UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROGRAM

Interview #1034
CRABB, THEODORE

CRABB, THEODORE “Ted” (1932-)
Emeritus Director of the Wisconsin Union
At UW: as student, 1950-1954; at Wisconsin Union, 1954-64; 1968-2001

Interviewed: 	2009 (7 sessions)
Interviewer: 	Robert Lange
Index by: 	Stephen Pierce
Length: 	10 hours, 49 minutes

Abstract: In his seven February-August 2009 interviews with Bob Lange, Ted Crabb recounted his five-decade involvement with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and especially in his role as director of the Union. Crabb emphasized the long tradition of Union programming and how larger changes in American society and the university had affected its role at UW. He provided insight into a number of historical events centered around the Union, key UW administrators and personnel, major efforts to refurbish the Union and Union South, and keys to the success or failure of programs. He also reflected on the future of the Union in a changing technological world. This interview was conducted for inclusion into the UW-Madison Oral History Program.

Key Words: Janesville WI; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Wisconsin Union; Joe McCarthy; Porter Butts; Fannie Taylor; the 1960s; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; protest movement; Union South; Memorial Union; fire safety; Vietnam War; drug use; Sterling Hall bombing; William Dyke; Soglin v. Kauffman; 1973 merger of the UW System; segregated fees; fundraising; Union Terrace; alcohol abuse; food service; Union membership; campus smoking; Donna Shalala; multiculturalism; MULO (Memorial Union Labor Organization); Ira Sharenow; Memorial Union Theater; Memorial Union Building Association; UW Foundation; Hoofers; Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin-Madison v. Southworth.

First Interview Session (February 6, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:25	Question: Talk about your birthplace and parents. Answer: Crabb was born July 4, 1932 in Janesville WI. He was raised by his grandparents because his mother died a month after he was born. He talked about enrolling at UW in 1950.

00:01:03	Question: What was Janesville like in those days? Answer: Crabb mused about the attitude in town that it was better to go to work for GM than go to UW, ironic since GM had recently closed the factory. Follow up: Why did you end up at UW? Answer: He thought that a) his grandparents assumed he’d go to college and b) all his friends went to college. Follow up: There were no other options? Answer: He looked at Lawrence University, but he really wanted to go to UW.

00:04:28	[no question] Crabb related coming to UW to visit with his employer in 1950, and having dinner on the Terrace overlooking the sunset on the lake.

00:05:14	Question: Were there any indications in Janesville of your later career? Answer: “None whatsoever.” Until his senior year, he was thinking more along the line of working at a camp or in communications. Follow up: Were there subjects at UW that you enjoyed? Answer: History, political science, and journalism. He talked about an influential journalism course.

00:07:31	Question: How was UW different in fall 1950? Answer: Enrollment was much lower, the lowest of any time before WWII, at about 14,000 students. It was also a very “controlled” university, especially for women students.

00:09:30	Question: What was your experience with the Union? Answer: Essentially none in the first 2 years. He was in Beta Theta Pi fraternity, living in Kronshage Hall, and worked at the Daily Cardinal. Then during his junior year, he moved into a rooming house, got involved in student government reorganizing student government (he listed some specifics).

00:13:27	Question: Was the Korean War impacting campus? Answer: He said students sensed it in having to take a test for deferment of the draft and a major increase in ROTC participation. Follow up: WWII GIs? Answer: They had mostly graduated, which partly contributed to declining enrollment. 

00:15:04	Question: Almost anyone could get admitted to UW? Answer: Yes. Follow up:  And quality of instruction. Answer: TAs were mostly for “quiz sections,” but faculty always taught the classes. Follow up: Outstanding faculty? Answer: He talked about Harrington, Kiekhoefer, Petrovich, Perlman.  

00:18:13	Question: Talk about Joe McCarthy. Answer: Crabb related a Republican convention in Spring 1950 at which McCarthy, at the peak of his fame, was the main speaker. Then in his junior year, he was one of a number of people who signed a petition that McCarthy accused of being communistic. This led to widespread fear, but there was also fear of communism—he talked about a communist rally while he was director at the Union.

00:23:48	Question: By your senior year, you were involved at the Union? Answer: When his acting editorship ended during his junior year, he applied and was elected for presidency of the Union. This was an important year because of the 25th anniversary of the building of the Union, which was directed by Porter Butts.

00:26:20	Question: Where did the Union belong in the administrative structure? Answer: Crabb explained that the Union was governed by a 1927 constitution that set up a directorate of a students, faculty, alumni, and administrators, directly responsible to the University president. Follow up: And what were you doing? Answer: As president of the council, he organized the 25th anniversary, headed the programming board, was involved in student government, etc. 

00:32:50	Question: Why was the Union so attractive to you? Answer: He liked the kinds of programs and opportunities that the Union offered to help students be leaders out of the classroom. Follow up: Was the Union as central then as today? Answer: He thought more so, because student life was built around the campus, and specifically Langdon Street. He noted that computers had decentered the university from student life as well. 

00:35:23	Question: Key memories from your senior year? Answer: Crabb recalled the 25th anniversary celebration, at which he met a number of key alumni, dances (which were frequent and important activities), and major theater and music events. He also explained beginning of the year open-houses on campus, summer session, and Hoofers.

00:43:25	Question: What was Porter Butts like? Answer: He described Butts as “impressive,” a great mentor with the ability to excite people. He explained Butts ability to lobby when he believed a cause was worthwhile, and the resentment this could cause. He gave an overview of Butts’ arrival in 1926 and his being the second director in 1968.

00:46:18	Question: Were you Butts’ right hand man in 1953? Answer: For the anniversary, yes. He was amazed at how close a relationship they had. Follow up: Did Butts like the students? Answer: Absolutely, as long as they agreed with what he wanted to do. He talked about controls set by the Union, and those set by UW.

00:49:08	Question: What were your plans during your senior year? Answer: He recalled being in limbo until Butts offered for him to fill a position that was being vacated at Hoofers. Follow up: What did you do as Hoofer advisor? Answer: He described his responsibilities, advising students at Hoofers and managing the organization. In the following years, he noted, he was quickly moving up the ladder of responsibility, being involved in remodeling the cafeteria as well as other projects.

00:54:59	Question: Talk about how the Union was changing in the late 1950s. Answer: He reflected on increasing enrollment and the changing relationships between the campus and students. Examples were the 1960 statement that disallowed discrimination in campus organizations and the greater strain of changing standards.  He also talked about the impact of John Kennedy’s election on campus.

