THE BGSU SICSIC SPIRIT CREW: MASKED PERFORMANCES OF CAMPUS IDENTITY AND CULTURAL ANXIETY

Margaret LeMoine Roseland

A Thesis

Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

August 2019

Committee:

Jolie Sheffer, Advisor

Montana Miller ii ABSTRACT

Jolie Sheffer, Advisor

On the night of October 5, 1946, six young male Bowling Green State University students were recruited to a secret meeting by President Frank Prout in order to found an anonymous booster club, which would soon become known as SICSIC. This masked spirit crew initiated a school spirit revival that has since become an integral part of BGSU’s campus culture. Despite its importance, however, SICSIC’s origins, practices, and values mostly exist as legend and lore. In this critical historical analysis, I analyze SICSIC as a carnivalesque secret society and consider its meanings within the context of changing campus and national norms as a result of World War II.

This project puts BGSU’s spirit crew in conversation with other collegiate secret societies and their influence on the greater American society. I argue that SICSIC was founded to assuage anxieties over the changing landscape of higher education, specifically the influx of GIs and others who were not traditional college-age students. While the customs and rituals of the group have changed over the years, remnants of the group’s past still exist in the contemporary

SICSIC’s masked performances. Applying performance and critical race theory to the evolving traditions of SICSIC, I show the continuities and disruptions to the University’s campus culture over a period of seventy years. I also consider the racial implications of the group’s performances of the past, present, and possible future. Using ethnographic research methods, as well as historical research, observations, and interviews with SICSIC alumni, this is the most complete and comprehensive history of the group. iii

This thesis is dedicated to the present and future Bowling Green State University student body—

may they continue to challenge and change their campus culture. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my thesis committee for supporting my project and dedicating their time to seeing it through to the end. A special thanks to my thesis chair, Dr. Jolie Sheffer, who challenged me to pull as much out of my research as possible and encouraged me to finish strong despite the many challenges that came up along the way. My Institutional Review Board advisor and thesis reader, Dr. Montana Miller, suggested I turn my assignment for her folklore course into this thesis. I’d like to thank Dr. Miller for this suggestion and for guiding me through the human subject research approval process. I must also extend my gratitude towards Beka

Patterson, Graduate Program secretary for the School of Cultural and Critical Studies; her knowledge of the program is invaluable.

Regarding the individuals who took time out of their lives to sit down for an interview with me, I am thankful for their willingness to participate in this project and share their stories and opinions with me. This project would have been impossible without their help.

As for my wife and family who have loved and supported me all the way, I would never have completed this project without them, and for this I am forever grateful. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION — SECRET SOCIETY...... 1

“Goodbye, Joe College”...... 3

Secret Society ...... 7

The Ku Klux Klan ...... 12

Collegiate Secret Societies ...... 14

SICSIC as Secret Society ...... 25

Research Methods ...... 27

Theoretical Analysis ...... 29

Chapter Summaries ...... 33

CHAPTER I. SCHOOL SPIRIT ...... 39

National Anxieties in the 1940s ...... 41

BGSU in the 1940s ...... 42

President Prout and His Solution ...... 43

The Founding of SICSIC ...... 48

Campus Reactions ...... 58

Beginnings of Tradition ...... 62

Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 67

CHAPTER II. CARNIVAL ...... 70

National Anxieties in the 1950s ...... 73

BGSU in the 1950s ...... 74

The Transformation of SICSIC ...... 80 vi

National Anxieties in the 1960s and 1970s...... 92

BGSU in the 1960s and 1970s ...... 93

Setting the Stage for Carnival ...... 98

Evolving Performances — the 1960s ...... 102

Evolving Values — the 1970s ...... 113

Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 120

CHAPTER III. CONTROVERSY ...... 123

National Anxieties in the 1980s ...... 125

BGSU in the 1980s ...... 126

Evolving Traditions ...... 129

Campus Pushback ...... 143

The Revamping of SICSIC ...... 150

National Anxieties in the 1990s ...... 162

BGSU in the 1990s ...... 164

The New SICSIC ...... 169

Democratic Society ...... 171

Redeeming a Reputation ...... 176

Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 186

CONCLUSION — MEMORY LOSS ...... 190

National Anxieties in the 2000s ...... 191

BGSU in the 2000s ...... 194

Representing a Diverse Campus ...... 198

The Contemporary SICSIC ...... 203 vii

Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 213

WORKS CITED ...... 221

APPENDIX A — CONSENT LETTER ...... 233 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 First Documentation of Masked SICSIC Members ...... 86

2 Clown Masks and Hammer ...... 87

3 “Homecoming Bound”...... 87

4 SICSIC Six Wear Blackface Masks ...... 104

5 Delta Gammas Awakened by SICSIC ...... 110

6 “Moonlighting Has Its Benefits” ...... 110

7 “SICSIC Sez Leg It!” ...... 111

8 SICSIC Six Wear Gore Masks ...... 112

9 Sara Sue Stanley’s Unmasking Photograph ...... 114

10 SICSIC Members Pose on Basketball Hoop ...... 118

11 SICSIC Members Sneaking ...... 120

12 SICSIC Members Pose with Noose ...... 121

13 “SICSIC Sez We Love Jail-Bait” ...... 129

14 SICSIC’s Delta Zeta Coveralls ...... 138

15 SICSIC Poses with Open Beer Bottles ...... 138

16 First Documentation of a SICSIC Political Mask ...... 143

17 Julie Johnson’s Unmasking Photograph ...... 174

18 SICSIC Members Wear Cartoon Character Masks ...... 181

19 SICSIC Six Pose on Pool Table ...... 201

20 Marilyn Monroe Poses on University Vehicle...... 207

21 SICSIC Six Wear Pop Culture Masks ...... 207 1

INTRODUCTION — SECRET SOCIETY

Over the last seven decades, a distinct lament has resonated throughout the United States, expressing a longing for the “good old days”—a nostalgia for a bygone era of tradition, conservatism, and normality that has recently surfaced in the form of the political campaign:

“Make America Great Again.” This personal and at times communal lament has since grown into a national cry of exasperation for what once was. While many were shocked at the results of the

2017 US presidential election, some found more shock in the data collected on who participated in the vote. The statistic that 42% of votes for Donald Trump were on behalf of college-educated voters across the nation (CNN Exit Polls 2016) sat disappointed democrats and other downcast voters back, scratching their heads. While many may believe that the college campus is one place guaranteed to educate and liberate future generations, they would be surprised at what they would find if they were to look deeper into this country’s lament for the good-old-days. Woven within the honored traditions of social segregation and other hegemonic standards of the

American college campus is an almost century-long cry for the lost values of the not-so-distant past. The college campus is in many ways a locus for traditions and practices that could be described as historical American values: a hierarchy of power for both faculty and students, the alumni association, fraternal organizations, the honoring of campus traditions and memorabilia, secret societies, and so on.

After the World Wars, many college and university officials across the nation said tearful goodbyes to the consensus of normality, as the image of America’s educated elite was changing along with that of the American college campus. Some of these officials, however, left behind systems and legacies of privilege to continue to uphold their values long after they were gone.

Many of these systems continue today. At Bowling Green State University, one such legacy 2 exists: the campus spirit crew known as SICSIC, an honorary secret society which has become an integral part of BGSU tradition. Established by President Frank J. Prout as a campus spirit booster club in 1946, SICSIC was a group of six anonymous students who led their student body for three years in school spirit, only revealing their identities at the end of their senior year.

According to President Prout, this anonymous booster club would bring back the spirit that was depleted during the war years. In the 1940s, bringing school spirit and pride back to campus was reportedly achieved by supporting university sporting events by leaving hand-painted signs across campus under the cover of night, captioned with the group’s catchphrase, “SICSIC Sez.”

I attribute the creation of SICSIC to the national identity crisis of the post-World War years, specifically the crisis of globalization and diversity on college campuses across the United

States. For several centuries, folklorists, anthropologists, and social scientists have studied global acts of ritual and cultural performance as representative of social value and change. I frame

SICSIC as one such cultural performance of social values, specifically within the context of the

American identity. I apply the theories of carnivalesque (Mikhail Bakhtin, 1998) and ritualesque

(Jack Santino, 2011) to SICSIC’s masked performances and argue that through bizarre, minstrelesque, and socially risky techniques, SICSIC members have performed identities of the nationally recognized racial, gendered, and economic Other for over seventy years. Over time,

SICSIC members have periodically changed their strategies of secrecy and performance, evolving to keep up with the ever-changing college campus culture. Despite these cultural changes, much of SICSIC’s surviving traditions carry remnants of a problematic and racialized past that have predominantly gone unacknowledged until now. In 1946, however, the conservative and homogenous characteristics of secret societies were not only normal, they were desirable, and functioned to preserve a glorified past that was hinting at extinction. As a critical 3 element to the traditional American campus, the student body needed to be reflective of traditional American values. To this traditional college student, conservative alumni and academics were not ready to say goodbye.

“Consciousness and conscience are burdens imposed upon us by the American experiment. They are the American's agony, but when he tries to live up to their stern demands they become his justification.” “I realize now that we are projecting archetypes, re-creating folk figures, legendary heroes, monsters even, most of all which violated all ideas of social hierarchy and order and all accepted conceptions of the hero handed down by cultural, religious and racist tradition” Ralph Ellison, Shadow & Act (1964, xxiii, xvi)

“Goodbye, Joe College”

In the 1930s, the US was politically and culturally preoccupied with the onset of World

War II and the looming threat of non-American people, cultures, and social values. As a reflection of American society, American college campuses adopted these national anxieties as well. This sudden change to the American cultural landscape has been a topic of interest for many scholars interested in college campus culture. In 1968, John E. Grinnell made an interesting documentation of such trepidations; writing for the professional educator’s fraternity,

Phi Delta Kappa, Grinnell expressed dismay over the changing college campus in his essay,

“Goodbye, Joe College” (1968). He begins, “Since World War II the campus has joined the world and is almost indistinguishable from it” (517). Grinnell alludes to the popular belief in the

American college as a safe-haven, a retreat far from the crowds and worries of the real world, where the promising youth (historically white men) could experience their inherited right to a first-class education. He contextualizes the disruption of this establishment in 1917, “when

American boys left the campus in great numbers to put the Kaiser in his place and ‘make the world safe for democracy’” (517). Since the first World War, “nothing in our national scene has 4 changed more radically than the college campus, the social entity that was said to do more educating than the classroom” (517). Grinnell laments the campus of 1917-18 as “self- sufficient,” producing its own legends and heroes while remaining free of any causes or

“political fireworks.”

It was in this self-sufficient and supposedly politically neutral context that Bowling

Green State University was founded. BGSU, known first as Bowling Green Normal School, was founded in 1910 out of the need for teachers in northwest Ohio. One argument for building a teacher’s school in Bowling Green was that the town was dry and thus “deemed appropriate for a predominantly girls’ school” (Wiley et al. 2012, 5). In 1921 the school became a college, offering four years of schooling and a bachelor’s degree, and in 1935 the college became a state university. “These changes attracted more male students, and in 1938, for the first time, the number of males equaled the number of females.” (5) Because of a stock market crash in 1933, the University risked closure due to lack of financial support. In response, Ohioan social elites supported the University, and after a successful campaign to keep it up and running, BGSU became extensively tied to neighboring communities and local social figures. In their historical account of student activism on BGSU’s campus, the authors of Uprising at Bowling Green: How the Quiet Fifties Became the Political Sixties (2012) highlight this turning point for the

University, emphasizing the “small, highly religious, and culturally conservative” nature of surrounding communities and those in financial and political support of the institution (6).

Within this conservative context, Bowling Green State University was established as a state college with influential Christian values. With the coming of World War II, fears of outsiders and foreign influences no doubt escalated. John Grinnell explains how college 5 student’s reactions to the Second World War were strikingly different from their reactions to the

First World War:

Students put away their books and went to war, but not in the high spirit of

adventure and idealism that had motivated them in 1917… The Joe Colleges who

had served with men of all races and faiths took exception to certain discriminatory

clauses in fraternity charters or bylaws. For the first time, the girls too seemed

aware of the Hellenic clause which barred Jews.... With all these changes has come

another even more disturbing, especially to local, state, and federal political leaders.

Understandably, the change is tied closely to movements and issues agitating the

nation and the world—an aroused social and political awareness, a drive for human

rights and social justice, concern for the varying degrees of commitment about war

and peace, poverty, racial segregation, the distribution of power in American

society (1968, 520).

In addition to inaccurately declaring the US military fully integrated in the Second World War,1

Grinnell observes the above-mentioned changes as disturbing and undesirable for the American college campus. Writing in 1968, Grinnell may have been preoccupied with the recently integrated American society, as his memory was either selective or distorted when recalling the segregated past. The idea of student activism on college campuses was alarming to him, as it was for many who shared his opinion. Encouraging disquiet, unrest, and the possibility of radical change, activism on college campuses suggested a liberal invasion of a secured conservative powerhouse.

