OCR Text |
Show Mediaman utan Chronicle, Tuesday, August 4, 1970 3 RR- wants to project an illusion BY NICK SNOW The projected cut of $33,000 from the Freshman Orientation budget (some 70 percent of the total allotment) by President Fletcher last Thursday was surprising sur-prising to members of the student staff only in its magnitude. Nearly Near-ly everyone was aware of the opposition to the approach of initiating ini-tiating freshman taken by this year's Orientation group. Most of the opposition seems to be centered cen-tered around a film and what it does to the University's image. The film depicts, in a few choice scenes, many of the frustrations encountered at the University of Utah. It also makes a few cogent comments on racism, the dope scene and even sex. In short, a pretty gutsy little item that points up some very real aspects of this university. Aspects certain people in the Park Building would, it appears, ap-pears, just as soon forget. It is not the first time thai double dealing and underhand-edness underhand-edness lias been employed by these good people in the name of the University of Utah. But it would seem that this time they may have possibly gone too far. Public relations is a full-time job when it comes to most any organization. Its importance is not to be denied in putting a company's com-pany's message or product in the mind of the consumer. But there seems to be a choice little cadre in the Park Building that feels that anything that paints a picture of the University of Utah as other than roses and paradise is somehow evil and perverted. per-verted. These are the administrators administra-tors so insecure in their positions that they have to try and silence anything that could somehow jeopardize their illusions. It is this select society that seems to have the monopoly on what's "right" for the University "in the long run." And it was undoubtedly this group that turned turn-ed five shades of purple when members of the Orientation staff screened the infamous film by Stan and Judith Hallet last May. Whatever these good people had to do to get their message across to the president was undoubtedly done with the usual dispatch and cold "passionate concern" for the institution's welfare. And the president, feeling that money had been somehow badly spent in ty good looking, the film would put people to sleep. Shelley Osterloh had just completed com-pleted her freshman year when the film was made. If she is anything any-thing like the majority of the students who attend this university, univer-sity, any radical change in her outlook was yet to come. I will gladly wager that not all of her views made it into that film. I will further wager that some of her ideas have changed, possibly even drastically, during this past year. The Hallet film, on the other hand, shows a remarkable technique tech-nique from its opening spceded-up spceded-up sequences showing the frustrations frustra-tions of finding a parking space on campus to the closing moments mo-ments when, on the heels of some plain talk about racism, dope and protest, the film returns to a gentle scene as students leisurely leisure-ly float almost as in limbo from the library. "And you?" the film asks as this serene tableau moves to a negative and fades, setting the stage for possibly a rip-roaring discussion among the startled and stunned frosh many of whom had never seen such things before in their lives. The deadline for completion of this film meant shooting a number of outdoor sequences when (lie only colors other than the greys of the skies and browns of the mud were the reds and blues of heavy wool coats. Contrast this with the spring greens of the Shelley Osterloh flick and the bright summer dresses she wears. Just coincidence, I'm sure. The films, back to back, present pre-sent two such radically different views of the University that it is almost devestating. Neither says it all. But the most recent one, the film that cost Orientation some 70 percent of its budget, is more realistic. Censorship in the name of public pub-lic relations is still censorship making the film, summarily included in-cluded Freshman Orientation in a cutback of funding. If it was a ploy to get the film off the orientation schedule, it didn't work. It is still going to be shown. What everyone is wondering is just how much of the originally planned two-day sessions will be lost because of this reactionary tack. Anyone on the staff or in the Dean's office would agree that proper orientation consists of more than just registering freshmen, patting them on the head, and wishing them luck in that marvelous mind - expanding experience on which they are about to embark. Orientation can be one marvelously effective public pub-lic relations device when it comes to integrating new students into the university community. How easy, then, would it be for the Public Relations Department Depart-ment to embark upon its own filmmaking expedition and produce pro-duce a movie of its own? How much could E. Haglund and staff help Freshmen Orientation present pre-sent a picture of this school? And, at the same time, score points for the University of Utah in the eyes of its students for a change? Very easy, friends, because it's already been done. The film was called "Shelley Osterloh, Class of '72" and has been making mak-ing the rounds of the high schools and other select dungeons dun-geons in the state. It is also the principle reason that the Hallets were commissioned to make their little extravaganza that got Orientation into so much trouble. I've never met Shelley Osterloh. Oster-loh. Ronald Bouck of High School Relations says she's "one in a thousand," which means I suppose sup-pose that she isn't too typical. The film would seem to be a fairly straightforward treatment of how she spends her time and what her interests were. If she wasn't pret- and, naturally, just as disreputable. disreput-able. Too often are students, in their dealings with this P.R.-oriented P.R.-oriented group of administrators, led to believe that the University's Univer-sity's image comes above everything every-thing else. When students don't buy the pitch, they can jolley well prepare themselves for a little throat-cutting by memorandum. Make no mistake: Image is a very real consideration with these narrow-minded people .But in the end, they are betrayed almost totally. Not by some empty-headed ASUU officer looking for a letter of reference from some titled deadhead saying how well he works with people. Not by an angry Orientation staff having spent the better part of a year preparing a two-day "total" experience ex-perience for incoming freshmen. Not even by a bearded-slob "Mediaman" "Me-diaman" columnist. They are betrayed by none other than Shelley Osterloh in their own film when she; says, "I think the most important thing a university can do is challenge your values. Things you may have accepted just on principle are tested and are proved valid or you have (o abandon them." In other words, there comes a time when certain members of the administration have to readjust re-adjust their focus of responsibility to include in their public the students. stu-dents. Not just the vocal show-offs show-offs who can help to soothe guilty liberal consciences but, especially, especi-ally, the deeply committed ones to initiation of effective change. This means an effective revaluation revalu-ation and radical change in attitude atti-tude of those "image" oriented zealots so anxious to forget what the Hallet film showed. And if that change is not forthcoming, then it is time to find new administrators. ad-ministrators. How about it, group? Are you going to make a liar out of your girl, Shelley Osterloh? |