Or, Danny Blows His Stack, Part 3
Dear Mr. Leebron;
My name is Daniel Mee. I graduated from Rice with a Bachelor of Arts in 2002. My parents, who met and married while they were both undergraduates at Rice, are also alumni. After I graduated, I was a Rice staff member for three and a half years, and I now work for a company founded by Rice graduates that has employed at least four other Rice alumni. I currently play in a band founded by two other Rice alumni and a child of a Rice professor.
All of this is to say, I have very strong ties to Rice University. Additionally, I have strong ties to regional music and media communities—I am currently a freelance music writer for one of the Houston Chronicle’s online outlets, and have been a regular contributor to the print editions of the Houston Press and Austin Chronicle.
My introduction to the music and media communities came through KTRU-FM, where I was a DJ for seven years. Many of the closest connections I’ve maintained from my undergraduate years were formed at KTRU with my fellow DJs. As someone who values the unique and vital contributions of this radio station to Rice and the surrounding community, and feels strongly invested in both, I am deeply ashamed of the manner in which the Board of Trustees and the administration of Rice University have treated KTRU.
I was horrified to learn on Monday evening from the Houston Chronicle that Rice University was one day away from finalizing an agreement to sell the license and transmitter that are currently in use for the Rice student radio station. Not only were the students, faculty and staff of Rice not consulted about this plan, but the staff of the radio station were not even informed of it—they had to find out about it from the Chronicle’s website.
Later that evening, Mr. Leebron, I received an e-mail from you in which you outlined the reasons the University had decided to liquidate the student radio station. Among other things, you claimed that KTRU is a “vastly underutilized resource that is not essential to providing our students the wide range of opportunities they need,” citing that “[a] recent Arbitron report showed that KTRU’s audience was so small that it did not even register in the ratings.” You note that “KTRU will continue to serve its campus and external audience with student-managed programming via www.ktru.org.”
The ability to stream student programming over the internet is not a replacement for a radio broadcast for the simple fact that it cannot be heard on a radio. If KTRU-FM is liquidated, many listeners will no longer have access to KTRU programming. But the Arbitron report that you cite deals with this point neatly, does it not? The terrestrial listening audience is “so small that it did not even register in the ratings.”
It’s true that KTRU does not show up in Arbitron data, at least not in the most recent Arbitron report that I was able to access*, but here is a brief list of other stations that do not appear: KTSU, KACC, KPFT, and KUHF, the University of Houston NPR affiliate that claims to have 300,000 daily listeners. Based on this data, one might conclude either that KUHF is also “not essential,” or that Arbitron ratings provide no useful data by which to judge the value of a noncommercial radio station.
Even assuming that the terrestrial broadcast of KTRU has a small audience, it is not at all clear to me that it follows that the station ought to be terminated. Most Rice students, alumni, faculty and staff probably have not contemplated that “underutilized resources” on campus are eligible for liquidation. Surely there are other assets that are ripe for divestiture. How many people visit the Rice Art Gallery on an average day? What about the Rice Media Center— is that still around? How many of Fondren library’s 2.6 million print volumes are consulted on a regular basis, now that most of the information contained therein is now available on the internet?
Perhaps we should start by demolishing the proportionally least-utilized resource in Rice history, the football stadium, which according to legend could not be filled even if every Rice alum, living or dead, were occupying a seat simultaneously. Clearly, it seems that the best course of action would be to demolish the stadium and use the space to alleviate Rice’s perpetual parking shortage, and simultaneously generate income through parking permit sales. Or, if the University really is desperate for cash, perhaps that portion of the campus can be partitioned off and sold.
Of course, we all know this idea would be untenable to the Board of Trustees. In 2004, a Rice-commissioned study by McKinsey Consulting recommended that Rice drop its division 1A athletics program, which was losing $10 million dollars per year, in favor of any of four less costly programs. After seeing this report, the Rice Board of Trustees chose to ignore this recommendation, thereby rendering the report a boondoggle in its own right.
But let’s back up a bit to the Rice athletics program losing $10 million per year. TEN MILLION DOLLARS. PER YEAR. This is more than the entire proceeds of the proposed sale of KTRU-FM. If only we had more radio stations to sell, we could subsidize athletics for years to come.
How dare you insult our intelligence by informing us that, in the name of university advancement, we must liquidate an educational resource to which hundreds of students have devoted thousands upon thousands of hours of volunteer labor to build and maintain over the course of 40 years, when the sale price doesn’t even match a fifth of the fortune that the athletics program lost in the last decade?
According to your e-mail, the proceeds from the sale are to be put in large part toward the construction of a new East Servery near Will Rice. While I’m sure that this will benefit the 400 or so students who are members of those colleges, I’m having difficulty seeing the need for this building. Undergraduate enrollment at Rice University has increased only 7% since I matriculated in 1998**, and yet, since that time, Rice has added three new residential colleges and two new serveries. As I recall, I had no problem getting enough to eat when I was a freshman living on campus. Why is the construction of another servery so urgent that educational assets must be sold off to pay for it?
After all, Mr. Leebron, as you note in your e-mail, “the economic downturn which began two years ago has forced Rice . . . to make hard choices to prioritize spending and maximize the use of our resources.” Why wasn’t one of these “hard choices” to not build another new building until you have the cash on hand to pay for it? For the last fifteen years, the university has been spending like a drunken sailor, adding building after building, and now that we’re in a recession, rather than regroup, your strategy is to sell things off to raise capital.
I’m sure you are aware that, due to the recession, many state governments have been reduced to selling state property, such as public parks, to private corporations in order to balance their budgets as tax revenues decline (perhaps you are even aware that the state of Arizona has taken the bizarre measure of selling and then leasing back its own state capitol!). This state of affairs is generally considered to be a disgraceful indication of governmental breakdown, in which an abject failure of political courage has necessitated drastic, unsustainable and irreversible steps merely to stave off disaster.
Is this an indication that Rice is experiencing a similar crisis of political courage? You told the Houston Chronicle only six months ago that Rice might “need” to build a new football stadium soon, even as negotiations for the liquidation of an irreplaceable university resource were carried out behind the backs of faculty and students. How are we to interpret this?
In short, it strikes me that this sale is so unnecessary as to be perverse, and the reasoning proffered to justify it is hogwash. At least when, ten years ago, Rice last attempted a hostile takeover of KTRU-FM, it did so because it valued the opportunities availed to students and the community by FM radio, even though it completely overlooked the value of a student organization and a community voice unlike any other. In 2000, President Malcolm Gillis even told the Rice Thresher that he would not consider selling KTRU-FM. Today, by contrast, you deem KTRU-FM to be “not essential.” If you had consulted any of the dozens of the students who are KTRU DJs, or any of the 500+ alumni who are former KTRU DJs, or any of KTRU’s audience, or indeed anyone at the University at all, I believe you would have come to a different conclusion.
