine the frustration of the students involved.

In those years Sunflower Cablevision was particularly helpful. First, the company offered the students of broadcast news the opportunity to produce a weekly news program, using its facilities. These programs began in 1972 and continued through 1981 under the able supervision of Professors Smeyak, Dary and Rasmussen. In 1976, Smeyak's students provided the election coverage for Sunflower. This was an ambitious effort, complete with anchor persons and reporters at the various campaign headquarters in Lawrence and Topeka. The cable company even donated $150 for audio equipment.108 Even after the color equipment arrived, Sunflower provided an outlet for some student programming. For example, in 1978-79 students under the direction of Hal Himmelstein produced six documentaries on such topics as "Nuclear Power" and "The Great Liquor Debate." (Please note that a list of all of the television and film productions produced in this period can be found in the Appendix.)

The arrival of new color television, installed in remodeled facilities, generated a great spurt of program material. There were the six documentaries. Then KTWU (the PBS station in Topeka, Channel 11) proposed to have a series which would be co-produced by KTWU and the three state universities -- KU, KSU and WSU. KU did the first program. It originated in the Jolliffe studio and was carried live to KTWU by microwave. It was a panel discussion, with reporters from the Daily Kansan and Broadcast News with special guest, Ralph Nadar, who was on campus to deliver a speech. The new equipment worked well, and it was a quality program. RTVF produced three more programs for KTWU during 1980.

A number of students used the portable color television cameras to produce six programs, most of which were carried on KTWU. Most of them were "thesis projects" relating to the masters degree. These ranged from a program about remote sensing using satellites to one on women's transitional care.

Many programs were done for the Department of Athletics, a service which had been going on for many years. The early programs were done on film, a common practice nationwide and a necessary one at KU. But with the development of sophisticated portable television cameras, video was becoming the medium of choice: Television production was a lot faster and simpler --especially editing -- making it possible to incorporate a lot of special footage of games and interviews. Also, production costs were somewhat cheaper. Fortunately, RTVF had color by 1978 and could continue to get the Athletic Department business.

The long standing arrangment changed in 1980, probably a reflection of a growing sophistication in the relationships between national commercial television and the athletic corporations of schools nationwide. In that year, a co-production agreement evolved with WIBW, Topeka, in which RTVF would produce the "Don Fambrough" show for 12 weeks at a cost of $12,756. This would also include the cost of two cameramen (students) to cover the games. It would be produced and taped at Jolliffe, then the tape would be taken to WIBW-TV for broadcast at a later date. The station's part of the co-production consisted of providing the air time and the payment of a "talent" fee to Coach Fambrough, an amount not known to this writer.109 The same type of co-production was done for Ted Owens during the basketball season.

About this same time, the Department of Athletics abandoned the concept of a season-ending highlights film in order to concentrate on short video clips which had greater utilization in the recruiting process. Many of these clips were produced by RTVF faculty and students.

In 1980 much of the television material produced by students and faculty of RTVF was appearing on WIBW or Sunflower Cablevision. But for a brief time it seemed possible that the University could have a station of its own. A memo from Prof. Rasmussen alerted the faculty to the fact that the FCC was considering the expansion of the category of "Low-Power" television stations, to provide a more localized service to smaller communities and educational institutions.110 He saw the possibility of a station to serve primarily as a news service for the students. There would have to be a frequency search and other engineering studies related to a license application and, of course, there would have to be additional equipment and funds to operate the station. No action was taken at that time, for several reasons: These were hard budget years for the University, and money was not available. Sunflower Cablevision was not interested in adding the station to its cable lineup. (The reason given at that time was that there was no channel available; yet in 1997, Sunflower again refused to carry the new television news operation from RTV and the School of Journalism, even though many channels were available. One may speculate that the company did not want competition to its own service, channel 6.) Finally, a number of faculty members were reluctant to take on the responsibility and expense of live broadcasting, given the liklihood that there would be little money and no cable connection.

3. Film Programming.

The major visual productions from RTVF continued to be done on 16mm film until the color television equipment arrived in 1978. Students gained valuable experience working on their own projects or crewing a department production. The supervisors involved were Peter Dart, George Rasmussen, Paul Smeyak and Bruce Linton.

For example, RTVF continued to produce the two to five minute film clips which also were sent to area television stations. Called "Emphasis" (on)..., they highlighted areas or activities such as the KU Theatre or the Natural History Museum, or they described research projects being done by professors in a variety of departments.

During this period University Public Relations bankrolled a number of short "ads" describing some aspect of the University. These were aired during the televising of various athletic events. According to the "sponsor," these "turned out to be just great."111 Later, Public Relations purchased video equipment and hired one of the RTVF grads to do these spots and other projects of a public relations nature, which had the effect of cutting production experiences for students.

