“Search For A Common Ground”: Frank Porter Graham’s 1966 Commencement Address

Frank Porter Graham Speech at the 1957 Inauguration of Bill Friday, from Office of President of the University of North Carolina (System): William C. Friday Records, 1957-1986 (#40009), University Archives
Frank Porter Graham speaking at the 1957 Inauguration of Bill Friday, from Office of President of the University of North Carolina (System): William C. Friday Records, 1957-1986 (#40009), University Archives.

Having recently graduated from the UNC Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science, I thought it would be fitting for my final blog post to examine a past graduation. In researching the class of 1966 for its 50th anniversary, I found that year’s commencement address. The speech, titled “Search for a Common Ground,” was given by Frank Porter Graham, the former President of UNC-Chapel Hill and the consolidated UNC system. Graham took the opportunity to address the Speaker Ban law that was then being challenged in court.

The law, officially titled “An Act to Regulate Visiting Speakers at State Supported Colleges and Universities,” was enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in June of 1963. Although students and faculty across the state argued against the law, Chapel Hill was at the center of the protest. The most visible challenge to the law came in 1966 when two speakers were invited by UNC students to speak on campus. Because the speakers were members of the Communist Party, they had to address the students from the sidewalk of Franklin Street, across the wall from McCorkle Place. Graham’s commencement address was delivered just a few months after these speeches and the subsequent legal challenge that would lead to the law being overturned in 1968.

Graham opens his speech with a brief history of the University, from its founding in the 18th century through its closure during the Civil War to the administration of President Kemp Plummer Battle. Graham set this historical groundwork in order to present, “a balanced and fair analysis in seeking to find a common ground for our whole University family.” Graham is careful to present his thoughts in a neutral manner and not to embroil himself in the legal or political dispute. However, Graham does identify some of those opposed to the Ban including seven prominent student groups, the North Carolina Chapters of the American Association of University Professors in the Universities and Colleges of North Carolina, and the North Carolina Chapter of the Civil Liberties Union. With regard to the student body, he remarked that “in electing their present President, who I understand, made one of the main planks in his campaign for election the right of having student-sponsored, responsible, balanced and free open forums, were aware of his vigorous position on this matter and were sincere in their support of him.”

Graham also used this speech to address the charges of atheism and communism that were being leveled against the University and its representatives. In response to the fear of growing atheism, Graham reminds the audience of how

many honest young minds in the colleges have in times past effectively grappled with (1) the Copernican dethronement of the earth as the center of the universe, (2) the Darwinian evolutionary identification of man with animals, (3) the alleged overriding of spiritual power by Marxist economic determinism, (4) the Freudian subjection of the conscious mind to primitive drives and subconscious forces, and (5) the modification of absolute theories by the theory of relativity.

Similarly, he denies the claim that the University is soft on communism by stating,

the fact that the students wish to hear communists speak in their responsible and fairly balanced open forums along with speakers who represent the extreme right, the conservative and the liberal points of view, does not mean that they are soft on communism, but simply means they wish to understand the nature of the world of their generation.

While the Speaker Ban issue was resolved almost 50 years ago, speech on college campuses is still a divisive issue. Frank Porter Graham’s reconciliation of a state-imposed  law with the values and mission of the University also parallels the controversy surrounding House Bill 2 in which North Carolina and the University are currently engaged.

For more information about the Speaker Ban Law, visit the A Right to Speak and Hear library exhibit or the exhibit in The Carolina Story: A Virtual Museum of University History

[Frank Porter Graham’s 1966 Commencement Address, from Office of Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Joseph Carlyle Sitterson Records, 1966-1972 (#40022), University Archives]

“The Planet Mars – Is It Inhabited?”: A. H. Patterson’s 1902 Speech

In researching Professor Andrew Henry Patterson for my last blog post, I came across an interesting document among his personal papers. In 1902, while still a professor at the University of Georgia, Patterson delivered a speech at the centennial assembly of Salem Academy and College in Winston-Salem, N.C. titled “The Planet Mars – Is It Inhabited?” Following this address, the speech was supposed to be stored in a sealed envelope in the Salem Academy archive and reopened in 2002 “to  compare theories in 1902 with those 100 years later.” However, attempts to find the speech at the Salem Academy archives in 1964 were unsuccessful. The speech now held by UNC is a copy of a draft of the original, acquired from Andrew Patterson’s son Dr. Howard Patterson.