The administration of Rice University has an obligation, as a trustee of its students, faculty and alumni, to value our contributions and opinions just as concretely as it does a new building. Not only have you and the Board of Trustees failed to do so, you have made crucial and irreversible decisions about an invaluable part of this university in secret, without consulting or informing the people for whose benefit the institution ostensibly exists. This is a breach of trust and a violation of the mores of liberal education.
It is unethical.
When I was merely a prospective student, my parents, and the university itself, portrayed the school as an idealistic institution that valued the individual and often idiosyncratic contributions of students more highly than the money they paid for tuition. KTRU-FM, a radio station founded in a dorm room, managed almost exclusively by students and grown to national renown as one of the most adventurous and unusual college radio stations in the country, is a shining example of those contributions, and an essential part of the institution that I decided to attend. If KTRU is liquidated in the manner you have proposed, for me and many others, that institution will be severely and permanently damaged.
I know I speak not only for those members of the Rice community who have been involved with the radio station, but for those like my mother (Jones ‘80), who was never involved with KTRU but who, upon hearing of its impending sale, described it as “sickening.”
I would like to think that, when I have college-age children, I could recommend Rice to them in the same way my parents recommended it to me. Despite my lifelong connection to Rice, if you proceed with the sale of KTRU-FM, I most certainly will not be able to do so, nor could I in good conscience donate a red cent to an institution that places so little value on the contributions of those it purports to serve. Not that I imagine it matters, since the appalling practice of selling off bits and pieces of Rice’s legacy should be more than sufficient to finance the University’s continued improvement.
Sincerely,
Daniel Mee
Baker ’02
Many thanks to Angela Lee, Esq. (UT-Austin ’99, UH Law ’06) for editorial assistance.
[Edit 4/22 11:41 PM]
* See comment below by Charles for information about more recent Arbitron data.
** Another sharp-eyed alum pointed out that this number is a couple of years out of date and no longer accurate. The 7% figure came from the 2008 enrollment report, while the 2010 report shows a 17% increase between 1998 and 2009. Contributing to this difference are (A) 270 students added between 2007 and 2009 and (B) a revision upward of the numbers in every other year on the chart. This significantly larger growth figure still represents a much smaller number than the residential capacity added during this period.
I still think you should have ended with “You’ll be hearing from my mother.”
Great letter. You’ve hit several nails on the head here, in an extremely articulate manner.
Wow. Well done.
That is damning.
It’s hard to imagine a more cogent or well stated articulation of everything that is wrong and disheartening about this situation.
“The administration of Rice University has an obligation, as a trustee of its students, faculty and alumni, to value our contributions and opinions just as concretely as it does a new building. Not only have you and the Board of Trustees failed to do so, you have made crucial and irreversible decisions about an invaluable part of this university in secret, without consulting or informing the people for whose benefit the institution ostensibly exists. This is a breach of trust and a violation of the mores of liberal education. It is unethical.”
This to me is the crux of the thing…
If the Rice community had been involved and agreed to this, there would be no issue. Clearly they acted unethically.
Lebron’s respone to this is equally callous:
Is it me or does “Going forward, students and others are entitled to hold us to our word that this is not a precedent.” sound like an abusive boyfriend line? Oh baby, I’m so sorry I fucked you over but I promise I won’t do it again.
Amazing how even Lebron seems to admit his going against university policy – he references the Call to Conversation which on its home page you can find the following statement “…we plan to proceed in the spirit of continuing engagement and conversation as we refine and implement other elements of our vision for Rice. It is this dedication to openness and dialogue that must continue to characterize the decision-making that is necessary to achieve our aspirations.” . Lebron’s defense is simply, we were advised not to but he offers no explanation as to why this was necessary.
Shameful.
Leebron’s response to the transparency issue is ridiculous. Sellers do not typically maximize competition among bidders by avoiding publicity—unless, of course, they anticipate a massive public outcry over the sale that will render the property less desirable. Without saying so directly, Leebron is only admitting that he sold us all out for a higher bid, and that he knew what he was doing when he did it.
This was brilliantly written.
@RamonLP4, it’s Leebron, not Lebron.
Ha Ha Ha Swoosh!!! My bad.
You are a fabulous writer. Thank you for this.
Well well done. I’ve read a lot of online outpouring over this, and this is easily the best written and most articulate.
Awesomely done, sir. And I had no idea about the possible plans to build a new stadium, on top of all of the rest of it (for a team that only won two games last year, naturally). Damning stuff.
And Ramon, I think you’re right that the underhanded, behind-closed-doors aspect of this is the worst part of it — I’ve talked to several alum friends who had nothing at all to do with the station, and *that* aspect of this whole mess is what’s got them up in arms.
Leebron’s response that the university *had* to keep the negotiations with UH confidential don’t hold water, either, going by comments made by the UH Board of Regents: http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2010/08/-generic-agenda-item-for-regents-meeting-did-not-name-ktru/1282261406.column. If everything had to be kept hush-hush, why didn’t the UH board members on the other end of the deal think so?
[...] Read the full, impassioned letter at Nonalignment Pact > This entry was posted on Friday, August 20th, 2010 at 11:10 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. [...]
President Leebron writes that the “special circumstances of conducting a bidding process for a broadcast license and negotiating the terms of the transaction
required confidentiality.” I wonder why the decisions to consider liquidation and to initiate a bidding process required such confidentiality.
I remember being a freshman and writing a scathing review for Me Faire Casser (a band with Daniel Mee as one of its members, if I recall correctly). The album wasn’t my cup of tea and I was as blunt as any national arts & entertainment reporter would’ve been, if not less so. The KTRU community rose to the band’s defense and wrote letter after letter saying how wrong or misguided I was. I still stand by my original assessment, even if I was harsh at the time, but the point is that KTRU allowed students to be heard on the radio and created a tight-knit community. They supported each other. They offered a forum so unique and valuable that even people who were never involved with it are sick over this sale.
Furthermore, the real problem with this fiasco is something Daniel mentioned – Leebron and the Board’s obsession with capital “improvements.” I don’t even know how many colleges Rice has, and I’ve only been gone 5 years. Monster serveries and intergalactic additions to the student center are not what we need during a recession. They need to figure out a way to add value to the students and boost confidence in the alumni so we’ll keep donating. This sale is a massive failure on both counts.
It’s nice to see the KTRU community calling someone else wrong and misguided. In the case of Leebron, I agree with them 100%.
Rice Alumnus
Hanszen ’05
Oh man. I listened to that record again recently and there is some pretty terrible stuff on it, so the general outline of your assessment was accurate, I must admit. I also learned some important lessons from that episode:
1. If you write a nasty review, people will write you nasty letters
2. I am not a genius
So thanks, and no hard feelings.
Also thanks for the on-topic comments.