1 The US military was not fully integrated until after World War II, when President Harry Truman signed it into law via executive order in 1946. 6

Grinnell’s article offers a glimpse into what the American college campus looked like through the eyes of a conservative academic prior to World War II and its influx of change. His observations also provide an explanation for some of SICSIC’s original traditions. Referring to the pre-war students as “Joe College” and “Betty Coed,” Grinnell described them as unmarried, between the ages of 18 and 22, living on campus, and in no rush to graduate (517). Among these traditional students, “there was more homogeneity than there is among campus dwellers today”—a homogeneity that was “most pronounced in attitude toward campus affairs, in social conventions, and in outlook on the future” (517). As a main characteristic of President Prout’s ideal campus culture, homogeneity was precisely what he was after when creating his spirit crew.

An example of such homogenous affairs and conventions was the school’s athletics programs and sports teams. Grinnell recalled how college athletes were campus heroes, exclaiming “How the great have fallen!” in response to hearing his niece refer to “football stars” as “jocks” (517).

This mentality is evident in Prout’s emphasis on supporting the student athletes and showing up to the football games as a way to rekindle school spirit. The prank—another critical element to

SICSIC’s function on campus—is described by Grinnell as a general college campus tradition in which the practical joke is justified as “universal” and “just pure deviltry” (518). Grinnell claims that “hi-jinks and practical jokes” such as fraternal hazing practices were the “memorable features of [a] laughter loving society;” and yet, the more “barbaric” of these traditions were retired after World War II (517). Mourning these rebellious acts, he explained how “[acts] of courage, recklessness, physical prowess, or clever planning won the heart of the campus and stimulated its imagination. The smaller, more isolated campus prized them more and told them more often than did the larger, urban campus when the century, as well as the collegians, was young” (518). Grinnell was speaking of a lost utopia of white, male privilege and power to 7 celebrate their success. According to him, the arrival of nontraditional students, such as veterans and women, put a brutal end to the “good-old-days” of conservative and respectable higher education. Believing that there was nothing he could do to reverse the change that had plagued his campus, Grinnell waved farewell to Joe and Betty, regretting their lack of enrollment from

American colleges and campus life which exists only in the memories of “old-timers” like himself (518).

In his complaint against veterans, Grinnell comments on the simultaneous shift in student demographics from the middle- to upper-class to a good percentage of working-class students taking the opportunity at higher education thanks to the GI Bill. He argues that following the post-war years, “a lighthearted campus society was impossible to maintain” (520). His reasoning was that, because higher education was “no longer the dream of fewer than one in 17 of a high school graduating class,” colleges, “especially public ones,” were recruiting students from

“almost the whole range of academic abilities and from all economic levels. The student body was becoming diverse in backgrounds and interests” (520). Grinnell’s observation of a progressing decline in predominantly economically privileged and socially elite college students is, unlike many of his previous absurd complaints, apt. Diversity is one of the most commonly recognized causes of shifting campus culture and is a common denominator for the birth of secret societies (Noah Porter (1869), W.S. Harwood (1897), and Richard M. Rose (1986)). Not unlike many historical American secret societies, SICSIC was also the result of a suddenly diverse student body.

Secret Society 8

Many scholars have approached the phenomenon of secret societies though the discipline of sociology (Noel P. Gist (1938), Camilla H. Wedgwood (1930), Lawrence E. Hazelrigg (1969),

Gilbert Herdt (1990), and Joseph S. Roucek (1960)); others apply philosophy and historical analysis to study the purpose of secret societies on college campuses (Porter (1869), Harwood

(1897), and Rose (1986)). Looking to these theories of secret societies and their function within the US and on the college campus, I attempt to theorize Prout’s reasoning behind his establishment of a secret society as a means to rejuvenate BGSU’s spirit. Sociologist Camilla H.

Wedgwood defines secret society as “a voluntary association whose members, in virtue of their membership, are possessed of some knowledge of which non-members are ignorant” (1930,

132). Wedgwood highlights a fundamental function that all secret associations have in common—for all individual members within a secret society, there are two “conflicting impulses:” one, to resemble their fellow members, and two, to be different from them (139).

“While everyone wishes to remain within the community, every normal individual desires to be in some degree outstanding in that community”—being a member of a secret society offers a unique compromise to this “impasse”: “The very possession of a secret,” she states, “gives social prestige” (139-140). Emphasizing community and social currency in her analysis, Wedgwood theorizes secret societies as one underlying cog within the overall functioning system of society, playing an important role in the success of certain societies. According to many scholars, the US is particularly partial to the secret society and its influence on everyday American life.

Sociologist Noel P. Gist observes how “institutionalized secrecy constitutes an important feature of American Civilization” (1938, 357), as the US is “especially productive” of secret societies (349). W. S. Harwood also discusses a rise in secret societies as something specific to the US and correlated to the American Revolutionary War (1897). Harwood argues that the 9 observable rise in US male secret society membership suggests a growing national recognition of the power of secrecy. He explains: “Perhaps in no other country in the world could these orders thrive so constantly and at the same time be so free from any suggestion of national censure. If all their secrets were paraded before the eyes of the world, we should find none directed against the best interests of our country” (624). He prescribes the concept of American Exceptionalism to secret fraternities, indicating the aid of nationalism and patriotic loyalty to their success in numbers. Also focused on a post-war American culture that favors secret societies, Joseph S.

Roucek claims these organizations have recently changed from “former instances of treason” to

“more efficient symptoms of a revolution which [transform] our contemporary society and

[justify] the need for relentless fierceness and unrestricted ruthlessness” (1960, 162). Roucek suggests this change is correlated with the Cold War and other post-World War II cultural anxieties; he argues that in this “world of aggressive nationalistic ideologies and of the militant trans-national communist ideology, the most dominant ideological appeals are those propounding nationalistic ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty,’ and those which promise to remake this world by making it safe for the proletarian rule” (163). To further the success of proletariats, or supporters of the American Dream, post-war American secret societies would focus on sustaining US patriot values of freedom and liberty. According to these scholars, the American secret society has as much to do with reestablishing American nationality as it has to do with brotherhood and affirming masculine identity.

Other sociologists such as Gilbert Herdt and Lawrence Hazelrigg take their analysis further, suggesting that secret societies are intentionally manipulative of the bigger society in which the secretive reside. Herdt argues, “The greatest feat of a secret collective is its organizational control of intentionality: linking the inside and outside of the secret collective, and 10 the internal and external of the self/person, into a compelling cultural reality. The accomplishment is part of its charm” (1990, 369). This “control of intentionality,” which Herdt claims to be a critical element to preserving the charm and success of secret societies is observable in SICSIC’s success over the years. Linked with the changing social and cultural anxieties of American society, SICSIC changes their performance practices, costumes, and signage—in other words, their intentions. Herdt argues that secrecy is “a semiotic system” which

“creates an intentional world, a cultural reality, set apart from other secular social formations”

(1990, 360). By updating their values and rituals along with the changing campus, SICSIC could naturally evolve their role and function on BGSU’s campus.

Lawrence Hazelrigg argues that the power of the secret comes from its ability to regulate information— “it can control the very essence of social relations through manipulations of the ratio of ‘knowledge’ to ‘ignorance’” (1969, 324). In the realm of education and academia, this access to knowledge in opposition to ignorance makes the power of secrecy even stronger. He explains:

The secret society is formed out of the intentional, conscious planning efforts of

individuals to construct a hierarchical organization for the complete control of a

large subordinated group of people. It is unique in the extent to which it asserts

power: more than any other organization… The ideal is an interactional unit of

which the interests and activities of all its members are totally encompassed…

This quality of total inclusion implies… [an inclusion] of the incidental, external

elements [which] is achieved by ritualizing them and by extending the jurisdiction

of secrecy to them as well as to the valued elements… This regimentation of ritual 11

has the ironic consequence that the secret society becomes a structural image of

the very world to which it has placed itself in contrast and opposition (324-325).

Hazelrigg’s contemporary definition captures the essence of SICSIC as the conductors of a secret, but essential ritual required to rejuvenating a lackluster campus and student body. Like

Hazelrigg, Herdt observes an inherent power structure and affirmation of social hierarchy in secret organizations. While he argues that they have potential to influence society both negatively and positively, Herdt suggests a historic trend leaning towards the negative. He describes “[hiding,] concealment, and subterfuge” as often attributed to secrecy, which additionally “requires avowal, revelation, fabrication, and the creation of meaning,” and is often

“associated with deception, manipulation, threats, violence, and similarly negative elements of social life” (365). On the other hand, secret societies have the potential to facilitate “cultural revivalism, productivity, and symbolic generativity” (364-365). The significance of this two- faced social entity is its ability to “[play] with our conceptions of what is true and untrue” (365).

Herdt applies this play of conceptions of reality to secret societies’ play with social constructions, such as identity. Discussing the function of secrecy and hierarchy as power, he explains:

Hierarchy and power cannot be divorced from the cultural realities of a tradition.

Differentiated by their ontological natures, secret collectives rationalize the claims

to power of insiders and outsiders. Solidarity within a collective is experienced as

sharing in the same nature. Gender, social class, race, and age are prominent

social factors of classification around the world. The same factors co-occur in

secret collectives. Secrecy occurs repeatedly in vital areas of conflicting claims

regarding them: in counter-revolutionary movements that challenge existing 12

regimes; in race relations, where racial supremacy and social slavery clash; in the

stratification of sex, and the domination of one sex over another, or one sexual

orientation over another (377-378).

Declaring that “Secrecy is subversion; it can be put in the service of dehumanization” (378),

Herdt argues against the role of secret societies within the larger context of American society, as a turn for the worst is inevitable.

The Ku Klux Klan

It would be inappropriate to discuss American secret societies without mentioning the Ku

Klux Klan. Moreover, it would be impossible to ignore the infamous society in this essay as the

Klan has had an influential history in Wood County, Ohio—the county in which Bowling Green

State University resides. By including some of this history, I intend to provide cultural context of some of the historical social and cultural influences. Michael E. Brooks’ historical work on the

Klan in Wood County provides important insight and offers a better understanding of both the

Bowling Green community and institution (2014). The second wave of the KKK is credited to the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation which depicted the Klan as a “heroic group [trying] to restore order and morality,” inspiring nativists and community leaders to do the same (29). By the mid-1920s, the Klan had five million members throughout the US, Ohio being one of the leading states (30). Brooks explains, “this second phase of the Ku Klux Klan was much broader in its appeals to tradition-minded white American Protestants, and the Klan expanded its targets to include such groups as Jews, Catholics, immigrants, [and] left-leaning labor and political activists” (31). The new KKK was additionally innovative in its fraternal components as a secret society with a “complex organizational structure, intricate symbolism, and clandestine rituals” 13

(33). Much like SICSIC, the KKK evolved with the national culture in order to match its values and meet its demands, while simultaneously keeping up if not increasing their society’s popularity and membership. Moreover, both societies opened up membership to less traditional members in order to remain relevant in a transitioning landscape.

The presence of the KKK in Wood County was culturally mainstream for the American

Midwest in the 1920s, to the point that the Klan prospered as an accepted and publicly visible secret society for quite some time. Brooks emphasizes that in many ways, the KKK “found a ready-made audience in Wood County for its ideologies of racism, nativism, and religious intolerance” (14). He explains that “vigilante [attacks]” were a “feature of life in Wood County in the 1920s: citizens were prepared to take matters into their own hands if they believed that the legal system was not working” (15). In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Wood County’s economy flourished due to the fertile soil left behind after the draining of the Black Swamp. But after a boom in 1920, the economy again collapsed, leaving many locals out of work. With the close proximity of foreign-born immigrants in the booming industries of the Midwest, tensions were high among residents looking for labor. This decade coincidentally marks the rise of Klan membership and activity in Wood County (18-23), as “economic uncertainty… was one of the most important factors in the rise of the reborn Ku Klux Klan in Ohio during the 1920s” (25).

Another cultural factor that played into the Klan’s involvement in Wood County was the high percentage of resident church membership with the 117 different churches in the county, from which a large amount of church officials were simultaneously Klan members, not unlike other rural communities in the Midwest (23). In addition to funding local churches, the Klan promoted Christianity in public schooling and made multiple donations to public schools across the county. Between 1915 and 1945, three Wood County sheriffs were members of the Wood 14

County KKK, along with many other politically and socially powerful positions. Brooks does point out that BGSU, then called Bowling Green State Normal College, “did not seem to be an important focus for the Klan recruiters”; after cross-referencing Klan membership with the college’s students and employees, only four individuals were linked as members (80). Brooks points out that this was probably because both the Klan and college were acting on similar goals to increase public education, and a Christian education in the very least. Nevertheless, there is a historical trend for Bowling Green and Wood County in accepting white supremacist guidance and leadership for education and politics in the area.

Collegiate Secret Societies

It may be hard to imagine such dangerous workings within modern and democratic institutions such as the American college campus. For Noah Porter, however, the secret society was an essential aspect of college life (1869). He states, “These societies are common to all

[Western] universities and colleges... Their existence in some form is a necessary outgrowth of human nature” (40). It would seem, according to Porter, that the appearance of secret societies on college campuses was a natural occurrence, something bound to happen, as the institution can provide the student body with only so much room for certain discussion and thought. He explains, “The social tendencies of young men would naturally lead to associations for other than exclusively literary purposes. The clannish tendencies which result from their warm likings and their violent antagonisms, as well as their newly developed feelings of independence would tend to make these societies exclusive and secret” (40). Taking this natural element of secrecy even further, Porter genders and sexualizes the nature of young males and their presence in civil society for the first time— “The love of secrecy and reserve is too strong in human nature and 15 especially in boyish nature to be easily thwarted” (40). Porter defends this boyish secrecy and it’s possible (though most likely) turn towards “evil” ways:

We doubt the expediency because we disbelieve in the possibility of destroying or

preventing secret societies. That such societies may be, and sometimes are, attended

with very great evils is confessed by the great majority of college graduates.