01:01:24	Question: Did the changes make the Union stronger and the Greek system weaker? Answer: Crabb didn’t think so, suspecting that numerous later events did this—increasing student body, off campus housing, increasing fraternity costs, etc. 

01:03:25	Question: Physical changes to the Union? Answer: He related that TV arrived in 1952/53 after remodeling was undertaken in 1947-48 during the 20th anniversary of the Union. He explained how a TV antenna had to be constructed, how further expansion was undertaken on the cafeteria in 1955-56 (due to financial difficulties), which for the first time integrated the Terrace and the cafeteria.

01:10:15	Question: Did the Union draw non-UW students? Answer: Yes; he cited the example of how many Madison residents came to the cafeteria for supper every night. This essentially ended during the protest movement to the Vietnam War. He noted that in some respects the Union was the only major event location in the town—the public could not apply to hold events there but the university could invite them to hold events, and did. He cited some examples.

01:15:02	Question: Were “street people” coming into the union? Answer: He didn’t think it was an issue until the 1960s, but remembered that in the 1950s, the Union used to check memberships every day. They continued to spot check up to the time of the interview.  He and Lange discussed the Union’s reputation for waffles, pies, soups and its smorgasbord.

01:18:17	Question: Were HS students a presence? Answer: Crabb related that if they were part of a school activity, they could come, but not individually—this was a problem in the 1970s. He also talked about holding yearly dances for participants in the big HS basketball tournament in Madison until the numbers grew too large in the 70s.

01:21:40	Question: Who maintained order? Answer: Campus police was always responsible for it. Hammond was in charge until the 1950s, and thereafter the police expanded with the growing campus. Follow up: What kinds of issues? Answer: Occasional underage drinking, fights, etc.—this escalated in the late 60s and 70s as demands on the police increased.

01:24:25	Question: When do you leave the Union? Answer: In 1963/64, Porter Butts took a leave of absence to travel to Asia, and Crabb filled in for him.  During that year, he applied and was hired for an opening at UW-Milwaukee, which disappointed Butts greatly. He sensed that if he wanted to direct the Madison Union, he needed some outside experience beyond his summer 1959 participation in an exchange program with Cornell Univ. union.

01:28:58	[no question] Continuing to talk about his move to Milwaukee, he explained how his relationship with Butts was like a father-son relationship and how Butts felt his move was abandonment. While it continued, the relationship was never the same thereafter.

01:30:13	Question: The student body had just started to change in 1964? Answer: Yes; it was on the cusp of change; in Milwaukee, the changes were different—as part of the UW system, it was growing and blossoming as a highly-funded university.

01:32:09	Question: What were the challenges in Milwaukee? Answer: The biggest one was that it was a commuter school, so students continued with their local friendships rather than creating new ones at university. While dormitory residence began during his tenure, he struggled to change this environment. He went on to explain where the union was located at UW-M, and how for most students, the union was the only hangout on campus.

01:36:30	Question: Programming? Answer: It wasn’t as extensive as at Madison, partly due to facilities. Follow up: What did they want you to do when they hired you? Answer: They wanted him to effect change in the Union to parallel changes happening on campus. They made modest progress on this goal.

01:38:55	Question: What was the net positive of being at UW-M? Answer: Experience doing everything from administration to personnel to programs. He was forced to adjust to being on a campus with fewer support mechanisms than Madison had—a purchasing office, advisory networks, etc. When asked about his relationship with the chancellor, he related an incident in which the chancellor’s adoption of the new constitution for the Union later became problematic.

01:41:51	[no question] Crabb observed that Butts was having similar difficulties relating to UW administration in Madison as he was having in Milwaukee. Joe Kauffman wanted the Union to be part of Student Services, which Butts opposed. This led him to reminisce about a meeting with administration at the time he was hired.

01:43:41	Question: Did you know you wanted to come back to Madison? Answer: Not initially; he did realize that he needed outside experience and in a growth area like the Union, his experience was beneficial.  He also related how it was obvious that Milwaukee wasn’t filling its new mission of being an urban university.

01:46:44	Question: Were you keeping in touch with Madison? Answer: Not regularly—they would return several times a year, and he was in contact with colleagues. 

01:47:27	Follow up: But you applied? Answer: Yes, in 1967, when Butts retired, he applied and was hired in 1968, which disappointed Crabb’s 1964 replacement, who thought he would succeed Butts as director. Follow up: The interview? Answer: He outlined the process of the interview.

01:49:46	Question: Talk about the spring of 1968. Answer: Yes; the tumult started in fall 1967 with the Dow riot, but said he was “naïve” about what he expected in 1968-69 when he returned. He discussed coming to Madison several times in spring 1968 and the new construction of Union South.

01:51:44	Follow up: Talk about that first year. Answer: Crabb recalled the first incident involving a fire in the Breese Terrace branch-cafeteria, which necessitated finding a new facility to replace it. Then in September, a play-circle theater put on a nude dress-rehearsal for a Peter Pan production, which elicited angry responses from the state government and a cancellation of the performance. Follow up: What was your position? Answer: He hesitated to answer, not remembering the specifics, but thought he didn’t object strongly to the play, but understood the pressures on the chancellor.

01:57:55	[no question] Continuing to talk about the 1968-69 school year, he related the November racial incident in the Rathskellar, which prompted one group to set up a competing soup-kitchen in the Union. Then in early 1969, the Union sponsored a “Black Revolution” program, which resulted in a number of confrontations with the administration and National Guard; and there were more Vietnam protests in May. The worst of the Vietnam protests didn’t happen until spring of 1970.

02:02:05	End of First Interview Session

Second Interview Session (February 11, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:19	Question: Talk about Union South. Answer: Crabb discussed the planning and design of Union South, conceived after WWII as a temporary Breese Terrace cafeteria, but not finally finished until 1971. He outlined the struggles in the building committee appointed by Chancellor Fleming over the design of the building—whether it should just be a branch union with food and games or a full-complement union—which led Porter Butts to resign from the planning committee in protest. Crabb lamented this move by Butts, since he was a Union design expert nationwide.

00:06:34	[no question] Continuing to talk about Union South, he said that plans were completed in 1968, noting the implications of an earlier iteration which included a 2nd-story skywalk crossing Johnson St. and University Ave. He pointed out several problems with the design, that a) the food service was on the 2nd floor; b) the central atrium was a nightmare for fire safety; and c) a release panel in the central atrium roof had to be later wired closed. 

