fl! Ezmmm M EEE 6835 6? SUMMARIES
£968 HEBYEEES GE HE fiEEVEHSHY
BHMBEQSFWB §SSQGHFEW BF GHISASE

mas for the name of M

WWW! STATE UNIVERSITY
HOWARD fl. SIMHSKY
' 1984

THESlS

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

ABSTRACT

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CODE OF STANDARDS AND
PRACTICES OF THE UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING
ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO

by Howard M. Sirinsky

The University Broadcasting Association of Chicago
(hereinafter designated as TUBA) has varied in membership
from eleven to six of the institutions of higher education in
the Chicago area which participate in educational, informa-
tional, and public affairs programs over the commercial
television stations and the educational television channel
in that area. It was formed in 1957 to act as an advisory
group to these stations on educational broadcasting, to in-
sure maximal employment of the educational channel in the
interests of higher education, and to elevate the standards
of educational and public service broadcasting. In attempt-
ing to achieve this last purpose, the association has pooled
the resources of its members in Joint productions of tele-
vision series when such cOOperation has promised to insure
better presentation. It has also formulated a Code of Stand-
ards and Practices, which states what TUBA believes to be the
reaponsibilities of educators and stations towards each other
and towards the public, then declares certain conditions as
necessary for educational, informational, and public affairs

programs to be of maximum value.

Howard M. Sirinsky

Without presuming to present a detailed history of
the association, this study begins by explaining the circum-
stances which gave rise to the formation of the association
and its code. It then reproduces the code and extracts from
related documents. Lastly, it attempts to assess how far
. TUBA has succeeded in achieving the standards and practices
delineated in its code.

The study is based on documents in the records of the
association and on interviews conducted during 1963 with past
and present member-representatives of the association and
broadcasting station officials who have had dealings with the
association.

These sources reveal that TUBA has been involved with
a number of difficult questions, such as: HOw can one recon-
cile the aims of educators with the interests of commercial
stations--or even those of an educational community station?
How can public acceptance of educational programs be increased?
How can the resources of institutions of higher learning be
organized and encouraged to produce effective educational
television programs? When institutions of different aims and
capabilities band together in a broadcasting effort, can such
a union succeed, and to what extent? Such are the problems
which are reflected either in the tenets of TUBA's code or
in its attempt to implement those tenets in actual practice.
The aim of this study is to illuminate the problems, not to
attain solutions for them. As TUBA has learned through its

experience, some of these solutions may be a long time coming.

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CODE OF STANDARDS
AND PRACTICES OF THE UNIVERSITY
BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO

By
Howard M. Sirinsky

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Television and Radio

1964

Wu...

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This writer wishes to express his thanks to the
interviewees referred to throughout this study without whose
help this thesis could not have been written. I give Special
thanks to James Taylor of DePaul University for his continued

encouragement.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

Representatives, Past and Present, of TUBA's
Member Institutions

Chapter
I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE CODE . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Conferences

First Meeting

The Problem of Favorable Time

The Problem of Faculty Compensation

The Problem of More "Lively" and
"Attractive" Performances

The Problem of Taboos

The Problem of Initiative in Programming

Suggested Solutions to the Problems

II. THE CODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

The Stated Purposes of TUBA
Text of the Code
TUBA's FCC Testimony

III. METHODS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . 36

Original Committees

TUBA and Telecourses

Treatment by the Commercial Stations
Joint Programming

TUBA's Presentation Skills

The Withdrawal of Two TUBA Members
Reasons for the Withdrawal

TUBA Present and Future

MPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 63
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
I. TENTATIVE PLANS FOR A PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
ON EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FOR THE
CHI CAGO AREA 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 63

II. PROGRAM OF THE FOURTH ANNUAL CHICAGO AREA
COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE . . . . . . . . . . 68

III. RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE FOURTH ANNUAL
CHICAGO AREA COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE . . . . 72

IV. NOTES ON THE INITIAL MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY
BROADCASTING COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

v. TUBA'S BY-LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

VI. SAMPLE MINUTES OF TUBA MEETINGS . . . . . . . . . 87
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE TO

CONSIDER "MEETING OF MINDS" . . . . . . . . . 96

VIII. PARTIAL LIST OF TUBA SERIES .V. . . . . . . . . . lOO

Ix. NEWS RELEASE CONCERNING THE UNIVERSITY OF
CHICAGO'S WITHDRAWAL FROM TUBA . . . . . . . . 119

iv

INTRODUCTION

On March 19, 1962, the Federal Communications Com-
mission began a hearing in Chicago, Illinois, to evaluate how
well broadcasting stations in that area were serving com-
munity needs. Among the organizations which testified at this
hearing was TUBA--The University Broadcasting Association.
What this association is and what it stands for was summar-
ized in testimony presented to the Commission by the president
of TUBA, Donald P. Anderson, on March 20, 1962. He began by
explaining that:

The University Broadcasting Association of Chicago
represents the eight maJor colleges and universities in
the Chicago area. They are DePaul University, Illinois
Institute of Technology, Lake Forest College, Loyola
University, Northwestern University, Roosevelt University,
The Universitycf Chicago, and the University of Illinois.
We are a voluntary organization of the broadcasting
representatives of these institutions. It is our~united
aim to improve the quality of educational, informational
and cultural broadcasts and, thereby, better serve our
institutions, the broadcasting stations, and the public.. .

, Each member institution of the University Broadcast-
ing Association participates in broadcasting activities
independently in order best to serve its individual

needs, strengths, and goals. The Association partic-
ipates in broadcasting activities through the production
of programs and series when our combined resources can
insure better presentation. We believe there is no

field of intellectual and professional importance in which
we, having combined our resources of physical equipment

2

and some 9,000 experts, specialists, and educators,1can-
not provide and produce programs of distinct value.

Mr. Anderson proceeded to comment that broadcasting
stations should regard their public service obligations as at
least equal in importance to their financial profit. Then he
cited several conditions which his association had determined
as necessary for educational, informational, and cultural
programs to be of maximum value.

These conditions were essentially derived from TUBA's
Code of Standards and Practices, which had been formulated
during the previous year as a statement of what the associa-.
tion believes necessary to make the voice of higher education
more effective on the public airwaves, particularly those
reserved for television broadcasting. By many thoughtful
persons these airwaves are considered too vast and influential
to be devoted exclusively to advertising and entertainment.
The voice of higher education, speaking effectively over
these airwaves, could do much to further the well being of
our society. As a statement of what is considered necessary
to strengthen that voice in one of this country's largest
cities, TUBA's code would seem to deserve reCOgnition as a
subject of study.

The study attempted here will begin by explaining the
circumstances which gave rise to the Code. This background,
it is hoped, will better prepare the reader to appreciate the
Code itself, which will then be presented verbatim, together

 

1Testimony o§_The University Broadcasting Association,
before the Federal Communications Commission Hearing, March
20, 1962 in TUBA files.

 

 

3
with the abbreviated version of it which Mr. Anderson in-
cluded in his testimony. Finally, an attempt will be made to
assess how far TUBA has succeeded in achieving the standards
and practices delineated in its Code.

Let it be noted that the study does not pretend to
present a complete history of the organization which authored
the Code. very little has been published about TUBA, and its
own records are scanty and full of gaps. Hence, even this
limited study has had to depend largely on oral opinion and
recollection by persons who have been associated with the
organization, mainly either as representatives of its member
institutions or as officials of the stations which have car-
ried its programs. There are lapses in their recollections
and differences in their opinions. And a much more ambitious
task of research would be required to reveal and analyze the
intricata and tangled threads of motives and conflicts in the
history of the association and to estimate its accomplish-
ments on a basis of firm and complete statistical data.

Enough has emerged from these interviews, however,
to expose a number of problems which should be of interest to
anyone who is concerned with advancing the cause of educa-
tional broadcasting, particularly on the college level.
During its existence TUBA has been involved with a series of
difficult questions: How can one reconcile the aims of ed-
ucators with the interests of commercial stations? To what
degree can the aims of higher education be accommodated within

the program schedule of even a community educational station?

4
How can public acceptance of educational and public affairs
programs be increased? How can the resources of the institu-
tions of higher learning be organized and encouraged to pro-
duce effective programs? When institutions of different aims
and capabilities band together in a broadcasting effort, can
such a union succeed, and to what extent?

Such are the problems which are reflected either in
the tenets of TUBA'S Code or in its attempt to implement those
tenets in actual practice. The aim of this study is to il-
luminate the problems, not to attain solutions for them. As
TUBA has learned through its experience, some of the solu-
tions may be a long time coming.

For prOViding the information used in this study, the
author is grateful to the following consultants, interviewed
at various times during 1963:

Representatives,_§§§t and Present, of TUBA'S
Member Institutions

DonQId Anderson--Director of Public Relations and

 

Broadcasting at Illinois Institute of Technology and, during
the research, Secretary of TUBA.
Jothuckstaff--Assistant Director of Broadcasting at

 

the University of Chicago, formerly Supervisor of Radio and
Television at Illinois Institute of Technology.
HenrygBussey--Director of Radio and Television and
Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama at Loyola University
of Chicago, and, when the research for this study was con-

ducted, Treasurer of TUBA.

5

Arlene Byrne—-Director of Broadcasting and Assistant
Professor of Speech at Lake Forest College and, at the time
of the research, Vice-President of TUBA.

Paul Cahill--Manager of the Office of Public Informa-
tion of the Chicago Division of the University of Illinois. '

‘Henry Knepler--Professor of English and Chairman of
the Department of Language, Literature, and PhiIOSOphy at
Illinois Institute of Technology and formerly its Coordinator
of Educational Television.

Alfred Partridge--Supervisor of BrOadcasting for the
Chicago Division of the University of Illinois until this
office was closed in 1963. C

. yglton Shg§§9--Director of News and Broadcasting at

Roosevelt University.

Jamesggaylor--Director of Television at De Paul
University and, during the research, President of TUBA.

Rppgrt Thomas-~Producer of Radio and Television
Programs at Northwestern University.

Broadcasting Station Officials Who
Have Dealt with TUBA

Allen Burns--Manager of Public Affairs for WNBQ (NBC).

Alexander C. FieldI Jr.--Manager of Public Affairs
at non-affiliated WGN, Incorporated, which includes radio
station WGN and television station WGN-TV;

Hal Fisher--former Director of Public Affairs for
wsm-Tv (CBS ) .

Colgy Lewis--former Production Manager for educational

6
television station WTTW, commonly referred to as Channel 11.

Chalmers H. Marquis, Jr.--Director of Programming
for WTTW.

' Qapiel B. Schgffman--former Program Manager for
make (ABC).

Also helpful was Henry Mamet, who has been an in- "
terested observer of TUBA activities through his position as
member of the Board of Directors of the National Association
for Better Radio and Television (NAFBRAT).

The material for this study came from interviews with
these persons or from documents supplied by them. For his
transcription and interpretation of that material, of course,

the author assumes full responsibility.

CHAPTER I
THE BACKGROUND OF THE CODE

TUBA is a product of the television age. Before tele-
vision came to Chicago, the various colleges and universities
in the metropolitan area had been participating to varying
degrees in programs on the commercial radio stations. Two
of the universities had even deveIOped notable radio network
series, Northwestern University producing its Reviewing Stand
and the University of Chicago its Round Table of the Air. But
although these network series persisted after the coming of
television, participation by all the colleges and universities
in local broadcasts shifted decidedly to the new medium, at-
tracted by the shift of audiences to this medium and by the
advantages of appealing to sight as well as sound.

During the period covered by this study (the decade
from 1954 through 1963), there were four commercial tele-
vision stations in Chicago: WBBM-TV, WNBQ, WBKB, and WGN-TVB-
each of which has offered some programming in the nature of
local public service, whether motivated by a genuine desire
to serve its community or by the more selfish wish to demoné
strate at license renewal time that it has been operating in
the public interest. For such programming these stations

could draw, among other resources, on those of the neighboring

7

8
institutions of higher learning, using their faculty members
to lend authority to either single programs or program series.

Usually these faculty members came from one or another

of eight institutions; which are described below in terms of
their enrollments and teaching staffs in 1962:1

Loyola University, a Jesuit-directed school with
10,140 students and 980 teachers.

De Paul Universioy, controlled by the Vincentian
Fathers, with 7,369 students and 324 teachers.

Roosevelt University, non-denominational, with 5,184
students and 276 teachers.

Chicago Division of the Uniygrsity of Illinois, which,
including its main campus at Urbana, numbered 34,000
students and a full-time faculty and staff equivalent
of more than 10,800.

Illinois Institute of Technology, privately supported,‘
with 6,667 students and 449 teachers.

Lake Forest Collogo, Presbyterian affiliated, with
741 students and a faculty of about 60.

Northwestern Uoiyersitxg privately endowed, with
14,310 students and a faculty of 1,935.

The University of Chioago, private institution founded
by Baptists, with a teaching faculty of 898 plus 358
research associates and 253 lecturers, serving 5,714
students, a majority of whom are in the graduate divi-

sions.

1Harry Hansen (ed.), 1962 World Almanac and Book of
Facts, New York: New York World Telegram and The Sun, 19657,
.pp. 51 -19. 521. 523.

9

Although none of these institutions has a Chicago
television outlet of its own, each of them has been motivated
to reach the public through broadcasting and has designated
at least one person on its staff to supervise its broadcast-
ing activities. As will be noted from the list of such
persons interviewed for this study, some of the institutions
associate their broadcasting with a function variously desig-
nated as "news" or "public information" or "public relations,"
indicating that their motives are not always purely educational.
Like many other kinds of organizations, an institution of
higher learning must establish and maintain a familiar and
favorable image with the segments of the public on which it
depends for patronage and support, but it is also true that
this image can be strengthened by extending the educational
resources of the institution beyond the borders of its campus
and that some members of the institution may feel this to be
a responsibility apart from whatever image building accrues
from it.

Whatever their motives, it will be seen that both the
commercial stations and the institutions of higher learning
needed something that the other had to offer. So each of the
stations solicited assistance from one or another institution,
and each of the institutions endeavored to get air time from
the stations. This situation was competitive and uncoordinated,
and continued so for a number of years until certain problems,

which will be identified in due course, suggested to the

10
institutions the need for some kind of COOperation between
them. But this cooperation was not precipitated until the
establishment of Chicago's educational station, WTTW, on
Channel 11, and the annual Chicago-area conferences on educa-

tional brOadcasting which began as a result of it.

The Conferences

WTTW is a community television station, operated by
the Chicago Educational Television Association. Membership in
this association is extensive and varied, including not only
all of the degree-granting educational institutions of the
area, but also the Chicago Board of Education, quasi-educa-
tional institutions such as the Museum of Science and Industry,
Field Museum, Art Institute, and Public Library, and other I
members as various as the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the
Cook County Forest Preserve.

By spring, 1954, the association had raised the-larger
portion of the fund necessary to make the station a reality
and was seeking a director for it. This motivated the Illinois
Institute of Technology to sponsor a conference on The Role
of the Professional Educator in Educational TV. A typescript
which outlined the tentative plans for this conference cited
the reasons for calling it:

The educational institutions COOperating in the ex—

periment in educational television in Chicago have not
yet received any proposals or directives from the Channel
11 Committee regarding the philoSOphy, objectives, prin-
ciples of Operation, or details of administration of

Channel 11. If the Channel 11 Committee leaves such
matters to an appointed director and his appointive

11

staff, it is probable that the institutions involved may
find themselves in the role of competitive program brokers,
providers of talent, and suppliers of information. They
would have little if any opportunity to plan and direct
educational TV in this area.1

In their relations with the commercial stations, the
institutions of higher learning already knew what it was to
be merely "competitive program brokers, providers of talent,

and suppliers of information,"

with no opportunity to guide
the educational program objectives of these stations; but
with the advent of an educational station, they hoped to
insure a more favorable situation. Hence:

A representative body of delegates from the numerous
agencies and institutions now serving the public in an
educational capacity, sharing and assimilating its views
and ideas, might draw up statements of objectives and
concepts that might be of use to those concerned with
directing educational TV in this area. Such a body,
acting as a kind of constitutional assembly, could draw
up a statement of principles and procedures that could
serve as a Magna Charta for educational TV in this area.
Anyhow such a body could inform igself and become knowl-
edgeable for future developments.

Although the body met and did indeed inform itself,
the recommended "statement of principles and practices"--at
least as applying to televised higher education--was not at-
tained until the formulation of TUBA'S Code of Standards and
Practices. But before there could be a TUBA Code, there first
had to be a TUBA, and this did not happen until three more
conferences on educational broadcasting had been sponsored

under the same auspices.

 

l"Tentative Plans for a Preliminary Conference on Edu-
cational Television for the Chicago Area," unpublished type-
script in possession of Henry Knepler. (See Appendix I of
this study.)

2Ibid.

12

The Fourth Annual Chicago-Area Conference on Educa-
tional Radio and Television was held on April 12, 1957, and
was attended only by institutions concerned with higher educa-
tion and by representatives from the five television broad-
casting stations.

The fifth station was Channel 11, which by this time
had been operating on a regular schedule for about a year and
a half. As a not-for-profit, non-commercial enterprise,
dependent on contributions for its support, the station's air
time was limited to about forty hours weekly. Since this time
provided for programs from National Educational Television,
programs from various professional and welfare organizations
in addition to those from schools, programs of a how-to-do-it
nature, and programs intended to serve general needs and
persons of limited education, there was limited time for
programs by the colleges and universities. Although the
station provided transmission and studio facilities, costs.
of the program package (including compensation for partic-
ipants) were expected to be met by the producing agencies
which brought prOgrams to the station. Bringing these pro-
grams to a state of readiness for broadcast entailed agree-
ment between the outside producer and the producer-director
. assigned from the Channel 11 staff. '

Disagreements between these two functionaries were one
I of the problems on the agenda of the conference. Another
subject considered by the conference was the posSibility of
broadcasting systematic courses for academic credit. There

were resolutions passed on both of these subjects by the

13
conference, but the resolutions most pertinent to this present
study were as follows:

The conference believes that there exist subjects which
the educational institutions are best fitted to present;
that methods of presentation appropriate to broadcasting
can be found; and that the institutions have a duty to
initiate broadcasts of their choice and desire to take
the responsibility for doing so.

The conference recognizes the importance of active
participation of educational institutions in radio and
television. It urges that the institutions of higher
learning which are prominently engaged in Chicago-area
broadcasting should appoint two members each to constitute
a University Broadcasting Committee. One member from each
institution should be drawn from its office responsible
for broadcasts, and one from its faculty.1

The implications of these resolutions will be clari-

fied in due course. Let it be noted here, however, that these
resolutions were the "birth certificate" of TUBA. The
University Broadcasting Committee which they called into

being soon changed its name to The University Broadcasting

Association.