It is now fourteen years after Patterson had intended the speech to be reopened, and our knowledge of the planet Mars far surpasses what was theorized in 1902. The most compelling evidence for life on Mars discussed in the speech was the existence of canals on the Martian surface, first observed by Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli in 1877. Patterson devotes a great deal of his speech to corroborating the existence of these canals by citing other astronomers, concluding that “On the whole, I believe we may consider the existence of the so-called ‘canals’  as proved by most careful and reliable observers in many parts of the world.” Patterson proposes the theory that these canals are artificially created for irrigation. Astronomers of the period also observed that the polar caps of Mars appeared and disappeared according to the Martian season, theorizing that these could be sources of water for the vast irrigation networks. Patterson even imagines just how differently life might have evolved on Mars, stating “what manner of beings thet [sic] may be we lack the data even to conceive.” In his conclusion, Patterson stated his belief “that Mars seems to be inhabited is not the last but the first word on the subject.”

Despite the wide gap in astronomical knowledge between 1902 and today, the accuracy of some theories is impressive. With regards to the difficulty many astronomers had in observing Schiaparelli’s canals, Patterson cites a Dr. Fison, who argues “that these canals have not been seen at the Naval Observatory, Harvard Observatory, Yerkes Observatory and others having far better telescopes than those used by Schiaparelli, who had an 8 1/3-inch glass, and by Lowell, who had a 24-inch, and therefore the canals must be optical illusions.” Fison was ultimately correct about the canals being optical illusions. Patterson also quotes Fison accurately describing the surface of Mars as “a succession of bleak arid deserts over which the rays of the vertical sun would seem to struggle in vain to mitigate the blasting chill of attenuated air.” However, Fison then went on to suppose the existence of “elementary forms of vegetation capable of withstanding the rigors of a climate more than artic [sic] in character.” Patterson addresses the question of polar ice caps by citing scientists who believed “the snow caps to be composed of solid Carbon Dioxide, instead of water. . . . the spectroscope shows no trace, or at least very little, of water vapor on Mars.” We now know that the polar caps are composed of both frozen carbon dioxide as well as water-ice.

114 years after Andrew Patterson delivered his speech on Mars, it is now possible to view the surface of Mars in 360 degrees through a web browser. Using virtual reality technology, it is even possible to see what it would be like to stand on the “bleak arid deserts” of Mars from a first-person perspective.

“All Dances Will Be Suspended”: The Effect of Prohibition at UNC in 1925

While national prohibition was voted into law in 1919 with the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, North Carolina had been dry since it passed a state-wide prohibition law in 1908. As the sale and consumption of alcohol in North Carolina had already been banned for twelve years when enforcement of the 18th Amendment began in 1920, prohibition had little direct effect on the University.

German Club Executive Committee, from the 1926 Yackety Yack, http://digitalnc.org
German Club Executive Committee in the 1926 Yackety Yack, from DigitalNC

However, a 1925 German Club dance held around Thanksgiving prompted a harsh response from President H.W. Chase. Despite its name, the German Club was not related to the nation of Germany or the German language. Rather, the club, organized in the late nineteenth century, planned formal dances and other social events for its members. A ‘German’ was a kind of social dancing that became popular following the Civil War.

The incident caused by this dance was investigated by Andrew Henry Patterson, a professor of physics and Dean of the School of Applied Sciences. In his report to President Chase, Patterson noted that the conditions for illegal drinking were perfect as there were, “hundreds of visitors brought here by the game, and many of them with liquor. The wonder is that more drinking was not done[….]” The game to which Patterson referred was the annual Thanksgiving Day game against the University of Virginia. According to Patterson, “no estimate on the part of anybody as to the number of men who had taken a drink would run over 20 or 25% of those present,” and that “no shadow of a rumor that any girls were drinking has been found, which is encouraging.”

Patterson to Chase
Report on German Club dance incident by A.H. Patterson, from  University of North Carolina Papers (#40005), University Archives

On the day this letter was sent to President Chase, December 4, 1925, he delivered an address to students in chapel discouraging the use of alcohol. Chase emphasized “the problem of the influence of drinking on the future business and social relations of the young men who make up the student bodies in our colleges today.” He went on to state “his opinion that drinking is now a thing for the vulgar and lower classes to indulge in” and that alcohol use was something “invariably leading to unmannerly and indecent conduct.”

