CLOSING ONE ERA; BEGINNING ANOTHER

There were a number of critical events which took place in the years from 1981 through the fall of 1984. Some of them may even have had at least an indirect effect on broadcasting/film programs in higher education.

These were years when the economy began to recover under the Reagan administration. Some observers credited this to the 25% cut in the income tax, but others said that it was because of the huge expenditures alloted for national defense by the administration, resulting in higher employment. The economy improved, but a Reagan aid predicted a budget deficit of $109 billion in 1982.

The cold war was still -- in a word -- hot. These were days of references to Russia as the "Evil Empire" and a defensive concept called "Star Wars," both of which must have provided sleepless nights for Brezhnev, then Andropov and Chernenko.

The U.S. engaged in more than a war of words. Our mastery of technology related to outer space was demonstrated by the launching of the first space shuttle, Columbia, and its safe return to earth. In 1983 we increased our involvement in the upheavals of Central America, especially in Nicaragua, and the armed forces returned to action for the first time since the Vietnam war, carrying out a successful invasion of the tiny island of Grenada in the southern Caribbean. This was to make certain that there would be no more footholds for communism in that sea.

There was, it seemed, little or no abatement of violence throughout the world in this period. World leaders were in the gunsight: President Reagan and Pope John II were shot in the spring of 1981; Anwar Sadat of Egypt was assassinated in October of that year. Then, in 1984, an attempt was made on the life of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi of India was killed. Argentina went to war -- unsuccessfully -- against the United Kingdom over the future of the Falkland Islands. That was in 1982. A year later over two hundred U.S. marines were killed in a bombing in Beirut. The war between Iran and Iraq continued, and major Israeli forces invaded Lebanon. In 1984 the press reported that a million Ethiopians were starving.

Women in the United States were making progress in their battle to achieve equal opportunity in the workplace. Sandra Day O'Connor became the first woman to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sally Ride became the first woman orbit the earth as a member of a spaceshuttle crew. Many more women held responsible positions in the business world, and feminine news anchors were to be seen on many stations. But the battle wasn't over. For example, Christine Craft, a television news anchor in Kansas City was removed from the air. She accused the station management of discrimination because (she claimed) they said she was not attractive enough. A court awarded her $500,000. The fact that this award was overturned a month later did not reduce the impact that it made on television management around the country.

Television continued to bring us an ever widening view of the world by being able to cover the news, no matter where it occured. It covered, of course, all of the events described above. A television audience was able to enjoy, vicariously, the courtship and wedding of Diana and Charles, and the birth of their first child. The viewers could mourn of the deaths of the beautiful Princess Grace of Monaco and two icons of the cinema, Henry Fonda and Ingrid Bergman. Television brought us the summer olympics from LA. It zoomed into the operating room to let us see the implanting of an artificial heart into the chest of Barney Clark, and it brought us news of his apparent recovery and then sudden death.

Television figured in the news in other ways. General William Westmoreland sued CBS for $120 million for libel; he claimed that CBS was trying to "execute me on the guillotine of public opinion" in the matter of the conduct of the Vietnam war. (The suit was withdrawn in 1985.)

The Federal Communications Commission was also in the news. For almost all of the years of its existence the FCC had been a heavy regulator of broadcasting. It regulated technical standards, ownership, licensing and renewals, and certain aspects of program and advertising content. Much of the regulation was based upon the concept of the scarcity of channels in the broadcast spectrum. However, the Reagan administration was pressuring all agencies to reduce their regulatory powers and to reconsider basic philosophy. The Commission responded by dropping all limitations on the duration and frequency of television ads. Actually, the Commission had little real power in this area -- mostly in the oversight powers at the time of license renewal. But I used the occasion to say, in a graduate seminar, that it was just one more nail in the coffin of the doctine which stated that a broadcast licensee had a "public interest" responsibility and was accountable to its audience. It didn't take any special intelligence to suggest that this action would not be the last.

One obstacle to the use of home video recording was removed, in 1984, when the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision which had threatened to gravely restrict a person's right to record program material. Now, said the Court, the owner of a video cassette recorder could record programs for viewing at a later time. This had the effect of exploding the sales potential of VCR's. Motion picture organizations, afraid of possible violations of copyright and the blackmarketing of program material, vowed to get Congress to levy a fee on VCR's and videotape. It was an early battle in many that have taken place is succeeding years as the technology of transmission and recording of material has become digital and has moved into cyberspace.

It was a rapidly changing world of communications. President Reagan was "the great communicator." Cable television was on a roll, with systems now in place in almost every community of any size in the U.S. An increasing number of satellites made it possible to send entertainment and information to the rural population in the states and to most foreign countries. Even though the personal computer was years away from the "internet" concept, it already was enough of a secretary, playmate and business tool to serve notice that it would be an important part of the communications scene.

A. Administration and Budget.

1. General Administration.

At the University of Kansas there were two relatively new faces in Strong Hall in 1981. Gene Budig had replaced Archie Dykes as Chancellor and, some months earlier, Deanell Tacha had become the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, replacing the departing Ralph Christoffersen. Both were heavily involved in the discussions relating to the new building -- and possibly greater visibility -- for RTVF. Both seemed to have an interest in the future of mass communications. Budig, after all, had an academic appointment in the School of Journalism, and Tacha's undergraduate major was in communications. (I was delighted when she left the School of Law to become Vice Chancellor. As an undergraduate she had been in my classes and I was greatly impressed, even then, by her intelligence, drive and good natured personality -- traits which served her well at KU and later when she became a federal judge.)

Del Brinkman continued as the Dean of the School of Journalism. He had proved to be a wise and efficient administrator, and he enjoyed strong support from the faculty. The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences was Robert Lineberry, and Bobby Patton continued to chair the several academic areas under the umbrella of Speech and Drama. They, too, had strong support from their faculty. All would need a large measure of patience, wisdom and goodwill to deal with various questions and issues related to the teaching of communications in the eighties, and the structures and titles of the programs which would carry out that mission.

The turbulence in the world of communications was reflected in the communications programs at K.U. During the latter part of 1981 and in 1982 there were intense discussions on several matters -- chiefly taxonomy -- in the School of Journalism, Speech and Drama and RTVF. For the most part, each program carried on its own discussions, but each was aware that the others were discussing much of the same subject matter. In addition, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs became involved, first by ordering every academic unit of the University to conduct a "self study" as soon as possible, and second by creating an ad hoc committee to study the administrative structure of the communications areas. In each of these venues things were happening at the same time. Various proposals were discussed and sometimes voted upon -- proposals which often contained implications to the other academic programs. And, to complicate matters further, there was pressure from outside the University.

The following chronology may be helpful in reading about this busy period:

8/8/80 Chancellor announces a new building for RTVF. (Ch V)
     2/19/81 Memorandum of Understanding completed. (Ch V)
     9/81 RTVF Progress Report; all going well under the agreement.
     10/81 V/C Tacha requests all academic departments at KU to do a self study.
     10/81 The Weirs place a "hold" on the building planning.
     10/81 V/C Tacha appoints ad hoc committee to examine communications.
     1/82 RTVF Committee submits self study report.
     1/82 Speech & Drama requests a "Division of Communications & Theatre."
     2/82 Ad hoc committee recommends RTVF as department in J-School.
     2/12/82 J-School committee discusses "departmentalization" for RTVF.
     2/23/82 Tacha nixes Sp request to use "Communications" in new division title.
     3/8/82 Building no longer on hold; plans proceeding.
     3/31/82 Speech proposes two programs for RTVF, return of Committee.
     5/15/82 Journalism adds "mass communications" to its official title.
     1/5/83 J-School and Speech sign "Clarification" to 1981 agreement.
     1/83 Weirs postpone building indefinitely; reasons unknown.
     2/83 Budig appoints committee to examine total situation.
     3/7/83 RTVF (Journ) discusses name change, "Telecommunications.
     4/13/83 J-School committee suggests RTVF have department status.
     9/7/83 RTVF faculty (Journalism) rejects change to "Telecommunications."
     10/15/83 J-School renames Flint Hall; now "Stauffer-Flint Hall."
     10/83 Chancellor's committe gives top priority to new building for RTVF.
     12/6/83 J-School faculty discuss "department" concept. No action.
     12/12/83 Speech requests new "Department of Dramatic Arts."
     2/84 Speech - new"Dept of Dramatic Arts: Theatre, RTVF" - approved.
     10/26/84 J-School renames its RTVF program as "Radio-TV".

    The ad hoc Committee on Communications.

As noted in the previous chapter, Mr. and Mrs. Bud Weir had pledged over three million dollars to provide a home -- a new building -- for RTVF and the radio stations. A full discussion of the proposed building will be found in the section on "Facilities," but certain events involving the Weirs had an impact on the discussions which were taking place, and they will be discussed here.

Mr. Weir was a very practical man, and he had no desire to invest that money in a program which might not go anywhere. His concern, expressed to the Chancellor and Dean Brinkman, was that the University might not make a serious commitment in the form of support, academic offerings and visibility to the area of "telecommunications." His concern was serious, for in late October of 1981 he actually put the building "on hold." As reported in a Journalism faculty meeting, "it is a complicated situation...a letter of agreement which outlined things the University would do to improve the broadcast program is no longer acceptable."1 It was not clear as to whether he thought the promises were fuzzy or insufficient or both.