First Meeting
The first meeting of the committee was convened at
the University of Chicago on May 13, 1957. As will be seen
from the minutes of this meeting, reproduced in full as an
appendix to this study, the chairman began by expressing the
hope that "on the one hand, practical problems involving
liaison with the broadcasting stations might be considered,

and on the other, that clarification of general educational

 

1"Resolutions Passed by the Fourth Annual Chicago Area
Educational Radio and Television Conference," April 12, 1957.
Mimeographed copy in records of TUBA.

'14

objectives for broadcasters might be achieved."1

He suggested
that "prior to any formal organizational action, the opinions
of those present should be elicited with respect to the most
pressing needs that could be met by a group of this charac—

ter."

From these opinions, duly given, emerged a roster of

the difficulties which the institutions had mutually been ex-
periencing in their uncoordinated relations both with the com-
mercial stations and with Channel 11. It was hoped that these

difficulties could be ameliorated through collective action.

The Problem of Favorable Time

Thus, "the collective Opinion of the organization,
responsibly expressed in the right quarters, might succeed
in obtaining more favorable time on commercial stations."
This is a problem which often besets public service broad-
casters and particularly educational broadcasters on com-
mercial stations. These stations are profit-motivated and
make their profits from sponsOred programs. It is usually
difficult to find sponsors for non-entertainment programs,
since these are apt to attract comparatively small audiences.
Hence they are liable to be tucked away at times of day in
the broadcast schedule which have the least chance of being

sold.
An exception may happen when a sponsored program is

 

1"Notes on the Initial Meeting of the University
Broadcasting Committee," typescript from records of TUBA.
All quotations in this section on "First Meeting" are from
this source unless otherwise cited.

15
canceled out before a new sponsor is signed up, leaving a
gap which must be filled temporarily. An economical way to
bridge this gap and also win credit with the Federal Communi-
cations Commission is to offer the time to a public service
producer. This practice results in what some members at the
committee meeting called "scrappy programming." Such program
scraps offer no chance to attract and build a consistent
audience from week to week. Furthermore, they may have to be
prepared on such short notice that little chance for quality
is possible. Yet some of the less favored institutions in
the Chicago area would accept short-notice offers rather than
none at all. For doing so they were criticized by the more
favored institutions, which considered that any educational
program of poor production quality reflected adversely on the
welfare of educational broadcasting in general.

Another problem faced by the educators was to start
broadcasting a series in one time slot and, after a few pro-
grams, to have it moved by the station to another time slot.
Obviously, this also did nothing to retain audiences.

Yet another problem was that time was assigned by the
stations to the educators without seeming to consider the
nature of the audience to whom the program was addressed and
whether that audience would be able and likely to watch at
the time available.

These were problems with commercial stations, but
there was a time problem with Channel 11, too. In this in-

stance, it was a matter not of favorable time, but of enough

16

time in the broadcast schedule. Subtracting network pro-
grams, films, and children's and youths' offerings, only eight
half hours per week of local live time remained available forani
adult audience, and for this time there were many candidates
besides the colleges and universities, which, there are grounds
to suspect, considered that they had more right to this time
than some of the more "low-brow" contenders whose programs
showed how to improve one's score at golf or how to bathe a

baby.1

The Proolomof Fooolty Componsation
Another need expressed at the meeting now being re-
ported was for "a uniform policy on released time and payment
of academic talent." This problem had a direct bearing on
another matter which had been on the agenda of the recent con-
ference: "Increase of general faculty interest in broadcast-

" An educational program is only as good as the faculty

ing.
members who can be induced to participate in it, and if the
pTOper authorities for a contemplated topic cannot be secured,
either the program must be inadequate or abandoned as impos-
sible of realization.

The university broadcasting people knew that profes-
sors were apt to regard broadcasting as an extracurricular

activity in which they were not required by their contracts
to participate. Somecf them might be induced to participate

‘—

1Interview with Colby Iewis, Production Manager of
Channel. 11 at the time of the first meeting of the University
Broadcasting Committee, June 10, 1964.

17
if their institutions, when considering them for advances in
rank or salary, would give as much weight to their broadcast-
ing activity as to their scholarly publications in the print
media, or if their institutions would pay extra stipends for
their broadcast appearances, or release them from some of their
academic duties for the amount of time necessary to prepare
and present their broadcast material. But it is difficult
to induce an administration to make such concessions. The
faculty members most often wanted for television appearances
are likely to be the ones least easily spared from their
academic pursuits. The period during which a given faculty
member might be released is rarely foreseeable far enough in
advance to make adequate plans for replacing him, nor is it
apt to coincide with the duration of academic courses. (It
is not easy to spare an instructor from a portion of a course;
once he has started it, he should carry it to completion.)
As for extra stipends, the funds for these are hard to come
by--and why should such payment come from the university when
the professor is obliging a commercial station which pays
other kinds of performers for their services?

As might be expected, the commercial stations view
this matter in a different light. True, they are obliged to
pay entertainers and announcers according to their union con-
tracts, but these persons, by and large, are appearing on
sponsored programs and earning money fOr the station. With
unsponsored public service programs, however, the stations

are donating valuable studio and transmission facilities and

18

receiving no income in return. The colleges and universities
are not on television merely to oblige the stations. They are
getting needed publicity. They are-~or should be--on the
air to give the public something that they should be giving
in line with their function as educational institutions.’ As
for their faculty members, they are not exactly underpaid these
days, and for a station to pay them for a one-time appearance
an amount which may equal their weekly salary seems to be
getting somewhat out of line.1

Despite this path of reasoning, however, some faculty
members were being paid for their appearances on commercial
stations, but there was no consistency about the practice.
The only consistency existed on Channel 11, where they were
never paid.

The Problem of More "Liyely" and
—"AttraOEIUEWWPerformances

When one delegate to the meeting suggested "the com-
pilation of an index of the personnel resources of the various
inStitutions," another delegate recommended that "any such
compilation should take into account not only academic attain-
ment, but the capacity for lucid and attractive radio and
television performance." A third delegate urged that the
committee consider "ways in which liveliness and charm can
be augmented in educational programs."

With these observations about attractiveness, liveli-

ness, and charm, the delegates showed their awareness of the

 

1Interview with Alexander C. Field, Jr., Manager of
Public Affairs, WGN, Inc., February 12, 1963.

19

problem that educational programs must be made interesting to
their audiences. Certainly, this problem seems very real to
commercial stations, which worry lest the dullness of a public
service program lose audience for the Sponsored program that
follows it. The problem was also of concern to Channel 11.
Some of the aforementioned disagreements between Channel 11
producer-directors and the educational institution producers
arose from the station's accusation that the institutional
programs had not been constructed to arouse and maintain
audience attention and that their participants were unused
to the medium and not sufficiently rehearsed.1

There is a tendency on the part of broadcasting people

' whereas teachers

to regard educational presentations as "shows,'
regard them as education. Because education must be honest
and thorough, it cannot make irresponsible use of emotional
appeals and rhetorical devices and it cannot oversimplify its
subject matter. Because the act of becoming educated re-
quires assimilation and mastery of the subject by the student,
it demands some work on the part of the audience, which can-
not be altogether spoon fed by the instructor. So the faculty
member who appears on television has good reason to protest
that he is a teacher and not an entertainer.

But before broadcast audiences can be educated, they
must first be induced to tune in and stay tuned in. And it

was the hope of Channel 11 that many persons who were unused

to the rigorous disciplines of education might have their

 

1Interview with Colby Lewis, June 10, 1964.

20
latent intellectual curiosity aroused and their will to learn
stimulated by programs which were skillfully enough constructed
and presented to accomplish these objectives. Like those of
the commercial stations, the audiences of Channel. 11 were
not captive like students in a classroom, but were only
potential viewers who had to be collected and won over by the
interest values of the station's productions.

Some of these interest values result from prOper
adaptation of the production to the television medium. Since
this medium addresses the eyes as well as the ears,it would
seem to require a constant variety of meaningful stimuli in
the material which it presents. Many professors, however,
are less inclined to visual expression than to talking, either
by lecture or discussion. Sometimes, therefore,it seems
needful to adapt their material to television by incorporat-
ing non-verbal communication, coaching them in physical
business and movements which, besides adding Change to the
production in their own right, will also motivate camera
movement and shot changes. This may, however, provoke the
professors to proclaim that they are not performers or else
that they lack the time to make the proposed adaptations.

Their protest may sometimes also be motivated by a
Areluctance to lose some of their independence. Many professors
are accustomed to autonomy and to working by themselves. They
are not used to getting scripts in early or being told by
someone else where to stand, how to move, and how to speak.

They find their natural style of expression hampered and

21
compromised by having to conform to the alleged technical re-
quirements of the medium.

If their material is adapted to the medium, the re-
sult may be a production sufficiently elaborate to demand
advance cooperation from station directors, advance prepara-
tion of materials by station production personnel, and more
facilities rehearsal time than a commercial station may be
willing to devote to a program which brings it no revenue.

As a rule, according to TUBA members interviewed for this
study, an unsponsored program on a Chicago commercial station
was liable to be accorded a low budget and hasty preparation.
It is fairly safe to say that this was among Several factors
in the delegates' minds when, at the first meeting, they

spoke about "problems with the stations."

Tho Problem ongaboos

In the minutes of the meeting there are references to
"censorship" and "a recognition of prevailing taboos with
respect to broadcasting, and the formulation of common policy
in this regard." These references require a brief explanation.

It is the role of education to pursue and proclaim
the truth, no matter what effect this may have on established
beliefs and interests. Accordingly, faculty members within
their campuses are aCcustomed to "academic freedom," which
allows them to teach with a minimal fear of strictures and
reprisals. But when they broadcast their beliefs over the

public airwaves, they encounter what the delegates to the

22
meeting described as "censorship" and "taboos."

Some of these taboos are imposed on the station by
legal considerations. Thus, it is subject to lawsuit from
thoSe who accuse one of its programs of being slanderous or
libelous or of invading their right of privacy. ‘If it presents
the cause of one candidate for public office, it is required
to afford equal time to Opposing candidates. The station's
program policy is also affected by economic considerations.

It cannot afford to offend either its actual or potential
Sponsors. ‘And because, for commercial success, it depends
upon maximum audiences, it cannot afford to offend large or
influential segments of the public by opposing their moral
convictions, religious beliefs, economic interests, or any
other eStablished mores and opinions.

In Chicago, this problem involved not only the com-
mercial Stations, but also Channel 11, which was subject to
[the same legal considerations and which.depended for its
financial support on contributions from individual citizens
in great numbers and from industrial firms, besides being
governed by a board of directors which included several high
officials from large corporations and one from organized labor.

Another problem associated with the presentation of
educational Subject matter is that the content of any program
in which educators participate should be honest, accurate, and
free from distortion designed to promote any special interest.
It is not in the interests of truth if a professor is invited

to lend authority tO-a program designed to prOpagandize or

23.
advertise or to distort by suppression of data, oversimpli-
fication, or any other means which attempts to popularize the
subject or influence the audience dishonestly. One of the
ways to avoid such participation and to minimize such programs

is for educators to initiate their own programs.

The Problem of Initiative in_P£ogramming
Perhaps the greatest problem facing the meeting was
the one first introduced for consideration. As the minutes
record, it was "urged that Entiative for program planning be
assumed by the universities, and that the tendency.of the
colleges and universities simply to fill needs expressed by
broadcasting stations be checked by positive action to in-
duce stations to accept programming ideas originating with
the institutions." These words harkened back to an already
quoted resolution by the recent conference:
The conference believes that there exist subjects which
the educational institutions are best fitted to present
. . . and that the institutions have a duty to initiate
broadcasts of their choice and desire to take the re-
sponsibility for doing so.1
As has already been suggested, the placement of pro-
grams and program.participants on the commercial stations--
or even on Channel 11 sometimes--was scarcely under the in-
stitutions' control. A station might originate the idea for
a program or series and then call, sometimes almost haphaz-
ardly, on one institution or another to fill certain positions

in its cast. In the case of a series, the station might draw

from several institutions. However, the participants from

A

1See page 13.

24
any one institution were concerned only with those programs
in which they were to participate. They did not meet with
participants from other institutions who were assigned to
other programs in the series. Therefore, the series as a
whole lacked proper direction and continuity.

Perhaps to the stations it seemed advantageous to
thus "divide and control," but to the educational institu-
tions it was irksome to have control denied them. Besides
having little to say about the treatment of already sCheduled
programs, they played little part in choosing what kinds of
programs should be scheduled to fulfill the aims of higher
education in the first place. There was little evidence
that the commercial broadcasters analyzed the educational
needs and interests of their audiences and chose prOgrams
to satisfy them. And there was little coordination between
the stations concerning gaps or duplications in their public
service offerings.

‘ Even the program schedule of Channel 11 was disap-
pointing. Besides providing too little time for higher ed-
ucation, it seemed rather haphazard and uncoordinated. It
showed little connection between one program and another.

It did not seem to reflect a consideration of the most im-
portant subjects which should be brought to the attention of
an adult audience, nor did it seem to achieve a calculated

and equitable balance among the major categories of adult
interests. Therefore, as one of the meeting delegates sugges-

ted, "Channel 11 might find it useful to emphasize certain

25
topics upon given nights (e.g. music one evening, science
another, etc.) and thus invite coordinated planning by the
various institutions to fill specific needs." Another dele-
gate felt that "Channel 11 coUld benefit greatly from judg-
ments collectively produced by this group, either with reSpect
to programming needs which ought to be met, or to suggestions
received by Channel 11 and referred to the group for aca-
demic-opinion."

In‘speaking about both educational and cOmmercial
channels, one delegate introduced "the question of a quota
of university time, to be assigned by Channel 11 or the com-
mercial Stations, and to be filled by thoughtful, systematic
division of responsibilities." Another delegate affirmed
"the need for the educators' taking the initiative, and re-
vealed his hOpe that through a closer organization, our com-
munity broadcasting activities can achieve greater unity,
qUality, and importanCe." This line was followed by another
Spokesman who hoped, through "community deliberation and
action," to achieve "affirmative, integrated, and respectable
broadcasting projects."

AsSuming that a University Broadcasting Committee (or
Association) could take the inititative for such projects,
what should these projects strive to accomplish? If they were
to be affirmative projects, what should they affirm? Not too
much attention at the meeting seems to have been devoted to
this question, unless this is what was meant by the spokes-

man who thought that the group "might serve its greatest

26
usefulness by a critical consideration of what was being
achieved in educational broadcasting, and the formulation of
objectives which should be sought by educational institu-
tions." He may not have meant program objectives, however,
but rather the solution of the various other kinds of prob-

lems which have been cited in this section.

Suggestoo_§olutions to the:§roolgm§
, Several suggestions for attacking these problems were
made at the meeting. One was "that such a group as ours might
well devote itself to research, seeking to identify audience,
and to the formulation of principles based upon the results
of such research, with particular reference to the predilec-
tions of the audience for educational broadcasting." Another,
which has already been alluded to, was "the compilation of an
index of the personnel resources Of the various universities."
various degrees of caution were expressed concerning
the exercise of power which might become possible from such
a group acting in concert. The most outspoken Opinion on
this subject came from a delegate who
. . . with characteristic vigor, asserted that immediate
problems involving the schools and such an outlet as
Channel 11 should be directly considered, and negotiated

with full exploitation of the collective strength resident
in such a group as this. When asked whether she would

regard Such an organization as this committee as a po-
tential -pressure group, she replied in an unblushing
affirmative.
As another means towards achieving coordinated and
integrated programming, one spokesman introduced "the pos-

sibility of the committee's serving as a comprehensive

27
production agency." This brought to mind the long-defunct
University Broadcasting Council, which had functioned before
the coming of television. It was recalled that

. . . this organization, which flourished in the 1930's,
had served as an independent packaging agency, designed
to produce programs conceived by the member institutions,
and had expired as a consequence of internecine jealousies
and bickerings among its members.

So the proposal of joint productions was not immediately
entertained by the delegates. Later, however, this possibility
was to beCome more attractive to them, with consequences that
will be repOrted in Chapter III.

The meeting was climaxed with the following resolu-
tion, which was unanimously passed:

1. That this group here assembled officially constitute
itself the University Broadcasting Committee, its member-
ship to represent all institutions of higher learning in
the Chicago area actively engaged in public radio and
television broadcasting, such institutions to be repre-
sented upon the Committee by two members each, one such
member being primarily engaged in broadcasting, and the
other being primarily involved in traditional academic
activity;

2. That the Committee annually elect a chairman in the
Spring to serve for a period of one year;

3. That the chairman elected for the present year be
instructed as his initial task to appoint a Planning
Committee, such Committee to review suggestions made at
the present meeting and derived from other relevant
sources, with a view to outlining explicit areas for ex-
ploration and group activity on the part of the University
Broadcasting Committee.

And so the Committee, soon to change its name to Association,

was officially under way.

CHAPTER II
THE CODE

Since, as previously disclaimed, it is not the pur-
pose of this study to present a complete history of The
University Broadcasting Association, it will be reported here
only that, after the meeting just described, by-laws for the
association were written, and officers duly elected. In the
course of events, special committees were formed and func-
tioned and became inactive. At regular intervals the associa-
tion met as a committee of the whole (as it still does) to
consider general business and to vote on recommended cOurses
of action. The by-laws prescribe that

No action, except the election of officers and the pay-
ment of bills which are provided for elsewhere in these
by-laws, may be taken on behalf of the Association without
100 per cent approval of the active members, even though
all members may not wish to participate in such action.

Something of the business in which the association
engaged will be discussed in the next Chapter. Here, however,
it is proposed to pass over four years to July, 1961, when
TUBA'S by-laws achieved their present form and when also its

Code of Standards and Practices was formulated as a document

to accompany these by-laws.

 

1By-Laws in the records of TUBA.
28

29

The Stated Purposes of TUBA

A detailed consideration of the by-laws is not essen-

tial to this study. What of interest they do contain, how-

ever is a statement of the purposes of TUBA:

The purposes of The University Broadcasting Association

shall be:

A.

To act as a consultative and advisory group on educa-
tional broadcasting to the several radio and tele-
vision outlets of the Chicago area;

To encourage and assist its members singly and col-
lectively in producing educational programs of high
quality, in accordance with the Association's code
of standards and practices, on local and national
commercial radio and television;

To insure as far as possible the maximum employment
of the facilities of Chicago's educational television
station in the interests of higher education;

To elevate the standards of educational and public
service broadcasting by the production of prOgramming
in accordance with the Association's code, and by en-

‘ gaging in other activities which will recognize or

commend broadcasters for improving standards.

