AN ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND
PREDICTED STUDENT UNION PROGRAMS
AND FACILITIES 0F SELECTED
MIDWESTERN PUBLIC URBAN
UNIVERSITIES

Sissertat’mn for the Begree sf Ph. D;
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FREDRICK ARNOLB STRACHE

1973

\LIB 233 /‘~I '

' Midi: I; ~~
Wet-3:4

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
AN ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND PREDICTED STUDENT

UNION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES OF SELECTED
MIDWESTERN PUBLIC URBAN UNIVERSITIES

presented by

Fredrick Arnold Strache

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PhoDo degree in Education

 

." h.

Major profeyv/

 

 

 

HUAE & 8 "5'
500K BRIBERY INC.

LII MRI-IV BIND
n. ".“B‘v-‘lu':

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND PREDICTED STUDENT
UNION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES OF SELECTED
MIDWESTERN PUBLIC URBAN UNIVERSITIES

BY

Fredrick Arnold Strache

Urban universities and other urban educational
institutions are serving an increasingly larger number
of students. These students, the majority of whom live
at home and commute to the campus, require recreational,
service, and educational programs and facilities while
on the campus. Student Unions have been developed in
an attempt to meet the demand for these requirements.
The problems and concerns faced by the commuting students,
the nature of the urban university and the general
environment of the city, differ from that of the resi-
dential institution. With these differences it is
important to develop a union compatable with the urban
commuter university setting.

The purposes of the study were to:

(1) Identify current program offerings at six urban
university unions which have been purposely

selected for study;

Fredrick Arnold Strache

(2) Determine the philosophical orientation of these

urban university unions;

(3) Identify current facilities which are available in

these unions;

(4) Identify any unique aspects in programs and

facilities which characterize these unions;

(5) Based on the opinions of the respondents,
ascertain the recommendations on possible
planning and programming for urban university

unions.

The sample for this study consisted of six mide
western urban universities whose student bodies included
a majority of commuters. Data, obtained by use of
questionnaires and interviews, were analyzed and inter—
preted using a descriptive approach.

The six union facilities studied were all con-
structed or remodeled, primarily with borrowed funds,
during the last eight years, 1965-1972. The majority
contain forty-one of the same types of facilities, some
of which are particularly suitable for the predominantly
commuter student bodies of the institutions. The six
responding universities all reported nineteen facilities
necessary for a new building on their campus. Twenty-
eight other facilities were defined necessary by at least

four of the six respondents. Out of the list of

Fredrick Arnold Strache

eighty-two possible types of areas or services, thirteen
facilities would be eliminated. For any_urban commuter
campuses, thirty—two facilities were seen as necessary,
with additional ones suggested as growing in importance
in the future.

Current program offerings at the six commuter
campuses were generally no different from those available
in residential campus unions. Some program concerns or
aspects considered unique for the commuter campus were:
the presenting of programs which were highly visible to
the students, staff-run programs (or at least, strongly
staff-supported programs), and activities directed toward
the nonuniversity community. There were not perceived
differences in philosophy between the commuter and
residential campus.

Under the area of new directions, the "Gateway"
concept, with high visibility in diverse types of facili-
ties, is seen as one possibility. Community programming
will continue to grow in importance with emphasis on the
area in which the university is located. Budget matters
are seen as the major problem area in the coming years
for both commuter and residential campuses. The commuter
campus, due to construction of facilities in the last few
years and lack of a broad financial base, may have the
greater problem. A series of problems with the larger

community, including competition for facility and program

Fredrick Arnold Strache

use, and general questions of relationship between the
two communities are seen as requiring great attention.
The final concern centers around the union's ability to
reach, recognize, and support the individual student, as
the campuses continue to grow larger and more impersonal.

Based on the findings from the study the following
were recommended:

It is recommended that prior to any construction
or renovation a thorough study be made of the nature of
the student body, the needs of the students, the mission
of the institution, and the physical environment of the
campus.

It is recommended that careful consideration be
given to facility selection and design to insure that
the commuters' specific needs can be served.

It is recommended that programs be designed com-
patible with the schedule of the commuting student.
Furthermore, programming must be consistent with the
great diversity of interest represented by the students
of an urban commuting campus. The programs must be pre-
sented and publicized for casual rather than planned
participation. Finally, the cost of the program and its
relationship to other revenue-producing operations of the

union must be constantly re—evaluated.

Fredrick Arnold Strache

It is recommended that the staffing structure
and duties be developed to facilitate student involvement
in all levels of program and management, while maintaining
a high quality and quantity of programs.

It is recommended that the urban commuting student
union consistent with the basic philosophy of urban higher
education reach out into the community with its programs
and facilities.

Further research related to the above recommen-

dations was also indicated.

AN ANALYSIS OF PRESENT AND PREDICTED STUDENT
UNION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES OF SELECTED

MIDWESTERN PUBLIC URBAN UNIVERSITIES

BY

Fredrick Arnold Strache

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1973

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his appreciation to friends
and colleagues who encouraged and assisted his study,
especially:

Dr. walter Johnson, Dr. Louis Stamatakos,

Dr. David Heenan, and Dr. David McFarland, for their
services on the guidance committee. Dr. Johnson was
particularly helpful in his advice;

Dr. Louis Hekhuis for his support and Mrs. Patsy
Kohagen for her typing and overall assistance;

And my wife, Carolyn, for her patience these

many months.

ii

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem.

The Purposes of the Study

C

Background and Need for the Study.

Definition of Terms . .

Limitations and Scope of the Study
Procedures Used in the Study

Organization of the Study
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .
Historical Perspective .

The Commuting Student .
The Urban University . .

O

The Student Union in General

The Urban Commuter Student Uni

Summary . . . . . .
METHODOLOGY . . . . . .

The Sample . . . . .
The Research Procedures .

Q

Q
o
e
o
On

Procedures for Collection of the

pretation of the Data.
Summary......

REPORT OF THE FINDINGS . .

Background Data on the Campuses and

Their Unions. . . .

O O O , O 0

Data
Procedures for the Analysis and Interv

O

O 0 O O O O

Q

Identification of Current Facilities.

Facilities Which WOuld Be Included in

a New Building on the Campus
Identification of Current Program

Offerings. . . . .

Unique Aspects of Programming on the

Commuter Campus. . .

iii

0

Page

|._n

13
13
23
34
40
51
73
77
77
79
82

84
86

87
88
90
99
115

121

Chapter Page
Philosophical Differences Between Com-
muter and Other Unions . . . . . . 127
New Directions for the Urban Commuter
Campus . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Possible Problem Areas . . . . . . . 134
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
V. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 139
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . 139
The Design and Procedures of the Study. . 140
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Recommendations for Development of
Future Programs and Facilities . . . 144
Implications for Further Study . . . . 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 5 5
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Initial Letter. 0 e e o e o o o e 0 16]..
B. Basic Urban Union Questionnaire . . . . . 162
C. First Round of Repeated Questionnaire . . . 166
D. Second Round of Repeated Questionnaire. . . 171
E. Staff Duties . . . . . . . . . . . 176

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Twenty-eight most prevalent facilities . . . 44
Union facilities typically wanted. . . . . 64
Sixteen facilities reported by all six unions. 91
Ten facilities reported by five unions . . . 92
Fifteen facilities reported by four unions. . 92
Nineteen necessary facilities reported by all
six unions . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fourteen facilities reported by five unions . 100
Fourteen necessary facilities reported by
four unions . . . . . . . . . . . lOl
Facilities not included . . . . . . . . 102

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

The urban universities and other urban insti—
tutions of post-secondary education have become an
important part of the educational framework in the
United States. The students attending these institutions,
unlike the college students in the residential campus,
spend a limited time on the campus each day commuting to
and from home and school. Klotsche describes this
situation, stating:

More than half of the students enrolled in
American colleges and universities today are living
at home while attending college. Their number will
continue to rise. Since ours is an urban society,
more of our youth will be brought up in the cities,
will be educated there, and after completing their
education will remain there tq.work and live.

The stead migration from farm to urban com-
munities suggests that most future undergraduates
will be commuters. . . . Peter Drucker has sug—
gested that within a generation, resident campuses
will have become obsolete except for graduate and
professional education.1

 

1J. Martin Klotsche, The Urban University and the
Future of our Cities (New York: Harper and Row, 1966),
p. 88. (Hereinafter referred to as The Urban University.)

 

 

This development of a large population of commut—
ing students demands a new look at the facilities and
programs traditionally offered for the student population.
Often the facilities and programs on the urban campus are
not geared for the commuter student. A committee at
Wayne State University in studying commuting student needs
noted this saying, "Our colleges and universities have a
structure which appears to be based in every way upon the
full-time student."2

Bebb supports this saying,

If space has permitted, it seems that the usual
appearance of urban universities, even with commuter
populations which exceed 80 percent, has been that
of sprawling tree and mall-studded campuses with

all the physical appearances of residential campuses
except for row upon row of residence halls. It
would not be surprising to find their union build—

ings to be equally unadapted to their urban and
commuter characteristics.3

Statement of the Problem

 

The union facility on the urban campus, serving as
the major nonclassroom building, plays a major role in
the total life of the student, and hence, requires care

in both development and operation.

 

2Richard ward and Theodore Kurz, The Commuter Stu—
dent: A Study of Facilities at Wayne State University
Tfiétroif: wayne State University, 1969), p. 2. (Herein—
after referred to as The Commuter Student.)

 

 

3Ernest L. Bebb, "The Urban Campus: No Longer an
Atypical College Union Setting," Association of College
Unions--International Conference Proceedings (StanfOrd,
I970), p. 3+1. (Hareinafter referred to as 1'The Urban
Campus.")

 

Butts, one of the pioneer union professionals,
has observed the unique role of the union in serving the
commuting student.

In an earlier era many universities sought the
values of a campus-centered fellowship principally
by way of recreating the Oxford kind of residential
college, with the Union as the supplement which
counteracted the attraction of the town and facili-
tated interchange among the several college resi-
dences. But the residence halls are no longer the
answer—-not when non-residents are beginning to out—
number all resident students put together. For the
increasing number of commuters, the residence halls
are simply of no significance.

This Spectacular turn of events in who goes to
college assigns to the union the role of creating
a common life for students that educators once
anticipated the residence halls, mainly, would
fulfill. For it is the union that now largely
supplies the reasons and attractions for staying
on the campus or returning to the campus.

Further, he felt the commuting students, more
than their residence hall counterparts, need a place to
serve as a base on the campus and an adequate place to
eat, talk, and study. Also, the administrative person—
nel, student organizations, and activities need an effec—
tive convenient way to communicate with them. The com-
muters' ties to the central body, their participation
in the life of the academic community, and their satis—
faction with their college experience increase immeasurably

when there is an adequate social-dining—activities center.5

 

4Porter Butts, The College Union_Idea, Associ—
ation of College Unions--International (Stanford, 1971),
p. 103. (Hereinafter referred to as Union Idea.)

 

51bid., p. 114.

A union director, speaking at the 1970 Association
of College Unions International Annual Convention, felt
the multi-faceted concerns of the urban union also
extended beyond the university.

Our society is irretrievably urban. Since our
cities are here to stay, the time is at hand to take
a new look at them. It (the urban university) can,
in fact, become the single most important force in
the recreation of our cities. It is equipped to
perform a task that no other institution can do as
well. Here then, is a unique role for our uni—
versities, that of giving meaning to urban life
and assisting in the creation of a new image for
our cities.

As for college unions, perhaps a new breed will
emerge or is emerging. Not in spite of, but because
of, the successes and failures of their predecessors,
only they will no longer simply be made—over, high—
rise versions of their resident campus contemporaries
and they will no longer try to make the out-of-
classroom life just as good as going away to school
for the urban student. And a new interdependence
with the whole university is in order.6

The union of the urban commuter campus is faced
with the usual concerns of any union. The rising costs
of new construction or remodeling, developing activities
and programs which serve the needs and desires of the
university community, and designing an organization
where students are actively involved, but where the
programs are financially sound, are but a few of the
common problems. The urban union, because of factors
of physical location, nature of the student body, and
different role of the university, faces another series

of problems. The unions as now designed and Operated on

 

6Bebb, "The Urban Campus," p. 3-3.

primarily residential campuses are simply not the models
for the urban institutions. The questions involved in
the development of urban campus unions include: what
kind of union building is needed; what kinds of programs
are desirable; how can the commuter students be reached;
what is the staff role? Also, larger concerns must be
considered, such as, what is the role of the union in
the total educational picture and in the community out—
side the university? Or to summarize, given the dif-
ferences between commuting and residential campuses, the
problems of urban life, which the university because of
the location must share, and the continually developing
and changing urban education setting, what kind of a
student union building, program, and operation are

needed, and how can these be determined?

The Purposes of the Study

 

One aspect of this larger problem, thus, is to
undertake a study of the larger urban campus student
unions in an attempt to answer some of the above questions
or at least suggest means of getting at the answers. The

purposes of this study are to:

(1) Identify current program offerings at six urban
university unions which have been purposely

selected for study;

(2) Determine the philosophical orientation of these

urban university unions;

(3) Identify current facilities which are available

in these unions;

(4) Identify any unique aspects in programs and

facilities which characterize these;

(5) Based on the opinions of the respondents, elicit
the recommendations on possible planning and pro—

gramming for urban university unions.

Background and Need for the Study»

 

This is a study of selected urban university
unions, their programs and facilities, with an emphasis
on what differences there are between serving commuting
and residential students. As indicated in the statement
of the problem, developing and operating facilities,
services, and activities for the commuting student in
the urban university challenge many concepts of the tra—
ditional student union. Based on the opinion of union
professionals, through questionnaires and interviews, an
attempt will be made to determine the best type of
facility and program which will meet the needs of the
students on an urban commuter campus.

The development of large institutions of higher
education serving students of urban America, who live

at home while attending college, has accelerated in the

past few decades. Most all urban areas now have one or
more of these institutions, and most institutions have
developed or are developing student centers. Student
centers at such institutions have, according to several
authors,7 not been developed with the unique student body
in mind.

Furthermore, relatively little research has been
conducted related to the urban student center. In fact,
little research has been conducted on the urban uni-
versity and commuting students.8 This investigation may
provide some directions for planning and programming,
or at least give some direction for further study. The
experiences and reactions of the union staff members con-
sulted for this study, while limited to a few institutions,
may help prevent faulty program emphasis and nonfunctional

or ineffective facility design.

Definition of Terms

 

Commuting Student.--A student who resides at home

while attending a college or university.

 

7Ward and Kurz, The Commuter Student, p. 2; Bebb,
"The Urban Campus," p. 3-1; Association of College Unions—-
International, Planning the UrbanCollege Union for a
Commuter Cam us, Association of College Unions-—Inter-
national (Stan ord, 1969), p. l.

 

 

8Thomas F. Harrington, "The Literature on the
Commuter Student," Journal of College Student Personnel,
XIII, No. 6 (November, I972), 546-50. (Hereinafter
referred to as "Literature on Student."

 

Facilities (Student Union).*-Any space located

 

in or around a student union from which students and
others receive services, or use either individually or
for group programs. Examples include recreation facili-
ties (billiard room, bowling alley, card room, swimming
pool, pin ball machine room); social facilities (ball
room, party room, lounges); cultural—hobby facilities
(music room, art gallery, art cases, photo darkroom,
theatre, television room, craft shop); meeting facili-
ties (committee and meeting room, kitchenette); service
facilities (coat room, information desk, phones, ticket
office, mail boxes, day care center, barber shop, parking
area); food facilities (cafeteria, snack bar, pub, coffee
shop); commuter facilities (lockers, coat room, dressing
room); and organizations-activity facilities (organization
lockers and mail boxes, union board offices, workrooms,

organization offices, chapel).

Policy Board.--A group which may be composed of

 

students, staff, faculty, or community people responsible
for development and maintenance of facilities, staff,
budget, general operation, regulations governing the

use of facilities, and in some cases, program.

Program Board.--A group, most often composed of

 

students, responsible for development and maintenance

of programs in the union facilities. The program board

generally reports to the policy board.

Programs.-~Any activity developed to serve stu—
dents, faculty, or the larger community in or around the
union facilities or through the union staff, boards, or

facilities for general campus programs.

Student Union (Student Center, University Union,
or Center).-—A building or group of buildings constructed
primarily to serve the nonclassroom educational interests,
recreation, and leisure needs and physical requirements
(food and books) of the student body, faculty and staff,

and to varying degrees, the larger community.

Urban Universities.--Institutions of higher edu-

 

cation offering post-baccalaureate degrees, with a primary
emphasis on services directed to an urban population.
(There are institutions of higher education located in
urban areas which serve a larger population, both urban
and nonurban, and, hence, not included under this desig-

nation.)

Union Staff.—-The paid employees of the student

 

union who assist in providing and maintaining facilities

and program.

Residential Students.--Students who live on or

 

around the campus in other than their own home. This

10

includes residence halls on the campus, cooperatives,
fraternities, sororities, rooming houses, apartments,

and shared houses.

Limitations and Scope of the Study

 

The study is limited to six midwestern universi-
ties, serving primarily commuter students. These insti-
tutions are located in or near large urban areas. The
data are limited to responses from questionnaires and
interviews which resulted in subjective replies. The
possibility of bias, therefore, must be taken into
account. These conditions may limit the ability to
generalize the findings; however, the findings could

provide direction for more exact research.

Procedures Used in the Study

 

The sample for this study consists of six mid-
western urban universities whose student bodies include a
majority of commuters. They were selected from the
institutions which met the following criteria.

The institutions were:

(1) Located in or near large midwestern population
centers. The selection of a single geographic
area was to have universities serving students

with similar backgrounds;

(2) Primarily serving urban students;

ll

(3) Primarily serving commuter students;
(4) Public institutions under state or local control;
(5) Offering at least a four-year baccalaureate degree;

(6) Currently operating a student union building

and program.

After meeting the above criteria, the final
determining factor was selecting universities where the
union staff, particularly the director, was willing to
cooperate with research requiring interviews and responses
to several questionnaires. The data were obtained by
use of three questionnaires, interviews conducted on
each campus, observation of the actual facility, and
written materials collected from each union. The staff
members were asked to respond with emphasis on what is
necessary or desirable for future urban student centers,
as well as reflecting on current programs and facilities.
Where applicable, the replies were compared with other
studies to determine any differences and were analyzed
to find similarities in suggestions for directions or
trends for future and present union facilities and pro—
grams.

Finally, based on the material obtained from the
questionnaires, the interviews and observation of the
facilities and programs, recommendations for future
facility development, program implementation, and con—

tinued investigation were made.

12

Organization of the Study

 

This study is organized into five chapters.
In Chapter I, the problem, statement of the problem,
purposes of the study, background and need for the study,
definition of terms, limitations and scope of the study,
and procedures used are presented. Chapter II provides
for a review of the literature including sections on
historical perspective, the commuting student and the
urban university, the student union in general, and the
urban commuter student union. In the third chapter the
methodology used in the research is developed, defining
procedures and methods used in collecting, presenting,
analyzing, and interpreting the data. Chapter IV con-
tains the report of the findings and an interpretation
of the data. In the last chapter a summary, recommen-
dations for development of future programs and facilities,

and suggestions for additional studies are presented.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In this chapter a historical perspective on stu—
dent union movement will be presented. Research relating
to the commuting student and urban university, the student
union in general, and the urban commuter student union

will also be reviewed.

Historical Perspective

 

In considering the urban union, a better under—
standing of the present physical structure, function,
and program may be obtained by reviewing the history of
the student union movement generally. Credit is given to
students at two English universities--Cambridge and
Oxford-~founded in 1815, and the Oxford group, then
known as the United Debating Society formed in 1823,
were concerned with debating as an educational activity
outside the University. Early in their history they
became concerned with a building to house the debate,

along with a library, lounge, furnishings, and equipment.9

 

9Edith O. Humphreys, College Unions (Ithaca, N.Y.:
Association of College Unions, Willard Straight Hall,
1946), pp. 11-12.

13

14

In the United States, Harvard students, following
the lead of their English contemporaries, developed a
similar debating union in 1832. These three unions fit

into what Humphreys calls the debate stage in the history

of college unions, during the period 1815v1894.lo

The second period, named by Humphreys as the club
stage, from 189S+l918, ushers in the first union buildings
in the United States. Historian Edward Cheyney gives an
interesting, if lengthy, description of the building at
the University of Pennsylvania, the first union con-
structed in the United States.

For some years there had been an effort in pro"
gress among the students, principally inspired by
the Young Men's Christian Association, to collect
funds for the erection of a students' hall intended
for various purposes, including the holding of
religious services. This movement was brought by
Mr. Harrison to the attention of Henry H. Houston,

a member of the Board of Trustees, and on November 6,
1894, it was announced to the Board that Mr. and Mrs.
Houston had given $50,000 each to carry out the
original plans. . . . The gift was intended as a
memorial to their son Howard Houston who died in

the midst of his college course. The Trustees
resolved therefore that the building should be

known as "Howard Houston Hall."

When completed it proved to be the most beautiful
and artistic building in the University, with every
appointment of good taste and convenience and suited
to a very great variety of student uses. It con-
tained a swimming pool and baths, gymnasium, bowling
alleys, billiard, pool and chess tables, lunch
counters and facilities for more extensive repasts,
reading and writing rooms, an auditorium and smaller
rooms for religious services, and a large number of
separate rooms for the use of committees, the
Athletic Association, the Young Men's Christian

 

1°1bid., p. 16.

15

Association, for the college papers, for the musical
clubs and a dark room for photographic purposes.
The Hall was opened January 2, 1896.

Student self—government was applied by putting
it under the immediate charge of a House Committee
composed of students with one member of the faculty,
and in case of need an ultimate right of veto at the
hands of a Board of Directors consisting of the
Deans of the various Faculties. . . . The influence
of Houston Hall over the physical, mental and moral
life of the students has been most beneficial. Few
if any gifts to colleges have exerted a more varied
or more continuous influence for good.11

During this same general time period educators at
other American Universities promoted and supported the
union concept, but with a distinctive American character.
The President of the University of Wisconsin said in 1904:

If one were to name the most fundamental char-
acteristic of these English institutions (Oxford and
Cambridge), it would be the system of halls of
residence, commons, unions, and athletic fields.

The communal life of instructors and students in
work, in play, and in social relations is the very
essence of the spirit of Oxford and Cambridge. It
might almost be said that this constitutes Oxford
and Cambridge.

If th University of Wisconsin is t do for the
sons of the State what Oxford and Cambridge are
doing for the sons of England, not only in producing
scholars but in making men, it must once more have
a commons and union. For when a student goes out
into the world, no other part of his education is
of such fundamental importance as capacity to deal
with.men. Nothing that the professor or laboratory
can do for the student can take the place of daily
close companionship with hundreds of his fellows. 2

 

111bid.. pp. 19-20.

12Butts, Union Idea, p. 11.

16

Other unions develOped during the club stage were
located on the campuses of Brown University (1903),
University of Michigan (1904), University of Minnesota
(1908), Ohio State University (1909), University of
Illinois (1909), Indiana University (1909), Purdue Uni'
versity (1912), and Case School of Applied Science
(1914).13 In a 1912 address President Lovett of Rice
Institute in Houston, Texas, summarized the major concept
of the unions in that period.

It was at Princeton that President Wilson pro-
posed the reorganization of the social life of that
ancient seat of learning. The program there sugv
gested was an adaptation of the English residential
college to American undergraduate life.

0 O O O O O O I O O O O O C I O O O O O O O 0 Q 0

In th reside tia college men grow in wisdom,
not alone in the wisdom of books but also in the
wisdom of work and service; here they find the
incomparable fellowship of college years.

It is hoped that ultimately all students (at
Rice) will be housed in halls of residence . . .
in a great quadrangle whose main axis terminates
at one end by a great gymnasium and at the other
by a great union club. . . . The union will offer
many opportunities to members of all colleges

. . . the liveliest sort of rivalry in musical,
literary and debating activities. To those stu-
dents who for one reason or another are obliged to
live in the city, the union will afford many of the
opportunities of the residential hall. . . . Side
by side with the building of halls of instruction
is to proceed the building of these collegiate
homes for human living.14

 

13Humphreys, College Unions, p. 21.

14Butts, Union Idea, p. 12.

 

17

The next major phase in the development of the
union indicated by Humphreys was the Campus Democracy
Stage, 1919-1929. During this time the total number of
union buildings on American campuses grew to fifty—nine.

Much of this growth was stimulated by the end
of the first Wbrld war and the desire on the part of many
to erect memorials. Butts sums this period up saying:

Along in the 19203 when women's suffrage appeared
and the ancient tradition of education-for-menvonly
began to dissolve, students saw that it was odd for
men and women to eye each other across the campus
from their respective strongholds when they really
wanted to be together; so unions turned into social
centers for everybody and have, with few exceptions,
been thoroughly coeducational ever since. The idea
of campus unity, of a union for all, became an even
stronger motivating force.15

During this period in the 19203, two situations
converged which helped create the rapid development of
college unions. There was a massive increase in enroll-
ment with the return of the world War I veteran. Housing
was not available and students were forced to live in
rooming houses and private homes. Places to eat were
not the best and were hard to find.

Colleges had seen what the war canteen and
recreation centers had meant to the servicemen away
from home. A counterpart on the campus--a union—-
now loomed importantly as an answer to the many
problems of life on the campus.

And the answer to the problem of how to get a
building also came out of the war. What better

type of living memorial to honor those who served
in the war? What better way to serve the cause of

 

151bid., p. 17.

18

democracy they served than to create a new campus

democracy? The memorial theme was joined to the

felt need, and this fund appeal, coming in a time

of prosperity, gave a sudden and successful impetus

to the slow—maturing union movement on a wide front.16

Unions in other parts of the world were also
being built and developing programs, many with greater
similarity to the unions in the United States than to
those in England. Canada and Scotland had universities
with unions by the turn of the century. Germany also had
several student unions which formed a national organization
called the Deutsches Studentverk.l7 It is interesting to
note that during this "campus democracy stage," the
unions in Germany also encouraged this democratic
development. The director of the Munich Studentenhaus
was shot for refusing to exclude Jewish students from
the building.18
Toward the end of this period one of the major

university unions, that of the University of Wisconsin,
had as its objectives four basic functions. First, the
union existed to make the "large" university a more
human place, serving as the "living room" for the campus.

Second, the union provided both physical facilities and

programs in which students and instructors could find a

 

v v

161bid., pp. 17-18.