Obviously there was pressure to find ways to meet Mr. Weir's concerns without compromising the integrity of the University. In that same month V/C Tacha had appointed an ad hoc committee on communications. The extent to which this was an independent action or a reaction to Mr. Weir is not clear. In any event, she asked the Committee to examine "organizational models for interdisciplinary units which might serve to coordinate such various disciplines as journalism, broadcasting, speech and communication studies."2 The members were John Bremner and Calder Pickett of Journalism; Tom Beisecker and Bobby Patton of Speech and Drama; Mike Johnson, Professor of English; Ed Meyen, Associate V/C for Research; and Jerry Hutchison, Associate V/C for Academic Affairs. I was a member of the Committee, representing RTVF.

In the first meeting of the group V/C Tacha stressed that the Committee "needed to maximize the quality of work, and the potential for growth, in academic areas related to communication."3 Possibly in answer to any unspoken questions about Weir, she said that there would be no hidden agenda. Tacha noted the past history of the RTVF joint program and its probable growth in the future as well as the growth of all communications programs. She said it was important to know "if there are ways in which all units could work together with more efficiency and effectiveness."4 Pickett was elected chairman of the Committee -- a move which ensured a fair hearing of all issues, with a minimum of rancor. All members of the Committee seemed to approach the discussions with a serious attitude. And rightly so, for there could be a lot at stake for all of the programs.

The first meeting was devoted to a description of the current programs and a discussion of the types of organization or structures existing at other universities. It was noted that a lot of structures in academe were the result of historical accident, and a given structure might work well on one campus but not another.

The full Committee on Communications Structure met again in January, 1982, after all parties had gathered and distributed background information about each program, and after several meetings of sub-groups. By February it seemed that several points were obvious and that a final report could be made. The main points of this report were as follows:5

1. There was no evident interest in a large, "super" school such as a school of communications in which all existing academic areas would be housed. (No program was willing to endanger its current visibility and/or national standing in order to try a structure which was even suspect on some campuses.)

2. It was agreed that RTVF should be in a position to grow, but there was no immediate answer as to how this could be achieved. (In this discussion, all of the arguments and concepts relating to RTVF structure which had been made in the seventies were re-examined.) It was also agreed that the School of Journalism should give strong consideration to a name change which would describe its mission in more contemporary terms. For example -- adding "Mass Communications" to the title.

3. It was agreed that if RTV were to remain in Journalism, consideration should be given to providing "department" status. In any event, there ought to be some mechanics for the flow of information between programs (assuming the basic structures of all of them were to remain unchanged.)

4. The Committee thought that there should be more coordination between the programs at the graduate level. (There was, also, some discussion about an unrelated matter -- the viability of a Journalism PhD. Some of the committee members thought that it might be studied once again.)

When the work of this committee ended, the members felt that there had been an honest and open discussion of thorny issues. There would be no drastic realignment of the programs but, at the same time, RTVF would gain visibility.

Further Self-Study by RTVF.

Now it is necessary to pick up another story in this tangled period. Going back in time, to September, 1981, and before the above committee was created, RTVF had produced a "Progress Report," designed to inform everyone (including the Weirs) about the current status of the program. It described such areas as curriculum, personnel, facilities, administrative relationships and outreach and service.6 Under "administrative relationships" it was reported that there were no more joint appointments and that the cooperative program and courses (between Journalism and Speech) still continued. Under "facilities" it was reported that the plans for the new building were moving ahead on schedule.

On the heels of the issuance of that report came the order from Academic Affairs that every academic program of the University would have to complete a "self-study" which would address program strengths, weaknesses and plans for the future. And so it was back to the meeting room for the RTVF committee members. After much discussion, and a faculty "retreat," on January 28, 1982, the report was submitted to the administration.7 It should be remembered that this Committee had been meeting at the same time as the Pickett Committee, and at a time when the building was still on hold. Therefore, the conclusions in the section on administrative structure were greeted with much interest.

This section compared the KU program with those of several outstanding schools in the field, and it concluded that the most well known programs had at least the designation of a "department." They often had a relationship to a "mass communications" umbrella. The KU program, on the other hand, had no department status to outside view even though it had always functioned as one -- with a separate budget, a "Director" as its head, and a separate graduate degree. Therefore, if the program was to gain national prominence there had to be greater visibility regardless of the name of the unit to which it reported. Finally, the RTVF faculty preferred an association with a unit which included the idea of "mass communications," and which emphasized professional preparation. These recommendations were similar to those reached by the ad hoc committee. (The report also noted that even if the main RTV program were to remain in the School of Journalism (and Mass Communications?) there should continue to be close cooperation with the film studies program in Speech and Drama, including the possibility of joint teaching assignments.)

Speech and Drama -- Proposals and "Clarification."

On the other side of the campus, the Department of Speech and Drama was busy with its internal discussions, which turned out to have external ramifications. This program, too, was interested in greater visibility on campus, and so a major thrust of its deliberations related to structure and program title.

For many years Speech and Drama had been a "Department," with "Divisions" of Speech Communications, Theatre, Radio-TV-Film, and Speech Pathology and Audiology. But the division heads noticed that the biological sciences seemed to be getting more administrative attention in recent years; was this because they were a "Division" which had "Departments?" Did this give them greater visibility and power? Well, it was worth a try. After some discussion of the flip-flop, it was proposed, in January, 1982, that there be created a Division of Communications and Theatre, consisting of the Departments of Theatre, Speech Pathology, Communications Studies, and Radio-TV-Film.8

Most of the members of the RTVF Committee had reservations about the possible structure, because two aspects of this proposal seemed to run counter to statements which had been developed in the ad hoc committee and the RTVF self-study, resulting in a number of reactions. First, the RTVF faculty was concerned that the visibility of the larger RTV program in Journalism would be hopelessly blurred; after all, the self-study just completed stated that the "Memorandum of Agreement," which allowed the program in Speech to exist, would be honored, but the title of "Radio-TV-Film" proposed by Speech seemed to imply a broader program than was agreed upon. Moreover, if the programs in Journalism and Speech had the same name students could become totally confused. Also, there was no mention of the graduate program degree which had been, heretofore, a part of Speech. For its part, the Faculty Committee of the School of Journalism felt that Speech was attempting to preempt the use of the word "communications" and was intent on developing a program which would duplicate that which existed in Journalism.To muddy the waters even further, the report of the ad hoc committee was in final form, and it recommended that RTVF remain in Journalism; in fact Academic Affairs already was placing all SCHR in the Journalism totals.9

V/C Tacha could see trouble on the horizon, especially in regard to the use of the word "communications." So, in spite of the fact that the College had endorsed the concept of a division as well as the new title, she vetoed the action. In a letter to Bobby Patton she noted that, "a substantial amount of discussion has occurred in the University with regard to the use of the word 'communication(s)' as it relates to academic programs....(therefore, I am) unwilling to move forward with this recommendation at this time."10 She assured Patton that "no bias was involved" and that further discussions would be held. The program did become a "Division" but the title remained as "Speech and Drama." Several months later the name of the School of Journalism was changed to "The William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications."

In late February, 1982, following the reports of the various committees, Chancellor Budig, V/C Tacha and Dean Brinkman were able to assure the Weirs that RTVF would be more visible and supported with additional faculty and OOE, and that there likely would be a change in the name of the School of Journalism to include "Mass Communications." This seemed to do the trick. In March, V/C Tacha was able to report that Mr. Weir "was ready to proceed with the construction of the proposed building for radio-television."11 She also stated that the commitments made by KU "did not compromise the integrity of the academic program."12

It now seemed obvious that as far as central administration was concerned, the main program of RTV would remain in Journalism even though Speech and Drama would be able to continue work in film and long form television as stated in the Memorandum of Agreement in 1981. But Bobby Patton was concerned, probably with good reason, that the Speech side of RTVF could easily die from lack of attention and nourishment. He tried one more strategy.

In March, 1982, he asked to meet with Chuck Berg and myself. (Berg was the only fulltime RTVF professor whose appointment was entirely within Speech.) Thus began a new series of discussions which would last until early in 1983, but they would not endanger planning for the new building. In the first meeting he expressed his concern about the future for Speech-RTVF, and he floated the idea that perhaps some form of cooperative program with Journalism could be revived. Berg agreed, but said that if it did dry up he would like to join the faculty in Journalism. I expressed interest and support in the continuation of a program in Speech, provided it was not counter-productive to the one in Journalism.

Patton decided to present a proposal to the College with the hope that it might also be considered by Academic Affairs. On March 31, 1982, a meeting was held with Sally Sedelow, the Associate Dean of the College, Bobby Patton, Chuck Berg and myself. At that time Patton noted that the Speech side of RTVF had 199 majors, 97 of them junior-senior, and the courses were generating over 2500 SCHR. He recommended that "the Radio-Television-Film Committee, which was originated in the 1950's, be resurrected (as an) inter College/School program. A model is the inter-campus program in Speech-Language-Hearing."13 He further recommended that Linton would chair the Journalism Sequence and that a search be made for a person to chair a Department of RTVF in the College. The two chairs would work closely together so that there would be "a clear articulation between the two programs." Patton also presented the need for an office and OOE of at least $2,000.