How about the data point about how 3% of rice (including faculty & students ) showed up to the rally. This number does not include alumni
How do you justify the attendance. It was the day after move in mind you
Antarius,
Do you believe 3% of Rice would have showed up to rally for a new servery?
Oy. *shown*
You mean the rally that had only a couple days notice and happened when most of the students weren’t even back on campus? Is that the rally you’re talking about?
@Angela – No. Because that is expected of the administration. Would more 3% attend a rally to take away North Servery? probably. There is a big difference bwteen rallying when something is added and when something is removed.
@Justin –
The majority of the student body was on campus on Saturday. I can get the exact numbers if you want, but by Sunday – there were more than enough people available. The 200 that showed up, did by choice as did the couple of thousand who did not.
O/T – this posted in the wrong section entirely.
[...] as Danny Mee pointed out in his open letter, in 2004 the Rice Athletics program was losing $10m a year. That number may have [...]
Brilliant Danny! You hit every nail on the head.
Besides the obvious outrage that the university could unilaterally dismantle the largest student group at Rice, and a pivotal cultural institution in Houston in complete secrecy, the finances of the transaction are preposterous.
The University engaged in expansion and a construction boom during a bubble economy, building fancy food serveries left and right. Now they are selling KTRU, the heart of student engagement for $10 million as a “diminishing asset”, like a new car that loses value once you drive it off the dealer’s lot.
You know what’s a diminishing asset? A shiny new servery. A giant football stadium. As a rule, all new construction is a diminishing asset. Plaster cracks, buildings disintegrate, and good luck selling a Rice cafeteria to recoup the construction costs. There are a few rare exceptions to this rule, like the Parthenon or Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water, which gain value over time because they are cultural treasures. KTRU falls into this later camp – it is one of Houston’s cultural treasures, and a great source of pride for Rice students and alumni.
It’s a variation on the Joni Mitchel song: They paved paradise and put up a pasta station.
Brilliant, well researched response! I hope you sent this via courier to Leebron’s doorstep.
Great job Danny, that was a really well-written and compelling letter.
Great job. The worst part about Leebron’s letter I felt was that it kind of ramped up to the part where he asked alumni to continue donating because if alumni stopped donating anytime there were bad decisions made, there wouldn’t be donations….DAMN RIGHT! It’s because there are so many bad decisions begin made!!!
I think your letter explains very clearly the overall negative vibes that are making all of us worry about the leadership at Rice, which started with getting rid of Zen Camacho. I have stopped doing alumni interviews because I feel strongly that the students at Rice now are having a different experience than when I was there.
And now we have heard from Danny’s mom! Yay!
Nope, – my mom is Theresa with an H. She probably woudln’t say “damn right” either.
Ooh I totally missed the H-lessness. Not to mention you probably emailed this to her. I took the “damn right” as having been inspired by unusual fervor, though.
That part of the response letter really bothered me too.
We cannot eschew all change, and all hard decisions, simply because some of our
graduates feel so strongly that they threaten to, and perhaps ultimately do,
withhold support.
In other words, who cares what you think?
Very articulate and well written. I sincerely hope and frankly expect for him to read it and consider it. Thanks for your time in writing and posting this.
Bradley Lane
Wiess ’03
Very well written, Danny. I don’t think there’s anything I could add to this except my support. We may not be good for a collective $9.5 million, but I hope the University comes to its senses and realizes how many lifelong Rice cheerleaders it’s losing by doing this.
Great letter. Many have noted the other extremely under-utilized but high worth asset at Rice: the President’s House. Word on the street is that it is worth $7M based on Harris County’s assessment, and only 4 people are using it.
If I were in Houston at Sunday’s protest, I might take a FOR SALE placard or two (or 1000) and plant them on his lawn.
well 4 people is more that the number of people who listened to KTRU last year
That’s funny, I didn’t think Arbitron data went as low as 4. Oh wait. . . you don’t have any data. You’re just trolling. Never mind.
The Wiess President’s House (2 Sunset Blvd) is valued (both appraised and market) by the Harris County Assessor’s District (HCAD) at $7,348,674. In comparison, the house directly next door (1 Longfellow Lane) has an appraised value of $5,877,037 and a market value of $8,344,606 (per HCAD), and is currently on the market for $8,900,000 (har.com/77557243). The two houses are a good comparison because they were designed by the same architect at the same time in the same style (the same guy, in fact, who planned the Rice Institute architecture and site plan). Now, the Wiess President’s House has 6% less square footage, but that’s misleading as that is all within the single building, whereas the neighboring house is split among 5 building. The Wiess President’s House does have 17% less land area, though, doesn’t have a pool, and isn’t within the gated neighborhood it abuts.
Moving to the other side of the block, 2 Longfellow Lane (har.com/96199206) is on the market for $14,500,000 (HCAD appraised and market $7,313,297). This is in some ways a better comparison, as the two lots are only 1% different in land area, and the main houses are only 12% different in square footage, with very almost the same number of bedrooms (Wiess has more), bathrooms (Wiess has more), and rooms in general (the other house has 1 more). While it’s safe to assume the asking price will eventually drop, I still think it’s safe to assume it will sell for more than it’s current appraised value (the current appraised value is prior to renovations being finished), and I think it’s safe to assume that Rice would spend a little money to improve the President’s house if they sold it (finding a way to reintegrate it with the neighborhood, perhaps, to separate it further from the University), so it could conceivably sell for something like $8,000,000.
Food for thought…
The fact that the Div 1 A football program is still around does not justify keeping the KTRU-FM tower.
This is the classic case of justifying one mistake with another, in my opinion.
I see this as a chance to trim down the excess and hopefully can the football program (atleast in it’s 1 A version) for good.
It just looks like I am one of the few who thinks that the status quo just isn’t good enough
You are correct, the fact that Rice has a football team does not “justify” keeping KTRU-FM. The fact that Rice declined to follow the recommendations of its own consultants to end a program that was losing a colossal amount of money- and Rice isn’t going to end its football program, so you might as well get that idea out of your head forever- does prove that the reasoning Leebron provided for selling the station is bunk, because the University is obviously not in the habit of selling off “underutilized resources.”
And there’s really no reason it ought to be. We’re talking about a private university with 3,000 undergrads and a $4 billion endowment. There’s been no indication that Rice is in financial trouble, and the fact that new construction is still proceeding would be an indication of gross mismanagement if that were true. “Trimming the excess” is a recipe for a much-reduced and less valuable institution. That’s really not a practice in which successful private universities engage without good reason. And if Rice did need to engage in that practice, hiding it from students and faculty is unethical.
I take great exception to your implied and unsupported assertion that KTRU is a “mistake.” I and a lot of other people have got a lot out of KTRU. The radio station is its own justification, and by the way, the license is the reason the station is being sold, not the transmitter. The transmitter is maybe worth a few hundred thousand dollars as a physical device. The license, on the other hand, is extremely valuable because of the scarcity of FM bandwidth.