A number of contract films were produced, including thesis films. Six of the more ambitious ones were "The Kansas Legislature," "Kansas Circa 90," "Lakemary," "Kansas 2000, A Kansas Odyssey," "Behind the Grand Door," and "Rape Prevention: No Pat Answer." These six illustrate a variety of topics, sources of funding and student involvement. The film about the Legislature was produced by RTVF. It described how the Legislature worked, and it was designed to be used in high school civics classes. All was going well until Verne Miller, the Attorney General, threw a road block. (He already had achieved some fame by forcing airliners to suspend the service of alcoholic drinks while flying over the dry state of Kansas.) He stated that the $14,240 cost of the production was not a legitimate use of state funds. Others did not agree. Senator Robert Bennett (later Governor) spoke for many when he said, "This is typical of his lack of research and his lack of knowledge on the subject."112 Eventually, payment was approved, and by 1975 thirty prints were in circulation.

"Kansas Circa 90" was a masters project of Jeff Pierce, produced for -- and funded by -- the Junior League of Topeka in 1974. It was used by a number of television stations in the state. The subject of the film was the early days of life in Kansas, and it was cited by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as "most innovative." "Lakemary," by Cloado Del Mundo, was also a thesis film, and it was funded be a state agency.

The "Odyssey" film also related to Kansas History, and it was funded by KU Endowment. It was written and directed by a graduate student, David Mould. The "Grand Door" film was funded by the city of Concordia, and it told the history of their unique opera house. This was directed by Professor Chuck Berg. "Rape Prevention" was a serious look at a nasty social problem, funded by a local social agency. It was written and directed by a student, Polly Pettit, and it achieved national distribution among social agencies.

Until the late seventies (when production shifted from 16mm film to video) a continuing source of student experience and departmental revenue were the films produced for the Department of Athletics. The end-of-the year highlights films continued to be produced. In addition, several hundred short interviews with coaches and athletes were made, to be distributed to area stations and/or to be used by the coaches in their recruiting efforts.

G. Outreach and Service.

An Advisory Board, made up of professional broadcasters, had been quite valuable in the early years of the program. The members gave advice and provided support. They helped to identify sources of private funds and some of them made gifts to the program. But somehow, during the sixties, the Board became inactive, most likely the victim of neglect from the RTVF Committee. But by 1976 it was obvious that we needed the support of these professionals in our campaign for color television equipment. Several of them were willing to meet with the RTVF Committee in August, 1976, to become reacquainted with the program and to explore ways in which they might be of help. Meeting that day were Arden Booth, Bill Harmon, Dale Larsen, Thad Sandstrom, Bob Schmidt and Bob Wells. They recommended that the Committee pull together a strong statement of needs, after which the Board would meet again to consider strategies.113 The material was put together during the fall and winter and sent out to the members. But even before the next committee meeting, individual members were writing letters to the Chancellor and key members of the Legislature; they knew that the lack of quality color television equipment was a serious deficiency in an otherwise sound program.

The next official meeting of the Board was Nov. 15, 1977. By this time the news programs presented over Sunflower Cablevision had been cancelled because the B/W cameras in the TV studio could not produce a reliable picture. Also, it must be admitted that it was an embarrassment to put out a B/W picture when ALL programs on television were then in color. Once again the Board was given a full presentation concerning our needs.114 A number of people from central administration attended this meeting, which gave the professionals the opportunity to argue persuasively as to the validity of our budget requests. This support, plus the several hundred letters from alumni of the program, helped the administration to decide to allot over $150,000 for color equipment in 1978 and 1979, as previously described in this chapter.

The next project for the Board was to provide support in the quest for a building. Some members were well acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Weir, and it was hoped that they could help persuade the Weirs to go ahead with a building. As mentioned earlier, the Weirs were not about to put money into a dying enterprise and so it was necessary to give some evidence that the broadcasters of the state and the administration of the University were solidly behind the program. Accordingly, there was a meeting in July of 1979, at which time they were presented the data and other materials justifying the great need for space.115 Dean Del Brinkman then invited the Board to another meeting, to be held in the fall of 1979. The intent of this meeting was to show the broadcasters (and the Weirs) that "a concentrated effort (was)... being made to improve and upgrade the radio-television-film program and related support areas.116 Many members of the Board attended, as did Chancellor Dykes, Executive Vice Chancellor Del Shenkel, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Ralph Christoffersen. It was a successful meeting, and in a few more months the announcement was made that indeed there would be a new communications building thanks to the generosity of the Weirs. In my opinion, the strong support of the Board was instrumental in the positive decisions relating to the color equipment and the building.