This incident and its investigation prompted President Chase to suspend all dances at the University until the end of Easter holidays. This suspension also extended to “the giving of any dance by any University organization or student at any place outside the University campus.” When the suspension ended in April of 1926, the German Club adopted new bylaws that made its executive committee responsible to the University for the conduct at all dances, regardless of the clubs or groups hosting them. According to the Daily Tar Heel on April 15, 1926, these bylaws also imposed regulations on dances. These included no smoking on the dance floor, no girls leaving the dance hall without a chaperone, and strict end times for dances. Most dances were required to end by 1:00 AM, while Saturday night dances had to end by midnight. Some German Club dances were permitted to last until 2:00 AM. The German Club continued to organize dances and concerts until the late 1960s.

[President Chase’s letter to the German Club suspending all dances, from the University of North Carolina Papers (#40005), University Archives]

Web-Walkers: Redesigning UNC’s Home Page in 1996

In 2013, UARMS published a blog post highlighting the web archiving project of the UNC Libraries. To demonstrate how much the web had changed over time, this post featured UNC’s web page circa 1997. To update the information provided in that post, the Internet Archive now boasts 469 billion web pages saved since 1996 compared to the 366 billion pages saved in 2013. UARMS still actively captures and archives websites, which can be accessed through the University Archives’ Archive-It page.We have recently uncovered more documents related to the creation of this early UNC web page.

[Black and white print outs of the 1996 UNC homepage prior to being redesigned, from the Academic Technology and Networks of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Records (#40224), University Archives]

In 1996, a group of faculty, staff, and students known as the Web-Walkers set out to redesign UNC’s home page. As highlighted in our 2013 blog post, the most prominent visual featured on the new web page was an acrostic spelling CAROLINA that was used to organize the links to other relevant web pages.

UNC homepage in 1996 as redesigned by the Web Walker group. from the Academic Technology and Networks of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Records, 1951-2000s, #40224, University Archives
UNC homepage in 1996 as redesigned by the Web-Walkers group, from Archive.org Wayback Machine

This acrostic was divisive among the Web-Walkers, with numerous correspondences both supporting and critiquing its use. One group member wrote in feedback that he would, “strongly suggest dropping the whole spelling-out of CAROLINA with section headings. As an acronym for website subsections, it looks, well, ‘cute,’ but it just doesn’t lend itself to a sensible organization of information.”  This complaint was echoed by  a self-described “Librarian and frequent UNC home page user,” who wrote that “forcing the logical categories of text to fit the word ‘Carolina’ is awfully cute and artificial.”

The redesign also garnered praise, with another group member writing, “the new UNC screen looks really good–very clever use of Carolina, too…I’ll bet that took some brainstorming.” This compliment was not unique, as another message stated, “It was very creative for someone to match CAROLINA with appropriate categories.” The problem with the acrostic became more apparent as users searched for content that had previously been accessible with a single click, such as “Departments and Organizations,” which was now buried several pages deep under the “Research and Academics” link.

The inspiration for the new categories originated with the University of Chicago’s homepage, which the Web-Walkers group used as a model. These categories were agreed upon before the CAROLINA acrostic was created:

When the design team chose to make the first letter big, it didn’t look quite right and they wanted to make it spell something. To get CAROLINA all they had to do was change Academic and Research to Research and Academic, Student Information to Information for Students, and add an O — Office of the Chancellor.

In the same email explaining the origin of the acrostic, the UNC Campus-Wide Information Systems Manager, who oversaw the website redesign, predicted that “this new page won’t last much more than a year.” The webpage would not be redesigned again until 1999, three years later.

Another major issue that arose in designing the new website was the color scheme. While the final version features Carolina Blue text over a white background, there is copious feedback featuring complaints about blue text and black links. As one Web-Walker wrote,

I find the main page color scheme (text in blue, links in black) to be _very_ confusing… a lot of browsers default to black text with blue links, and particularly with the C-A-R-O-L-I-N-A structure here it is not immediately clear whether the user should click on the initial letter or on the rest of the word.