00:11:50	[no question] Continuing to talk about the design of Union south, he observed that in the anti-war tenor of the times, almost the entire exterior was designed in concrete or brick—a cold, hard, character-less building. He suspected the resentment was understandable in retrospect, but also understood the mentality of the design.

00:13:49	[no question] He recalled suggesting several improvements when he was named director, though most of the design was crystallized. He also reviewed how design flaws plagued Union South through ensuing decades, though efforts were made to ameliorate design flaws—adding a central stairwell, removing some fire doors.

00:18:01	Question: Union South was a joke by the mid-1970s. Answer: Yes; particularly among students in the humanities, because their classes were generally held around Memorial Union, while international and science students gravitated to Union South.

00:20:01	Question: How did Union South change your job? Answer: He suggested that there were stages in his career, and in the mid- to late-70s, he spent a lot of time there. It also increased his work load with staff and trying to balance finances. He cited struggles to find programming that worked, though specific measures like the Blood Donor center, Bernie’s Place, GUTS (tutoring service), international student headquarters, Diversions (a Chancellor-Shalala-prompted dance-social program encouraging non-alcohol-based activity for undergraduates), the games room, and volunteer services for students worked well.

00:26:23	Question: How was Union South perceived in the Union structure? Answer: He said it depended—while there were efforts to treated it as an equal, they struggled to allot it equal resources with Memorial, which had natural and built attractions that South couldn’t match. Follow up: So Union South is just functional? Answer: Yes; though the designers of the new building were trying to improve the aesthetic and amenities.

00:32:40	Question: Did it experience a resurgence with the football brunch? Answer: Yes; he discussed how Corky Sischo used this to build enthusiasm for the football program by featuring a brief concert by the UW band. He and Lange debated what they thought the new name of the Union South would be.

00:35:31	Question: Are you in favor of a union on the south side of campus? Answer: It is absolutely necessary on a campus of this size, though he wondered whether it was necessary to tear down the old Union South in order to build the new union at 3 times the cost. Follow up: So you were content with the current Union South? Answer: With extensive remodeling of the current structure, he thought it would have been financially more viable.

00:42:56	Question: Talk about changes made in Memorial Union. Answer: He reviewed the history of the Memorial Union structure, reviewing a major refurbishment being planned when he came in 1968. This plan hinged on fire-safety issues, accessibility, and additional space, and by 1970, the plan was ready for Regent approval, but UW’s financial situation took the entire project off the table. 

00:47:00	[no question] Having overviewed the cancellation of the 1970 plan, Crabb detailed ensuing plans to attack Memorial Union issues one at a time. Because the state architect had exempted the Union from fire-safety codes in 1923, policy changes prompted major overhauls in the Union in the 1960s. He thus worked with state fire-safety personnel and architects to develop the approach that a) the 3 wings could be considered 3 separate units for safety purposes; b) the entire building be brought to 1928 code and any remodeling be brought to current code; and c) memorial spaces be recognized.  Each of these were major decisions for planning staff.

00:52:15	[no question] Continuing to talk about the remodeling of Memorial Union, he described the first step—remodeling the commons (Langdon St.) entrance, adding 4 exit doors and bringing the central section of the building to 1923 code. They then isolated the 3 parts of the building and added a fire alarm system throughout.

00:57:03	Question: Was there state money? Answer: No; the changes were effected with program revenue money and gift money. This latter was important for specific room remodels which enabled them to do overall remodels. 

00:59:01	[no question] Continuing with the Memorial Union remodels, he said that in the 1980s, the dining areas were expanded and remodeled in stages. Also in 1972, gift money was used to develop an overall architectural plan with interior decorator Maynard Meyer, which allowed the Union to move forward stage by stage. This illuminated differences between Butts’ and Crabb’s approaches to the building aesthetic, though public response to the changes were overwhelmingly positive.

01:07:57	Follow up: Was it difficult to work with Butts? Answer: It was, because they agreed on the philosophical approach to what the Union was about, but they disagreed on how to go about achieving it.

01:09:43	End of Second Interview Session

Third Interview Session (February 16, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:18	Question: Talk about the effect of Vietnam turmoil on the Union. Answer: While Crabb remembered reading about the Dow riot, he wasn’t on campus during them (1967). He talked about coming to Campus in July 1968, and how events began to happen quickly thereafter, with the turning point being a 1969 Union-sponsored “Black Revolution” event that then encouraged black students to petition for their own student center.

00:04:01	Question: This was a Union program? Answer: Yes, the Union Directorate had approved it and it hosted very high-profile national black leaders. He discussed the program and its outgrowths.  He highlighted especially how it raised Union awareness of black students’ presence on campus. Follow up: Were relationships with black students tense? Answer: He thought that the level of communication between them led to mutual respect and good relationships between the Union and black students.

00:07:50	[no question] Crabb continued talking about events in the late 1960s, including campus riots at Kent State, the Union’s involvement in planning campus protest events, what Crabb saw as a responsibility to provide space to students to meet regardless of their political views, and how the Union suffered from their willingness to host students events—many faculty and community members stopped coming there for lunch, etc. He felt that the Union was respected as “a safe place” for discussion during all the turmoil of the 1960s.

00:13:31	Question: How did the events make you feel? Answer: He said he went through a mix of emotions, frustrated at the back-and-forth of it but marveling at the way UW police would handle tense situations where Madison police were more likely to arrest students and aggravate situations.

00:15:43	[no question] Crabb discussed the drug activities of the 1960s, which were a problem for the Union. Public sentiment represented the Union as a drug center for the entire Midwest, but heavy-handed efforts to curb drug use only encouraged it more.

00:18:07	Question: What were your political sympathies? Answer: Personally, he was sympathetic to protestors, but professionally, he felt he needed to be neutral. Follow up: Were you afraid for the future of the Union? Answer: Yes and no; he was basically optimistic and knew it would survive, but wondered whether its role would be forever changed by it.

00:19:56	[no question] Crabb reflected on the effect of the Sterling Hall bombing in August 1970. He said it was as if someone pulled a curtain down over protest and students began wanting to live off campus. Follow up: Do you remember the bombing? Answer: He quipped that he jokingly told his wife when the noise woke them that it was “just a bomb,” only to find out that it was in fact a bomb. Several nights later, a bomb threat was also made on the Union.

