With the approach of Halloween, I find myself thinking of a friend who wrote about the ghost buildings on her campus – buildings that once were a vibrant part of the life of the university community but are no longer there. Intrigued by the idea, I turned to FHSU librarians David Obermayer and Patty Nicholas to get these “ghost” stories for our own campus.

They did not disappoint. I received a lot of great information complete with photos.

The first ghostly building is the Old Fort Hospital Building (1867-1915), which became the first academic building for the Western Branch of the Kansas Normal School. Beginning in 1902, it was used as the primary academic building and housed all of the classrooms, the library, and the principal’s office.

The school and the hospital were originally on the site previously occupied by the military fort. The old guardhouse was used as a gymnasium while the officer’s quarters were the home of Principal Picken and his family. In 1904, the college moved to the current site of the university when the middle section of Picken Hall opened. The hospital was the only building moved onto campus from the original fort site.

Once on campus, the hospital housed the school’s first dining hall along with a woodworking and blacksmithing shop. Both the manual arts training program and the band were originally started in this building, which earned it the nickname of the “incubator” because so many new activities and were born there. More proof that our innovative roots run deep!

The first power plant (1911-1930) was located right behind Martin Allen Hall. Funded by a legislative appropriation, it provided the first campus buildings (Picken and Martin Allen halls as well as the Old Hospital) with heat, light and running water.

Over the next few decades, the campus grew to include Rarick Hall in 1912, Sheridan in 1917, Custer in 1921, Forsyth Library (now McCartney Hall) in 1926, and Albertson in 1928. The Old Power Plant became dangerously overburdened. President Lewis requested funds to build a new power plant in the fall of 1930 but was denied.

Months later the power plant caught fire and burned to the ground. President Lewis requested money from the Kansas Legislature again and this time received $51,200. The new and larger plant, completed in 1932, is now home to the Moss-Thorns Art Gallery.

The art annex (1936-1967), located out by Highway 40, originally served as a campus maintenance shop. By the early 1960s, the campus faced a lack of studio and exhibit space for the fine arts and studio art programs, both of which were expanding quickly. In 1963, studio arts moved into the Art Annex using the space as studios, faculty offices, and classrooms.

In the early morning of March 5, 1967, a fire was reported by a graduate student who had been working late in the studio. Despite the best efforts of first responders, aided by students and faculty, the building was destroyed. The exact cause of the fire was unknown. Among the art lost was an entire collection of paintings by Professor Joel Moss. The Art Department’s studios were temporarily moved to one of the old barracks and then into a temporary metal building. The department remained scattered across campus until the construction of the new Rarick Hall in 1981 and now resides in our fabulous new Center for Art and Design.

Rarick Hall (1912-1978) was built with appropriations from the Kansas Legislature. Its identity has shifted throughout the years. Originally named the Agricultural Building, it was later the Industrial Building and now is home to the College of Education and the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences. It was the first building on campus to be equipped with modern labs and even had its own dining hall in the basement.

In 1978 the original Rarick was razed, and a new Rarick Hall was built, opening in 1981. Today’s Rarick will soon undergo a major transformation.

Other ghostly academic buildings that once were vibrant centers of student learning include Davis Hall (1952-2017) and Heather Hall (1982-2014). Originally called the Applied Arts Building, the design and building process for Davis was slow, and inflation after the end of the Second World War meant that President Cunningham had to request additional funds from the legislature in 1951 to finish the project.

Once completed, the Applied Arts Building housed the Industrial Arts Department as well as the Home Economics and Fine Arts departments. In 2017, Davis was razed to make way for the new art and design building.

Heather Hall (1982-2014) was built as a TV and radio station with state-of-the-art studios and classrooms. The building sat between Forsyth Library and Malloy Hall. By 1983, Heather Hall also had a satellite dish and amplifier to help with programming. These renovations allowed KFHS Channel 12 to massively expand its reach and to begin broadcasting sports games live over Hays Cable TV.

Student housing has also seen its share of repurposing, demolishing and building in response to increasing demand. In 1943, a set of horse barns near Lewis Field were repurposed as barracks (1943-1968) and a mess hall for the U.S. Army’s aviation students.

By 1945, the aviation program had ended and at least part of the barracks buildings became men’s dormitories for civilian students. Two years later, another barracks building was moved from Walker Army Air Field to Lewis Field to serve as additional housing. By 1949, the college was again in need of housing, this time for married students, and all of the barracks were converted and expanded into housing for students and faculty with families.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, married student housing continued to be an issue. The Elm and Hackberry Trailer Courts were created for married couples who wanted to live in mobile homes, and Wooster Place was built for students with families.

Motel 6 is not a ghost building, but I will long remember when it temporarily became a men’s residence hall when we were once again short on student housing in 2011!

Another residence hall in the ghostly category is McGrath Hall (1942-2000). Originally, the building housed military personnel and cadets. After the Second World War, it became a residence hall for non-military male students. A south wing was added in 1952 and another section was added in 1955. In 2000 the building was demolished and new student housing, Stadium Place Apartments, was built on the site.

