Piskor was appointed as the new President of St. Lawrence University. He would immediately be thrown into several contentious conflicts with students, but Piskor was prepared. He was coming from Syracuse University, where he had been the top administrator on scene when, in 1968, the administration building was occupied by students (Blankman et al., 1987). Piskor would go on to serve as President for 11 years, navigating the University through arguably its most turbulent times since the 1880’s. Biology Professor Tom Budd recalled, “He was a non-controversial, hardworking, really
149
nice guy. He did a lot of good but he was never challenging to the faculty so I would have to say that the faculty/administrative relationship was rather non-confrontational” (personal communication, September 20, 2016). These efforts would later earn Piskor the nickname “Papa Frank.”
Just weeks into Piskor’s first semester at St. Lawrence, on October 15, 1969, a nationwide moratorium in opposition to the war in Vietnam was scheduled at colleges across the country. The Hill News reported over 500 colleges across the country planned to cancel classes, so students pressured their new President to do the same (Blankman et al., 1987). Piskor declined and explained, “I feel strongly that the overriding obligation of the University is to teach, and I cannot in good conscience as a teacher myself authorize the cancellation of classes” (Blankman et al., 1987, p. 120). It was
communicated to students that the decision of any individual to not attend class would be respected, but the institution would not take a position on this political issue (Blankman et al., 1987). Early into the spring semester, on February 6, 1970, the biggest challenge of Piskor’s first year in office came as a surprise to everyone. At dawn, the New York State Police arrived on campus and arrested ten students who lived in the residence halls for possession of illegal drugs. The administration cooperated with the investigation, while at the same time ensuring the students’ rights were protected (Blankman et al., 1987). This approach won praise from both Thelmo and the Hill News, which wrote, “Your actions following the raid have restored the waning student confidence that the administration…will stand by its students in times of crisis” (from Blankman et al., 1987, p. 125). According to Elaine White, Assistant to the Dean of Students, prior to the drug
150
bust the University’s “security force” consisted of only one individual. “Jack Moon, he was here a long time and…he only worked in the daytime. He was a good ol’ boy and a nice guy…who used to sit at the back of Sykes Hall and say, ‘Hi!’” (White, personal communication). Within the backdrop of this incident, and in alignment with the contemporary trends in higher education at the time (Doyle, 2004), the Division of Student Affairs was renamed Student Services.5 Ginny Swartz, who originally joined the University in 1971 as the Dean of Women, recalled:
I think there were tensions in the 1960’s between the Dean of Students and the students, so there was an attempt to change the Dean of Students’ office away from a disciplinary focus to create an impression of a staff with a focus of working with, and for, students. Thus, Student Services. (personal
communication, October 6, 2016)
The therapeutic approach to providing student support outside of the classroom, which would later be questioned by faculty, had commenced. As for the drug bust, it proved to be an unprecedented incident for this close-knit rural campus, opening the door for faculty to more closely scrutinize the growing disconnect between the academic environment and student life.
The other central conflict between students and administration, which would last for much of the Piskor presidency, was the debate over 24-hour visitation hours in the residence halls. A tripartite committee had submitted a proposal for each dormitory council to have full discretion over their own visitation policies, but it was rejected by the President. On February 20, 1970 – just 14 days after the drug raid – Piskor spoke to the issue of visitation, with over 800 students in attendance (Blankman et al., 1987). Again,
5 In an effort to make this study as clear as possible to the reader, this administrative division will be
151
Piskor declined to move on the issue and attempted to associate the drug problem with concerns related to the visitation policy; Thelmo responded aggressively by issuing an unauthorized implementation of the 24-hour visitation proposal (Blankman et al., 1987). The administration pushed back with a stern written warning; Thelmo responded
aggressively once again by withdrawing student representatives from all tripartite University committees for the remainder of the 1969-1970 academic year (Blankman et al., 1987).