This preliminary meeting was followed, in June, by a letter from Patton to Dean Lineberry of the College. In addition to repeating the recommendations made in the previous month, Patton wrote that the major difference between the two programs of RTVF was the value attached to research; Journalism was more interested in teaching. He also enclosed a report from Berg which compared the course offerings of RTVF in Journalism and Speech, showing them to be complimentary and not duplicative. To allay the concerns about a name for the program in Speech, Patton suggested "Media Studies."14

The proposal was one more indication that in his attempt to carve out a good RTVF program through Speech and Drama he was unintentionally creating somewhat of a "turf battle." As a result, there was a meeting between Deans Lineberry and Brinkman during the summer, and a decision was made to further discuss the ramifications of the split in the RTVF program.

In November, 1982, Dean Lineberry circulated a memo which called for a greater role for Speech in the area of RTVF. A number of points were made -- some of which seemed to me to be realistic while others were either false or quite exaggerated. I felt it necessary to circulate a memo to correct the record. (I had no desire to hold down a program in Speech; in fact, I wanted it to be as strong as possible.) The major points of the memo (and my rebuttal) were:15

1. Lineberry described the Journalism RTVF program as "narrow" and "too professional." I stated that many of the Speech courses could be called professional and that only 30 hours of a Journalism degree could be done in the J-School -- hardly "narrow."

2. He asserted that the RTVF faculty in Journalism provided "no help in advising." I provided data which showed that all of the faculty had advised College majors, and that I had signed 25 cards at the last enrollment. This service would continue.

3. Lineberry said that there was "little contact" between the faculty of RTVF in the two programs. I pointed out that RTVF faculty met weekly and that Berg and Colyer not only were invited to each one but that they often attended.

It seemed clear to me that the College was attempting to get some sympathy from the administration which might result in at least more faculty and financial support to Speech-RTVF. But, as the year came to an end, several other points seemed to be obvious: Journalism had the largest program in RTV, in terms of faculty, equipment, facilities and financial support. Speech, on the other hand, had a large number of majors, but there was a small faculty (1.5 FTE), little financial support and very little equipment. The latter consisted of several small video units. (16mm film cameras and editing equipment would be transferred to them from Journalism RTV in 1984).

Once again Deans Lineberry and Brinkman met. This time the result was "A Memorandum of Clarification" to the 1981 agreement, signed by the two Deans, Bobby Patton and myself. It was dated January 5, 1983, and the major points were as follows:16

1. The Memorandum of 1981 should continue to govern the two programs.

2. The RTVF work in Speech should be designated as a "program" and not as a "department."

3. The College would provide a "limited sum" for the OOE to support that program.

4. There should be an overview committee consisting of the Dean of Journalism, the Chairman of the Division of Speech and Drama, and a faculty member from each RTVF program, to meet once a semester to discuss any pertinent issues or problems.

5. Finally, the College and Journalism should engage in long range planning on the future of telecommunications, mass communications and media studies.

This seemed to resolve the situation. The turf battle would not escalate into a turf war; Speech could continue a program and hope for greater support. Most of us, at the time, believed that this program would emphasize film history, film production, aesthetics, "long-form" video production, and film/video performance.

But just when it seemed that all structures were reasonably defined, the Weirs abruptly postponed the building indefinitely. (See the longer discussion under "Facilities" in this chapter.) The Chancellor immediately appointed a Communications Review Committee to look into the implications of -- and reasons for -- the postponement. (Members were from professional broadcasting and KU administration, including former Chancellor, Archie Dykes.) As for the rest of us, after the first shock and wave of disappointment passed, the several faculties of the communications programs continued to discuss the concepts which had been agreed upon. As I wrote to the faculty of RTVF, "naturally I'm disappointed in the postponement of the building...I hope we get it eventually. But a building is not the be-all and end-all of a successful program...(it) was to be a catalyst to develop the program. Now we will have to work harder to make things happen."17

Proposals to Rename and Departmentalize RTVF.

Each faculty member of RTVF was asked to write a "position" paper regarding the future of the program. The responses were, overall, a bit parochial, but they were thoughtful and showed no sign of "defeatism." Dale Gadd suggested that we replace him -- he would be leaving in 1984 -- with a person who was on the cutting edge of modern communications.18 George Rasmussen stressed the need for greater visibility and more funding to emphasize electronic news.19 Chuck Berg underlined the importance of film studies and the need to support both the programs in Speech and Journalism.20 My memo called for greater support for both programs and a continuation of the effort to provide us with professional facilities.21 Peter Dart recommended that the total program -- including the elements then in Speech -- be brought into the J-School.22 This proposal died when it became evident that the School had no interest in the area of film.

The Committee agreed that the program in Journalism should be re-named and have department status. 23 "Radio and Television" no longer seemed adequate to describe the modern use of technology, and it was thought that a name change would be simple, but not so. We knew that some programs at other universities had adopted the term "telecommunications," and at first blush this seemed to be the answer. The Faculty Committee of the J-School seemed to like this term and was considering it when discussing the department concept for use in the School. But the term seemed to be too broad, and it was also discovered that the School of Engineering used this term for one of its masters degrees. The term, "electronic media" had some support, especially since it would not make reference to the area of film. But it didn't seem to be descriptive of what we were doing. There seemed to be no clear alternative, and so no action was taken until late 1984, when the School of Journalism took formal action to drop the word "Film" from the sequence title, leaving it as "Radio-Television."24

In the meantime, and well before the postponement of the building, the Faculty Committee had been discussing proposals which had originated with the Committee on Communications Structure, back in the spring of 1982. This Committee, chaired by Calder Pickett, had recommended that the title of the School be changed. It also had recommended that RTVF be considered as a "department" in the School. The first suggestion created very little opposition, but the second was more troublesome.

In the summer of 1982, and after lengthy discussion, the Faculty Committee reported that, "by consensus, it was unanimously agreed that the committee will recommend that the name of the school be changed from 'The William Allen White School of Journalism and Public Information' to 'The William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications.'25 The full faculty followed up with almost unanimous support and the recommendation was forwarded to Academic Affairs and the Regents, where it was formally approved. So now RTVF could be a part of a School which advertised itself as a program relating to mass communications. It was agreed by all parties that Speech was free to use the singular, "communication."

During the discussion within the Journalism faculty there was a reference (almost inevitable, it would seem) to the influence of Bud Weir. I was glad to reply that the faculty members of RTVF had suggested a similar name change almost a decade earlier, and well before the appearance of that gentleman. I don't know if that comment swayed any votes, but it certainly made me feel better!

As an aside, perhaps, I would make this added comment concerning the Weirs: Sometimes in the middle of a discussion about name change, departmentalization, budgets, etc., the name of Weir was invoked -- and not as a deity! (If it weren't for the "damn building" --or Weir--we wouldn't have to spend time dealing with these issues.) This was, of course, before the postponement of the building in 1983. Weir certainly was a factor, as has been indicated. But he also was a convenient red herring to be dragged into any discussion about any aspect of change by anyone who wanted to blur or blunt the issue. I do not believe that the School or administration would have made changes which were opposed by a majority of the faculty simply in order to attain a new building.

The recommendation pertaining to departmentalization was a tougher one to resolve. There always had been "sequences" rather than "departments" since the creation of the School, and sequences were a common structure at many schools and departments around the country. But the Faculty Committee was receptive to a full discussion of the issue.

In a meeting of that group I suggested that there were a number of pros and cons. On the pro side, "department" was a term used by almost all of the other academic units at KU, and there might be more widespread understanding of roles and budgets if Journalism had a similar structure. Also, psychologically, "sequence" could easily give a mental image of "small," whereas "department" might give an image of something larger. I also admitted that the existence of departments might serve to decentralize governance in the school. Dean Brinkman explained that RTVF technically was not a department but that it had operated as one since the summer of 1955. He seemed to prefer the status quo rather than open the door to full departmentalization, and in this he was joined by some other members of the Committee.26

There was no other action on this issue in 1982, but the subject was discussed on several occasions and a few of the members of the Committee began to feel that the concept had merit. In 1983 Professor Musser moved that the Faculty Committee endorse the concept of "departments" and requested permission to make a full study to develop a proposal for a vote of the full faculty.27 Musser noted that each department could have its own budget but would be subject to the oversight of the several existing school committees, as was common in the College. It was suggested that the new departments be "News-Editorial," "Advertising," and "Telecommunications."

But the wheels of academe, as has often been noted, turn very slowly. Perhaps the postponement of the building removed the pressure to act quickly. Perhaps the Faculty Committee was afraid that a negative vote by the faculty -- certainly a strong possibility -- might be construed as a black mark against the leadership role of the Committee itself; at least that was one rumor. In any event, nothing happened that spring or summer. In October, I met with the Committee once again to ask for its support of the proposal and action to get it before the full faculty.

Then, in December, 1983, it did come before the faculty, arriving by the back door.28 This happened during a discussion about the search for a new administrative head for RTVF. (I had resigned earlier in the year, but still carried out the duties involved -- a subject to be discussed later in this chapter.) In trying to describe the duties of the person the question came up as to what he/she would be called. A division head? A department head?