17Humphreys, College Unions, p. 26.

 

18Butts, Union Idea, p. 112.

 

19

comprehensive social life. The union also stood as the
university's recognition of leisure activities as a
necessary part of the students' education. Lastly, the
union was a student cooperative enterprise, providing

both experiences in managing their own affairs and lower-

ing costs of basic needs.19

The final stage of development as outlined by
Humphreys was the community recreation stage beginning
in 1930. During this period, the description of the
unions approached that often used to describe those of
today. Humphreys states:

From the author's point of view the development
of the college union into a community recreation
center represents a sign of the times. It is a
natural development from a democratic social club
to a common leisure time center for the entire
university community. Considering the social and
educational changes that have been and are con—
tributory to the’full development of the whole
personality, approaching this state seems
inevitable.

O O I O O O I O O I O O Q 0 C O C O O 0 O C .
I

The term "college union" implies an organi-
zation and a building. The organization, ordi-
narily composed of students, faculty and alumni,
is an informal educational medium for individual
and group selfvdiscovery and expression through a
broad program of social and cultural recreation
adapted to the leisure-time interests and needs of
the college community. The union building is the
community center—-the physical instrument for
implementing the objectives of the organization and
for facilitating a community life.20

 

191b1d., pp. 23-24.

20Humphreys, College Unions, p. 28.

20

As may be seen from examining each period or
stage, the concept of the union was growing and expanding
but not radically changing. The community recreation
aspect continued to grow as the major emphasis through
the end of the second Wbrld war.

Stevens21 suggests three other stages following
the development as outlined by Humphreys. They include
The Educational Stagev-1946 through 1956; The Personali—
zation Stage—-l957 through 1966; and The Humanization
Stage-—l967, extending to the present.

The Educational Stage developed with the problems
of sudden growth of the student population due to the
return of the veteran. Stevens states:

By this time unions were regarded as essential and
integral parts of the colleges they served; but
more important, the educational role of the union
emerged as being a significant factor in the total
educational program. In 1954 Dr. Virgil M. Hancher,
then president of the University of Iowa, in an
address to the membership of the Association of
College Unions said, "It seems to me that the
union should be thought of as a part of the total
educational enterprise, as an integral part of

the institution, as contributing a supplementary
form of education-voutside the classroom in a
sense but certainly not unrelated to it."22

At the end of this stage, the Association of

College Unions, then composed of 260 student unions,

 

f v—v—firi

21George Stevens, "The College Union-~Past,
Present and Future," NASPA Journal, VII, No. 1 (July,
1969), 18-19. (Hereinafter referfed to as "College Union.")

221bid., p. 18.

21

issued a statement of purpose known as The Role of the

 

College Union. This statement reflected the perceived

role then, and still, to a large degree, now, and serves

as a basic statement of purpose for most college unions

today.

The Role of the College Union

1.

The union is the community center of the college,
for all the members of the college family—-stu-
dents, faculty, administration, alumni and
guests. It is not just a building; it is also
an organization and a program. Together they
represent a well-considered plan for the com-
munity life of the college.

As the "living room" or the "hearthstone" of the
college, the union provides for the services,
conveniences, and amenities the members of the
college family need in their daily life on the
campus and for getting to know and understand
one another through informal association out-
side the classroom.

The union is part of the educational program of
the college. As the center of college community
life, it serves as a laboratory of citizenship,
training students in social responsibility and
for leadership in our democracy.

Through its various boards, committees, and
staff, it provides a cultural, social and.
recreational program, aiming to make free time
activity a cooperative factor with study in
education.

In all its processes it encourages self-
directed activity, giving maximum opportunity for
self-realization and for growth in individual
social competency and group effectiveness. Its
goal is the development of persons as well as
intellects.

The union serves as a unifying force in the life
of the college, cultivating enduring regard for
and loyalty to the college.23

The Personalization Stage-~1957-1966, came during

a period in American education where masses of students

 

23Chester Berry (ED), College Unions . . . Year

Fift (Stanford: Association of College Unions-JInter-
nat onal), p. 72.

22

appeared on the campuses. Students were interested in
small group experiences, with less emphasis on large
events. The union, activities offices, and student groups
worked to develop campus-wide programs covering as many
interests as possible. Stevens summarized this period:

The Personalization Stage was a stage in which
the student sought to determine his own identity
within the framework of an impersonal society
filled with contradictions, and an even more
immediate impersonal campus environment nurtured
by the need for efficient administrative and mass
educational techniques. The college union, through
its services and programs, attempted and is still
attempting the almost formidable task of providing
the environment and opportunities for personal
interaction and self expression for which there is
such an evident need.

The Personalization Stage is still with us, but
there is some evidence to suggest that a subtle
transition is taking place if one can agree to a
discreet distinction between commitment and 24
involvement within the terms of my definitions.

The final stage as seen by the observers of the

student union movement extends into today's Operations.
The Humanization Stage, beginning in 1967, saw students
concerned with personal involvement in various issues.
Although some areas attract less attention (civil rights,
drug experimentation, social values), the concern is
still great with new issues emerging. Students want the
opportunity to participate in the decision making in the
university and the larger community. The student union
has the responsibility to provide the facilities and

services necessary to meet these goals and needs.

 

24Stevens, "College Union," p. 19.

23

The Commuting Student
No study of the urban university student center
could be put in proper perspective without some background
on the student who is served and the university in which

the center operates. Unfortunately, the research on the

commuter student is quite limited.25 The data that are

available may indicate some substantial difference between
the commuter and residential student, and these differences
could have implications for both programming and facili-

ties.
Harrington points out this fact in his study:

More than half of all American college students live
at home with their family and commute to college.

In the past most research has focused on the resi-
dential student, with little attention given to the
development of the commuter student living off
campus. Knowledge is now accumulating which reveals
differential factors that influence students'
decisions to commute or reside on campus and shows
that special considerations enter into choosing a
local community college over a residential four

year institution. More important is the evidence
indicating that the educational, social and psycho-
logical development of commuters is different from
that of residential students.26

 

25Gerald Brown, "The Urban Institution and the
Commuting Student," Association of College Unions—-Inter-
national Conference Proceedings (Stanford, 1971), p. 5-98.

26Harrington, "Literature on Student," p. 546.

24

Klotsche27 indicates our historical commitment
was to the residential college and its limited spectrum
of students. The working, older, part-time minority,
and working-class background students were the exception
a generation ago. The variety of differences brought
by these students demands consideration of different
services in the university.

ward and Kurz in a study of facilities for
commuting students made these observations:

For the resident student the transition from
high school to college includes that fundamental
initiation to adulthood--1eaving home. Whatever
changes in responsibilities may accompany this
move, its most important aspect is that he has
gone from an environment where he has been a child
and treated as one to a place in which he has been
known only as a student. Depending upon the
institution he may or may not be treated as an
adult but he can never, in the new environment,
be anyone's child. Anyone who has experienced this
rapid transition knows that it has at least as pro-
found an effect upon a student as the curricular
rigor does.

The urban commuter enjoys no such clear break
with childhood even though he may haVe far more
adult responsibilities than the resident collegian.
Several hours a day he is the son and brother he
has always been. For some this may be comforting
at times, but for every young person it is a situation
fraught with both inner and manifest conflict.

The commuter is obliged to feel or feign con-
cerns for the social and emotional problems of his

 

27J. Martin Klotsche, "Urban Higher Education:
Its Implications for Student Personnel Administrators,"
NASPA Journal, VI, No. 1 (July, 1968), 14-21. (Herein—
Sfter referred to as "Urban Higher Education.")

 

25

or her parents, brothers and sisters. Young sib-
1ings and no longer young parents often make
demands of time and energy which devour much of
the spiritual reserve of urban students.28
The reference above introduces a major difficulty
for the commuting student—vhis relationship to his home
and family. Most of the research on the commuter student
refers in one way or another to this potential problem
area.
In a variety of aspects the commuter differs
from other college students in his relationship to his
parents. Kronovet29 felt that although the parents of
the students on the residential campus have some influence
on their son or daughter, the sc0pe and depth of influence
is much more pronounced for the student living at home.
The commuter is caught between the desire for and expec-
tation of independence and the parents' demand for con-
tinued ties with the family.
Evans, in studying the student and parent perv
ceptions on a commuter campus, found the parents
. . . apparently have only a vague understanding
of the demands that the college environment places
upon students. They lack an understanding of:
(a) the purpose of a university; (b) on—campus
student life (how students behave, what they talk

about, where they stand on issues concerning morals
and social problems, and their everyday problems);

 

28Ward and Kurz, The CommutinggStudent, p. 10.

 

29Ester Kronovet, "Freshmen Reactions to Parents'
Seminars on a Commuter Campus," The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XLIII (1965), 692-95.

 

26

and (c) the university offices and regulations that
minister to the needs of students, such as the
Student Senate, Student Center Board, and Security
Office.30

Branson and Monaco point out this same problem
of home and family for the counselor dealing with the
commuter student.

Although most college counselors see students with
similar problems, whether those students attend
schools in a rural or urban setting, the urban
college counselor is faced with problems unique

to an urban school. The student does not live
away from home. At the end of his college day

he returns not to a dormitory but to his own room
or a room shared with his family.31

The authors further point out that this creates a diffi—
cult situation of identity crisis for the commuting
student.

He cannot live away from home in an atmosphere
free from family conflict which would permit him
to achieve a sense of independence and enable him
to come to grips with problems touching upon an
evaluation of himself and the nature of his relation—
ship with his parents.

In his home the demands of his parents continue
as before, and he is torn between growing up or
remaining a child. Faced with the knowledge of the
important intellectual tasks which are demanded by
the university, the demands of his parents and those
of his peers, the urban student finds confusion
compounded by his inability to break away from the
home.32

 

30Thomas D. Evans, "Parent and Student Perceptions
of a Computer [sic] Campus," NASPA Journal, VII, No. 3
(January, 1970), I67.

31Bernard D. Branson and Donald A. Monaco, "Coun-
seling in an Urban Setting," NASPA Journal, VII, No. 3
(January, 1970), 172. '

 

32Ibid.. pp. 172—73.

27

Klotsche, in his chapter on the urban university
student, sees the commuting student as:

. . . slow to break away from high school habits and
the more rigid discipline to which he has been
accustomed. Some students who doubt their ability
to do college work and need to make only a small
initial investment, enter an urban university on

a trial basis without a strong personal commitment.
Hence, the stimulation of a new education experience,
with its unlimited intellectual opportunities and its
endless exposure to new knowledge, tends to escape
them. As a result they do not always bring an adult
attitude toward learning but fall back upon the
practices to which they were accustomed while
attending secondary school.33

Further, he found that:

The need to work while attending college often pre-
vents the urban student from taking full advantage
of university campus life. He finds his loyalties
divided, his outlook restricted by his former
associates, and his activities controlled by
influences unrelated to university life. Often

he attends the university for part of the day, works
to earn his way for another part of the day, and
then returns to his home for the remainder of the
time. His daily routine is interrupted and com-
partmentalized, and many influences conducive to

a good climate for learning are dissipated. His
opportunity for social expression is often limited
and he is denied exposure to a wide variety of
campus activities. Many campus influences beyond
the courses which the student takes, such as peer
relationship, responsibility-taking experiences in
university affairs, and out-of-classroom contact
with faculty, are vital to the develOpment of a
university student. But the commuter, "half at
school and half at home" unable to take full advantage
of these opportunities, is inclined to view his edu-
cation narrowly, concluding that attendance at
classes and the completion of assignments for them
fully meet his educational requirements.34

 

33Klotsche, The Urban University, p. 92.

34Ibid., p. 93.

28

Segal, in discussing the implications of resi—
dential setting for development of the student, found the
home situation to possess these characteristics:

Here is the most direct continuance of what has been
the high school setting. The family is present.
Their behavior will not markedly alter because the
student is now in college rather than in high school.
The interference and/or the support is there as it
was. The recognition of the child's adult status

is less apparent. For example, it is unlikely that
a student living at home, in a family that frowns
on drinking, can stay out all night, come in reeking
of stale liquor, and expect no comment, no lectures,
no condemnation. We, in our ivory tower, may be
able to say, "He's just trying it out, don't fret,"
but it is unlikely that parents can so easily
accept this. The freedom of the youngster to do

or not to do is still the direct concern of the
parent——and elicits comment, criticism, evaluation.
The physical environment is the same, the demands
of younger siblings are still present. Battles
over independence and growing up are direct.

Support is also direct and available face to face.
Growth is essentially tested out within the context
of old relationships. The impact of peers and a
peer culture is less certain--certainly less
intense.35

In comparing commuter and residence hall students,
Stark36 found a significantly greater number of problems
among the commuter student in areas of finances, living
conditions, employment and home and family. In addition,

he found significantly lower scores for these students on

vocabulary.

 

35Stanley J. Segal, "Implications of Residential
Setting for Development During College," Journal of
College Student Personnel, VIII, No. 5 (September, 1967),
309. I

36Matthew Stark, "Commuter and Residence Hall Stu-
dents Compared," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV,
No. 3 (1965), 277.

29

Penney and Buckley found in comparing commuter
and resident students that the commuter students had sig—
nificantly greater problems in several areas. These
areas included academic adjustment to college life,
scholastic difficulties, financial, vocational, and
emotional problems. They also found resources for
resolving these problems, particularly those of a
financial or scholastic nature, highly inadequate in
the urban university community.37

Several other researchers found similar problems
of mental health and general adjustment. Graff and Cooley
in comparing noncommuters and commuters found poorer
mental health and curricular adjustment and a lack of
maturity in establishment of goals and aspirations among
the commuters. They also noted the commuter coupled
this with feelings of failure and insecurity.38 Kysar
felt that many commuter students selected the non-
residential colleges because of emotional ties with
their home and family. He expressed the view that:

. . . Students select this commuter school for

multiple reasons which have to do with individual
and/or family pathology.-

 

3.7James F. Penney and Delora E. Buckley, "Student
Needs and Services on an Urban Campus," Jougnal of College
Student Personnel, VII, No. 3 (May, 1965), 185.

 

38Robert W. Graff and Gary R. Cooley, ”Adjustment
of Commuter and Resident Students," Journal of College
Student Personnel, XI (1970), 56.

 

30

1. There is a considerable group from unstable or
broken homes. . . .

2. There is another large group from families of
lower socioeconomic status. . . . The student
.shared the many fateful consequences of this
.status such as bad housing, strife-ridden
neighborhoods, unwholesome peer group influences,
poor schools . . .

3. There is still another group of students who do
not come from broken homes or families of below
average socioeconomic status but who nevertheless
have individual pathology which is related to
their selection of this commuter school.39

He saw the more normal pattern of leaving home
as a young adult as important to the mental development
of the person. In one study, the writers found one-fourth
of the students on a large commuter campus suffered from
chronic health problems. They attributed this to lack
of proper health care, poor diet, use of drugs, and
situations compounded by living conditions in the lower
socioeconomic section of the city.40
Residential students and commuters perceive their
colleges quite differently. Lindahl, in looking at stu-
dents on seven campuses in the same state system, found

a definite relationship between the proportion of the

enrollment commuting and the student environmental

 

39John E. Kysar, "Mental Health in an Urban Com-
muter University," Archives of General Psychiatry, XI
(1964), 479.

 

4oAlan Leavitt, Judith Carey, and Jacqueline
Swartz, ”DevelOping a Mental Health Program at an Urban
Community College," Journal of American College Health
Association, XIX (1971), 290.

 

31

perceptions of the college. He found contradiction in

the perceptions, but definite differences in the com-

muters‘ view of their college.41

Schuchman42 identified five types of commuter
students. The largest group contains those students who
are of the first generation of their family to attend
college. They come from ethnic, racial, or economic
classes where college has not been a regular part of
the educational experiences of past generations. Often
college is seen by this group as a means of improving
or raising their class or economic status. He states:

They may have been subjected to considerable
pressure from their parents to go to college

even though the parents had not had that amount
of education themselves. Sometimes this is seen
as a vocational experience which will permit the
student to obtain higher paying or easier working
jobs or jobs with more status. Often the student
goes to college against the wishes of the parents
who do not see the value or importance of college.
In either case, it is quite likely that the parents
will have little understanding of what college
involves in the way of studying, investment of
time, social and intellectual challenges, or
commitment of energy. These parents will often
continue to make the same kind of requirements
for the student regarding household chores and
other activities as they asked while the student

 

41Charles Lindahl, "Impact of Living Arrangements
on Student Environmental Perceptions," Journal of College
Student Personnel, VIII, No. 1 (1967), 15.

 

42Herman Schuchman, "Psychological Tasks of Com—
muter Students," The Proceedings of Association of
College Unions-~International Conference (Stanford,
I970), pp. 2-I. (Hereinafter referred—Eb as "Psycho-
logical Tasks.")

 

 

 

32

was still in high school. They frequently do not

understand the student's use of time and they often
do not appreciate the importance of quiet and 43
privacy or need for emotional or financial support.

A second group of commuter students is that
described in earlier studies as being overly dependent
on their families. Such a student may be subject to
emotional problems. The author describes this group
and their problems in these terms:

While these ties are frequently expressed as
financial, i.e., lack of sufficient funds to go
away from the home to college, this is often not
the determining factor. Such students remain at
home because they have feelings about one or both
parents which make separation difficult. Some

feel that the parent will completely forget them
while they are gone and that they will lose their
source of emotional gratification, ambivalent though
it may be. Others may be afraid that upon their
departure the discord between the parents may
destroy the existing family structure; still

others may feel so cheated emotionally that the
prospect of leaving home is too frightening because
they will then be eligible for even less emotional
support than they are presently getting. Some deny
or cover their anger at parents by staying at home
as if that proves their devotion. The variety of
such psychological ties is tremendous.44

Schuchman identified a third type of student
which includes those who want the urban educational
scene. Klotsche describes these students as those who
" . . . had become disenchanted with the isolated
residential campus and were lured to the urban university

"45

by the excitement of the metropolis. The students

 

43 44

Ibid. Ibid.

4SKlotsche, "Urban Higher Education," p. 15.

33

see and want the natural laboratories the city provides,
along with the realities of life as may be seen and
experienced in the city. This may be the group of stu—
dents that will be the prototype of the future urban

student.

A fourth group consists of those students who,
for academic or financial reasons, cannot attend a
residential college. These are mostly students who

come from the

. . . lower economic groups whose families are
unable to pay the high cost of a residential
college. . . . They are restricted in their choices
to the commuter college operated by the state or
some local branch of government. Those who have
academic problems, i.e., low high school grades

or scores which prevent their being accepted in the
larger and more structured college or university
settings, have an additional problem which they
attempt to resolve by a period of one or more years
of improving their grades in a commuter university
or junior college because the financial investment
is less and their uncertainty about their ability
to succeed pushes them to seek to protect their
investment in this manner.46

The members of the last identifiable group are
not true commuters as defined in Chapter I. This small,
but perhaps growing segment of the urban student body
comes from the suburbs or nearby small communities.

They live in rooming houses, apartments, fraternity

 

a

46Schuchman, "Psychological Tasks," pp. 2-1, 2-2.

34

houses, or similar nonuniversity facilities. They still
may not view the campus as their residential counter—
parts do. "While they are not residing with their
families and, therefore, avoid many of the situations
students listed above would have to deal with, their
investment in campus life tends to be much less than
the typical residential college student."47
The commuting students, with whatever problems
and backgrounds, attend educational institutions which
are different from the traditional concept of a college
or university, at least as perceived by many in the
United States. Klotsche points out that at the beginv
ning of this century, urban universities were virtually
nonexistent in the country, but have grown to the point
now that every large city has at least one urban univ

versity of considerable size.48

The Urban University

 

There are a variety of colleges and universities
located in the large cities, many which cannot be
included under the definition of urban universities.
Universities such as Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Minnesota, and Berkley are great universities that happen

 

47Ibid., p. 2-2.

48Klotsche, The Urban University, pp. 4-5.

 

35

to be located in urban areas. The urban universities
are those whose major characteristic is their urban
nature. wayne State University, University of Wisconsin--
Milwaukee, and the University of Illinois—vChicago Circle
fall into this category.49
These urban universities have been seen as dif—

ferent from the residential universities in urban areas
and rural and small town institutions and will tend to
become more so. Gusfield, Kronus, and Mark point out
that:

Higher Education in its urban context is more than

a matter of the expansion and development of an

existing system to serve the needs of large popu-

lation centers. The trend that is involved needs

also to be recognized as a significant departure

from the past of American higher education.50

Authors, in attempting to explain the uniqueness

of the urban university, often point to the goals and
objectives along with programs. Location in a metro-
politan area is of course a prerequisite. The institution
must also be "concerned in outlook and program with its

. 1
urban env1ronment."s

 

49Leonard E. Goodall, "The Urban University: Is
There Such a Thing?" Journal of Higher Education, XLI,
No. l (1970), 45. (Hereinafter referred to as "The Urban
University.")

 

50Joseph Gusfield, Sidney Kronus, and Harold Mark,
“The Urban Context and Higher Education: A Delineation
of Issues,” Journal of Higher Education, XLI, No. l (1970),
29.

51Klotsche, The Urban University, p. 7.

 

36

Goodall sees three major areas with which urban
universities must be concerned. They must seek to:

1. Maintain the high quality of teaching, research,
and public service that has long been expected
of universities;

2. Place more emphasis than has usually been the
case in the past on the public service and com-
munity involvement aspect of the university; and

3. Develop ways to take advantage of the urban
location to enrich the educational and research
programs of the university while at the same
time being of use to the community.52

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education
introduces its recent study on the urban university with
this designation:

Those American universities which happen to be
situated in large centers of population are now
commonly classified as urban universities. But
the term, as used in educational circles, desig-
nates something beyond the mere accident of
location. The term implies that the university
accepts a special obligation to respond to the
immediate educational needs of the community in
which it is set; that, without compromising the
standards appropriate to university instruction and
investigation, it plans its offerings with direct
reference to these needs; and that within the
limits of its resources it is hospitable to all
local requests for those intellectual services
which a university may legitimately render.53

The clear delineation of responsibilities is not

enough, as Commager pointed out over a decade ago.

\

 

~7—

52Goodall, "The Urban University," p. 48.

53The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
The Campus and the Cit (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972),
p. iv. (Hereina ter referred to as The Campus.)

 

37

If our universities are to enjoy the advantages of
their urban position, if they are to be to American
society what the great urban universities of Europe
have been to their societies, they must assume
responsibility for the development of urban and
regional civilization. . . . What they need is an
awareness of their opportunities and potentialities;
what they need is a philosophy.54

The urban campus is struggling to meet the
demands placed on it, but often is illvequipped to do so.

The urban university has not developed the type
of physical plant which facilitate its urban mission.
Rovetch points out from an architectural viewpoint:
"Nowhere have we created the new, organic urban campus

and, at the moment, nowhere has a college or university

made a firm commitment to do so."55

In terms of relating to its urban community,

Codding feels that too often

. . . the campus, a city within a city, is per-
ceived by those living in the surrounding community
as being forbidden ground. The architectural plan
of the campus tends to reinforce this community per—
ception. High walls with few or no windows on the
street side, inner courts and walkways, gates and
patrolling security personnel connote an insular
existence. People in the community begin to ask,
"What does all this do for me?"56

54Henry Steele Commager, "Is Ivy Necessary,"
Saturday Review, September 17, 1960, p. 89.

55warren Rovetch, "Architecture for the Urban
Campus,” in Agony_and Promise, ed. by G. Kerry Smith
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969), p. 78. (Here-
inafter referred to as "Architecture.”)

56Anthony S. Codding, "The Meaning of Urbanism,"
The Proceedings of the Association of College Unions—-
International, 1971, p. 5e96.

38

In its 1972 study of higher education in the
urban areas, the Carnegie Commission points out that the
task of providing the necessary higher education oppor—
tunities for today's cities is complicated by the problems
of the past and the present near-crisis situation. Fiscal
concerns loom as one of the major problems.

Demands for new urban-oriented services and pro—
grams come at a time when many colleges and uni—
versities are facing a period of financial stringency.

Dependence on political units and private donors
for resources makes institutions reluctant to become
closely involved directly in highly controversial
city problems. But the demands for involvement,
coming from groups within and without our colleges
and universities seem to be growing.

While rising proportions of urban youth are both
economically and educationally disadvantaged, many
of our major urban-located colleges and universities
have increased both their student charges and 57
admission standards over the last several decades.

Another area of concern is the clash between the
desire to open the university to the public, by removing
the university‘s "Medieval" walls, and the growing need
for security, which leads to a closed campus. The cities
have also become unhappy with the growing cost to them.
The massive urban institutions remove property from the
tax roll, and at the same time demand costly city
services.

The final two concerns as seen in the Carnegie

Commission study relate more directly to teaching and

service within the urban university.

 

v

57Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The

Campus, p. 13.

39

To preserve academic freedom, many inside the
campus insist that the university or college must
remain aloof from direct involvement in social
problems, but others insist that at this time
in history educational institutions must serve as
agents of change directly aiding in the solution of
today's problems.

’ Institutions of higher education, historically
oriented to white middle-class clientele, find it
difficult to cope with the needs and demands of
the economically and culturally disadvantaged, and
of the blacks and other ethnic groups.58

The Carnegie Commission's report which covers all
higher education in the cities, not just universities,
indicates that the specific answers to what the urban
university is doing or should be doing is often unclear.
However, certain items must be considered by all urban
educational institutions if they are to better serve
the urban student and his community. The Commission
points out that:

Wise choice of urban public service activities
and research projects could make the city a highly
effective laboratory for higher education while at
the same time making positive contributions to the
life of the city.

ways must be found to facilitate appropriate
use of higher education resources by the urban
student.

Cities' higher education resources must be
organized in a way which will enhance their overall
value to the city.

Each college and university must learn to assess
its impacts-—physical and environmental, economic,
social and cultural--on the life of the city.59

 

581bid., p. 14.

591bid., p. 17.

40

Freedman, in discussing the situation at a
largely commuter campus, states: ". . . The problems
of San Francisco State are basically the problems of
any urban campus, and the future of American higher
education is increasingly the large, urban, commuter
campus."60

The urban university reflects the urban society—-
the problems, the advantages, the present, and the
future. Whatever the urban university is, whatever it
will be, it is a complex organization trying to find and
continue a variety of relationships with an even more

complex structure--the growing, changing, problem—ridden

urban society.