It is hoped that, by reason of the background pre-

sented in Chapter I, the reader will have had no difficulty

in understanding the purposes stated above. Likewise, it is

hoped that he will now be ready to understand the positions

expressed in the Code of Standards and Practices, which is

reproduced below, with no comments inserted to destroy its

continuity:

Text of the Code

The University BroadcastinggAssociation believes:

That radio and television are essential forces in

cOntemporary society for the advancement of education and
culture;

30

That radio and television broadcasters have a funda-
mental responsibility to lend their aid and facilities
toward the enlightenment of the general public;

That institutions of higher learning have a logical
and natural interest in educational and public affairs
broadcasts since they are designed primarily to inform
and instruct;

That institutions of higher learning have an obliga-
tion to offer their facilities and assistance in the prep-
aration and presentation of educational and public affairs
programs;

That broadcasters and educators have an equal re-
sponsibility to give educational and public affairs
programs their utmost in support, concept, preparation,
production and presentation so that they will be of the
greatest value to the listening and viewing public.

The University Broadcasting Association believeg:

That radio and television are mass media of communica-
tion capable of reaching people of all nationalities,
faiths, ages, interests and positions simultaneously;

That radio and television broadcasters have an ob-
ligation to determine and understand all facets of their
potential audience so that they may be able to broadcast
intelligently and sympathetically;

That radio and television broadcasters have an Ob-
ligation to use their facilities in such a manner that
a positive contribution will be made in all areas of the
public interest including education, information, enter-
tainment and advertising;

That radio and television broadcasters have an ob-
ligation to treat all program types with equal considera-
tion in terms of support, remuneration, production and
scheduling so that the result will be the greatest good
for the public;

That commercial radio and television broadcasters
have the right to fulfill their obligations within the
demands, limitations and requirements of sound business
practices; .

That radio and television broadcasters have the right
to determine and schedule their programs as they see fit
so as to fulfill their obligations to the best of their .
abilities.

31
The Uniyergioy Broadcasting_Association believes:

That educational institutions have an obligation to
assist in the education of the American public and, there-
fore, within the scopes determined by their various boards
of trustees, should extend their educational facilities
beyond the campus whenever feasible;

That educational institutions have an obligation to
understand and to be consistent with the needs, practices,
and goals of all external media used to reach the general
public;

That, although educational institutions may prOperly
use radio and television, along with other media, to en-
hance their reputations, increase their prestige or alter
their public image, those so engaged must recognize that
their principal obligation in broadcasting is to fulfill
the educational needs and interests of the broadcasting
audience, and that all other considerations are secondary;

That educational institutions making use of the
broadcasting media have an obligation to place equal
emphasis on presentation and content, insisting always
on the highest standards of excellence in both broad-
casting and educational techniques;

That educational institutions have the right to
participate in programs or prepare programs and series
as they see fit in accordance with their individual and
specialized abilities and needs;

That educational institutions have the right to expect
and demand equal consideration with all other program
sources for proper scheduling, facilities, remuneration
and assistance from each radio and television station con-
sistent with the highest standards of the broadcasting
industry.

.The University Broadcastiog Association and all its
members, therefore, subscribe to the followigg:

Educational prOgrams and series must be designed for a
specific purpose and a specific audience; catch-all
programs attempting to reach everyone are unwise and
shOuld be avoided. '

Educational programs and series must utilize air time
in accordance with their intended purpose and audience;
allowing programs to be broadcast during a period of the
day when neither purpose nor audience can be adequately
reached is unwise and should be avoided; demanding a period

32

of the day when more than the intended purpose or audience
should be reached is unwise and should be avoided.

Participants on educational programs and series must
be compensated for their time and Special ability either
in keeping with the current standards of the broadcasting
industry or according to recognized official University
policy which may consist of compensation in the form of
money, released time and/or academic credit.

Educational programs and series must receive adequate
planning and preparation to insure success in achieving
both purpose and audience; agreeing to prepare and pre-
sent programs or series on short notice merely to take
advantage of suddenly available air time is unwise and
should be avoided.

Educational programs and series must be given adequate
technical facilities and necessary program materials to
insure success in achieving both purpose and audience;
allowing programs to be broadcast with limited technical
facilities which would tend to compromise desired purpose
or potential audience is unwise and should be avoided;
demanding technical facilities unnecessarily complex to
achieve purpose and audience is likewise unwise and
should be avoided; failing to provide adequate materials
for use by participants, making it difficult for them to
achieve purpose or audience, is unwise and should be
avoided. '

As should already be evident, the meat of the code

is contained in its last section, which posits certain con-
ditions which will help to insure the success of broadcasts
in which the institutions of higher education participate.
The preceding sections of the code establish the conceptual
framework or foundation for these conditions, setting forth
the responsibilities of educators and stations towards the
public and towards each other, and doing so in rather con-

siderable detail.

TUBA'S FCC Testimony

Although such detail has been of undoubted value to

the association members themselves, it would seem to make the

33

code somewhat unwieldy as a public document, and as far as

can be established, the code has remained unpublished in any
public document until the present study. As noted in the
introduction to this study, however, a brief and somewhat
different version of TUBA'S standards and practices was pub-
licized when its current president, Donald P. Anderson,
testified at a hearing in Chicago of the Federal Communications
Commission on March 20, 1962., It is intereSting to compare

his presentation with the code itself. Mr. Anderson said:

While we reCOgnize that the television stations must op-
erate at a financial profit, we are convinced that their
public service obligations are, at least, of equal im-
portance. Therefore, we believe that the television

- stations must determine their programming schedule and
content so as to fulfill consistently both obligations
with equal success and to the best of their abilities.

The University Broadcasting Association has determined
that the following conditions are necessary for educa-
tional, informational and cultural programs to be of
maximum value:

The content of each program must be honest, ac—
curate, and free from any distortion designed to
promote any Special interest.

Every effort should be made to achieve the highest
professional quality of production.

Every effort should be made to schedule these
programs to reach the largest possible audience con-
sistent with the purpose of the program.

The participants on these programs should be en-
couraged to make full use of the techniques of tele-
vision, but must not be considered as entertainers.

The value of participation in these programs Should
be recognized and compensated for in accordance with
the standards and policy of other participants per-
forming in the broadcast area.

WTTW, Chicago's educational channel, does not receive
the same commercial revenue as the other Chicago stations

34

and, therefore, cannot be judged by all of these criteria.
While we regret the educational station's inability to
compensate participants and its need to gain support by
means which limit its local, live programming, we would
hope that more community, state, or federal support would
permit the educational station to be able to meet these
criteria. Therefore, the following statement does not
apply to WTTW.

With all too few exceptions, it has been our experience
that local educational, informational and cultural programs
are not given as much attention by the stations in the
areas of remuneration, scheduling, production facilities,
production personnel, publicity, promotion, and rehearsal
time as are those programming efforts which will insure
the financial profit of the stations. Until this is done,
we do not believe that the stations are meeting their
obligations to the public trust.1

Although some differences will be noted between this

testimony and the actual TUBA code, there are no disagreements
of principle between the two statements. In prescribing that
"the content of each.program must be honest, accurate, and
free from distortion designed to promote any Special in-
terest," Mr. Anderson did add what may be considered by some

a desirable proviso not included in the code. Although the
third section of the code does hint at "special interest"

in stating that an institution's use of broadcasting to in-
crease its prestige should be secondary to fulfilling the
educational needs and interests of its broadcasting audience,

there is no reference in the code to such requirements as were

discussed in Chapter I of this study under "The Problem of
Taboos."2 Yet an insistence on intellectual honesty and
accuracy should, seemingly, form an essential part of any

"Magna Charta" for educational broadcasting. On the other

 

1"Testimony of The University Broadcasting Association
before the Federal Communications Commission Hearing," March
20, 1962, in TUBA files.

2$ee pp. 21-23-

35
hand, Mr. Anderson's statement has nothing Specific to say

about "catch-all programs" and it is less specific than the
code on a few matters such as "agreeing to prepare and present
programs and series on short nOtice."

At any rate, by fusing in his mind the three docu-
mentary Sources presented in this chapter (the purposes of
TUBA, its code, and Mr. Anderson's testimony), the reader
should be able to understand what TUBA stands for and what
it has been trying to achieve. The extent of that achieve-

ment will be considered in the next and final chapter.

CHAPTER III
METHODS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The old adage, "Practice what you preach," suggests
that it is easy to proclaim one's principles, but vastly more
difficult to live up to them. It is also easier to tell
others what one expects of them than to get from them what
one expects. The eXperience of TUBA is a case in point.

This chapter will relate briefly some of the methods
by which the association has tried to accomplish its objec-
tives. It will also present the opinions of persons inter-
viewed for this study who chose to comment on how well those

methods have Succeeded.

Original Committees
The first step which TUBA took towards accomplishing

its objectives was to work through a number of committees.
Central to these was the Executive Committee, which, as the
first to be appointed, defined its own functions and recom-
mended the formation of other committees:1

ggooutive Committee: to coordinate the activities of

the other committees and to present to the association or

 

1“Recommendations of the Executive Committee of the
Committee on University Broadcasting," typescript (undated)
in TUBA files.

36

37
committees thereof matters which merit consideration or
action.

Committee on Radio Researoh andeoyeloomont: to
evaluate current educational radio programs; to learn future
program schedules of radio stations as they affect educa-
tional programs; to serve as liaison between stations and
educational institutions when inter-institutional cooperative
programming is involved; to develOp program ideasfor approval
and production by member institutions.

Committee on Television Research and Development:
to perform Similar functions with respect to commercial tele-
vision stations.

Committee onggguooiional Staoions and Networks: to
strengthen the members' relations with these stations and
Vnetworks, making available to them the members' collective
Opinions, wisdom, and capacities for broadcasting, and pro-
viding to the academic community information concerning educa-
tional brOadcasting.

Committee on Grants and Awards: to serve as a clear-.
inghouse for information concerning grants and awards avail-
able tO educatiOnal broadcasters; to explore whether the as-
sociation should establish its own awards.

Committee on Public Relations: to publicize the as-

' sociation.

Committee on Telecourogg: to keep abreast of re-

search and developments in television courses, including

problems of accreditation and teacher employment.

38

TUBA and Telecourses 8
Prior to the fourth conference on educational broad-
casting, the new educational station, WTTW, on Channel 11,
had Shown an interest in offering college courses for credit,
possibly using a "stable" of profesSors from the colleges and
universities in its broadcast area. In some institutions this

1 and one resolution passed

prospect generated tremendous hOpeS,
by the fourth conference reads that "The conference expresses
great interest in radio and television courses for credit

and welcomes further experimentation and evaluation in this

field."2

It was, in great measure, this interest which
prompted the conference to recommend, when urging the forma-
tion of a University Broadcasting Committee, that "One member
from each institution should be drawn from its office re-
sponsible for broadcasts, and one from its faculty."

When TUBA was first organized, it therefore consisted
of two representatives from each of its associated institu-
tions. There were eleven of these institutions, three of
which were associated with it primarily because Of their in—
terest in telecourses. These were the Chicago Board of Edu-

cation (which operates junior colleges) and two universities

in Indiana: Purdue University and Indiana University (both

 

1Interview with Henry Knepler, Professor of English
and Chairman of the Department of Language, Literature, and
Philosophy, Illinois Institute of Technology, July 18, 1963.

'2"Resolutions Passed by the Fourth Annual Chicago
Area Educational Radio and Television Conference," April 12,
1957. Mimeographed cOpy in the records of TUBA.

39

of which Operate branches within Channel 11's broadcast area).
Of these, the Board of Education proved the most enterprising--
or fortunate-~by obtaining from the Fund for the Advancement
of Education a three-year grant for offering over Channel 11
an eXperimental junior college curriculum, which continues
to Operate as "TV College." Having accomplished this objec-
tive, the Board of Education resigned its membership in TUBA.
The two Indiana institutions exchanged active for associate
memberships. This left as active members the eight institu-
tions which have previously been cited: Loyola University,
De Paul University, Roosevelt University, Lake Forest College,
Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, the
University of Illinois, and Illinois Institute of Technology.

What hOpes these eight had had for placing tele-
courses on the educational channel were also frustrated. And,
indeed, the inauguration of "TV’College" also affected their
hopes to place on the channel more non-credit programs of a
general informative or cultural nature. A great deal of the
station's air time was consumed with the courses of the junior
college curriculum, particularly since each course was of-
fered at two different times in order to accommodate its
variegated clientele of students, which included housewives)
and working peOple on assorted shifts. WTTW naturally favored
"TV‘College" as a guaranteed source of revenue and as a means
towards future revenue, should the Board of Education become
sufficiently encouraged to use the station's facilities fOr

broadcasting to other grade levels. But this meant that the

40

station's time for programs from other sources was limited.1

Few demands, therefore, were placed on TUBA'S faculty
representatives for help with the planning of formal courses.
After a year of relative inactivity, they were dropped from
the organization, leaving only the eight representatives
from the broadcasting offices of the member institutions.

The group was now small enough to meet regularly as a com-
mittee of the whole, and too small to warrant continuance of
the seven committees previously described, which were ac-
cordingly disbanded.

The loss of the faculty representatives apparently
did little damage. According to Dr. Henry Knepler, who had
been one of them:

I think that in practice most academic peOple con-
tributed very little. And if you have a good group of .
educational broadcasters—-in other words, people who know
something about education besides knowing something about
broadcasting-~they can, after they know their schools,
draw on other peOple for given situations. And you don't
have to involve a person in where there is essentially
broadcasting administration. I don't believe their loss
was great, frankly. I think most of them returned to
what thgy considered their main pursuits with a certain
relief. ' ‘

One of the remaining broadcasting representatives,

3

James Taylor, was asked, "What hOpes were dashed when the
academic people were drOpped from TUBA?" He replied:

None at all. We went right on. When we realized
what the picture was at Channel 11 we went to the com-
mercial stations. There were no hopes dashed because
the academic people were not concerned. If I have any

-

1Interview with Colby Lewis, Production Manager of
WTTW during this period, June 10, 1964.

zlnterview with Henry Knepler, July 18, 1963.

41

questions on the academic side, I confer with a professor
here at De Paul. Every school broadcaster has an academic
person to whom he can turn for advice.1

Treatment by the Commercial Stations

Blocked from expansion on Channel 11, TUBA moved then
towards the commercial stations, from which it hOped to
secure more favorable treatment through collective action.

It is evident from Mr. Anderson's testimony at the Federal
Communications Commission hearing that it did not manage to
Secure all that it hOped for; but what gains did it make,

if any, and in what areas? To answer these questions at all
precisely, there are, unfortunately, no statistics. It is
too much to expect that the eight TUBA delegates, busy as
they were with many duties of their regular jobs, would cal-
culate how many prOfessors had been paid last month as com-
pared to the month before, or collect any other such com-
parative data--nor could the gains sought by them always

be described in numerical data anyway. So, in estimating
these gains for the present study, it was necessary to fall
back on the opinions of the persons interviewed.

Paul Cahill (TUBA representative from the University
of Illinois) was asked: "Has TUBA managed to secure more fa-
vorable and consistent broadcast times?" He answered, not
about broadcast times but about taping times, citing a series
called "Vistas," produced in conjunction with.WBBM-TV. He

said that the taping times for this program were changed

 

1Interview with James Taylor, Director of Television,
De Paul University, January 22, 1963.

42

by the station so frequently that advance planningbecame next
to impossible. Hence he and Milton Shufro (TUBA represent-
ative from Roosevelt University) wrote to TUBA'S president,
suggesting that the association cancel its affiliation with
the series. When the president took these letters to the
general manager of WBBM-TV, he obtained excellent coopera-
tion thenceforward. Mr. Cahill does not believe that any
single member could have accomplished this result as effec-
tively as TUBA did through its combined pressure.1

Chalmers Marquis (Director of Programming for Chan-
nel ll) thinks that TUBA has accomplished much in getting
standardized treatment from the stations--not only in terms
of time allotments, but also in terms of pay for professors
who appear on camera.2 Alfred Partridge (former TUBA repre-
sentative from the University of Illinois) has explained how
the pay situation was improved. In effect, the association
told the stations that they would not let their institutions'
faculties participate in programs unless they were paid. It
was this action, more than any other, which made the stations
aware of TUBA'S existence. Before this, the stations did
not realize that the institutions were communicating with

each other about broadcasting matters. Hence, they would

sometimes pay participants from one institution and not those

 

1Interview with Paul Cahill, Manager of the Office
of Public Information, Chicago Division, University of‘
Illinois, February 1, 1963.

21nterview with Chalmers H. Marquis, Jr., Director
of Programming, WTTW (TV), April 5, 1963.

43
from another. But because of TUBA, each institution knew
who was being paid and who was not. Therefore, the stations
commenced paying all TUBA participants the equivalent of
AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists)

minimum scale, and many academic participants are now AFTRA

members.l

But in the case of Channel 11, which has no commercial
revenue from which to pay its participants, TUBA had to
establish a fund of its own for compensating persons who
appeared regularly on its series. (Thus it paid twenty-five
dollars per program to the host of its series, "Meeting of
Minds.")

' According to John Buckstaff (Assistant Director of
Broadcasting, University of Chicago), TUBA has generally im-
proved the treatment which educational institutions receive,
from the commercial stations:

TUBA has stood up to the commercial broadcasters in
this town and said, in effect, "Faculty members of the
educational institutions in Chicago, Illinois, are reSpect-

‘ able, busy, hard working, not terribly well paid people,
and you are not going to put your hands on their time
just to chalk up your points in the log. If you want to
deal with our faculty members, you're going to deal with
them as reasonable people. You're not going to make un-
reasonable demands on them; you're going to deal with them
on a businesslike basis; and you're even going to respect
them, whether you like it or not." The major league
broadcasters in Chicago know that they can't get away with
any hanky-panky with faculty members from the major
institutions.2

 

1Interview with Alfred Partridge, former Supervisor
of Broadcasting, Chicago Division, University of Illinois,
February 27, 1963.

2Interview with John Buckstaff, Assistant Director
of Broadcasting, University of Chicago, February 13, 1963.