This advice was never taken and the first letter of each category was never made part of the link. A follow-up email by the same person states that after showing the page to friends, “NONE managed to click on the actual links without several false starts.” The use of Carolina Blue as the font color, while rich in school pride, also posed a user interface problem. As one member reported, “the contrast is not very good, and it is difficult to read…I hate to say it, but a royal blue (Duke?) is much easier on the eyes.”

Since the design discussed in this blog post debuted in August of 1996, the UNC homepage has undergone three major redesigns. The most recent redesign was implemented in July of 2010, bringing us the homepage that is now familiar to all Tar Heels. Click on the screenshots below to peruse each iteration of the site in the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

UNC homepage, 9/12/1999
UNC homepage 9/12/1999, from Archive.org Wayback Machine
UNC homepage, 2/13/2008
UNC homepage 2/13/2008, from Archive.org Wayback Machine
UNC homepage, 7/14/2010
UNC homepage 7/14/2010, from Archive.org Wayback Machine

Arrington v. Taylor: The Daily Tar Heel and Student Activity Fees

The Daily Tar Heel (DTH,) founded as the Tar Heel by the UNC Athletic Association in 1893, has long been a staple of life at UNC. However, the student paper faced a significant legal challenge to its finances and operations in the 1970s.

Since the 1920s, the Daily Tar Heel had been partially funded by mandatory student fees. On July 25, 1972, four UNC students filed suit against the Chancellor of the University, the President of the Consolidated University, the Chancellor for Business and Finance, the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Governors alleging that the use of student activity fees to finance the Daily Tar Heel violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. These students argued that they were being forced to endorse the opinions and political candidates supported in print by the Daily Tar Heel despite being contrary to their personal beliefs. The students believed that anyone who disagreed with the opinions published by the Daily Tar Heel should have the corresponding portion of their student fees returned and have the option not to financially support the student newspaper. As plaintiffs, the students provided a long and detailed list of every opinion the DTH published with which they disagreed:

60. The plaintiffs disagree with the positions taken by The Daily Tar Heel concerning the adoption of a Chapel Hill and Carrboro Bus System, the use of busing to integrate public school, James C. Gardner, Spiro T. Agnew, The United States intervention in Cambodia, the impeachment and removal of Richard M. Nixon, the appointment of William H. Rehnquist, the death penalty, the Equal Rights Amendment, student strikes, Food Worker’s strikes, protests against the war in Southeast Asia, and abortion….

62. The plaintiffs disagree with the positions taken by The Daily Tar Heel concerning the National Student Association, and the continued subsidization of The Daily Tar Heel.

63. The plaintiffs disagree with the positions taken reportorially by The Daily Tar Heel concerning United States intervention in Cambodia, the Vietnam Moratorium, the Equal Rights Amendment, the lettuce boycott, student political polls, the Black Student Movement, the DTH Legal Defense Fund, and civil liberties in Pitt County.

64. The plaintiffs disagree with the positions taken in and through signed columns in The Daily Tar Heel concerning the Equal Rights Amendment, revolutionary activity, and Wilbur Hobby.

[Robert Lane Arrington, et al. v. Ferebee Taylor, William Friday et al. – Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Opinion, from Assistants to the Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Susan H. Ehringhaus Records, 1964-1985, #40031, University Archives]

The judge hearing the case ultimately ruled that no constitutional rights were being violated. He based this on the fact that while the DTH “advocates positions on various matters,” the paper “speaks only for those which control its content at any given time” and does not purport to speak for the entire student body. Further the judge stated that “The Daily Tar Heel‘s position on a given subject is no more attributable to (and therefore imposed upon) plaintiffs than is the position of the Federal Government on South Vietnam attributable to each of the citizens who annually pay their federal taxes.” While the judge ruled against the student plaintiffs in 1974, the case was subsequently appealed, and a second group of students later filed a nearly identical suit that lasted into the 1980s.

In 1977, a student body referendum created a constitutional amendment that guaranteed the Daily Tar Heel 16% of the Student Activity Fees.

[1997 Authorization of a Referendum on DTH Student Activity Fees, from Student Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Records, 1919-2011, #40169, University Archives]

In 1989, the DTH incorporated as an educational 501c(3) non-profit entity, separate from the University. In 1993, the Daily Tar Heel ceased being financed by student activity fees and became wholly independent from the University. Such financial independence had long been a goal of the Daily Tar Heel, being described as a “gradual process” in a 1973 Daily Tar Heel article that asked for help funding their legal defense in the Arrington v. Taylor suit.

