|

 

 

 

Reactions to the Paper: The Muncie Community

While the Underground Press certainly became popular with the younger generation in the 1960s, by its very nature it also had a large number of opponents.  These opponents ranged from concerned parents to government agencies like the local police and even the FBI.  From broken windows to the outlawing of papers by university administrators, opposition was a daily concern for many underground publications. (Gitlin, "Cave-In, pg. 29-30)

The most common opposition came in the form of arrests by the local police.  While it was legal to print and distribute the newspapers, many arrests were made with the charge of selling and distributing pornography.  Despite the numerous court decisions which ruled that these papers were not pornographic, these arrests continued.  While the writers and editors would not face any criminal charges, they would often have to pay fines or post bail, thereby hurting the newspaper financially.  Those arrested for selling underground newspapers were typically people hired to sell the papers on the street at a percentage Arrests for drug possession by underground press writers were also common.  Sometimes police were tipped off by members of the community while other times illegal searches were made without warrants, though there was little which the newspapers could do about it. (Rips, 43-134)

The most spectacular form of opposition of the underground press was exposed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by writers such as Geoffrey Rips and Todd Gitlin.  Their works brought to light the FBI infiltration of the underground press by agents during the late 1960s.  In one particularly interesting case, the FBI actually created a fake underground newspaper in Bloomington, Indiana called the Armageddon News.  The paper was staffed by FBI agents with the goal of using the paper to turn students against the campus radicals.  The articles subtly undermined those opposed to the Vietnam War and the Black Power movement by suggesting that, while things were clearly not perfect, the agendas of a few radicals should not be pushed on the majority.  In other instances, the FBI attempted to convince printers to stop printing underground newspapers. (Peck, 141-142)   

The Kudzu, printed in Jackson, Mississippi,was one paper that saw significant opposition from the local government.  The Kudzu, which ran from 1968 to 1972, was unique in that it was one of the few underground publications from the Deep South.  For its first couple years, the paper was run by David Doggett, a local civil rights activist.  Beginning with its first issue, the newspaper gained opponents in the local community.  Several members were arrested on charges of “pandering to minors.”  Members were subject to beatings by the police, infiltration by FBI informants, and even had shots fired at their headquarters.  Instead of giving up, this level of opposition actually encouraged Doggett, who saw the opposition as proof that the paper was being taken seriously by the mainstream community. (Young, 122, 131-133)

While The Only Alternative did not see the level of opposition which the writers of the Kudzu faced, there was a legitimate level of opposition both in the community and the university.  Shortly after the debut of the first issue in September 1968, Bill Hariff, the editor, was forced to change his phone number to unlisted because of “obscene and threatening calls.” (Daily News, Dec. 10, 1968) In March 1969, the Muncie Evening Press and the Muncie Star featured multiple letters to the editor on the subject of The Only Alternative.  All of these letters feature descriptions of The Only Alternative as “filthy,” “vulgar,” “revolutionary,” and “obscene.” In one letter, addressed from “A Parent,” complains that The Only Alternative “reeks with the ideas and voices of our mortal enemies, communism, perversion, and the corruption of everyday common decency.” (Public Letter Box, Muncie Star, March 5, 1969) In another scathing review, Muncie Evening Press editor Leon Parkinson referred to the newspaper as “filthy, dirty, and certainly of no literary consequence.” (Editor’s Corner, Evening Press, March 24, 1969)

Along with the outright disgust shown toward the magazine, the writers offered two different opinions on how to deal with The Only Alternative.  One concerned parent called for readers to write to their legislature, requesting for something to be done about the paper.  Another letter, from “A Square,” believed that “the best defense…[was] to ignore the paper and the dirty-necked scum who produce it.” (Letters to the Editor, Evening Press, March 22, 1969) These letters certainly offer an interesting insight into the adult community’s reaction to the paper, but the opinion of the college students, the likely purchasers and readers of the newspaper, is harder to obtain.  In Leon Parkinson’s column on The Only Alternative, he claims that the newspaper was “a subject of laughing matter with the big majority of Ball State students…one buys it and passes it along to fellow students so that we may all laugh at the stupidity of those responsible for the publication.” (Editor’s Corner, Evening Press, March 24, 1969) In a letter from Mrs. Vivian Gray, she claims to have seen “first-hand the reaction of most of the students of Ball State to T.O.A,” and suggests that students “walk past vendors, shaking their head in disgust.” While it is possible that the “big majority” of students were not sure what to make of The Only Alternative, the fact that they were printing 1500 copies an issue seems to suggest that many in the community were interested. (Daily News, October 27, 1969)