44
This sounds rather as if TUBA had made its gains only by
"talking tough" and perhaps stirring up some resentment
thereby, but according to Chalmers Marquis of Channel 11,
the colleges and universities have gotten increased respect
from the stations because of the professionalism with.which
the associatiOn has approached them in dealing with produc-

tion problems.l

Joint Progragmiog

Besides winning better conditions at the stations,
it will be remembered that TUBA is dedicated to improving
program quality. One of the ways in which its members have
tried to do this is to engage in joint productions. This
they have done despite their knowledge that the old Univer-
sity Broadcasting Council failed to function smoothly as a
production agency. TUBA'S arrangement, however, differs from
that of the Council in that its members are free to produce
programs independently whenever they feel that such inde-
pendence will best serve their individual needs, strengths,
and goals. They may place programs either through their own
efforts or through those of the association. The stations
may approach either the association or one of its members,
or any combination thereof. If a member is asked by a
station to supply program material, it may either fill the
request itself or refer it to TUBA. If TUBA is approached

by a station for a single program, it will probably refer.

 

6 1Interview with Chalmers H. Marquis, Jr., April 5,
l9 3.

45
the request to whichever of its members is best suited for
the assignment; thus an assignment concerned with home design
might be proffered to Illinois Institute of Technology because
of its Architectural, Planning, and Design Division. But when
the proposal is for a long series requiring a variety of
qualified talent, the TUBA members are likely to merge their
resources in a group effort. The purpose of group efforts
is to do those programs which can be better produced co-
operatively than by any single institution. And, as Mr.
Anderson testified at the Federal Communications Commission
hearing, "We believe that there is no field of intellectual
and professional importance in which we, having combined our
resources of physical equipment and some 9,000 experts,
specialists, and educators, cannot provide and produce pro-
grams of distinct value."

Such joint productions, it appears, have been par-
ticularly welcome to the smaller and less influential member
institutions. There is an understandable tendency for the
broadcasting stations to favor the larger universities which
have greater financial and intellectual resources, but with
joint productions each TUBA member has a chance to participate.

For each.program in a TUBA series, a different member
institution serves as host and is responsible for selecting
participants. This does not mean that only professors from
the host institution will be used. The host may ask other TUBA
members either to supply a particular individual or to recom-

ment one of their personnel as an authority on a given topic.

46

Occasionally, it may obtain the cast altogether from other
institutions, or even from outside the field of education,
since it is entitled to choose whoever it considers most
suitable for the task at hand. Normally, however, it will
cast at least one of its own faculty in order to avoid the
'impression that it has no authorities of its own in the sub-
ject area. The vice-presidenth the association serves as
executive producer of all TUBA joint productions and is re-
sponsible for assigning a producer to each program. When the
programs form a series, however, this is usually accomplished
automatically by a regular rotation of the members.

Although, somewhat surprisingly, a complete list of
TUBm.productions has not been preserved by the association,
a few examples can be cited here. In 1963, WBBM-TV’was
broadcasting a TUBA series of weekly half-hour programs
called "Vistas," to inform the public about some of the vital
and interesting work which was being accomplished in various
universities. In 1960 the same station had transmitted
"Seminar Sixty," a lecture series using 27 faculty members
to present 11 different subject areas in 220 half-hour pro-
grams encompassing 44 weeks. In 1963 it telecast a similar
series called "Seminar Sixty-Three."

WBKB has carried TUBA's "Cornerstones," a series of
television essays on the American heritage.

Channel 11 has carried "Meeting of Minds," a weekly
series of half-hour panel discussions on which topics of cur-
rent interest were explored by faculty members from various

{TUBA institutions and other experts. The station has also

47

Offered TUBA'S "News Perspectives," which employed 71 dif-
ferent faculty members to provide background information on
current news tOpics. . I

A breakdown of individual programs in some of these
series will be found in the appendices to this study. The
variety and significance of the subjects covered and the
caliber of the participants who have been enlisted to ex-
pound these subjects are indeed impressive. But how well
were these programs produced? Were they presented with suf-

ficient skill to command the interest of the maximum potential

audience?

TUBALsigreeentation Skills

To answer these questions, reliance must again be
placed on the Opinions of persons interviewed--and these
opinions vary widely.

Henry Mamet (a director of the National Association
for Better Radio and Television) states that most of the TUBA
prOgrams that he has seen represent the simplest forms of
production: panel discussions and lectures. He feels that
there is little creativity going into these programs, and
that their dullness is lessening the public's estimation of
educational and public affairs broadcasting in general. This
dullness, he maintains, is not attributable to inadequate
funds, since exciting programs can be produced on lower
budgets than those under which TUBA operates. Nor is it the

fault of the stations, since they are willing to provide the

48

facilities for any type of program which TUBA wants to do.
Of this he is certain, since he himself produces television
programs in Chicago and is therefore familiar with the sta-
tions and their policies.1

Chalmers Marquis (Director of Programming for Channel
11) states that when his station began Operating, the col-
leges and universities were able to produce programs at a
higher creative level than most organizations in the area,
but have now been surpassed by other local producers and by
National Educational Television. Although the TUBA producers
are capable of tOp level work, Mr. Marquis believes that they
cannot fully utilize their production talents because their
time is taken up by a variety of other reSponsibilities
ranging from teaching to fund-raising. Furthermore (and here
Mr. Marquis disagrees with Mr. Memet), they must operate on
too limited budgets.2

On the other hand, TUBA'S first president, Alfred
Partridge, believes that TUBA is raising program standards.
One reason for this is the competitive Spirit generated by
the association. When a member is reSponsible for a TUBA
program, he knows that every other member is watching and
judging it. Should it be below par, they will feel that he
has let them down. Should it be particularly good, they will

feel obliged to do as well with their programs. Thus, Mr.

 

1Interview'with Henry Mamet, member of the Board of
Directors of the National Association for Better Radio and
Television, February 4, 1963. ,
6 2Interview with Chalmers H. Marquis, Jr., April 5,
l9 3.

49
Partridge feels, joint programming gives each member a greater
sense of obligation than results from independent programming.1
With this belief, however, two of TUBA'S original
members have taken issue--and the issue has been instrumental

in their withdrawal from the association.

The Withdrawal of Two TUBA Members

Within four days of each other in May, 1962, the
representatives from Northwestern University and the Uni-
versity of Chicago wrote to the president of TUBA, announcing
their decision to withdraw from the association. Each of
these letters was preceded by another letter which expres-
sed dissatisfaction with the values of membership. All
four letters are reproduced below. The first two--the first
a preliminary draft of the unavailable final letter--are from
Robert W. Thomas, representative from Northwestern University:

May 8, 1962
Dear Don:

I am sorry I cannot attend the important meeting of TUBA
on May 25, but may I make a few personal observations
concerning TUBA for your inclusion in the discussion,
should you feel they are pertinent....

I have found TUBA helpful in these ways: I get to meet
peers in the same "business" at other universities, and
can keep up with what their plans are in the TV and radio
field; I enjoy the privilege of being able to draw on
university personnel from the other seven colleges for
my programs; and I very much enjoy the social contact
with each of the TUBA representatives.

However, I am not completely sure that this is enough,
First, meeting with other representatives could be ac-
complished less formally than through an organization

 

1Interview with Alfred Partridge, February 27, 1963.

50

like TUBA, and perhaps less frequently, though the once-
a-month get-together is helpful. This getting-together
is, I feel, not a strong reason for continuing TUBA in
such a formal organizational structure.

Secondly, I would hope that I could draw on other uni-
versity personnel even if the colleges were not in TUBA.
We do this via telephone, usually, and quite aside from
TUBA meetings and official functions, except VISTAS,
MEETING OF MINDS, and CORNERSTONES. Both VISTAS and
CORNERSTONES are almost through, and I couldn't be happier
at their demise-~neither has lived up to the potential of —
any of our colleges, either jointly or individually.
MEETING OF MINDS, I agree, had been successful because of
joint COOperation, but again is set up via phone, and
almost independently of TUBA meetings and organization.
Such a program could continue easily on an informal, joint
basis without the TUBA structure if a regular, rotating
schedule were to be set up by WTTW.

If TUBA was to be retained in any form, I feel it would
best serve our needs as an informal society, meeting with
the express purpose of keeping one another informed, and
to maintain a continuing contact between universities.

I am not convinced by my observations, and as co-producer
of the CORNERSTONES series, that TUBA can or Should pro-
duce programs. And to act in any official way as a joint
representative of the eight member institutions requires
full agreement of the eight colleges--agreement which
cannot always be obtained due to differences in Size,
objectives, and history of the member universities.

I hope that this series of personal remarks is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)

Robert W. Thomas

Northwestern University1

Six days later, Mr. Thomas mailed his notice of withdrawal:
' May 14, 1962

Mr. Donald P. Anderson

The University Broadcasting Association
Illinois Institute of Technology

3300 South Federal

Chicago 16, Illinois

Dear Don:

 

1The original final draft of this letter is in TUBA

files.

51

After much consideration, I feel it is in Northwestern
University's best interest to withdraw its membership in
.The University Broadcasting Association, at least for a
period of time during which we may re-examine our goals,
interests, and future plans.

In our main task here of presenting good public affairs
radio and TV programming, our aims are often at variance
with those of TUBA, though we have participated in the
organization's productions during the past few years.

In presenting the personnel and story of our university,
we feel we can obtain better results through our own
programming--programming with a continuity which cannot
be obtained in joint efforts.

We could be quite wrong in our assumptions, but only by
resigning from TUBA can we decide if our own efforts are
achieving the desired results. We wish to leave the
door open to rejoining an organization such as TUBA
should unity be desirable in the future. And we always
enjoy meeting with university broadcasting representa-
tives informally. I hope such gatherings will be pos-
sible regularly.
We extend our thanks to TUBA for many services in the
past, and wish the organization success in its joint
goals and aspirations.

‘Yours Sincerely,'

(Signed)

Robert W. Thomas
Producer, Radio-TVl

-When interviewed concerning his withdrawal, Mr.
Thomas stated that TUBA had turned itself almost exclusively
into a program producer. Then he reiterated the belief, ex-
pressed in the first of the letters just quoted, that most
TUBA productions were not successful because some of the in-
stitutions were not giving them their best efforts.

In this Opinion he was supported by John Buckstaff,
TUBA representative from the University of Chicago. In the
early months of 1962, Mr. Buckstaff and Mr. Thomas had talked

together and discovered that they were substantially in

 

1The original is in TUBA files.

52
agreement about TUBA'S shortcomings. Mr. Buckstaff expressed
his disappointment with the association in the following let-
ter to its president:
' April 27, 1962

Mr. Donald P. Anderson
Supervisor, Radio and Television
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago 16, Illinois

Dear Don:
Some issues I would like to raise at May TUBA meeting:

An academic year-end appraisal after five Seasons of
TUBA--

Most members of TUBA have agreed most of the time that
TUBA has some purposes:

1) To act as an organization where information about
what is going on in educational and public-affairs
broadcasting can be exchanged.

2) To act as a "pressure group" among all broad-
casters for the general betterment of educa-
tional and public-affairs broadcasting.

3) To act as a producing agency in those cases where
a group effort can produce a better series than
any of us individually can produce.

I think we should consider 31) how important these pur-
poses are in retrospect, (2 ‘how well we have met these
purposes, and (3) if new and different purposes would be
desirable.

My own reaction to TUBA is one of disappointment.

Granted there is a useful communication among all of us
with various goals and contacts.

As a "pressure group" we have accomplished perhaps one
thing. We have given our faculties a bit of status by
establishing the precedent of at least union-scale re-
muneration for performance. We have scarcely brought
about the better programming or better time-slots. As

a group, we seem formidable to the broadcasters; we must
be dealt with because we represent so many institutions.

53

But I feel that, although most stations deal with us
fairly, our performance is lax. I doubt that any TUBA
production is superior to what could be produced in-
dividually. And personally, I find the TUBA relation-
ship a discouraging one. Instead of being encouraged to
reach those segments of the public with information which
I could produce, I find myself content that I am doing
about what everyone else is doing. I think most TUBA
members are in the Same boat. The "group" is mutually
discouraging. Instead of bringing out each-other's
best, we are each justifying our existence by saying we
are keeping pace with the others.

I think we should take a hard look at our organization,
perhaps based on some criteria larger than our narrow
ones, to see if some revitalization is possible. If that
does not seem feasible in this climate, I would suggest
that we might set a date some months from now, certainly
no earlier than the fall, when we might meet; but in the
meantime go our own separate ways, seeking inspiration a
bit loftier than we have been able to provide each other.

Sincerely, yours,
>(Signed)

John B. Buckstaff
Assistant Director

Educational Broadcasting1

Then, four days after Mr. Thomas had sent his second
letter, Mr. Buckstaff also sent his second one:
May 18, 1962

Mr. Donald P. Anderson, President

The University Broadcasting Association
of Chicago, Inc.

c/o Illinois Institute of Technology

Technology Center

Chicago 16, Illinois

Dear Don:

It is with considerable regret that I must submit our
resignation from The University Broadcasting Association.

As you know from Our various discussions, the relation-
ship between the Association and this university has been

 

1The original is in TUBA files.

54

of concern to me for some while. I believe this is a
reasonable time for disassociation, since both TUBA and
our own broadcasting operation here are in a process of
change.

At this university the trend is clearly away from the
local cooperatively produced program or series. The
emphasis is to be on unified and coordinated adult educa-
tion, as well as programs of national and international
significance.

In general, these objectives are not part of TUBA'S
mission, either stated or implied, and in the months to
come I would not be able to make a contribution to the
organization.

Please be assured that I Will always look forward to the
privilege of informal discussions with you, and with all
educational broadcasters in the city.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed)

John B. Buckstaff

Assistant Director 1

Educational Broadcasting

Reasons for the Withdrawoi

When interviewed for this study, Mr. Buckstaff was

not too different from Mr. Thomas in stating that his prin—

cipal reason for withdrawing from TUBA was the organization's

failure to raise program and production standards. The

University of Chicago's primary mission in broadcasting, he

said, is not to get air time but to make its programs good.2

It is likely that both of the withdrawing universities were

particularly conscious of the need for program quality on

 

1The original is in TUBA files.
2Interview with John Buckstaff, February 13, 1963.

55

their part because they had a national broadcasting reputa-
tion to uphold, having been engaged, as previously mentioned,
in producing network radio series. Apart from broadcasting,
both universities are undoubtedly conscious of their reputa-
tion as "quality institutions," with intellectual and physical
resources surpassing those of some of the other TUBA members.

Paul Cahill (Manager, Office of Public Information,
Chicago Division, University of Illinois) has stated that the
two universities Operate with budgets which, in comparison.
to some other TUBA institutions, are massive. Hence, he
suggests, they may have felt that they did not have as much
to gain from the association as did other members. It is a
lot easier if one is a nobody, he says, to want a spirit of
cooperation, than if one is big enough to do what one pleases;
The University of Illinois, he claims, is obviously big
enough to do without TUBA; nevertheless, it continues to par-
ticipate because it subscribes to the spirit of cooperation
which TUBA embodies.1

In the case of Mr. Buckstaff and Mr. Thomas, however,
the cooperation practiced by TUBA seems to have meant prin-
cipally joint programming, and this joint programming seems
to have denied them sufficient freedom to advance the unique
interests of their employers. Note, for example, that Mr.
Thomas wrote, "In presenting the personnel and story of our
university, wefeel that we can obtain better results through

our own programming--programming with a continuity which cannot

 

1Interview with Paul Cahill, February 1, 1963.

56
be obtained in joint efforts," and this statement was echoed
in principle by Mr. Buckstaff's desire for "unified and co-
herent" adult education.. Also, both men soUght greater op-
portunity to negotiate directly with broadcasting stations
to place programming whdch would be more strongly identifiable
with their own institUtions. Thus, in a press release an-
nouncing its withdrawal froijUBA, the University of Chicago
concludes that "the needs of Chicago area stations and their
audiences, as well as of the University, can be better served
by program managers and public affairs directors dealing dir-
ectly with the various universities."l

It will be recalled that Mr. Thomas concluded his
first letter by stressing the "differences in size, objec-
tives, and history of the member universities." To him and
to Mr. Buckstaff, it appears to have been mostdoubtful that
representatives from such variegated institutions could rec-
oncile their differences without compromising their obliga-
tions to advance the interests of their employers.

In line with this problem, Mr. Buckstaff cites a time
when Channel 11 had available but one half hour weekly for
all of the Chicago area colleges and universities. It became
apparent to Mr. Buckstaff and his assiciates that a program
prOposal from the University of Chicago would not be seri-
ously considered by thestation since, in view of its limited
program structure, the station felt that it was meeting its
commitment to the institutions of higher education by filling

 

1The complete release is reproduced in Appendix IX.

57

the half hour with a TUBA series.. By strengthening this series,
Mr. Buckstaff felt that he was weakening his own position as
representative of the University of Chicago. He did not
enjoy being asked from influential quarters why the university
did not have a half hour of its own on Channel 11 every week.1

Not only Mr. Buckstaff but every TUBA representative
has felt pressure from the public relations interests of his
employing institution. According to Alfred Partridge (former
TUBA representative from the University of Illinois), there
is a conflict of interest between the broadcasting officers
who are interested in educational program content and their
administrations, which tend to want broadcasting used to
advertise the institution and its resources. Therefrom may
come pressure to get university personnel onto "name" pro-
grams, or onto as many programs as possible, or to engage in
programs which bring the image of the university into sharp
focus rather than those which divide the credit with other
institutions.2

Mr. Buckstaff states the problem thusly:

The University of Chicago would be pleased as hell to
be part of any organization, the members of which agreed
about what they wanted to do and went about doing it.

But TUBA has always been a group of minority factions.
Each of us has had primarily a responsibility to his own
university. We have liked to sit down with each other
and say to ourselves, "We're broadcasters and we're going
to be very wise about this. We're just going to put our
own institutions a little bit in the background. We're

going to use our best judgment as broadcasters to produce
this series of programs." When it comes right down to

U

1Interview with John Buckstaff, February 13, 1963.

zlnterview with Alfred Partridge, February 27, 1963.

58

the wire, this isn't what happens. The University of

Chicago is paying me, and I'm going to do what they want

me toldo. This is true of everybody else in the organiza-

tion.

TUBA Present and Future
In consequence of the withdrawals, TUBA was reduced
to its present membership of six institutions: De Paul Uni-
versity, Illinois Institute of Technology, Lake Forest College,
Roosevelt University, Loyola University, and the University
of Illinois. It must now do without the help of two com-
petent production offices. It must bargain from a weaker
position than when it could present a united front of all of
the principal degree-granting institutions in the area. Al-
though a few personnel from the departed institutions still
appear on TUBA programs, essentially it is left with fewer
faculty members to choose from, and often the best authority
on a-given subject can.be found at one of the withdrawn
universities. _
Yet some feel that the withdrawals have not hurt

TUBA in the least. According to Mr. Anderson (president of
TUBA at the time of the withdrawals), neither the functioning
of the association nor the quality of its programs have been
injured, and perhaps the group has been positively strength-
ened by the departure of those who placed a negative value on

their membership.2 Henry Bussey (representative from Loyola

 

1Interview with John Buckstaff, February 13, 1963.