The_Daily_Tar_Heel_Sat__Sep_15__1973_
Daily Tar Heel, 15 September 1973. Image via Newspapers.com

For more on the history of the DTH, see the Daily Tar Heel’s timeline.

“Feign an Intelligent Understanding”: The Research Club

In 1914, professors Joseph Hyde Pratt and George Howe founded the Research Club.  This club met once a year during the last week of October and gave its members, all of whom were professors, the opportunity to present humorous or satirical mock research papers on strange and farcical topics.  At its first meeting, Pratt outlined the club’s long, mysterious (and fictitious) history.

Howe provided ten rules and regulations that governed the club.

Reseach club 0003Among its members (or “illuminati”), the Research club boasted three UNC-Chapel Hill Presidents: Francis Venable, Edward Kidder Graham, Harry W. Chase.

Some years, club members focused on specific themes or topics.  At the 1915 meeting, each professor contributed a paper describing the point of view of a country engaged in the first World War. All of the works presented during the 1916 meeting were written in poetic verse. For the 1917 meeting, the club produced a nearly 70-page novel titled The Laundry Ticket: A Story of Love and Adventure, for which each professor contributed a chapter.

The Research Club continued to meet until 1921.

Materials used in this post are from the Research Club of the University of North Carolina Records (#40193).

“Visions of Tomorrow With Computers of Today”: UNC’s First Computer in 1959

Computer_Center_SketchThe process of acquiring the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s first computer began with a 1951 memorandum from William M. Whyburn, then Kenan Professor of Mathematics and Mathematics Department Chairman, to Chancellor R.B. House. Whyburn became interested in digital computing during a conversation with mathematicians at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where he did consulting work. By 1952, an effort to canvas the campus for interest in digital computing began, which resulted in a 1955 letter to Chancellor House from Dean of the General College Corydon Spruill listing eight academic departments with interest in a digital computer: Economics, Business Administration, Mathematics, Mathematical Statistics, Bio-statistics, Psychology and Psychometrics, and Physics.

With widespread interest established, the administration began seriously considering the type, cost, and location of the computer. In 1955, the estimated cost of a computer was 1.5 million dollars with Venable Hall, the Phillips Hall Annex, and Hanes or Gardner being considered to house the new device. The Phillips Hall Annex was ultimately chosen to house the computer and the accompanying Computation Center. It was also in 1955 that the U.S. Bureau of the Census expressed interest in partnering with UNC to process the upcoming 1960 census data. By 1957, negotiations with both IBM and the Sperry Rand Corporation had entered full swing, with Whyburn remarking, “competition is so keen that either of them will now make tremendous concessions in favor of the University.” In a 1957 report on the Computer Laboratory Project, Whyburn, then serving as Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research of the Consolidated University, gave a sweeping introduction to the digital computer:

Man’s efforts in the field of computation began long before the dawn of history. His progress in this basic endeavor has been a most important factor in, and index to, the advancement of his civilization. The first high-speed computer that we know of consisted of such body appendages as the fingers. The abacus was developed quite early and even today remains an indispensable computing machine for a large segment of the world’s population and in many of the business transactions of the present period. In the development from the fingers through the abacus, the simple adding machine, the slide rule, and the desk calculator with automatic operations and limited storage, to the fantastic digital and analog computers of the present time is to be found the history of a major part of our civilization. Wherever quantitative thinking, speaking, writing, or action is involved, services of computing devices are required. The depth and scope of these quantitative activities are determined, in a large measure, by the versatility, speed, and other attributes of the computing facilities used.

UNC ultimately decided to acquire a UNIVAC 1105 from the Sperry-Rand Corporation due to a large 50% educational discount and being able to own the machine outright versus renting one from IBM. The computer weighed 19 tons and had an estimated value of $2.4 million, which, adjusting for inflation, would today be over $20 million. The Census Bureau and National Science Foundation were the first organizations to rent time on the computer, with the former also paying 50% of the total cost.

Lecture_PamphletIn the summer of 1959, the Computation Center held a series of lectures introducing the new digital computer. These “Courses in Frontier Research in Digital Computers” covered subjects such as programming and artificial intelligence and numerical analysis. These courses drew researchers from across the world, including two lecturers from the Soviet Union. The Computation Center was officially dedicated on March 30, 1960.