In the end there was no action, which meant that the status quo would continue, at least for the present. Probably the non-action was a good thing. If anything, modern technology has thrown academic programs much closer together, and the J-School avoided the potential of greater program separation which might have occured if the change had been made to departments. (One change did take place in 1984: The RTVF sequence was officially renamed "Radio-Television."29 This was a formal recognition of the fact that "Film" was no longer a part of the Journalism sequence.)

But What About the RTVF Graduate Program?

While all this discussion about departmentalization was taking place there also was discussion as to the future of the graduate program in RTVF. It may be remembered that this was a separate degree -- a Master of Arts or Sciences in RTVF. When it began in the 1950's, the School of Journalism declined to administer the program because it was a separate degree, but Speech and Drama would take it. The RTVF Committee desired to have the separate degree in order to have greater visibility. The Graduate School assigned it, administratively, to Speech. There it stayed without significant problems until the Memorandum of Agreement was signed in 1981. From this point on there was confusion as to what should happen. The Memorandum did not contain a specific recommendation regarding the graduate program. A short time later the "Pickett Committee" recommended that there "be more coordination at the graduate level," but this hardly gave any specific direction.

When joint appointments were dropped all but one of the faculty members involved with the RTVF graduate program were in the School of Journalism, yet much of the course work -- especially the 800 level courses -- was under the administrative control of the Department of Speech and Drama.

What should be done? Should the degree program move to Journalism, and would they allow a continuation of the separate degree? Should it continue "as is," assuming that the Journalism RTV faculty members would be allowed to continue teaching the courses? There was no immediate resolution, primarily because all of this was at the same time that the School was wrestling with possible reorganization into departments. (If there were to be departments perhaps each would have its own degree program.)

Early discussion seemed to favor the move to Journalism. Jan Platt recommended this action to the Journalism Faculty Committee in 1982. The Committee approved the concept "by consensus," and Dean Brinkman hoped that formal action could take place "at a later date."30

The later date was a long time in arriving. It was "on and off the table" for over two years. In the spring of 1983 the Faculty Committee voted to send a recommendation to the Journalism faculty, and Don Jugenheimer and I were assigned to work out procedures.31 The faculty did approve the merger in May, but there the progress stopped because Academic Affairs did not want to move until there was a final decision as to departmentalization in Journalism. Finally, in late 1984, the MS program of RTV moved to Journalism, and its separate name and status were lost.

Other Developments in Journalism and Speech.

There was one other development in the School during this period. It happened as a result of the gift of a million dollars to the School from Oscar Stauffer. This wonderful gift came, apparently, with no strings other than the suggestion that it might be used to enhance the remodeling of Flint Hall in ways not possible through state funds alone. Such a gift needed a response -- perhaps even some kind of special recognition. In 1982, the Faculty Committee recommended that Flint Hall, now in the process of remodeling, be called "Stauffer-Flint Hall," in honor of the man who had provided such great support for the School through the years. When the faculty discussed the proposal there was some mild dissension because it seemed to move a teacher -- "Daddy" Flint -- to a secondary position. (I remember smiling as I commented in support of the motion, that indeed outside funding does influence faculty decisions, and that there is nothing wrong with that provided the faculty makes the final decision. Of course they knew I was thinking about Mr. Weir as much as the Stauffers.) There was no real opposition and the proposal was strongly approved. On October 15, 1983, there was a formal dedication of the remodeled building and its new name.

The new Division of Speech and Drama also was busy. By the time of the building postponement in early 1983, Bobby Patton knew that central administration considered Journalism to be the home of the larger program in RTV. This meant that there would have to be a new strategy to give greater visibility to the smaller program in Speech. For this and other reasons, in late 1983, it was proposed that the Department of Theatre be reorganized, to be known as the "Department of Dramatic Arts: Theatre and RTVF."32 The hope was that this closer association of faculty from the two areas would pave the way for course work and performance experiences which would better prepare young actors and directors for the professional worlds of television and film. I had some lingering reservations about the use of the broad title of RTVF, but the concept was approved in the College and also by Dean Brinkman of Journalism. (Left hanging at that time was the question of what to do about the masters program in RTVF, which had been housed in the College since its beginning in the late fifties.)

A Change in Leadership.

There remains but one other topic to be considered under this section -- that of the administrative head of the RTVF program. Permit me this personal note.

All through the discussions and events relating to RTVF, taking place from 1981 through the spring of 1983, I had continued my role as "Director of RTVF." I had functioned in this capacity since 1955, and I had been a Chairman of the Speech Department at Omaha University in the five years previous. Perhaps I was suffering from "administrative fatigue" -- too many position papers, too many meetings, too many worries about the future. And so, when the new building seemed to be a certainty, I had made a promise to myself that after we moved in I would drop the administrative duties and go to full time teaching, probably until my retirement from the University.

The postponement of the building resulted in a short period of indecision. Would it seem to others that I was quitting? I decided that it didn't matter. In May, 1983, I turned in my letter of resignation to Dean Brinkman and V/C Tacha. In it I said that it had been a great privilege to guide this program, but now it "was time for some aggressive young person to come in and take the program to another level to meet the challenges in communications today."33 I offered a more breezy comment in the personal section of the faculty annual report, and I include it here as evidence that my world was nowhere near crumbling: "The other day I went down to the Senior Citizen Center to pick up my SCC card. (I was then 60) This entitles me to 10 percent off on a lot of things. That's the good part. The bad part is that I noticed the center was full of a heckuva lot of old and gray haired people. Jeez. And then the Jayhawk Journalist comes out and makes me 69! Wait, wait -- life is still exciting and busy, so don't count me out of it yet. Who knows, I might even become a curmudgeon."34

I had offered to stay in the position until a new hire was in residence. This turned out to be all of the 1983-84 academic year. During that time, I continued to serve as the Head of the sequence and I represented RTVF in matters before the central administration. My course load included a television production course offered by the Division of Speech and Drama, which I taught on a "courtesy" appointment.

` In May, 1984, I conducted my last meeting of the Committee. The minutes of that meeting indicate that I said, "and so I sign off as your meeting coordinator, minutes taker, janitor and odd-job chairperson. Max (Utsler), the next meeting call is yours, and I'll move to the back row to join the hecklers and assorted faculty flakes of RTV. Come May 15th and its all yours! Seriously, I hope you have the same fine spirit of cooperation that I have enjoyed these many years. All best wishes!"35 It had been 29 years of hard but loving duty. In that time hundreds of students had taken classes and lab work under a succession of talented and dedicated teachers, and most of them had gone on to careers in radio, TV, film or related areas -- in 48 states and seven foreign countries.

I was proud of the record, yet I was sad. Not because the building had fallen through, but because the administrative structure for RTVF was inexorably changing. As mentioned earlier, and as reported in a newsletter in 1984, Deans Brinkman and Lineberry had agreed that the dramatic aspects of RTVF would be incorporated, with Theatre, into a new Department of Dramatic Arts, while all other components of RTVF would remain in the School of Journalism.36 The structure -- the RTVF Committee -- which had spanned the School of Journalism and Department of Speech and Drama for so many years was now, for all purposes, history. The arrangement had served its purpose, and now it was time to move on -- to let each program pursue its own goals in the education of students interested in some type of media career. It would be up to the faculty and head of each program to decide to what extent the now separate programs would be related.

I had not fought the move -- in fact, I may have helped bring it about by calling attention to the possible problems of split appointments. But I was worried about the future. I was confident that the larger RTV program in Journalism would continue to grow and that eventually proper facilities would be found. There seemed to be total commitment from the administration and from Journalism. (For example, based on the recommendation of the Chancellor's committee, the administration, in the fall, 1983, approved two new faculty lines, funds for a professor in residence, and additional fellowships and it gave top priority to RTV for a new building.37)

On the other hand, the program in Speech had practically no resources to serve a growing number of majors, especially those interested in film. Some faculty members in Speech felt that the central administration was -- in effect -- telling them to "sink or swim;" if film was important it would have to be funded from the budget of the College. I shared their concern. I feared that Chancellor Murphy was right, back in 1955, when he said that the University could not support competing programs in such an expensive area.

2. The Budget.

In the early eighties the nation's economy seemed to be turning around. But the same could not be said for the State of Kansas. Newspapers were carrying reports of budget shortfalls; politicians were promising tax cuts. Higher education suddenly came face to face with an ugly new word -- "rescission." I say a new word -- for some of us it required a quick search in the dictionary. Yes, there it was: "The act of rescinding." What this meant, to us, was that the University would have to give back a certain percentage of its funds which had been previously allocated. In the summer of 1982 it was four percent, and there were warnings that it might be necessary to ask for more.

So, we were rescissible, and the scramble to find the dollars took many forms. Central administration ordered all air conditioning turned off during the month of August. (Luckily, they heeded our warning that this could do severe damage to our electrical equipment at Jolliffe Hall and Sudler Annex (KJHK). And, as winter approached, it was learned that as many buildings as possible were to be closed and unheated during the winter break from December 18th to January 2nd. Apparently this action helped considerably; as Executive V/C Robert Cobb reported, "thanks for your considerable discomfort in order for the University to pay its utility bills for the fiscal year 1982."38

Each unit had to contribute. In the J-School it was decided that vacancies in part-time help would not be filled. This meant that faculty members had to do their own typing, copying and filing. Also, travel was cancelled for some faculty members who had been planning to attend national meetings. We were all asked to cut down on our long distance calls (being sure to use "Kan-san"), stop the use of professional scoring for exams in the large classes, and cut down on the number of handouts used in class. In responding to the Dean's request for contingency cuts, I opted to sacrifice some OOE, faculty computer time (at the Center) and student hourly for lab supervision. I listed faculty and classified salaries as "untouchable." As for equipment, I noted, "I put our pathetic little fund last -- it isn't much, but its all we've got to replace the small items which keep us going."39 As it turned out, RTVF came out reasonably well (thanks to the new building and surrounding visibility) but some of our "pathetic" funds were rescinded.