The first signs of disharmony between faculty and administration began to show around this time. In response to the visitation rights debate, three faculty members – including Philosophy Professor Henry “Bill” Crimmel – wrote an article in the Hill News criticizing the President’s rationale. They explained, “it is somewhat unfair to fault them on their inability to honor a code which they neither approve nor understand” (from Blankman et al., 1987, p. 127). The faculty contended the real problem was not the visitation policy, yet rather a fundamental flaw with the governmental structure of the college (Blankman et al., 1987).
Faculty considered the core problem at St. Lawrence to be the governing structure. Throughout the 1970’s, the influence of faculty on the direction of the University would increase considerably. According to Blankman et al. (1987), Foster Brown opened the door to broadened governance, but Frank Piskor was the President who made it work. Upon Piskor’s arrival in 1969, Faculty Council existed only as a proposal. At the January 1970 Board of Trustees meeting this proposal was approved, formally ushering in a new era of shared governance at St. Lawrence. Another major
152
academic change was the adoption of a 4-1-4 curriculum, featuring a winter “interterm” course, which was implemented beginning in the 1970-71 academic year (Blankman et al., 1987). Students at St. Lawrence also started experimenting with study abroad
programs, with the University establishing its flagship Kenya program in 1974 (Hornung & Van de Water, 2005).
While progress occurred with shared governance and curricular development, the number of administrators continued to grow. Piskor named Allen Splete ’60 the Vice President for Academic Planning and Special Programs, making St. Lawrence the first liberal arts college in New York State to appoint a senior officer in academic planning (Blankman et al., 1987). Academic departments also continued to exert significant influence, as evidenced by the 1977 Middle States self-study, where they are described as:
So interwoven into the fabric of St. Lawrence that alternatives to
departmentalization have never been seriously considered…by and large the University has prospered in a departmental structure…[but] departmentalism was probably the leading impairment to a successfully integrated [4-1-4] interterm program. (from Blankman et al., 1987, p. 177)
Later in his tenure, Piskor would attempt to reduce the responsibility of the Dean of the College by creating an Executive Vice President position, similar to the structure he had in place at Syracuse University; the faculty pushed back hard and demanded “their Dean” be nothing less than second in command (Blankman et al., 1987). The President quickly abandoned his proposal for a new position.
On Sunday, April 26, 1970, a St. Lawrence acapella group, the Laurentian Singers, performed at a worship service for President Nixon at the White House.
153
President Piskor and his wife were present. A week later, on May 4, 1970, the Kent State University tragedy occurred. Once again, President Piskor declined to cancel classes, but the students called a two-day strike on May 7 and 8. The following day, on May 9, 1970, Frank Piskor was formally inaugurated as the President of St. Lawrence University; at Commencement, a peace flag was carried next to the American flag during the
processional.6 As Horowitz (1987) contends, following the Kent State killings the active student protest movement declined. The same proved to be true at St. Lawrence; with the exception of students continuing to petition for 24-hour visitation rights and co-ed
housing, the politically-charged activism of the late 1960’s quickly faded. Current St. Lawrence President William L. Fox ’75 was quoted in The Scarlet and the Brown as saying, “some in the freshman class which entered in 1971 were innocent of knowing much about the intrusion of Southeast Asia into young lives” (from Blankman et al., 1987, p. 206).