The Student Union in General

 

Research on student unions in general is quite

abundant. Christensen lists 1,229 entries in his anno-

61

tated bibliography of the college union. The Bulletin

 

of the Association of College Unions——International has
been published for forty-one years and in its five issues

a year reports the latest in union programs and

 

60Mervin B. Freedman, "San Francisco State:
Urban Campus Prototype," Agony and Promise (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969), p. 85.

6lErnest Martin Christensen, An Annotated Bib-
liggraphy of the College Union (Ithaca, N.Y.: Associ-
ation of College Unions, I967Y.

41

activities.62 The proceedings from the Annual Conferences
of the Association of College Unions«vInternational also
contains numerous reports of research in the field.63 In
this study only the research related to the urban student
union will be presented in any detail.

The history of the development of the college
union in America and the basic concepts and operations
of the unions through the end of WOrld war II were pre—

64

sented in a study by Humphreys. Her study, credited

as being the first major publication in the field,
attempts to give a comprehensive picture of the union
movement to that date. The major emphasis was to pre—
sent what existed on thirty campuses which were operating
a college union and suggest ways of implementing programs.
She summed up the purpose of her handbook in these words:
The primary purpose has been to interpret and then
suggest procedures for carrying out the educational
aspect of the college union rather than to supply
tables on cost of the buildings, annual expenditures,
and the like. This does not mean that the factual
material is discredited by the use of a number of

tables and charts. It is hoped, however, that the
essential substance of the union has been so

 

62The Bulletin, I-XLI (Stanford, Calif.: Associ-
ation of College Unions--International).

 

63The Proceedings of the 50th. Annual Conference
(Stanford, CaIif.: Associatibn ofICOllege Unions--
International, 1973), and The ProCeedings of_Earlier
Conferences.

64Humphreys, College Unions.

 

42

guarded that buildings and equipment and salaries
and programs do not appear more important than
the human beings for whom they were created.55

In the next twenty years three major operational

66

studies were conducted. Whiting in 1951, Hesser in

67 and a major study by Bell68 developed a pattern

1957,
of study to examine facilities, programs, and operations.
The latter research, using a twenty—five page question-
naire probed the major operational aspects of the unions
in seven areas. These areas were physical plant,
organizational structure, professional staff, financial
operation of the union, general union policies, facili—
ties, and the relation of union to other college or uni—
versity departments. The study covered 190 unions or

40 per cent of the unions belonging to the Association

of College Unions-~International. This study again

examined current and past union operation and

 

f '._V

651bid., p. 3.

66Edgar A. Whiting, "Union Operating and Use
Policies," College Unions:l953 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Associ-
ation of College Unions--International, 1953), pp. 70-76.
(Hereinafter referred to as ”Union Operating."

67Abel Hesser, "How Do Unions Operate?" Colle e
Unions--l958 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1958), pp. 83-95. (Herein-
after refeffed to as "How Do Unions Operate?")

68Boris C. Bell, Administration and gperation of
the Coll e Union (Ithaca, N.Y.: ACU-I, W1 1ar Stra g t
Ha , Cornel University, 1965). (Hereinafter referred to
as Administration and Operation.)

 

43

administration. There was no attempt to judge the

appropriateness of the policies or actions. He summed

up his study stating:

Following the pattern set by previous studies,
this effort reflected a continued broadening of the
investigation into the complex operational aspects
of the college union. With the project's conclusion,
the author is forced to admit, however, that much
remains to be done in this area. While the exten-
sive, wide—range survey instrument used to gather
the data reported in the preceeding pages probably
discouraged a more substantial response than was
actually recorded, it is felt that much greater
depth needs to be developed if we are to truly
determine how unions do operate.

At best, this study has succeeded, to a
reasonable degree, in updating patterns of union
operation. Hopefully, it has also established a
firm basis for more significant probing which serves
a most useful purpose when done at regular inter—
vals.69

Of particular interest in Bell's study is a
listing of the most common facilities existing in the
student unions studied. The following table (Table 1)
indicates the twenty-eight most prevalent facilities
which were found in at least half the unions.

Several articles and books have been addressed
to the overall planning on any student union. Berry
developed a comprehensive guide for all phases of union
planning, covering the background and characteristics of
a union, technical aspects (building materials, lighting,
sound equipment, furniture, and other physical components

of a building), and relationships of the physical

 

v— v r

69Ibid., p. 39.

44

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1.--Twenty—eight most prevalent facilities.7o
Facility Percentage of Frequency

Recreation
Table Tennis Room 82
Billiard Room 79
Card Room 57
Social
Lounge 82
Ballroom 72
Cultural-Hobby
Television Room 83
Music Listening Room 70
Poster Room 59
Art Gallery 50
Meetin
Committee Rooms 91
Meeting Rooms 79
Service
Pay Telephones 94
Information Desk 87
Coat Room 67
Parking Area 61
House Phones 52
Ticket Office 52
Food
Snack Bar 89
Cafeteria 84
Banquet Rooms 77
Private Dining Room 56
Organization-Activity

Student Government Office 81
Union Board Committee Office 65
Yearbook Office 60
Organization Mail Box 59
General Wbrk Room 57
Other
Union Staff Administra-

tive Offices ’76
Bookstore 59

 

 

fl

7°Ibid., p. 38.

45

structure to Operation and program.71 Butts‘ manual on
planning and Operation covers such areas as financial

policies, general organization, planning Of a new build-
ing, along with a general outline of the nature and pur-

pose Of college unions:72

Similarly, NOffke has a basic
planning guide with a step—by—step program for the con-
struction of a building from the idea stage through the
beginning Of construction.73
Another study developed and published by the

Association Of College Unions--International presented
a ”nuts and bolts" guide for planning union facilities.
The main emphasis Of that study was development Of multi-
use facilities when both cost and efficiency Of Operation
were Of major concern. While focusing on the physical
and fiscal aspects Of a union, the study indicated that

. . . the most important thing about a union . . .

is not the building but the program within it and

the adequacy of the staff, in numbers (and, Of

course, calibre), to develop a program Of worth

and to respond to the needs Of the building
users . . . so any means that can be devised by

 

71Chester A. Berry, Planning a Colle e Union
Building (New York: New York Bureau Of PuBIIcations,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960).

 

 

72Porter Butts, Planning and Operating Colle e
Union Buildin s (Ithaca, N.Y.: AssociatiOn Of COIIege
Un1ons--International, Williard Straight Hall, Cornell
University, 1965).

73Frank E. NOffke, Planninggfor a College Union
(Ithaca, N.Y.: Association Of College UniOns--Inter-
national, Williard Straight Hall, Cornell University,
1965).

46

way Of facility arrangements or space contraction,

that conserve funds for program and staffing are Of

the utmost significance. Else the building, no

matter how ample, may subsequently fail Of its

purpose.74

The most recent report on changes in facility
demand, indicates the entire food service Operation is
undergoing drastic changes. Factors Of rising cost and
change in student lifestyle have forced the revamping
Of cafeteria schedules and developing more snack menus
and facilities. Other facilities--programs which appear
tO be on the upswing--are arts and crafts, outdoor
activities, bowling, beer pubs, and small shops and
stores. Security, regardless of the type Of building,
remains a serious concern, particularly affecting fur—
niture, art Objects, and electronic equipment, such as
ear phones in the listening rooms.7S
Another factor affecting student union Operations

is the continued rise in the cost Of construction for both
new buildings and renovation. Between the 1970-71 and
1971-72 fiscal years, the average cost per square foot

Of student union construction started in all institutions

Of higher education rose from $34.46 to $39.54, or

 

V v v r v

74Association Of College Unions—-International,
Planning College Union Facilities for Multiple Use (Madison,
Wisconsin: Association Of College Unions--International,
1966), p. 17.

75"What's Happening," The Bulletin Of the Associ-

ation Of College Unions—-International, XL, NO. 1 (1972),
If 11

 

47

14.7 per cent. The food facilities area construction
fell slightly ($36.70 to $36.07). This was contributed
tO the wider use Of convenience foods and catering ser-
vices which do not require extensive kitchen facilities.
The more casual eating habits of students, centered
around vending machines and snack bars, may be another
contributive factor.76
Another Of Bell's findings, relating to organi-
zational structure, indicated a distinct tendency toward
a two-board arrangement. A policy board with representa—
tives from the various segments Of the university com—
munityv-faculty, administration, students, and alumni-—
represents the usual form Of governing groups for the
unions. The program board made up primarily of students
with union staff members as advisors, was most frequently
responsible for programming. Bell did note, however,
that "individual unions have consistently styled their
governing bodies to meet their own particular needs."77
In the program areas Of college unions the changes
in today's student, as well as in the larger society,
have affected the function Of union programming on most

campuses. Jordan, Brattain, and Shaffer indicate these

changes have:

 

76Velma Adams, College Management, VII, NO. 9
(September, 1972), 12.

77Bell, Administration and Operation, p. 8.

 

48

. . . brought to the campus the ambiguity and
challenges Of conflicting values characteristic Of
[the] larger society. Thus, school traditions,
morals and customs clash with new patterns Of
behavior brought to the campus from a wide variety
Of backgrounds. Since the campus reflects the
frustration, the irritation, the contradictions and
the doubts Of society, the union as the campus
living room will no longer be a calm, serene place
characterized by the hearthstone but will be the
scene Of varied individuals and ideas all vying
for acceptance.78

Other researchers see the union as an excellent
agency for meeting the demands for student power. Sig-
gelkow points out that from the very beginning unions
have been in the forefront of encouraging student respon—
sibility or at least a joint responsibility in the
develOpment Of union buildings and programs. This tra—
dition now must be even more vigorously pursued to
enable the unions tO remain a viable force.79

Burke, in looking for new trends in programming,
found that the program content tends to be quite pre-

dictable and the methods used in programming quite tra-

ditional. She saw a new development in the expansion

 

78Harold Jordan, William Brattain, and Robert
Shaffer, "The College Union Looks Ahead," NASPA Journal,
VII, NO. 1 (1969), 4.

 

79Edwin O. Siggelkow, "The College Union: A
Model for Student Power," NASPA Journal, VII, NO. 1
(1969), 7-12.

 

49

Of outdoor programs, building on the current concerns

Of ecology and environment.80

Other programming areas now reported in the
literature parallel campus activities in general. Sym—

I O 81 o I O O O
pos1ums on women's rights, m1nor1ty needs, act1v1t1es,

etc.,82 and crafts programs83 have met with considerable

success.

In examining the future programming in the college
union, Andrews believes that program changes will be subtle
and only a matter Of degree.

Essentially the union program will contain more
updated variations Of the basic core Of union pro—
grams: dance, social (non—dance), games, art,
craft, and hobbies, music, films, discussions,
literary and personnel. Variations Of the core will
be caused by the type of institution. Most changes
will transpire in the commuter college and in the
junior and community college.84

ff r ff

 

80Kathryn Burke, "Are There Really Any New Trends
in Programming?" The Proceedings Of the 48th. Annual Con-

ference Association Of College Unions-~International (1971),
p. 4-1.

 

81Linda W. Simmons, "The Union and WOmen's Move—
ment," Proceedin s Of the 49th Annual Conference Of the
Association Of CO lege Unions-~International (1972),
p. 5-21.

82Floyd Flake, "Programming in the Minority
College Union," Proceedin s Of the 49th Annual Conference
Of the Association Of COlIege Unions--International (1972),
p. 5.27. '

 

3"Promotion WOrkshOp Proves Valuable," The Bulle-
tin Of the Association Of College Unions--Internationa1,
XLI, NO. 1 (1973), 8-90

 

 

84Max H. Andrews, "College Union Programming,"
NASPA Journal, VII, NO. 1 (1969), 13.

 

50

On several campuses, research is currently being
conducted to investigate the specific needs, programs,
and operations Of a particular union. At the University
Of Iowa such a study produced a reorganization acknowledgv
ing the relationships between the Union Staff and Student
Affairs. Now, in addition tO the activities staff, the
Student DevelOpment Center, located in the Union, includes
the Career Counseling Center, Placement Center, and Uni-

85

versity Counseling Center. Similar research has been

conducted by the Association Of College Unions--Inter-
national tO improve Operations on individual campuses.
Regional meetings and national conferences are used to
both develop and disseminate research. At a 1969
national conference several problems facing today's
unions were presented. A sample Of the problems gives
some indication Of the extent of concerns requiring more
research.
The problem Of so affecting the campus environ—
ment that each individual has a sense Of belonging
and personal worth . . .
Failure Of the union to earn a position as an
authentic partner in higher education . . .
The union's critical need to review its role,
governance, and reason for existence . . .
People inside and outside the campus com—

munity fail tO perceive the rOle and potential
Of the union . . .

 

fir‘i

85Robert M. Casse, "Experimental Role of a College
Union," The Bulletin Of the Association of College Unions--
InternatiOnal, XXXIX, NO. 4’(197I),4748.

 

51

What is the role Of the student in the management
Of the union building and program? . .

What type Of programming is best and which
approach is most effective in discovering what
students want?86

The Association Of College UnionSv'International

has recently begun a major series Of self—study programs.
The direction Of this research is to improve the services
Of the Association to individual campuses. In addition,
the Association promotes and supports research by indi-

viduals through its research committee.87

The Urban Commuter Student Union

 

The studies referred to in the section "The
Student Union in General" Often included the urban stu-
dent union serving a commuter population. Most principles
Of gOOd management and program development are applicable
regardless Of location Of the union or the type of stu—
dents served. A few studies have tried tO single out
the commuter union, focusing on its unique needs and
Operation. This section will be addressed to these

past findings.

 

86Association Of College Unions--International,
"The Four Most Important Problems Facing Unions . . . as
Seen by the Discussion Groups at Mishawak," The Bulletin
Of the Association Of College Unions-—InternatiOnaI,
XXXVII, NO. 4 (196

 

 

 

87”Phase One Of Self Studies Begins," The Bulletin
Of the Association Of College Unions—-International, XLI,
NO. 2 (I973), 9.

 

52

Researchers in the past have Observed that unions
on both commuter and resident campuses have similar
facilities, but noted that the need and extent varies
with the percentage Of commuting students.88 Wayne
State University, a large and almost completely commuter
campus, undertook the task Of determining the unique
needs Of the commuter student, for the purpose Of better
serving its students. Several recommendations were made
at the completion Of the study. Major differences were
found between the life Of the commuter and resident
collegian. Relating tO the urban union, three areas
Of concern were found: schedule, environment, and
facilities.

According to the study, the urban “commuter
arranges his schedule, so as tO minimize his on-campus

time."89

Required classes, particular instructors, even
graduation take second place tO a schedule which allows
for jOb and travel convenience. Social events, campus
programs, and general college activities are viewed with
time placement as a major consideration. Union activi—
ties and programs, committee work, and general periods

Of use Of facilities are all influenced by the schedule

factor.

 

88Nelson B. Jones, "The College Union and the
Residence Hall," Proceedin s Of the 27th Annual Conference
Of the Association Of COIIege Unions (1950), p. 18.

89Ward, The Commuting Student, p. 7.

 

53

Secondly, it was noted that the environment,
both at home and at the university, was not in the best
interests Of the students for social, emotional, or edu-
cational needs. The home, as stated earlier, places a
series Of demands on the students, most Of which do "not
make an atmosphere which nurtures academic excellence."90
The lack Of a community on campus, with both faculty and
students dispersed throughout the city, compounds the
deprivation.

The facilities, according to this study, have
not been designed tO meet the basic needs Of the commuter
student. In areas which include facilities for studying,
eating, socializing, resting, and communicating, the
design, quality, and quantity are based on residential
student needs, not those Of the commuter.91

The recommendations which begin to alleviate this

problem include three major developments:

1. The university should provide a series Of out—
posts Or small student centers tO "assist the
commuter student in linking his living and
academic environments. These miniature satel—
lite campuses serve as meeting places, student

centers, and express transport campus stations."92

 

9O 91

Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., p. 14.

92Ibid., p. 20.

54

2. "Campus Streets" tO help achieve a sense Of com-
munity should be located in various areas Of the
campus. The pedestrian patterns should be changed
tO "form the framework for locating most the
campus‘ academic and communal, retail support

and student social and recreational facilities."93

3. Existing facilities should be redeveloped to pro“
vide the students with a full range Of amenities.
Commons areas or general lounges should be located
in various areas Of the campus, but most gener-
Ously be provided in major academic buildings.
Study areas, eating places, and "substitute

domiciles" similarly should be provided.94

Rovetch feels the urban campus should reflect the
patterns, the needs, and the commerce Of urban man. He
states: "The Old notion Of one student union, one place
to eat, one place for coffee, one place to shop, is
stilted and monastic."95 He suggests three possible
planning concepts. One would extend the campus into
the surrounding city, with the facilities Of the community

serving campus needs. A second plan calls for a number

Of subcenters spread throughout the campus instead Of a

 

93 94

Ibid., p. 24.' Ibid., pp. 32—38.

95Rovetch, "Architecture," p. 79.

55

central facility. Lastly, the campus plan could incor-
porate classrooms, snack bars, Offices, and other campus

facilities in the same structure using "horizontal zoning"

in a highrise building.96

A study similar to the one at wayne State was
conducted in 1967 but focused on the urban college union
itself. The study, conducted as a three—day work con—
ference, identified similar problems relating tO the
student needs, facility and program design, and the
general environment Of the campus and larger community.
The task or challenge for the urban union was stated in
these words:

The union has been and must continue to be the com—
munity center of the college, for all members Of the
college family; the living room Of the college, pro-
viding services, conveniences, and amenities that
the members Of the college family need in their
daily life on the campus; a part Of the educational
program Of the college, and a unifying force in the
life Of the college. This is the union's heritage
and applies both tO the urban and residential col-
leges. More emphasis is put on the humanizing role
Of the union. There has always been a “personali—
zation" goal in the college union development, an
Opportunity for the student tO seek to determine his
own identity within the framework Of an impersonal
college environment. The college union through its
services and programs is still attempting the task
Of providing environment and Opportunity for personal
interaction and self expression. But there is
equally a need for actual involvement Of commuter
students in the social issues Of the day, and
involvement in decisions that affect him both on and
Off campus. The college union has long been con-
cerned with "the education or persons as well as
intellects." SO it is the urban college union that

 

if

961bid., pp. 79—80.

56

has got to be concerned with providing services and
facilities tO meet the needs Of its particular edu—
cational community. It has responsibilities for
relating to, and being a coordinating part Of, that
program that provides the means for personal involve—
ment, interaction, experience, and understanding
which are essential to the development Of leadership
skills and social competency.97

The report Of the conference was brief, mostly

providing "checklists" to serve as guidelines for more

specific study. The findings Of the study include the

following list Of services as necessary for a commuter

union:

\DmflmmthH
O.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Mailboxes

Small meeting rOOms

Poster and duplicating rooms

Offices for student organizations

Work and file room for student organizations
Large meeting rooms

Postal service area

Ticket sales area

Party room facility

Library

Bank, or at least, check cashing service
Visual and sound equipment

Typewriter rental

Central publicity distribution center
Professional duplicating and poster making
Group and charter travel service bureau
Meeting rooms, with kitchenettes for selfv
prepared refreshments98

Faculty members at this conference saw need for the follow—

ing services, activities, and facilities:

 

97Association Of College Unions, Planning the

 

Urban College Union for A Commuter Campus, p. 2.

981bid., p. 3.

57

Lounges

Meeting rooms

Food service

Nap rooms

Recreation area
Duplicating
Multi—purpose ballroom
Parking

Check cashing service
Restaurant with liquor

oxoooxtmuwe-wNI—I

H

Specific facilities for faculty members were not seen as
desirable. Similarly, separate facilities for such groups
as fraternities and sororities were excluded.

Other considerations for the urban commuting
student union mentioned by the study group were outlined.
These were not separate facilities, but general areas Of
special interest tO the following categories Of students:

Graduate and Married Students
1. Designed space for information conversations,
and for groups getting together for refresh“
ment or food.
2. Accessible typewriters and copy equipment.
3. Book browsing.
International Students
1. Kitchen facilities for preparation Of native
national dishes.
2. Programs involving international visitors as
resources for discussion.
Evening Students
1. Easy tO attend recreation programs (e.g.,
films that continue through the evening hours).
2. Staff for the evening as well as for the day
students.
3. FOOd facilities, with extended hours in the
cafeteria or snack bar. -
4. Extended building hours, generally.
5. Audio and visual taping Of programs (e.g.,
guest speaker at a day conference) for
broadcast later in the evening.100

 

99 100

Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., p. 6.

58

Also involved in the study group were a number
Of students. These commuter students rated the follow—

ing union programs as desirable in their campus union.

1. Regular showing Of feature films.

2. Popular magazines for leisure time reading.

3. Music listening room.

4. Informal discussions fostering faculty student
relationships.

5. Outdoor summer concerts.

6. Major concert artist series.

7. Lectures, public forums, and discussions by

Off-campus speakers.
8. Open House (simultaneous programming of all union
building facilities).
9. Art and foreign film series.
10. Dances.101
This study also pointed to the concern for
totally coordinated planning Of the facility. Items
which must be considered include: the need for large
areas tO accommodate the rush at noon, when the majority
Of students arrive to eat, talk, and relax; the need to
review all facilities available for student use-vboth
on and around the campus; the structure Of the campus,
designating the union as a "gateway" for the campus;
and a selection Of lighting, furnishings, and equipment
which are useful, attractive, flexible, and easy tO
maintain and secure.
Union facilities and Operations have been studied
much more than programs. The urban commuter campus

facilities have been examined by three researchers in

the last few years.

 

101Ibid., p. 5.

59

Bell stratified his study by enrollment (under
2,500 students; 2,500-4,999; 5,000—9,999; and over
10,000); age of participating union (established before
1957, established 1957—1962); location Of school (urban,
rural, suburban); type Of control (public or private).
However, this breakdown does not provide for the category
Of the urban commuter union.102

In surveying 190 unions, Bell found certain

facilities directly related to the commuters.

l. Twenty-eight per cent Of the unions had lockers
for commuting students. The actual number Of
lockers per union could not be determined from

the data.

2. A commuter lounge facility, which Bell felt might
have been the main lounge used by commuters and
others, was checked as being available by 41 per

cent Of the schools.

3. Although separation Of commuter dining rooms from
regular dining was not determined, 23 per cent

Of the unions did list commuter dining facilities.

4. Only 12 per cent Of the schools indicated a cot

room in their union building.

 

102Bell, Administration and Operation, pp. 26-39.

60

5. Dressing rooms were also in low demand—~only

9 per cent listed this facility.

6. Office space for commuters was listed by only
7 per cent Of the unions. Most Of them were in

the "over 10,000" category.103

In areas Of administrative structure and general
union policies, the study provided little differentiating
information Of any significance.

The complicated administrative structure Of a college
and the uniqueness Of each college's overall organi-
zation have rendered the development Of standard
Operating policies in college unions an unlikely
eventuality. The many variables associated with

our colleges--size Of enrollment, private vs. public,
urban vs. rural, resident vs. commuter, long-
standing traditions, unique organizational structure,
personal preferences Of the top administrators in
the Office, etc.--Obviously produce many different
Operating conditions, calling for individual
approaches to each.104

NO other areas in this study could be singled out
as being particularly related to the urban commuting
union. Some other aspects were covered earlier in this
chapter under the "Student Union in General" section.

Carroll, in a 1964 study, examined the influence
Of the presence Of a large body Of commuting students on
the programs and Operations Of urban campus unions. He
surveyed thirty—eight institutions to determine existing

facilities and programs and attempted to develop a measure

Of their effectiveness. He concluded that the presence

 

103 104

Ibid., p. 34. Ibid., p. 21.

61

Of a sizable percentage Of commuting students in a uni—
versity does influence the services, activities, and
programs Of urban college unions. The day commuting stu—
dents tend tO use the union primarily during the time
they are on campus for classes. The factors which limit
the use Of the facilities at night and on weekends include
problems Of convenient transportation and Off—campus
Obligations Of employment and family. The union activi—
ties, therefore, are affected by this and most programs
are planned during the weekdays with little emphasis on
weekend and evenings.
In terms Of facilities, he states:

The traditional facilities Of college unions, such

as fOOd service, lounges, meeting rooms, and recre-

ation areas are present in urban college unions and

are used by the daytime commuter, particularly during

the time when he is on campus to attend classes.

There does not appear to be an emphasis on special—

ized commuter facilities such as lockers, cots,

showers, etc. It seems that commercial recreation

facilities are used by the commuter to a greater

extent than union recreation facilities after the

commuter has finished his classes for the day.

There does not appear to be an emphasis on extensive

conference facilities.105

The activities Of the union appear similar to

those available in the traditional student union. The

commuters react differently to programs and are considered

 

105John A. Carroll, "Urban Campus College Unions
and the Commuting Student" (unpublished Master's Thesis,
University Of Illinois, 1964), p. 76. (Hereinafter
referred tO as "Urban Campus College.“)

62

as a different group by the staff working with them.
Carroll expresses the view that:

Most of the traditional union activity programs
are present on commuter campuses. The day commuter
seems to be interested in participating in planning
these programs particularly when commuters comprise
a majority Of the student body. Attendance at these
programs appears to be governed by convenience and
the particular attraction to the commuter. Problems
involved in programming for the commuter are amplified
by the difficulty Of communication and the Off-campus
demands for his time. The day commuter is difficult
tO attract back tO campus in the evenings and on
weekends.

The commuter is considered unique when contrasted
tO the resident student by most union administrators.
A large number Of respondents felt that the commuter
worked part time in greater proportions. Many
respondents felt that commuters, as a group, are
Of modest economic means, are less interested in
student activities, seek recreation to a great degree
Off campus, and make fewer new friends when compared
to the resident student.106

He recommended, based on these findings, that the follow-
ing items should be considered in the planning or pro-
gramming Of an urban student center serving a commuting
population.

1. The commuter should be considered as a unique
group in planning union facilities, services and
programs.

2. College unions should be included as an urban
campus facility for the commuter:

a. TO provide an on-campus home and headquarters;
b. TO provide an out-Of-class life in common
with other students that may be missed by
the lack Of a group living situation;
c. TO promote information identification with
the college community and engender loyalty
to the institution;

 

1061bid.

63

d. TO keep the commuter on campus after classes,
and attract the commuter back to campus in
the evenings and on weekends through programs;

e. TO facilitate informal and formal communi—
cation with the commuter.

3. While generalizations are necessary, each metro“
politan area, urban campus and urban campus union
should be considered on the basis Of their
unique characteristics when planning union
facilities, services and programs.

4. Night students should be considered separately
from the day commuter student in evaluating needs
for union services and programs.