The state's budget situation did not improve during the rest of the period considered in this chapter. And it didn't help matters that the University itself faced some shortfalls. For example, because of a drop in the 1981 enrollment, the University lost around $800,000 in the 1983 budget, and they lost another $400,000 from a 1983 enrollment drop. As a result, a hiring freeze was placed on new positions, but once again RTVF escaped because of commitments made to the program.40

The 1984 budget had to be planned with a shortfall in mind. As Dean Brinkman reported, the bad news is that "we have been asked to prepare a budget that would be approximately 95% of our current base budget. That means that we will have $61,635 less ... than we have this year."41 He went on to say that there could be some good news -- that later there might be "addbacks" (another new budget term) in increments of 1%, perhaps even up to 102 percent of the present budget! The Dean found most of the money by postponing faculty vacancies (not RTVF) totalling $61,000.

Despite this generally depressing fiscal atmosphere, RTVF was compelled to submit requests for additions to the basic budget, outside of the special allotments that would be necessary for the new building. Of course, we invoked the name of Weir whenever possible. Thus, in 1980, in justifying his budget, Dean Brinkman wrote to V/C Christoffersen that "the Weir contribution to build new facilities for broadcasting will bring new pressures for improved quality in staff, equipment and other support."42 On our behalf, for 1982, he requested a new faculty line and increases in student help. He asked that the base budget be increased to $10,000 for equipment replacement and that OOE be increased to $28,696 in order to take care of increased maintenance expenditures resulting from the new equipment of 1978-79.

The procedures for budget requests had, through the years, become more formalized. By 1982, in requesting support for 1983-84, it was necessary to submit the request under two categories: (I) enrollment adjustments and historical inequities, and (II) program improvement. Assembling and supporting the requests for category I was relatively simple, because there was a plethora of data about our growth and the years of perceived inequities. Category II, however, seemed to be similar to the endless self-studies -- a difficult exercise that rarely resulted (it seemed to us) in additional support.

Thus, in the request for 1983-84 under category I, RTVF could point to a faculty/SCHR ratio of 357.9 (in 1981) --far above the rest of Journalism -- and heavy loads in teaching and advising. There was the pressure of expanding production and the need to cover the teaching of new courses. In this category we requested the following:43

One faculty line ($25,000) for sales strategies course.
     One classified line for bookkeeping on, level to be determined.
     OOE addition -- $2000.
     Lab equipment replacement, audio and video -- $18,640.
     Student help (hourly) -- $1200.
     KJHK management stipend (new) -- $2112.

But by November, 1982, it was necessary to update the requests, in the area of equipment, to $59,740, basically to replace the b/w television equipment which had been used in the beginning production and performance courses for many years.44

As to category II -- if history was a predictor of success, we were going to be disappointed. Requests from other units of the University, who could contribute partial funding from some other outside source, usually had a good chance of being rewarded. But such funds were in short supply for RTVF -- the Feds had about as much interest in funding education for future media professionals as they had for improving the economy of Russia. However, in 1982, we tackled this category with enthusiasm because we now had a huge lever to pry loose additional support -- a multi-million dollar building. This had already resulted in commitments from central administration to improve and maintain the support for RTVF, beyond the allocations that would be needed to equip and operate the new facilities. Looking forward to these facilities, we requested the following:45

One faculty line -- $27,000.
     Equipment replacement -- $15,000. (new base budget)
     Studio equipment -- $98,900.
     Field production equipment, with van -- $386,938.
     Additional OOE above base budget -- $7,000.
     Student hourly -- $1,200.
     Graduate Assistants, additional lines -- $9,400.
     Classified CS I or II -- $9,132.
     Grad assistant for KJHK -- $4,700.
     Telephone system, new building -- $2,400.
     ATMS terminal -- $800.

The studio equipment would have professional quality cameras, recorders, audio controls, special effects for video, video editing and studio lighting. The request for field production equipment was a shot in the dark, but it would provide as much production capability as any area television station. To help soften the blow we predicted that the new building would result in at least a five percent increase in undergraduate enrollments and 10 percent in graduate enrollments in RTVF -- this at a time when the prediction was for an overall decline in enrollment.

Those were the requests. What did RTV actually have to work with? The following statement shows the actual budget for the 1982-83 school year:46

Personnel (students)
          .5 TA            $3700
          .5 TA            3800
          .5 TA            3700
          .3 GA            2500
     Student Hourly
               Office: 28 hr/wk @ 3.35                           3564
               KJHK Eng: 12 hrs/wek @ 3.35               1528
               TV Eng: 14 hrs/wk @ 3.35                      1782
               60-0099 Supplies, Expense (OOE)       24803
               0700 Income est           20000
               69-0099 Telephone      4465
               0-0099 Equipment      1490
               0700 Income est           3000

Requests Following the Postponement of the Building.

The third reaction to the postponement of the building (after shock and disappointment) was the realization that the budget request would have to be revised. We knew that whether or not there was to be a new building there were many items of equipment which had to be replaced and, hopefully, new equipment to mirror a changing world of television production. With several requests in 1983, running well into six figures, the RTVF Committee served notice that it was not willing to settle for a mediocre program.

On January 26, 1983, a revised equipment list was turned in. It was arranged in priorities. Priority I called for new portable color cameras, monitors, mikes and audio, for a total of $63,050. The second priority was to add the same equipment but at a higher quality level. This would cost $43,910 more. Finally, and wearing our rose colored glasses, we said that a third priority was for the equipment which would be needed if the building again became a reality, for another $128,000.47

The most heart-warming thing that happened in the aftermath of the postponement was the tremendous support from central administration. Chancellor Budig had appointed a Communications Review Committee to look at all aspects of the RTV program. The Committee was completely supportive of the RTV program, which no doubt influenced many decisions.48 In response to the report, the Chancellor acted quickly: Priority I (above) was completely funded, as well as a large item from Priority II, with authorization to order the equipment as soon as possible. The order was placed in early May. Even more support was given when, in April, 1983, Chancellor Budig announced that private funds would be used to provide another new position in RTV and authority would be given to search for replacements for two professors who would be leaving -- this was at a time when very few additions or replacements were approved. The Chancellor also provided the funds for five new $1000 fellowships.49

That spring, as it became increasingly clear that the building would not be a reality, the RTV (Journalism) faculty continued to meet in order to discuss "now what....?" We all agreed that it wasn't going to be necessary to do another (!) self-study -- we were quite satisfied with who we were and what we were all about. But the budget request would have to be revised and we would have to take another look at possible solutions to the problem of adequate facilities. It was assumed that the Weir postponement was permanent.

In July the Committee released an expansive new plan for equipment and facilities. It contained both short term and long term solutions, neither of which could be called parsimonious.50 As to facilities, in the short term it seemed likely that we would have to occupy the present office space in Blake Annex and the labs in Jolliffe Hall and Sudler Annex for several years. It would be necessary to create new office space for additional faculty in Blake Annex. It was recommended that the two large TV studios in Jolliffe be turned into one, by removing the partition between them. (This would cut down on studio duplication.) Also, at that time, the television audio control area should be enclosed. Finally, more air conditioning should be added to the editing suites on the top floor. For the long term, the Committee gave the highest priority to building an addition to the south side of Stauffer-Flint Hall. (Note: As this was being written, in 1998, Dean Jimmy Gentry was recommending that serious study should be given to such an addition, in order to bring all elements of the program together.) The Committee then recommended that if this proved to be impossible then the administration should examine all present and future buildings on campus to see if there could be room for the RTV lab facilities.

As to equipment, the list for the short term reflected a strategy to merge the two studios, thus reducing the duplication of studio cameras, and to place more emphasis on field production and post-production editing. The request was for $206,220, not including a production van. The assumption for the long term was that there eventually would be new facilities which would require additional electronics and furniture, in the amount of $173,302. By the end of the summer of 1983, and after additional meetings of the Committee, a further revised list of equipment was submitted, which reflected the conclusions that it would be necessary to have high quality equipment for both studio and field production, including a remote van, and that it would be necessary to provide an interface for the use of computers in production and for coop production with the campus video system. The revised amount was for $349,320 short term, plus the above $173,302 for the new facilities.51 In late September, Mr. Hogan advised us that it might be possible to approved a partial list. When no action was forthcoming by March, 1984, the Committee re-submitted the list.

Emergency Requests.

It should be apparent that the normal (and formal) budgeting process of the University proceeded at about the speed of a crippled turtle crawling to Topeka. That is, it took from one and a half to two years from the time of an initial request from the University until final approval by the Legislature. In the meantime, what happened when there was a true emergency which might threaten the continuation of classes and/or labs? The answer is that somehow the University was able to find the funds for RTVF, even in the face of the poor fiscal condition of the state. Perhaps this was because of the increased visibility of our program and the discussions and planning for a new building, but when help was needed quickly, there was a positive response.