00:23:10	Question: When the National Guard was tear-gassing students, would students come into the Union for relief? Answer: Yes; it was a safe haven, with relief stations being run by student groups. He recalled considering closing the Union one difficult night only to be dissuaded because of how important it had become to relief for students. He gave several examples of when emotions got the better of reason in discussions—of guns in UW buildings, of drug control, etc.

00:28:47	Question: Were food services operating? Answer: Yes; they tried to operate the building as normal, though revenue and attendance was down. Question: Was the concert series effective? Answer: He didn’t remember, other than an overall dip in ticket sales.

00:30:25	[no question] Crabb also cited how the case Soglin v. Kauffman affected UW, effectively throwing out day-to-day operating rules for the campus. This prompted Crabb and others to quickly draft procedures for student organizations

00:32:41	Follow up: Did you ever stay in your office overnight? Answer: No; he worked long hours, but there were always competent staff to watch the building during the night and there was no great pressure to stay open through the night. Follow up: Did the Chancellor’s office want close communications during the time? Answer: Yes; he was in regular communications with UW police and others, though they didn’t actively try to “overhear” planning that occurred in the Union.

00:37:56	Question: What were the summers like? Answer: Crabb said that it was quieter than the regular semesters, noting that he didn’t recall any campus activity resulting from the events at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

00:40:21	Question: Who were key students you worked with? Answer: He mused about later contacts he’d had with Billy Kaplan, a leader of SDS during the 1960s; but during the time he only had occasional contact with trouble-makers or student group leaders.

00:44:25	Question: Had you ever anticipated this level of turmoil? Answer: They had no idea something like that would happen. He talked about weekly leadership meetings he had with campus leaders to stay abreast of the situation. Follow up: Was there anger or was student activism seen as inevitable? Answer: There was a lot of anger, but there was resignation that student feeling wasn’t surprising considering international and domestic events. He attributed this to students’ concern about the draft, the development of protest strategies during segregation battles, and UW’s initial ineptness at dealing with protests, especially within the Madison police dept.

00:51:48	Question: What was it like working with the Directorate students? Answer: He recalled having a lot of discussions with them about how to respond to campus events which were being catalyzed by outside events. Follow up: Did you have contact with the legislature? Answer: Only once—over the issue of drug use in the Union. 

00:55:50	Question: What was it like when calm was restored in 1970? Answer: It was like shell-shock. People were drained emotionally, and participation and excitement stopped in a lot of student activity for several years thereafter. It was as if the campus shut down and students moved out into the Madison community. Follow up: Were you relieved? Answer: Crabb noted that his role changed without the constant pressure of building usage, but they were drained emotionally as well. 

01:00:13	End of Third Interview Session

Fourth Interview Session (February 18, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:18	Question: Talk about the mood in Madison during the 1960s/70s. Answer: Crabb shared a story about Bill Dyke, Madison’s conservative mayor who resented the protest movement and was also Crabb’s neighbor in Nakoma. One day, students planned a march to Dyke’s house (which ended up being fairly minor), which unnerved the community in a way that showed Crabb how different visions of American culture competed in the town. Follow up: Were most of your neighbors non-university? Answer: No; it was a mixture. 

00:06:56	Question: Talk about the merger of the UW System. Answer: Crabb reviewed why resentment between UW-Madison and the Wisconsin State University system had led to the 1973 merger of the two systems. One statutory provision of the merger was to require students’ participation in UW student rulemaking, which resulted partly from Soglin v. Kauffman and allowed students a voice in governance.

00:10:38	[no question] Relating student shared governance to the Union, Crabb observed that at the Union’s inception in 1927, a student-faculty committee chaired by Dr. Harold Bradley recommended a constitution for the Union which established shared student-non-student governance and a predecessor of segregated fees to support Union programs. This was entirely different from the situation on the other UW campuses at merger time in that other student activities were strong enough to be self-funded.

00:15:28	[no question] Continuing to talk about how the merger affected the Union, he recalled appealing to the Regents to validate the original 1928 constitution as responsive to merger legislation demands for student self-governance. 

00:18:17	[no question] Continuing to talk about merger legislation and student government, he noted that it was not until late in the 1970s that the Madison campus student government proposed additional segregated fees for student activities. He discussed details of the Regents’ System-wide rules for allocating segregated fees, in which process Crabb was instrumental and which distinguished between fees that students could allocate and ones that were permanently for buildings and facilities. He also noted that only once did students object to funds allocated to the Union—ironically over the issue of free phones in the Union.

00:25:55	Question: Was there a state association of Union directors? Answer: He said that all of the state colleges had college “centers” but UW-Madison’s structure was entirely different, having included student self-governance from the beginning. But the directors did get together semi-annually to talk about common problems; Crabb used these meetings to stay aware of issues that might affect Madison’s campus. Follow up: Was there jealousy? Answer: It was there, because Madison was seen as the “crowning jewel,” but he didn’t encounter it personally. 

00:31:32	Question: How do you evaluate the merger? Answer: He thought it had worked out “in total” beneficially, citing legends about the failure of the budget coordinating committee in the early 1970s which initially prompted the merger. Thus, merger forced the university to make difficult decisions about state allocations.

00:36:04	[no question] Crabb went on to opine that following the merger, a great sensitivity to the uniqueness of Madison had led to resentment from some. Follow up: Has Madison lost influence as a result? Answer: He observed that conditions had changed greatly and it was difficult to estimate Madison’s relative status—he supposed that President Harrington’s decision to hire from outside Madison and Wisconsin’s modest economy had been more instrumental in effecting change.

00:40:37	Question: What’s happening in the Union in the late 1970s? Answer: He recalled debates in the early 1970s over increases in segregated fees for students—primarily to meet the increasing costs of doing business. This concession—allowing more money to meet costs—reinvigorated Union activities and culminated in the fundraising, renovations, and reopening of the Union in 1978 for the 50th anniversary of the Union.

00:49:49	Question: Was chancellor Young the most important for Union development? Answer: Yes, he was very supportive. Follow up: And this was the time when you developed relationships with donors? Answer: Yes; earlier Union directors saw class donations as insignificant to the Union, but he was able to get the class gifts from a large number of the classes from 1924 to 1954 who gave gifts to the Union. These gifts allowed the Union to raise close to $1 million to renovate the theater.

00:54:32	Follow up: Who were significant donors? Answer: Porter and Lou Butts; the Frautschis; several of his classmates; David Grainger; and others. He and Lange talked about what he termed his “Union family”—former students who had worked on the Union Directorate and, while not particularly wealthy, demonstrated deep commitment to the Union.