Prominent among these evils is the fostering of an intriguing and political spirit,

which is incongruous with the general tendencies of college life toward justice and

generosity, and the division of the community and the classes into hostile factions.

Whatever excesses attend them, of late hours, late suppers, noisy demonstrations

and convivial indulgences, should be repressed by the good sense and manly spirit

of the college community (40).

In stating that any “excesses” ought to be “repressed” by common sense and “manly spirit,”

Porter takes on a “boys will be boys” attitude about collegiate secret societies and their apparently inevitable turn towards risky behavior.

Richard M. Rose connects these risky traditions of collegiate secret societies with the transformation of college campuses during wartime (1986). He accounts for this campus transition due to changes in students’ age, occupations or experience, and an up-to-date or modern curriculum, amounting to a “new type of college student” who took action on behalf of their suddenly unfulfilled needs (54). When the institution could no longer offer the security of normalcy due to the change of campus demographics, the majority formed organizations and clubs to do just that (55). Rose explains, “If the increasing heterogeneity of the student population threatened the elite status students had earlier enjoyed merely by being students, exclusive societies helped to maintain social stratification” (61). With the onset of the Civil War, 16 college student organizations that aimed to improve student “success and leadership,” such as literary organizations, took a hard hit. Students no longer believed in or valued such career developing societies; rather, they demanded and pushed for the reign of fraternities and secret societies that functioned as exclusive social insurance and protection from a demographically changing society.

Despite the multitude of studies and public discourse concerning the mysteries of

American secret societies, the numerous case studies and publications amount to no more than just that: mysteries. The works previously mentioned discuss the function of the secret society to answer the question of why; yet, the question of what remains unclear or even unanswered. No one seems to be able to identify what makes these notorious groups of subversive students so interesting and alluring, besides the fact that the society members are undoubtedly quite interesting and alluring. After all, it is these “tapped” individuals who become the leaders of institutions of prestigious knowledge and power. In his ethnographic work (2012),2 Shamus

Khan studies this phenomenon of a predestined path of Ivy League education, professional success, and a seemingly guaranteed spot in the top five if not one percent of the nation’s economy (2012, 5). To be in a secret society is considered to be “the best of the best,” to have been carefully chosen to be in the making for America’s future leaders and multi-millionaires.

Undeterred by centuries of questions and inquiry, the secrets of many societies—collegiate or not—have remained secret, suggesting some sort of unnamed intervention between the secret society and the inquirers. Khan’s inquiry contributes to a growing concern to name this unnamed

2 Khan’s undercover research in Privilege (2012) produced striking information about the seemingly permanent system of funneling predetermined future leaders into the top 5%. Khan’s research questions and challenges the system of inherited privilege and power in the United States, reaching back to the founding institutions of American higher education, contributing to future research on an enduring white power in this day and age of supposedly diversified democracy. 17 intervention protecting America’s secret societies. If Prout would need approval in order to organize his university sanctioned booster club—a group of six young men warranted limitless access to campus after dark—who could turn down an opportunity for their students to participate in such an esteemed, prestigious American tradition as the collegiate secret society?

Another scholar to notice this trend of favoring and electing politicians from a relatively small pool of specifically educated, upper-class white males, Kevin Phillips comments on the link between Ivy League secret societies and American political success in his article, “The

American dream has become skull and bones” (2004). Discussing the accelerating elitist trends in American politics, Phillips described the 2004 presidential election as “ironic,” as the two candidates were John F. Kerry and George W. Bush, both graduates of Yale and members of

Skull & Bones (20). Within prestigious education institutions like Yale and its Ivy League brothers, the elite continue to celebrate their believed birthright of success acknowledged ritualistically through secret societies. By experiencing the secrecy and elitism of the “select few,” members of Skull and Bones and other collegiate secret societies across the nation perform their elite status during their “glory days” in school and long after they graduate with the lifelong status of “Bonesman,” or other secret society brotherhood. Critiquing the university secret society as an idealist politician factory for Americans, Phillips bashes this celebrity-making as backwards and democratically unsound. He states, “Not only [is] upper-income America psychologically full of itself… but the money culture [has] also seeped into broader American values. Just as during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, decades of unbridled pursuit of wealth [has] produced a glorification of success and ennoblement of the economically

Successful” (20). Phillips characterizes this aristocratic status as an ideal social goal, permeating throughout the nation, into everyday life and the everyman’s college campus culture. One such 18 campus is BGSU, where I situate the creation of SICSIC as a secret society that emerged in a similar historical context as some of America’s more infamous secret societies.

To better understand this context, I provide a brief historical account of Yale University’s

Skull and Bones. By the 1800s, Yale College was “an academic powerhouse,” (Jarrett, 2011, 27).

At the time, Yale was transitioning from a “regional New England school whose main function was the education of young men for the Congregational ministry to a dynamic national school whose new function was to train the leaders of the expanding, dynamic America that sprung into being in that century” (27). Integral to this privileged success as well as cultural transformation was undoubtedly the secret society, Skull and Bones, a brotherhood made up of “the best of the best,” that may have kicked off the “power and old-boy networks” which politically transcended the last three centuries of economic struggle (28). At a time when the Western world and

American nation was transforming technologically and philosophically, the early 1800s marked an age of existential crisis for many. During the decade of Skull and Bone’s creation, the 1830’s were specifically charged with national anxieties concerning the concept of Americanness, race, and ethnicity. The numerous racialized policies established and violent actions taken in the name of “Americanness,” including slavery and the Trail of Tears, overshadow the years of resistance leading up to their ratification. Slave and native rebellions undoubtedly shook the privileged youth within their valued comfort zones, temporarily threatening their uncontested education in their birthright of ivory towers and high-esteemed philosophies. It seems that no matter how temporary, these brief moments of rebellion and resistance were enough to shake the plentiful esteemed walls of protection surrounding the American elite. Only time could tell what might happen to the established hegemony of white power if the Other penetrated those walls. The 19 bloom of secret societies across the nation’s college campuses illustrates the fear that the heirs to

American aristocracy felt in those prophetic moments of change.

This preservation of elite birthrights lives on in our modern and supposedly more diverse world. In his article, Jarrett also refers to the “recent surge of interest” in Skull and Bones due to the 2004 political spectacle of various opponents and multiple elected presidents being members.

Unlike Phillips, however, Jarrett’s article focuses on the positives of secret societies and the successes of such Skull and Bones graduates. Jarrett writes:

The secret societies are institutions unique to Yale and are found in no other

academic institution either here or abroad. They are privately owned and are not

the property of Yale University. There are six “above-ground” secret societies.

Skull and Bones, founded in 1832, is the oldest and the most important. Scroll and

Key was founded 10 years later, in 1842, and is second to “Bones” in prestige... The

others, of considerably less importance, are Wolfshead, Book and Snake, Berzelius,

and Elihu. Each society owns an impressive mausoleum-like “tomb” in which

meetings are held each Thursday and Sunday evening. These are massive, very

impressive structures, foreboding and bearing an unmistakable message: “Private;

keep out.” (28)

Characterized as “above-ground,” Skull and Bones and the other mentioned secret societies practice their activities and perform their rituals in secret, yet their existence and membership are public knowledge. The societies’ “tombs” are not unknown or hidden deep within the campus; instead, their headquarters are located next door to residence halls, art galleries, and fraternity housing. The Yale societies are unique in that they collectively participate in producing a specific percentage of the student body— “Each society consists of 15 members of the senior 20 class, a total of 90 members for all six societies—well less than 10% of the class” (28). These fifteen members are tapped, or selected for membership, in the spring as Juniors transitioning into Seniors and have their names printed in that year’s student yearbook.

Of those who are chosen as “the best of the best,” or in this case, “the elite of the elite,”

Jarrett lists those who are “typically tapped” as “the football captain and perhaps another star player or two, the editor of the Yale Daily News, a Whiffenpoof [acapella member], a champion swimmer or hockey player, one or two fraternity presidents, and campus leaders of every description,” traditionally capped off with “the outstanding man in the class” as the 15th member

(28). Following such a historically successful formula as this, Skull and Bones is considered “the epitome of the Eastern establishment, the confluence of old money, power, and prestige” (28).

Skull and Bones has preserved these membership criteria over the years, reflecting the expected campus culture of an elite student body. For SICSIC, the requirement of having “old money, power, and prestige” would have been the same, yet relative, for the campus and community standards of Bowling Green, Ohio: middle- to upper-class white male students who excelled in their studies and maintained positions of influence on campus, such as a Southern Christian

Fellowship (SCF) council member. Speaking on the power and influence that the secret society

“wields,” Jarrett praises Yale for “[attracting] talented and intellectually gifted students to the college” and extends congratulations to Skull and Bones for “[doing] a good job in identifying these unique individuals and [rewarding] them with election to the society” (28). Almost every

Yale president “thus” expectedly was a Bonesman, as were a number of “important” administrative positions and members of the Yale Corporation (28). Jarrett adds, “It is difficult to overestimate the subtle influence exercised over the Yale experience by these mysterious entities” (28). 21

While the who and where is publicly known, and the why has been of considerable speculation for some time, the what of Skull and Bones has remained a mystery for almost 300 years. What is known is that every Thursday night in school session, fifteen cloaked members enter the mausoleum and then exit four to five hours later, singing songs of an unknown origin and tongue to curious onlookers (28). However, being caught as an onlooker is culturally taboo.

Jarrett explains, “Every Yale student, in his own mind, is Skull and Bones potential, so it becomes important not to offend the ‘wrong people’” like being identified as voyeur to their

“secret doings” (28). He quotes Yale historian George Pierson, commenting that “the finality and exclusiveness of the choosing [of members] has created an enduring fault line in the Yale brotherhood” (29)—and an ever-enduring brotherhood it has been. Authors of the article “God, men and bonding at Yale” (1991) satirically comment on the momentous betrayal of tradition that year: the first successful induction of women into the Skull and Bones as a “welcome sign of the success of the women's movement that most of the remaining bastions of male privilege in

America probably aren't worth storming in the first place” (1991, 66). While this was not the first time such an apparent atrocity has occurred, the 1991 classmen made history by bringing into fruition a vote to allow the women into the society after angry Skull and Bones alumni changed the locks on headquarters, barring the seniors and inductees and attempting to prevent the forbidden initiation. Despite the rest of Yale’s campus and student organizations and societies functioning as coed for over 20 years (66), Skull and Bones was until 1991 opposed to any threat to its vision of an elite brotherhood. Following a similar trend, SICSIC did not reveal their first

“real” female member until 1991.3 While there was no public protest to Julie Johnson’s initiation

3 The first female SICSIC member to be unmasked and revealed in The Key yearbook was Sara Sue Stanley in 1973. However, she is not recognized as a “real” member among contemporary alumni for various reasons and rumors, including her involvement only as a replacement and that she did not graduate in a consecutive four years. After Stanley, it wasn’t until 1991 that Julie Johnson, the next woman involved with SICSIC, was unmasked. 22 into SICSIC, it did take a bold administrative interference and purging of outdated and inappropriate practices and values for women to be safely permitted to join the organization. For the Bonesmen in 1991, gender equality was interpreted with a grain of salt. The vote that allowed women to be inducted into Skull and Bones for the first time was propelled by a compromise proposed by the alumni: men and women could be admitted into the society as equals only on the condition that they would meet in separate groups for “the ritual sharing of emotional and life histories” (66). The emotional, obviously gendered, and suspiciously sexual life histories of the

Bonesmen are evidently exposed as critical elements to the Skull and Bones rituals, revealing a good deal about the what of the notorious Yale University Skull and Bones. For Skull and Bones, it appears that the ritual of sexualized and masculine brotherhood needed protection from women. As for SICSIC, the ritual of sexualized and masculine brotherhood would eventually become a threat to the safety of female students on campus. This observation has been documented in multiple instances and by multiple witnesses and confidants to the victims, many of which are accessible in the University Archives. Like all university sanctioned controversies, however, these details are not readily available knowledge.

It is important to keep in mind that the lack of publicly available information on these secret societies is institutionally endorsed. The universities actively protect their secret societies, and the societies operate with the sanction of the administrations. This mutually beneficial relationship suggests a dependency of one entity upon the other and vice versa; as the previously mentioned scholars argue, social societies can manipulate the social structures of the greater society. As institutions and societies within themselves, colleges and universities would benefit from an underground network of loyal individuals dedicated to preserving and/or changing campus values and traditions. The values and traditions of the institution and its student body are 23 thus coveted and protected by a selected few from both sides of the campus hierarchy. At BGSU, the origin story and legends of SICSIC have been narrowed down to a vague and mysterious tale.

The university’s SICSIC webpage and one member’s publication of the group’s origin and history—two main sources that I’ve acquired— include certain stories and scenarios that have been edited or altogether left out in order protect the valued secrets of the SICSIC six. What is suggested from these university sanctioned sources is that the histories of the mentioned collegiate secret societies were and remain controversial. Time and time again, there is an increase in secret societies in times of crisis like the turn of the century and in times of war. And time and again, these secret societies are made up of the historically empowered sons of wealthy, privileged, and white all-American families.