For example, in September, 1981, the "switcher" (which controlled the integration of multipe video sources) was showing distressing signs of old age, as was a video editing unit and audio console. I wrote to Dean Brinkman requesting emergency funding to replace them and he immediately endorsed the request and sent it to V/C Tacha, who gave it her approval.52 In October of that same year there were serious problems with a small color camera and several battery belts, which the Vice Chancellor was able to resolve by adding another $12,500 to the original request of $8,650.53 A year later, Professor Jan Platt, then in charge of television production, requested and received funds for the replacement of a video editing system, in the amount of $5,436.

A serious problem developed in January, 1983, at the same time that the building was postponed. The audio console in the television color studio failed completely, and replacement parts were no longer available. Once again V/C Tacha approved funds for a replacement, which was ordered by the end of January.54

Budget Requests Through Speech and Drama.

All of the above requests, both formal and emergency in nature, were made through the School of Journalism. This is because the School had always funded the major portion of the RTVF budget. The only exception was in the case of the salaries of the faculty on joint appointments and the graduate assistants who helped in the performance and film history classes, plus a small OOE for such expenditures as the rental of films for the film history classes.

But when the split appointments were abolished, and when it was agreed that Speech and Drama could offer work in film and long form video, there was greater need for support from the College budget. (Perhaps this is one reason why Bobby Patton had been trying to get more visability to the program by changing the administrative structure, as discussed earlier in this chapter.) It was still my responsibility (in 1981) to submit this budget, but I did it with some reservations. I stated, "it is not clear just what the future holds for the RTVF program as part of Speech (but) there should still be a role for RTVF through the College (because of its) unique courses -- film production, film history, performance and aesthetics." In 1981 the request for film rentals, a TA and equipment came to $18,000.55 (In 1982 the actual budged amount of OOE was $350.) At that time, I was also worried about the fact that when the RTV program moved to the new building on west campus in 1983, it would not be possible, logistically, to transport the several hundred students in the performance courses to the new studios. Therefore, Speech and Drama would have to continue to use the old b/w studios in Jolliffe, which would require additional funds to maintain. Of course, with the postponement of the building, that problem disappeared.

By 1984, Chuck Berg, with the support of Bobby Patton, requested that the coursework in film production be revived. In order to do this he would need film equipment, as well as additional faculty and OOE. There already were excellent film cameras, accessories, recorders and editing equipment at hand, but they were the property of the RTV program in Journalism. Since the latter faculty had no interest in using the equipment, it was suggested that it be transferred to Theatre-Film and that they assume responsibility for its maintenance.56

Also, in 1984, the School of Journalism approved a system whereby the Theatre-Film area could charge a "film text fee" of $15 from each student enrolled in Journ 384, The Documentary in Broadcasting and Film. This would help pay for the film rentals. The course actually was taught by Theatre-Film. This system followed the procedure used in the College for the other film courses of the Department, and also Grant Goodman's course on "Hollywood On Asia."57

This was the last budget action for the RTVF program in the Division of Speech and Drama originating with the RTVF Committee. In the following years the budget requests were prepared by the Division Chair, Bobby Patton, in consultation with Prof. Charles Berg.

Other Budget Matters Not Directly Related to RTV.

During this time period there were several other events or actions which did not directly involve the budget of RTV, but are described here because they relate to communications.

The first involved the School of Journalism. In 1982, with the remodeling of Flint Hall in full swing, it was necessary to plan and request funds for new audio/visual equipment. The RTV Committee was asked to recommend equipment which would maximize the learning experiences in the building. We recommended several videotape recording and playback units which came to $12,790. Funds for the equipment would likely come from the Stauffer grant.'

The other events occured at KANU, in about the same time frame as the postponement of the RTVF building, perhaps adding additional stress to the University budget. In December, 1982, vandals cut three supporting cables to the KANU tower and it crashed to the ground. Rather quickly a short, temporary tower was erected which would allow broadcasts on reduced power. But in May, 1983, even the temporary tower collapsed when a tower company truck ran into a supporting cable. Finally, a new tower was erected in the fall, and full power was resumed in the winter. In the meantime, the station had to take another blow -- this one to the pocketbook. With a very limited signal there was a greatly reduced potential for listenership. (No listeners in Topeka or Kansas City, for example.) So it was no surprise that the fall pledge drive produced only $17,000. With good reason the drive was called, "The Drive to Survive."58

B. Faculty and Staff.

In this period from the fall of 1981 to the fall of 1984, and in contrast to the great activity related to administrative structure and the frustrations connected with the status of the proposed building, the situation regarding faculty and staff was remarkably positive. Very few people left and there were significant faculty additions.

As the fall semester began, in 1981, there were seven faculty members teaching fulltime in the area of RTVF; one was in the Division of Speech and Drama and the rest had appointments in Journalism. There also were seven other people who were teaching RTVF classes but who had major duties elsewhere. As the fall semester began in 1984 there were ten fulltime; two were in Speech, one of whom would be on a one-year leave of absence, and the rest were in Journalism. Also that fall, there were seven others who were involved in RTVF classes but who had major duties elsewhere.

In the fall of 1981 the only new person was Janice Platt, although she actually had begun teaching in the spring semester. There were no changes in the 1982-83 school year.

At the end of that year Platt resigned in order to accept an offer from Queens College in New York; she wanted to be close to a major production center. Although time was short, we were able to plug the gap by hiring Michael Burks, a PhD candidate in Speech, who had been teaching television production at a junior college. He was appointed as a lecturer. Also at that time, Professor Richard Colyer elected to return to his original department -- English -- on a fulltime basis. There was no immediate replacement through Speech and Drama.

There was an exciting addition to the program in the fall of 1983, of a person who would not be on tenure-track -- Arthur Wolf. Art had recently retired from a productive career as the President of Centron Corporation, a film production company located in Lawrence. It seemed to me that here was a valuable resource person -- one who might be available to meet one-on-one with students in production courses to discuss and evaluate their projects. He might even be able to teach a class.59 Dean Brinkman was interested in the possibility and was willing to fund his appointment should he be interested. It turned out that Art was having trouble with retirement and he jumped at the opportunity to help young people. Thus began his "second career," which lasted for several years.

As noted in the budget section of this chapter, RTV (Journalism) had requested -- and received approval to hire -- additional faculty members. Janice Platt had been the first of these. When the building was postponed, Chancellor Budig stuck by his promise to expand the RTV faculty. He approved a national search for my replacement as the head of RTV and he also approved two more lines. The latter positions would not be filled until my replacement had been hired, which allowed the new person more freedom in shaping the make-up of the faculty.

The new head was Max Utsler. He was an excellent choice, combining extensive experience in both professional broadcasting and high education. He had received his MA and PhD at the University of Missouri, and he had taught there for over eleven years, including a year and a half as Chairperson of the RTV area. He had professional experience in commercial radio and television, in the area of news, and at the time he was hired by KU he was the Assistant News Director at KDSK-TV, a large television station in St. Louis.

Utsler accepted the position in January, 1984, but because of prior commitments to the station he could not move to Lawrence until late April or early May. He did come in for a very busy indoctrination for about a week in February. He kept in very close touch with Dean Brinkman, the search committee (for the other positions) and myself. This continued communication made it possible to prune the list of candidates for the new position and to interview the finalists shortly after his arrival.

John Broholm was hired as an Assistant Professor of Journalism. He had a BA from Stanford and an MA from Missouri. Just as important, he had an excellent background in television news; at the time he was hired he was the News Producer at a large Denver station. He would be responsible for the courses in broadcast news.

Linda Davis was hired on a one-year contract as a Lecturer. She had held an executive position in the New York office of Home Box Office -- marvelous background to bring to a program which wished to go deeper into the new technologies. (A year later she would become fulltime, on tenure track.)

Also hired in the summer of 1984 as a Lecturer was Harry Strader, a fulltime professional television executive from a Topeka station; he would teach a course which would meet once each week at KU. Another representative of the professional broadcasting world was Elmer Lower, the retired President of ABC-TV news; he would be a fulltime visiting professor during the fall semester.

There was a down side in the summer of 1984. Dale Gadd left the faculty, hoping to pursue a career in writing for television/film in Los Angeles. Tom Rea died of a heart attack; he was an outstanding teacher of acting, in the Department of Theatre, and he had been collaborating with me for several years in the teaching of acting and production. (See Chapter V.) Peter Dart, an exciting and effective teacher of production and aesthetics, decided to take a leave of absence for one year in order to teach at a university in Louisiana. Earlier, in the spring, he had asked that his teaching appointment be changed from Journalism to Speech and Drama so that he might do more with the area of "media arts."

As the summer of 1984 came to a close the following people comprised the faculty who had been teaching RTV or who would be teaching in the fall. An asterisk indicates the faculty who were no longer at KU or who would be leaving in the fall:

RTV Faculty (appointments in Journalism)

John Broholm (MA), Asst. Professor.

Michael Burks (MA), Lecturer.

Linda Davis (MA), Lecturer.

Sam Elliott (MBA), Asst. Professor.

Dale Gadd (PhD), Assoc. Professor.*

Bruce Linton (PhD), Professor.