2Interview with DonakiAnderson, Director of Public
Relations and Broadcasting, Illinois Institute of Technology,
March 18, 1963.

59

University) claims that TUBA is now more successful than ever
with the quality of its programs and its relations with the
stations.1

In concluding this account of TUBA'S progress towards
achieving the tenets of its code, it is tempting to speculate
about what the future holds in store. The remaining repre-
sentatives have various notions for improving the associa-
tion. They are considering the pros and cons Of widening the
membership to include smaller institutions. Some of them
see the need for a stronger publicity effort to make the
public, broadcasting station administrators, and other aca-
demic communities better informed about TUBA'S work. There
is hope that a grant-in-aid from some foundation might be
secured to hire an executive secretary to keep records and
minutes of meetings, write publicity, handle communications
with stations, and in general coordinate the TUBA effort from
a central position, devoid of allegiance to any single in-
stitution. According to Allen Burns (Manager of Public Af-
fairs for WNBQ), many organizations are only as strong as
their executive secretaries, who keep the members operating
effectively and, if given enough power, can make the deci-

sions which might never get made because of individual al-

legiances of the members of the group.2

 

1Interview with Henry Bussey, Director of Radio and
Television and Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama,
Loyola University, Chicago, January 28, 1963.

2Interview with Allen Burns, Manager of Public Af-
fairs, WNBQ, Chicago, February 8, 1963.

60

Mr. Burns is one station official who considers it
useful to work through TUBA, since it eases his task of
scouting out what is being done at colleges and universities
which would be of program value. There is at least one other
station official, however, who sees little present need for
the organization. In the; words of Chalmers Marquis (Direc-
tor of Programming for Channel 11):

The closest analogy to TUBA would be a labor union.
A union almost always comes into existence when manage-
ment gets to be bad in any number of ways: the union being
a banding together of people to maintain their rights and
expand their rights and income, etc. This was that kind
of organization. As with many unions, when the manage-
ment becomes enlightened and the conditions become better,
the union becomes weak and in many cases simply is a paper
union. Organizations of this kind exist only as long as
there is a need to exist. Since there is no organization,
there is no staff, the organization can band together or
disband at any given moment. There is no loss felt if
they separate; there is no gain felt when they meet unless
there's some common purpose at that instant. I would say
they will come together strongly whenever there's a need
for it. I simply say that the need for it has probably
disappeared. The stations, including ours, are capable,
or certainly intend to be capable, of a professional at-
titude towards the universities and a respect for the
universities. The antagonism by the commercial stations,
I think, which was one of the basic reasons for the
existence of TUBA, has all but disappeared. I think there
is good reason to believe that TUBA probably won't exist 1
as such after this year--and I don't say this maliciously.

This prediction--if it was such--has not come true.
As of June, 1964, TUBA is readying a thirteen week daily
series for CBS-TV on the subject of "Literature of the City."
It features participants from all the member institutions.
Starting July 6, 1964, TUBA will present a thirteen week

daily series on ABC-TV concerning "Urban Problems." WBKB

 

1Interview with Chalmers H. Marquis, Jr., April 5,

1963.

61

wishes to continue with the universities in daily production
in the fall. NBC-TV is planning a thirteen week daily ex-
change series with its owned and Operated stations featuring
TUBm.professors. WBBM-TV'S "Vistas" will repeat its best
programs on tape during the Summer, and the statiOn plans to
bring the series back live in the fall.-1

As we have seen, the TUBA institutions differ in a
variety of ways, and each may have different broadcasting
goals at a given time. Yet the members continue to COOperate
through TUBA. At the present time, De Paul University is
de-emphasizing outside broadcasting in favor of developing
its own closed-circuit system, and Loyola University is
starting to develop closed-circuit also. But these develop-
ments in no way affect the existence of TUBA or TUBA member-
ship participation in regular broadcasting. The TUBA repre—
sentatives, according to Mr. Taylor, are still very en-
thusiastic about the potential of the organization and are
pleased with its accomplishments.2

I We have seen that TUBAhas made some progress in

various areas and has also failed somewhat in others. But
it is difficult for one to predict how long TUBA will sur-
vive and what its accomplishments and failures will be in
the future. Its accomplishments and failures of the future
will be of importance as were those of its past.

TUBA was and is an experiment, but, in this writer's

1Interview with James Taylor, June 18, 1964.

2Ibid.

62
opinion, the association is to be respected if only on the
basis of what it has tried to accomplish. Because tele-
vtion has become such a vital force in our society, it is
apparent that no one can afford to be complacent about the

quality of fare presented by this medium. TUBA is not com-

placent.

APPENDIX I

TENTATIVE PLANS FOR A PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE ON
EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FOR THE CHICAGO AREA

64

Tentative Plans for a Preliminary Conference
on Educational Television for the Chicogo
Area, Channel 11

 

Reasons for calliog a conference: The educational institu-
tions cooperating in the experiment in educational television
in Chicago have not yet received any prOposals or directives
from the Channel 11 Committee regarding the philosophy,
objectives, principles of Operation, or details of administra-
tion of Channel 11. If the Channel 11 Committee leaves such
matters to an appointed director and his appointive staff, it
is probable that the institutions involved may find themselves
in the role of competitive program brokers, providers of
talent, and suppliers of information. They would have little
if any opportunity to plan and direct educational TV in this
area.

It may be argued that the COOperating institutions
will be adequately represented by an executive council made
up of appointed delegates from the administrative staffs of
the several institutions. There, precisely, is the danger.
Such a council is not likely to consult faculties or staffs
before committing an institution to a policy either unwise
or insufferable.

A representative body of delegates from the numerous
agencies and institutions now serving the public in an educa—
tional capacity, sharing and assimilating its views and
ideas, mdght draw up statements of objectives and concepts
that might be of use to those concerned with directing educa-
tional TV in this area. Such a body, acting as a kind of
constitutional assembly, could draw up a statement of prin-
ciples and procedures that could serve as a Magna Charta for
educational TV in this area. Anyhow such a body could inform
itself and become knowledgeable for future develOpments.

inviootion toéo Conference: Some school or institution must
take the lead in calling this conference. It is proposed
that Illinois Institute of Technology issue an invitation to
a two day conference on Educational TV. The conference would
be held at Illinois Tech, April 23-24. The invitations would
be issued to the following institutions through their ad-
ministrative heads. So far as possible it is suggested that
the administrator appoint persons known to have an active
interest in educational TV as a public service.

65
A. Educational Institutions:

IllinOis Institute of Technology
Conference Staff
Northwestern University 4
University of Chicago 4
De Paul University 4
Loyola University 4
Roosevelt 4
University of Illinois 4
George Williams College 2
Lake Forest College 2
Elmhurst College 2
Wheaton College 2
Chicago Teachers College 2
Concordia Teachers College 1
National Coll. of Education 1
Wright Junior College 2
Wilson Junior College 2
Chicago Public School System 3

B. Quasi-Educational Instititions:

Chicago Art Institute

Chicago Museum of Natural His-
tory

Museum of Science and
Industry

Chicago Public Library

Chicago Historical Society

l-‘l-‘m I'D \N

C. Cultural Agencies:

Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Newberry Library'
John Crerar Library

OHPJH

D. Resource Personnel:

Omnibus: Alistair Cooke
NEAB: Ann Arbor

Ford Fund for Adv. of Ed.
Excursion: B. Meredith.

Should there be representatives from Shedd Aquarium,
Adler Planetarium, Brookfield and Lincoln Park Zoos, Garfield
and Lincoln Park Conservatories, Cook County Forest Preserve,
and the professional (legal, medical, musical, theological)
schools?

Plan of Conference: To get results from a conference of this
nature the utmost utilization of the assembled brains and
know-how must be achieved. Every delegate must be an active

 

66

participant. In two days a great deal of ground can be
covered if the topics are arranged to produce logical progres-
sion of thought.‘ A general stimulative session will precede
each series of group meetings.

The sessions must be well manned by competent dis-
cussion leaders and secretaries. Ideas developed in each
group meeting will be taken down, summarized, and presented
at a final general session. The general session will then
decide what to do next: another meeting to consider a state-
ment of principles or set of resolutions; establishment of
committees to implement ideas develOped in discussions;
publication of results; forwarding of ideas to Committee for
Channel 11.

A. First Day

General Session: Opening of Conference--Pres. John
9:30-10:30 T. Retaliatta
‘Ekplanation of Conference Procedure,
Ill. Tech. Staff Member‘
"The Challenge of Educational TV,"
NAEB representative

Group Meetings: 1. Educational TV Resources in
10:45'12:00 Chicago Area

2. The relation of Educ. TV to
Private Networks

3. The Public Responsibility of
Educ. TV: Thought

4. The Public Responsibility of
Educ. TV: Taste

Luncheon: (No Speaker)
12:30-l:30 .

General Session: "What is the Audience for EdUca-
2:3053:00 tional TV?" Alistair Cooke

Group Meetings: Adult Education

3:15-4:30

5.
6. Adult Cultural Programming.
7. Accredited Courses.

8. Programming for Juveniles

Demonstration: NAEB Materials or E.B.F.
4:45-6:00 A

B.

Dinner Meeting:
6:45-8:00
Second Day

General Session:
9:30-10:30

Group Meetings:
10:45'12:00

Luncheon:
l2:30-2:00

General Session:

2:30-4:30

67

"A Cultural Historian Looks at
Educational TV," Author of
Radio, TV;_and Public

"Organization and Administration of
an Educational TV Program,"
Representative from Ford Founda-
tion.

9. Organization Plan for Channel 11

10. Relationship of Director to Co-
operating Institutions

11. The Production Problem
12. Program Personnel

"The MC and Educational Television,"
Burgess Meredith

Summaries of working sessions.
General discussion. Business.

APPENDIX II

PROGRAM OF THE FOURTH ANNUAL CHICAGO AREA
COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE

69

PROGRAM OF THE
FOURTH ANNUAL

CHICAGO-AREA CONFERENCE
ON
EDUCATIONAL RADIO AND TELEVISION

to be held on
Friday, April 12, 1957
at

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
(Commons Bldg., Wabash Ave. at 32nd St.)

"EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING
IN CHICAGO"

7O

MORNING SESSION
9300 A.M.

Discussion by participants from eleven Chicago-area Collegiate
institutions.

Formulation of joint opinions

The agenda for discussiOn:

I.

II.

III.

Should we and can we define relations between
contributing institutions and the broadcasting
stations in regard to:

A.

Division of responsibility between station
producer-directors and institutional
producers.

Ultimate authority for decisions:
within stations, within institutions, and
between the two.

Definition of services which can uniformly be
expected to be supplied by the stations for
any program.

In what proportions should the educational in-
stitutions provide:

A.

How
A.
B.

Programs of instructional character
a. Credit
b. Non-credit

Documentaries, discussions, and the like,
assuming a wish for balance in regard to:

a. Subject-matter

b. Level

can we correlate program decisions
Between the educational institutions

Between the institutions and the stations

71

IV. Can other common problems of the educational in-
stitutions be dealt with by inter-institutional
correlation--such problems as:

A. Uniform accreditation of television courses

B. Budgetary standards, including forms of re-
muneration for faculty

C. Uniformity in permissions fees, etc.
D._ Increase of general faculty interest in

broadcasting.

At about 10:30 A.M. there will be half-hour's recess for
coffee.

LUNCHEON

12:30 P.M.
Luncheon will be ready in an adjoining room of the I.I.T.
Commons.
The participants from the broadcasting stations and from the
newspapers are invited to attend.

AFTERNOON SESSION

1:30 P.M.
In the order to be agreed upon, the opinions formulated in the
morning session will be presented to the participants from

the Chicago broadcasting stations and from the Chicago news-
papers.

APPENDIX III

RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE FOURTH ANNUAL
CHICAGO AREA COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE

73
RESOLUTIONS

PASSED BY THE FOURTH ANNUAL CHICAGO AREA EDUCATIONAL

RADIO AND TELEVISION CONFERENCE

Held at Illinois Institute of Technology

April 12, 1957

PRESENT:
I. A.
B.
II.
III.
IV-

Thirty-nine participants from nine Chicago-area
collegiate institutions and five television broad-
casting stations.

Before the start of a program or series there should
be a thorough understanding between the station and

the educational institution on all reSponsibilities

concerning production.

The following are illustrative of the items on which
this prior understanding Should be reached.

Air time Video equipment Clearance
Rehearsal time Audio facilities : AMuSic
Program content Sets and props ‘ ‘talent
Script Art work Publicity
Talent Films

In order to prevent surprises to participants, the
definitions of authority and all decisions indicated
in I,A, should be made well in advance of studio
rehearsal and air-time.

The conference believes that there exists subjects
which the educational institutions are best fitted
to present; that methods of presentation appropriate
to broadcasting can be found; and that the institu-
tions have a duty to initiate broadcasts of their
choice, and desire to take the responsibility for
doing so.

The conference expresses great interest in radio
and television courses for credit and welcomes
further experimentation and evaluation in this
field.

The conference recognizes the importande of active
participation of educational institutions in radio
and television. It urges that the institutions of
higher learning which are prominently engaged in
Chicago-area broadcasting should appoint two

members each to constitute a University Broadcasting
Committee. One member from each institution should
be drawn from its Office responSible for broadcasts,
and one from its faculty.

74

V. Dr. Edward Rosenheim, Jr. was elected to be the
convener of the committee.

VI. The Committee was directed to send a copy of these
resolutions to all who had been invited to par-
ticipate.

PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS:

Chicago Board of Education
DePaul University

University of Illinois
Northwestern University
Roosevelt University

University of Chicago

Illinois Institute of Technology
Loyola University

Purdue University

APPENDIX IV

NOTES ON THE INITIAL MEETING OF THE
UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

76

UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING COMMITTEE
Monday, May 13, 1957 3 P.M.
University of Chicago

5801 Ellis Avenue, Room 10

Notes on the initial meetiog oi the Uoiyersityggroadcastigg
Committee:

Present:

John Buckstaff Stan Sidlack
Norma Einbecker Romulo Soldeville
Clifford Ericksen Kendall Taft
Father Francis Filas James Taylor
George Jennings Eugene vest

Henry Knepler Charles Wegener
A1 Partridge Lee Wilcox

Edward Rosenheim, Jr.

The following report attempts to summarize most of the things
that were said at our first meeting. When the Planning Com-
mittee meets, it will, it is hoped, take into account the
questions raised at this meeting, with a view to clarifying
and classifying these questions and ultimately to inviting
collective action, where this is feasible and relevant.

The acting chairman Opened the meeting by confessing his own
uncertainty as to the direction which the deliberations would
take, by expressing the general hOpe that, on the one hand,
practical problems involving liason with broadcasting stations
might be considered, and on the other, that clarification of
general educational objectives for broadcasters might be
achieved. It was suggested that, prior to any formal or-
ganizational action, the Opinions of those present should be
elicited with respect to the most pressing needs that could
be met by a group of this character. Following this sugges-
tion, the acting chairman invited the opinions of those
present, in round-robin fashion.

MR. PARTRIDGE urged that initiative for program planning be
assumed by the universities, and that the tendency of the
colleges and universities simply to fill needs expressed by
broadcasting stations be checked by positive action to induce
stations to accept programing ideas originating with the in-
stitutions. He further suggested that Channel 11 might find
it useful to emphasize certain tOpics upon given nights (e.g.,
music one evening, science another, etc.), and thus invite
coordinated planning by the various institutions of programs
designed to fill Specific needs. He finally suggested that
such a group as ours might well devote itself to research
seeking to identify audience, and to the formulation of prin-
ciples based upon the results of such research, with partic-
ular reference to the predilections of the audience for ed-
ucational broadcasting.

77

MRS. EINBECKER felt that a number of immediately useful
services could be performed through such a group as this, a
conspicuous example of which might be the compilation of an
index of the personnel resources of the various universities.
She suggested further that Channel 11 could benefit greatly
from judgments collectively produced by this group, either
with respect to programing needs which ought to be met, or
to suggestions received by Channel 11 and referred to the
group for academic Opinion.

MR. TAFT underscored the tentative and exploratory character

of the meeting by professing his uncertainty as to the purpose
for which we were assembled, and elicited thereby the general
view that, though affirmative action had yet to be determined,
it was obvious that certain needs and deficiencies had prompted
our assembling.

MR. BUCKSTAFF revealed his concern for the positive improve—
ment of the programing offered by the universities on all
broadcast channels. He echoed Mr. Partridge's view regarding
the need for the educators' taking the inititative, and re-
vealed his hope that through a closer organization, our com-
munity broadcasting activities could achieve greater unity,
quality, and importance.

MR. VEST concurred in Mrs. Einbecker's Opinion that an index
of academic broadcasting talent would be most useful, adding
that any such compilation should take into account not only
academic attainment, but the capacity for lucid and attrac-
tive radio and television performance. He expressed the
hope as well that a group such as this could succeed in
formulating a unified and coherent educational goal which
might be attained by broadcasting.

MISS WILCOX, with characteristic vigor, asserted that im-
mediate problems involving the relationship between the
Schools and such an outlet as Channel 11, should be directly
considered, and negotiated with full exploitation of the
collective strength resident in such a group as this. When
asked whether She would regard such an organization as this
committee as a potential pressure group, she replied in an
unblushing affirmative.

MR. SIDLACK gallently concurred with Miss Wilcox's views. He
then proceeded to introduce the possibility of the committee's
. serving as a comprehensive production agency.

FATHER.FILAS initially drew the distinction between a gen-
'eral advisory group, by no means reluctant to exert relevant
and useful pressure, on the one hand, and a mere lobby on the
other. Viewed as a genuine and legitimate advisory group,
he pointed out, the committee might profitably address itself
to a number of important questions. Among these he included

78

l) the alertness to available time upon commercial stations,
which Should, he felt, be kept in mind despite the attrac-
tions of Channel 11; 2) the recognition of prevailing taboos
with respect to broadcasting, and the formulation of common
policy in this regard; 3) the awareness of the virtues of so-
called "scrappy" TV programing, and the Opportunities for
varied and useful broadcasting provided even by miscellaneous
and fragmentary Opportunities for air time; 4) the common
consideration of such intramural problems as uniform policy on
release time and payment of academic talent; 5) the securing
of more favorable broadcast hours for educational television
and radio; 6) ways in which liveliness and charm can be
augmented in educational programs. Father Filas also ex-
pressed skepticism regarding the possibility of the com-
mittee's establishing an autonomous producing unit.