5. The influence Of a location in a large metropoli—
tan area On a college union should be considered
as affecting the use Of that union by both
resident and commuting students.107

A more recent study on facilities for the urban
union gives the clearest indiCation Of what commuting
students expect Of the college union. Butts108 tOOk
the results Of twenty-seven campus—wide surveys which
had been conducted over the past dozen years and c1as~
sified the replies by urban and nonurban institutions,
commuter, and resident students. The patterns Of
interest do not show major differences in the student
support for different facilities. He did find the
commuter, because he commutes, needed the cafeteria,
parking, quiet rooms, and lockers. The commuter did not

want certain Of the recreation facilities as much as the

residential student. Table 2 indicates his major findings.

 

1°71bid., p. 78.

108Porter Butts, "DO Commuters Need a Different
Union?“ The Bulletin Of the Association Of College Unions—-
InternationaI, XXXVIII, NO. 2 (1970), 3.

64

TABLE 2.—-Union facilities typically wanted109

——

Union Facilities Typically Wanted More by Students at Urban
Campuses than by Students at Residential Campuses

 

Bookstore Music Room Quiet Roomsa
General Lounge Browsing Library Lockersa
Cafeteriaa Meeting Rooms

Parkinga Art Gallerya

 

Union Facilities Typically Wanted Less by Students at Urban
Campuses than by Students at Residential Campuses

 

Ballroom Table Tennis
Bowlinga Television

 

aRepresents significant difference

His conclusion was that the major differences
in programming for the commuter and residential student
was the time Of day for programs and the limited time
the commuter has for activities.

He did issue this suggestion, however:

I suspect the essential difference in the case
Of the commuter is the time Of day at which he can
use the union facilities and the length Of time he
has at his disposal to dO the things he wants tO
do, and here there is a considerable contrast with
the student who lives nearby and is on the campus
evenings and weekends as well as during the class day.
SO I would think union planners could proceed
with some confidence that the facilities which are
useful to dormitory and fraternity students are also
useful, and maybe more so, to commuter students--but
for more limited periods Of time-—meanwhile not
overlooking the facilities Of particular and unique
importance tO commuters like parking, lockers, quiet
rooms, and facilities that lend themselves tO easy-to-
come-by recreation Of short duration, mainly daytime.110

 

109 110

Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 4.

65

Periodically in the literature, reference is made
to the greater need for space in various buildings where
a large commuter population is to be served. Bareither
and Schillinger recommended that an additional square
foot Of space for each full-time equivalent commuter stu-
dent is required tO provide locker space. In addition,
in what was termed a student services I'building block”
which included the student union building, an extra square
foot Of space per full-time equivalent commuter student
should be provided in the lounge and vending facilities.111
Their recommendation, therefore, is for approximately nine
square feet Of space per commuting student. This is only
slightly less than the recommendation by ward and Kurz.112
Many of the articles relating to the urban com-
muter union deal with specific programs or segments Of
the Operation. Outdoor programming as mentioned earlier
is becoming exceptionally popular in the urban union.
The urban center, perhaps even more than its residential

counterpart, has the Obligation to promote and develop

outdoor programs. Many unions have developed such

 

v —v

111Harland D. Bareither and Jerry L. Schillinger,
Universit Space Plannin (Urbana: University Of Illinois
Press, ), pp. 66; .

 

112Ward, The Commuting Student, p. 40.

66

programs in the past.113 The recent surge Of interest

in ecology has further increased this program area. Much
Of this activity is conducted on weekends or over the
vacation periods. Equipment can be purchased by the
union and rented tO the student at low but financially
sound rates. Typical outing programs include sailing,
skiing, hiking, camping, mountaineering, archery, caving,
biking, cookouts, and lectures and movies about such sub-
jects; but the unusual, ranging from whale watching to
kite flying, may attract the urban student. As Crabb
indicates, the "Particular locality and facilities at
hand will determine the kind and extent Of the outing
program."114 However, outing activities are suitable
and desirable for introducing urban students tO a great
variety Of programs at a low cost in materials and
facilities.

Harada sees many Opportunities tO develop out—

door activities in unions in urban settings. The commuter

 

1131n a 1961 survey conducted by The Association
Of College Unions, over half Of the unions surveyed had
or were planning an outdoor program. This was reported
in the Proceedin s Of 1961 Conference Of Association Of
College UniOns, The Union Moves Outdoors," p. 243.

 

114Theodore Crabb, The College Union Outdoors
(Ithaca, N.Y.: The AssociaEiOn Of College Unions-~Inter—
national, 1965), pp. 2-3.

 

67

campus about which he writes has developed eight major
areas Of extensive program Opportunities.115

Another area that urban unions must be aware Of
is transportation. Practically every study on urban
university facilities, students and administrators list
parking and/or transportation as a major concern. It
has been pointed out that even on largely residential
campuses there must be parking near the union to encourage

116 In addition to

the use of the building by commuters.
the usual parking lots, urban student unions have develOped
unique programs to serve the commuting student. One com—
muter campus union has opened a service station. It has
provided a service needed by the students, at a savings

tO them, and has created jobs for other students, and

117 Other unions in

an income for the student center.
addition to parking ramps, bus shelters, bike racks,

and the usual lots Offer such things as a bike carrels,

 

115Takeshi Harada, "A Time for Outdoor Activities,"
Proceedings on the 49th Annual Conference Of the College
Unions International, 1972, pp. 5-30 through 5—34.

116George E. Fritz, "Effective Use Of Space in
the Michigan State Union Building" (unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University, 1959), p. 64.

117"News Makers," College Management, VII, NO. 11
(November, 1972), 4.

 

68

where bikes are checked in and protected during the day,
repair and sales Of bikes, and bike rentals.118
Art galleries, shows, and displays have become an
important aspect Of programming in many urban unions.
Urban union art programs have had the type Of facilities
now being used more and more by museums tO encourage
visitors. Museums have created such facilities as
restaurants, cafeterias, and lounges. Hours Of the
museums have been extended through the student union.119
On the urban campus, security needs have closed
or curtailed the operation of some art programs. It has
been suggested that the answer to vandelism and theft

. . 120
is more programming, not less.

With redesigned
facilities, limited entrances to the gallery and the
use Of student attendants, the program can continue to
provide for students to plan, conduct, and view works
Of art.

Even with the art available for public view in

the average city, many urban students have not had the

 

118ACU—I Bulletin, XLI, NO. 1 (February, 1973), 10.

119Norman F. Moore, Art in the Union (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Association Of College UniOns—-International,
1965), p. 3.

120Robert M. Ruday, "The Urban Campus College
Union," Proceedin s Of the 48th Annual Convention
(Association Of CO lege Unions—-Internationa1, 1971),
pp. 5-92 through 5-93. ,

 

69

interest to Observe or study the works Of art. The union
can by skillful programming at least expose the student
to art and perhaps help "develop sensitivity and discrimi—
nation in those who are aesthetically illiterate." The
use Of corridor art cases, exhibits in lounges and food
services areas have served to attract the student to the
more traditional art gallery areas Of the building.121
One point has been stated Often, but is still not
fully considered at many unions. The food Operation is
part Of the total educational program Of the union.
Osterheld states it this way: "The financial Operation
Of the dining program cannot be treated as a separate
entity. It goes 'Hand in Glove' with the entire Oper—

122 The food service Operation, both philosophi-

ation."
cally and financially, must be part Of the total program,
under one authority, designed to compliment the other
segments Of the union. The commuter union faces several
major problems in designing enough space tO accommodate
the majority Of students at one time (11 A.M. to 2 P.M.),
and at the same time be financially able tO sustain its

Operation with limited business at all other times.

Coupled with this situation is the lack Of fixed income

 

121Moore, Art in the Union, p. l.

 

122Douglas C. Osterheld, Food Service and the
College Union (Ithaca, N.Y.: Association Of College
UniOns--International, 1967), p. 2.

 

 

70

from meal tickets, competition from private vendors Off
campus, and lower amounts spent by each customer. The
residential campus often has a base of income from dorm
students on meal tickets, limited competition from off
campus and students, with no "brown bag from home" or
a large evening meal at the family table to allow a light
lunch. The student living on campus must, Of course, buy
all his meals seven days per week. The commuter may eat
five or less meals, yet requires the same physical space
and service.123
The hobby center, with machines, workspace,
storage, equipment checkout, and a hobby store is appear—
ing or expanding on several urban campuses. The centers
attract students who have a desire to work with their
hands, make items for sale or for class projects. Open—
ing the facilities tO the entire campus community has
attracted new users to the center. Noonhour mini classes
have been attractive to secretaries or other similar
staff members, along with the students. Some recommen-
dations for the center have included limiting the use
of the facility to the specific university community.
If “outsiders“ wish to use the facilities, special
memberships should be available, fees must be charged—-

first tO maintain the facility and equipment and,

 

vr

123Robert B. Anderson, "Food Must Sell Itself tO
Commuters," College Management, VI, NO. 7 (1971), 38-39.

 

71

secondly, tO ensure proper care for these items. Tools
should be checked out at a central desk, using I.D. or
activity cards. Noisy activity should be separated from
the quiet crafts. The Offering should be broad to keep
the interest up, and encourage development Of skills in
several areas. Storage areas for individual projects
must also be available.124 A place to sell the handi~
crafts also adds tO the attractiveness Of the facility.
New unions are seeing this service as part Of the service

Operation.125 Overall the hobby center is seen as a

major new program area.1264

Outside Of the limited description Of programs
in the previous paragraphs, few articles or studies
are available which specifically look at programming
on the urban commuting campus. Mayer states: "Urban
college unions have problems in programming that must
be overcome if the union is going to have any role in

127

higher education during the next decade." Fryer feels

 

124Roger Gillespie, "BYU Hobby Center: The Long
Road to Success," College Management, VII, NO. 8 (August,
1972), 22-24.

 

125

 

Adams, College Management, p. 27.

126The Bulletin of The Association Of College
Unions--InternatiOnal, XLI, NO. 1 (February, 1973), 10.

 

127Richard E. Mayer, "Change Is Still Possible,"
The Proceedings Of the 48th Annual Conference Of the
Association OfLCOllege Unions--International (1970),
p. 3-3.

 

72

that the union at this point has failed to meet the needs
Of the students primarily in the development Of an appro—
priate environment. She concluded: "We need to con—
tinually develop our sense Of the multitude of needs
Of commuting students."128 Codding sums up the current
situation for the urban union, stating:
As the college union is aligned to meet urban campus
needs, constant consideration will have to be given
tO programming, Operations, budgeting, and planning.
Programming for commuting students and security
appears tO be a key area Of concern for a number Of
urban college unions. The demand on urban college
unions is great; they must cater to many campus needs
as well as be involved with the community. The
recent experiences of some urban unions have not
been pleasant. However, we must accumulate both
the gOOd and the had information, analyze it, and
use it to the best advantage Of all the people
served by college unions on urban campuses. 29
The most recent recommendations on facilities and
programs for the urban commuter campus emerged from a
study by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
The Commission voiced concern that most Of the commuter
colleges and universities were not designed physically
or educationally for the commuter. They felt that the
cafeterias and other food services should be planned
specifically for the commuter. In addition, "The Com-

mission recommends that commuter institutions make

 

128Diene Fryer, "Programming for the Divided Life,"
The Proceedings Of the 47th Annual Conference Of The
Association Of College Unions--International (1970),
pp. 3—5, 3—6.

 

129Codding, The Meaning of Urbanism, p. 5—96.

 

73

available lockers, study and lounge areas, and other
physical facilities designed to meet the special needs
Of commuters, and that scheduling Of educational programs

and activities be undertaken with the commuter in mind."130

Summary

The student union has evolved from its simple
English birth as debating societies into a complex physical
facility and programming agency serving the entire uni—
versity community and in many situations, the larger com~
munity.

During its history, the student unions in the
United States have gone through a series of stages. The
first stage, from 1815—1894, saw debating and its
extension as the major concern. The club stage, from
1895-1918, witnessed the beginning Of programs and phy—
sical structures similar to those found today. The
campus democracy stage, following WOrld war I from 1919—
1929, saw the expansion Of the unions to serve all stu—
dents with co-curricular activities as part of the edu—
cational framework. The recreation stage, from 1930-1946,
found the unions striving to serve the entire college
community with broad programs Of social and cultural
recreation. The educational stage, dating from the

close Of World War II through 1956, saw universities

 

130Carnegie Commission, The Campus, p. 54.

 

74

and unions becoming more concerned with the unions role
in the total educational program. Toward the end Of that

period the credo now used by college unions, The Role Of

 

The College Union, was developed. The personalization
stage, from 1957-1966, found the unions becoming con—
cerned for providing an environment where students had

an Opportunity for personal interaction and self—expres-
sion. The final stage, extending into today's Operations,
has been called the humanization stage. This period finds
students becoming concerned with a personal involvement

in a variety Of issues.

The commuting student and the urban university
which he attends both differ from the dominant stereotype
Of the residential student and his grass—covered campus.
The commuting student, living with his parents well into
adulthood, tends tO develop emotional and social problems
not necessarily common to his resident collegiate counter-
part. Researchers have found significant differences
between commuters and noncommuters in a variety Of areas
including academic adjustment, emotional problems,
financial difficulties, and maturity of goals and
aspirations.

The urban university, slow tO develOp in the
United States, now constitutes a major part Of the higher
education complex. The problems Of the urban institution

reflect the problems Of the city. Costs, diversity Of

75

people to be served, conflicting goals and lack Of tested
answers are all part Of the shared problem. The future
Of both campus and city remain uncertain, but the ever-
increasing urbanization demands answers.

A considerable amount Of research has been con—
ducted in the area Of the student union in general. Four
major studies over the last thirty years have been con—
cerned with the structure and Operation Of union build-
ings. Recently, three authors have undertaken to develop
planning guides for the construction Of student centers.
In areas Of programming, the authors have tended to find
a basic core Of activities: dance, social (nondance),
games, art, craft, hobbies, music, films, discussions,
literary, and personnel. Although the relative desira—
bility Of programs may change, programming itself seems
to remain essentially the same. Research in the general
student union movement is continuing to be conducted by
the Association Of College Unions—-International and
individual campuses.

The urban commuter student union paralleling
the expansion Of the growth Of the urban institutions
Of higher education has not been studied in as great a
detail. The few studies that have been conducted indi-
cate the traditional unions Of the residential campuses
are not adequate to serve the needs Of the commuting stu-

dent. In a recent study, union professionals and others

76

have looked at the needs on the commuting campus, and
while arriving at some recommendations, concluded that
the best use Of their study was tO warn planners Of the
complexity Of an urban facility. Other researchers have
concurred that there were differences in both facilities
and programs but most felt the differences were minimal
and could be overcome by program timing and change Of
emphasis. Reports Of certain programs have appeared
in the literature which indicates changing patterns Of
Operation and activities.

Several authors conclude, however, that the
answers tO the questions relating to urban union pro—
gramming needs and structures still remain unanswered,

and further research in these areas is mandatory.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose Of this chapter is to present the
methods used in conducting the study. The discussion
will include methods used in selecting the sample and
participants; the nature Of research; techniques; the
procedures used to collect the information; and the
method Of developing the data for analysis and inter-

pretation.

The Sample

 

The universities were purposely selected because
they were among those successfully Operating a relatively
new student center and were available for extensive
Observation. The institutions selected for the study

all meet the following criteria:

1. They were located in or near large midwestern

population centers.

2. They primarily served students who commuted

from home.

77

78

3. They primarily served students who resided in

urban areas.

4. They were public institutions under state or

local control.

5. They Offered at least a four—year baccalaureate

degree.
6. They currently were Operating a student union
building and program.

A list Of universities meeting these criteria

was derived from the Education Directory! 1972-1973,
131

 

Higher Education and interviews with student person-
nel staff members and student union administrators
familiar with institutions in this area.

After a tentative list Of universities was
selected, the final choice was made after ascertaining,
by phone call to the director Of the union, the willing-
ness Of the staff, particularly the director, to OOOperate
with research requiring repeated responses to question-
naires and interviews. Six institutions were selected
for this study.

The individuals asked to respond to the question-

naires were all directors Of the student unions or program

 

131U.S., Department of Health, Education, and
welfare, Office Of Education, National Center for Edu—
cational Statistics, Education Directony, 1972-1973,

Hi her Education (washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, I972).

 

79

directors within the unions. The total number Of staff
members responding tO the questionnaires and/or inter—
viewed during on—site visits was twenty-seven. They
included associate deans Of students, directors Of unions,
assistant directors, program directors, directors Of
student organization Offices, food service and bookstore
managers, coordinators, and supervisors. In addition,
several students, both individually and in groups, were

interviewed.

The Research Procedures

 

Two different means Of collecting data were used:
an on-site interview and a series Of three questionnaires.
The directors were first sent questionnaires designed
tO Obtain general information about the union and its
Operation, and their Opinion Of present and future pro-
grams, activities, and structures for the urban student
union. Following their responses, a third questionnaire,
based on replies in the previous ones, was constructed
and returned tO them. This questionnaire, based on the
Delphi Technique developed by Helmer,132 has been used
in similar research. Wayne State University Center for

Urban Studies used this approach to plan future facili-

ties.

 

132Olaf Helmer, Social Technology (New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1966).

 

80

It was stated in their report that,

In a first attempt to compile these forecasts, the
Center will conduct a "Detroit-Delphi," relying on
an adaptation Of the Delphi Technique. . . . Under
this technique an effort is made tO forecast the
future by compiling the judgments Of a select panel
Of "experts." . . . Two or three rounds Of structured
questionnaires will be sent to the panelists, seek-
ing first their predictions Of the possible alter-
native futures in Detroit; then the anonymous replies
tO the first round will be reconsidered and adjusted
in the light Of all the answers given by the
panelists.133

According tO Judd, the Delphi Technique permits
the Obtaining individual views Of all experts without
submerging the individual views Of anyone.134

Some questions were drawn from previous studies
and planning conferences for comparison purposes and tO
aid in arriving at early agreement in the questionnaires.

135 which was based on earlier

Boris Bell's 1965 study,
Operational studies by Edan A. Whiting (1951)136 and

Abel Hesser (1957)137 provided for the format Of the

 

133Wayne State University--Center Of Urban Studies,
Toward a New Style Urban Universiny in a New Detroit
TDetrOit: wayne State University, 19 9 , p. .

134Robert C. Judd, "Delphi Method: Computerized
'Oracle' Accelerates Consensus Formation,” College and
University Business, XIX, NO. 3 (September, 1975), ‘
35-34.

 

 

135Bell, Administration and Operation.

136Whiting, ”Union Operating."

137Hesser, "How DO Unions Operate?"

81

first basic questionnaire (see Appendix B). Conclusions
from two other studies, The Association Of College Unions--
International--Planning the Urban College Union for a

Commuter Campus,138 and Butts'139

 

study Of commuter

 

facilities, were used to form questions in the first
round Of repeated questionnaires (see Appendix C).

A pilot study, consisting Of responses to the
questionnaires by student personnel staff members and
union staff members at a university Operating a large
union, was undertaken to determine that the questions
were clear and would provide answers which would be mean-
ingful to the completion Of the study. Some changes in
the original questions were necessitated by their cri-
ticisms and suggestions.

The questions for the last repeated questionnaire
were drawn from replies tO the basic questionnaire and
the first repeated one (see Appendix D).

The on-site interviews were generally conducted
after the first two questionnaires were returned. It
was felt that the responses previously given served as
a basis for both discussion about programs and facilities

and Observation Of them. All respondents were contacted

 

138Association Of College Unions--International,
Planning the Urban College Union for a Commuter Campus.

139Butts, "DO Commuters Need a Different Union?"

82

by phone prior tO the visits. The interviews and
inspections required between three to ten hours, with
an average Of about four. Three universities were visited
twice during the course Of this study for the purpose Of
additional interview and Observation. The interviews
were tape recorded or hand written notes were taken.
During the on-campus visits a variety Of printed
material was collected tO help develop a more complete
picture Of the structure, organization, Operation, and
programs Of the unions. These materials included con-
stitutions, description Of staff duties, program guides,
committee handbooks, publicity handouts, and similar

printed information.

Procedures for Collection Of the Data

 

The directors for each Of the six unions were
initially contacted by phone to ascertain their willing-
ness tO participate in the study. At that time the
general format Of the study was presented, along with
requirements for their part Of the research. Following
the phone call, the first two questionnaires were for-
warded, along with an initial letter to the directors.

The basic questionnaire consisted Of three parts:

(1) Questions relating to general information on
staff, size and cost of building, program costs,

and organization;

83

(2) Checklist Of facilities now in the building;

(3) A section for the rating of facilities tO be

included in future urban student centers.

The first round Of the repeated questionnaire consisted

Of five questions, three of which were drawn from reports
Of other studies on urban unions. The other two questions
related tO philOSOphical differences and unique needs

for the urban campus. These two questionnaires were for-
warded with the cover letter tO the directors. Generally
the basic questionnaires were returned first with the
repeated questionnaire later. Phone calls were made

after a month to the directors who had not replied.

With the return Of a majority Of the first two
questionnaires, the directors were again contacted by
phone and letter to establish a mutually convenient time
for a visit tO their student unions. The questionnaires
were thoroughly reviewed before the visits to find subject
areas which invited in-person discussion or conversation.
The campuses were all visited during March, April, and
May, 1973.

During the visits, replies from the earlier
questionnaires were discussed, and general interviews
were conducted regarding present and future programs
and facilities. In each case a thorough tour Of the
facilities was made and copies Of printed materials were

collected for later review.

84

The final questionnaire was developed after the
return Of the first two. Data from the basic question-
naire, along with Observations from the visits, formed
the basis for the first question. Three other questions
were drawn from replies tO the first repeated question-
naire. The final questions asked the respondent's Opinion
Of future problem areas. This questionnaire was mailed
for response in four cases. The other two were hand-
carried and completed during the final visits tO the
campuses.

Procedures for the Analysis and
InterpretatiOn Of the Data

 

 

The data regarding the facilities taken from
the basic questionnaire was reported using percentages
(to indicate frequency Of response by the directors) and,
also, for formulation Of additional questions and com-
parison with earlier studies. However, the presentation
Of the findings was basically a descriptive one.

This type Of research "involves the description,
recording, analysis and interpretation Of the present
nature, composition, or process or phenomenon. The focus
is on prevailing conditions, or how a person, group or

"140

thing behaves or functions in the present. However,

 

140John W. Best, Research in Education (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HaIl, Inc., 1959), pi712.

 

85

this study goes beyond the present and as Hillway141

indicates, "It [the descriptive study] can also provide
a means of testing and establishing principles, of com-
paring the past with the present, Of identifying trends,
and thus, Of presenting a sound basis for action."
Descriptive research Often is used as a starting point
and is carried out as a preliminary step, followed by
research using more rigorous control and more Objective
methods.142

With the use of the three questionnaires and
interviewing of several individuals, tentative conclusions
were checked and rechecked as the study progressed.
During the on-site visits, the responses from the first
two questionnaires were reviewed with the staff members
Of each union to help insure more accurate interpretation.
The structure Of the third questionnaire, with open-ended
potential, also allowed the respondents the Opportunity
tO expand on the conclusions tentatively reached.

The data Obtained from the questionnaires, visits,
and printed material were divided into categories which
would facilitate presentation consistent with the purposes

Of the study. Both areas Of agreement and disagreement

 

T

141Tyrus Hillway, Introduction to Research (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1964), p. 210.

142W'alter R. Borg, Educational Regearch on Intro-
duction (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963),

p. 202.

 

86

were presented with direct quotes used to indicate the

positions Of the respondents.

Summary

The study included a determination Of the current
student union programs and facilities Of six midwestern
urban universities and, by questionnaires and interviews,
the procurement of the studied Opinion Of several union
staff members as to the future programs and facilities
required for these similar urban campuses.

The data Obtained were analyzed and interpreted
using a descriptive approach, employing percentages for

purposes Of comparison, where appropriate.

CHAPTER IV

REPORT OF THE FINDINGS

This chapter includes the report Of the findings
as collected by use Of the three questionnaires, visits
to the six campuses, interviews with various staff members
on each campus, and materials (handouts on programs,
printed guides to facilities and programs, and other
descriptive printed literature developed on each campus),
and an interpretation Of the data.

Specifically there was an attempt to:

(1) Identify current facilities available on the

six campuses;

(2) Identify current program Offering on the six

campuses;

(3) Determine any unique aspects in these programs
and facilities, as they relate to an urban com-

muting campus;

(4) Determine the philosophy from which these pro-

grams and facilities developed;

87

88

(5) Ascertain any change in direction Of these

programs and structures.

The data and interpretations will be presented
in this order: background data on the campuses and their
unions; identification Of current facilities; identifi-
cation Of facilities which would be included in a new
building on the campuses; identification Of current pro-
gram Offerings; unique aspects Of programming on the com-
muter campus; philosophical differences between commuter
and other unions; new directions for the urban commuter
campus; possible problem areas.

Background Dnta on the Campuses
and Their Unions

 

 

The six campuses selected for this study all
served urban areas with commuter enrollments ranging
from just over 60 per cent Of the student body tO 100 per
cent. The average on all campuses was over 90 per cent
commuters in the student bodies.

The student centers Of the institutions were
generally constructed from the mid 19605 through 1972.
One university has a building constructed in 1937, but
an addition, valued at five times the original cost, was
constructed in 1965 along with the complete renovation
Of the Old building. Another building has been con-
structed in three stages--in 1956, 1963, and was com-

pleted in 1972 with a massive addition. The other four

89

were completed in 1965, 1967, 1968, and 1971. The total
construction costs for all six structures ran forty-three
million with a range Of twelve million down tO two and
one-half. The cost Of the latter is deceivingly low
considering the facilities available on the campus. A
continuing education building is attached tO the center,
providing additional union type facilities, but not
included in the cost.

The square footage Of the unions range from
60,000 tO 374,000 with an average Of 225,000 square feet
per building. Again, the lower figure is distorted by
the exclusion Of the space in contiguous building with
complementing facilities. The smallest enrollment Of
the six campuses was 11,600 students with the two largest
institutions serving around 34,000 students each. The
average full- and part-time enrollment was approximately
23,000 students.