Finally, if you want credit for how high your standards are, then please provide some reasoning for how selling the radio station will make the university better, other than providing a slush fund for new construction and random other spending.
1. Rice doesn’t care about its football team. I am a rare supporter, and even I can’t do much for supporting them outside of Rice. What Rice does care about athletically is its baseball team–and a school must keep all its sports 1A in order to keep baseball 1A. Baseball always packs a lot of potential for national recognition for Rice, and many alumni (not including me) care a lot about it.
2. Neither you nor I are privy to the inner workings of exactly what a $4 billion endowment means to Rice as far as accessible money for construction or otherwise, so to drop the number and suggest it means that we are not in financial trouble or that the $10 million dollar addition from the sale wasn’t necessary or practical is you speculating. I’m sure someone at the center of Rice’s financial dealings would be willing to give you some insight on the situation if you are interested in knowing.
3. I understand this is a difficult situation, but please recognize it IS POSSIBLE that confidentiality was necessary, and just because you don’t agree with the fact that the administration moved forward the way it did, assuming that confidentiality really was necessary, doesn’t mean it was unethical. Furthermore, let’s pretend it was a mistake: so what, are we going to incur massive amounts of fees so we can get the student input? Which, by the wya, will no doubt come out against KTRU, since most of the people making a stink about this are alumni. Even if alumni got to have input, the only reason KTRU would ever come out with a majority is because the people for the sale/not bothered by the sale don’t care enough about the issue to make noise.
4. I take great exception to your implied and unsupported assertion that the sale of KTRU isn’t a mistake. I hate to break it to you, but the great experience you and others had are the minority. Most of us don’t even listen to KTRU. Furthermore, my understanding is the experience has changed, but it isn’t gone–you still gain all the same skills you would if the shows were radio broadcasted, correct?
4. Just because you’re not interested in a new servery and new amenities that all students can use doesn’t mean its a bunk reason for how selling the transmitter and FCC license makes Rice better. If all goes as planned, I believe it will also provide more funding for other student groups–those that don’t have access to $7 per student through a blanket tax.
I understand everyone being upset both the sale of KTRU and the secrecy under which the sale proceeded, but failing to see the situation objectively because you are/were deeply affected by KTRU is not helping your cause with people like me (the majority) that have no affinity for or attachment to KTRU.
2. You really think Rice will share the inner workings of its financial dealings with us if we ask nicely?
3. You would think that, given that this is all now in the public, the administration could now at least give some specific reasons these deliberations supposedly had to remain secret, but they have not. Furthermore, it shows extremely poor judgment to proceed on such a course without apparently having any idea of the response it would engender.
“will no doubt come out against KTRU”. Do you really think that students, even those that don’t listen to KTRU, are in favor of pawning off the assets of student-run organizations? Every time KTRU has been threatened, the students have responded with support (research events from 10 years ago for more information).
There are numerically more alumni than students by definition, so I don’t think it’s particularly significant if more alumni are complaining than students, if that is actually the case.
4. “I take great exception to your implied and unsupported assertion that the sale of KTRU isn’t a mistake.” I assume you mean “is a mistake”, and seems to me the “implied” assertion was supported quite well. “Most of us don’t even listen to KTRU”. Most of us don’t listen to one particular radio station. So what? Should all radio stations be sold off? Is anything that caters to less than 50.1% of people unworthy of existence?
And no, it would not be the same experience. Is writing a comment on a blog post the same experience as writing an article in a newspaper? No, it is not.
Finally, your implication that our involvement with KTRU somehow precludes our ability to be objective is extremely condescending and insulting. That’s something to which I take great exception.
3. Even if the the negotiations had to be kept confidential, the intent to sell the station did not.
I hate to break it to you, but the great experience you and others had are the minority. Most of us don’t even listen to KTRU.
And your point would be?
I would venture to guess that there are more people who have and do listen to KTRU than have ever been to a Rice football game. Or who have been to the Fondren Library for that matter.
@GATM: I do think Rice would be willing to explain the general financial reason as to why having a $4 billion endowment for 3,000 does not necessarily make you well-off. I wasn’t suggesting they would explain the finite details of anything, including this sale. But spouting out information like the amount in our endowment is not supportive on its own.
I do think the majority of students would have come out against KTRU if they would’ve been approached, and would now still be in favor of it being sold, despite unhappiness over how it was done. I suppose the administration could ask, but the only way this sale could be undone anyway is if it had to be legally unwound–and I doubt there are any legal issues with the situation.
I did mean “is a mistake,” sorry about that–and I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on whether it being a mistake is supported. I don’t think just because the process had flaws means the wrong decision for the university was made, and all other support about how awesome KTRU was is a matter of opinion that, like I said, I believe is not shared by the majority.
And when I said “the same experience,” I should have been more specific. I was referring to the skillset gained by holding a leadership position or learning the engineering necessary to broadcast (wherever you may be broadcasting). And I think the more comparable analogy is an writing an article for an online newspaper as opposed to writing an article for a physical newspaper: you still get your work edited, professional pieces published (if only on the measly internet), etc.
And I do think you’re biased because you experienced it. Its purely from a knowledge standpoint: you know the experience of wanting to be a DJ, learning it among students with the same interest over the course of 4 years, etc. You can’t just erase everyone’s happy memories to be objective. You also know better than anyone what we’ve lost in this sale. But my point in saying that is this: those people that are ignorant of these things (current students that are not involved in KTRU) are the ones you wanted to be able to vote on this, and the majority of them would most likely not support you now and I am positive they wouldn’t have supported you if the administration had gotten feedback before the sale (and therefore done nothing that anyone could deem unethical). Furthermore, even if they would have supported keeping the license, student feedback is not the be all and end all of a $10 million sale, and sale of the license by some measures makes a lot of sense.
@GATM and Angela: My point with the fact that KTRU is not supported by the majority of the student body is this: as I said above, the student body is who the administration failed to approach before this sale. I think its a much harder argument you have to make: if the student body would’ve been approached with all the pertinent information (what was being sold, what would remain, how much we’d get for it, what the plan for that money is), KTRU would’ve lost by a landslide. Maybe that doesn’t matter to ya’ll, but half this argument seems to be actually about KTRU and half of it is about the principle. I can see the logic with the principle argument but, due to the circumstances of KTRU not being valued by the majority of the student body, the argument that the license should still be in our hands for substantive reasons is really hard to buy.
@Justin: Are you sure about that? If UH came to Rice about the license and prefaced it with “you forfeit the right to negotiations of this sale if you tell anyone” then no, intent could not be discussed. I am not saying that this IS how it happened; what I’m saying is we don’t know. But I do understand how frustrating it might be if you ask these particular questions of the administration and they don’t answer.