MR. TAYLOR initially asked certain questions regarding the
long-defunct University Broadcasting Council. MR. JENNINGS,
in reSponding to them, made it clear that this organization,
which flourished in the 1930's, had served as an independent
packaging agency, designed to produce programs conceived of
by the member institutions, and had expired as a consequence
of internecine jealousies and bickerings among its members.
Mr. Taylor went on to introduce the question of a quota of
university time, to be assigned by Channel 11 or the com-
mercial stations, and to be filled by thoughtful, systematic
division of responsibilities. He concurred with Father
Filas in questioning the wisdom or advisability of a communal
production agency.

MR. SOLDEVILLE advocated an amalgam of both the advisory and
rhetorical possibilities of the group, pointing out as an
example of what might be achieved that the collective opinion
of the organization, responsibly expressed in the right
quarters, might succeed in obtaining more favorable time on
commercial stations.

MR. ROSENHEIM, to the unfeigned astonishment of all concerned,
made history by having nothing to say at this juncture.

MR. WEGENER sought to distinguish between three categories
into which prior suggestions might be placed: those concern-
ing production, those involving the "clearinghouse" possi-
bilities of such a group, and those having to do with the
critical function of the organization. He also pointed out
that the problems previously raised assumed distinctly dif-
ferent aspects when considered in terms of WTTW or of com-
mercial stations. He suggested such a group as this might
serve its greatest usefulness by a critical consideration of
what was being achieved in educational broadcasting, and the
formulation of objectives which should be sought by educa-
tional institutions.

79

MR. JENNINGS, who had previously provided useful information
in response to the queries of others, suggested that the group
might be helped by a consideration of the responsibility and
authority intrinsically vested in station management. He
pointed out the need for understanding a just balance between
management's susceptibility to outside suggestion, and the
commitment to established broadcasting policy.

MR. KNEPLER, as the final contributorto the discussion, re-
marked that though previous comments had been widely diversi-
fied, they revealed a common sense of the need for community
deliberation and action. While fully aware of the necessity
for prudence and circumspection, we ought, he argued, to
provide advice which in such cases as that presented by WGN,
should result in affirmative, integrated, and reSpectable
broadcasting projects. He expressed interest in the "clear-
inghouse" function of the committee, and suggested that his
possibility, together with such other problems as those of
censorship, release time, and educational objectives, might
properly be considered through subcommittees established for
this purpose. He urged that the committee be officially
constituted, that its existence be prOperly announced, and
that interested agencies-~and particularly the broadcasting
stations--be invited to proffer suggestions and, in general,
engage in appropriate communication with this group.

Following a certain amount of general discussion, the follow-
ing motion was moved and seconded:

l. The organization shall be known as The University
Broadcasting Association, its .membership to rep-
resent all institutions of higher learning in the
Chicago area actively engaged in public radio and
television broadcasting, such institutions to be
represented by two members each, one such member
being primarily engaged in broadcasting, and the
other being primarily involved in traditional aca-
demic activity;

2. that the Committee annually elect a chairman in the
Spring to serve for a period of one year;

3. that the chairman elected for the present year be
instructed as his initial task to appoint a Planning
Committee, such Committee to review suggestions made
at the present meeting, and derived from other
relevant sources, with a view to outlining explicit
areas for exploration and group activity on the part
of the University Broadcasting Committee.

The motion was unanimously passed.

80

Mr. ROsenheim was elected Chairman for the current year and
Mrs. Einbecker was elected Secretary for the Same period.

It was informally agreed that all colleges and universities
eligible for membership in the Committee but not represented
at the first meeting would be informed of the constitution of
the Committee and invited to send representatives to its
future meetings. It was also informally recognized that
plenary sessions of the Committee would be held at relatively
infrequent intervals (possibly two, three, or four times _
per year), and that the major activities of the group would
largely be Carried out by subcommittee work and attendant cor-
reSpondence.

With the understanding that the Chairman would provide notes
summarizing the meeting and would immediately appoint the
Planning Committee, the meeting was adjourned.

APPENDIX V

TUBA'S BY-LAWS

(Adopted in this form)

82

PROPOSED NEW BY -LAWS FOR
THE UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
July, 1961

I. Organization and membership

A. The organization shall be incorporated under
the title of The University Broadcasting Association of
Chicago. Membership shall be voluntary and shall be Open
to all degree-granting institutions of higher learning actively
engaged in public radio and television broadcasting.

B. Institutional membership shall consist of two
classifications: active and associate.

Active members shall be only those institu-
tions which offer the bachelor's degree, which are engaged
in broadcasting on the Chicago stations, which desire to
.participate in the group activities of the Association which
subscribe to the code of ethics endorsed by the Association,
a copy of which is appended to these by-laws, and which are
represented at the annual meeting of the Association in
person or in proxy.

Associate members shall consist of those degre-
granting institutions which may or may not be engaged in
broadcasting on the Chicago stations, but which subscribe to
the purposes and code of ethics of the Association and which
are represented at the annual meeting of the Association (in
person or in proxy).

C. Active members shall be represented by one

delegate as designated by each institution, or by an alternate

83
designed by the member institution or its regular delegate.
Associate member institutions shall be represented by the
person primarily responsible for broadcasting for that in-
stitution or by any other so designated by the associate
member institution.

D. There shall be four officers: a president, a
vice-president, a secretary and a treasurer who shall be
elected by the active membership annually in June to serve
for a period of one year beginning September 1 and whose
duties are defined in section IV of these by-laws. No officer
may serve more than two consecutive terms.

These officers shall be nominated and elected
in the following manner:

1) The secretary shall annually mail to all
active members a form on which the names of all eligible
members shall be listed as candidates for each office. The
members shall signify their nominees by placing an X before
the name of one candidate for each office.

2) At the June meeting, ballot forms listing
"all nominees for each office shall be presented to the active
membership by the secretary. The office of president Shall
be considered first, a secret ballot taken and results an-
nounced. Balloting shall then proceed to the offices of
viceepresident, secretary and treasurer. A vote of three-
~fourths of the active membership shall be required for the
election of all officers.

E. Annual dues of twenty-five dollars shall be

84
charged each active member organization and dues of ten
dollars shall be charged each associate member to cover costs
of operation. Additional expense asSessments for associa-
tion activities may be necessary but can be levied on and are
payable pro-rata only by the active members which have agreed
to such activities and to their related assessments. Expenses
prOposed to be incurred on behalf of associate members shall
require their individual approval in advance.
II. Purposes

The purposes of The University Broadcasting As-
"sociation shall be:

A. To aCt as a consultative and advisory group on
educational broadcasting to the several radio and television
outlets of the Chicago Area;

B. To encourage and assist its member singly and
collectively in producing educational programs of high quality
in accordance with the Association's code of ethics on local
and national commercial radio and television.

C. -To insure as far as possible the maximum em-
ployment of the facilities of Chicago's educational tele-
viSion station in the interests of higher education.

D. To elevate the standards of educational and
public service broadcasting by the production of programming
in accordance with the Association's Code and by engaging in
other activities which will recognize or commend broadcasters
for improving standards.

III. Structure

To accomplish these purposes, one representative of

85
each active member institution shall meet once a month as a
member of the committee-of-the-whole. No action, except
the election of officers and payment of bills which are pro-
vided for elsewhere in these by-laws, may be taken on behalf
of the Association without 100 per cent approval of the active
members, even though all members may not wish to participate
in such action. Committees in addition to the committee-of-
the-whole may be appointed by the president from time-to-time
without consultation with the membership. The recommenda-
tions of these committees, however, must be presented to and
voted upon by the committee-of-the-whole and be officially
recorded by the Association's secretary or by such recorder
as shall be appointed pro tem by the president in the absence
of the elected secretary.
IV. Authority, responsibility and duties of officers

A. The president shall be responsible for Calling
meetings of the Association and of the committee-as-a-whole,
for directing all communications to active and associate mem-
bers and for initiating new policy or program considerations
for the deliberation of the membership.

B. The vice-president shall serve as chief ex-
ecutive officer in the absence of the president and as ex-
ecutive producer, Shall be responsible for all on-the-air
programs initiated and executed by the Association, producing
or assigning a producer for all such programs.

C. The secretary shall record the actions taken
at all meetings of the Association and of the committee-of-

the-whole, shall send copies of these minutes as well as

86
notices of meetings to all members and shall keep any other
records as may be determined by the president or required by
these by-laws or by the laws of incorporation in the State
of Illinois.

D. The treasurer shall keep such financial records
as are required by the State of Illinois, shall bill the
membership for regular dues and for special assessments as
»outlined in Section IE above, shall upon authorization of
those members present at any regular meeting pay all bills
incurred by the Association, shall present a minimum of one
official report per annum to be recorded in the minutes of
the statutory Association meeting and shall keep any other
financial records requested by the president.

V. Amendments

The above by-laws and the appended code of ethics
shall be subject to review annually or more frequently should
the Association desire. Amendments shall be subject to 100
per cent approval of the active members if only active members
are affected or 100 per cent of all members if the total

membership is affected.

APPENDIX VI

SAMPLE MINUTES OF TUBA MEETINGS

88

THE UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
Minutes of Meeting-~March 7, 1961

The March meeting of the University Broadcasting Association
was held Tuesday, March 7, 10:00 A.M., in Room 929, De Paul
University, 25 E. Jackson Blvd.

In attendance were members from the University of Illinois,
Illinois Institute of Technology, Northwestern University,
DePaul University, The University of Chicago, Lake Forest
College, and Roosevelt University. Mr. Jerry Levin, CBS-TV
Public Affairs Producer, joined the meeting at 11:00 A.M.

Mr. Partridge opened the meeting stating he was not certain
whether a representative from CBS would meet with us or not.
His letter to Mr. George had not been answered and a phone
call to Mr. George's secretary brought no confirmation.

A discussion regarding MEETING OF MINDS occupied the first
minutes of the meeting. The last program will be June 5.
Messrs. Anderson and Buckstaff were appointed to draft sug-
gestions for a summer replacement for the series on WTTW.
Mr. Taylor suggested that we should also plan a new series
for WTTW in the fall and attempt to place MEETING OF MINDS
on a commercial outlet, possibly WGN-TV. No action was
taken.

Mr. Taylor reported that he and Mrs. Einbacker may again pro-
duce a 6:30 A.M. across the board series on WNBQ this summer.

Mr. Partridge said that the report on TUBA'S activities which
had been sent to the stations received a favorable response

Mr. Levin explained the current organizational chart of
WBBM-TV. (Copy attached.) He explained that the Board of
Education may produce SEMINARL61 through the summer. If

not, he may ask TUBA to provide programming for the weeks of
June 26 through September 8. Mr. Levin concluded his remarks
by pointing out that Mr. George has expanded public affairs
programming at WBBM-TV. He said that the CBS theme is no
longer that of expediency, but rather asks the question,
"does it fill a need?" Mr. Levin left the meeting at 12:00.

Discussion followed regarding the manner in which Mr. George

handled his invitation from Mr. Partridge. It was suggested

that future invitations might be extended to both the General
Manager and the Public Affairs Director.

Mr. Taylor reported on a conversation with Mr. Alex Dreier
regarding TUBA. His report indicated that Mr. Dreier felt

89

the Chicago chapter of the Academy of Television Arts and
Sciences should be built around a group like TUBA and that he
(Dreier) would like to talk with TUBA. It was agreed that
Mr. Dreier should be invited to a Special meeting to be held
Thursday, March 23, 10:00 A.M., Illini Center, La Salle
Hotel.

Mr. Partridge reported that he had asked Messrs. Anderson and
Brown to prepare a suggested statement of ethics for TUBA.

He also reminded the group, at the request of Mr. Bussey,
that each institution is still individually responsible for
reimbursing Mr. Homewood for his MEETING OF MINDS expenses.

Mr. Partridge said he would invite Mr. Ward Quaal to the next
regular TUBA meeting to be held Tuesday, April 4, 10:00 A.M.,
Room 203, Abbot Hall, corner of Lake Shore Drive and Superior.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:40.
ReSpectfully submitted,
JOHN

John B. Buckstaff
Secretary

90

THE UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
Minutes of Meeting-~May 11, 1961

Mr. Partridge called the meeting to order at 10:30 A.M. All
active members were represented with the exception of North-
western and Loyola. Both Mr. Brown and Mr. Bussey had ex-
plained they would not be able to attend.

Mr. Anderson announced that members had voted the following
casts for the final 2 programs on the MEETING OF MINDS series:

Where are we going with Kennedy?--At Home--May 29
Smithburg
Johnson or Finer
Rentschler

Where are we going with Kennedy?--Abroad--June 5
Percy .
Barber or Grabner
.Dunnington

It was agreed that Rentschler and Percy were interchangeable,
and that those charged with inviting the participants Should
do so, reporting back to Mr. Anderson as soon as possible.

Mr. Brown had indicated he did not wish to produce the May 22
MEETING OF MINDS. It was decided therefore, to discuss
"Municipal Transportation" with possible discussants coming
from Northwestern, Roosevelt, and either U of C or the city.

Mr. Partridge's letter to Alex Dreier, explaining that TUBA
would not be able to participate in the ATVAS June program,
was read and approved. Mr. Partridge also read a letter from
S. J. Meyer expressing his regret at not being able to attend
the meeting, but favoring us with some of the philOSOphies on
which his Foundation has been built.

Mr. Buckstaff mentioned WHFC'S desire for Spanish-language
cultural programming. Some of the representatives felt they
might be interested in following this up on an individual
basis.

Mr. BuckStaff moved that a committee be appointed to study
and recommend changes in the by-laws of the Association.
The motion was passed; Mrs. Byrne and Mrs. Einbecker were
appointed to prepare Such recommendations for the July meeting.

Mrs. Einbecker distributed outlines for the summer Channel 5
series, AMERICA ABROADJA

Mr. Partridge called our attention to WBKB'S PRESS INTER-
NATIONALE at 4 P.M. Sundays. Mr. Taylor said they are

91

interested in people with some journalistic training and
sufficient language background to comment on foreign language
papers. Scale.

Mr. Partridge suggested we consider developing a radio series
and apply for a grant for a larger series this summer. Both
projects will be discussed at July meeting. .

Mrs. Einbecker reported total TUBA brochure cost at approx-
imately three hundred dollars.

Mr. Anderson, in Mr. Bussey's absence, agreed to check the
SEMINAR '61 dates and urged each of us participating then to
confirm our instructors. Mr. Brown plans to use two in-

structors. The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 A.M. Next
regularly scheduled meeting Thursday, June 1, 10:30 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,
John Buckstaff
John Buckstaff, Secretary

92

THE UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
Minutes of Meeting--July 11, 1961

Mr. Partridge called the meeting to order at 10:40 A.M. in
Room 1300 of the Builders Building. All active members were
represented. Mr. Brown introduced a new member of his staff,
Robert Thomas.

1. The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved
after Mrs. Einbecker's suggestion and a directive that the
third paragraph, concerning AMERICA ABROAD, not a TUBA
production, be removed from the minutes.

2. The treasurer's report indicated that Illinois, IIT, and
Loyola still owe the treasury for their portion of the
TUBA brochure. When all accounts have been settled, in-
glgdifig bills due, the balance of the treasury will be

2 .1 .

3. Mr. Partridge indicated the agenda for the meeting should
include discussion of the by-laws, code of ethics, and
MEETING OF MINDS. He suggested that reports on stations
and networks not of immediate value should be shelved

. for a future meeting.

4. The by-laws, read by Mrs. Einbecker, were discussed
seriatim and suggested changes recorded by her. A motion
was made and passed that the by-laws, as revised during
the meeting, and the code of ethics, which was never dis-
cussed, would be distributed to all active and associate
members for their further study and approval. It was
agreed that all suggested changes in the by-laws and
code of ethics should be forwarded to Mrs. Einbecker no
later than Friday, July 14. She, in turn, will assemble
and distribute these prior to the next meeting.

5. Mr. Anderson distributed a report regarding MEETING OF
MINDS. Mr. Partridge appointed a committee consisting
of Messrs. Anderson, Bussey, and Buckstaff to prepare
recommendations for the next meeting regarding the future
of the series. Mrs. Einbecker asked that it be entered
in the minutes that she felt MEETING OF MINDS had been
such a vast improvement over previous TUBA series that
we should continue our forward motion, and guard against
Slipping back to a less successful production.

6. The next meeting of the Association will be held Tuesday,

93

July 25, 10:30 A.M. in the Illini Center of the LaSalle
Hotel. Principal items on the agenda will be the re—
vised by-laws, the code of ethics, and MEETING OF MINDS.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:07 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,
J. B. Buckstaff

94

THE UNIVERSITY BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION
Minutes of Meeting-~July 25, 1961

Mr. Partridge called the meeting to order at 10:40 A.M. in
the Louis Sullivan Room at Roosevelt University. All active
member institutions were represented.

1.

The by-laws, as amended, were discussed. Further minor
amendments were made. A motion was made and unanimously
passed that the by-laws be accepted. Final acceptance
of the by-laws is pending distribution of the by-laws

is pending distribution of the by-laws to associate
members and their vote.

Mr. Anderson recommended that the by-laws committee (Mrs.
Byrne and Mrs. Einbecker) be commended for an excellent
job.

The rest of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of

the Code of Ethics. There appeared to be general agree-
ment regarding what standards apply to a production of

the Association, but there were varying opinions regarding
the role that TUBA as an Association should play in the
relationship between individual members of TUBA and the
broadcasting stations. There was no action taken on the
prOposed Code of Ethics.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 P.M. Because of the
vacation schedule of various TUBA representatives there
will be no formal meeting of the Association until late
September.

Respectfully Submitted,
John Buckstaff

ADDENDA:

l.

2.

Following the meeting all members of the group except Mr.
Brown lunched with Charles Hinds, WBBM-TV Program Director.

Following the luncheon the members, now minus Mr. Taylor,
considered the report of the committee for MEETING OF
MINDS. The report is enclosed. Those present agreed that
the series should be continued in the fall. Mr. Buckstaff
was appointed for the interim vacation period to make
appropriate and necessary arrangements with Mr. Homewood
and the station.

95

May I urge you to study the enclosed report and to phone
your comments to me no later than Monday, July 31 so that

I will be properly endorsed to instruct Mr. Homewood and
the station in arrangements.