Dedication_Book

“Large Scale Dishonesty”: The 1936 Cheating Ring

student_council
1936 Student Council. From the 1936 Yackety Yack,  http://digitalnc.org

In January of 1936, a first-year student exposed a cheating ring among the UNC Chapel Hill student body. Under the rules of student governance and the honor system, the Student Council took responsibility for investigating the organized cheating with the power to administer punishments as serious as permanent suspensions. The Council first met in relation to the cheating accusation on January 29th, 1936 and within a week, suspended 46 students. The large scope of the problem and decisive action taken by the Student Council called into question the efficacy and purpose of the honor code. This cheating ring even affected the Student Council President,  Jack Pool, who stepped down from his position “when he indicted himself for a cheating offense committed five years ago” (Daily Tar Heel, 2/4/1936). Pool was replaced as President by Francis Fairley, who is pictured above.

Bradshaw to House
Dean of Students Francis Bradshaw to Dean of Administration House. From the Office of President of the University of North Carolina (System): Frank Porter Graham Records, 1932-1949 (#40007)

At the outset of the scandal, Dean of Students Francis F. Bradshaw wrote to Dean of Administration R.B. House informing him that, “through the devotion and intelligent effort of a student group, this matter has at last been run to ground. The students are assembling what appears to be complete detailed evidence of dishonesty on the part of a considerable number of students.”

House to Graham
Dean of Administration House to President Graham. From the Office of President of the University of North Carolina (System): Frank Porter Graham Records, 1932-1949 (#40007)

House then wrote President of the University Frank Porter Graham, stating that “As distressing as the situation is, I rejoice that the students are the ones who are clearing it up and that we seem to be in the way of clearing up a grave threat to integrity and honor in our student life.” Graham publicly responded with a pledge of honor at a first-year class assembly where he expounded that “Carolina is going to be more honorable than ever before from now on. The students are the only ones who can clean this cheating out, and they are doing it. There will be no wrist slapping. You can’t stay at the University if you cheat” (Daily Tar Heel, 2/4/1936).

The cheating scandal garnered national attention with with mixed popular opinion. The honor system was simultaneously lauded for its efficacy and transparency and derided for allowing such widespread cheating to take place. Many family members and friends of those suspended wrote to President Graham in apology or support. In one such letter, the mother of suspended student Paul Wagner said that on a trip to UNC, “the Devil took possession of him”  and that her son had “been rated by the so called brain specialists as an unusually smart boy.” Mrs. Wagner concluded that she had “no one to blame but myself” and thanked the administration “for every thing you have done for my boy.” Several family members and acquaintances of former Student Council President Jack Pool also wrote to President Graham in his defense. Graham wrote to Pool’s mother, “How deeply we appreciate what Jack has done at the University as a man and as a leader. He took a brave stand here this year as president of the student body and then sacrificed himself in the cause that he was fighting for.”

By the end of the investigations, over 150 students were found to have participated in the cheating ring. Not only did this include Student Council President Jack Pool, but also members of Phi Beta Kappa and the Order of the Golden Fleece. However, many of the suspended students, including Pool, were reinstated soon after their punishment. The most common result was a failing grade and a loss of credit in the class in which a student cheated.

 

 

The Creation of the Department of Communication Studies

University Archives recently acquired records from the Department of Communication, located in Bingham Hall. The records highlighted one of the many departmental reorganizations that have shaped the university: the 1993 merger of the Department of Radio, Television, and Motion Pictures (RTVMP) and the Department of Speech Communication. The merger resulted in the Department of Communication Studies, which this month became the Department of Communication.

Department of Radio, Television, and Motion Pictures (RTVMP): Three men with equipment, circa 1952 #P0031
WUNC’s John Young, Dr. Earl Wynn of what was then the Department of Radio, and an unidentified man in a radio studio, circa 1952. The Department of Radio, established in 1947, became the Department of Radio, Television, and Motion Pictures in 1954. From the UNC Photographic Laboratory Collection (#P0031), North Carolina Collection Photographic Archive.