Elmer Lower, Visiting Professor in Residence.

Janice Platt (PhD), Asst. Professor.*

George Rasmussen (MA), Asst. Professor.

Harry Strader, Visiting Lecturer.

Max Utsler (PhD), Assoc. Professor.

Arthur Wolf (BA), Lecturer.

RTVF Faculty (appointments in Speech and Drama)

Charles Berg (PhD), Assoc. Professor.

Peter Dart (PhD), Professor.

The following related faculty taught courses; some were members of the RTVF Committee.

Richard Colyer (PhD), Asst. Professor of Speech and English.*

David Dary (MS), Assoc. Professor, Journalism.

Francis Ellis, Lecturer, Journalism.

Tom Hedrick (MA), Lecturer, Speech and Journalism.

Howard Hill (MA), Director, KANU.

Glenn Price (MA), Asst. Chairperson, Division of Speech and Drama.

Tom Rea (PhD), Professor, Speech and Drama.*

Richard Wright (MFA), Lecturer, Speech and Drama.

There were no changes in the staff during this period. Pat English continued to handle the secretarial duties and Rod Davis maintained KJHK and the b/w television studio. Rick Lucas maintained the color television studio and the portable video equipment. Francis Ellis was responsible for the condition of the 16mm film equipment, and he handled the check-out procedures for the portable video equipment. There were several graduate assistants who had major responsibilities as lab supervisors.

Keeping the television equipment in good shape was a major headache. It always had been, but as cameras and editing equipment increased in number and complexity the headaches moved to the migraine level. Minor shutdowns were common, and major ones happened occasionally. There was no easy solution or cure. We really wanted a "chief" engineer, but there was no money in the budget for even a regular engineer. After some discussion with engineers from area stations, one possibility was proposed: The School could enter into a contract with a station, wherein an engineer would visit the KU facilities on a regular basis as a consultant. In 1982, Station WIBW-TV agreed to provide the service at a cost of $250/day, and it was used two or three times a year for several years.60

C. Curriculum.

It seemed, through the years, that there was no let-up in the discussion of curriculum and requirements, but the prospect of a new building added a sense of excitement to the meetings. In a news release about the building, V/C Tacha said, "(It) will give us an opportunity to build on this high quality program." The Chancellor said that "(Their) generosity and vision...has made possible a significant enhancement of the academic program of the University." And I was quoted as saying, "Their gift) has given us the opportunity to be responsive to the demands of new technology in our field (and) we are moving beyond traditional broadcasting to offer work in cable, satellite delivery and non-broadcast information transmission."61

Actually, there weren't very many changes during this period. It was easy to provide "sound bites," but it took a lot more work and time to decide what to change, what to add, and what to delete. We also needed to wait for additional funding and the appearance of the new person who would head the RTV area. (There would be many changes in the eighties and they have continued to the present time. As always, they reflected the desires of the current faculty -- especially the new head -- but they also reflected changes in the worlds of film and electronic communications.) As we discussed possible changes, Jan Platt proved to be almost omniscient when she urged the Committee to "think video, not television," and be prepared to include information about the coming change from analogue to digital production and transmission.62

There was one additional change, which originated in the University Council: Beginning in the fall of 1981, the grading system of A,B,C, etc., was amended to include plus and minus grades. The School of Journalism and the College approved the change, as did most of the academic divisions of the University.

1. The Undergraduate Program.

There were no changes in the undergraduate requirements in either program. The Department -- later Division -- of Speech and Drama continued to offer two options: The RTVF "General" and "Film Studies." The first emphasized "production, performance, aesthetics and history," while Film Studies covered the "interrelated contexts of history, theory, aesthetics, economics, politics and popular culture."63 The program through the School of Journalism and Mass Communications continued to offer two tightly structured options: "Broadcast News and Broadcast Management."

There were some changes in the course offerings. Several of them were in the cross-listed courses. It was generally agreed that the beginning course (280, Introduction to Radio and Television) was most in need of a remake. After several months of discussion the revamped course was sent to the curriculum committees of Journalism and Speech. The content had been updated to include much more material about cable and satellites, and the new title became "Introduction To Radio, Television and the New Technologies." It was approved in both academic areas.64 Another serious problem was that of the cross-listed film courses. The continuing squeeze on the production budget (OOE) and faculty loads made it increasingly difficult to offer production courses in both video and film. In 1982, when a proposal to the Commonwealth Corporation failed to produce outside funding for film production, the faculty decided that the video area held the greatest potential for careers. In March, 1983, the Committee was leaning toward total elimination of film production courses, noting that "film production simply has no possibility of being offered in the near future. It probably should be deleted from the catalog, although we will not take this action until we are completely sure that there is no other alternative."65 The next year the School of Journalism dropped its listing of both 481 and 483; they had not been taught for over two years.66 This was a painful decision -- especially for those of us who had long experience in film production. Peter Dart and I had taught the courses for many years. We had produced a number of films and had guided the MS projects of many masters candidates.

At first the Division of Speech and Drama intended to drop the courses, but by the middle of 1984 it had been decided to keep them in the catalog. There was always the possibility that they could be offered again. (This decision happened at the same time that the Division was considering renaming the Department of Theatre and RTVF as "The Department of Theatre and Media Arts." They reasoned that by dropping a reference to RTV the department could rid itself of criticism from those who felt it was a stepchild of the Journalism program, and the result might be an increase in the budget, thereby allowing the courses to be taught once again.)67

Changes in other cross-listed courses were less drastic. Courses 482, Basic Television Production, and 585, Color Television Production, had changes in content and assignments to provide a greater emphasis on post production editing of videotape. (Courses 585 and 595 also had number changes to 485 and 495, so that graduate students could not take it for graduate credit.68

There were two course additions in the School of Journalism. Jo 394 (3), Elements of Music Programming, was added to take advantage of the expertise of Dick Wright. Jo 596 (3), Cable Television, was added to provide much more specific information about this growing area; it would be taught by a new faculty member who also owned a cable system, Sam Elliott.69

One addition, on the Speech side, had no direct relationship to new technology, but it added depth to the liberal arts major. RTVF 580, (3) American Pop Culture of the 1930's, had already been approved and had been taught. Then it occured to the Committee that if the title were changed to make it "open ended" it would be possible to offer a pop culture course for any decade without going through the laborious effort of submitting a new course to the curriculum committee. The proposal was approved and the new title became, Pop Culture of the 19__'s.70

The arrival of Max Utsler in the spring of 1984, and the funding of additional faculty lines, brought about new discussions of the RTVF curriculum in the J-School. Utsler's goal for the program was a little more optimistic than what had been expressed in the past. The latter goal was to produce graduates who would be outstanding candidates for the first communications job and who would have the background to move up the ladder quickly. Utsler wanted students to leave school looking for their second job, having already had the experiences comparable to the first one. The graduates, he said, must be able to write, work together and meet deadlines; the beginning course should stress job skills, augmented by courses for greater flexilbility.71

In the summer of 1984 the Committee proposed a new set of requirements. There would be a core curriculum and two options -- "Broadcast Journalism" or Broadcast Sales. (The latter was a re-naming of "Broadcast Management.")

The CORE for the BS degree would be: (The first three would be taken before the student entered the School.)

240 (3) Elements of Advertising.

280 (3) Introduction to Radio, Television and the New Technologies.

350 (3) Reporting I.

601 (3) Law of Communications.

653 (3) History of American Journalism (or)

694 (3) History and Criticism of Broadcasting.

698 (3) American Broadcasting.

BROADCAST JOURNALISM EMPHASIS.

390 (3) Broadcast News I.

490 (3) Broadcast News II.

690 (3) Broadcasting Reporting.

Plus 1 hr of Journalism.

BROADCAST SALES EMPHASIS.

387 (3) Intro to Writing and Production of RTV Commercials.

449 (3) Sales Strategy.

649 (3) Media Sales.

Plus 1 hr of Journalism.

These recommendations were submitted to the Journalism faculty in the fall of 1984, and were approved several months later. They were the first of numerous changes to the curriculum and requirements in years to come.

2. The Graduate Program.

As noted in the earlier section on administration, the future status of the RTVF graduate program was somewhat uncertain throughout this period. (The uncertainty was in the administrative control and name of the degree, not in the content; a new graduate student could be certain that a series of courses could be taken which would result in a master's degree.) But in spite of that uncertainty, the graduate program continued to be housed under the Division of Speech and Drama, and it remained under the control of the graduate faculty, consisting of Janice Platt (advisor), Professors Peter Dart and Bruce Linton; Associate Professors Chuck Berg and Dale Gadd; and Assistant Professors Richard Colyer, Glenn Price and George Rasmussen.

There were no changes in the degree requirements or options; there were two programs or options for the Master of Arts degree and two for the Master of Science. The options under the former were "General," the program on the Lawrence campus, and "Broadcast Administration/Operations," the program in Kansas City. The two MS options were offered on the Lawrence campus only. They were "Community Broadcasting," and "Non-Theatrical Film and Television."