In fall 1970, many of the tensions of the previous year started to subside. Faculty Council was up and running, while Thelmo agreed to place students back on tripartite committees. Despite this progress, Thelmo held the belief administration was “not taking students seriously” (Blankman et al., 1987, p. 120) in such roles. Questions about visitation rights soon remerged, with the executive committee of Thelmo deliberately violating the policy in protest of no change being made on the issue. In spring 1972, Joseph “J.J.” Jockel was elected President of Thelmo. Under his tenure, Thelmo would finally obtain student representation on the Board of Trustees. The following semester, a
6 Frank Piskor’s inauguration ceremony was scheduled at the end of his first year of service as President,
154
residence hall committee was formed to review the visitation policy. Jockel, echoing the recognized national trend of declining vibrancy in campus life, shared his perspective on the intuitional culture of St. Lawrence the 1970’s:
I argued that while the faculty was pretty good and the facilities were tremendous, the academic environment was poor and weak. There was very little relationship between residential life and academic life. One didn’t support the other; smart kids wanted to leave and I wanted to explore and enhance the environment, but as a kid I didn’t have many ideas on how to do that. But I could see that we were living in two worlds. One, the academic world and then one, the residential-social world, and they had almost no relationship one to another. (Jockel, personal communication, September 2, 2016)
By 1974, the focus of Thelmo had shifted to also include co-ed housing. Once again, the administration balked and students protested. On March 15, 1974, over 300 students staged a sit-in in Vilas Hall to protest for co-ed housing. In fall 1975, the first co-ed housing was finally offered in Rebert Hall. In the 1977-78 academic year, students were still fighting for visitation rights, with Thelmo threating to organize a massive sleep-over and passing a resolution in which they described the existing policy as “a restriction of individuals’ freedom” (Blankman et al., 1987, p. 163). Soon afterward, Faculty Council unanimously passed a resolution recognizing in principle the right of students to
determine their own living arrangements (Blankman et al., 1987).
Reflecting a trend across the nation, Greek life at St. Lawrence began to plateau during this time. At several liberal arts colleges in the Northeast, Greeks were being abolished or greatly diminished; as the faculty at St. Lawrence began to exert more influence on university affairs, they also started to become more vocal in their criticism about Greek life. During the Middle States review of 1976-77, notable concerns were raised to the review team by both faculty and independent students about the Greek
155
system. According to Blankman et al. (1987), the Middle States evaluation team stated fraternities and sororities “perform in a way that has little relationship to the goals and objectives of the University…In turn, many fraternity members feel that there is a lack of support or appreciation among the administration for them” (p. 215). Jockel concurred, illuminating the shadow side of the 1965 report on Greek life, and stating Greeks “were purely social and provided at that point almost no support for the academic mission of the institution…it really bugged me that the very best facilities were given to them with no question about it” (personal communication). One example of the negative impact of Greek life is a report, in 1976, that a fraternity house party had resulted in underage drinking and several freshmen women being sexually assaulted. According to Blankman et al. (1987), the incident was written about in the Hill News, while Piskor informed the Board of Trustees that, “although we viewed the allegation as a most serious matter, our investigations did not turn up any facts which supported the charges” (p. 158).
At this time, approximately 50 percent of the student body was a recognized member of a Greek organization (Blankman et al., 1987). Gauging how independent students felt about Greek life at St. Lawrence for much of its history is difficult. Each book chronicling the history of the institution dedicates an entire chapter exclusively to discussing fraternities and sororities. Each book also speaks glowingly of Greek
contributions to the St. Lawrence story and praises the high character – particularly of the men – who comprised the membership of these organizations. Perhaps the finest
example of this is given by Griffths (1957) in Candle in the Wilderness, when he concludes:
156
Over the years fraternities and sororities have made a rich contribution to St. Lawrence. During underclass years they have stimulated competition for higher scholastic attainment and greater participation in all extracurricular
activities....While fraternities have made some mistakes and have not always been managed as well as they should be, the chapter houses by and large have been a warm and welcome addition to the undergraduate life on the St. Lawrence campus. (p. 204-205)
Minority students continued to feel marginalized in the 1970’s. According to Blankman et al. (1987), the Black Student Union felt the University could do more to attract students of color and demanded a larger role for BSU in the admissions process. Unfortunately, students of color also felt disconnected from their peers as well.
According to Anthony Ross ’75 in The Scarlet and the Brown, “In many cases it was my feeling, as well as the feeling of other black students, that we were at SLU as an
afterthought, and Thelmo was no exception” (from Blankman et al., 1987, p. 213). This feeling of isolation felt by so many students of color would also be a concern raised by the faculty who formed the FYP.