00:59:53	[no question] Crabb talked about the memories that the Union Terrace evoked among alumni. So after talking for decades about expanding the Terrace, finally in the 1980s they decided to use the opportunity of the Risser bequest to do so. He discussed details of the expansion, including landscaping, a study he’d encountered of what makes plaza spaces work, and the way it all came together.

01:07:42	Question: Were there issues with the city? Answer: No; he attributed this to the fact that the 1986 remodel didn’t interfere with the lakefront. Unfortunately, the 1970-71 project that did work on the lakefront misunderstood the nature of Lake Mendota and essentially created a “cesspool” behind the Red Gym rather than allowing moving water that would clean out debris from storms.

01:11:21	Follow up: How did it get the name “Terrace?” Answer: Crabb didn’t know, but suspected that it came from fundraising literature developed for the original 1928 layout designed by the state architect’s daughter.  The 1986 renovation then took advantage of this terracing to allow different views of the lake. Interestingly, he noted, the rest of the Union takes little advantage of its view of the lake.

01:16:04	[no question] Crabb discussed the origins of the iconic Union Terrace chair with its sunburst design. Originally made by Troy Sunshade Co., the Union went through several companies to continue fabrication of the original chairs. He talked about the unique features of the chair.

01:21:05	Question: Faculty and students continued to come to the Terrace? Answer: Yes; after the turmoil, faculty began coming to the Terrace and the Rathskellar with students. Follow up: Have people always enjoyed eating on the Terrace? Answer: Crabb reviewed changes in food service on the Terrace through the years, commenting on how expanded food service only began after 1986 and allowed for a coming-together place for the community.

01:25:22	[no question] He explained how the Union monitored membership on the Terrace by instituting a rule by which only members could purchase beverages there. Follow up: Was drunkenness an issue? Question: Crabb wanted to reserve this question for another session.

01:28:44	End of Fourth Interview Session

Fifth Interview Session (February 25, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:19	Question: Talk about the issue of campus alcoholism. Answer: Crabb reviewed a short history of how “3.2 beer” became legal to be served to 18+ yr-old students on campus at the end of Prohibition in 1933 because it was legal on military bases. He didn’t recall it being a major issue when he was a student, as it was a “poor fifth” to other beverages and responsible drinking was encouraged.

00:03:36	[no question] Continuing to talk about alcohol consumption, he noted that in 1967 when the drinking age was imposed at 18, it prompted the sale of “regular beer” in the Rathskellar and some alcohol at catered events; then in 1980s, when the drinking age was increased to 21, greater pressure devolved to UW to focus on alcohol abuse. He speculated about what pressures prompted this shift to focus on abuse in a state with a long Germanic tradition of beer consumption.

00:08:55	[no question] He explained the variety of strategies employed to discourage alcohol abuse—providing programming at the Rathskellar; planning non-alcoholic social functions (this was marginally successful); a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study on alcohol consumption; policing of Union drinking; and instruction for servers to reduce illegal purchase of beer. 

00:13:18	[no question] He observed that UW was constantly under a microscope with regard to student drinking, citing occasional embarrassing local headlines about alcohol abuse at UW. Follow up: Was the Terrace a problem for abuse? Answer: No more than the Rathskellar. He talked about criticism local bars leveled against the Union for unfair competition, and how the Union countered it.

00:17:18	Question: How did the Union decide which beer to carry? Answer: Over time, tastes changed, and the Union followed those changes. Follow up: Does the Rathskellar sell mixed drinks? Answer: No.

00:19:06	Question: Talk about catering/food service. Answer: Crabb discussed shifts in the provision of regular food service to students, from the Union being the main source of food service to numbers dwindling due to students’ finding off-campus housing. This led to more “grab’n’go” deli-style and vending operations in many campus buildings (instead of in the Union) in the early 1990s. Follow up: Is there continuing demand for student dining in the Union? Answer: Not really; with the “station” model, there wasn’t interest in traditional cafeteria dining. 

00:26:16	Question: Who’s in charge of food? Answer: He reviewed how the administrative structure of food service worked. Follow up: Is this the most difficult service of Union operations? Answer: Yes; for one, there were the problems of building consumer volume and controlling costs and portions; also, it was more spread out than other Union operations.

00:28:35	Question: Catering? Answer: Crabb noted that the Union had always catered, but it used to be many small departmental and student gatherings, but in the last 30 years, these have devolved out of the Union as there was less whole-campus interaction in favor of departmental communities.

00:31:08	Question: Private functions? Answer: He talked about the phenomenon of weddings, which was fairly recent. But during the school year, the Union limited the availability for outside functions in favor of UW functions. Another growing interest was hosting conferences in the Union. 

00:34:10	Question: What’s the history of the “Tudor dinners”? Answer: In the 1930s, Dr. Edward “Pop” Gordon, a local radio personality, started the tradition of hosting dinners for the community, and other musical groups took up the tradition after Gordon. Follow up: Is it a money maker? Answer: He assumed so.

00:36:17	Question: Is it ever possible to serve good food to a large group? Answer: It’s very difficult; he discussed dilemmas of keeping food hot, selecting food by committee, having facilities to get food out quickly, etc.

00:39:04	Question: Is it difficult to get enough student servers? Answer: Yes; it was difficult to get students who didn’t need to work consistent hours, but could be counted on. They sometimes found temporary employees to fill the gaps. Follow up: Was that constant? Answer: No; over time, fewer students were looking for work.

00:42:23	Question: Talk about fudge bottom pie, brownies, etc. Answer: He told the story of fudge-bottom pie, which began being served in the 1940s by chef Louis Marston from NYC and was still served today. He also reviewed the beginnings of offering Babcock ice cream through the Union.

00:46:55	Question: Are there events that are always held at the Union? Answer: There used to be a whole series of annual banquets—like the Alumni Dinner—but the number has declined over the years as size became an issue. 

00:49:27	Question: Do university officials hold meet-and-greets at the Union? Answer: Not to the extent they used to be. This depended on individual chancellors and the relative popularity of certain events and locations.

00:51:29	Follow up: Have certain chancellors been partial to the Union? Answer: He thought E. B. Fred was very supportive, but the campus was smaller in the 1950s; also Wiley, Ward, Shalala and Ed Young were very supportive. Follow up: Did System administrators have much visibility? Answer: No; he thought this was purposeful. 