The buildings were primarily financed by use Of
revenue bonds, with student fees and profits from the
Operations used tO retire the bonds. One institution,
in an unusual situation for a public, state-supported
university, constructed its center with state appropriated
funds. The effect Of the sizable debt payment schedule
is a major consideration in determining the type and
direction Of the programs. The fees paid by current

students range from no charge to $27 per term. Most

90

Of the fees go directly tO meeting the debt, with a

small amount available for programming. NO average
amount for programming could be determined as revenue-
producing events are sometimes included in gross data.
The amounts reported indicated a range Of programming
money Of $85,000 to none for the six unions, but Obser-
vation Of the actual programs indicates differences in
the reporting. A second factor which makes it difficult
to determine programming costs is disagreement as to what

constitutes a program.

Identification Of Current Facilities
By use Of the basic questionnaire, the directors

were asked to indicate which facilities were currently

 

available in their student centers.

 

In the basic questionnaire (see Appendix B)
eighty-two facilities were listed. All six unions
reported having sixteen Of these facilities (see Table 3).

In previous studies related tO facilities Of

143

student unions in the United States, Bell found fifteen

Of these same facilities in over one-half of unions
(lost and found was not listed in his study). Carroll,144

in comparing commuter preference for facilities, found

 

f fv—v—

143Bell, Administration and Operation, p. 38.

144Carroll, Urban Campus College, pp. 49-52.

91

TABLE 3.--Sixteen facilities reported by all six unions

 

All six unions reported having sixteen of the eighty-two
facilities.

 

l. Billiard Room 9. Ticket Office
2. Table Tennis 10. Lost and Found
3. Lounge 11. Cafeteria
4. Small Committee 12. Snack Bar
Rooms 13. Vending Machine Room
5. Meeting Rooms 14. Mail Boxes for Organizations
6. Information Desk 15. Student Government Office
7. Public Phones 16. Union Staff Administrative
8. House Phones and Program Office

 

eleven of the facilities in 75 per cent Of the twenty
commuter unions he surveyed. He did not include in his
study small committee rooms, public and house phones,
mail boxes for organizations, or student government
Offices.

Of the forty-one facilities listed in Tables 3,
4, and 5 as currently available on a majority Of the six
campuses, several are designed primarily for commuter use.
The commuter lounge, dining room, Office space, and
lockers are Obviously for the student residing at home.
Facilities such as storage lockers for organizations,
vending machine areas and the parking areas may also be
Of greater value on the commuter campus. Butts145 indi-

cates in his study that the urban commuter student was

different from his residential counterpart in his desire

 

'TV'

145Butts, "DO Commuters Need a Different Union?"
pp. 1, 4, 5.

92

TABLE 4.--Ten facilities reported by five unions

 

Five Of the six unions (83%) surveyed have the following
ten facilities.

 

l. Ballroom 6. Restaurant-type Dining Room

2. Party Room 7. Banqueting Facility

3. Music Room 8. Storage Lockers for

4. Photo Darkroom Organizations

5. Parking Area 9. Union Board Committee
Office

10. Lounge (Commuter)

 

TABLE 5.--Fifteen facilities reported by four unions

 

A majority (four of the six) or 66.7 per cent Of the union
directors reported having these fifteen facilities in the

 

union.
1. Bowling 9. Private Dining Room
2. Art Gallery 10. Dining Room (Commuter)
3. Poster Room 11. Office Space (Commuter)
4. Auditorium 12. Campus Newspaper Office
5. Television Room 13. IFC Office
6. Coat Room (Unattended) l4. Panhellenic Office
7. Lockers 15. Bookstore

8. Lockers (Commuter)

 

93

for ten Of the facilities listed here. These were book-
store, lounge, cafeteria, parking, music room, meeting
rooms, party room, art gallery, quiet rooms (commuter
lounges), and lockers.
The forty-one facilities are broken down into
nine categories for analization purposes.
Recreation Facilities: Billiard Room
Table Tennis
Bowling
These facilities all have income-producing abili-
ties. Pinball-type machines were also available on some
campuses in the "game" room area. (Pinball-type machines
have perhaps the greatest income capability per square
footage Of space.) (Chess and checker areas have tended
tO be included in other areas such as lounges and were
not listed as separate facilities.
Social Facilities: Ballroom
Party Room
Lounge
Faculty social areas, such as a separate lounge,
have lost popularity. Lounge space on the commuter campus
is very great and tends tO be multi-purpose. The ball-
room also has many functions including banquets, movies,
meetings, dances, skating, and sometimes classes, orien-
tation, and registration activity.
Cultural-Hobby Facilities: Music Room (Listening)
Art Gallery
Photo Darkroom
Poster Room

Auditorium
Television Room

94

There appears to be a growth in the use Of
cultural-hobby facilities. The unions that did not
have the above facilities indicated interest in develop-
ing them, and in some cases were planning renovations
Of the building to enable them to incorporate more
hobby-craft programs. The auditorium in some cases
was a combination theatre-meeting room or ballroom
Operation. Many Of the unions did not have a television
room as such (as may be seen in many residence halls) but
had lounges with television available for use when desired.
Special events (i.e., Wbrld Series, Moon shots, hearings)
require use Of large areas for television. Flexibility
tO expand seating in these areas becomes important.

Meeting Facilities: Small Committee Rooms
Meeting Rooms

The commuter union has a great need for meeting
rooms Of all types. Typically, to meet the demand Of
classes at prime time, few if any class rooms are
available for meetings when students and staff desire
them. Also, fraternity houses, residence halls, etc.,
are not available, even for small committee meetings,
thus, further emphasizing the need for numerous small
meeting rooms. Since luncheon meetings are popular,

meal service is Often needed in these facilities.

95

Service Facilities: Coat Room (Unattended)
Information Desk
Public (pay) phones
House Phones
Ticket Office
Lockers
Parking Area
Lost and Found
Because the union building is the central facility
on most campuses, information desks, phones, lockers,
ticket Office, and lost and found become extremely
important. The parking area near the building is the
very life blood Of the union. It is a must if the com-
muter is to be attracted to the building at the beginning
and end Of each school day. Facilities such as barber
shops, beauty shops, laundry-dry cleaning have little use
on the urban campus.
Food Facilities: Cafeteria
Snack Bar
Restaurant-type Dining Room
Private Dining Room
Vending Machine Room
Banqueting Facility
In the last few years the vending machines have
seen a great growth on commuter campuses. As a money
maker, vending machines have outstanding potential, and
when used tO compliment the other food facilities they
can produce a real savings in the fOOd labor cost area.
The Off-peak hours can be serviced by the machines with
relatively little labor cost, as compared to any other

types Of food facility. The restaurant-type dining

room, while listed in a majority Of the unions, is

96

undergoing a change. Self-service is beginning to be a
requirement due tO increased cost Of labor and the desire
on the part Of students for fast service. One Of the
unions studied has franchised its food service out to
atypical firms (steak houses, pizza parlors, ice cream
shops) in an attempt to meet the demand for fast, efficient
service and still operate a profitable facility. One
union still has a contract with a more typical insti-
tutional fOOd vendor.

The pub, bar, or similar facility while now
located on a few campuses has been slow to develop wide-
spread use, due tO state or local laws. More will be
said about this later in this chapter. The students tend
tO demand great varieties in their food. Ethnic food
services are beginning tO appear.

Commuter Facilities: Lockers

Lounge
Dining Room
Office Space

Commuter facilities as separate rooms have been
over-rated in some studies. Cot rooms, dressing rooms,
showers have not been well received by students. Lounges
(quiet rooms in some reports) are required--lots Of them,
with few rules--so students can eat, sleep, study, play
cards, and talk. A reasonable number Of lockers, par-
ticularly when students travel by public transportation,

are necessary o

97

Organization-Activity Facilities: Mail Boxes for Organi-
zations
Storage Lockers for
Organizations
Campus Newspaper
Office
Union Board Committee
Office
Student Government
Office
IFC Office
Panhellenic Office
Student organization Offices and supporting
facilities are most important for a good activity program
on a commuting campus. Alumni and faculty facilities
on the other hand do not enjoy much favor. The continuous
change in types Of student organizations requires flexi-
bility in assignment and type Of facility available.
Yearbooks have not been "in" in recent years, while
several newspapers or magazines may appeal on the same
campus.
Other Facilities: Bookstore
Union Staff Administrative
and Program Office
The bookstores are much more than just retail
stores. A well-run facility Opens tO the student new
ideas in reading, art, creative activities, and interests.
While there was lack Of agreement as tO how extensive an
Offering the bookstore should have, it is necessary in
the union, as a service, tO attract students tO the
building, and as an income producer.

With some change in staff responsibility, a

concept which will be developed later in the chapter,

98

Office space for staff members is becoming even more
important. Guest rooms as another facility has limited
appeal.

Other facilities currently on these urban campuses
range from bike shops to Office for vice-presidents. The
list Of facilities presented here seems typical Of urban
facilities generally, with local conditions demanding
special variation.

A director summed up the urban union building

with this statement:

The urban campus building is the "community center"
in fact. It is used by more people in less time
than the average resident campus college union.

It needs tO be located near the core Of the campus.
It must be Open with large spaces for dining.
Dining rooms [cafeterias, snack bars, and rath—
skellers (pubs)], vending, tOO, must be larger than
those elsewhere. The campus bookstore must have a
larger variety Of convenience merchandise for sale.
The need for study and meeting rooms is extensive.
Places to rest, sleep, study, talk, should be
available in sufficient numbers. Program space
should be visible to the commuter.

This summary Of the urban campus center indicates
that the urban union is not greatly different from a
residential one, but is perhaps Of more necessity tO the
commuting student. A director expressed the Opinion that:

A commuter student must dO three things--gO to class,
work, and go home. When he or she comes to the union
facility, each wants peace Of mind and an atmosphere
Of freedom. The need for the union on a commuter
campus exceeds that of the resident campus. . . .
There is greater need on the commuter campus for a
quality "home away from home" where you can really
"relax" with your friends, watch people, create,

see many people at one time, yet be alone tO yourself.

99

Facilities Which WOuld Be Included

 

in a New Building on the Campus

 

The respondents were asked tO indicate how

important they felt each Of the eighty-two facilities

listed in the basic questionnaire would be if they were

building a new union on their campus, by using one Of

 

three codes:

(1) (WOuld Be Included)

(2) (Desirable But Not Necessary)

(3) (Would Probably Eliminate)

Nineteen facilities were listed by all six union

directors as necessary (would be included). They were:

 

TABLE 6.--Nineteen necessary facilities reported by all

six unions

 

mummb “NH
o o 0

Lounge
Music Room (Listening)
Small Committee
Meeting Room
Meeting Room
Information Desk
Public Phone
House Phone
Ticket Office
Parking Area
Lost and Found

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.

18.
19.

Cafeteria

Snack Bar

Vending Machine Facility

Pub or Similar Facility

Mail Boxes for Organi-
zations

Storage Lockers for
Organizations

Student Government
Office

Bookstore

Union Staff Administra-
tive and Program Office

 

In looking at differences in the list Of what all

six unions currently have and what the directors felt

necessary, it is worthwhile to note a slightly lower

100

interest in game activity (billiards, table tennis) and a
greater interest in having a music room, parking area,
pub or similar facility, bookstore, and storage lockers
for organization. The limiting factor for the pub or
similar facility was local or state regulations pro-
hibiting the use Of alcoholic beverages on state property.
Parking, Of course, is a major concern for any commuter
campus. The bookstore was left out on some campuses due
tO lack Of space or need for previous allocated bookstore
space for other uses.

Five Of the six union directors (83%) agreed

that the following fourteen facilities would be included:

TABLE 7.--Fourteen facilities reported by five unions

 

l. Billiard Room 8. Restaurant-type Dining Room
2. Table Tennis 9. Private Dining Room

3. Art Gallery 10. Banqueting Facilities

4. Photo Darkroom 11. Lockers (Commuter)

5. Auditorium . 12. Lounge (Commuter)

6. Television Room 13. Union Board Committee Office
7. Lockers 14. International Student Office

 

The following (page 101) fourteen facilities were
listed as necessary by four Of the six (66.7%) directors.

The twenty-eight types Of facilities listed by a
majority Of the directors, but not included in the
unanimous list, may be categorized into: recreation and

hobby facilities (bowling, craft shop, billiards, photo

101

TABLE 8.--Fourteen necessary facilities reported by four

 

unions
1. Bowling 8. Coat Room (Unattended)
2. Ballroom 9. Dining Room (Commuter)
3. Party Room 10. IFC Office
4. Music Room (Practice) 11. Panhellenic Office
5. Corridor Art Cases 12. Office (Commuter)
6. Poster Room 13. General WOrk Room
7. Craft Shop 14. Campus Newspaper Office

 

darkroom, table tennis); commuter specialty areas (lounge,
Office, lockers, dining); and student group Offices (IFC,
Panhellenic, campus newspaper, union board committees,
international students).

Included in the determination Of what facilities
the directors would have, if they were building a new
structure on their campus, is the converse--what facili-
ties would probably be eliminated. All six agreed the
laundry-dry cleaning would be eliminated.

Nonstudent facilities (faculty lounges, alumni
lounges) and certain types Of business (barber shop,
beauty shop, coffee shop, and laundry-dry cleaners) were
not considered necessary on any Of the six campuses
polled. The kitchenette as a self-service fOOd facility
is against health regulations in many areas; hence, its

use has declined. The other facilities listed have had

102
146

limited popularity in the past, and are now not con-

sidered desirable even if they could be afforded.

TABLE 9.--Facilities not included

 

Five union directors would not include these four facili-
ties.

 

Alumni Lounge

Western Union

Beauty Shop

Kitchenette (Self-service as a Food Facility)

kWNH

 

A majority would also exclude these eight facilities.

 

Floor Shuffleboard
Faculty Lounge
Rehearsal Theatre
Faculty Lounge (Organi-
zation Activity)

Barber Shop
Individual Mail Boxes
Coffee Shop
Ice Skating

bWNH

(Jo-Jam

 

The differences between the list Of current facili-
ties and those which will be required is not tOO great.
This is not really surprising, considering that all Of
the six unions have been built or remodeled in the last
few years. There are some slight changes in facilities
that bear closer Observation. (A repeat Of this type
Of survey in a year or so would be Of value in actually
determining any trends.) The facilities listed by

category are:

 

146Bell, Administration and operation, PP- 102’35'

 

103

Recreation Facilities: Billiard Room
Table Tennis
Bowling

All Of these facilities can be located in the same area
and supervised by one or two individuals, with both low
overhead and high demand, these facilities promise to
be assets in maintaining a profit to meet budgetary needs.
One union converted an area designed for a bookstore tO
accommodate these recreation facilities.

Social Facilities: Ballroom

Lounge
Party Room

The ballroom remains the multi-purpose facility
in many unions. The uses, if service facilities are
available, are many--fOOd, recreational, educational--
day, night, and weekend programs. The lounges are the
major required facilities for the commuter. They become
the true "living room" for the students-va place to sleep,
eat, talk, study, date--it's the dorm room, dining room,
fraternity house all rolled into one. The party rooms
are not as important as in the past. Lounge facilities
are replacing these areas for some functions. The use
Of alcoholic beverages in unions, but under management
control, has perhaps also lessened the demand for this
type Of facility. Faculty lounges are not seen as
necessary facilities. Planning committees for student
unions have viewed separate facilities for special groups,

who do not pay the union fee, as foreign to the union

philosophy.

104

Cultural-Hobby Facilities: Auditorium
Corridor Art Cases
Music Room (Practice)
Music Room (Listening)
Art Gallery
Photo Darkroom
Poster Room
Craft Shop
Television Room

Facilities which provide for certain cultural-
hObby activities appear to be growing in number and more
importantly, in size and range of Offerings. The craft
shops have particularly gained support, with a wide range
Of activity. Mini classes Of all types Of creative skills
are seen as important, not just for students, but for the
entire community, both on and Off campus. Connected with
this type Of facility is a need for a sales outlet.

The art gallery, while considered most important
in a good student center, can be a major problem. The
need for security to protect art works from theft and
vandalism has caused some unions to close or restrict
the Operation Of the gallery. The cost Of maintaining
guards is just tOO great. Where this problem has been
overcome, the art gallery stands as a necessary facility.
One union found a faculty wives club interested in main-
taining the necessary "guards" for a small fee. The
nominal amount charged the union by the women was

returned to the university in the form Of scholarships

for art students.

105

Poster rooms have and will continue to expand
into full service reproduction or duplication facilities.
This is seen as important, not only as a service and tO
enhance publicity within the union, but also as a source
Of income. The television rooms Of yesterday are now
just becoming lounges, with flexible arrangements to
accommodate large numbers Of students during special
television events.

Other facilities which would traditionally be
considered as culturally related in the union, such as
theatre, rehearsal theatre, and music practice rooms,
are perhaps necessary or at least desirable on a campus.
It was reported that the practice rooms are included in
some unions because the ones in the academic buildings
Often clOSe early. The theatre facility need not be
included in the union building, and in fact, are more
closely related tO the academic buildings. The auditorium
is Often seen as very desirable for the union, but the
cost factor has prohibited its inclusion in some unions.

Meeting Facilities: Small Committee Rooms
Meeting Rooms

With the growing number of interest groups and
organizations, the need for all sizes Of meeting rooms
will continue to grow. Commuter campuses, as previously
mentioned, tend to have classes and activities during
the same general time period. The time from 9:00 A.M.

tO 3:00 P.M. also includes the lunch schedule, causing

106

most all rooms on the typical commuter campus to be in
use. The need or at least the desire to have meal service
in these rooms will continue as a concern for planners.

Service Facilities: Information Desk

Public (pay) Phones
House Phones

Ticket Office

Lockers

Parking Area

Lost and Found

Coat Room (Unattended)

The service facilities required on the commuter
campus may not be appreciably different from other cam-
puses. But since the union may be the only building on
campus with these facilities, they take on a new importance.
A postal facility may also be required, depending on the
availability Of city postal services. If the university
is not conveniently near a post Office, the volume Of
mail can justify the use Of the space. A self-service
post Office can on most campuses satisfy the student needs,
although a full-service facility with federal employees
is possible to attain.

Service facilities such as barber shops and
beauty shops hold little potential, both for service and
income. The students are not using these facilities to
as great an extent as in the past.

The parking area, near or in many cases under

the union, is a must, if the union is to attract the

volume Of students before and after the peak periods.

107

Community business--meetings, conferences, dining, etc.--
will not grow unless convenient parking is provided.
Coat rooms, standard facilities in the past, may
well be phased out and replaced with portable facilities,
set up for specific events.
Food Facilities: Cafeteria
Snack Bar
Restaurant-type Dining Room
Private Dining Room
Vending Machine Room
Banqueting
Pub or Similar Facility
Of all the traditional facilities Offered in the
union, the whole area Of food facilities may change the
most. The urban union, unlike many residence campus
unions, does not have a fixed base Of residence hall
students to feed on a meal plan. In addition to this
lack Of base, the major meal time is noon--five days a
week. The volume at noon tends to require all available
space. Ballrooms, lounges, and other nonfOOd services
areas are Often pressed into service. The future is apt
to see growth Of fast-service Operations--snack bars,
cafeterias, stand-up counters. (Next year a MacDonalds
Restaurant may be Opened in one Of the unions studied.)
Vending machines with an even greater variety
Of Offerings will continue tO be the salvation for the
food Operations on many campuses. Service is provided

to the university community at Off-hours, with little

labor cost.

108

With the change in drinking laws to allow eighteen-
year-Olds the right to drink, there will be an even greater
drive to Obtain union facilities Offering beer, wine, and
other beverages. Where this has been allowed both business
and profits have grown. Programming possibilities--
movies, singing, wine tasting, etc., are also emerging.

The restaurant-type dining, while not as popular
as in the past, may well return with alcoholic beverages
being allowed. The desire for night and weekend business
is also causing the managers tO consider restaurants
which will attract the public. Varieties Of gOOd food
with entertainment may become standard in unions which
try to serve the community during the Off-peak time.

The unions which are interested in serving the
community by being available for conferences and meetings
will also be required tO provide banquet facilities that
can compete with other businesses in the city.

Commuter Facilities: Lockers

Lounge
Dining Room
Office

The facilities particularly identified for com-
muter use were not frequently separate facilities but
simply the general facilities used by all members Of the
educational community. The lockers provided include
those rented for a term and those available on a day-to-

day basis. Lounges Often become identified through usage

as "belonging" to certain groups. This was voiced as a

109

concern on several campuses but nO real attempt has been
made to discourage this practice. On one campus a lunch
room was specifically designated for commuters bringing
their lunch. Vending machines were available in the room
tO supplement the "brown bag" lunches.

Organization-Activity

Facilities: Mail Boxes for Organizations
Storage Lockers for Organi-
zations

Campus Newspaper Office

Union Board Committee Office

Student Government Office

IFC Office

Panhellenic Office

International Student

Office

General WOrk Room

Communication with student organizations is

extremely important to the success Of activities in the
union and on campus generally. Mailboxes for these
organizations located in a central area serves as the
main source Of contact. Storage lockers for smaller
organizations and Office space for the larger groups is
in great demand. Relatively few student Office spaces
were provided on a permanent basis but temporary allo-
cation Of space was extremely common. A proliferation
Of student organizations will cause further demand for
this type Of facility. The directors felt that the
centralization Of these Offices in the union contributed
greatly tO the success Of the union programs. In

addition, union staff members were more readily available

to assist the nonunion groups.

Other Facilities:

110

Bookstore

Union Staff and Administra-
tive Program Office

The bOOkstore as mentioned earlier is seen as an

extremely important facility to be located in the union.

Although frequently there is pressure from Off campus

retail outlets to curtail the union bookstore Offerings,

a facility with a wide variety of supplies is a most

desirable feature.

The union staff administrative and

program Offices will be in greater demand with the

apparent increase staff role in programming.

Finally, in looking at facilities, the respondents

were asked the following in the last questionnaire:

In previous questionnaires, a majority Of the
directors indicated the following facilities are
necessary for an urban student center:
Information Desk Pub or Similar

Billiard Room

Table Tennis

Ballroom

Lounge

Music Room

Art Gallery

Photo Darkroom

Poster Room

Craft Shop
Small Committee
Room

Meeting Rooms

Pay Phones
House Phones
Ticket Office
Lockers
Parking
Lost and Found
Cafeteria
Snack Bar
Vending Machine
Room
Banqueting
Facility

Facility

Commuter Lockers

Commuter Lounge
Facility

Mail Boxes for
Organizations
Storage Lockers

Union Board Com-
mittee Office
International Stu-
dent Office
Student Government
Office

Book Store

Union Staff and
Administrative
Program Office

What other facilities wouldyyou include and why?

The thirty—two facilities listed above were drawn

from the first two questionnaires, with some adjustment

in the list suggested from visits to the campuses. In

111

the first questionnaire, the directors were asked to
indicate which Of the list of eighty-two facilities they

would include in a new union on their campus. This list

 

broadens the scope tO "An Urban Student Center." In com-
paring the list Of what either five or six Of the union
directors agreed on, the auditorium, television room,
restaurant-type dining room, and private dining room
were eliminated.

In Observing the unions and discussing the facili-
ties with the staff members at these unions, there was a
feeling on the part Of many that the auditorium, while
required on a campus, need not be part Of a union. The
restaurant-type dining room is giving way to "self-ser-
vice" facilities with less waiter-type service. The
television room and private dining rooms tend to be
included under lounge facilities and banqueting or meet-
ing rooms, respectively.

Added tO the list Of desired facilities for their
campus (as reported by the directors) was pub or similar
facility, craft shop, and ballroom. These facilities had
not been listed in the previous "necessary" list, as
they were not needed for their particular campus but
would be generally necessary on an urban commuting campus.

The directors responded as follows to the list

Of thirty-two facilities. One director stated:

112

In reviewing the facilities I had indicated were
necessary but were not so indicated by a majority
of the other directors, I realize that most Of the
items were ones I considered necessary to my exist-
ing situation and would not be necessary in all cases.

I would, however, feel strongly about the
inclusion Of more student Offices than were mentioned
by the majority since the inclusion Of literally all
the student Offices greatly enhances the interaction
Of students and the image Of the union as the hub Of
activity.

I also feel that a commuter union plays a vital
rOle in information dissemination and that corridor
display cases and glassed-in bulletin boards are
necessary tO this function.

we also feel our bowling alleys Offer unique
Opportunities tO relate tO the total recreation pro-
gram, the physical education department, intramurals,
staff and faculty, as well as providing program
opportunities with coed leagues, etc., and are an
important asset to the building.

Another director listed other facilities he would
include:

The first five items listed [below] are more neces-
sary than items six through eight. The last three
are nice extras if a budget permits and the facility
is large enough to need them and tO be able to
accommodate them.

(1) An evening dining/night club establishment
for those who prefer to dine or drink in a more
sophisticated atmosphere than a cafeteria or snack
bar (this sort Of establishment draws professors and
staff as well as community members).

(2) A main desk which sells cigarettes, candy
and gum, popcorn, cough.drops, magazines, hostess
cupcakes, etc., and other convenience items.

(3) A public address system for paging union
staff and private individuals in case Of emergency.

(4) An outing area, tO handle bicycle rental,
hosteling, skiing and sailing needs.

(5) Student Organizations Offices--if the Offices
are right in the union, student organizations members
Often lend their involvement Of union activities
and the union staff becomes more attuned to the
needs Of these different groups.

(6) A reservations and catering area for handling
union room reservations and food orders.

(7) A health fOOd store.

(8) An ice cream shop.

113

The other directors indicated one or more Of the
following: more student organization Offices, bowling
lanes, student activity Offices, post Office, pinball
machines, and the Dean Of Students Office.

In the first repeated questionnaire, the directors
saw little differences between facilities on a commuter
and noncommuter campus. One director felt:

The differences in facilities between a commuter
campus union and its residential counterpart are few,
or should be few. Both unions must have facilities
which meet the educational, recreational, social and
cultural requirements Of its populace. A commuter
campus union may have more lounge space and addi-
tional daytime food serving areas but other facili-
ties should compare.

Another said:

A good union building is a good union building any-
where. However, as I have stated, facilities for
food, activities, recreation and the bookstore should
be quite large and provide efficient and exceptional
service. We must be prepared tO serve large numbers
Of persons in a shorter time than on the resident
campus. This means we must build giant buildings
even though they will sit empty during evenings and
on weekends.

A third supported this statement, saying:

I believe there can, probably should, be a consis-
tency in philosophy and at the basic level there is
certainly a consistency in the needs Of a university
community and its constituents. This would imply a
degree, at least, Of consistency in the facility to
meet these needs. I suspect one Of the main dif-
ferences would be in terms Of the relative proportion
Of the facility given to various functions in relation
tO ready availability Of those same facilities else-
where On campus. For example, the student on a small
residential campus would tend tO be able to return

to his residence hall for a number Of the facilities
that a commuter union would need tO furnish for its
students.