In November 1990, the Daily Tar Heel published a series of articles reporting student and alumni dissatisfaction with the job preparation provided by the department. This was further compounded by the department’s refusal of an equipment donation by an RTVMP alumnus on the grounds of insufficient space in Swain Hall, high maintenance costs, and onerous gift conditions. Some RTVMP students and alumni thought the refusal indicated that the department was not dedicated to providing students with technical skills needed for careers in media production.

A 1993 external review of the department included four major recommendations:

1. That the Department of Radio, Television, and Motion Pictures at UNC-Chapel Hill be disestablished;

2. That four of its faculty lines be transferred to a new Curriculum in Cultural Studies (or to some other academic unit, temporarily, until permission for a new Curriculum can be secured); at least two of these lines should be filled by persons with media interests;

3. That the remainder of its faculty lines be collected into a new sequence in Media Arts within the Department of Speech Communication;

4. That the Department of Speech Communication’s name be changed to the Department of Communication Studies.

(From the Records of the Department of Speech Communication #40455, unprocessed)

The review was poorly received by many RTVMP students and alumni as it also proposed the elimination of “radio production, broadcast management, corporate video, studio production, and broadcast journalism.”  Perceived lack of support for production classes was one of the primary complaints students and alumni reported in 1990, and it had remained a sticking point among students who planned to seek media production jobs following graduation.

The university largely followed recommendations set out in the review and on August 1, 1993, merged the Department of RTVMP and Department of Speech Communication into the Department of Communication Studies. The Daily Tar Heel reported in September 1993 that despite fears that the media production program would suffer as a result of the merger, the new department allocated “$38,500 for production equipment and maintenance—$25,500 more than the RTVMP department had to work with during the last academic year.”

UNC Department of Communication, from https://twitter.com/UNCDeptComm/status/649958554020020224/photo/1
From the UNC Department of Communication Twitter page

Now in its 22nd year, the Department of Communication still offers specialization in Media and Technology Studies and Media Production.

Igniting a Rivalry: The 1961 UNC-Duke Basketball Fight

The basketball rivalry between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University is one of the most contentious and well-known in America. One of the earliest and fiercest displays of this rivalry was an on-court fight on February 4, 1961. It was at this UNC-Duke matchup that UNC players Larry Brown and Don Walsh and Duke player Art Heyman started a bench-clearing brawl. It has been suggested that some of the hostility between Brown and Heyman may have resulted from having played against each other in high school. Heyman had also committed to attending UNC before changing his mind and enrolling at Duke.

Video of the February 4, 1961 Duke – UNC fight, Duke University. Basketball Game Film Collection University Archives, Duke University.

In attendance at this game was James H. Weaver, Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference, the athletic conference to which both schools belonged. In a letter found in the files of then-chancellor William B. Aycock, Weaver reacted to the fight. He criticized the behavior of students in the crowd, calling them “juvenile delinquents” who

amuse themselves by tossing articles onto the playing floor, booing officials, booing visiting players while they are attempting foul shots, and at the same time, eagerly awaiting any opportunity to rush onto the court and further display their total lack of maturity.

Commissioner Weaver pointedly warned that though the three players primarily involved in the altercation were young and at the beginning of their careers, “sophomores must be made to realize that they too can cause riots.” As a result of this incident, Larry Brown, Don Walsh, and Art Heyman were “declared ineligible to compete against other Atlantic Coast Conference teams for the remainder of the regular season 1960-61,” were “not to appear in basketball uniforms at games in which they are ineligible to compete [or to] to sit on the players’ benches during such contests.” These penalties did not apply to tournament play, but UNC was already ineligible for such games as they were serving one year probation due to recruiting violations.

Observation of ACC Commissioner Weaver. From Office of Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: William Brantley Aycock Records, 1957-1964 (#40020), University Archives

In addition to documenting the storied animosity between UNC and Duke, this incident is noteworthy for including several notable figures. In the years since, Larry Brown has coached 13 college and professional basketball teams and has won both NCAA and NBA championships. Brown was enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2002 and is currently the head coach of Southern Methodist University’s men’s basketball team, the Mustangs. The second UNC player suspended due to the fight, Don Walsh, has served as head coach of the Denver Nuggets, general manager and president of basketball operations of the Indiana Pacers, president of basketball operations with the New York Knicks, and is currently a consultant for the Pacers. Heyman went on to be the first overall pick in the 1963 NBA draft and was selected by the New York Knicks.