While the opinions of a few disgruntled parents published in the Muncie newspapers had little effect on the paper, the efforts of the local police department were much more effective.  Like other underground newspapers, The Only Alternative staff hired students to sell newspapers on the street and on campuses.  Those who sold papers could keep 25% of the sales.  This method of sale seems to have been effective for most underground newspapers.  For The Only Alternative, these salesmen were the only paid positions.  As peddlers of an underground newspaper, the salesmen were the most vulnerable to police action as they were easily spotted selling the paper on the streets.  This was the case for Bill Bales, a freshman who was arrested on charges of “distributing obscene literature” in downtown Anderson after being chased off the premises of Anderson High School.  Bales was jailed and had his copies of the newspaper confiscated by the police.  (Daily News, March 13, 1970) Several issues of The Only Alternative also discuss the Muncie Police Department’s attempts to catch staff members in possession of drugs.

Reactions to the Paper: The Ball State Community

While The Only Alternative obviously faced some opposition from the Muncie Community, the reception on campus was in general, much better. As the paper was not an official Ball State publication, there was little the administration could do to prevent TOA from being sold. In fact, the Daily News contains several articles in defense of TOA, suggesting that if the Administration or faculty attempted to hinder the publication in any way, they were violating the Constitution. ("TOA Deserves Rights," Daily News, Oct. 23, 1969) While this may have been true, it did not stop the Social Coordinating Board from making it difficult for TOA to sell in the Student Center. Because of technicalities in the rules about vendors in the student center, there were multiple occasions where TOA sellers found themselves without a table. (Daily News, April 24, 1969, Oct. 22-23, 1969) While this was certainly an inconvenience, TOA never saw any significant backlash from the Ball State Administration. In fact, President Pruis, whom TOA certainly did not look favorably upon, refused to prevent the newspaper from being sold on campus despite the fact that he did not agree with its content. (Edmonds and Geelhoed, pg. 202)

Despite the resistance of the mild resistance to TOA from the University, multiple faculty members supported the newspaper both financially and by contributing articles. Dr. Harry H. Taylor of the English Department and Dr. Richard Hardest of the Political Science Department both contributed articles to TOA. (Daily News, Dec. 10, 1968, Oct. 22, 1969) Though Ball State had a number of official and unofficial student publications (many of which have been digitized and can be viewed here) during the late 1960s and early 1970s, TOA was certainly the most controversial and well-known. From 1968-1971, the Daily News ran dozens of articles and letters to the editor related to TOA. Though the Daily News was not overly supportive of TOA, they did allow to place advertisements requesting help in multiple issues. (Daily News, Sept. 11-17, Oct. 19-20, 1970) Many of the articles about TOA featured in the Daily News actually argue that TOA has the same rights as any other publication on campus. The newspaper featured several interviews with the different editors and contributors and for the most part, the editors of the Daily News seem to have understood TOA and the viewpoints of the newspaper. TOA's stand on the Daily News however, was much more negative. Harriff and the other writers constantly referred to the Daily News as the Daily Bungle and T.J. Yunker, the editor, as D.J. Junky. In addition to these blatant

This stems mostly from the idea that, as the official student paper of Ball State, the Daily News was heavily monitored by the Administration and the editors had little creative control over the paper. Harriff and Van Buskirk were also disappointed at the addition to the Daily News refereed to as the Different Drummer. The Drummer was an addition to the paper which discussed art, music, and other forms of entertainment with the idea that it would cater to the more "countercultural" elements of Ball State's campus. The addition only lasted a few issues and, contrary to the main goal of the Drummer, it was edited to be more conservative and fall in line with much of the Daily News. TOA articles often refereed to it as the Different Bummer. ("Editor Has Comment on 'Daily Bungle,'" TOA Vol. I No. 5, Dec. 18, 1968; "Bungle Bombs Again," TOA Vol. II No. 1, Jan. 10, 1969)

Though the Ball State Administration certainly did not approve of The Only Alternative and the staff often ran into issues with selling and distributing the paper, overall The Only Alternative faced a relatively low level of resistance from the Ball State community. While Harriff and Van Buskirk's indictment of the different Daily News publications and the back-and-forth between the two newspaper is certainly entertaining, no real level of resistance seems to have existed within the student body. Though there were several negative "Letters to the Editor" about TOA featured in the Daily News, there were also a number of positive responses. By its very definition, the Counterculture of the 1960s and its various extensions were not for everyone. This was certainly the case with The Only Alternative.