00:54:19	Question: Is Great Hall used less now? Answer: No; it’s used differently;  in the 1950s, there were regular dances and lecture events; but now, Great Hall’s size has become an issue and social events have moved off campus.

00:56:56	Follow up: Does this off campus trend bode ill for the Union? Answer: Yes; food service, library usage, etc. all suffered as off campus housing and computers became more prevalent and the Union needed to carefully identify its future role.

00:59:18	Question: Talk about MULO. Answer: Crabb reviewed how in the 1970s, students organized a student-labor union (Memorial Union Labor Organization) and attempted to force UW’s hand to recognize them legally. He thought that MULO was beneficial for the Union in clarifying expectations, though he observed how annual contract negotiations were a never ending cycle of “teaching labor law” to new students. Follow up: Does it still exist? Answer: No; as student interest declined and contract cycles lengthened, there was less and less to debate with MULO.

01:06:03	Question: What did they strike about? Answer: Since wage bargaining was off the table, it often had to do with issues of discrimination, notification, and scheduling. Follow up: Negotiations were with you? Answer: No; it happened at the University personnel level.

01:09:22	Follow up: Do you remember any specific student leaders? Answer: He mentioned one MULO officer, who later became Union president, as an example.

01:11:00	Question: Talk about facility use. Answer: He responded that up until the 1970s, UW had an “auditoriums committee” that set facility policy, but these were thrown out by Soglin v. Kauffman. Thus after several request, in the mid-1990s UW allowed Crabb to constitute a policy-setting committee for official facility usage. 

01:15:06	Follow up: Is it possible for students to schedule a room in the Union? Answer: Only formal student organizations could official reserve rooms. He defended this policy on the basis of maintaining university regulations and order. Follow up: And department-tal members? Answer: They can schedule rooms, but can’t front for non-university meetings. He cited examples of departments sponsoring non-UW events.

01:22:03	Question: Can Union members/alumni schedule events? Answer: As long as it is a UW-related event, not just a personal or community event, and a one-time use. The chancellor can request outside groups if he/she feels it germane to UW’s purpose. Follow up: Does the chancellor have veto power over the Union? Answer: The Union is responsible to the chancellor who answers to the Regents. 

01:25:45	Question: The Union does not shy away from controversial organizations? Answer: No; he used the example of the Shalala-era request to temporarily host a multicultural center, which ran counter to the normal procedures of the Union, but was approved. When the center was moved later to the Red Gym, Crabb felt, there was actually reluctance to lose the visibility of the Union headquarters.

01:30:43	[no question] After the multicultural center request, said Crabb, requests from chancellors followed for a GLBT center and a women’s center. He felt these decisions had been appropriate responses to campus changes.

01:33:11	Question: Noteworthy usage difficulties? Answer: He recalled the Union early on taking criticism over allowing political groups, thought to be communist fronts, to use Union facilities, and later allowing gay dances, Bible studies, etc. in a state facility.

01:38:18	Question: Talk about Union membership. Answer: He reminisced about getting a phone call from George Bunn (UW’s legal counsel) while he was on vacation about legal use of UW facilities—this confirmed Crabb’s views about Union membership and gave them legal backing to remove non-members from the Union in extreme situations. He recalled a case in which a suit against a non-member was upheld.

01:43:37	Question: Can a member bring non-members to the Union to share a beer? Answer: Yes, as long as you’re with them. He overviewed different scenarios about membership, expectations of behavior (like drunkenness), and building use. Follow up: Who enforces that? Answer: Union staff.

01:47:19	Follow up: Membership is a challenge? Answer: Yes; but it’s important. He cited the early example of charges of unfair competition brought against the Union by bars. Follow up: How big is the membership? Answer: Probably up to 80,000, mostly alumni. He also talked about having to monitor for Madison high-school students who were not members.

01:52:27	End of Fifth Interview Session

Sixth Interview Session (April 30, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keyword
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:20	Question: Talk about the Playboy issue. Answer: Crabb said that in spring of 1985, the president of the Union council suggested banning the sale of Playboy and Penthouse, which were currently being sold. The council agreed with her, the vote made the headlines, and the chancellor was notified, but the action was suspended until a University review committee could look into the legal issues. The committee met and decided that the Union couldn’t ban the sale on legal grounds, and the council rescinded their decision of the previous spring. He and Lange talked about comparative sales of these magazines at the Union and Union South.

00:05:52	Question: What was your role in the issue? Answer: He was a part of the council meeting and thought there would be legal issues, but didn’t recall it being particularly important for him. Question: How are student members of the council selected? Answer: The 3 officers are selected by the previous council, 4 member from student government, and 2 reps from the Union Directorate. He thought the issue was a good example of shared governance working. Follow up: Was the vote a decisive majority? Answer: It was a 6-5 vote.

00:10:29	Question: Discuss the restriction on smoking. Answer: Crabb explained how during the late 1980s a student, Ira Sharenow, actively raised awareness to the issue of smoking, asking for a total ban in campus buildings. This occurred early in Shalala’s chancellorship, and in 1992 she banned smoking with the exception of parts of the residence halls. 

00:13:21	[no question] Crabb recalled his impression at the time that the ban would be difficult to enforce for non-students, especially in guest rooms, and explained his amazement that the way the Union went about implementing the ban during the summer effectively kept compliance issues in the fall 1992 at a minimum. Follow up: Do you give Shalala credit for this? Answer: Yes; she used her outspoken influence on the student-faculty council to get campus momentum on the issue.

00:19:53	Question: Talk about multiculturalism on campus. Answer: He again credited the multicultural movement at UW to Shalala, who recognized the importance of diversity to faculty, staff and students when she came. He said that after receiving the Holley Report in 1989, Shalala approached the Union to set up a multicultural center, where there had previously only been an African-American study center in south campus. He reviewed details of the setup of this center, which had big implications for future Union usage. He lauded the committee of the council that reviewed and decided this case for its thoughtfulness and foresight.

00:25:30	Follow up: Was Shalala putting pressure on you to do this? Answer: Not directly, but she felt that this was the direction UW was moving. He again noted that when the multicultural center moved to the Red Gym, there were many students who were saddened by the move.

00:28:32	Question: Did the GLBT and women’s center come at the same time? Answer: No; they were put in the Union at pressure from Chancellor Ward, on condition that UW would later provide appropriate space for them; but that hadn’t happened yet.