As the college grew, space was also needed for a women’s residence hall. Agnew Hall (1957-2010) was named after Dean Emeritus Elizabeth J. Agnew, a faculty member in the Domestic Economy Department and first dean of women. The first building on campus to be named after a woman faculty member, it had a dining room, three lounges, a recreation room, a laundry room, and a residence with a kitchen. It was completely renovated in the early 1990s, but by 2010 the building itself was just too old. It was replaced by two new student residential halls with repurposed names: the new Agnew and Heather.

Our last ghostly building is Wiest Hall (1961-2012/2017). Wiest Hall was built as a four-story men’s dormitory when our growing campus was again in desperate need of updated student housing in 1961. In 1971, a seven-story tower was added and called the Wiest Hall Annex.

In 1972 the college started hosting the Youth Conservation Corps camp during the summer, drawing students from all over Western Kansas and housing these students in Wiest Hall. In 1977 the Psychology Department moved to Wiest Hall and shortly after the Psychological Service Center, predecessor of the Kelly Center, was located in the annex.

These ghostly buildings are friendly reminders of our broad and deep innovative spirit, moments of tragedy and resilience, enduring growth, and the always appreciated helping hand from the Kansas Legislature. Though gone, they’re an important part of our history and are strongly connected to the success we enjoy today. For some readers, perhaps, the razed buildings evoke not ghost stories but powerful memories of friendship, learning, and love.

 

 

Let’s chat for just a moment about free speech.

Many of us have been talking about that very subject recently, from NBA stars and league executives to Chinese government officials, from President Trump to journalists and members of Congress.

Some ground rules for our conversation: The First Amendment protects us from government attempts to control what we say, or from punishment simply for having said it. Freedom of speech — one of five freedoms in the amendment — offers no protection from private companies or individuals who don’t like what we say or hold other views.

The First Amendment only applies in the United States. Other nations may have rules or laws that in some fashion say they protect or really do protect freedom of speech, but none has quite the same strong constitutional protection that we have in the U.S.

And even after 220-plus years, we’re still working out how First Amendment freedoms apply here to everyday situations. Let’s continue the conversation with some real-life examples.

The National Basketball Association has been working for several decades to build its audience in China, where it’s reported more people watch NBA games on TV than do people in this country. A carefully crafted combination of sports and marketing took a real hit in a matter of days recently, after a Houston Rockets executive tweeted an innocuous message of support for protesters in Hong Kong — who it’s worth noting, were protesting in part any attempt by Chinese officials to limit their free speech. The tweet: “Fight for freedom. Stand with Hong Kong.”

Chinese state television stopped broadcasting and streaming the Rockets’ games. Pre-season game broadcasts of several other NBA teams were dropped.

Government-controlled Chinese companies dropped their NBA-related sponsorships. Banners touting NBA stars and events were torn down from buildings. And state-owned news media called on NBA players and executives to be more “respectful” of that nation’s internal policies and to consider how “rioters” in Hong Kong pose a threat to life and property there.

China makes no pretense of protecting free speech when it involves the government’s policies there — so yet another lesson: While our freedom of speech is protected from our government, it affords no such defense against other governments.

President Trump this week threatened this week to sue CNN, following release of “undercover” video by the self-styled conservative media criticism operation called “Project Veritas,” which purports to demonstrate bias against him by CNN.

One hurdle such a lawsuit will face is that the First Amendment’s provision for free speech and free press don’t have a “fairness” requirement. While our laws do allow challenges to speech that is immediately threatening, or is libelous, there’s no such provision for requiring anyone — from a cable network to any one of us — to be nice or “fair” when speaking about a politician. The First Amendment does provide that Trump or any other political officeholder can use his or her own free speech rights — in his case, a Twitter account with a massive following — to counter such alleged bias.

Moving from the courtroom to Congress, there are suggestions of future laws to prevent hateful speech, speech that glorifies violence, to ban so-called “deep fake” videos (which use new technology to falsify video images and scenes) or to filter out what someone would determine are false and misleading statements about political candidates. Most, if not all, of those efforts start with good intentions: to make our society a more civil, honorable place.

But on the pragmatic level, each runs up against a free-speech concept strongly held in place so far by the U.S. Supreme Court: That such social issues and values involving free expression should be settled by public debate and discussion, not by court or legislative decision.

Yes, such debates and discussions may well have a price or penalty for participation — starting with no  guarantee of civility or fair play. NBA superstar LeBron James — despite a reputation for speaking out in defense of those challenging authority — nonetheless faced a Twitter firestorm for comments he made that many saw as critical of the original Hong Kong tweet, though he denies that intent. The exchanges between Trump and his critics carry a special vitriol, which damages his reputation with some and damages his critics’ standings with others.

In the end, we all may need to see, hear or read ideas that offend, anger or even sicken us — across the widest possible spectrum of views if only, as one Supreme Court justice once wrote, to be better prepared to argue against them.

To speak frankly, that’s how free speech works.

Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at [email protected], or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.