I am sure about that. Before there was ever a deal, before there was any negotiation, there was the intent to sell. There is no legal restriction in saying that you intend to sell your frequency before you go shopping for a buyer. None. So you can drop the tortured apologist logic.
You seem to be awfully sure that the majority of students would be in favor of selling ktru. I bet you have some data on that, right? I mean, aside from the one point which is you?
Alicia, I would definitely say this argument is primarily about principle, and that’s the point of the letter.
That aside, your response still doesn’t address the major flaw in your argument. Are you now saying the football team is valued by the majority of the student body (you say the opposite in your original post), and therefore can’t be paralleled to other student organizations, such as KTRU?
The point of Danny’s letter is that if KTRU can be put on the chopping block simply because it’s an “underutilized resource,” then by the same logic, none of the other student organizations, each valued by its own minority of students and alumni, are safe.
The alternative is that Rice simply has no principles.
Alicia,
I have to admit I haven’t really had a chance to read either of your comments carefully, but just skimming over this portion of the thread, it seems like you are expressing some hostility to KTRU with respect to athletics, and I wonder if that may be triggered by a sense that my discussion of athletics in the original post was motivated by a belief that KTRU is superior to athletics.
Let me assure you that I do not believe that. My intention in bringing up athletics was to show that KTRU is not the only educational resource on campus that is “underutilized,” and that in fact there are other resources that are probably far more “underutilized” in relation to their fungible value and/or cost. I don’t think the football stadium actually should be bulldozed any more than I believe Rice ought to sell KTRU-FM. I do think that it’s unfair to treat one educational resource as having value only insofar as it can be converted into cash while simultaneously recognizing the educational value in other resources and turning a blind eye to their costs, and that to use that double standard as a justification for something like this is disingenuous.
But the takeaway from this comment should be: I believe that athletics is valuable to Rice just as KTRU is, and has many of the same reasons to be there, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I would appreciate it if you would take a deep breath and reciprocate.
So I am biased because of my knowledge, whereas you are objective because of your blissful ignorance. Interesting point. If only I could be as ignorant as you, I’m sure we would be in total agreement.
(no offense intended, of course)
Having student input is not necessarily the same thing as having students vote on a majority basis whether to sell a student-organization’s assets. There are many many things a university has and does that don’t necessarily appeal to a majority of its students, but are considered worthy of existence and pursuit nonetheless.
Usually, the way this sort of thing works is giving a public comment period. The university announces a potential plan, and says, “Hey, you’ve got 30 days to make comment”. If people kick up a fuss, they say, “Oh heck, didn’t realize people wanted to keep that around”. If not, they go forward. It’s not about holding a vote (when was the last time that happened?).
Regarding the experience, yes, people would still be producing audio programming. But when the stakes are lower, the experience gained is of less value, and of a different nature. When listenership plummets due to lack of a transmitter, the stakes are lower. When those who find a broadcast are only those looking for it, the stakes are lower. When the socioeconomic diversity of listenership declines, the stakes are lower. This will no doubt also lead to less student interest and involvement.
The only measures by which the sale of the license makes sense are those of a short sighted short term financial nature, a product of the same sort of thinking that has led certain organizations to sell their souls before. Universities should and can afford to be held to a higher standard.
@Justin: I didn’t say the restriction had to be a legal one, as in, against the rules. When two parties enter into negotiations with one another, they can demand the other party stick to a set of rules or get out of the negotiations. It’s perfectly legal for that party to not follow the rules–but then they’re kicked out of the negotiation, unless the other party has a change of heart. And as far as intent: perhaps the administration only had an intent to sell when the opportunity presented itself?
As far as the majority of students supporting or not supporting KTRU, I am just going off of a common sense assumption. KTRU failed to get the blanket tax last year; there are (or were last time I checked) less than 1000 people in the facebook group, many of whom are alumni; the attendance was fairly low at the rally (I’m guessing it was 3% of the student body if you assume all the people were students, correct?), etc. I’ve had many KTRU people acknowledge that the students that care about this are in the minority. I didn’t realize it was a discussion to be realistically had.
@Angela: I talked about this in my first post. I love Rice football–and the administration could care less about it, save for the donations in brings in (if you donate to any athletic team, you have to match it for the university as a whole or it can’t be accepted). My understanding is Rice football largely sticks around because without it, the baseball team can’t.
@Mee: No offense taken re: the athletics–didn’t mean to come off as hostile. I was just explaining that there are reasons that, unlike KTRU, the football team can’t be disposed of, because it will affect baseball, which Rice loves. I actually didn’t originally take it as an actual suggestion, but if you’re going to make the comparison, I wanted to point out why it’s not actually a useful one to make.
@GATM: I’m just saying your intense knowledge of everything you find great about KTRU is not knowledge that the majority of students–those that would have given input, or voted, or given comments or whatever–have. And that would have meant they would’ve jumped at millions of dollars over something they know nothing about. If you wanted just KTRU to get to vote on this, or get to give input on this, then sure. But objectively, the whole student body doesn’t know these things ya’ll seem to know about KTRU and, therefore, would’ve probably been supportive of the sale to get them things they do know about–food, support for the organizations they DO know inside and out, etc.
Regarding student input: let’s say a fuss was made. Would the administration have to listen to those people? How many comments would there have to be for them to have to listen? I just don’t understand what exactly would have had to happen to satisfy the requisite level of polling the students according to people that are unhappy. Would it all be labeled unethical anyway because what ya’ll didn’t want to happen happened?
IIRC, Rice approached UH, rather than vice versa.
From what I understand, KTRU continues to receive its blanket tax, just not a tax increase.
Food vs KTRU is a false choice and a smokescreen. It’s not like if they don’t sell KTRU’s license, they won’t be able to build the servery. I mean, come on.
Universities should ask for the input of their students in situations like this, and then should seriously think about listening to them. What they would think was significant opposition would vary according to the situation, but would in no case require 50.1% of students to write in.
@Alicia: Rice hired a media broker to find them a buyer. They did this without input from the people who run the station. They did this without even informing the people who run the station. At the very least, there should have been an announcement when they hired the broker.
You seem to be confusing opposition to ktru with not caring about ktru. It may very well be that most student don’t really care enough about ktru to listen. That doesn’t mean that they want ktru to be sold off. It only means that they aren’t interested in ktru. You mentioned the failure of the blanket tax increase to pass, but you fail to mention that the increase requires a 2/3 majority to pass. It failed because only 55% voted for it. 55% is a majority.
@GATM: I didn’t meant to directly pose KTRU against a servery. I just think if the administration said vote: KTRU’s tower/FCC license or 10 mil towards shit everyone would use, the student body as a whole would overwhelmingly choose the money. And my point about asking what should have been required by the administration is to point out that no one method would’ve pleased everyone so they still would’ve dealt with the upsetness.