The development of secret society folklore to keep a positive standing on campus is evident for both Yale and BGSU. What happens behind the closed doors which protect these organizations’ rituals and beliefs is unknown by the public. What the public can do is speculate and gossip, spreading rumors throughout campus until there is groundwork for folklore. The groups and universities can correct and filter these rumors by means of publications and public announcements, editing the folklore as different generations of students come and go. However, resistance to these edits is documented in student newspapers and yearbooks. In the late 1980s,

SICSIC came very close to being kicked off campus for continuing destructive behavior despite multiple warnings. The Office of Student Affairs worked for several decades before SICSIC had a good reputation on campus once again. However, their traditional claim to fame in The Key yearbooks eventually came to an end, eliminating the popular documentation of their involvement in the group. As David Richards claims for Skull and Bones, there does seem to be a faltering value for collegiate secret societies (2017). 24

SICSIC as a secret society is not an anomaly—it fits within a larger story, a larger pattern. Studies of SICSIC have the potential to contribute to a broader understanding of more infamous and mysterious secret societies. As a non-elite, non-coastal, and non-male-dominated public university, BGSU’s secret society has the potential to complicate the national narrative of a uniquely American secretive and ritualistic brotherhood; if Bonesmen are predicted to be the future leaders of the US, it would suggest that SISIC alumni, or members of other secret societies around the country, are also expected to be influential to their society. Like Skull and Bones,

SICSIC did not officially accept women into their “brotherhood” until the 1990s and has had a problematic history in their acceptance and representation of students of color. Similarly held to the standard of the “true undergraduate leadership of the University,” the SICSIC six stand in comparison with the Bonesmen as representatives of their fellow classmates and ultimately, the face of BGSU. There are also differences: for Skull and Bones, the identities and location of the society are not important nor secret; for SICSIC, the identities and meeting places are both important and secret. But what is parallel across the board is the secret that never gets revealed even after death—the rituals, practices, beliefs, and values that define the purpose and function of these societies. And yet, the observable particulars of SICSIC have the potential to reveal much about the larger pattern of American collegiate secret societies and that of the American identity: the desire to be special; to create a sense of mystery, privilege, and power on campus and society; and possibly the desire to maintain elite male privilege in some way, framed as a public service and a “fun” yet traditional pastime. I do not claim to know the purpose and function of Skull and Bones. But within this overarching historical analysis, I recognize similarities, and in these trends of masculinity, whiteness, and Americanness of the traditional

American college campus, I situate the formation and history of SICSIC. 25

SICSIC as Secret Society

In their historical account of BGSU, authors of Uprising at Bowling Green: How the

Quiet Fifties Became the Political Sixties (2012) describe the conservative and Christian context of Bowling Green as a reflection of Ohio and the American Midwest at the time of post-war demographic and cultural change. They explain:

The macro changes that were occurring in the larger society had significant

implications for the conservatism of northwest Ohio. For example, congressmen

from Bowling Green and Findlay area were consistently rated among the top

conservatives in the House of Representatives in terms of both party standing and

voting record. The area was conservative in its religious beliefs as well. Both

President McDonald and his predecessor, Frank Prout, believed in the importance

of religion and conventional morality…. The emphasis on rules and regulations

seemed to reflect a desire to promote uniformity and standardization among

students. This stood in contrast to later models on university campuses advocating

heterogeneity and diversity within the faculty and in student populations. The

value placed on uniformity in behavior, values, and lifestyles was supplemented

by a student body composed primarily of students from upper-middle-class

families residing in northwest Ohio… There was no attempt on the part of the

university to recruit minorities, international students, or nontraditional students

(Wiley et al, 2012, 152).

The general issue of diversity is one of the most commonly recognized causes of shifting campus culture and a common denominator for the birth of secret societies. In the studies previously mentioned, scholars observe how the more people on campus and in classes, the less important 26 the individual is and the less likely he (traditionally) is to be successful, both economically and socially. In a space historically reserved for a brotherly, friendly competition among equals who can only increase their inherited power, the addition of diversity to this pool of hegemony disrupts the status quo of elitism. As the American campus grew in population and diversity, values once considered commonplace and normal were challenged and threatened and traditional students demanded spaces in which these dying conservative cultures could be cherished and practiced once again—hence, the secret society. In the case of John Grinnell’s bygone campus experience and that of many others, he disapproves of the diversification and democratization of

American college campuses which implements social mobility for historically marginalized people—people of lower economic classes who are historically people of color. The inherent racism in his lament is echoed by President Prout’s fear of a dissolving sense of unity and tradition on BGSU’s campus—a fear of a dissolving hegemonic brotherhood of young, white, middle to upper-class men, despite the ironic history of BGSU’s students being primarily women.

Prout’s solution to this inevitable change was to create an honorary secret society of six young men who could anonymously be representative of the student body and university. In his

1967 history of Bowling Green University, Robert Overman briefly mentions the university’s secret SICSIC spirit crew:

In 1946 a group of six students met with President Prout in his home and organized a

society which is unique to the Bowling Green campus and which, throughout the years

that have followed, has made important contributions to University life. This society is

really secret. The meaning of its name and its members are unknown, its meetings are

secret, and its activities are nocturnal…. Although the secrecy surrounding the society 27

has never been invaded, certain things are known. Its purpose, from the beginning, has

been to develop campus spirit and support worthwhile activities (142-143).

Twenty years removed from the original spirit crew, Overman was describing the SICSIC which existed in the 1960s. Nevertheless, his description is immensely valuable as one of the few scholarly descriptions predating the revamping process of the 1980s. Furthermore, Overman’s description would have taken place during the initial transformation of the group, when the

SICSIC six was performing racial and gendered anxieties for their peers. The mention of their specifically nocturnal activities suggests this transformation: the SICSIC of the 1960s was engaging in multiple nighttime activities, as opposed to 1940’s SICSIC’s sole activity of hanging signs. While President Prout was aware of many changes coming to his campus, he couldn’t have been prepared for what the future generations of college students would bring to disrupt tradition. To stay relevant and valuable on their campus, SICSIC would have to evolve with their campus—a critical element to secret societies and ritual that Prout wouldn’t have foreseen. Over the spans of seven decades, BGSU’s secret society would struggle to impress various university presidents, represent their ever-increasingly diverse student body, and continue to perform the anxieties of the nation and campus as these cultural anxieties have transitioned and transformed since 1946.

Research Methods

While I apply critical race theory to my historical analysis of SICSIC, all my research has been ethnographic; that is, dedicated to the members’ experiences, memories, stories, and opinions so that they themselves might tell the history of their own group. Through observation and the conducting of interviews, most of the data I have collected is qualitative. I do utilize 28 quantitative data, however, when providing a demographic context to BGSU’s growing student body over the years. In both formal and informal interviews, I digitally recorded conversations with SICSIC alumni who were members between the 1970s and 2018, one SICSIC advisor, and various BGSU students enrolled at the time of the interview. Most of the information I collected, however, was from the University Archives. Archived texts that I sourced include but are not limited to: yearbooks, newspapers, journals, photographs, and documents such as emails, letters, and fliers. The University Library also provided several publications on BGSU’s history and the one published manuscript of SICSIC’s history, all of which I’ve closely studied and sourced. I have cited all of the publicly available information as accurately as possible. For the information that I received via interviews and conversation, I have cited it as anonymously as possible in order to protect all participating individuals.

The members who either met with me in person or spoke with me over the phone are referred to throughout this essay as interview participants, research participants, or interviewees.

With their consent, I refer to just two interview participants by name: SICSIC advisor Gregg

DeCrane and first official female SICSIC member Julie Johnson. As SICSIC’s most influential advisor and leader of the revamping process, I include Gregg DeCrane’s identity since it is specific to his involvement with the group. For the first two women inducted as SICSIC members (including Sara Sue Stanley), I refer to them by their maiden names as their identities are just as critical to the group’s development. For the participants who remain anonymous, I have eliminated any specific year or detail that might reveal their identities. In order to contextualize their stories, however, I have categorized them according to their decade. After the revamping of SICSIC in 1989, female members have been inducted into the group every year. In 29 order to protect the identities of participants who graduated after this addition of women, I do not refer to their gender, and keep their pronouns unspecified as they, their, and them.

In addition to the wealth of qualitative data provided by the interview participants, some individuals offered copies of their own artifacts to aid me in my research, such as photographs, newspaper articles, and so on. In order to protect their identities, I do not specify which artifacts were willingly contributed to this project. I would, however, like to acknowledge their contribution; without them, I wouldn’t have been able to so robustly shape my own theories and conclusions about the history of their group. The theories I have formed about SICSIC’s history and their function on BGSU’s campus were influenced by the group’s own folklore that has survived to this day. Today, SICSIC is observable through painted signs across campus and unexpected masked performances that provoke gossip and lore among students, faculty, and staff—a living folklore that has sustained the suspense and mystery of their group for over seven decades.

Theoretical Analysis

The start of this project was due to my sheer curiosity over a bizarre experience I had at the start of the 2016 Fall semester. Walking across Bowling Green State University’s campus towards Jerome Library, I was passed by two individuals wearing matching jumpsuits, cartoon character masks, and speaking in eerily high-pitched voices. Stopping in my tracks, I watched them slink away in a gangly meander and wondered what on earth I had just witnessed. After some light research, I was quickly informed that I had seen two out of the six SICSIC members on their way to some sort of campus event. SICSIC, the designated spirit crew of BGSU, was supposedly in charge of spreading school spirit across campus while wearing masked disguises 30 in order to protect their identities. Interested in their use of the bizarre, I began theorizing about the contemporary SICSIC members in their masked performances on campus by asking the question, “How is that school spirit?” Using performance and folklore studies theories such as

Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the carnivalesque (1998) and Jack Santino’s ritualesque (2011), I framed SICSIC as a modern campus carnival that spreads cheer and school spirit in ways that have changed over the years. As an observer of this spirit spreading, however, I wasn’t quite getting how their bizarre masked behavior was supposed to stir spirit within me as a student. I began asking questions that were not answered on the group’s university webpage, and when members couldn’t answer them either, I went looking in the university archives. It wasn’t until I began flipping through the old Key yearbooks that I realized there was something much darker than promoting campus sporting events in the secret workings of SICSIC. In addition to clown and ski masks, I noticed that many early SICSIC members not only wore racial masks, but also wore stained coveralls, and posed for pictures in ways that suggested something criminal, voyeuristic, and even sexually aggressive. Again, I asked, how is that school spirit? Looking to the history of American blackface minstrelsy, I started recognizing many similarities between the two performances, and the answer to my question began to unfold.

American historian Eric Lott argues that during the reconstruction era of post-Civil War

America, performances of blackface were initiated to address contradictions among different social groups (1993). The national transition and conflict of antebellum America was a time of identity crisis, and the racial performance of blackface minstrelsy allowed in many ways for

Americans to make sense of the times and find some sort of contentment or justification for emancipation and integration. When comparing the national crisis of post-Civil War America to that of post-World War America, the specific response of masked performances of racial 31 anxieties was too similar to ignore. In making this comparison, I argue that SICSIC performed the anxiety of an influx of nontraditional college students just as minstrel performers performed the anxiety of an influx of nonwhite American citizens. Historian Philip Deloria has studied a similar phenomenon of white Americans performing, or playing, the racial Other. In his book,

Playing Indian (1994), Deloria observes a specifically American incompleteness when it comes to national identity. Deloria provides a detailed history of secret societies in the US, rooting their origin in borrowed native American cultures and practices. From the rebellious behavior of feather and paint adorned “Indians” who dumped tea into the Boston harbor, to secretive sweat lodges and their performances of elaborate rituals, Deloria situates colonial American identity, eventual Americanness, and ultimately American whiteness within an obsession with the racialized native. In his discussion on secret societies, Gilbert Herdt explains the function of secrecy and play: “The dramatic metaphor 'play' is consistent with our Western emphasis on secret things: that something is being intentionally concealed from us, that is, our definition of reality” (1990, 365). The concept of American Exceptionalism is based on the historical production of Americans as unique—what Deloria believes to be a paradoxical hybridization between European and Native. Herdt’s observation of an inherently secret reality exposed and realized through play compliments Deloria’s theory of Americanness and ultimately whiteness as a play off of the racial Other—the native American and the non-white.

I apply Lott’s theory of borrowed identity and Deloria’s theory of performed

Americanness in my reading of SICSIC’s purpose and function at BGSU as the mediator of campus identity. Expanding on their studies of racialized performance and secret society, I apply the theoretical stakes of historical American secret societies to SICSIC’s evolved intentions as they have changed along with the national and campus cultural anxieties over the years. In this 32 comparative analysis, I bring in the concepts of carnival, carnivalesque, ritual, ritualesque, and performativity to flesh out the complexity of whiteness as a racial performance of the Other. I use an interdisciplinary theoretical lexicon from scholars such as Victor Turner (1969), Jack

Santino (2011), and Diana Taylor (2003), who study the ways in which ritual and Otherness are manipulated and performed to impact or alter social realities and cultural understandings. To these theories I apply the concept of whiteness, articulated and complicated by scholars like

Philip Deloria (1994), Richard Dyer (1988), and Eric Lott (1993) in opposition to the concept of race, analyzed and critiqued by critical race scholars like Michael Omi and Howard Winant

(1994), Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2006), and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (2016). Ultimately, however, I rely on the information and opinions of previous, unmasked SICSIC members to function as evidence to my claims.