114

Most Of the facilities covered in this section
are used directly for programs or for service. Several
other aspects not covered by this study should, Of course,
be considered when planning, constructing, or remodeling
a union building. Adequate storage for supplies and
furniture is extremely important on the urban campus.
With the use Of various facilities for a variety Of
programs it is necessary to have both nearby and adequate
storage. For example, a ballroom may also be used as a
meeting place and as a cafeteria. Similarly, if the
furniture can be removed from a lounge, its service for
other purposes can be greatly enhanced.

A second factor tO be considered is the type Of
furniture used to equip the facilities. The urban com-
muter union with the demand for flexibility must use
easily movable and stackable chairs. However, this also
creates a problem of security. The urban unions with
their high volume Of students, long hours Of use, and
Openness to the community must be prepared to deal with
both theft and vandalism. The use Of informal eating
areas in carpeted rooms has been one answer to the problem.
Built-in seating, while limiting flexibility, has also
been part Of the answer to theft. This has been pri-
marily used in lounges, corridors, and Open areas.

Other considerations relating to facilities

includes an adequate and flexible electrical system.

115

Musical programs, art exhibits, and craft shows fre-
quently require a variety of lighting and sound systems.
One institution, looking toward the future, has built-in
closed circuit TV capacity for all rooms. They anticipate
its use for communications, programs, and security.

A final consideration, while a concern to all
unions, is particularly important in the high-use urban
buildings. This area usually categorized as maintenance
concerns everything from daily routine cleaning through
major repairs and replacements. When a union serves
thousands Of students during a short period Of time and
yet uses its same facilities for programs throughout the
day, ease and speed Of maintenance is Of primary concern.

Identification Of Current Program
Offerings

 

 

In the first repeated questionnaire, the respondents
were asked:

What programs have you developed or are you planning
to develop which serve unique needs for the urban
campus?

One director replied:
There are not necessarily types of programs which
serve unique needs Of an urban campus. The volume
and the manner Of programming is more important
tO the commuter [union].

This statement set the tone for most Of the lists

Of programs. The following are excerpts indicating

current types Of activities:

116

This union has develOped and implemented programs
which are Of an ongoing nature, rather than one-shot.
Because Of the need for a great volume Of activities
the emphasis is made on series and continuing pro-
grams. Some examples Of this are the nightly enter-
tainment programs in its restaurant and cocktail
lounge; a free series Of films weekly in its beer
bar; a six-day film program; an ongoing weekly
noontime concert series and others.

Another director stated:

we find success with films, concerts, art exhibits,
handicrafts, photography, Open dialogues, co-
recreation in the ballroom (basketball, roller
skating, etc.), coffee house (entertainment), and
good speakers.

a third expressed the view that:

Outdoor programs are popular when weather permits.
These can be Of the entertainment or recreation type.
Outdoor rock concerts are extremely pOpular--more
than indoor Of the same type.

The deliniation between facilities and programs

is not always so clear, but the combination has, in the

minds Of the directors, some unique characteristics for

the

commuter. One director explained:

Due to the significant percentage Of our students
who are commuters, we have created particular pro-
grams and facilities tO meet their needs. Examples
include brown bag lunch rooms, more study areas than
a residential campus would necessitate, noontime
lobby programming, special commuter forums, staying
Open twenty-four hours during exam week for the
commuter who stays here all night, etc.

The above quote introduces the major differences

of timing as a factor in programming. Another director

in responding also saw little difference in types Of

programs but rather in their placement during the day:

117

The emphasis on programs is placed on daytime
events rather than evening programs. The type Of
program is not significantly different than on a
residential campus. . . . Students tend tO arrive
on campus early and are eager to have space and
facilities available. Students remain on campus
until [the] class day is finished and tend to leave
as soon as possible tO avoid rush hour city travel
or tO go tO work (generally in the area where they
live).

Our programs are designed to be scheduled when
the greatest number Of students are on campus
(11:00 A.M. until 3:00 P.M.). Few programs are
held in the evenings with exception Of dances,
concerts (major) and films.

We should be open between 7:00 A.M. until
1:00 A.M. Friday and Saturday and 12:00 noon until
10:00 P.M. on Sunday. Better yet, each campus is
different. If students need the building earlier
or later than the hours indicated above, then keep
the building Open. The cost is minimal but the
rewards are great.

In early discussion there were some differences
among the union staff members as to the advisability Of
presenting programs in the evening and on weekends. One
union has tried, and to a significant degree succeeded,
with evening and weekend programming. The director said:

Many people might feel that a concentration Of pro-
grams, services and activities at a commuter campus
union should be focused during the day because that
is when there is the largest usership. The large
concentration, however, should occur during the
evening and weekend hours so that it will force more
peOple tO come to the union then. A commuter campus
union must strive tO meet its philosophical goals
seven days a week, during all its Open hours.

Another indicated, however, that:
The commuter student must be served while he or she

is on campus. They won't come back in the evening
(majority) and should not be expected to.

118

In the last round Of questionnaires, the directors
were asked to agree or disagree with a question relating
to the timing Of programs, particularly weekends and
nights. The majority felt this extended programming
was indeed desirable, but difficult. One director
expressed it this way:

. . . Because students have this choice, the commuter
campus union must strive harder, especially on even-
ings and weekends when a large percentage Of its
patrons would not ordinarily be on campus, tO force
them tO make the choice to remain on campus or return
to campus. It must Offer unique, dynamic and
diversified programs and services tO meet and beat
the competition Of the easily accessible world out-
side the campus. Essentially, the commuter campus

- union must have more appeal than the resident campus
union in order to flourish. In return for the
greater amount Of effort put forth to insure its
success, it [the union] Offers the satisfaction Of
being a healthy and productive place where students
want tO go, not by necessity, but by choice.

Another director also emphasizes this:

I think the key to developing Off-peak hour use is
tO be responsive to the need rather than tO be
forcing. A recognition Of the differences in need
between peak daytime users and evening or weekend
users is important. It is necessary to program and
promote the building, services, and activities

at all times; however, there must be some feel for
your clientele at all times and a compatibility Of
philosophies between the union and the university.

The directors all felt most programs were similar,
both on commuting and noncommuting campuses. The dif-
ferences in timing were most important. The greatest
number Of students will require mid-day programs, but

the night and weekend planning must be considered.

119

The use Of student program boards varied greatly
from union tO union. NO one pattern Of operation could
be ascertained. The majority Of the unions Offered the
following programs: lectures, debates, forum, tournaments
(games--tab1e tennis, chess, billiards, etc.), dances,
movies (mid-day, weekends, and evenings), various music
programs, craft instruction, noncredit classes (leather
work, silk screening, photography, weaving, etc.), and
regular programs consistent with facilities (bowling,
billiards, art shows, etc.).

The programs themselves were not greatly different
from traditional residential unions. The unique aspects
Of programming will be discussed in the next section.

Based on other surveys,147 it was anticipated
that union policy boards and program boards with com-
mittees would play a prominant role in the Operation
and programming Of the college unions. However, the
replies from the six union directors indicated a variety
Of structures. Two Of the campuses had one central body
responsible for all aspects Of the student union. A
third indicated the student government of the campus
had overall policy control with programming primarily
a staff responsibility. Student volunteers participated

periodically but no program board as such was established.

 

fifi —v—r v v *-

147Bell, Administnation and Operation; Whiting,
"Union Operating and Use Policiesf; Hesser, "How DO
Unions Operate?"

 

120

Two other unions followed a more traditional two-board
pattern with the various segments Of the university com-
munity represented. Both unions included students,
faculty members, alumni, staff, and community represen-
tatives on the policy boards. The program boards were
composed Of students and union staff members.

Of the four unions that used the board structure,
in all cases the nonstudent members were appointed by the
chief administrative Officer Of the university or the
faculty governing group. The majority Of the student
members on all boards were appointed or elected by the
outgoing board. NO campus-wide elections were used tO
select members. In all cases applicants were interviewed
by students and staff prior to their appointment or
election.

One Of the unions studied did not program through
its staff or student boards, but relied on the Office of
student affairs, student groups, and religious organi-
zations for activities. This union chose this path for
several reasons. First, the student affairs Office
Operated with a philosophy of providing only facilities
and services in the union. The building was built with
state funds and, thus, did not appear tO have the financial
press the other five unions had. Lastly, the upper two
floors Of the union were uSed by religious groups for

programs, services, and general activities. These three

121

considerations promoted the concept Of no union board

or staff programming and appears to be quite the unusual
situation. One staff member at that institution felt
the university should be more aggressive in planning for
the physical facilities within the university for better
service for the commuter students.

Unique Aspects Of Programming on
the Commuter Campu§_

 

 

In looking for unique qualities in programming,
several areas were identified. One Of those is the
question Of visibility. On many residential campuses
publicity far in advance Of an event is common. On com-
muter campuses there appears tO be a greater response tO
spontaneous participation; hence, visibility becomes
important. Most directors spoke to this aspect. One
director indicated:

we hold as many programs as possible in open space
where they can be seen. Therefore, we bring the
program tO the students rather than the student

tO the program.

Another union makes considerable use Of the main
lounge for programs, and student organizations use
corridor space daily for activities. The director Of
that union sums up the description Of their programming
with, "The programs must be visible.” This is not tO say

that publicity, planning, and continuous development of

programs are unnecessary.

122

Urban commuter unions must continually strive tO
find effective means Of communicating with the university
community. One institution effectively uses a slide
presentation with the activities of the day projected
on a large screen just inside the main entrance Of the
union. The sixty slides are shown continuously through-
out the day and are changed with the completion Of each
program. Several Of the campuses make considerable use
Of daily ads in the student newspaper. In addition, two
unions published their own newspaper on an irregular
basis throughout the year.

One major question emerging in union circles is
the role Of the staff in programming. The urban unions
have perhaps a unique problem.

The proceedings from the Conference on Planning
the Urban College Union for a Commuter Campus (held
February, 1967, in New York)148 states:

Commuter students seem to be more interested

in talking with each other rather than attending

a planned program. If they do attend a function,

it appears that attending is as far as they will go;
they very rarely are interested in planning the
event.

If the time demands on commuter students con-
tinues, there may be a movement towards staff-run
programs rather than student-run programs. This
tendency may require an elaboration Of staff

Office and planning space (and less area for stu-
dent planning committees).

 

148Association Of College Unions, Planning the
Urban College Union for a Commuter Campus, p. 1.

123

The directors were asked to agree or disagree
with the above statement. Excerpts from their replies
indicate much agreement with the statement. One director
felt:

It is difficult tO find a commuter student willing

tO plan. Programs should be spontaneous and with
little planning, except content. Staff must take a
super active role in planning. However, a sensitive,
active, aggressive and intelligent staff can motivate
students tO serve in leadership roles. Once com-
mitted, the commuter student becomes as good or
better a leader than one from the resident campus.

Another expressed the Opinion that:

There does appear tO be a trend toward staff-run
programs which requires more staff Office space and
planning areas. The trend developed for two reasons,
one which was mentioned in the above statement.

It does seem that commuter students are less
willing to plan events at unions on a voluntary
basis. There is little volunteerism among students
at a commuter campus union--the reasons for it are
many.

The second factor which has influenced the trend
toward staff programming is the need for a high volume
Of activities at a commuter campus union. In order
tO achieve philosophical and financial goals, the
commuter campus union has been forced to bring more
people into its facility--particularly during tra-
ditional low usage periods. One way to increase
union building traffic is to hold more activities
which can bring more people there. On many commuter
campuses students have not been able to produce the
volume Of programs needed to accomplish higher
traffic. The staff has had tO, first, complement
student programs with its own, and later take on
the burden Of doing the majority Of the programming
at a commuter campus union.

A third director reports that:

Generalizing is always dangerous, but tO again
do so, I feel that in general there has been, over
the last decade, an over emphasis or at least mis-
understanding Of the role Of staff in student-run
programming. Perhaps the problem is really in a
lack Of understanding about how one initiates a

124

student-run program. In any case, the manifestation
Of what I'm concerned about is the staff person who
reports that there has been very little programming
taking place in their area Of responsibility but
that, as we all know, successful programming must
originate with the students. The staff member goes
on tO report that he has been diligently waiting in
his Office all quarter for the students tO come in
with some ideas but they just don't seem tO want

tO dO anything.

I suggest that in situations like this we ask
ourselves where we expect the students to get their
ideas. If nothing much has happened in the past and
nothing much is happening now, it just might be that
students are figuring that's the way it is/has to be/
should be. If we feel there is educational (in the
broad sense Of the word) value tO programs (and that's
an important IF) then while the goal should always
be to have the students assume as much responsibility
as possible, it needs tO be more widely recognized
that staff may well need tO lead the way to get
things started. TO charges that staff does not know
what students really want, I simply respond that they
should. They should because: (1) their experience
should give them some ideas; (2) their professional
training should have equipped them with.means to
determine, by both standard and unobstructive measures,
what student needs and desires are; (3) they should be.
able to do some quick trial-and-error programming tO
check out their conclusions from #1 and #2 and get
on the right track quickly if they were not in the
first place.

‘A director commented on the "education" benefits

Of some Of the activities Often given students. He
states:

I strongly agree with the need to keep planning time

to a minimum.and see this as an important staff

function. I believe that tOO Often we have had stu-

dents stuffing envelopes and folding flyers for some

supposed educational benefit which never existed.

A statement by one Of the directors summed up,

to a degree, what the others were saying. He felt:

125

The majority Of commuter students are interested in
talking with each other rather than being actively
involved in program planning. Students will attend
functions, other than social, if the program content
is timely. we have Observed a continuing trend Of
increased participation by students in planning and
executing daytime events. Staff involvement and
planning is very important in order to minimize the
amount Of time necessary for planning. There is a
critical need for the staff resource person to
coordinate and direct interested students in a time-
saving direction tO reduce red tape and bureaucratic
procedures. Staff and space to conduct a variety

Of programs virtually simultaneously is extremely
important. Commuter students are interested in
participating in planning single events or programs
rather than series types and are not particularly
interested in long-term commitment.

This statement because it appeared tO represent
an accurate description Of the situation on many urban
campuses, was used in the last questionnaire tO get the
reaction Of the directors to this concept. There was
general agreement with most Of the statement, except
the last idea. Most felt all students tend to share
that lack Of commitment--commuter students are no dif-
ferent. One person stated:

I think the lack Of interest in long-term commitment
is not a commuter student characteristic but is
reflective Of the general student population. Relate
it to the pervading existential philosophy or what-
ever, but it's there in all segments Of campus.

One indication Of the extent and effect Of staff
programming became quite evident during the on-site visits.
The unions with a great variety of programs tended tO
have the larger professional staff. The institution with

no programming conducted by the union had only two pro-

fessional staff members. A second union with limited

126

programs and no policy or program board had only three
staff members. At the other extreme, the two unions
Offering the most programs and services had an average
Of twenty professional staff members each. The duties
Of the staff members and their titles varied greatly
from campus to campus (see Appendix E).

Another area Of programming which, if not unique
to the urban campus, certainly is more Of a cause Of con-
cern than on the more rural, residential institution.
That area has become known as community programming. A
considerable amount Of staff time on several Of the
campuses is being directed toward the nonuniversity com-
munity. One director expressed the view that:

. . . It is not the program itself but certain adap-
tations or modifications Of it which help to meet the
unique needs of the urban campus. For instance, a
crafts program is not uniquely urban in nature, but
the fact that we make it Open to community members
thereby encouraging their involvement in nonthreaten-
ing university activity and the fact that we utilize
numerous instructors frOm shops in the surrounding
area are unique modifications.

The challenge is tO produce quality programs
relevant to both communities, on and Off campus. Four
Of the campuses now plan much greater development Of
broader services to the community.

The unions have in the past cooperated with
certain types Of Off-campus groups--government agencies,

established organizations, and alumni organizations--but

the new urban union is looking tO assist in the

127

development of programs for the people living in the area
Of the university. This Often means people from lower
income areas who have less education than the average.
The traditional programs, with assumed acceptance, is
being challenged. New programs, methods, and staff are
called for tO meet these demands.

Philosophical Differences Between
Commuter andIOther Unions

 

 

During the early discussions with the directors
and in the first round Of questionnaires, there was an
attempt tO discover any differences in philosophy between
an urban commuter campus union and others. The directors
did not see any real differences between the philosophies
Of the two types Of unions. One respondent wrote:

My reaction is that there are, or should be, few
differences in philOSOphy. The implementation may
well be varied, but the philosophy under which we
Operate would, it seems tO me, be as valid in one
kind of union as another. . . .

The university community on an urban campus has
different needs than the community on a rural campus
and this will necessitate different means, programs,
and delivery systems to carry out the same philosophy.

The timing factor was cited as the major differences
in philosophy by all the directors. One stated:

The major difference in philosophy comes through
needing tO provide programs, events and facilities
during the day rather than evenings. Major social
events involving the entire campus community are
not well received and for the most part not heavily
attended. There is more emphasis placed on special
interest events for diverse groups Of students.

128

In an attempt tO reach agreement on the questions
Of philosophical differences between commuter and other
unions, a statement from the previous questionnaire was
returned to the directors, asking if they agreed with it.
If they did not, they were to indicate why. The statement
was:

There are no differences in philosophy between
an urban commuter campus union and other unions; the
only difference is in the means whereby the two
unions achieve this philosophy. The philosophy is
to bring people together in a common environment and
the people within it. Urban commuter campuses and
their unions must approach the philosophy from a dif-
ferent viewpoint than their residential counterparts.
It is true that a commuter campus union may reach
its philosophical goals during the day when it has
a large usership within its confines. However, it
must strive to reach these goals during the evening
hours and on weekends. The commuter campus union
must create an environment which forces its usership
to make a decision to come tO the union. It is
necessary for a commuter campus union to promote
and program its building, services and activities
so that people will be brought together.

All of the respondents agreed with the statement
(most did not like the word "force"). Many saw the
philosophy Of their union consistent with the stated
role Of the union as develOped by the Association Of
College Unions--International (see page 21 for text).
All six Of the unions studied belong to the association.
What differences in approach the urban union may take was
well defined by one director. He stated:
A union is what you make it. It can Offer the
minimmm necessities--food and a place tO relax and
socialize--or it can strive tO Offer many diversified

programs, activities and facilities to many people.
If it is the first kind Of union, it can probably

129

survive on a residence campus because of the con-
venience of its location; if it is the latter, it

can provide a strong unifying force, a warm, personal,
exciting "home away from home“ for commuter students
who might otherwise come to campus five minutes before
their first class and go home immediately after their
last class, without a place to rest, relax and learn
in between.

I do not think the philOSOphy differs significantly
between a commuter campus union and a residence campus
union, but the approach to the philosophy must be sig-
nificantly different if the commuter union is to
succeed. The commuter campus union must work much
harder to “sell itself" to its students, since they
have more Of a choice Of whether they wish to eat,
relax and be entertained at the union or elsewhere.

On a residence campus students are almost "confined"
to the union as a social outlet, having nowhere else
to gO except their dorm or nearby apartment. On a
commuter campus, the majority of students have cars
and, therefore, much.more Of a choice Of where tO
spend their time.

Although there was agreement that there was nO
difference in philosophy, there are a few factors which
influence the methods or means by which the philOSOphy

is formulated. These factors are:

l. The students live at home and tend to be on
campus only during the day, therefore a greater
percentage Of the programs (as compares with a
union serving a residential campus) must be con-

ducted during the day.

2. Evening and weekend programming are also the
responsibility Of a commuter union. The programs,
services, and activities must be Of high quality
and tailored to the local needs in order to

attract the students back to the campus.

130

3. The students not having a residence hall to
return to causes a readjustment Of the role Of
the union, but not a basic change in mission

or philosophy.

4. The urban union, in most cases, is the major
source Of out-Of-classroom activity connected
with the university. The responsibility to
provide relevant program and activities is,
therefore, greater than on a residential campus.

New Dirgctions for the Urban
Commuter Campus

 

 

One Of the possible directions for the urban
student center was suggested at a planning conference
for unions on commuter campuses.149 The conference
described a "gateway" union as follows:

For many years the union has been considered a
part Of the "inner city" Of campus planning. Class-
rooms, administration building, library, union
building have constituted the center Of the con-
centrix ring; residence halls the next ring; playing
fields the next; parking next; and the community
the outer ring.

The urban union has a "gateway" function. "Gate-
way" can be used as a concept rather than a specific
location. The significance is that the union must
have high visibility whether located at a point Of
entry or at a geographic center. The urban union
can be a series Of sidewalk cafes. It can be a row
Of shops on a city street containing a barber shop,
haberdashery, boutique, bake shOp and any number Of
these types Of facilities occupying rentable space

 

f f r

149Association Of College Unions--International,
Planning the Urban College, p. 5.

 

131

on the ground level facing the street and available
to the college community. The union may be above
it, behind it, among it. It may reduce the cost Of
the project to students by producing rental or
other necessary income.

The six directors were asked to react to this
concept as a possible direction for future unions. There
was some interest in this type Of structuring as one
person reported:

The ”Gateway" concept I think is very sound and Of
increasing importance. Convenient location Of ser-
vice is important and students tend to gravitate to
areas close to where the majority Of their classes
are held. Specialty shops and services are popular.
we see an expanding need to develop facilities at
decentralized locations. This not only provides for
daily needs Of students, but reduces the crush Of
traffic tO a single facility. we have developed
satellite fOOd, store, vending, and lounge facili-
ties in buildings at the edge Of the campus. The
smaller shop and special item Offering appears to be
gaining in popularity.

Another director responded in this way:

Any campus needs a "center of enrichment" out-
side the classroom. I will always recommend a care-
fully planned central building with as many facili-
ties as possible tO serve the greatest possible
number Of persons at one time.

However, the commuter campus has another
important need for the ”mini" union building in
Other academic facilities. These facilities and
services should include manual-vending snack bar,
ice cream parlor, bake shop, school supply store,
billiard tables (game room), study lounges, etc.
The urban union should not be limited tO the four
walls.

The one union which has begun to adopt this gate-
way concept (in fact, the last stage Of construction in
1971 created a gateway structure) sees this as having

new possibilities: '

132

It is becoming a trend for many urban unions to
adopt a type Of "gateway” function in its operations
and building design--insofar as visibility is con-
cerned. The urban union can be in any design which
brings people together--whether it be to Offer them
services, activities or the chance tO interact with
other people. It is, Of course, possible that the
union can be a series Of sidewalk cafes or shops--
anything which can attract users and "force" bringing
people together.

This concept has been developed into several
areas Of Operation functions--a health food center,
an ice cream shOp, an outing equipment rental and
sales center, a crafts center Offering sales Of
materials and finished handicrafts, an art sales
gallery, a record store and two concession desks--
all Operated by the union.

This idea can certainly be developed further,
as suggested by the question itself. It is probable
that this type Of Operation can only enhance an urban
union's mission.

This same union has been criticized by some members
Of the university community for developing in this direction.
The campus newspaper reported at the Opening Of the new
building that "all in all, if you like Southridge (a
shopping center in the city), you'll love the new union."
The union has responded to this type Of comment with even
more diverse Offerings. This past March they developed
”Eastridge Days." (The union is located in the east end
Of the city.) They report the program develOpment since
the Opening as follows:
. . . Since that time many people have criticized
more than the buildings appearance, rapping some Of
the union's new services, activities and programs.
Since the advent Of the union's new operations, with
a restaurant with nightly entertainment, two con-
cessions desks, an ice cream shop, a health food
center, several dining areas, a beer bar and a liquor
bar, a recreation center with every conceivable amuse-

ment, a multi-service bookstore and others, many
people have compared it tO a shopping center.

133

Some have called the mammoth structure Eastridge.
Eastridge Days, March 19 to 25, began as a spoof on
this shopping center syndrome. It has, however, a
deeper and more meaningful purpose.

Its purpose and the purpose Of the total union
Operation is to bring people together on a common
ground so that they might share in themselves, in
others and in the environment Of the union.

The purpose Of Eastridge Days is to bring more
peOple into the union. The hOpes are that these
people will be introduced tO some things (and people)
which they may never have experienced. They can,
perhaps, discover art, entertainment, film, crafts,
music or other people.

The people who use the union are not consumers;
they are people and people are what make the union.
It is a union Of people.

This week, during Eastridge Days, discover the
union: have a beer, watch a film, wander through the
art gallery, bowl a few lanes, meet others. And
during Eastridge Days doing these things will be
easier. There will be more things to do and at a
cheaper price.

The "Gateway" concept seems to be developing on
many Of the urban campuses and should be considered as a
possibility in future planning.

Another direction which needs consideration is
community programming. As mentioned earlier in this
chapter, what community programming there is now in
Operation is considered somewhat unique for union Oper-
ations. In the late 19605 the pressures and disruptions
on the campuses caused many unions to close their facili-
ties tO nonstudents. Now the directors indicated a
reverse Of this policy. One director stated:

we have essentially Open-door policy regarding

use Of the facility. we Open early and close late
to meet the needs Of the early morning commuter who
arrives before 7:00 A.M. for a good parking place

and the evening college student who has class until
10:00 P.M. we have a special relationship with

134

the large urban high school across the street that
permits use Of our recreational facilities by members
Of their honor society, use Of party facilities for
their senior class party and homecoming celebration,
etc.

We have numerous special arrangements with the
student community Involvement Project, Neighborhood
Youth Corp, Upward Bound, Educational Development
Program and Project for Youth for use Of our facili-
ties by community, business and civic groups--both
public relations and income being motives in so doing.

One union now has a full-time staff member who
works with Off-campus groups. The trend from a closed to
Open building appears to be gaining, at least on the
urban campus. In many cases it has not been from planned

changes, but pressures from the larger community.

Possible Problem Areas

 

Budget problems ranked high on all campuses
studied. As indicated at the beginning Of this chapter
most Of the buildings were constructed during the last
eight years and at a very high cost. When asked about
financial problems one director felt:

There are now, and will continue to be, financial
concerns deriving from the fact that a great per-
centage Of urban unions are either only a few years
Old, are presently under construction, or are under-
going extensive and costly remodeling or additions.
Thus, the urban union, in addition tO generating
revenue enough to sustain itself on at least a
break-even basis, must incorporate extensive build-
ing amortization costs into its budget and generate
revenue at a whirlwind pace for at least several
years to keep its head above water.