@GATM and Justin: I was unaware that Rice initiated negotiations; to be honest, I can’t think of a situation where Rice initiates the sale and, prior to negotiations beginning with a particular party, has to be secretive about it. I’m personally not that pissed about it, but I have always understood the principle argument and can at least see where people are coming from on that.
@Justin: I think if you don’t want KTRU’s tower/FCC license sold off, and you care enough to voice opposition to its sale, then you care about KTRU. I think a lot of students TRULY don’t care about KTRU–meaning they wouldn’t say anything about it. And like I said above, if you did KTRU’s tower/FCC license v. 10 mil, I think lots of kids who don’t care about KTRU one way are the other are willing to go against it in hopes some of that 10 mil will reach them & an organization they do participate in.
As far as the blanket tax: its not a popular vote. It’s a vote in the SA. So yes, a majority of the SA, which totals about 50-60 people (used to be 5 per college, not really sure what it is now that there are more colleges) that are supposed to represent its students. In the SA meetings I used to go to, they said yes to everything, so failing to succeed there stands out to me. Perhaps things have changed.
Um. The blanket tax is a popular vote. You’ve consistently demonstrated here that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That might fly in law school, but we have higher standards here at NAP.
@Justin: Pretty sure it wasn’t that way when I was there. But at least we can agree that voting to personally give $3 is different than voting to not collectively gain $10 mil? And if by “consistently don’t know what you’re talking about,” you mean that I didn’t know two things (this and the fact that Rice sought out to sale as opposed to the other way around being a possibility), then sure. I haven’t studied this situation with every fiber of my being, but I know the basics and I think the sale was a good idea. There’s no need to be rude–having knowledge standards means nothing if you don’t have asshole standards as well.
Easy there. Jokes. We have no standards on NAP.
Excellent letter Daniel. Best I’ve read on the subject. And a very high point for NAP. Thank you for choosing this forum to post it.
(Note to self: don’t tell Roberto I also e-mailed the letter to a couple hundred people)
Can’t turn your back on this site for one day.
Thanks Mr. Mee (<—why does this bit of gratitude sound so self-serving?)
Quick Kilian, guess the name of my favorite song on Lincoln
hmmmm…I can’t decide if it’s Mr. Me or Kiss Mee Son of God.
Well played sir.
Mee’s letter is EXCELLENT! Could not have put it better myself. Gotta love the articulate, cogent assessments of Rice graduates.
As part of the group that got the station out of the dorms and on to a broadcast tower, ’tis a bit sad to get this news, particularly considering how hard we all worked back then to make it happen and keep the station on the air with as much live programming as possible. It was all worth it for me as it led to a wonderful 30+ year career in the Major Label Record business not long after graduation.
I agree that the process and announcement were not handled well, and, though not sure whether the decision is a good one overall, I take some comfort in U of H paying Rice millions for a withering technology just to keep their ageing (and soon dying) Classical listeners happy…[;) and leaving me feeling less concerned about the meager contributions I am able to make to my Alma mater.
Rock on.
Rob Sides
Hanszen ’74 (originally ’73 before the radio station took up too much of my time…)
KTRU Muzhik Head ’69 – ’74; Manager ’71 – ’72
Uh. . . did one of the founders of KTRU really just comment on this letter? STARSTRUCK!
But seriously, Rob, I can’t thank you enough for your kind words, and more importantly for the wonderful creation that you gave to later generations of Rice students and Houston music lovers. I think most everyone else here would agree.
i agree. and i second the starstruck remark.
Thirded. And he appears to be legit.
Justin, did you notice that “VCR firmed as standard” story in that link? I had no idea the VCR tech went back as far as ’71.
I didn’t notice that but about the VCR standard, but the Beta/VHS format war started in the mid 70s, so that sounds about right. I remember seeing VCRs occasionally by the late 70s.
Hey Rob! Long time no see!
I too would like to thank Daniel Mee for his thoughtful letter. While not one of the founders, I was part of KTRU back in the 70′s when we made the transition to stereo, upped power from an ERP of 10 watts to around 350 watts, moved studios, then rebuilt them after the flood of ’76 and other such fun events.
I’m sad for the loss of a student created asset, and sad for the way it has been handled. But, I am glad to see that KTRU and the university produced an articulate alumni like David who has put into words what I have been unable to.
Philip Walters
Sid Rich ’76 (and a year of grad work that did not produce a degree, also from spending too much time at KTRU)
Studio engineering ’73-’75
General Manager fall’75-spring’77
PS: It personally annoys me that Rice press releases on this matter keep refering to the current paid GM as “the first General Manager” I guess since Rob and I were not on the University payroll system we did not exist.
Philip,
Thanks very much for the kind comments, and I’m honored that another old-school KTRU alum saw fit to stop by.
In your PS, I think you’ve hit upon one of the key throughlines in official Rice communications about the sale, which is to portray the station as an entity that was created and maintained by the university and therefore naturally exists only at the university’s pleasure, when in fact students did all the work and the transmitter was a donation. Rice has never invested a significant amount in capital improvements to KTRU, and the operating costs paid by the university are limited to the power to run the transmitter and the employment of Will Robedee and Bob Cham.
I don’t know whether this portrayal was intentional or not, but it’s certainly inaccurate.
Great letter, Danny.
Wow, before I knew about how this whole situation went down, I was wondering what all the outcry was about. Now I see it, and it is extremely disappointing. I wish I had more hands, so I could give Leebron…4 thumbs down.
GREAT Dave Chappelle reference.
Amazing letter! Very well-written, though I’m not such a fan of bashing Rice Athletics, I’m assuming you were referencing the possibility of demoting the football team to a different division rather than condemning the entire Athletic department. Attempting to save one valuable, under-appreciated student resource by insulting another is not a solution.
Well, he also “bashes” the art gallery, the media center, and the library as being wasteful expenditures, according to the logic Rice used to justify the KTRU sale.
The crux of the discussion concerning Rice Athletics is addressed in Danny’s reply to Antarius, above.
In the past few years this university has done everything it can to distance itself from its recent alumni. For the sake of Rice’s heritage I wish it the best but good luck in reaching out to your disenchanted donor base.
The July Arbitron ratings book ranks KUHF 17th in daytime audience.
This is true.
http://www.arbitron.com/home/ppm_data.htm?inframe#market
I can’t account for why the other report doesn’t show anything for any of the noncommercial stations. It’s possible that it doesn’t include noncommercial stations, as KSBJ isn’t listed either.
If I understand the way Arbitron data is reported, KUHF’s share in this survey equates to about 150,000 households, half of what I’ve seen claimed. KPFT’s share is 0.2, for an audience between 5,000 and 10,000. KACC and KTSU show up just barely, with numbers so small and so erratic they’re basically meaningless.