Carried across this essay as motifs to my argument are epigraphs from Ralph Ellison’s

Shadow & Act (1964). These quotes bring in Ellison’s commentary on the liminal identity of black Americans as they exist within the definition of American: neither white nor American, the racial Other is left to struggle without a defined identity. The concept of liminality, explored by performance studies scholars such as Victor Turner (1969) and Diana Taylor (2003), is an important element of SICSIC’s performances as the members are in an in-between state of existence. Within this liminal performance and metaphor of their campus are the various identities in question, such as nationality (Americanness) and race (whiteness), as they are ultimately what the masked spirit crew perform. Ellison’s commentary on the liminal existence for all Americans preludes each chapter, which focuses on the specific anxieties for each decade that SICSIC has performed on BGSU’s campus.

33

Chapter Summaries

In the following chapters, I observe how the SICSIC spirit crew evolved from a secret society to a masked, carnivalesque performance of shifting campus culture and anxieties.

Originally participating in risky and potentially dangerous behavior, SICSIC’s focus on mimicking the nontraditional student’s impropriety eventually shifted in the 1950s and 60s to specifically performing the racial Other. For thirty years, the carnivalesque SICSIC performed several othered races and harassed female students until their forced revamping process in 1989 which modernized and democratized the group. As a new SICSIC in the 1990s, the spirit crew began striving for the original principles set forth by President Prout in the 1940s. Since the

2000s, SICSIC has further transformed their performance of campus anxieties based on growing demands of a contemporary and diverse student body. Focusing on three major shifts, I have divided the complex evolution of SICSIC into four distinct phases: the original, the carnivalesque, the controversial, and the contemporary. Each phase is dominated by a specific campus anxiety that reflects the national anxieties of the time. For the conclusion, I bring the various anxieties performed by SICSIC over the years full-circle, returning to the initial anxiety of the nontraditional and thus undesirable American citizen and college student.

Chapter one begins with the night of October 5, 1964 when the first six young men to receive President Prout’s summons met for SICSIC’s first meeting. In this chapter, I layout a foundation of BGSU’s changing student body and campus after the World Wars and consider the reasons behind Prout’s creation of his spirit crew. I then discuss the group’s origins based on original member Jim Limbacher’s manuscript of SICSIC’s history (1991) and analyze the first several years that SICSIC was on campus as an anonymous secret society. This original SICSIC performed the campus anxiety of the nontraditional college student: veterans, women, and 34 students from all economic classes. The issue of race is observable in SICSIC’s early years—not through action, but through Limbacher’s narration of his memories as history. I critique

Limbacher throughout this essay as the group’s folklorist and publicist, due to his manuscript’s popularity among SICSIC members and alumni and his engagement with BGSU’s campus and community. However problematic his manuscript may be, it has provided a wealth of information not only on the group’s past traditions but also their values; as one of the founding members, Limbacher’s freely given opinion reveals much about SICSIC’s original purpose.

Chapter two discusses the initial transformation of SICSIC in the 1950s from a secret society into a carnivalesque crew that mocked the racial and criminalized Other. I analyze the tradition of wearing ski and racialized masks as well as matching coveralls as they were introduced during this decade, intensifying the carnivalesque and ritualesque qualities that already existed in the original SICSIC. While the nation was transitioning from the conservative

1950s into the political 1960s and 70s, the American college campus was transitioning from a site of unrest into an epicenter of activism. As a steadily growing state university, BGSU was very much a part of this movement. This chapter focuses on the three decades of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s when BGSU’s student body resisted and eventually protested the university’s outdated rules, beginning the tradition of protest on an increasingly critical campus. In this chapter, I bring in research participant Gregg DeCrane’s recollections of BGSU at the time, as well as SICSIC’s involvement with the student activism. By the 1970s, BGSU’s student body was demanding a more democratic institution, and yet, SICSIC’s bizarre behavior was peaking. Focusing their attention on women, the carnivalesque SICSIC instilled a tradition of harassing sororities and female students that would remain unchallenged until the late 1980s. After President Prout’s retirement in 1951, SICSIC became a social and drinking club almost overnight. This chapter 35 suggests, however, that the problematic elements of this new SICSIC were not new, but exaggerated versions of the values that had already existed for Prout’s secret six. Where BGSU’s student body was evolving into a more diverse and liberal campus, SICSIC was also evolving, but conservatively. This conservative trend continued into the next decade, following suit of the country’s politics.

Chapter three observes the conservative backlash of the 1980s on the campus and national level as political correctness challenged the status quo of white privilege and American elitism. Focusing on the controversial SICSIC and their revamping process, this chapter brings up the issues of political correctness and colorblindness on a cultural level as the American college campus struggled between esteemed conservative tradition and the inflow of liberal values. The carnivalesque SICSIC began wearing horror, Halloween, and otherwise off-putting masks, shifting their performance of overt anxieties over race to more covert fears of the stereotypically violent and loathsome. Still performing racial anxieties, the SICSIC of the 1980s was held accountable by an increasingly politically correct student body and adapted color-blind techniques of mocking the racial, gendered, and economic Other. In this chapter, I include multiple interviews with SICSIC alumni who graduated in the 1980s and 90s, which reveal a significant cultural rift between the old alumni and the alumni after the 1989 revamping. The new SICSIC of the 1990s sought democratic values of equality and diversity by accepting women into the organization and shifting their values from an exclusive focus on Greek and athletics to all aspects of campus life. At the same time, however, this new SICSIC began experiencing memory loss and a disconnect from their origin and problematic history. The horror masks were quickly replaced by popular culture masks (such as Star Wars characters) and the sudden silliness of the group overshadowed the recently scary and intimidating. This lack of 36 accountability and credibility on behalf of SICSIC was reflected on BGSU’s campus as students, staff, and administration alike started accepting a color-blind mindset which overlooked race in its entirety. By the late 1990s, BGSU was claiming diversity as an institutional value, but struggled to show it, reflecting the country’s struggle to address its racist past and fix its contemporary systems of racial inequality.

The concluding chapter continues this discourse on race and student identity, while highlighting modern elements of BGSU’s contemporary campus and spirit crew. The SICSIC of the new millennium was enthusiastic about their reclaimed popularity and began taking risks by playing with race once again. By focusing on their relationship with the student body over their administration, however, SICSIC remained popular and followed the trends of their peers rather than the tradition of the institution. And yet, this newfound allegiance with the student body came up short after the 2008 US presidential election and the debate over a post-racial society.

Today’s SICSIC remains neutral despite their peers’ active negotiation with race, avoiding controversial and any political topics. Instead, SICSIC focuses on individualizing their masked characters with personalities and props based on pop culture references. After seven decades, nine university presidents, fourteen US presidents, and at least five major international wars, the question of the American identity remains and SICSIC continues to masquerade national anxieties on BGSU’s campus—the modern anxiety appearing to be any discussion or acknowledgement of racism or even race.

While blackface minstrelsy and other racialized performances have not been popular forms of entertainment for many decades, the tendency for white American college students to wear racial masks and blacken their faces has become a national discussion, making headlining news in 2019. Although critiquing politicians for blackface parody is not new, there has been a 37 recent heightened awareness of contemporary politicians wearing offensive blackface costumes in their college years, many of which are documented in their university and college yearbooks.

Discussing the recent surge of media attention on the subject, an article from The Washington

Post explains the extent of this tradition:

The history of blackface in American politics is wide and deep, frequently

creating little more than a ripple of outrage for the mayors, state legislators and

gubernatorial candidates caught on camera darkening their skin and caricaturing

black people. These politicians—from the North and the South, from urban and

rural areas, Democrats and Republicans—have defended their actions as benign

parody and accused their critics of being humorless and hypersensitive. Most have

not faced lasting—or any—political repercussions for engaging in the uniquely

American form of racism (Wootson, 2019).

Because of the media coverage and the modern age of social accountability, some believe that the US is at a “tipping point” when it comes to society holding these politicians accountable with

“actual consequences” (Wootson, 2019). At the same time, however, schools are beginning to take action against this social trend to out racist alumni and have begun limiting access to the evidence; by restricting access to their digital and physical archives, schools are preventing reporters and the media from obtaining copies of archived material such as yearbooks (Murphy,

2019). Defensive of their “best of the best,” institutions are taking regressive measures in order to protect their prestigious and successful alumni.

At BGSU’s 2019 annual Media Career Day, senior director of national promotions and events marketing at Sirius XM Radio, Brian D’Aurelio, opened the event as the keynote speaker.

As a 1996 BGSU and SICSIC alumnus, D’Aurelio was considered a prime example for the 38 contemporary student body to look up to as a successful BGSU graduate. Speaking to the students about their future careers, D’Aurelio offered some advice on how to get far in their field like himself. Among common words of advice such as assertiveness and self-motivation,

D’Aurelio suggested: “Always default to saying yes to the things that will make you better.

Don’t hesitate because you’re worried about what the masses will think.” (Sharp, 2019). Coming from the “former long-haired monkey of the SICSIC spirit crew,” this advice would have had an air of humor—it would have also struck a serious chord in his audience (Sharp, 2019).

According to D’Aurelio (and by extension, SICSIC) the way to success is doing what must be done to stand out in a crowd, even if that crowd is skeptical or critical. After all, BGSU’s current motto is “Stand out.”

Historically, society brothers have not only been protected from the consequences of partaking in antisocial, offensive, and problematic behavior; they have more importantly been encouraged to do so. And yet, this type of behavior would have been socially risky and potentially life-threatening for certain people—primarily those considered minorities, such as women, queers, and people of color. When membership in a historical secret society and fraternal organization is considered promising for a future career, and many of these memberships require rituals of dressing up and performing the racial Other, it appears that the very concept of race has everything to do with American success, Americanness, and the

American Dream itself. If the national emphasis on whiteness in opposition to race were to be dropped, one must wonder where the modern American would be regarding their identity. As the maintainers of BGSU’s campus identity, SICSIC would have to do a lot of soul searching. 39

CHAPTER I. SCHOOL SPIRIT

In the Fall semester of 1946, the United States was just one year removed from World

War II. Two years after President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill into law, several million veterans had begun attending universities and colleges across the nation. The years during and following the World Wars were earth shattering for most Americans and brought forth intimidating amounts of change to the West. For the smaller percentage of elite families, however, this change took on a darker appearance, and posed a threat to their inherited stability and power. Under the guise of democracy, Western superpowers were making rounds in Europe and Asia, freeing the oppressed peoples afflicted by genocide and tyranny. At the same time, however, critics were using the same democracy to hold an elitist American society accountable, threatening to expose

US politicians as hypocrites who could not show for such freedoms in their own country.4

American minorities directly affected by World War II were demanding the same equality for themselves that they had fought and died for overseas. Veterans of color who experienced some degree of racial equality overseas returned home to racial segregation and discrimination in housing, voting, and social life. After the war, US veterans came home demanding compensation and redress from their government. Meanwhile, women who entered the workforce during the

War were not always eager to return to traditional domestic life.

Due to the many demographic shifts brought on by the war and the GI Bill, the traditionally elite and powerful—white upper-class men—were facing increased competition for jobs and opportunities: more and more nontraditional students began to enroll and bring new experiences and ideas to higher education. Although there were still social barriers in place to limit the new competitors, these racialized and gendered structures were beginning to weaken

4 For example, President Woodrow Wilson’s reluctance to consider women’s suffrage a democratic right. 40 under the pressures of modern liberal democracy. America in the 1940s was witnessing an evolution of citizenship, with women, people of color, and the working classes demanding their shot at the American Dream. Early civil rights activists were pressuring politicians to pass some of America’s first federal orders banning racial discrimination; working class people were gaining access to college and the American Dream; and women were actively pursuing careers.

Looking down at all these social changes, the privileged of the privileged clung to what was theirs and what was familiar. College campuses were a site of both change and resistance to change.

On Bowling Green State University’s campus, these changes and anxieties were reflected in President Frank J. Prout’s decision to create a secret society. In this chapter, I analyze

President Prout’s legacy of creating SICSIC to boost student morale and rekindle school spirit on the university campus, along with the initial years of the group’s activity on campus. For obvious reasons, ethnographic research is not possible for collecting data from the 1940s. Instead, I interpret archival material and analyze one society member’s self-published manuscript as evidence of these anxieties on campus. By observing campus reactions to national crisis and change, as well as to SICSIC’s role in preserving school spirit at BGSU, I argue that the hegemonic demographic make-up and othering practices of this secret society additionally reflected national anxieties about the empowered Other. For Prout, the influx of nontraditional students such as veterans and women meant the rise of a new educated and thus powerful

American population, one that did not hold to the old traditions and values. Through the prestigious American college education, the marginalized would have access to certain privileges and powers that had, until then, belonged exclusively to white elite males and future leaders of

American society. Prout realized that once this long-held tradition came to an end, the power 41 structures of the elite were sure to crumble. By creating a secret society to instill the values of a white, elite, and male student body on campus, Prout believed that his beloved institution might have a chance of maintaining some of its conservative and exclusive traditions.