There was a general feeling that the financial
situation was not unique tO the urban campus; however,

it was pointed out, in addition tO the factors mentioned

135

above, that the union is Often the only building on an
urban campus paid for by bonds. There is less likelihood
that other funds will be available in case the union
Operates in the red. On many Older residential campuses,
the debt can be shared with Operations such as food ser-
vice, residence halls, and married housing.

Another concern voiced by several respondents was
the community involvement problem, and the competition
for Space and time with the university community. One
director stated it this way:

I believe the major concern will be how to set pri-
orities on the increasing demands that are and will
be placed on the union. Given that the urban campus
building is the ”community center" in fact, everyone
wants tO do their thing where the action is. As our
student body becomes more and more heterogeneous

and as the urban university becomes more and more
involved in the urban community in which it is
located, more and more pressures to house Offices,
services, programs and nonuniversity activities will
be made upon the union. Deciding upon the allocation
Of a limited quantity Of facilities and staff support
to traditional services and programs as well as such
new demands as day care, continuing education,
veterans and minority programs, program from the
community, etc., pose a real challenge.

Along this same vein one staff member sees not
just priorities, but justification Of purpose tO the
larger community as a potential problem area. He stated:

The other area Of prime concern is the relationship
between the urban union and its surrounding community.
The college union continues to be pressed tO justify
its existence tO the community as legitimate learning
and cultural center. Because it does not deal in
structured academic training like other areas Of

the university, it is Often passed Off as a super-
fluous and unnecessary extravagance, a frill which
really serves no worthy purpose, a taxpayer's dilemma.

136

Student interest in and involvement in all aspects
Of union programs and Operations is on the rise and
is being reflected in the union's branching out into
many new areas: craft centers, art galleries,
recreation centers, outing areas, tO name a few.
Hopefully, this trend should help tO convince the
community Of the validity Of the urban union as a
learning center and an invaluable part Of university

life.
Following this same train Of thought, but centered

more just in the university, was this director's concern:

I want to suggest that one Of their major concerns
may be making their building more relevant tO the
educational process. A.major concern will be the
extension Of both their facilities and their staff
to experiential learning experiences or the pro-
vision of experiential learning that will be recog-
nized by the educational community. I think there
has been a tendency for these buildings to try tO
stay away from the academic mainstream so that their
facilities will not be taken over by classes, and
thereby requiring the lounges tO be used for meetings
when they should be available for individuals.

Finally, there was a concern for the union to con-
tinue to do what it has stated as a goal, but with more
responsiveness to the individual. The humanizing role
of the union will become a major concern. One director
referred to the need to:

. . . develop a sense Of belonging . . . identifi-
cation needs tO be given attention. There is need

for the Opportunity to be recognized and the
legitimacy Of creditability Of recognition improved

. . . greater cognizance Of the time and energy
expended by commuting students must be given attention.

If the campuses continue tO grow as predicted,
the problem Of responding to an individual student will

become Of increasing concern. On a residential campus,

nO matter how large, the ratio of student to dorm staff,

137

for instance, is the same. The urban university cannot
provide this type Of ”personnel staff." The challenge

will be on the union.

Summary

The six union facilities studied were all con-
structed or remodeled, primarily with borrowed funds,
during the last eight years. The majority contain forty-
One of the same types Of facilities, some Of which are
particularly suitable for the predominantly commuter
student bodies Of the institutions. The six responding

universities all reported nineteen facilities necessany

 

for a new building on their campus. Twenty-eight other
facilities were defined necessary by at least four Of the
six respondents. Out Of the list of eighty-two possible
types Of areas or services, thirteen facilities would
be eliminated. For any urban commuter campuses, thirty-
two facilities were seen as necessary, with additional
ones suggested as growing in importance in the future.
Current program Offerings at the six commuter
campuses were generally no different from those available
in residential campus unions. Some program concerns or
aspects considered unique for the commuter campus were:
the presenting Of programs which were highly visible tO
the students, staff-run programs (or at least, strongly

staff-supported programs), and activities directed toward

138

the nonuniversity community. There were no perceived
differences in philOSOphy between the commuter and
residential campus.

Under the area Of new directions, the "Gateway"
concept, with high visibility and diverse types Of
facilities, is seen as one possibility. Community pro-
gramming will continue to grow in importance with emphasis
on the area in which the university is located. Budget
problems are seen as the major problem area in the coming
years for both commuter and residential campuses. The
commuter campus, due to construction Of facilities in
the last few years and the lack Of a broad financial base,
may have the greater problem. A series Of problems with
the larger community, including competition for facility
and program use, and general questions Of relationship
between the two communities are seen as requiring great
attention. The final concern centers around the union's
ability tO reach, recognize, and support the individual
student, as the campuses continue to grow larger and more

impersonal.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose Of this chapter is tO present a
summary Of the findings derived from the data Obtained
from the three questionnaires, visits, interviews, and
material Obtained from the six urban commuter unions.
Based on the findings, recommendations for future develop-
ment of programs and facilities will be reported.

Finally, implications for further study will be indi-

cated.

The Problem

 

The purposes Of this study were to:

(1) Identify current program Offerings at six urban
university unions which have been purposely

selected for study;

(2) Determine the philosophical orientation Of these

urban university unions;

(3) Identify current facilities which are available

in these unions;

139

140

(4) Identify any unique aspects in programs and

facilities which characterize these;

(5) Ascertain, based on the Opinions Of the respondents,
the recommendations on possible planning and pro-

gramming for urban university unions.

The study was conducted in the spring Of 1973 at
six midwestern, public, urban universities whose student
body consisted Of primarily urban, commuting students.
The focus Of the study was on the six student centers
currently in Operation on the campuses.

The Design and Procedures
Of the Study

 

 

The major means used for the collection Of data
in this study were three questionnaires (patterned from
the Delphi technique), sent to the directors Of the urban
universities over a period of three months. The question-
naires were initially constructed from previous studies,
then, upon return from the respondents, the final
questionnaires were developed. In addition, each campus
was visited at least once, several staff members were
interviewed and materials regarding program and facili-

ties were Obtained.

Summary

The student unions develOped from debating

societies in England into major structures serving the

141

entire higher education community. From the debate
period, the union movement focus evolved through the
campus democracy stage, recreation stage, educational
stage, personalization stage, into the complex humani-
zation stage Of today.

A considerable amount of research has been con-
ducted in the area Of the student union in general. Four
major studies over the last thirty years have been con-
cerned with the structure and Operation Of union build-
ings. Recently, three authors have undertaken to develop
planning guides for the construction Of student centers.
In areas Of programming, the authors have tended to find
a basic core Of activities: dance, social (nondance),
games, art, craft and hobbies, music, films, discussion,
literary, and personnel. Although the relative desira-
bility Of programs may change, programming itself seems
to remain essentially the same. Research in the general
student union movement is continuing tO be conducted by
the Association Of College Unions--Internationa1 and
individual campuses.

The urban commuter union appeared on the late
developing urban universities in an attempt to provide
the same services and programs available to the students
on residential campuses.

The urban commuter student union and the urban

institutions Of higher education have not been studied

142

in great detail. The few studies that have been conducted
indicate the traditional unions Of the residential campuses
are not adequate tO serve the needs Of the commuting stu-
dent. In a recent study, union professionals and others
have looked at the needs on the commuting campus, and
while arriving at some recommendations, concluded that

the best use of their study was to warn planners Of the
complexity Of an urban facility. Other researchers have
concurred that there are differences in both facilities
and programs, but most felt the differences were minimal
and could be overcome by program timing and change Of
emphasis. Reports Of certain programs have appeared in
the literature which indicates changing patterns Of Oper-
ation and activities.

Several authors conclude, however, that the
answers to the questions relating tO urban union pro-
gramming needs and structures still remain unanswered,
and further research in these areas is mandatory.

This study was undertaken in an effort to provide
a better understanding Of the complexity Of the urban
commuter union.

The six union facilities studied were all
recently constructed or remodeled. The majority contain
forty-one Of the same types Of facilities, some of which
are particularly suitable for the predominantly commuter

student bodies Of the institutions. The universities

143

all reported nineteen facilities necessary for a new

 

building on their campus. Twenty-eight other facilities
were defined necessary by at least four Of the six
respondents. Out Of the list Of eighty-two possible
types Of areas or services, thirteen facilities would

be eliminated. For nny urban commuter campuses, thirty-
two facilities were seen as necessary, with additional
ones suggested as growing in importance in the future.

The current program Offerings Of the unions were
generally nO different from those available in residential
campus unions. Some program concerns or aspects con-
sidered unique for the commuter campus were: the pre-
senting of programs which were highly visible tO the
students, staff-run programs (or at least, strongly
staff-supported programs), and activities directed toward
the nonuniversity community. There were no perceived
differences in philosophy between the commuter and
residential campus.

Under the area Of new directions, the “Gateway"
concept, with high visibility and diverse types Of facili-
ties, is seen as one possibility. Community programming
will continue tO grow in importance with emphasis on the
area in which the university is located. Budget problems
are seen as the major problem area in the coming years
for both commuter and residential campuses. The commuter

campus, due to construction Of facilities in the last few

144

years and the lack Of a broad financial base, may have the
greater problem. A series of problems with the larger
community, including competition for facility and program
use, and general questions Of relationship between the
two communities are seen as requiring great attention.

The final concern centers around the union's ability to
reach, recognize, and support the individual student, as
the campuses continue to grow larger and more impersonal.

Recommendations for Dgyelgpment Of
Future Programs and Facilities I

 

 

Based on the findings from this study, some
recommendations for the development Of future programs
and facilities can be made. While a majority Of the
findings were not specific in nature, they do provide
a framework for a general direction.

The facilities identified as being currently
available and the list Of those deemed desirable in the
future indicates that there are differences in both type
and quantity Of service and program facilities for the
urban campus. Since there does not appear tO be an
established "blueprint" for the architectural design for
the urban commuter union, the first consideration must be
the construction Of a facility compatible with the needs
Of the students, the location Of the university, and the

mission Of the university. ‘It is recommended that prior

 

to any construction or renovation a thorough study be

145

made Of the nature Of the student bodyy the needs Of
the studentsy the mission Of the institution, and the
physical environment Of the canpus. It has been amply
demonstrated that Often the student body on an urban
campus tend tO be more heterogeneous than their resi-
dential counterparts. A thorough investigation must be
made tO determine not only the present composition Of
the student body but the composition Of the projected
pOpulation tO be served for several years. The urban
university serving a rapidly changing, new urbanized
America must be prepared to meet the insatiable edu-
cational appetite Of a variety Of people from under
educated segments Of a diverse community.

Neatly defined parameters Of student interests
are not and will not be available to assist the planner
Of the urban student union. Student interest generally
has been changing at a greatly accelerated pace in all
institutions Of higher education. However, the urban
student body, made up Of peOple from various ethnic back-
grounds, economic levels, age groups, with wide divergence
Of goals and aspirations, cannot be easily categorized
in terms Of program or service demands.

The urban institution with its relative adolescence
in the context Of a traditional residential heritage, and
its commitment to serve the sprawling, problem-ridden,

and almost unmanageable metropolitan areas of the country,

146

while demanding traditional comforts and ammenities for
its students in the student union, cannot provide a firm
definition Of its specific Objective or the next decade's
plans.

The urban university and the city which it serves
are both seeking answers tO problems relating to the
physical environment. The city, with its problems,
decaying tenements, transportation chaos, inadequate
housing, and polluted air, shares the same environmental
framework with its academic partner.

Until a better grasp is Obtained Of the ramifi-
cations Of the circumstances listed above, facility
planning itself will at best be based on indefinite
answers and semi-Obsolete traditions.

Even with the incomplete data for planning, the
demand for new and remodeled facilities will continue to
require new student centers. Whatever types Of students
to be served, and whatever the location and mission Of
the university, the facilities requirements on a commuter
campus are likely tO be different from those on the tra-

ditional campus. It is recommended that careful con-

 

sideration be given to facility selection and design

 

to insure that the commuters' specific needs can be
served.
The food service Operation, the heart Of the com-

muter union, must be prepared to serve the majority Of

147

the students in a relatively short period Of time during
the week days. The facility must also be capable of nearly
continuous low-volume service during the rest Of the week
and still maintain a financially sound position. The
changing eating habits Of students generally forces
rethinking Of the type Of fOOd facility housed in the
union. There would appear to be a greater demand for

fast and convenient service, ethnic food Offerings, and
alcoholic beverages than in the past. Although good
management practices in the past have called for a
thoroughly integrated food system as part Of the overall
Operation Of the union, experimentation with franchised
service may prove worthwhile. The franchised firms to

be considered must extend beyond the institutional vendors
into the commercial retail establishments and modern
convenience fOOd perveyors.

The recreational facilities must be considered
from two points Of view. First, they must more accurately
reflect the interests and needs of the urban college stu-
dent. Secondly, they must be economically feasible in
terms Of floor space required, ease Of maintenance, cost
Of supervision, and potential receipts. Students who
cannot find the type Of recreational facilities which
they are accustomed to will not frequent the union, and
thus, deprive the union Of necessary income and themselves
Of possible exposure to and interest in other educational

and recreational programs.

148

The social facilities which probably serve more
students for longer periods Of time than any other
facility in the union must be attractive, spacious,
easily maintained, and exceedingly flexible to meet the
myriads Of demands placed on them by the extremely
heterogeneous commuter student body. The lounges, the
“living room" for the urban student truly serve the
function Of the dormitory Of the resident campus. The
students expect and need a place tO relax, converse,
study, sleep, and entertain. The furnishings must also
be attractive, easy tO maintain, and easy to protect
from theft and vandalism.

The cultural-hobby facilities Of the union will
continue to expand as students and the larger community
seek educational and recreational Opportunities. The
heart Of the nonclassroom education is likely tO be
focused on these areas. The “free university" Of the
late 19603 and early 19703 could be the forerunners Of
the relatively unstructured classes for the student union
Of tomorrow.

The urban commuting student center as the major
service facility on the campus must become increasingly
concerned with this aspect Of its role. With the antici-
pated growth Of the size Of the student bodies, the union

must be prepared with lockers, communication facilities

149

(phones, information desks, post Office, etc.), and
adequate parking and mass transit compatibility.

Facilities for student organizations must be pro-
vided in great quantity. However, care must be taken
that they remain flexible enough to meet the needs Of
new and more diverse student interests. The development
Of defined Specialty facilities for groups such as faculty
and alumni as well as defacto designation Of facilities
for ethnic and other groups should be avoided. The possi-
bility Of increased staff programming and the lessening
Of the traditional committee structure of student unions
is likely to create demands for different Office arrange-
ments.

Finally, the bOOkstore and other sales outlets
within the union will become increasingly an important
part Of the program and will demand increased allocation
Of space. These outlets, while primarily a service to
the university community, also provide necessary revenue
to maintain both facilities and programs and attract
students, staff, and community alike to the union.

The content Of the programs on an urban campus is
not likely to differ from those on the rural campus; how-
ever, there are a number Of unique considerations in terms
Of time, visibility, diversification, and relationship
tO finance that will influence the activities aspect.

It is recommended that programs be designed compatible

 

Wu‘w—fil

150

with the schedule Of the commuting student. Programming

 

must be consistent with the great diversity of interest

 

represented by the students of an urban commuting campus.

 

The programs must be presented and publicized for casual

 

rather than planned participation. Finally, the cost Of

 

the program and its relationship to other revenue-producing

 

Operations Of the union must be constantly re-evaluated.

 

F‘T‘hfl‘ ".1

While a majority Of the programs must be scheduled
during the period Of time the students are on campus for
classes, an effort must be made tO help the student
develop an interest in participating in activities during
the evening and on weekends. While there is some indi-
cation that the commuter student has less time for activi-
ties, the problem is more likely to be competition from
community facilities and program. The urban commuting
union must strive to maintain a balanced educational and
recreational program over longer periods Of time than
have been expected in the past.

The urban commuting union is in constant compe-
tition with the daily attractions and distractions Of the
city and the students' homes. The student is not likely
tO plan his recreational and leisure time activities,
but rather will attend on a casual basis.

As has been mentioned numerous times, the stu-
dents On the urban commuting campus come from all types

Of backgrounds, and it should be expected that an equally

151

diversified program in the student union is required. The
planned all-campus event intended for the entire student
body has about the same appeal as freshmen beanie. A
variety Of programs, in terms Of subject matter and
breadth Of appeal, must be available on a regular basis

if the union is tO truly serve the entire student body.
This fact, coupled with the financial consideration, will
call for increased staff participation in originating

and conducting programs.

Many Of the urban commuting unions have been
recently constructed, are under construction, or require
renovation. This construction along with the enormous
space requirement, particularly in nonrevenue-producing
(areas, creates major financial considerations. In order
to provide and maintain these most necessary facilities,
the relationship between potential income production and
program must be upper most in the minds Of those responsible
for the activity. While experimentation is still part Of
the union tradition, more judicious decisions must be made
regarding the economic feasibility Of any individual or
series of programs.

It is recommended that the staffing structure and

 

duties be developed tO facilitate student involvement in
all levels Of prggram and management, while maintaining
a high quality and guantityyof programs. One of the goals

Of any student union is to provide experiences for the

152

students in group work, leadership development, and program
planning. With the proper structure and attitude on the
part Of the staff, this goal can be achieved and still
maintain the depth and breadth Of programs required for
the educational community. The traditional two-board
structure, with numerous activity committees and the
staff serving as advisor needs tO be re-evaluated.

While it is not necessarily incompatible with the high-
volume program Operation Of the diversified urban commut-
ing union, other patterns may prove to be more practical.
The "begin as a freshman and work your way up“ system
does not seem desirable for the mature and experienced
students increasingly present in today's higher edu-
cational system.

While a precise description Of staff qualifi-
cations has not emerged, care must be taken that the
staff members are capable Of functioning in this type
Of setting. The educational background Of many student
personnel and union professionals is based in the more
placid residential university communities Of the land-
grant variety.

It is recommended that the urban commuting stu-

 

dent union consistent with the basic philosophy Of urban
higher education reach out into the community with its
programs and facilities. The union, as well as the uni-.

versity, can no longer afford tO ignore the larger

153

community. The mission Of urban education requires it,
the community desires it, and elementary politics demands
it. While there are numerous pitfalls in the expansion
outside the university walls, if the urban union indeed
wants tO become the community center, it must be the

community Of the students, and that is the city.

Implications for Further Study

 

This study was concerned with only six midwestern
urban commuter campuses. Future studies dealing with
special areas Of the urban unions, their campuses, and
the students served should include a wider sample Of
geographic locations and institutions.

Specific topics which require further research

include:

(1) The commuter students, their problems, needs,

and goals;

(2) Models tO assist in the planning of new or

remodeled unions designed for the urban campus;
(3) The role Of the staff in programming;

(4) Facility selection and design tO insure commuter's

specific needs can be served;

(5) Models to evaluate all programming a3pects Of

the urban uniOn;

154

(6) Models for service and programming for the

larger community;

(7) Models for involving students, faculty, and com-
munity representatives in policy formulation and

programming.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Velma. College Management, VII (September, 1972),
12.

Anderson, Robert B. "FOOd Must Sell Itself to Commuters."
College Management, VI (1971), 38-39.

Andrews, Max H. "College Union Programming." NASPA

Association Of College Unions. "The Union Moves Outdoors."
Proceeding§_of the 1961 Conference Of The Associ-
ation Of College Unions, p. 243.

Association Of College Unions--International. Planning
College Union Facilities for Multiple Use.
Madison, WisconSin: AssociatiOn Of College
Unions--International, 1966.

. Planning the Urban College Union for a Commuter
Campus. Stanford: Association Of COIlege UniOns--
International, 1969.

Bareither, Harland D., and Schillinger, Jerry L. Uni-

versity Space Plannin . Urbana: University Of
IIlinOis Press, 1968.

Bebb, Ernest L. "The Urban Campus: NO Longer an Atypical
College Union Setting." Association Of College
Unions--International Conference Proceeding_.
Stanford, I970, pp. 3-1, 3-3.

Bell, Boris C. Administpation and Operation Of the
Epilege Union. Ithaca, N.Y.: Association Of
COIlege Unions--International, Williard Straight
Hall, Cornell University, 1965.

Berry, Chester, ed. College Unions . . . Year Fifty.

Association Of COIlege Unions--International.

155

156

Best, John W. Research in Education. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall,71959(f

Borg, walter R. Educational Research on Introduction.
New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963.

Branson, Bernard D., and Monaco, Donald A. "Counseling
in an Urban Setting." NASPA Journal, VII
(January, 1970), 170-75.

 

Brown, Gerald. "The Urban Institution and the Commuting
Student." Association Of College Unions--Inter-
national Congerence Proceedings. Stanford, 1971,
pp. 5-96, 5-99.

The Bulletin. Stanford, Calif.: Association Of College
UniOns--International, I-XLI.

 

. Stanford, Calif.: Association Of College
Unions--International, XLI (February, 1973), 9-11.

 

Burke, Kathryn. "Are There Really Any New Trends in
Programming?" The Proceedinge Of the 48th Annual
Conference Of the AssociatiOn Of College Unions--
International, 1971, p. 4-1.

 

Butts, Porter. The College Union Idea. Stanford, Calif.:
Association Of COIlege UniOns--International, 1971.

"DO Commuters Need a Different Union?"
Bulletin Of the_Assogiation of College Unions--
International, XXXVIII (April, 1970), 1-5.

 

 

. Planning and Operating College Union Buildings.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Association Of College Unions--
International, Williard Straight Hall, Cornell
University, 1965.

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Cam us
and the City. New York: McGraw-Hill, I972.

 

Carroll, John A. "Urban Campus College Unions and the
Commuting Student." Unpublished Master's Thesis,
University Of Illinois, 1964.

Casse, Robert M. "Experimental Role Of a College Union."
The Bulletin Of the Association Of College Unions--
InternatiOnal, XXXIX (1971), 7-8.

 

Christensen, Ernest Martin. An Annotated Bibliography Of
the College Union. Ithaca, N.Y.: Assoc1ation
Of COIIege Unions--International, 1967.

 

157

Codding, Anthony S. "The Meaning Of Urbanism.” The Pro-
ceedin 3 Of the Association of College Unions--
InternaEional, 1971, p. 5-96.

College Management. "News Makers." VII (November, 1972),

Commager, Henry Steele. "Is Ivy Necessary?" Saturday
Review, September 17, 1960, p. 89.

Crabb, Theodore. The College Union Outdoors. Ithaca,
N.Y.: The Association Of College Unions--Inter-
national, 1965.

 

Evans, Thomas D. "Parent and Student Perceptions Of a
Computer [sic] Campus." NASPA Journal, VII
(January, I970), 164-69.

 

Flake, Floyd. "Programming in the Minority College
Union." Proceedings Of the 49th Annual Con-
ference Of the Association Of College Unions--
International, 1972, pp. 5-27, 5-29.

 

The Four Most Important Problems Facing Unions . . . as
seen by the Discussion Groups at Mishawak."
Tne Bulletin Of the Association Of College
Unions--International, XXXVII (1969), 5.

 

Freedman, Mervin B. "San Francisco State: Urban Campus
Prototype." Agony and Promise. San Francisco,
Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.

Fritz, George E. "Effective Use Of Space in the Michigan
State Union Building." Unpublished Master's
Thesis, Michigan State University, 1959.

Fryer, Diene. "Programming for the Divided Life." The
Proceedings Of the 47th Annual Conference Of-ffie
Association Of College Unions International,
1970, pp. 3-3, 3-6.

 

Gillespie, ROger. "BYU Hobby Center: The Long Road tO
Success." College Manegement, VII (August,

 

Goodall, Leonard E. "The Urban University: Is There
Such a Thing?" Journal Of Higher Education, XLI

 

Graff, Robert W., and Cooley, Gary R. "Adjustment of
Commuter and Resident Students." Journal Of
College Student Personnel, XI (1970), 54-57.

 

158

Gusfield, Joseph; Kronus, Sidney; and Mark, Harold. "The

Harada,

Urban Context and Higher Education: A Delineation
Of Issues.” Journal Of Higher Education, XLI
(1970), 29.

 

Takeshi. "A Time for Outdoor Activities." Pro-
ceedings Of the 49th Annual Conference Of the
College Unions--International, 1972, pp. 5-3, 5-34.

 

Harrington, Thomas F. "The Literature on the Commuter

Student." Journal Of College Student Personnel,
XIII (November, 1972), 546-50.

 

Helmer, Olaf. Social Technology. New York: Basic

Hesser,

 

Books, Inc., I966.

Abel. "How DO Unions Operate?" College Unions--
1958. Ithaca, N.Y.: 1958, pp. 83-95.

 

 

Hillway, Tyrus. Introduction to Research. Boston:

 

Houghton MiffIin 55mpany, 1964.

Humphreys, Edith 0. College Unions. Ithaca, N.Y.:

Jones,

Jordan,

 

Association Of College UniOns, Williard Straight
Hall, 1946.

Nelson B. ”The College Union and the Residence

Hall." Proceedings Of the 27th Annual Conference
Of the AssociafiiOn Of College Unions, 1950, p. 18.

Harold; Brattain, William; and Shaffer, Robert.
"The College Union Looks Ahead." NASPA Journal,
VII (1969), 3-12.

Judd, Robert C. "Delphi Method: Computerized 'Oracle'

Accelerates Consensus Formation." Colle e and
University Business, XIX (September, I979), 30-34.

Klotsche, J. Martin. "Urban Higher Education: Its

Implications for Student Personnel Administrators."
NASPA Journal, VI (July, 1968), 14-21.

. The Urban University and the Future of Our

 

Cities. New Yofk: Harper and Row,‘I966.

Kronovet, Ester. "Freshmen Reactions to Parents' Seminars

on a Commuter Campus." The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XLIII (1965), 6:92, 6-95.

 

Kysar, John E. "Mental Health in an Urban Commuter Uni-

versity." Archives Of General Psychiatry, XI

(1964)! 472-850

 

159

Leavitt, Alan; Carey, Judith; and Swartz, Jacqueline.
"Developing a Mental Health Program at an Urban
Community College." Journal Of American College
Health Association, XIX (1971), 289-92.

 

Lindahl, Charles. "Impact Of Living.Arrangements on
Student Environmental Perceptions." Journal
Of College Student Personnel, VIII (1967), I0-15.

 

Mayer, Richard E. "Change Is Still Possible." The Pro-
ceedings Of the 48th Annual Conference of the
Association Of College Unions--Internationa1,
1970, pp. 3-3, 3-5.