I looked at the Arbitron data for some other noncommercial music stations with which I’m familiar on that page:
WRAS Atlanta (Georgia State)- 0.1
WREK Atlanta (Georgia Tech)- 0.0
WFMU Hoboken (independent)- not listed
WRAS is a 100,000-watt station! The fact is, ratings for noncommercial radio in general, and college radio in particular, are low. If you’re going to hold that against KTRU, you’re basically calling into question the whole idea of those stations.
My only intention in posting was to point out an the erroneous nature of a statement regarding KUHF. Numbers don’t matter in this debate. I just abhor misinformation, especially when it is retweeted numerous times.
Fair enough. Thanks for the correction and the opportunity to talk more about what the Arbitron data mean.
[...] An Open Letter to Rice University President David Leebron « NONALIGNMENT PACT. Filed under Charitable Giving, Education Comment (RSS) | Trackback [...]
What a gorgeous letter. I agree that the news was “sickening”. Visit savektru.org to see what everyone can do to stop the sale, whether you are a KTRU or Rice alum or not.
the problem have with many peoples replies is that they center on the football team the the recommendation was for all the sports to drop to under division 1a status this survey being conducted only one year after rice had won the national championship in baseball and two years before rice’s football team had went to its first bowl game in forty years. even though many people dont support rice athletics and seem to have it out for the football team the survey shouldnt be a valid representation of current changes in sports revenue. being it that all sports the baseball track volleyball soccer and other sports would all have to suffer because of a drop in status these teams losing recruits and revenue because of the drops and all of them are top programs in the nation. all ricce sports need is more support by the people who “cant fill the stands”. this being because this stadium was renovated to help host one of the few superbowls ever to be held on a college campus. if the university were to renovate the stadium reduce the seating upgrade the concession and restrooms the would be able to host larger games at rice ie rice vs texas and not give all that money away to reliant and aramark. hell the average cost of parking at rice is 400 dollars at year times that by the student and faculty population and with parking tickets and the paid lots like greenbriar you can see there is a considerable amount of money being made there..we as a community of rice have to understand there are certain things that we cannot change and rice athletics is one of them, those kids work hard on the field and off to represent this university with class and it would be a shame to say they can no longer compete at the highest level and strive for excellence like rice academics represents because of the selfish feelings of a few. i agree that the ktru is a staple of rice culture..an old and rarely used one but just as athletics is trying to do around campus ktru also needs to have a face lift not be sold. there needs to be a new energy for this station because lets face it its dying so instead of selling the station they should be given the ability to show there are listeners out there lets make those ratings increase not give them to our rivals.
Please do not take my comments about Rice athletics to be advocating any changes to the athletics program or denigrating the contributions of student-athletes. I intended only to illustrate the absurdity of selling off one “underutilized” educational resource while declining to do the same thing for another that was far more expensive. As you point out, selling off the football stadium wouldn’t make sense. Neither does selling off KTRU.
As far as ratings go, take a look at my reply to Charles above for a little more about ratings. Non-NPR, non-religious noncommercial radio and especially college radio never rate well in Arbitron surveys. Ratings are not a useful metric by which to evaluate these programs.
I proudly own a copy of Me Faire Casser, a nearly unlistenable CD recorded by Danny Mee and several other fantastically creative (then) Rice undergraduates. I supported their CD release show, I supported their airing on KTRU, and I unabashedly support the creativity, musical growth, and experimentation of future Rice University students.
May they always have a world class laboratory in which to wield their craft.
Is KTRU necessary? Perhaps not, but Rice has never prided itself on supplying students with the bare minimum.
Rice University’s quirky underbelly and fierce resilience in the face of cultural and intellectual homogenization is one of its greatest assets.
Rice, do not divest yourself of this (symbolic or functional) bastion of ferociously independent thought.
–Nathan Zumwalt
Lovett ’02
“Unlistenable” is right! It’s fucking terrible! And I want everyone else involved to know that I take complete responsibility for that. My bad.
Thanks for the comments, Nathan. Good to hear from you.
That’s very noble of you, Danny, but I’m afraid I have to claim my (sizable) share of responsibility for how hideous that record was.
On topic, thanks for so clearly and eloquently exposing the total senselessness and egregious bad faith of Rice’s actions. Destroying KTRU for a little extra cash not only does a terrible disservice to the student body and to Houston radio, it mocks the very idea of the university as a free space for intellectual and cultural exploration. The fact that the sale was conducted in secret, without even letting the university community know that an invaluable communal resource was on the auction block…man. Words can’t plumb the depth of this bullshit.
[...] popping up all the time (check out the first few links in particular, esp. Danny Mee‘s post): http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2010/08/an-open-letter-to-rice-university-president-david-leebron.ht... [...]
[...] pages, Tweets, and a petition that already sports 2,000 names (before students even return). This letter from an alumnus, for instance, details some of the other extravagant purchases made by the [...]
[...] threaten to never donate another dime, pursue the potential Open Meetings Act violation, write impassioned open letters, I wish you luck. One hopes that at the very least, the administration will learn a little [...]
“KTRU’s audience was so small that it did not even register in the ratings. Most college radio stations around the country…” WHAT?!?!?!? How is that important and when did it become important? When I read past this line on my phone, I almost screamed aloud in public. This statement features motive. This statement demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the history and nature of Rice University or represent my interests.
I was not involved with KTRU, but remember the Easter egg that turned KTRU into 50k of F Word Radio. We have a license in crowded spectrum, countless possibilities for future distribution using our slice and an established broadcast tower in a down economy. Is this the ideal time to liquidate such unique property? I’m disgusted with this garage sale justification! I’m insulted by it.
The confidentiality of the deal is also unjustifiable. Are we afraid that a true market value might be in question? If it is a garage sale asset, let’s put it on the curb. There is hidden motivation here and it is shameful.
This is all smoke screen for the mainstreaming of an Institution that was truly unique. David Leebron is applying his own vision, forsaking those who are strongly vested and may oppose.
Baker 95
Okay, so this letter is a powerful and much needed rebuttal to the KTRU sale, but really, citing Rice Media Center and Rice Art Gallery as potentially underutilized resources which shouldve been first to the slaughter shows a lack of research on Daniel Mee’s behalf. The Rice Media Center is the only dedicated building for VADA film and photo students, and is where the VADA administrative offices are located. The Rice Art gallery brings in world class commissioned artists to do installation art. In fact we are the only college campus galllery dedicated to installation art. And as an attendant there I know that the gallery is a draw for many community members and out of state visitors. In a university so strongly engineer/math/ science focused, it is important to give equal respect to the arts.
He was saying that rhetorically, as in, if you go by the Rice administration’s asinine logic, closing those things would also make sense, since utilization for Rice doesn’t seem to measure worthiness or quality.
As Ghost of the Machine said, it’s a rhetorical device.