"Despite the impact of the American idea upon the world, the ‘American’ himself has not... been finally defined... This struggle between Americans as to what the American is to be is part of that democratic process through which the nation works to achieve itself. Out of this conflict the ideal American character... a delicately poised unity of divergencies [is] slowly born." Ralph Ellison, Shadow & Act (1964, 26)

National Anxieties in the 1940s

Now that college campuses were beginning to more accurately reflect the surrounding

American society given the influx of veteran and female students, it appears these new students were the focus of anxieties on the American college campus of the 1940s. While college had long been celebrated as a carefree time, untouched by worries about the outside world, this began to change, which caused consternation among the old guard. The dismayed administrator John

Grinnell seriously complains about this “life-is-serious” theme that threatened to permeate the campus for good (1968, 519). Grinnell believed that an atmosphere of easy-going camaraderie and friendly and fair competition in all walks of campus life was an essential element to the traditional, conservative American college campus. The “ideal” student partook in displays of brotherly debate in the classroom and respectful competition on the playing field. Any threat to this valued and sustained hegemony would challenge the structure of it all, threatening to expose the esteemed American higher education as a superficial performance of elite identity. For

Grinnell, one such threat that challenged the traditional college staple of friendly competition was the return of veteran students after World War I (1968, 519). 42

Conservative academics saw the comparatively older age of returning veteran students as a problem and a breach from the tradition of building a harmonious and enduring campus community. Not only were veterans’ educational goals different than those of traditional-age college students, but their presence on campus was physical proof of the shifting campus dynamics. Veteran students stood out sharply against the backdrop of a conservative college campus due to their alternative values, life experiences, and pastimes, such as openly interacting with women, drinking in public, and challenging campus rules. Concerned with the presence of veterans on campus, Grinnell was particularly preoccupied with their experience with “girls on the street” during their deployments and their now “disrespectful” treatment of campus coeds

(519). Grinnell also criticized female students’ use of cigarettes, wearing of makeup, displays of

“bad manners,” and practice of riding in cars with male veterans as outside threats that penetrated the safety of the campus, disrupting and forever changing the norms of an idealist and esteemed American lifestyle.

BGSU in the 1940s

At Bowling Green State University, these disruptions were particularly evident. When the normal college became a state university in the 1930s and started offering additional areas of study beyond education, more men were drawn to the school. Male students dominated the student population by 1938, shifting the institution’s attitude towards women to be considered more like second-class citizens than equals (Wiley et al, 2012). With the U.S. entering the

Second World War in 1941, many male students either became G.I.s or revised their involvement on campus from temporary to indefinite to avoid the draft. As of 1944, the signing of the G.I. Bill into law offered many veterans an opportunity at higher education and the chance 43 to acquire a more privileged life. At BGSU, World War II brought rapid growth to the student population that was “greater than in other American colleges of the time. Enrollment in 1944 was

1,349, but it jumped to 4,472 by 1947, a larger increase than in comparable institutions” (Wiley et al, 6). This increase in enrollment significantly altered the face of BGSU’s campus; the senior class of 1944 had consisted of 96% women (The Key, 1944), whereas the senior class of 1947 comprised an equal number of men and women (The Key, 1947). (The racial demographics were unchanged in this period.) Both male and female college students’ roles and identities shifted dramatically in the 1930s and 40s. Responding to these cultural and identity transitions in their students, BGSU’s administration took firm actions to curtail what was believed to be destructive behavior. Strictly enforced rules on women’s liberties, student drinking, the social mixing of men and women, and the deemed problematic privacy available to couples in cars all resulted in public shaming, fines, and expulsion. The extreme reaction on behalf of the university was a major cause of student unrest, resulting in the BGSU student revolt of October 1949 (Overman,

1967, 147). As the university stubbornly continued to resist these cultural changes, multiple student protests and uprisings took place on campus. For the US and for BGSU in this era, life as it was known was changing. The college campus and student body were changing, and many fond of the traditional, good-old days felt threatened and acted boldly in defense of their conservative values.

President Prout and His Solution

From 1939 to 1951, Frank J. Prout was university president, and he is credited with adjusting BGSU’s campus to the sudden changes and growth witnessed in the post-World War II years. Much of the initial success of the university is granted to the three presidents who served 44 within the first fifty years, including Frank Prout, who is recognized for raising the school’s profile to a national level by approving many nationally recognized Greek organizations (Givens,

1986,16). Along with constructing the airport and living quarters designated for military veteran students, Prout is also accredited with sustaining Christian morals on campus (Givens, 1986;

Overman 1967; Wiley et al, 2012), such as requiring students to attend church services weekly.5

While the university was always a public institution, the conservative influence of the surrounding area permitted, if not encouraged, such faith-based standards for the campus and student body.

Mentioned in every Key yearbook published during his term, Frank Prout was highly praised for his genteel leadership of the student body and administration and his commitment to seeing BGSU grow into a state university both physically and spiritually despite the war. A few years into his presidency, the 1942 Key dedicated that year’s yearbook to Prout, applauding him for BGSU’s new “spirit of rapid growth and expansion [of] social and physical development”

(4). The 1944 Key mentioned how the Board of Trustees was explicit on rehiring Prout for another five-year position as university president. The Key reads:

The first five years under Dr. Prout’s administration have seen the University

change from a tranquil peacetime small campus to a highly organized institution

devoting itself whole-heartedly to the winning of the war…. With the war came

many new problems of administration—the Navy programs to be coordinated

with the civilian, additional instructors to be found for Navy classes, knotty

5 Built in 1949, Prout Chapel was named in honor after President Frank Prout in 1951 by BGSU’s Board of Trustees due to his commitment to preserving a strong Christian presence on campus. A plaque listing the SICSIC alumni hangs in the chapel and remains updated to this day. 45

problems of campus housing, and problems of replacement of faculty and staff

who were called into service (14).

Despite these new problems, Prout is credited with solving them creatively and efficiently. For ten years, the Key yearbooks express much pride and gratitude over Prout’s contributions to

BGSU’s growing campus. Apart from the yearbooks and historical records of his contributions to campus, there is not much data available on Prout as a person. Very few of his personal notes and presidential writings have been preserved over time;6 thus, Prout’s priorities and intentions must be interpreted through secondhand accounts.

To gain an idea of his values, I look to the numerous changes he oversaw on campus and his prevailing legacy of constructively responding to wartime and the substantial growth in student population. Additionally, I attempt to decipher his intentions and inspiration as BGSU president through Dr. Kenneth Irving Brown’s lectures. As President of Hiram College in the

1930s and of Denison University in the 1940s, Brown would have witnessed a similar campus transformation to Prout’s experience. In 1941, Cedarville College hosted Brown as their graduation commencement speaker, praising him for his “distinguished decade of progressive college leadership” (1941, 2). As an influential leader of Ohio higher education, Brown published several essays and books on what he considered the slipping standards of US higher education.7 Writing from the late 1930s into the 1950s, Brown observed falling standards, referring to the post GI Bill transformation of campus culture and the influx of anti-war propaganda and protests.8 Speaking to his fellow coworkers and colleagues in educator positions,

6 Frank Prout’s successor, President Ralph McDonald, destroyed much of his and Prout’s presidential archives before his forced resignation in 1961 (Wiley et al, 2012, 7). 7 For more on Dr. Brown’s teachings, see his books A Campus Decade: The Hiram Study Plan of Intensive Courses (1940) and Not Minds Alone: Some Frontiers of Christian Education (1954). 8 Having missed out on serving himself, Brown additionally edited and published a hyper-patriotic interpretation of war letters titled “Character: Bad” (1934), a collection of Harold Studley Gray’s war letters, whose fears and doubts Brown translates into an example of the problematic “consciousness [objections]” to wartime. Through Gray’s war 46 he gave lectures on the ways Ohio college campuses could reverse these slipping standards with a return to conservative, Christian teachings. In his essay, “Campus Standards” (1939), Brown argued for a reinforced religious structure to fix the nationally falling standards of campus life, which are, according to his Christian philosophy, inevitable for “human inertia” (199). He stated,

“The price of maintaining campus standards, not to mention raising campus standards, is the price of eternal vigilance” (199). Grounding his philosophy in conservative Christianity, Brown argued that all must pay the price required to access God. He proposed a systematic response to this institutional problem, off which he built his belief in the correlation of campus “intellectual enthusiasm” and religious morals (199). By establishing various leadership interactions among faculty and students, including a council of religious leaders and designated chapel services,

Brown “had faith” in his ability to raise campus standards (199).

Because of the religious legacy he left on campus, it is easy to picture Prout agreeing with and borrowing from Dr. Brown’s influential teachings on rebuilding the slipping Christian standards of his campus. Already established within a conservative and religious county and community, BGSU had the reputation for being a proper Christian gentleman's campus.

Therefore, Prout’s religious values propelled this idealistic space for higher education into a highly acclaimed Ohio state university.

However, like the rest of American college campuses, BGSU was changing, and many campus officials were seriously disturbed and concerned. The arrival of veterans, experienced with all things foreign, other, and dangerous, made the once peaceful and careless campus suddenly charged with cultural tensions and social anxieties. Additionally, female students were

letters, Brown lectures on the moral demise of desertion, making a lesson out of Gray’s ultimate imprisonment and dishonorable discharge (Cole, 1935). This publication was praised along with A Campus Decade (1940) by Cedarville College when they invited him to speak at their 1941 graduation commencement (1941, 2). 47 beginning to act differently. A letter dated April 12, 1949, one of the few artifacts preserved in

Prout’s President’s Office collection, provides an idea of what kind of institution Prout was running. The letter begins: “Dear Woman Student: Recently, on two different occasions, visitors to our campus have criticized the appearance and grooming of our women students. As you can imagine, these comments have been most disturbing to President Prout who is asking that we take action.”9 The letter continues to outline several new rules the “women students” were expected to obey regarding dress code and restrictions to their appearances at certain locations and times. While female students were forced to follow a strict curfew (locked into their dorms at night by university staff), this letter was specifically reinforcing the female body in public spaces, shaming women for wearing pants or shorts and not having “attractively combed hair.”

Officially reporting such “disturbing” behavior on behalf of BGSU’s female students marks a historic moment of change; the university's demand for a response signifies the amount of control the institution and its administration were willing to enforce to regain and sustain

Christian and conservative order on campus (Prout, 1949).

In their historical analysis of student activism at BGSU, authors Wiley, Perry, and Neal cite a letter written to them by Toledo Blade columnist William Day, explaining how BGSU student strikes started in 1949 when President Prout enforced sexist “car rules” (2012).

According to the letter, “coeds were not permitted to ride in cars on the BG campus at any time, unless accompanied by a parent, legal guardian or with special permission” from himself (7).

This rule resulted in a student strike, making the front page of the Toledo Blade and other Ohio

9 Based on the construction of the letter, it appears to have been mass-produced and either handed out or posted in areas on campus frequented by female students. Letter/Flier, April 12, 1949, box 1, file 20, “Dear Woman Student,” authored by Dean of Women (no name). Prout, Frank J., Office of the President Records, 1939-1951. UA 002C. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections.

48 newspapers, but ended when female students were threatened against participating by university administration. Thus began the “riot tradition” at Bowling Green State University (9). Along with female students, fraternities were often at odds with the university and their strict regulations forbidding on- and off-campus drinking. Prout eventually forbade female students from riding or being in automobiles at all times (9), tightening his grasp of control over the women attempting to evolve with the changing campus and nation.

Such crucial moments of cultural transformation in US history are corroborated by the documentation of John Grinnell’s grievances and Dr. Kenneth Brown’s advice. The esteemed, privileged experience of college and the traditional college campus preserved a certain collection of distinguished American values and pastimes—a culture coveted by the prosperous descendants of legendary heroes such as the Founding Fathers and achievers of the American

Dream. When Grinnell realized what had become of his beloved college campus, he scoffed and mourned. When Brown saw bad character permeating his righteous campus, he took up missionary work to prevent it happening elsewhere. When Prout witnessed his students disengaging from his valued school spirit and engaging themselves instead in outspokenness and unconventional pastimes, he formed a six-man group to anonymously lead his campus in a spirit revival.

The Founding of SICSIC

According to campus folklore, President Prout acted on his growing concern for the slipping standards of BGSU campus by single-handedly creating SICSIC out of his “best” six students. From that moment on until their graduation, it was up to these six young men to anonymously represent the student body and lead them in school spirit. It is little known, 49 however, that this anonymous “booster club” was the product of a collective effort between

President Prout and two other men: Reverend James Stoner and Dick Harig (Limbacher, 1992,

4). A senior at BGSU and campus minister of the Southern Christian Fellowship, Jim Stoner worked with junior Dick Harig, also on the SCF Cabinet (BGSU, 1946, 104, 266), to come up with the concept of SICSIC according to the president’s conservative ideologies. It was Stoner and Harig who met the six students on that first night in 1946 and introduced the concept of the booster club and the responsibilities of the secret six. While Prout may have handpicked the students to be members, Stoner and Harig carried out the first initiation, no doubt utilizing their leadership experience from serving on the SCF council. Prout’s spirit crew would naturally be incomplete without instilling traditional Christian values among the commonplace hegemonic values of masculinity and whiteness. Because BGSU was a public institution, it would have been risky for Prout to oversee a blatantly Christian organization designated to lead the supposedly secular campus in community building. Disguised under the prestige and mystery of secret society, the “booster club” could hide its religious and conservative intentions as well as racist ideologies. At a time when lynching was still a common threat to black men in the US, and the

KKK had experienced a resurgence of local membership, any religious and conservative cultural revival in the public sphere would need to maintain a good reputation—specifically in rural Ohio where similarly structured organizations had typically resulted in racial violence. Not only did the guise of secret society protect Prout’s booster club, the fact that it was a student organization backed by the university (and in this case, the surrounding community) guaranteed ultimate protection if things appeared secular and legal.