00:30:29	Question: Did you report directly to the chancellor? Answer: He reported to Union Council, to the chancellor administratively, and to the Vice Chancellor for Business and Finance. This was something of a juggling act, and though the chancellor could have pulled rank, no one wanted to unbalance the power relationships.

00:33:32	[no question] He observed that two issues during his directorship raised the issue of chancellor’s power at the Union—the Playboy issue and the issue of free telephones at the Union. He also discussed the administrative structure of the multicultural center

00:36:52	Question: Talk about the multicultural murals. Answer: Recalling a student who proposed a set of murals emphasizing the importance of multiculturalism to UW, Crabb felt this was an example of the responsiveness to multicultural issues and the leadership of one student, Miguel Guevara. He also talked about the artist. Follow up: What had previously been in that space? Answer: They were program display boards. Crabb also talked about the long tradition of murals in the Union.

00:41:42	Question: Talk about the theater. Answer: He started by discussing the original plan for the theater in 1928, though it wasn’t built until the mid-1930s in part through WPA funds and in part through Butts’ advocacy for it. He told humorous anecdotes about Butt’s efforts to get an exemption to hire an architect who had theater-design experience and about the two architects who designed the building.

00:48:13	[no question] Crabb discussed the adjustments that had to be made when the Civic Center was built and diverted audiences from the Union Theatre. He said the Union was good for single or small-group performers, where the Civic Center was better for orchestral-type performances. They also had to change their marketing scheme and had fundraising campaigns to subsidize student fees.

00:51:33	Question: Do students still come to performances? Answer: It depended on the kind of performance—concerts were lower volume, while world music had generated increased student interest.

00:52:35	[no question] Crabb discussed the desire of the Theatre Dept to from the early 1960s to have its own space, though he thought the Union Theater’s purpose encompassed this educational role. He reviewed proposed plans to house Speech and Theater in Helen White Library and how they convinced administration to build Vilas Hall.

00:55:01	Follow up: Talk about this contentious relationship. Answer: Crabb thought the Theatre Dept wanted to be able to control use of the theater while the Union wanted to protect this role for other performances; they also resented rental charges levied on the Dept. These continued to be touchy issues for both the Theatre and Music schools.

00:58:50	Follow up: Were you involved in these negotiations? Answer: It was usually left to the theater director, but he occasionally got involved in issues that seemed common sense to him but generated distrust, like having a common box office. He also explained why the Theater had to charge rental (per UW policy) to cover their costs.

01:04:03	Follow up: And they have 2 theaters in Vilas? Answer: Yes; he discussed problems with the way these theaters were built. He attributed this partly to their split from the Speech Dept, which provided a larger financial base. This made it difficult to get the state at this point to provide funds for building a new theater for them.

01:08:49	[no question] Crabb added that another important element from the inception of the Union Theater was student involvement (through the Directorate) in programming. This was originally conceived as a way of separating programming scheduling from the state’s purchasing process, but had changed after 2001 for liability reasons. 

01:13:19	Question: Has the directorate been successful? Answer: He thought so. Since its setup in 1938 as a separate student organization, it had been responsible for all student programming with a few exceptions. Its role was less clear presently because there were fewer all-campus events than there had been before, especially with increased computer usage. Follow up: How do students get on? Answer: They apply and then move up the training program to become leaders.

01:16:20	Question: Which theater directors did you hire? Answer: Fannie Taylor had been director until 1966; Bill Dawson followed her until the 1970s when Crabb hired Ralph Sandler and after him Michael Goldberg, both of whom had been involved with the theater as graduate students. 

01:17:53	Question: The physical condition of the theater? Answer: It needs work; built in 1938, it had undergone repairs for the 50th anniversary in 1989 and also in the early 1990s, but not much had been done since. Much of the needed work was backstage remodeling. But Crabb noted that the acoustics of the theater were very good, though the stage, some complained, was cramped for large musical groups—but this mattered little because orchestras were too expensive to book at the Union Theater. He talked about how the Stock Pavilion used to be used for this purpose.

01:23:59	Question: What was it like to follow Porter Butts? Answer: Crabb reviewed how he’d worked closely with Butts as a student, became like a son to him, was devastated when he left for Milwaukee, and was surprised when UW hired Crabb over Butts’ choice for his successor. This made things tense, as did haggling between Butts and UW over whether he’d be given office space at the Union after he went to a half-time appointment. Butts stayed on staff until 1978 in fundraising and member services.

01:30:20	[no question] Crabb discussed how strong a personality was Porter Butts, and how he had difficulty dealing with the protests and changes of the 1960s. Follow up: Was he unpleasant? Answer: On certain issues, especially as regarded changes in policies, but Crabb demanded that contact with the staff went through him. But he said that Butts’ passion and knowledge were invaluable as a resource for him. Plus, as Butts had time to do things Crabb didn’t have time for, he was able to raise issues to Crabb. 

01:33:54	[no question] He recounted how the UW-System merger brought Porter Butts’ strong-headedness about things to a head, because it brought about so many changes. He discussed how Butts endlessly corresponded with him. Follow up: His office was close? Answer: Crabb explained where the office was and how often he was around.

01:37:31	Question: What was Butts most important accomplishment during those years? Answer: He thought fundraising and his contact with alumni were important, though monetary inflation, the booming size of UW’s campus, and campus changes had minimized the apparent value of his contribution and been a very difficult transition for him. Porter spearheaded the contribution of class gifts.

01:41:17	Follow up: When did he step down? Answer: He retired in 1979/80, continued on the trustees until the 1990s, and was emeritus basically until his death. This was difficult because for as much as Crabb admired Butts, Butts simply couldn’t accept some of the changes that were happening or Crabb’s position as a colleague.

01:44:13	Question: Did Butts’ choice for successor leave? Answer: No; he stayed on in his job and later had a heart attack. He discussed his background and activities, quipping that this man had bought Crabb’s house when he moved to Milwaukee.

01:45:40	Follow up: So you’re trying not to do what Butts did? Answer: Yes; he tried to remember to be helpful but keep his distance. Follow up: What are your responsibilities now? Answer: To be a resource person, a historian, a second opinion, and  involved with the Memorial Union Building Association.

01:48:12	Question: What is the Building Association? Answer: He said that in the 1920s, the Union Building Fund helped raise money for the original building and the theater. In the 1950s, this was reorganized as the Building Assn. He said anyone who contributed to the Union could become a member. These membership funds contributed toward some projects that couldn’t be done with state money, though since the 1970s, the UW Foundation had taken a more active role in fundraising for the Union.