 

Moore, Norman F. Art in the Union. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Association Of College UniOns--International, 1965.

 

NOffke, Frank E. Planning for a College Union. Ithaca,
N.Y.: AssociatiOn Of College UniOns--International,
Williard Straight Hall, Cornell University, 1965.

 

Osterheld, Douglas 0. Food Service and the College Union.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Association of COIlege Unions--
International, 1967.

Penney, James F., and Buckley, Delora E. "Student Needs
and Services on an Urban Campus." Journal Of
College Student Personnel, VII (May,’1965), 180-85.

 

 

"Phase One Of Self Studies Begins." The Bulletin Of the
Association Of College Unions--Internaticnal,
XLI (1973), 9-10.

 

The Proceedings Of the 50th Annuel Conference. Stanford,
Calif}: Association Of College UniOns--Inter-
national, 1973, and The Proceedings Of Earlier

,Conferences. 77

 

 

"Promotion WOrkshOp Proves Valuable." The Bulletin Of
the Association Of College Unions--InternaEional,

Rovetch, Warren. "Architecture for the Urban Campus."
Agony and Promiee. Edited by G. Kerry Smith.
San Francisco, Calif.: Joseey-Bass, Inc., 1969.

 

Ruday, Robert M. "The Urban Campus College Union." Pro-
ceedin s Of the 48th Annual Convention, Association
Of COIIege UniOn3--InEernational, 197I, pp. 5-91,
5-93 0

160

Schuchman, Herman. "Psychological Tasks Of Commuter
Students." The Proceedings of Association Of
College Unions--Internationa1 Conference.
Stanford, 1970, pp. 2-1, 2- 5.

 

 

Segal, Stanley J. "Implications Of Residential Setting
for Development During College." Journal Of
College Student Personnel, VIII (September, 1967),
308—160

 

 

Siggelkow, Edwin O. "The College Union: A Model for
Student Power." NASPA Journal, VII (1969), 7-12.

 

Simmons, Linda w. "The Union and WOmen's Movement."
Proceedings Of the 49th Annual Conference Of the
Association Of College Unions--International,
1972, pp. 5-21, 5-24.

 

Stark, Matthew. "Commuter and Residence Hall Students
Compared.” Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV
(1965), 277-81.

 

Stevens, George. "The College Union--Past, Present and
Future." NASPA Journal, VII (July, 1969), 16-21.

 

U.S. Department Of Health, Education, and welfare.
Office Of Education. National Center for Edu-
.cational Statistics. Education Directory, 1972-
1973, Higher Education. WaEhington, D. C.:
Government PrintingO Office, 1972.

 

 

Ward, Richard, and Kurz, Theodore. The Commuter Student:
A Study Of Facilities at weyne State University.
Detroit, Mich.: wayne State Univer31ty, I969.

 

wayne State University--Center for Urban Studies. Toward
a New Style Urban University in a New DetrO1t.
Detroit: wayne State University, .

”What's Happening?" The Bulletin Of the Association of
College Unions--InternatiOnal, XL (1972), l.

 

Whiting, Edgar A. "Union Operating and Use Policies."
College Unions--l953. Ithaca, N. Y.: Association
Of CO11ege Unions International, 1953, pp. 70- 76.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INITIAL LETTER

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mm LAMING - Mlunmw mm

 

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS ° STUDENT SERVICES HUI! I)IN(.

March 2, 1973

Dear

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. I have canpleted
the basic research and am now at the point of asking a group of experts
to look at present and future programs and facilities for urban unions.

I plan to visit your campus, hopefully in the month of March, to both
discuss with you sure of the answers obtained fran the enclosed
questionnaire and to look at the facilities and operations. I will
contact you shortly to determine a convenient time for this visit .

The two enclosed questionnaires are, as you can see, quite different.
The basic questionnaire, among other things, will be compared with
past studies (mainly Boris Bell's report, Administration and Opera-
tion of the College Union). The second questionnaire , containing only
five questions, will serve as a basis for another, and at most, third,
round of replies . You may expect a similar number of essay-type
questions in these other rounds.

 

I greatly appreciate your taking the time to participate in this study
and sincerely hope the response will have use in the evaluation and
development of urban union programs and facilities .

Sincerely ,

Fred Strache
Area Director

Off Campus Housing
Student Activities Division
FS/Jad

Enclosures

161

APPENDIX B

BASIC URBAN UNION QUESTIONNAIRE

10.

11.

APPENDIX B

Basic Urban Union Questionnaire

Name of Institution

 

Name and position of person responding to questionnaire

 

 

Date and costs of construction of original building

 

Dates and costs of additions -

 

 

 

Full time enrollment for Fall 1972

 

Part time enrollment for Fall 1972

 

Gross square footage of union building

 

Planned expansion in square footage

 

Method of finance of original building

 

Additions

 

Composition of policy board by office

 

 

Conposition of program board by office

 

 

Method of selection of non-student board members

 

 

Method of selection of student board members

 

 

Types of program carmittees: (please check)

msic—Ar‘ts House-flospitality International

Ganes-Toirnanents Public Relations Coffee How

Publicity Forum-Lecture Finance
_—Dance Decorations Travel
——Movies Personnel Crafts

Outing ——_Debate Other

162

12.

13.

11+.

15.

16.

l7.

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

21}.

163
Method of selection of program cannittee chairman

 

 

Nunber of professional staff manbers

 

Description of duties for director

 

(lit-l7 - May attach separate description)

 

 

Description of duties for assistant director

 

 

 

Description of duties for program director

 

 

 

Description of duties of other professional staff

 

 

 

 

Anount of student union fee per (semester or quarter)

 

Amt of student union fee per sunmer session

 

Total cost of union prograns per year

 

Source of funding for union prograns

 

Number of student organizatiore provided office space on a permanent
basis

 

Nunber of student organizations provided office space on an annual
basis

 

Number of student organizations provided office space on a short-term
basis

 

25.

Available Facilities: (Please check the first blank if the facility
is included in your present union. In the
second blank please indicate by inserting l, 2,
or 3 how important you feel this facility would
be if you were building a new union on your

campus.
1.
2.
3.

Recreation facilities:
Billiard Roan
Table Tennis
Bowling
Swimning Pool
Card Roan
Ice Skating Rink
Table Shuffleboard
Floor Shuffleboard
Other

 

 

 

 

 

Would be included
Desirable but not necessary
Would probably eliminate

Service Facilities:
Coat Room (Unattended)

 

Check Roan (Attended)

 

Information Desk

 

Western Union
Public (Pay) Phones
House Phones
Postal Service
Individual Mail Boxes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Facilities:
Ballroan
Party Roan

e

Faculty Lounge

Other

 

 

 

OJltural-Hobby Facilities:
Music Roan (listening)
Music Roan (practice)
Art Gallery
Corridor Art Cases

 

 

Outing Headquarters
Amateur Radio Roan
Auditorium

Theatre

 

wRehearsal Theatre
Craft Shop
elevis ion Roan
Browsing Roan
Other

 

 

 

Meeting Facilities:
Small Carmittee Roans
Meeting Roans
Kitchenette
Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ticket Office
Laundry-Dry-Cleaning
Barber Shop

Day Care Center
Beauty Shop

locker-s

Travel Agency
Parking Area

lost and Found
Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Food Facilities:

Cafeteria

Snack Bar
Res taurant-type Dining Ro

Coffee Shop

fiPrivate Dining Roan
Vending Machine Roan
Banqueting
Kitchenette (Self Service
Tub or similar
Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carmuter Facilities:
Lockers
lounge

Wining Roan

Cot Roan

Messing Roan

Office Space

Other

 

 

 

 

 

.165

OrganizationeActivity Facilities:

Mail Boxes for Organizations
Storage Lockers fOr Organizations
Campus Newspaper Office
Year'BOOk Office

'"Union-Boardstmmittee Office
Student Government Office
IFC Office

‘IPanhellenic Office
Alumni Office
Religious Counselor Office
International Student Office
General WOrk Room
ANS Office
.Alumni Lounge

Faculty Lounge

Chapel
Meditation Roan
Student Literary PUblications Office
Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Facilities:
Bockstore
Guest Rooms
i—Union Staff Administrative and Program Office
Other

 

 

 

 

 

Please Return Tb:

Fred Strache

103 Student Services Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan H8823
(517) 355-5280

 

APPENDIX C

FIRST ROUND OF REPEATED QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C

Question One - First Round of Repeated Questionnaire

What programs have you developed or are planning to deve10p
which serve unique needs for the Urban Campus?

166.

167

Question Two -— First Round of Repeated Questionnaire

In what ways are there differences in philosophy between
Urban Carmuter Campus Unions and others?

168

Question Three - First Round of Repeated Questionnaire

An article in The Bulletin of the Association of College Unions

 

suggests the cannuter student needs the sane general type of union
facility as his residential counterpart. "The essential difference
in the case of the canmuter is the time of day at which he can use
the union facilities and the length of time he has at his disposal."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

m. an:

1..

169

Question Four - First Round of Repeated Questionnaire

The proceedings fran the Conference on Flaming the Urban
College Union for a Carmuter Campus (held February, 1967, in New
York) states

Canmuter students seem to be more interested
in talking with each other rather than attending
a planned program. If they do attend a function,
it appears that attending is as far as they will
go; they very rarely are interested in planning
the event .

If the time demands on carmuter students
continues , there may be a movement towards
staff -run prograns rather than student-run
programs. This tendency may require an ela-
boration of staff office and planning space
(and less area for student planning canmittees) .

How do you react to this statement, both in Staff Vs. Student Plan-

ning and Space Requirements?

wan-WI?!

170

Question Five - First Round of Repeated Questionnaire

This sane program suggested the "Gateway" Concept as opposed

to the "Center of the Campus" Plan

The urban union has a ' gateway' function .
'Gateway' can be used as a concept rather than a
specific location. The significance is that the
union must have high visibility whether located
at a point of entry or at a geographic center.

The urban union can be a series of sidewalk
cafes. It can be a row of shops on a city street
containing a barber shOp, haberdashery , boutique ,
bake shop, and any nunber of these types of
facilities occupying rentable space on the ground
level facing the street and available to the
college carmunity. The union may be above it,
behind it, among it.

 

To what degree does your union see itself in this function and how

have you developed this?

APPENDIX D

SECOND ROUND OF REPEATED QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX D

QUESTION 1

Second Romd of Repeated Questionnaire

In previous questionnaires, a majority indicated the following facilities are

necessary for an Urban Student Center:

Billiard Roan
Table Tennis
Ball Roan
lounge

ms1c Roan

Art Gallery
Photo Dark Roan
Poster Roan
Craft Shop
Small Cannittee Roan
Meeting Roans

Infamation Desk
Pay Plumes

House Phones
Ticket Office
lockers

Parkirg

lost 8 Found
Cafeteria

Snack Bar

Vending thchine Roan
Banqueting Facility

What other facilities world you include, and why?

171

Pub or Similar Facility
Camuter lockers

Caunuter lounge Facility

Mail Boxes for Organizations
Storage lockers

Union Board Cannittee Office
International Student Office
Student Governnent Office

Book Store

Union Staff and Administrative

Program Office

 

172

Second Round of Repeated Questionnaire

QUESTION 2
One of the directors stated in reply to the first questionnaire: [1
There are no differences in philosophy between an Urban Cannuter [

CampusUnionandotherUnions; theonlydifferenceis inthemeans
the two Uniais achieve this philosophy. The philosophy is to
bring people together in a cannon environment so that they may
share in that environment and the people within it. Urban
Commuter Campuses and their Unions nust approach the philosophy
from a different viewpoint than their residential counterparts .

It is true that a Commuter Canpus Union may reach its
philosophical goals during the day when it has a large usership
within its confines . However, it must strive to reach these goals
dmfingthe eveninghours andonweekends. The CammterCanws
Union must create an enviroment which forces its usership to

make a decision to cane to the Union. It is necessay for a
Cannuter Canpus Union to pranote and program its building, services
and activities so that people will be brought together.

Do you agree with this statement? —- If not, why not?

173

Second Round of Repeated Questionnaire
QUESTION 3

In the first round, a director stated:

The urban campus building is the "canmnity center" in fact.

It is usedbymorepeople inless timethanthe average
resident canpus college union. It needs to be located near
flecoreofthecanpus. Itmustbeopenwithlargespaces for
dining. Dining roans (cafeterias, snackbars and rathskellers
(pubs), vending too, nust be larger than those elsewhere. The
canpus bookstore must have a larger variety of convenience
nerohandise for sale. The recreation, especially variety, must
be quality. The need for study and meeting roams is extensive.
Places to rest, sleep, study, talk sl'ould be in sufficient nunbers.
Programspaoeshaildbevisabletothecannrter. Ifso, they
became involved.

Do you agree with this statenent? If not, why not?

0

174

Second Round of Repeated Questionnaire
QUESTION '4

One of the directors stated in reply to the first questionnaire:

The majority of caunuter students are interested in talking
with each other ratl'm' than being actively involved in program
plannirg. Students will attend functions, other than social,

if the program content is timely . We have observed a continuing
trend of increased participation by students in planning and
executing daytime events. Staff involvement and plarming is
very important in order to minimize the amount of time necessary
for planning. There is a critical need for the staff resource
person to coordinate and direct interested students in a time
saving direction to reduce red tape and bureaucratic procedures .
Staff and space to conduct a variety of prograns virtually
simultaneously is extemely important . Carmuter students are
interested in participating in planning single events or programs
rather than series types and are not particularly interested in
long-term commitment.

Do you agree with this staterent? If not, why not?

175

Second Round of Repeated Questionnaire
QUESTIOJ 5

What,inym1ropinion,willbet1emajorconcernorproblenmea
ofUrbaICanpusCentersinthenectfewyears?

APPENDIX E

STAFF DUTIES

APPENDIX E

DIRECTOR
UNIVERSITY CENTER

The following is an attempt to put down in outline
form the varied activities of the Director of the Uni-
versity Center as they have existed this past year.

ADMINISTRATION AND STAFF'ORIENTED ACTIVITIES:

Staff: Select, encourage, consult with, back up, assign
responsibilities, act as final appeal regarding concerns,
give direction, assist in setting goals.

Administration: Conduct staff meetings, meet monthly with
secretaries, make budgetary decisions, ultimate responsi—
bility for total operation of building.

 

Liaison with contract food service, instrumental in
bidding and contract negotiations, act as third party
mediator in food service employee matters, oversee and
coordinate improvements to food service areas, monitor
customer satisfaction.

Assist in creating awareness of need for expansion
of conference coordination and continuing education
functions.

Participation in SAD reorganization and numerous
interdepartmental discussions and decisions centering
around improved procedures and policies.

STUDENT GROUP CONSULTING/ADVISING

Center Board: WOrk extensively with executive and
personnel committees as well as Board as a whole, instru—
mental in planning and implementation of extensive orien-
tation program for new Board and several trips to other
tri-state Unions. Assisted in planning and hosted ACU-I
Regional Mini—Conference. Considerable personal counselv
ing with members of the Board.

 

Student Government: Consultant to Student Senate,
financial advisor to Student Government, worked some with
cabinet, advised Elections Board, attended weekly com-
mittee meetings, caucuses, Senate meetings, and consultant
meetings with the President and Vice President; attended

176

177

workshops and other government—sponsored programs. Per—
sonally advised numerous committees and individuals on a
variety of matters. Personal counseling often occurred
as natural byproduct.

General: Participated to varying degrees in the
activities of ODK, some fraternities, Sophos, University
Program Committee, several programming activities, etc.
Informally interact with, assist and make suggestions to
student organizations housed with TUC. Serve as liaison
with the UBA "Black House” at 3004 Wbodside Place.

INVOLVEMENT WITH OTHER FACULTY AND STAFF:

Significant interaction with faculty and other staff
in a planned fashion (Faculty Bowling League, conscious
efforts to "mingle" with persons outside SAD, social
contacts, Faculty Club, Christian Faculty Group) as well
as informally by virtue of the variety of activities
which draw others to the Center. Attempt at all times
to assist in developing a "sense of community" among
those with whom I interact.

PERSONAL COUNSELING:

A growing number of referrals by other students is
offset by all too frequent fact that my calendar is full
at the time a student would like to see me. The need for
"listening ears" is great and a personal dilemma is
balancing what could become an all encompassing activity
(personal counseling) with numerous other priorities.

Personal counseling areas most frequently encountered
with students include questions of value judgments,
interpersonal sexual conflicts, feelings about self,
priorities on one's time and energies, after graduation
planning, the need for part—time work and personal religious
matters.

I also do personal counseling with adults outside the
University community and have been quite deeply involved
in a variety of marital and financial counseling situv
ations. Have also served quite successfully as a third
party in several structured conflict resolution situations.

COMMITTEE WORK: Have served on the following committees
not aiready mentioned:

University Space Allocations Committee
Food Service Advisory Committee

YMCA Committee of Management
University Program Committee

178
GAME ROOM MANAGER

I. Activities

21.

Bowling

Billiards

Table tennis

Playing cards

Checkers

Chess

Arcade games

Student bowling leagues

Intramural bowling leagues

UC Bowling Team: OIBC and ACU-I (men and women)
Tournaments: Billiards, Table Tennis, and Chess
ACU-I tournaments: Billiards, chess, table tennis (menswomen,
Intramural tournaments: table tennis and bowling

SCIP programs

Upward Bound programs

EDP programs

Community and church groups

Greek, residence hall, student groups renting facilities
Physical education bowling classes

General Hospital leagues

Kettering leagues

.11. Manager Responsibilities

1.

9.

10.

11.

Interviewing, hiring, training, evaluating, and scheduling
all student employees.

Counseling and advising student employees in regards to
school, home life, jobs, etc.

Supervising maintenance men who work in the area.
Supervising the cleaners who work in the area.

Providing copy for campus communications.

Keeping inventory and ordering supplies for area.

WOrking with Campus Graphics to remodel and redecorate area.

Adviser for Recreation Committee, Bowling Team, and
Concert Committee.

working with Special Programs Committee on selection of
groups for Free Hour entertainment.

Working with Center Board to help decide policies for
Game Room.

Doing promotional work for Canteen in regards to their
film series--travel and ecology, sports, and comedies--
and food service areas.

179

12. Helping to implement the intramural program in our
building.

l3. COOperating with security to alleviate the truancy
problem of local high schools.

14. Member of the Recreational Advisory Committee that
deals with leisure time and intramural programming.

15. Responsible for supervising the selection of school
representative for some ACUuI activities.

16. Represent the University at the ACU—I regional meeting.

17. Interacting, advising, and counseling students who
frequent the Game Room.

18. Organizing student assistant teams for intramurals.

l9. Wbrking with campus and community groups who utilize
area.

20. Participate in reorganization of Concert Committee
to return a balance between committee power and
advisor power.

21. Begin negotiations with an outside production company
to handle our major concerts.

22. Reorganize maintenance men's schedule to better
accommodate the needs of the Game Room facility.

Priorities

 

How does what I am doing meet the needs of the community

and how can I extend the scope of the programs to include

an even larger number of the university community.

1.
2.

3.

4o
5.

6.
7.

8.
10.
11.

Responsible for interviewing, hiring, training, evalu-
ating, scheduling, and supervising all student employees.
work with Recreation Committee, Bowling Team, Concert
Committee, Special Programs Committee, Recreational
Advisory Committee, Center Board, and Intramural
Program.

work with various TUC programs and activities outside
area.

Promotional work for Canteen Food Service.

Keep inventory and order supplies and equipment for
area.

Supervise maintenance men and cleaners in area.

WOrk with campus and community groups not mentioned
above.

Provide copy for campus communications.

Represent University at ACUvI functions and programs.
Counsel and advise student employees in regard to
school, home life, etc.

Interact with, advise, and counsel students who
frequent Game Room area.

180

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

the Assistant Director has primary responsibility for all operations

within TUC with the exception of the Campus Calendar Office and Food

Service.

However, contact with both Food Service and the Campus Calendar

)ffice is essential to insure the successful completion Of events within

the building.

I. Operational Responsibilities

A. Information Desk, Game Room, Ticket Office, Concession Stand,
Campus Graphics, Night and Resident Managers, Technicians

1.

TO meet with the various area supervisors in order to keep
abreast Of services, time schedules, etc. and to discuss and
advise on situations Of concern.

To perform the necessary budget organization and adjustments
for the above areas.

To consult with the area supervisors in the determination of
Operating policies and procedures for their respective areas.

Assignment Of special duties to Night and Resident Managers.

Hiring of personnel for the Technician staff and coordinating
policies for the Technicians.

Dealing with any problems occuring in these areas, whether
Operational or involving students, faculty, or outside staff.

B. Financial Responsibilities

1.

2.

3.

To assist the Director in the preparation of an operating
budget for the building.

To review the budget print-out sheets to amend errors,
redirect funds, etc.

TO assign priorities in a planned program Of needed
expenditures.

To evaluate individual areas in terms Of profit/loss and tO
make necessary adjustments where possible.

To keep in close contact with the Accountant regarding
expenditures, etc.

Approving and signing of payroll sheets.

C.

181

Cleaning and Set-Up Personnel

1.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Complete responsibility for hiring, job assignments, and
special duties.

Assignment Of over-time work.

Handling Of grievances and disciplinary procedures.
Scheduling Of vacation leave.

Purchasing needed janitorial supplies.

TO institute training sessions.

To be "on call" for the handling of problems.

Maintenance Personnel

1.

2.

5.

Keeping abreast of most maintenance work, including
preventive maintenance within the building.

Assigning over-time work as suggested by the maintenance
foreman.

Purchasing necessary items for repair and maintaining an
adequate inventory of Often used items.

Maintaining close contact with physical plant supervisors
as related to those men assigned to TUC.

Maintaining close contact with tradesmen from physical
plant performing duties within the building (carpenters,
painters, etc.)

General Building Responsibilities

1.

To coordinate all the factors necessary for the set-up Of
meetings, dinners, and other events through close contact
with Food Service, Campus Calendar Office, and TUC set-up
staff.

Coordinating and overseeing any work done by outside
contractors within TUC.

Assignment of and record keeping for all keys within TUC.
RespOnsible for telephone changes within TUC.

Responsible for general checks of building in coordination
with maintenance and janitorial personnel.

Determination Of building hours in coordination with
Campus Calendar Office, Center Board, and TUC staff.

 

8.

9.

182

Handling of problems which occur within TUC (Motorola Page
Boy unit carried).

To consult with sales representatives and speciali. ts in
building maintenance.

”On call” for emergencies Of any nature.

[I. Involvement with Students, Faculty, and Staff

A. Students

1.

6.

7.

Committee advisor on Center Board.
Attend Executive Committee meetings of Center Board.
Attend Center Board meetings.

Involvement with those students having organization Offices
within the building.

Involvement with students using the building, knowing most
of the frequent users.

Keeping flexibility within our procedures to meet student
needs when feasible.

Available for individual counseling.

B. Faculty and Staff

1.

2.

3.

Meeting those persons who have scheduled meetings or events
within TUC.

Maintaining flexibility Of procedures to meet specific
needs when feasible.

Trying to encourage more use Of our facilities by faculty
and staff to promote student-faculty interaction.

II. Responsibilities to the Director

A. Operations

1.

Keep Director informed of Operations and to seek his advice
on matters Of concern.

Relate the outcome Of special assignments.

Prepare reports pertaining to Operational data.

V.

r -- h-—-—— flay-u ~_ __-=-_x,?

 

B. Planning 183

1. To discuss and evaluate future building needs and the
priorities of these needs.

2. TO conduct research programs.
Priorities (on time spent basis)
A. Operations as noted under I.

B. Involvement with students, Center Board, organizations housed
in TUC and persons using our facilities and services.

C. Future planning and research.
These priorities in no way reflect what I envision as the ideal
priority structure, but do represent present priorities based upon

time.

 

184

University Center
.Program Department

Job Description

PROGRAM DIRECTOR

1.

2.

ll.

12.

13.

Coordinate the program Of activities sponsored by
the University Center Board.

Serve as a liason between the Board, Director, Dean
of Students, Director Of Student Activities and
University Center Staff.

Advise and give assistance tO committee chairmen and
the members Of the committees.

Communicate the role and purpose Of the University
Center program to the University Community.

Interpret the University Center Operating policies
and procedures to members of the Board.

Represent the program staff in assigned areas.

Participate in the training and development Of
students and staff.

Assist in the preparation and presentation of an
annual program budget.

Attend Board and committee meetings.

Coordinate the continued evaluation of the University
Center program.

Initiate and develOp program content areas as
needed.

Quarterly performance evaluation of the Program
Department Staff.

Available for quarterly evaluation of performance by
the University Center Director.

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

185

Job Description

Assistant Program Director

Strive to carry out duties and responsibilities in
accordance with the statement and philOSOphy of the
Program Department.

Be responsible for coordinating the program of activities
sponsored by assigned University Center Board committees

in light of consideration of the entire organizational pro-
gram.

Be responsible for advising and giving assistance to com—
mittee chairmen and the members of the committees in their
efforts to accomplish the program activities.

Be responsible for participation in training and development
of student and staff.

Be responsible for assisting in the preparation of annual
program department and University Center Board budget.

Be responsible for awareness of University Center Board
direction and program plans by:
a. attending University Center Board meetings.
b. attending University Center Board executive meetings
c. attending committee functions
d. evaluation Of committee and individual activities.

Be available for quarterly evaluations of performance in
this position with the Program Director.

‘To participate in weekly staff meetings.

To keep abreast of innovations in the field, implementing
these where possible, and communicating these ideas with other
members of the organization. '

To participate in professional development programs at
least once per year for continued growth and experience.

Be responsible for familiarity with campus services in order
to provide resource counseling, information and advice to
students seeking assistance.

Be familiar with the role and responsibilities of the Pro-
gram Director in order to perform these duties in his/her
absence.

TO accept new responsibilities as assigned.

186
UNIVERSITY CENTER

Program Department

Job Description

Graduate Assistant

Develop and maintain instructional programs to fulfill the
craft and leisure time needs of the university and community.

Manage an annual budget for Craft Shop operation.
Select, train, and supervise employees of the Craft Shop.

Actively prarticipate in functions of the Program Department
staff.

Advise at least one committee of the University Center Board.
Assist Program Department staff in projects as assigned.

Available for quarterly performance evaluation with the
Program Department staff.

Attend Program Department Staff meetings and University
Center Board meetings.

nlmlnuwsumlwmuflnww