As a VADA alum (who started before it was VADA and has, as a result, been at one point or another every single track within VADA), I think it is a good point. KTRU is the only Houston radio station that regularly promotes local artists. It brings international and internationally recognized music that doesn’t have a place on any other Houston radio station to the city, on-air and live by sponsoring and helping sponsor concerts both at Rice and around the city. As you say, “In a university so strongly engineer/math/ science focused, it is important to give equal respect to the arts.” Music is an art and can, in cooperation especially with film and theatre, have a profound impact on the viewer/listener, and can add greatly to the University.
Also, don’t think that VADA, the Media Center, or Hamman Hall are safe. Why do you think the offices are in the Media Center, while half the classes take place in Sewall, and most of the rest of the classes take place in a temporary building built in the 60s (you know, the Media Center)? If KTRU is gone, and Rice finds itself in another $5,000,000 hole, I don’t think the Rice Cinema having the last actual silver screen in the city will stop it being turned into extra classroom space for School of Continuing Studies or the Business School (both of which are cash cows whose earning potential is at least partially limited by space). He is pointing out how both VADA and KTRU represent the arts at Rice, how they both share similar traits as “underutilized” (have you ever seen the Rice Cinema sold out? I haven’t, and I worked there), and how we must stand up, as artists, as students, or as alums, and put a stop to this sale, and the dis-respect for the arts and Rice’s own students that it shows.
In the immortal words of Teh Gayz: “Ooooooo, SNAP!” Practising austerity by selling off KTRU is the Rice equivalent of healing a systemic illness by chopping off one’s little toe…but a good Owl like me would do something that crazy!
Contact the FCC and decry how selling is contrary to public interest; advances the homogenization of sound; and furthers consolidation of media. No sell. Send your comments to the Houston Chronicle and your state representative. Contact info below.
http://fcc.gov/
Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322)
TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322)
Fax: 1-866-418-0232
E-mail: fccinfo@fcc.gov
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the editor appear in Viewpoints. Concisely written letters are the most likely to be published. Letters may be handwritten or typed, and should include the writer’s name, signature, full address and phone number for verification purposes only.
Fax: (713) 362-3575
Phone: (713) 362-7730
E-mail: viewpoints@chron.com
Opinions
The Chronicle provides readers with forums for expressing their opinions and views. Detailed opinions and analyses of current events appear in Outlook (daily page/Sunday section) and should be submitted to the Outlook editor in essay form.
Fax: (713) 362-3575
Phone: (713) 362-7209
E-mail: outlook@chron.com
Education
The Education Page editor directs coverage of news and features about students, parents, teachers and administrators in both private and public schools in the Houston metropolitan area. The Education Page is published in the City & State section on Wednesdays, and information should be directed to the Education Page editor.
Fax: (713) 362-6806
Phone: (713) 362-3399
E-mail: ed.page@chron.com
InfoSource
News, features and information of interest to the Greater Houston community can be distributed over the telephone through The Chronicle’s InfoSource line.
Fax: (713) 217-5105
Phone: (713) 362-2000
Find your state representative:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/welcome.php
Thanks for this letter!! I’m forwarding it to everyone I know who cares about the arts in Houston and KTRU. -Rachel
So, here’s something else to add to your argument about the ratings: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=1414081 (I’m a lazy researcher, I got that from the Arbitron Wikipedia page…however searching google pulls up all sorts of related things).
This lawsuit is a follow-up to a New York lawsuit claiming the same things, namely “The agreement settles a three-month-old lawsuit by the attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, after accusations that Arbitron’s new ratings system did not adequately account for young African-Americans and Hispanics, people who do not speak English, and cellphone-only households.” (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/arbitron-settles-suit-over-ratings-system/).
Other states have also filed lawsuits, though the New York one is the only one I can find any info on resolution. Also, as someone who doesn’t work with the station, I have to ask whether KTRU has the encoder that allows for PPM ratings measurements? I just find it so odd that, if it was being measured (I assume the station has to pay Arbitron to get the encoder and, therefore, the ratings service), it wouldn’t show up, even as a 0.0, like you mentioned Georgia Tech does earlier.
So, basically, if a significant part of the argument is based on KTRU’s ratings being low and it being “underutilized” as a result, I want to know more about the ratings, especially since they’ve been called into question before regarding misrepresenting minorities and cell-phone households (not that KTRU is a minority station, but shows like the African show, the Hip-Hop show, and the Reggae show I feel might draw a minority audience that might be being under-represented, and a station that is in general listened to by a younger demographic, mostly college students and recent/semi-recent grads, would be more likely to have cell-phone only households as listeners).
I have to ask whether KTRU has the encoder that allows for PPM ratings measurements?
I initially thought that ktru did not have the encoder, but I have confirmed with ktru’s engineer that it was installed sometime in the last few years. Though, I’m not entirely sure why it was installed; ktru has never been interested in its Arbitron ratings.
Good to know. Thank you!
Ok, two more things before I go to bed.
1) The argument that people listen to internet radio is disingenuous.
“13. How prevalent is online broadcasting?
An estimated 42 million people listened to online radio weekly in 2009 — twice the number who did in 2005, according to a report by Arbitron and Edison Research. The report also indicated that 85 percent of Americans have online access in 2009, compared with only 50 percent in 1999.
The New York Times has referred to Internet radio stations as the “new wave.” CBS Interactive Music Group President David Goodman also is upbeat about online radio and his streaming audience has doubled in less than a year.” (http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=14644)
CBS Interactive Music Group owns Radio.com (live simulcasts of CBS owned FM stations), Last.FM (which, as I mentioned earlier, is the antithesis of KTRU, developing playlists based on personal preferences of the user, rather than a “curated” experience), and mp3.com, which is really more a competitor to the iTunes Music Store than a type of internet radio (their main-page has a list of top music videos).
Also, how many of those 85% of Americans with internet have internet in their car?
2) The fact that KTRU missed out on the blanket tax. True, it didn’t pass, but it needed a 2/3 vote to pass. It still had 55% in favor (http://media.www.ricethresher.org/media/storage/paper1290/news/2010/02/26/News/Reset.Rpc.Earn.Blanket.Tax.Increase.While.Ktru.Fails-3880375.shtml), so, if we assume that the SA elections are a reasonable representation of the student body, more than half of the undergraduate population believes KTRU is worth supporting.
[...] particularly admire the thoughtful, well-written letter by Daniel Mee at http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2010/08/an-open-letter-to-rice-university-president-david-leebron.ht…. Ideas on how to help oppose the sale of KTRU are at [...]
From Danny’s mom – Way to go Danny — I am so proud of you and your passion for what’s right! Also proud of ALL your music including the early experiments! Thanks to all you KTRU supporters – keep it up.
Brilliant letter Danny! I will be sending this to my Rice friends.
hear, hear
[...] differ with some positions that present Rice University’s secrecy or the KTRU price as issues. Sales discussions are [...]