During one of the meetings with the Board it was strongly suggested that the RTVF banquets be revived. None had been held since the fire at the Student Union, and although the RTVF Committee had discussed bringing them back no decision had been made. The feeling now was that something more than a banquet should take place -- something to give the program greater visibility. And so, in the spring of 1980, the first "Telecommunications Day" was held. During the day there were several panel sessions conducted by professional broadcasters, including some alumni, and then a banquet was held in the evening. At that time two awards were made. The first was given in the name of the late Grover Cobb, who had been an outstanding broadcaster in Great Bend, and who had demonstrated great public service in the state and nation. It went to Dale MCoy, from Chanute, Kansas. As noted earlier, the award to an outstanding alumnus went to Bill Kurtis, of Chicago, Illinois. Both men were there to receive the recognition and their short remarks were covered by the press. It was a successful day.

The second Telecommunications Day was held in May, 1981, and the theme was "The Changing Character of Broadcasting" in the new world of cable and satellites. The visiting speakers were Steve Mills, a KU alumnus and a Vice President for Movies for CBS, Selmon Kremer, the Vice President for Southern Satellite Systems and Al Birch, News Director of KPNX-TV, Phoenix. Terry Shockly, an outstanding broadcaster from Wisconsin received the second Alumni Award, and Kay Melia, of Goodland, Kansas, received the Grover Cobb Award.

The RTVF Committee may have abandoned banquets in the seventies, but there were a number of seminars which brought area broadcasters to the campus. The annual seminars in "Broadcast News," which had been revived by David Dary in 1972, continued with meetings each year. Some of them were co-hosted by KU and the Kansas Broadcast News Association, and the seminar in 1979 was tied to a regional conference of the Radio and Television News Directors Association.

A similar co-hosting arrangement was tried in October, 1978, when the eleventh Fall Management Seminar of the Kansas Association of Broadcasters was held on the campus. It worked well, but in 1979, and in response to requests from a number of broadcasters, RTVF "went solo" with a three-day meeting directed primarily to the relatively inexperienced manager or station employee interested in eventual management. The relationship of the manager to sales, research, operations and property acquisition was explored by Robert Ferguson of Wheeling, West Virginia, Ron Fischmann of Durham, North Carolina, and Ernie Martin and other professors from KU-RTVF. One feature of this meeting was that it was limited to sixteen people, which allowed a great deal of discussion.117

During the years from 1973-1981 the RTVF program continued to be well known, nationally. The RTVF faculty continued their strong representation in the activities and management of several academic organizations affiliated with broadcasting and film. I was on the board of the Broadcast Education Association; Peter Dart, Dennis Lynch and Chuck Berg were officers in the University Film Association; David Dary, Paul Smeyak and George Rasmussen were officers or committee chairpersons in the Radio and Television News Director's Association and with the broadcast division of the Association for Education in Journalism. Every member of the faculty presented papers at one of these meetings every year.

A "happening" early in the period also brought national visibility. At the request of the National Association of Broadcasters I appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications to speak in favor of a bill which would extend the license period of a radio or TV station. Among other things, I said that, "I believe the basic responsibility for broacasting.....must belong to the licensee." And if (the broadcasters) ignore these reponsibilities then "they should face the prospect of the loss of their license."118 The bill passed. (Of course, this was at a time when "responsibility" carried great weight in the license renewal proceedings; unfortunately, this no longer seems to be the case.)

IN SUMMARY, the eight years of this period was a time of tremendous advancement in the technology associated with broadcasting and film. There were new and smaller color cameras for remotes and news, portable videotape recorders and sophisticated editing systems as well as new distribution systems via cable and satellite. These advancements put great pressure on the educational programs whose goal it was to produce graduates who could find careers in the media. In spite of the problems of support for higher education in Kansas, the RTVF program achieved significant growth. But it was not easy.

New faculty positions were approved, and it was possible to bring in people who had an excellent mix of academic and broadcasting experience. They were able to add new courses, develop the broadcast news option and offer a new option in "Film Studies." The faculty established a new MS degree emphasizing film or television production, and another MA was approved which would give broadcasting professionals in the Kansas City area an opportunity to work for an advanced degree.

In the early years of the period it seemed that the move into color television capability would never happen. But in 1978 the administration approved funds to buy broadcast quality cameras and video editing systems. KUOK became truly "airborne" as KJHK, thanks to excellent financial support from the Student Senate. By the end of the period it had a lusty 100 watts of power, transmitted from the studios in Sudler Annex, and it had survived a duopoly question from the FCC. The film and television labs found a new home at Jolliffe Hall, a converted scholarship hall. In 1981 Flint Hall was to be remodeled, and so the RTV faculty had to move to office and classroom space in a WWII temporary building, Blake Annex. These far from perfect facilities were the bad news; the good news was that there would be a new communications building to house all of the above programs plus KANU and Audio Reader.