Prout’s concern for his changing campus was due to more than just the growth and diversification of his student body; the nontraditional student posed a threat of bringing in 50 alternative values that could challenge conservative Christian and American power structures, disrupting the status quo, and redefining the meaning and function of an American college education. While veteran and female students were likely to be white, Christian, and patriotic, they still posed a threat to Prout and Grinnell’s traditional American college campus and its conservative religious values. Simply because they broke up the traditional collective of men’s literatures, philosophy, social, and athletic clubs on campus, these nontraditional students were essentially undesirable additions to the ideal campus. The college campus was becoming less of a utopia and haven away from the stress and ills of the world, and more of a realistic representation of the country. This disruption of the social function of college campuses is evident in John Grinnell’s theory that “the [modern] campus as a social unit plays a minimal part in the lives of students” (520).

In the same line of thought, the concern for preserving the “social unit” ultimately became the legacy of President Frank Prout; Prout is often recognized for having rejuvenated

BGSU’s campus engagement by inventing SICSIC.10 In 1946, it was through the secrecy of

SICSIC’s rogue and mysterious behavior that Prout intended to rejuvenate school spirit to reconnect his students to their campus and simultaneously bring back the camaraderie characteristic of the glory days. For Prout, a true connection with the college campus and with

BGSU was through an intimacy of brotherhood, a camaraderie recognized and celebrated in the football team and other competitive school athletics, and a collective campus culture defined by clear-cut, conservative Christian rules and patriotic morals. If a student body could recognize these morals and respected behaviors in the celebrated SICSIC six—the six “best of the best” on campus, representative of their individual classes and of the campus in general—then order and

10 To this day, the phenomenon of disengaged students at BGSU is regarded as something of a school spirit epidemic by the SICSIC members. 51 class might return to BGSU. If all or even just most of the students were aspiring to become members of this new secret society, maybe they could re-establish the dying out values and practices of the traditional American college campus. What neither President Prout nor Reverend

Stoner or Dick Harig made clear (or even clearly realized themselves) was the racism and sexism inherent in this visionary project, which aimed to reverse BGSU’s projection into a modern and diverse world, back to racial and sexual segregation. Whether they did speak openly about their fantasies of an all-white, all-male college campus to one another in the beginning stages of their secret society, we will never know. It is, however, easy to imagine that the issue of spreading

Christian morals was a priority among these three men and the many classes of SICSIC alumni to come. Nevertheless, people of color, along with women and veterans, were portrayed, implicitly or explicitly, as threats to Prout’s vision of a cohesive, homogeneous, hegemonic college campus.

As observed previously, the details about the goings-on within secret societies are rarely clearly published and made available to the public. Finding the appropriate literature to safely make such bold claims as I have is almost impossible. For SICSIC, however, one of the original members published a historic collection of the group’s legacies and folklore. In his 1992 independent publication of his manuscript, “The Secret Six: A History of the SICSIC

Organization at Bowling Green State University,” James L. Limbacher documents numerous narratives of previous SICSIC members up to the early 1990s. His historic narrative provides a detailed and self-reflective account of his first interaction with and initiation into SICSIC and offers a glimpse into the exclusivity of the group and their collective self-understanding.

Limbacher’s manuscript has proven influential for subsequent SICSIC members’ understanding of their history and the meaning of the organization, as well as for the university, as pieces of it 52 are quoted on their website. On many accounts, interview participants have referred to

Limbacher’s book by offhandedly quoting it as an origin story and even suggesting I read it for my research. Essentially, Limbacher’s publication exists as an authentic representation and justification of the group’s origin, morals, and purpose at BGSU. While many secret societies would never approve the publication of such a document, especially if made available to the public, James Limbacher saw no problem selling copies of his historical record to outsiders.

Perhaps, unlike original members of other secret societies, he felt like he had nothing to hide.

However, when compared with other historical documentations of these culturally anxious times,

Limbacher’s tale is often contradictory and quite revealing of hidden realities of SICSIC’s founding and its founder. His story goes as follows:

I was called into President Prout’s office and given an envelope by his secretary. I

was told not to mention getting this message to anyone. I hurried out of the office

and sat down on a bench on the second floor of the Administration Building (now

University Hall) and opened the envelope. It said: “Dear Jim: Under no

circumstances are you to reveal the contents of this letter to anyone. At precisely

12:45 a.m. Saturday, October 5, 1946, you are to report to the Office of the

University President in the Administration Building, making certain that you are

seen by no one. Be assured that you will be in no peril at any time and you are urged

to comply exactly with the contents of this letter.” I contemplated the unsigned

letter as being (a) a fraternity prank, (b) a girl who didn’t live on campus who

wanted to meet me, or (c) an invitation to be robbed and/or murdered. But it was

on official University stationary, so I memorized the date and time and destroyed

it… I walked the short distance to the Administration Building in great suspicion 53 and suspense and went in through the back entrance… There were no lights on in the office and I felt a hand grasp my arm and lead me in through the reception area into the office. A few moments later, the light on President Prout’s desk was turned on and I was surprised to see six other men in the room. The man sitting at the president’s desk was a senior and a Sigma Alpha Epsilon [whom] I had known while working with him in the Student Christian Fellowship. He was smiling, as was Rev. James Stoner, … campus minister for the SCF and I figured [that] this must be some sort of prayer meeting… But then I glanced at the others and I knew them all.

We all found chairs and noted that the draperies had been pulled shut… Dick Harig introduced Jim Stoner who told us that he and Dick had called a meeting with

President Prout where they had discussed the need for an anonymous booster organization to promote more campus spirit. Dr. Prout was [in the hospital] and we found out that the six students in the office were selected by the President from a copy of [the Key]. Dr. Prout gave his approval for the formation of such a group and offered his office as the first meeting place. And here we were. We all agreed that secrecy was the key thing in making such a group unique and we knew we had to come up quickly with a name. Many were [suggested] as the clock moved toward

1:30 a.m. but it wasn’t until Gil Fox spoke up and said. [sic] “We need a tricky name—short—like SIC, which would mean something like ______” ... and

SICSIC was born… The formation of SICSIC would be announced at 3 a.m. and the students who were awake would be urged to support the football game [Bowling

Green] would play later on that day (4, 5). 54

Within his refusal to include or explain the meaning of the acronym “SICSIC,” Limbacher alludes to the foremost secret of the society: the true purpose of their presence on campus.

Limbacher’s historical account also includes a copy of SICSIC’s constitution, “dated October 5,

1946” (6). This constitution is also listed on the university’s SICSIC website. It reads as follows:

THE CONSTITUTION OF SICSIC

I. The name of this organization which has been organized to promote campus

spirit shall be called SICSIC. The name is spelled as one word in capital letters,

with a line above and below it.

II. The group, which promotes spirit among both students and faculty, was

founded at Bowling Green State University on October 5, 1946. Charter members

were Richard Harig and Ervin Potts, 1947; Gilbert Fox and Earl Mort, 1948, and

Max Hofmeister and James Limbacher, 1949. Frank J. Prout became its first

honorary member.

III. Members of SICSIC remain anonymous from the time they are pledged to the

group at the end of their freshman year until they are revealed at the Honors Day

Ceremony in their senior year. The adviser shall be a member of the faculty or

administration and remains anonymous during his advisorship.

IV. Membership in SICSIC is limited to two members in each of the three upper

classes. The new members can be tapped at the end of their freshman year and

pledged at the beginning of their sophomore year. Members are chosen by the

active members of the group and every student is eligible. There is no racial or

religious discrimination in SICSIC. 55

V. If the identity of a SICSIC member is discovered and revealed to the campus,

or any part thereof, the member gives up his right to membership and a new

member is immediately pledged to take his place.

VI. Meetings, banquets and initiations always shall be held in secret.

VII. Correspondence to the group may be directed to the office of the President of

the University or to an alumni member.

VIII. Any alteration to the tenets of the SICSIC organizations must be approved

by a majority of the active and alumni member of said organization.

Respectfully submitted,

THE CHARTER MEMBERS OF SICSIC (6, 7)

The fact that the constitution is lacking any policy against sexism or gender discrimination reflects its historical moment, since the organization was intended for male students who were presumed to be future leaders. However, article IV is more ambiguous, not plainly stating if any religious or racial discrimination on behalf of SICSIC members is prohibited, or if the recruitment process for members is free of any religious or racial discrimination. Either way, this disclaimer would be historically and culturally contradictory—due to the powerful presence of the KKK in Wood County and the de facto segregation and permitted overt racism of Jim Crow law observed in the state of Ohio until 1965, twenty years after the creation of SICSIC, the policy against racial discrimination does not line up. Most conspicuously, this policy would violate the institution’s anti-Semitic requirements for oncoming faculty members noted by

BGSU historians Wiley et al, who recall a requirement for any considered applicant to be a

“Christian Gentleman”—which, according to the authors, merely reflected the “insularity of the campus” (Wiley et al, 2012, 59). Despite these contradictions, there is a possibility that this 56 statement against religious and racial discrimination was included in the original constitution, indicating a truly inclusive president and institution. If so, this type of university sanctioned spirit crew would paint SICSIC as a liberally inclusive group. It would also be contradictory to the function and practice of secret societies which socially profit off exclusivity, clannish values, and elaborate initiation rituals. Contrary to my argument, that Prout’s goal was to reverse the democratic status of the modern American college and re-establish a hegemonic campus, a nondiscriminatory society would promote just the opposite: a revolutionary honors society that celebrated and empowered the new diversity emerging on campus.

While I regret the need to speculate in place of limited sources, I am confidant making such bold claims because of the starkness of Bowling Green’s history steeped in racial antagonism. Not long before Prout’s presidency, Wood County was noted for having a vigilante culture that responded favorably to the Klan’s second coming in Ohio in the 1920s (Brooks,

2014, 15). Due to this racialized past, the overwhelming influence of the community on the college, and the conservatism practiced by President Prout, I am skeptical that the last line of article IV. was included in the original constitution of SICSIC. Additionally, the group’s own behavior and actions negate any implications of inclusivity. I seek to record a realistic history of

SICSIC’s origin; therefore, I argue that their constitution was later amended to add on the clause about racial discrimination and appear more liberal than was true at the time.

Racism has an uncomfortable presence in SICSIC’s living folklore. Because no article has been updated to include a clause about gender or sexual discrimination, I have reason to suspect Limbacher as the anonymous editor to the constitution. For, not long after it appears in his manuscript, Limbacher disingenuously recognizes the first two new initiates into SICSIC the following year by announcing their racial and religious Otherness. In 1947, these two new 57 members “received their notes” and “were ordered to [Prout’s] basement at midnight” (1992,

10). Limbacher’s telling of the story suggests that Prout’s role in handpicking new members out of the yearbook became a tradition—in 1947, the SICSIC six claimed to have been ignorant of their new initiates’ faces and names. Limbacher claims that “it didn’t dawn on the membership that they represented two minorities on the campus—neither one of them was affiliated with a fraternity and Jackson was black and Rosenberg was Jewish!” (10). Limbacher’s claims to ignorance, however, are not believable, for not only does he define these new members by their racial and religious statuses, he then insists that they “proved to be two of the best members in the entire history of SICSIC” (10). These two new initiates into SICSIC were freshmen Myron

Eaton Jackson and Alan Rosenberg, who represented emerging challenges to the traditionally hegemonic American college campus.

The contradiction in this suggests there is more to the secrecy of SICSIC than just that of the mysteries of brotherhood. Ensuring a racial discrimination clause in their constitution and including an exuberant celebration of two of the few Othered members in their history looks like overcompensation. If SICSIC remained a secret society, a collective of anonymous spirit leaders free of any masked performances of racialized and Othered anxieties, then it might be a simple task to overlook historic issues of racism, like the forged article in the constitution and

Limbacher’s forced observation of race and otherness in the group. If their membership remained consistently diverse and continued to reflect the changing student body through the years, then the organization would seem to have transcended Prout’s ideas about an idealized, homogeneous student body. Instead, the secret society quickly transformed into an all-white group whose performances relied upon racialized (and racist) stereotypes and acts of buffoonery. After

Jackson and Rosenberg’s graduation in 1950, the documented unmaskings of the SICSIC seniors 58 in the Key yearbooks remain white until 1994 (BGSU, 1994, 239). If Prout was truly interested in diversity, he would have attempted to tap more minorities for his secret society; of the six years of tapping new initiates into SICSIC under Frank Prout’s presidency, just one year brought in a single student of color. Even more damning, up until 2007,11 only three people of color were documented in SICSIC’s annual unmaskings. It is believed that Prout was solely responsible for handpicking members from the yearbooks; after his retirement, the responsibility for tapping was entrusted to the members at hand. If the SICSIC members were truly interested in diversity, they would have made an effort to tap more people of color to represent “the best of the best” of their campus. Despite the attempts of Prout, Stoner, and Harig—and by extension, Limbacher—to paint SICSIC as a progressive and inclusive organization, the reality falls considerably short.