John

APPENDIX VII

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE TO
CONSIDER "MEETING OF MINDS"
(Date not known)

97
The committee to consider MEETING OF MINDS, Anderson,

Bussey, and Buckstaff, met Thursday, July 20 in Bussey's
office at Loyola University. They considered the comments
of Marquis regarding the series and reflected on what they
believed the Shortcomings of the producers, talent, and
station were. The committee's recommendation is that TUBA
cOntinue the production of a 30-minute discussion prOgram,
MEETING OF MINDS, effective Monday, October 2, at 8:00 P.M.,
with the following changes and modifications:

1. Purpose. Content and Audieooe. The purpose of
the series is to provide for the intelligent viewer material
not normally made available widely by either broadcast or
printed media. The series will continue to deal with topics
of current interest on the international, national, and local
levels. TOpics will be discussed, not as hard news with the
emphasis on recent facts and events, but rather in terms of
underlying principles, issues, and movements. The discussion
will involve material which university personnel and their
guests are uniquely fitted to provide. The desired audience
is principally a college educated audience, in a large measure
the same audience that reads Harper's, The Atlantic, The
Reporter, The New Republic, Scientific American, etc.

2. Format. To fulfill this purpose there will be
alterations in the format. The program will open with the
station announcer introducing the program.and Homewood.
Homewood will then present a four minute factual background

to the subject. This reporting is designed to supply all the

98
relevant facts for the discussion so that it will not be
necessary to deal with these at any length during the body of
the program. While Homewood crosses to the main set, the
guests are introduced by the station announcer. The body of
the program, under Homewood's guidance, is then devoted to
exploring the "whys" of the situation, ramifications, under-
lying issues, causes, and if applicable, perhaps solutions.
The discussion runs out. There is no summary. The program
is closed by the station announcer.

3. Production. The committee feels that "produc-
tion" in its broadest sense--needs to be considerably more
slick. Recommendations regarding "production"--both inside
and outside the station--are as follows:

a. University producer will function essentially as
previously in picking the topic for discussion and arranging
for participants. It will be required that the university
producer and the executive producer (see below) meet with
Homewood several days prior to each broadcast to discuss the
background he will prepare and what the content of the pro-
gram will be. Although the university producer will not
write Homewood's introductory material, he will provide in-
formation for it whenever possible.

b. The committee recommends that Mr. Partridge be
appointed executive producer of the series, his Specific re-
sponsibilities to be as follows:

1. In consultation with the individual program pro-

ducer, the executive producer will have the responsibility and

99
authority to direct the content and production of the pro-
grams.

2. In consultation with the WTTW director and set
designer, the executive producer will plan a new set and a
new production approach which will be considerably more
dramatic in terms of both camera work and lighting.

3. The executive producer will make suitable ar-
rangements with WTTW, at what levels necessary, for an audio
pickup of sufficient quality that tapes of the discussions
may be used for AM or FM broadcast.

4. The executive producer will act as coach to
HomewOod, guiding him in all ways necessary in the art of
becoming a polished television personality.

4. Publicity. The committee agreed that a con-

 

siderable effort in publicity is necessary to reach the
desired audience. The executive producer will appoint a
publicity director for the series who will make appropriate
publicity arrangements so that the series as a whole and

each program in the series is promoted substantially.

APPENDIX VIII

PARTIAL LIST OF TUBA SERIES

101
"SEMINAR SIXTY"
WBBM-TV

"Seminar Sixty" was a five day per week discussion and com-
mentary series over WBBM-TV, beginning in February of 1960
and continuing to the end of the year.

Feb. 29 thru March 25--"The Law"

A series of twenty programs produced by Northwestern Uni-
versity, featuring John Coons, associate professor of law,
Northwestern University; Claude Sowle, assistant professor of
law, Northwestern University; John Hayes, professor and acting
dean of law, Loyola University; Fr. William Kenealy, pro-
fessor of law, Loyola University; Philip Romiti, dean, college
of law, DePaul University.

March 28 thru April 22--"Education"

A series of twenty programs produced by DePaul University,
featuring Urban Fleege, chairman of the education department,
DePaul University.

April 25 thru May 20--"Shelter--The New Era in Building"

A series of twenty programs produced by Illinois Institute

of Technology, featuring Kenneth Kessin, instructor in
sociology; Alfred Caldwell, professor of architecture; Daniel
Brenner, associate professor of architecture; and Reginald
Malcolmson, associate professor of architecture, all of the
Illinois Institute of Technology.

May 23 thru June l7--"Psychiatry"

A series of twenty programs produced by the University of
Illinois, featuring Dr. Paul Nielson, associate professor of
psychiatry; Dr. Marvin Schwarz, assistant professor of psy-
chiatry; and Dr. Edward Wasserman, instructor in psychiatry,
all of the University of Illinois College of Medicine.

June 20 thru July 15--"Books"

A series of twenty programs produced by Roosevelt University,
featuring Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University.

July 18 thru August l2--"Chemistry"

A series of twenty programs produced by Loyola University,
featuring Raymond Mariella, professor and chairman of the
department of chemistry, Loyola University.

August 15 thru Sept. 9--"Man's Expression--Sight and Sound"
A series of twenty programs produced by Lake Forest College,
featuring Robert Martin, professor of speech and chairman of
the department of speech; Norman Welling, instructor in

102

political science and history; Franz Schulze, associate
professor of art; Helmut van Flein, instructor in art, all of
Lake Forest College.

Sept. 12 thru Oct. 7--"Marital Problems"

A series of twenty programs produced by DePaul University,
featuring Anthony DelVecchio, assistant professor, psychology
department, DePaul University.

Oct. 10 thru Nov. 4--"Word and Picture in Western Culture"
A series of twenty programs produced by the University of
Chicago, featuring Alan Fern, assistant professor of human-
ities at the University of Chicago.

Nov. 7 thru Dec. 2--"The Brain"

A series of twenty programs produced by Northwestern Uni-
versity, featuring Ray Snider, professor of anatomy and

Harold Koenig, associate professor of neurology and psychiatry,
both of Northwestern University.

Dec. 5 thru Dec. 30--"The Influence of Religion on the Arts"
A series of twenty programs produced by Lake Forest College,
featuring Franz Schulze, associate professor of art, Lake
Forest College: Donovan Smucker, associate professor of re-
ligion and chaplain of the college, Lake Forest College;
David Spencer, assistant professor of English, Loyola Uni-
‘versity; Leon Stein, director, graduate division, school of
music, De Paul University.

103

"NEWS PERSPECTIVES"
WTTW

"News Perspectives" was a four times per week program series
for almost one year over WTTW, Channel 11. The programs were
fifteen-minute commentaries on contemporary topics. The
series began in 1959, ended in 1960.

June 22--Ray Billington, professor of history, Northwestern
University, "Brainwashing in Our High Schools."

~June‘23-_-George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, 'Our Federal Leviathan."

June 24--Daniel Brenner, associate professor of architecture,
Illinois Institute of Technology, "The Form Givers."

(June 25--Helena Lopata, professor of sociology, DePaul Uni-
versity, "Red Faces Greet Pan American Visitors."

June 29--C1aude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "Do Police Delays Defeat Justice?"

June 30--Morris Goran, chairman, physical Science courses,
Roosevelt University, "Space vehicles."

July l--Robert Ashenhurst, assistant professor, graduate
school of business and Institute for Computer Research,
University of Chicago, "Feeding Computers."

July 2--Jose Sanchez, associate professor of foreign lang—
uages, University of Illinois, "Pan American Festival."

July 6--Kenyon Poole, professor of economics, Northwestern
University, "What Causes Inflation?"

July 7--J.A.B. van Buitenen, Rockefeller Foundation, Post
Doctoral Fellow in Linguistics, University of Chicago, "Tales
of Ancient India."

July 8--Leon Stein, director of the graduate division of
school of music and chairman, department of theory and com-
position, DePaul University, "Summer Music in Chicago."

July 9--Eben vey, professor of civil engineering, Illinois
Institute of Technology, "Financing Federal Highways."

July l3--Benjamin Boshes, professor of psyChiatry, North-
western University, "What is the Proper Role of Tranquilizers?"
July l4--Brande1 Works, associate professor of marketing,
Roosevelt University, 'Advertising--Leader or Follower of
Public Opinion?"

104

July l5--Roscoe Braham, Jr., associate professor, department
of meteorology, University of Chicago, 'Dissecting a Thunder-
storm.

July 16--David Snyder, instructor in geography, DePaul Uni-
versity,:Communist Infiltration into Labor Unions in Latin
America.

July 20--Francis L. K. Hsu, professor of anthropology, North—
western University, "The Organization Man and Self Reliance."

July 21--Henry Knepler, associate professor of English,
Illinois Institute of Technology, 'Summer Theatre."

July 22—-Hollis Barber, professor of political Science, Uni-
versity of Illinois, "Bi-Partisanship: A Way to By-Pass
Democracy."

July 23--William Alberta, assistant professor of finance and
economics, Roosevelt University, "Can Men Agree?"

July 27--Harold Mayer, professor, department of geography,
University of Chicago, 'The Seaway--Unsolved Problems.‘

July 28--Father John Battle, professor of philoSOphy, DePaul
University "The Beginning of an Era: Freedom of Man.‘

July 29--Father Gerard Gray Grant, assistant professOr of
philosophy, Loyola University, "The Movement Toward World
Federation."

July 30--Peter Jacobsohn, instructor in sociology, Illinois
Institutecf Technology, "The Status Seekers."

August 3--E. Lloyd DuBrul, associate professor of anatomy,
University of Illinois, "Do Brains Work Like Modern Missiles?"

August 4--Raymond Mariella, professor of chemistry, Loyola
University. 'What Can We Expect from Chemistry in the Future?" .

August 5--George Bobrinsky, professor and chairman, department
of oriental languages and civilization, and dean of students,
division of humanities, University of Chicago, "On Dr.
Zhivago."

August 6--Urban Fleege, Chairman, department of education,
DePaul University, "Critical Problems of Education Today.‘

August lO--Dr. Rubin Battino, instructor in chemistry,
Illinois Institute of Technolo , "A Summer Institute for
High School Chemistry Teachers.‘

August ll--Edward Heiliger, associate professor of library

science and librarian, University of Illinois, "Bombing Our
Information Libraries."

105

August l2--Father Francis Filas, chairman, department of
theology, Loyola University, "Overpopulation--Nightmare or
Imagination?‘

August l3--Jack Roth, professor of history, Roosevelt Uni—
versity, "Main Street, USA--in Moscow."

August l7--Father Edward Hammer, executive vice president,
DePaul University, "Steel IS.Big."

August 18--Gerald Maatman, director of fire prevention and
safety engineering department, Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology, "Urban Fire Department Service."

August l9--Dr. Mark Lepper, head of the department of pre-
ventive medicine, college of medicine, University of Illinois,
"Prevention Of Rheumatic Heart Disease."

August 20--Louis Turner, deputy director, Argonne National
Laboratory, Operated for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
by the University of Chicago, "Breaking Ground at Argonne."

August 24--John Heneghan, assistant professor of industrial
relations, Loyola University, "The Public's Plight in Labor-
Management Relations."

August 25--C. William Reiley, director of admissions, North-
western University, "The College Applications Muddle."

August 26--Bernard Weissman, director of athletics, Illinois
Institute of Technology, "Pan American Games-~Chicagoans
Behind the Scenes."

August 27--Harold Bailey, associate dean of liberal arts and
professor of mathematics, University of Illinois, "Special
Scholar Programs." ‘

Sept. l--Martin Maloney, professor of radio and television,
Northwestern University, 'TV'S Million Dollar P.R. Story."

Sept. 2--Dr. John Brophy, assistant manager, physics divi-
sion, Armour Research Foundation of Illinois Institute of
Technology, "The Passing of the Space Station."

Sept. 3--Paul Johnson, associate professor of history,
Roosevelt University, "Casting Our American HorOSCOpe."

Sept. 8--Morris Goran, associate professor of chemistry and
course chairman, physical science, Roosevelt University,
"The Science as Humanities."

106

Sept. 9--Paul Schilpp, professor of philoSOphy, Northwestern
University, "Does PhiIOSOphy Have Anything to Say to Our

Age?"

Sept. lO--John Wozniak, associate professor and chairman of
the department of education, Loyola University, "American
School in the Sputnik Age."

Sept. l4--Mrs. Jeanne Bamberger, assistant professor of
humanities, University of Chicago, "What is Modern Music?"

Sept. 15--Urban Fleege, chairman, department of education,
DePaul University, "Professional and Liberal Education."

Sept. l6--John Ford Gola , dean of faculties, Roosevelt
University, "(Higher and Higher Education."

Sept. l7--Rev. William Faughnan, chaplain, Illinois Institute
of Technology, "Religion on the Campus."

Sept. 21--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "Should Capital Punishment be Abolished?"

Sept. 22--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, "The Road Toward Next Fall's Elections."

Sept. 23--Richard Houk, chairman, department of geography,
DePaul University, "The Geography of World Affairs.

Sept. 24--Dr. Norman Roberg, associate professor of medicine,
University of Illinois, "Polio vaccine: Is Live Oral vaccine
a Good Idea?"

Sept. 28--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "Should the Fifth Amendment be Repealed?"

Sept..29--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosexelt University, "Khrushchev--Was His Visit a Good
Idea?

Sept. 30--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department,
DePaul University, "A Look at Ceylon.

Oct. l--Norman Roberg, associate professor of medicine,
University of Illinois, "High Blood Pressure."

Oct. 5--Claude Sowle, assiStant professor of law, Northwestern
University, "The Ethics of Defending Criminals."

Oct. 6--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, "Political Issues in the Steel Strike."

Oct. 7--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

107

Oct. 8--Dr. Norman Rober , associate professor of medicine,
University of Illinois, Swollen Legs."

Oct. l2-—Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "Should Police Wiretapping Be Legalized?"

Oct. 13--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, ‘The American Implication of the British
Elections."

Oct. l4--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

Oct. 15--Norman Roberg, associate professor of medicine,
University of Illinois, "Diet and its Relationship to Heart
Attacks.

Oct. l9--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "How Should the Law Approach.Mercy Kill-

ing? I. ,

Oct. 20--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, 'Trends in National Politics."

Oct. 2l--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

Oct. 22--Norman Roberg, associate professor of medicine,
University of Illinois, "Prevention of Rheumatic Heart
Disease.".

Oct. 26--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "The Lie Detector: Its Possibilities and
limitations."

Oct. 27--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, 'Trends in National Politics."

Oct. 28--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

Oct. 29-eWilliam Burrows, professor and secretary, department
of microbiology, University of Chicago, "About Immunity."

Nov. 2--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, Northwestern
University, "The Juvenile Offender--Child or Criminal?"

Nov. 3--George Watson, professor of political science, Roose-
velt University, "Trends in National Politics."

Nov. 4--Richard J. Houk, chairman, geography department,
DePaul University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

108

Nov. 5--William Burrows, professor and secretary, department
of microbiology, University of Chicago, "About Immunity." v

Nov. 9--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, Northwestern
University, "Free Press vs. Fair Criminal Trials."

Nov. 10--George Watson, professor of political science,
Roosevelt University, 'Trends in National Politics."

Nov. ll--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

Nov. l2--William Burrows, professor and secretary, department
of microbiology, University of Chicago, "About Immunity."

,Nov. l6--Claude Sowle, assistant professor of law, North-
western University, "Should Police Wiretapping Be Legalized?"

Nov. 17--Dona1d Smithburg, professor of political science,
Illinois Institute of Technology, "Censorship and Restric-
tions on Freedom of Speech"

\
’Nov. 18--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

Nov. l9--William Burrows, professor, department of micro-
biology, University of Chicago, "About Immunity."

Nov. 23--Rev. Gerard Gray Grant, associate professor of
philosophy, Loyola University, 'Problems of Peace and Dis-
armament.

Nov. 24--Donald Smithburg, professor of political science,
Illinois Institute of Technology, "Censorship and Restric-
tions on Freedom of Speech.

Nov. 25--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs.

Nov. 30--Rev. Gerard Gray Grant, associate professor of
philosophy, Loyola University, 'Problems of Peace and Dis-
armament.

Dec. 1--Dona1d Smithburg, professor of political science,
Illinois Institute of Technology, "Libel-~13 the Individual
Protected?"

Dec. 2--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University "The Geography of World Affairs."

Dec. 3--William Burrows, professor, department of micro-
biology, University of Chicago, "About Immunity."

109

Dec. 7--Rev. Gerard Gray Grant, associate professor of
philosophy, Loyola University, "Problems of Peace and Dis—
armament.‘

Dec. 8--Donald Smithburg, professor of political science,
Illinois Institute of Technology, "Sedition-~What Constitutes
Overthrow of Government?"

Dec. 9--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs.‘

.Dec. lO--William Burrows, professor, department of micro-
biology, University of Chicago, "About Immunity."

Dec. 14--Rev. Gerard Gray Grant, associate professor of
philosophy, Loyola University, Fall-Out and the Bomb."

Dec. 15--Warren Fitzgerald, assistant professor in the In-
stitute of Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, "A
Product Designer Looks at the Automobile."

Dec. l6--Richard Houk, chairman, geography department, DePaul
University, "The Geography of World Affairs."

Dec. 21--Rev. Gerard Gray Grant, associate professor of
philos0phy, Loyola University, Should the Connolly Amend-
ment Be Repealed?"

Dec. 22--Ronald Forgus, chairman, psychology department,
Lake Forest College, "Motivation-~A Consideration of the
Development of Affection from Mother Love to Adult Love."

Dec. 23--Henry Knepler, associate professor of English,
Illinois Institute of Technology, 'Theater, 1959-1960.'
Dec. 28--Rev. Gerard Gray Grant, associate professor of
philosophy, Loyola University, Do We Need a World Police
Force? A

Dec. 29--Ronald Forgus, chairman, psychology department,
Lake Forest College, "Frontier Research--The Role of the
Brain in the Control of Emotions."

Dec. 30--Henry Knepler, associate professor of Englishfi
Illinois Institute of Technology, 'Theater, 1959-1960.

Jan. 4--Canio Radice, associate professor of art, University
of Illinois,"Current Trends in Art."

Jan. 5--Ronald Forgus, chairman, psychology department,
Lake Forest College, 'Creative Thinking--Influence of Parent-
Child Relationships and Teaching Creative Ability."

“- avg __—' mummy—fl
.

 

110

Jan. 6--Henry Knepler, associate professor of English,
Illinois Institute of Technology, "Theater, 1959-1960."