01:53:00	[no question] Crabb talked about fund drives the Union had done—a Theater Endowment drive, a Union Trustees drive, and others. He talked about the one full-time fundraising staff member the Union had at the Foundation.

01:54:48	Question: How does the Union raise money since its constituency is the entire university? Answer: He argued that a niche group he called the ‘Union family’ was a constituency, though the entire university was a constituency. The Union had freedom to talk to niche groups freely without coordinating with the UW Foundation.

01:58:15	[no question] He talked about the unique relationship the Union had with the UW Foundation; how fundraising operations happened on a day-to-day basis; and how money got designated and deposited with the Foundation. Follow up: Do you travel a lot for the Union? Answer: No; the current director was doing more of that than he did; he provided background work on potential prospects. He also reviewed a study he’d done on the money the Memorial Union Building Association had raised.

02:02:47	End of Sixth Interview Session

Seventh Interview Session (August 12, 2009): Digital File

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction

00:00:20	Question: Talk about your relationship with Porter Butts. Answer: Crabb returned to talk about how campus was changing at the end of Butts’ career. Before the 1960s, the campus was smaller and the Union was a major player in campus life, but during Harrington’s presidency, UW grew, departments broadened, faculty were hired from outside UW’s alumni, and the Union’s role began changing. This led Butts to become less and less in touch with the student body and the university.

00:05:22	[no question] He continued to talk about how the 1960s affected Porter Butts, who had been so important to the Union before and had to watch many structures he’d set up fall apart. This created antagonism between him, students and administrators. 

00:07:21	Follow up: Talk about his office in the Union. Answer: Crabb reviewed the story of Butts haggling over having an office in the Union building after his retirement to a half-time appointment. He didn’t regret allowing this to happen. Follow up: Why? Answer: He said Butts connections were invaluable, but advised him that all his relationships needed to be filtered through Crabb. 

00:11:44	Question: Was Butts able to remain positive toward the Union? Answer: He thought in the big picture, yes; though in particular areas he was resentful. Thus, he continued to be an effective fundraiser, especially among alumni whom he knew. He committed to stick to these projects through the duration.

00:16:05	Question: Talk about the Building Association. Answer: He again reviewed how UW had approved an alumni building fund and committee in the 1920s—this was the first time UW had canvassed alumni for donations. Then in the 1930s, when a PWA grant was approved to build the theater, the building assn helped funnel those funds. He reviewed the 1951 incorporation of the association, the creation of the UW Foundation, and the concept of life membership in the Union.

00:21:22	Question: When the Building Assn was incorporated, did UW Foundation try to bring it under its purview? Answer: He didn’t think so, he thought partly because the big names in the UW Foundation were also on the Building Assn board. However, over time, money from the Assn was deposited in the UW Foundation.

00:24:18	Follow up: How has the Assn evolved? Answer: Crabb noted that it had 2 focuses—as the fundraising arm for the Union and as a mechanism for feedback on how the Union is serving its members. He discussed a series of “residencies” that performed this latter function, though the former function has become more important over time. The Assn had been very successful in this.

00:28:16	Follow up: Does that include support for Hoofers? Answer: Yes; the Assn. has given several major grants to Hoofers, for the lakefront refurbishment & Hoofers’ quarters.

00:29:32	Follow up: How do you get on the Assn.? Answer: He explained how trustees and associate trustees went through the ranks and were elected. Follow up: Does the fund-raising staff work for the Assn? Answer: No; she was a Union staff member, the first full-time fundraiser the Union had hired, and UW Foundation connected her with likely prospects for the Union.

00:32:39	Question: Do you continue to work with the Assn? Answer: At his retirement, he was elected as the treasurer for the Assn. They met twice a year, were primarily a fund-raising body, and were led by the current Union director as executive secretary.

00:35:08	Question: Talk about the history of segregated fees. Answer: He reviewed the history of the Union’s 1928 constitution, which included an incidental fee that covered non-fund-generating activities of the Union. This eventually developed into segregated fees, but differed from other Merger schools because most Madison non-Union activities were self-funded. Thus, Merger legislation threatened segregated fee use for the Union, but the Regents approved the Union Council as a recognized student body for dispersal of segregated fees.

00:40:50	[no question] Crabb reviewed how the state had historically supported segregated fees for the union, with the exception of the 1970s freeze on fee increases, which made it difficult for the Union to adjust to increases in everyday costs. He also recalled how the Building Assn had been instrumental in breaking this log-jam and discussed the 2000 Supreme Court case Board of Regents of UW-Madison v. Southworth.

00:45:02	Question: Talk about the demise of the international club. Answer: He observed that the club was founded in 1903 as a “mini United Nations” and had a long history of programs for international students. The national conflicts of the 1960s and 70s, regrettably, caused enough tension between students of certain nationalities that the club had to fold.

00:49:17	Question: Talk about the impact of the Overture Center. Answer: He remarked that until the 1970s, Union Theater was the only theater in town. When the civic theater opened at first, it put a real financial strain on the Union Theater’s consumer base, especially at a time when artist fees were rising. Over time, coordination between the Union and the city had helped alleviate these strains and created niches.

00:53:51	Follow up: Is the Union Theater stable? Answer: He was concerned about its future, since average attendance at performances had dropped dramatically. Social and economic realities also caused people to make more stringent choices about what they wanted to go out to see; and rising artist costs made it difficult to set ticket prices realistically.

00:58:59	Question: This reflects bigger changes in the Union? Answer: Yes; Crabb again talked about demographic, legal and social changes happening during the 1960s and 70s that had a major impact on the relationship between students and the Union.

01:02:53	Follow up: How well is the Union adapting? Answer: He thought it was a mixed bag, again referencing how computers had made the Union and Library less necessary as destination points. So it became important to plan programming to make the Union a destination point again. Follow up: Do you think the Union will be here in 50 years? Answer: He thought so—that there would always be a need for a place where people could come together. 

01:06:43	Question: Are the Rathskellar and Terrace still vital? Answer: The Terrace more than the Rathskellar, but that is seasonal. He cited the effect of the availability of beer.

01:08:40	Question: Concluding observations? Answer: He said he felt fortunate to have been involved in the Union, since that’s the kind of job he wanted. He hoped that the Union would continue to provide fundamentally important services to the University and that UW would be prepared to support that.

01:13:26	End of Seventh Interview Session

End of Oral History #1034