There were two course additions. In 1982, an advanced course in Aesthetics was added in order to strengthen an area that was quite popular with students who had elected to do a production project for the MS degree. It was RTVF 893 (3) Applied Aesthetics, taught by Peter Dart.72 A year later the Introduction to Graduate Study course (880) was changed from 2 to 3 hours of credit. The most interesting change of all was the introduction of a weekly meeting of all graduate students and the graduate faculty. This was to be a forum for the reporting on -- and discussion of -- research projects by both students and faculty. The students could get criticism and advice concerning their proposed research efforts, and the faculty could demonstrate (it was hoped) good research techniques. It would carry no credit, but it would be required of all students. It was called RTVF 889 (0) Research Practicum Colloquium.73 The catalog description of the program as it existed in 1983 can be found in the Appendix.

D. Students.

For some reason -- some said it was just a blip in the birthrate years before -- the number of students declined, or at least did not meet anticipated projections, during these years. To make matters worse, there were shortfalls in the state budget. The result, for KU, was a freeze on hiring for most areas. For those academic programs which actually were showing modest growth, the result was crowded classrooms. The School of Journalism experienced modest growth, and so did RTVF in both Journalism and Speech.

There were 700 fulltime students in Journalism in 1982, sixteen more than the previous year. Total enrollments measured 903 students, 324 of which were in RTVF courses.74 (In 1983, there were 118 majors.) The problem of closed classes had faced Journalism majors for several years, but now the situation was more severe. Usually the closed classes were those which were prerequisite for advanced classes, and so it was terribly frustrating for many of the pre-majors and majors. "Waiting lists" were common. For example, although there were 324 enrollments in 13 RTVF classes in the fall of 1982, in certain courses -- production, color television production and news -- there were an additional 52 students on the list, waiting for a spot to open.

There was a slight increase in the number of RTVF majors through Speech and Drama, primarily because of the introduction, by the College, of a "Bachelor of General Studies." The BGS was more flexible -- critics said much easier -- than the traditional BA or BS, and most departments, including Speech and Drama, developed requirements. The RTVF area, in 1983, claimed 101 majors at the junior-senior level. The claim was made that there were over 200 pre-majors, but this was not a really solid figure.

The RTVF masters program, still located in Speech and Drama had a stable enrollment. There were 23 active candidates enrolled in 1983. Five students benefited by receiving $1,000 scholarships from the endowment fund of the School of Journalism, surely an act of good faith in the future of the RTVF program. (By 1985 the degree would be located in Journalism.)

All students benefited from the continued growth of the intern programs at area stations, film companies and production houses. The trend continued to be in the direction of paid internships although the majority of interns still received class credit. Two additional internships were added at WIBW-TV and KMBR/KMBZ. Former students continued to do well in the broadcasting and film industries. An alumni survey, taken in 1981, revealed that there were 393 graduates working in these or related areas, of those returning the questionnaire. Their job categories broke down as follows:75

News (all areas) 93 (26%)

Advertising, Writing 85 (23%)

Production 127 (35%)

Management 25 (7%)

Higher Education 18 (5%)

Newspaper/Magazine 15 (4%)

Three of the graduates were honored at the Telecommunications Day programs during these years. In 1982 the Outstanding Alumni award went to William Harmon. Bill was one of the earliest graduates of the program, and had even taught for us in the spring of 1959. He was a very successful advertising executive and a pioneer in the development and programming of electronic scoreboards at major league stadiums. Gary Bender received the 1983 award. He was having an outstanding career as a sports announcer on the networks. At one time he had been the Sports Network Director at KU. Mike Robe took the honors in 1984. Based in LA, he started his career by making industrial films, but he was soon writing and directing dramatic programs for the national television networks.

E. Laboratory Operations: Facilities and Equipment.

1. Facilities.

At the start of this period, most of the RTVF faculty occupied offices in Blake Annex. It had been constructed as a temporary building in WWII. As was the case with such buildings on campuses nationwide, it continued to be used far beyond its planned lifespan. Now it was occupied by RTVF while we waited for the new building. The radio lab, KJHK, was still located in Sudler Annex, and a converted residence hall, Jolliffe, housed the television studios, editing rooms, equipment checkout, and several offices. Blake Annex and Jolliffe Hall were eyesores, but the space was functional and we could look forward to occupancy of a new building in the near future.

The Building Bubble Bursts.

The ups and downs of the new building has been referred to in several sections of this chapter, but it deserves further discussion. By the fall of 1981, basic decisions had been made about the amount and type of space each program would receive, and the architects, Kiene and Bradley, were working on the design concepts for the building. As noted earlier in this chapter, it came as a great surprise -- at least to the RTVF faculty -- when Mr. and Mrs. Weir put a hold on the building. When it was lifted, in March, 1982, the sigh of relief from the faculty probably was heard clear across the parking lot at the Chancellor's residence.

During the rest of that year, the architects moved from concept to specific construction documents. There were more than forty meetings involving the architects, Facilities Planning, Endowment and the occupants. Winn Chalindra was the principal architect and he was usually accompanied by Jack Bradley. Facilities planning was represented by Allen Weichert and Jim Canole, Endowment by Todd Seymour and Martin Henry, and the occupants by Howard Hill (for KANU) and Francis Ellis and myself (for RTVF.) "Official" meeting number 39 was held on November 9, 1982, and it was most encouraging. The architects estimated that bids would be received by mid February, 1983, and awarded in early March. The completion date was to be August, 1984. We were told that it was not too early to begin planning the "stepped occupancy" of the building by the several programs. The new cost estimate was $3,085,009, plus "site work" estimated at $200,000.76

During the summer and fall of 1982, I made many trips to Topeka to consult with Winn Chalindra about construction details and specifications relating to our quarters. These ranged all the way from the design of the light bridge in the studio to the location of electrical wall outlets in the editing rooms. It was an exciting time, and one might imagine my daydreams about the building on the return drive to Lawrence. The occasion of the Telecommunications Day provided a natural showcase for the impressive scale model. Mr. and Mrs. Weir were in attendance and they seemed to be quite pleased with everything.

But apparently everything was not as rosy as it seemed. Dean Brinkman called me in shortly after their visit. He said that he was getting "mixed signals" from the Weirs -- nothing he could define, because they didn't verbalize in specifics. I asked Del what I should be doing, and he replied that I should continue to work with the architects, who were getting everything ready for the bidding process which would take place after the first of the year. I continued to meet with them, and the RTVF Comittee also put together a final equipment priority list which totalled $432,076.77 But my daydreams on the trips to Topeka now were filled with trepidation.

On a bleak day in January, 1983, the bubble did burst. The building was to be postponed indefinitely. Neither the Chancellor nor the Dean knew exactly why, and the broadcasting friends of the Weirs were also in the dark. Jerry Holly, of WIBW-TV, suggested that perhaps a small committee of broadcasters might visit with them to see what, if anything, could be done.78 After several months the best guess was that some financial reverses -- probably oil investments -- had not gone well.

Now What?

After months of discussions about new space and thousands of dollars worth of new equipment, it was difficult to think about alternative possibilities. And for a month or two we even thought that the postponement was temporary. It finally became apparent that we would have to be in our present space, at least for the immediate future, because there was no other place else to go. The administration did ease our depression by declaring that professional facilities for RTVF would continue to be a top priority.

Totally new space seemed to be years down the road. But one possible solution kept coming up in our discussions: Why not add on to Stauffer-Flint Hall to the south, down the side of the hill? A few people on the J-School faculty liked the idea, but some of them felt that it would violate the architectural integrity of the historic building. Of course, it didn't help our cause that the building had just been completely renovated.

The only realistic solution, for the immediate future, was to stay in our present quarters and convince the administration to maintain and upgrade them. Jolliffe Hall needed to have additional air conditioning; Blake Annex would need to have new office space for Max Utsler, John Broholm and other new faculty members who would be coming soon. KJHK would have to continue to broadcast from Sudler Annex, with the newscasts emanating from Jolliffe.

In late summer of 1984, Utsler received the first hint that a final solution might be on the horizon. Thanks to the efforts of Senator Dole, there was going to be a new building for child development, funded by the federal government. Perhaps there would be extra space for our program. On October 26, 1984, Dean Brinkman announced to the faculty that, "it is quite likely that the radio-television program will be housed in the (Dole) building." The space would be adequate for offices, classrooms, a television studio and video editing rooms. There probably wouldn't be enough room for KJHK, and definitely none for KANU. It would be necessary for the School of Journalism to come up with two million dollars in private funds for our share of the building, but Dean Brinkman seemed to be optimistic that the money could be found.79 Once again we could look around the shabby interiors of Jolliffe and Blake Annex and daydream about the new space that likely would be ours in a few years.

There was another development which showed promise. In 1980, George Rasmussen had suggested that the University (i.e., the J-School) should put a "low-power" television station on the air. At that time the RTVF Committee saw little possibility that such a large project could be funded. However, the idea didn't disappear. Low-power stations were going on the air all over the country, and there were rumors that a commercial station might be built in Lawrence. None appeared, but in the fall of 1981 the idea was again discussed by the Committee. This time it was decided to table further discussion until the new building was in place, along with more cameras and editing stations and additional staff.80

The abrupt demise of the building halted any further discussion until the summer of 1984. By this time the much-rumored low-power station was closer to reality. Max Utsler and Dean Brinkman announced that they were "working with a group which plans to build a low-power television station."81 By the middle of the fall there was a further announcement that an agreement was almost completed, which would give advanced students in all areas of the Journalism broadcasting