Jan. 7--Jacob Scher, professor of Journalism, Medill School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, "Responsibility and
Controls in the Mass Media of Communications."

Jan. ll--Canio Radice, associate professor of art, University
of Illinois, "Current Trends in Art."

Jan. l2--Ronald Forgus, chairman, psychology department,
Lake Forest College, "Parent-Child Relationships--the Effect
of Child Rearing Practices on Emotional Stability."

Jan. 13--Roger Hildebrand, associate professor of physics and
associate director, Argonne National Laboratory, University
of Chicago, "Why Smash the Atom?"

Jan. 14--Jacob Scher, professor of Journalism, Medil School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, "Responsibility and
Controls in the Mass Media: Newspapers."

Jan. 18--Canio Radice, associate professor of art, University
of Illinois, "Current Trends in Art." .

Jan. l9--Ronald Forgus, chairman, psychology department, Lake
Forest College, "Interpersonal Relationships--Hostility and
Guilt as Barriers to Getting Along With People."

Jan. 20--Roger Hildebrand, associate professor of physics
and associate director, Argonne National Laboratory, Uni-
versity of Chicago, "Why Smash the Atom?"

Jan. 21--Jacob Scher, professor of Journalism, Medill School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, "Responsibility and
Controls in the Mass Media: Radio and Television."

Jan. 25--Canio Radice, associate professor of art, University
of Illinois, "Current Trends in Art."

Jan. 26--Rona1d Forgus, chairman, psychology department,
Lake Forest College, "Human Barriers--A Consideration of Love
and Courage as Basis of Human Morality."

Jan. 27--Roger Hildebrand, associate professor of physics and
associate director, Argonne National Laboratory, University
or Chicago, "Why Smash the Atom?"

Jan. 28--Jacob Scher, professor of Journalism, Medill School
of Journalism, Northwestern University, "Responsibility and
Controls in the Mass Media: Movies and CensorShip."

7 ._..<-..-

 

. . .5 n5 Arman-J

111

Feb. l--Canio Radice, associate professor of art, University
of Illinois, "Current Trends in Art."

Feb. 2--Rolf Weil, dean, college of business administration,
Roosevelt University, "The Economist Views the News."

Feb. 3--A1bert Crewe, director, particle accelerator divi—
sion, Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago,
"Why Smash the Atom?"

Feb. 4--BenJamin Willis, general superintendent, Chicago
Public Schools, "Report to Parents.‘ '

Feb. 8--Canio Radice, associate professor of art, University
of Illinois, "Current Trends in Art."

Feb. 9--Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, "Literary Limelight.ut

Feb. lO--Albert Crewe, director, particle accelerator divi-
sion, Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago,
"Why Smash the Atom?" ,

Feb. 11--Richard Mcvey, assistant superintendent in charge
of personnel, Chicago Public Schools, "Have We Enough
Teachers?‘

Feb. 15--Warren Fitzgerald, assistant professor, Institute of
Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, "The American Auto-
mobile--Insolent Chariot to Innocent Chattel?"

Feb. l6--Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, 'Literary Limelight."

Feb. l7--Albert Crewe, director, particle accelerator divi-
sion, Argonne National Laboratory, University of Chicago,
"Why Smash the Atom?"

Feb. 18--Irving Abrams, director, bureau of medical and school
health service, Chicago Public Schools, "Your Child's Health."

Feb. 22--Warren Fitzgerald, assistant professor, Institute of
Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, "The American Auto—
mobile--Insolent Chariot or Innocent Chattel?" ‘

Feb. 23--Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, Literary limelight."

Feb. 24--Francis Schwarzenberg, assistant professor of polit-
ical science, Loyola University, "International Relations."

Feb. 25--Philip Lewis, director, bureau of instruction
materials, Chicago Public Schools," Instruction Materials."

112

Feb. 29-—Warren Fitzgerald, assistant professor, Institute of
Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, "The American Auto-
mobile--Insolent Chariot or Innocent Chattel?"

March l--Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, 'Literary limelight."

March 2--Francis Schwarzenberg, assistant professor of polit-
ical science, Loyola University, "International Relations."

March 3--Mark Lepper, professor and head of the department of
preventive medicine, University of Illinois College of
Medicine, "Asian Flu."

March 8--Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, 'Japanese Literature in the United
States.

March 9--Francis Schwarzenberg, assistant professor of polit-
ical science, Loyola University, "International Relations."

March lO--Mark Lepper, professor and head of the department
of preventive medicine, University of Illinois College of
Medicine, "Additives, Cranberries and Such."

March 14--Warren Fitzgerald, assistant professor, Institute of
Design, Illinois Institute of Technology, "The American Auto-
mobile-~Insolent Chariot or Innocent Chattel?"

March 15--Robert Cosbe , associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, 'Lesser-known Contemporary Writers."

March l6--Francis Schwarzenberg, assistant professor of
political science, Loyola University, "The East and West View
the Captive Nations."a

March l7--Mark Iepper, professor and head of the department
of preventive medicine, University of Illinois College of
Medicine, "T.B.--Massive Innoculation."

March 2l--R. Gene Geisler, assistant professor, department
of political and social sciences, Illinois Institute of
Technology, "Primary Politics in Illinois."

March 22--Robert Cosbe , associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, 'The Short Story."

March 23--Francis Schwarzenberg,-assistant professor of polit-
ical science, Loyola University, "International Relations."

March 24--Mark Lepper, professor and head of the department
of preventive medicine, University of Illinois College of
Medicine, "Cigarettes and Cancer.’

113

March 28--R. Gene Geisler, assistant professor, department
of political and social science, Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology, "Primary Politics in Illinois."

March 29--Robert Cosbey, associate professor of English,
Roosevelt University, 'Literary Limelight.

March 30--Francis Schwarzenberg, assistant professor of polit-
ical science, Loyola University, "International Relations."

MarCh 31--Sidney Davidson, professor, graduate school of
business, University of Chicago, "What's Wrong With the
Income Tax?"

April 4--R. Gene Geisler, assistant professor, department of
political and social science, Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology, "Primary Politics in Illinois."

April 5--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul Uni-
versity, "Current Legal Decisions."

April 6--Brandel Works, associate professor of marketing,
Roosevelt University, 'Television--a Dilemma of Democracy."

April 7--Sidney Davidson, professor, graduate school of
business, University of Chicago, "What's Wrong With the In-
come Tax?"

April ll--R. Gene Geisler, assistant professor, department
of political and social science, Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology, "Primary Politics in Illinois."

April l2--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul
University, "Current Legal Decisions."

April 13--Brandel Works, associate professor of marketing,
Roosevelt University, "Television--A Dilemma of Democracy."

April 14--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Board of Health and clinical assistant professor of
psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Mental Health Problems."

April 18--R. Gene Geisler, assistant professor, department of
political and social science, Illinois Institute of Technology,
'Primary Politics in Illinois."

April l9--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul Uni-
versity, "Current Legal Decisions."

April 20--Robert McCluggage, assistant professor of history,
Loyola University, "History Behind the Headlines."

114

April 2l--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Board of Health and clinical assistant professor of
psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Current Mental Health
Program in Chicago." .

April 25--R. Gene Geisler, assistant professor, department of
political and social science, Illinois Institute of Technology,
'Primary Politics in Illinois." A

April 26--Father John Battle, professor of philosophy, DePaul
University, "Current Legan Decisions."

April 27--Robert McCluggage, assistant professor of history,
Loyola University, "History Behind the Headlines.

Arpil 28--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Board of Health and clinical assistant professor of
psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Mental Health Picture in
Chicago."

May 2--Norman Welling, instructor, department of social science
and political science, Lake Forest College, "National Politics."

May 3--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul University,
"Current Legal Decisions."

May 4--Robert McCluggage, assistant professor of history,
Loyola University, History Behind the Headlines."

May 5--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Board of Health and clinical assistant professor of
psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Child Psychology-~General
Considerations of Juvenile Delinquency."

May 9--Normal Welling, instructor, department of social science
and history, Lake Forest College, "National Politics."

May 10—-Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul Uni-
versity, "Current Legal Decisions."

may 11-—Robert McCluggage, assistant professor of history,
ioyola University, "History Behind the Headlines."

May l2--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Borad of Health and clinical assistant professor of
psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Mental Health."

May l6--Norman Welling, instructor, department of social
science and history, Lake Forest College, "National
Politics."

May l7--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul Uni-
versity, "Current Legal Decisions."

115

May 18--Robert McCluggage, assistant professor of history,
Loyola University, "History Behind the Headlines."

May l9--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Board of Health and clinical assistant professor of
psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Mental Health."

May 23--Norman Welling, instructor, department of social
science and history, Lake Forest College, "National Politics.’

May 24--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul Uni-
versity, "Current Legal Decisions."

May 25--Robert McCluggage, assistant professor of history,
Loyola University, "History Behind the Headlines."

May 26--Harold Visotsky, director, mental health section,
Chicago Board of Health and clinical assistant professor
of psychiatry, University of Illinois, "Mental Health."

May 30--Norman Welling, instructor, department of social
science and history, Lake Forest College, "National Politics."

May 31--Philip Romiti, assistant dean of law, DePaul University,
"Current Legal Decisions."

3'“ II fumw.=5

116

"MEETING OF MINDS"
WTTW

"Meeting of Minds," a continuing discussion program series
moderated by Harry Homewood, midwest bureau chief of News-
week Magazine, began on Oct. 24, 1960, and is continuing.

Oct. 24, "The Coming Depression," produced by Roosevelt
University. Featured were Rolf Weil, dean of the college of
business administration and chairman of the department of
finance, Roosevelt University; James Hart, dean of the col-
lege of commerce, DePaul University; Steven Harris, assistant
research director for the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America.

Oct. 31, "The Myth of the Farm," produced by the University
of Chicago. Featured were D. Gale Johnson, professor in the
department of economics and dean of the division of social
sciences, University of Chicago; Charles Hardin, professor
of political science, University of Chicago; Lauren Soth,
editor of the Des Moines Register and Tribune.

Nov. 7, "The Brain Mystery," produced by the University of
Illinois. Featured were Dr. Frederic Gibbs, professor of
neurology, University of Illinois; Dr. Ward Halstead, pro-
fessor in the departments of psychology and medicine,
University of Chicago; Dr. Harold Himwich, director of the
research division, Galesburg State Research Hospital.

Nov. 14, "Dangers of Higher Education," produced by Lake
Forest College. Featured were Dr. William Graham Cole,
president of Lake Forest College; Dr. Edward Sparling, pres-
ident of Roosevelt University; Dr. Arthur Pickett, associate
dean of administration for the Chicago Undergraduate Divi-
sion of the University of Illinois.

Nov. 21, "Africa: Critical Continent," produced by DePaul
University. Featured were Dr. Richard Houk, chairman of the
department of geography, De Paul University; Andrew Nwani,
Nigerian student at DePaul University; Dr. Ronald Forgus,
associate professor of psychology and chairman of the de-
partment of psychology, Lake Forest College.

Nov. 28, "What's Wrong With Religion?" produced by Illinois
Institute of Technology. Featured were the Reverend William
Faughnan, chaplain, Illinois Institute of Technology; Dr.
Anthony Delvecchio, assistant professor of the department

of psychology, DePaul University; Dr. Kermit Eby, professor
in the division of social science, University of Chicago.

117

Dec. 5, "We Were All Natives Once," produced by Northwestern
University. Featured were Francis Hsu, professor and chair-
man of the department of anthropology, Northwestern University;
Earl Bigelow, associate professor of music, history,and
literature, Northwestern University; Wilbert Seidel, associ-
ate professor of art, Northwestern University.

Dec. 12, "The Economics of Abundance," produced by the Uni-
versity of Chicago. Featured were Dexter Keezer, vice
president, director and economic advisor of McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company, Inc., and 1960 Filene lecturer at Roose-
velt University; Dexter Masters, director of Consumers Union;
Reuel Denney, professor of social sciences, University of
Chicago.

Dec. 19, "Communism, Is It an Alternative?" produced by
Loyola University. Featured were Francis Schwarzenberg,
assistant professor in the department of political science,
Loyola University; Edwin Reichert, professor of education, ”
Lake Forest College; Arcadius Kahan, assistant professor of ’
economics, University of Chicago.

- .. J truism-u!

Dec. 26, "The Heart of Humor," produced by Roosevelt Uni-
versity. Featured were Wayne Leys, dean of the graduate
division and professor of philosophy, Roosevelt University;
Everett Sentman, editor-in-chief, Tangley Oaks Educational
Center; W. B. Scott, associate professor of dramatic liter-
ature, Northwestern University.

Jan. 2, "Is TV Violence Contagious?" produced by the Uni-
versity of Illinois. Featured were I. A. Burch, student
counselor and assistant professor of psychology, University
of Illinois; Catherine Richards, youth services consultant,
Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago; Mrs. Louis Malis,
president of the Chicago Region of Illinois Congress of
Parents and Teachers.

Jan. 9, "What Makes a Leader?" produced by Lake Forest College.
Featured were Robert Martin, professor and chairman of the
speech department, Lake Forest College; Elihu Katz, assistant
professor of sociology, University of Chicago; Col. John
O'Neill, engineer of the Fifth United States Army.

Jan. 16, "Water Pollution in the Great Lakes," produced by
DePaul University. Featured were Rev. John Cortelyou, chair-
man of the biology department, DePaul University; Harry
Schlemz, member of the President's Water Pollution Commission 3
Walter Poston, United States Public Health Service.

Jan. 23, "The Crisis of Fire in Cities," produced by Illinois
Institute of Technology. Features were Gerald Maatman,
director of the fire protection and safety engineering

 

,u .. l.P.mF..!flr;J

118

department at Illinois Institute of Technology; Henry
Mikolachyk, professor of architecture, University of Illinois;
Lawrence Reich, assistant commissioner of city planning.

Jan. 30, "Are We All Criminals?" produced by Northwestern
University. Featured were Raymond Mack, associate professor
and chairman of the sociology department, Northwestern Uni-
versity; Paul James Bohannan, associate professor of an-
thropology, Northwestern University; Claude Sowle, assistant
professor of law, Northwestern University.

Feb. 6, "Cuba and Public Opinion," produced by the University
of Chicago. Featured were Arnold Harberger, professor of
economics, University of Chicago; George Blanksten, professor
of political science, Northwestern University; Donald Starr,
foreign news editor, Chicago Tribune. f

Feb. 13, "The Legality and Morality of Sit-Ins," produced 3
by Loyola University. Featured were Rev. William Kenealy,
visiting professor of law, Loyola University; Marc Galanter,
assistant professor of social science, University of Chicago;
Marcus Alexis, associate professor of marketing and economics,
DePaul University. .

 

APPENDIX IX

NEWS RELEASE CONCERNING THE UNIVERSITY
OF CHICAGO'SWITHDRAWAL FROM TUBA

120

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Office of Radio and Television
From: John B. Buckstaff

MIdway B-OBOO, ext. 3182

The University of Chicago wishes to announce its‘
resignation from The University Broadcasting Association of
Chicago, effective May 18, 1962.

The Association was formed with the hOpe that co-
Operation in broadcasting among Chicago area universities,
including Joint productions, would provide higher standards
in educational and public affairs broadcasting. After more
than five years of experimentation, including several ef-
forts at Joint productions, The University of Chicago has
concluded that the needs of Chicago area stations and their
audiences, as well as of the University, can be better served
by program managers and public affairs directors dealing di-
rectly with the various universities.

The broadcasting staff of The University of Chicago
will continue, as in the past, to provide stations with
faculty resources and will be available to discuss program

ideas at any time.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Broadcasting. 196} Yearbook Edition. Washington: Broad-
casting Publications, Inc., November, 1962.

 

Hanson, Harry (ed.). 1962 World Almanac and Book of Facts.
New York: New York World Telegram and The Sun, 1962.

9*?-

Unpublished Material

-._-:1r

-__'

,1

Notes on Meeting of Steering Committee of Committee on
University Broadcasting. Chicago, September 17, 1957.
(Typewritten.)

Recommendations of the Executive Committee of the Committee
on University Broadcasting. Chicago. (Date not
known.) (Mimeographed.)

Testimony of The University Broadcasting Association before
the Federal Communications Commission. Chicago,
March 20, 1962. (Mimeographed.)

Personal Interviews

Anderson, Donald. Director of Public Relations and Broad-
casting, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago,
Illinois. March 18, 1963.

Buckstaff, John. Assistant Director of Broadcasting,
University of Chicago. February 13, 1963.

Burns, Allen. Manager of Public Affairs, WNBQ, Chicago,
Illinois. February 8, 1963.

Bussey, Henry. Director of Radio and Television and As-
sistant Professor of Speech and Drama, Loyola
University, Chicago, Illinois. January 28, 1963.

121

122

Byrne, Arlene. Director of Broadcasting and Assistant Pro-
fessor of Speech, Lake Forest College, Lake Forest,
Illinois. February 20, 1963.

Cahill, Paul. Manager of the Office of Public Information,
Chica 0 Division, University of Illinois. February

1, 19 3.

Field, Alexander 0., Jr. Manager of Public Affairs, WGN,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois. February 12, 1963.

Fisher, Hal. Former Director of Public Affairs, WBBM—TV,
Chicago, Illinois. February 4, 1963.

Knepler, Henry K. Professor of English and Chairman of the

Department of Language, Literature and Philosophy, m
Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois. E

July 18, 1963. g

1": §

Lewis, Colby. Former Production Manager, WTTW, Chicago, W

Illinois. June 10, 1964.

Mamet, Henry. Member of the Board of Directors of the
National Association for Better Radio and Tele-
vision, Chicago, Illinois. February 4, 1963.

Marquis, Chalmers H., Jr. Director of Programming, WTTW,
Chicago, Illinois. April 5, 1963.

Partridge, Alfred. Former Supervisor of Braidcasting,
Chicago Division, University of Illinois. February

27, 1963.

Schuffman, Daniel B. Former Program Manager, WBKB, Chicago,
Illinois. February 4, 1963.

Shufro, Milton. Director of News and Broadcasti , Roosevelt
University, Chicago, Illinois. February , 1963.

Taylor, James. Director of Television, DePaul University,
Chécago, Illinois. January 22, 1963 and June 18,
19 4.

Thomas, Robert. Producer of Radio and Television Programs,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. February
20, 196}.

Ernie. ...4.u..

.1"

 

. 1
A! ’-
.:(. ..
'i‘. .‘t
"r’v

 

 

N

 

"'Tfirfizilrig/Mi:Mllffligfinflflyiflfflfim’“

3