Fiscal challenges would be significant throughout the 1970’s, with inflation creating problems that were remedied by pulling in larger than anticipated incoming classes. While the college hoped to have a full-time enrollment of 2,000 students, throughout much of the 1970’s the enrollment was higher than 2,200. This resulted in overcrowding in University housing. The energy crisis, and its corresponding gas shortages, also hit the nation at this time. It was under these conditions, in 1973, that another capital campaign, “Enterprise St. Lawrence,” was launched. Unlike previous campaigns that focused on building construction, this effort was to strengthen the endowment of academic programs and student scholarships.
157
In 1972, the University’s service employees voted by a 2-to-1 margin to unionize. In May 1973, they were unable to reach an agreement with administration through
collective bargaining and a strike occurred. It lasted 24 days and, according to Blankman et al. (1987), it was “the most traumatic happening at the University” (p. 143). The majority of faculty on campus sympathized with the service workers and took their classes off-campus (Guarasci, personal communication, October 18, 2016). On the other hand, the administration, including most student affairs staff, had no choice but to step in and provide essential services to the students – such as serving meals – so the college could continue its basic functions. This incident further contributed to the tensions beginning to mount between faculty and administrators.
Despite the focus on activism movements, not all students at St. Lawrence subscribed to such liberal-learning efforts. Douglas Miles ’73 was interviewed for The
Scarlett and the Brown and explained:
I understood what the peace crowd wanted but my empathy was with fraternity brothers who had served in Vietnam…The silent non-sympathizers with the peace activism were probably at least a 70 percent majority of the campus then. We said nothing because the war was unpopular. The activists were a haughty youth on the right side of very powerful and fast-moving geopolitical trends, that being “leave Southeast Asia.” We traditional collegiates crawled into our fraternity- sorority life and ritual. We wore our Bean boots, our Topsider moccasins, our hunting jackets and Alligator shirts and pretended all this “noise” was not really happening to our otherwise blissful and fun-filled four years. (from Blankman et al., 1987, p. 205)
Throughout the Piskor years, the Hill News focused extensively on concerns over academic tone at the University. Many student activists during the 1960’s and 1970’s were college “outsiders” (Horowitz, 1987). In the years to come, future opposition to Greek systems across the country – including at St. Lawrence – would come from
158
students fitting this profile, some of whom would go on to obtain their Ph.D.’s and become teaching faculty. Several interview participants in this study are examples of this type of student.
By the 1970’s, faculty started to become more vocal about concerns regarding academic tone. Philosophy Professor Bill Crimmel, who questioned President Piskor on visitation rights just a few years earlier, was interviewed by the Hill News in spring of 1972 and, according to Blankman et al. (1987), shared his perspective that:
St. Lawrence was better than most colleges he had come in contact with but not as good as it could be. He saw the students’ real interest as becoming well-adjusted rather than being well educated. The faculty, he said, ‘has allowed itself to be dominated by administrative mentality.’ (p. 141).
The following year, in 1973, Crimmel was asked by the Hill News to write a series of commentaries for the newspaper. The professor responded with letters in ten consecutive issues, with each being critical of the state of the academy (Blankman et al., 1987). In his first article, Crimmel shared his belief that the “St. Lawrence family” had disappeared because of the union strike. He would go on to criticize the focus on scholarship over teaching, departmentalism, the anti-intellectual attitudes of students, and the negative influence of Greek life, among other topics. Years later, many of these same concerns would play a fundamental role in shaping the faculty coalition of FYP supporters.
Faculty concerns with campus life became evident for the first time in an
authorized University document when Commission on Residential Life released its final report in August 1976. A joint effort by faculty, students, administrators, and Board of Trustee members, the Commission noted how it was very clear “students and
159
preference for defining the institution as a place of work” (French et al., 1976, p. 2). The Greek system was also described by French et al. (1976) as exhibiting “resistance to the University-wide sense of community, preferring the cohesiveness of their own