Diversity was valued in SICSIC more in principle than in practice.

Campus Reactions

For the rest of BGSU, as for everyone outside of SICSIC, it took some time to become familiar with their nightly rampages, vandalism, and mystery. In addition to BGSU’s student yearbook, the Key, the student newspaper, then known as the BeeGee News, documented the initial presence of SICSIC on campus. In October of 1947, an editorial article articulated some initial student pushback against SICSIC, defining school spirit in opposition to SICSIC, and calling them out for not showing their faces or true intentions (Fay, October 22, 1947). The editorial by John Fay reads:

There are very few students on campus who do not want school spirit and even

fewer yet who are moronic enough to either consciously or unconsciously work

11 The Key stopped publishing yearbooks after 2007, the main site of fame and single documentation of the unmasked SICSIC seniors. 59

against it… School spirit isn't Intangible… It is the very real thrill that rocks you

out of your seat at a basketball or football game. It is the pride you receive from

green campus lawns free from candy bar wrappers and empty popcorn boxes. It is

the respect you show your professors, who, believe it or not, do know more about

the subjects you're taking than you do. It is the appreciation you feel for the valuable

training you receive here at Bowling Green. Being tangible, it is only natural that

the leadership for such a movement should have at its head real, live, tangible,

human beings, not the Sic Sic variety, who so far seem to have made themselves

pretty inconspicuous. Secret organizations to foster school spirit have succeeded on

other campuses, but the cloak and dagger boys of Bowling Green do not seem to

be able to cope with the situation. It is for this reason that we call for the

establishment of a new out-in-the-open organization to foster school spirit. An

organization of the most active people on the campus, both men and women, people

who really get things done and who can lead (2).

For Fay, and many other students, the sudden and mysterious presence on campus was unsettling and confusing, especially when it was made clear that these “cloak and dagger boys” were not only supported by but organized by the university president. Opposed to the concept of secret society, these upset students did not feel like BGSU required (nor ought to favor) an exclusive and elite group like SICSIC. They considered their student body distinct from the prestigious and aristocratic campuses that valued secret societal traditions. Instead, they called for a more democratic and “tangible” school spirit leadership, whom they would feel more comfortable regarding as their representatives as students. The fact that BGSU’s student body demanded an

“out-in-the-open organization” made up of “both men and women” in 1947, despite Prout’s 60 vision of a secret men’s society, indicates a major fault line between the students and the administration. The sort of college campus that openly recognizes women as leaders seems to have been precisely what Prout was attempting to avoid through SICSIC. It is unsurprising then, to see the students resist so blatantly.

Later that same month, the BeeGee News published a description of the “loudspeaker campaign” which explained the school spirit motives of SICSIC to the campus as “rejuvenating”

(Fay, October 29, 1947). Fay’s second editorial changed its tone and spoke highly of the organization’s school spirit tactics and apologized for the misspelling of their name (correctly typed as one word and all caps). His quick change of heart suggests that Fay might have received a private message from President Prout, persuading him to counter his discussion of suspicion with more of an air of accountability; as a primary source of gossip and news in the 1940s, the

BeeGee News was quite influential after all. Fay made it clear in the later publication that student organizations were held to a certain standard by the student body, defending his critique of

SICSIC. He explained, “Any organization which does not do its job here on the campus will be subject to the same type of editorial comment from this column... Editorials are not written to pull punches, but to tell the facts” (2). However startling SICSIC’s first appearances were, the campus seemed to have quickly come to regard the society as an honored, well-meaning organization that anonymously advocated for school spirit.

After one school year of secret activity, the student yearbook published the first recording of SICSIC recognized as a student organization (The Key, 1947). Picturing the two unmasked profiles of the graduating seniors, SICSIC’s first page in the yearbook provides a glimpse into initial student confusion for the first and last time in the Key; with one exception in 1986, every 61 edition of the student yearbook between 1947 and 2006 printed a page for SICSIC with a simple explanation of the secret organization as a matter-of-fact. The first description reads as follows:

A look of amazement crossed the faces of the students as they read and reread the

large banner across the stairs of the Well and found the many posters on trees and

dormitory doors. These notices all urged student support of the coming football

game and were signed "SICSIC". Students inquired: "What is SICSIC?" "Who are

the members?" "Who founded the organization?" The only information revealed by

President Prout was that the organization was a secret men's honorary made up of

students from each class, and that the senior members would be introduced on

Honor's Day in June. Still keeping its membership secret SICSIC continued to

further campus spirit. The most outstanding campaign was the loudspeaker

broadcast at four o'clock in the morning rousing students from their deep slumber

and urging them to support the coming football game. Members carried out their

spirited campaigns throughout the basketball season (105).

During their first several years in action, SICSIC received generally positive feedback from student publications in the Key and the BeeGee News. Limbacher does mention, however, how himself and original member Gil Fox worked and wrote for the BeeGee News and the University

News Bureau (10, 11). While the student body attempted their hand in formulating a collective understanding of the group, it appears that Prout was able to micromanage the public’s opinion and interpretation of SICSIC by strategically selecting members with a deal of influence. The

SICSIC six were, after all, “the best” kinds of student—students who made the best grades and obtained valued extracurricular positions on campus.

62

Beginnings of Tradition

Concerning the first class of new initiates into SICSIC, President Prout granted the original six members with the responsibility of creating the traditional SICSIC initiation rituals.

The activities that they came up with that year may or may not have stuck. It is known, however, that the rituals were risky to the point of injury, as “[the] night of the first initiation ceremony saw Alan Rosenberg nursing a broken leg” (1992, 10). Running with this theme of hazardous behavior and experiences, Limbacher recounts the early days of SICSIC in his manuscript, rooting the group’s origin in mystery, secrecy, and suspended risk. Because their behavior was sanctioned by the university president, all risks taken by SICSIC—both social and physical— were cushioned, so to speak. While physical danger, like the breaking of a leg, was always a real possibility, it was understood that the normally forbidden actions taken, resulting in the breaking of the leg, would not be held against them. Throughout his personal recollections, including those contributed by other members, Limbacher recounts many stories of possible risk and danger; by publishing these stories, Limbacher reinforces SICSIC’s folklore of playing with chance. All interview participants mentioned the scary yet exhilarating experience of dabbling in the unsafe pastimes of rogue behavior at night. In addition to Prout’s campus office and home basement, SICSIC met in “such odd but out-of-the-way places” as university classrooms, lofts, attics, an airport hangar, a nearby farmer’s barn, a cafeteria, and a ROTC supply room (8). Their headquarters, called “the hideout,” was frequently moved, including to off-limits and sometimes dangerous spaces both on and off campus.

This normally forbidden wandering through campus and off-limits places in the dead of night suggests a sort of play with or fantasy of the abnormal, the Other. While SICSIC was not necessarily performing othered identities for their classmates in the 1940s, I argue that their 63 rogue behavior was in a sense performative of an identity completely different from their own: criminal. These high-achieving, middle- to upper-class students would most likely not be in the habit of forbidden excursions on any given night. The initiation into SICSIC transformed them into someone and possibly something else entirely. Another activity that is suggestive of criminal behavior is the painting of signs. Essentially, the SICSIC six crept through the shadows of campus, vandalizing buildings, breaking and entering, and leaving behind mysterious and often cryptic messages with no connection back to their identities. Their weekly night raids amounted to committing crimes and getting away. In actuality, they were getting rewarded. This type of behavior would have been suggestive of economic and racialized Others.12 For the SICSIC six to play with socially othered identities of class and race, they would be walking a fine line between what Philip Deloria describes as whiteness ritual (1994) and Mikhail Bakhtin’s carnivalesque

(1998). Because the rogue behavior of SICSIC in the 1940s did not seek a live audience outside of membership, these performative acts would reside within the category of ritual—functioning as a form of liminality and transformation of their identities and roles on BGSU’s campus. This does not mean that their unseen actions did not affect the masses, for the purpose of this identity transformation was to transform the student body and the campus. The liminal act of sneaking out of their dorms after everyone else was asleep and leaving behind messages of intrigue and encouragement for their classmates to find come daybreak was ritual for the reputation and salvation of Prout’s BGSU. This line between ritual and carnivalesque is what Jack Santino describes as the ritualesque: the performative ritual which uses the act of play and Other to preserve the workings of private society as well as manipulate the order and wellbeing of public

12 Play with economically and racialized othered identities would reflect various American anxieties in the 1940s with the post-World War II influx of immigrants and the threat of integrated neighborhoods and race riots. New immigration policies such as the Bracero Program increased the ethnic and racial diversity in immigrants who were previously predominantly European. 64 society (2011). Building off Santino’s term, I reconfigure the concept of ritualesque in the specific context of SICSIC’s performative play with all things criminal—for SICSIC in the

1940s, though anonymous, their ritualesque customs were that of the criminalesque, indicating a growing anxiety of race and class.

SICSIC started hanging their famous signs “as soon as [their introductory] announcement was made.” These signs “usually asked the students to see that the opposition of coming sports events be ‘eliminated,’ ‘vanquished,’ ‘debilitated,’ ‘purged,’ ‘slaughtered,’ or some other such dramatic words,” signifying the violent, aggressive actions associated with wartime (8). These terms seem to encourage a more serious and severe approach to campus culture of the sort that

Grinnell disapproved of. For a nation and culture transformed by war, however, nationalism often finds reclamation in othering and dehumanizing the enemy. SICSIC adapted the familiar language of wartime violence to the peacetime activities of campus sporting events. Similar to war propaganda, SICSIC’s painted signs mocked and belittled rival mascots and sport teams, encouraging their elimination on the “battlefield.”13 Prout’s preoccupation with re-establishing a campus-wide enthusiasm for the all-American sport of football is highlighted in these sanctioned

SICSIC signs advocating for a violent defeat of their opposing teams, and ultimately, campuses.

As their first order, and what proved to be their focus over the years, SICSIC commanded their student body to support the university's sport teams as a way to show their support for BGSU— and by extension, their country. Once a week, the secret six would meet in their secret hideout to plan and make their famous “SICSIC Sez” signs, which they hung with tape all over campus.

These signs were and remain to this day a priority for SICSIC, having always been made with white paper, red and black paint, and masking tape. Many interview participants absentmindedly

13 This terminology was and is still used as a metaphor in advertisements for rivalry games, especially with the University of Toledo. 65 quote Limbacher when they explain how “no one seems to remember why they picked red and black paint” and suggest that they were simply the paint colors available at the time (1991, 8).

Much of the folklore around the origins of SICSIC’s traditions amounts to this reasoning of convenience, such as the donning of coveralls as costumes originating as nothing more than what was found lying around. The conveniently discovered six pairs of matching coveralls quickly served to function simply as disguise and protection from paint and exposure to the elements when running around (and off) campus grounds in the dark. The need for disguise did not emerge, however, until the 1950s—for their first several years, SICSIC conducted their nighttime activities without any company of other students. Prout still enforced a strict curfew and campus was for the most part entirely vacated in the dead of night when SICSIC set out to hang their signs. Besides the occasional accompaniment by campus police, the secret six were alone and did not feel the need to conceal their faces or bodies. In the beginning, secrecy was their costume.

While their first message to the students was over the loudspeaker, all other messages since have been through print—predominantly on their traditional “SICSIC Sez” signs and sometimes through other media such as marquee signs of local businesses. Because the announcement of the creation of SICSIC was a surprise to everyone but Prout and the secret six, the entire campus was unprepared for their suddenly regular nighttime activity. To ensure their free reign on campus at night, Prout provided the group with a hand written and signed note for the campus police stating, “These young men have the privilege of working on the campus any time during the night” (1991, 7). This get-out-of-jail-free card gave the SICSIC members full access to all areas of BGSU campus, including dormitories and sorority houses. 66

Female students have historically preoccupied SICSIC’s interests and activities until the late 1980s when major changes were made to the group’s responsibilities as BGSU’s spirit crew.

In their early years, however, the SICSIC six were often associated with sororities and the

“coeds” who were gradually being outnumbered by men in Bowling Green. This preoccupation is documented in photographs and throughout SICSIC alumni lore (1991), demonstrating how the secret six often discussed, organized their nighttime activities around, and painted signs about women. Because these campus-wide prowls were in the middle of the night, it is not surprising that some students and staff were alarmed by random (and approved) visits to normally private areas such as women’s dorms. With instruction from President Prout, campus police would accompany the SICSIC six to sorority houses to hang their “SICSIC Sez” signs (9).

The fact that Prout wanted, or at the very least tacitly approved of, SICSIC visiting such private spaces says much about the purpose of the secret society. Apparently, BGSU’s school spirit was so close to defeat that its rejuvenation required the violation of strictly female spaces.

Remembering that he was the same president to enforce his idea of a “proper” display of female students in public, Prout’s approval of young male students voyeuristically witnessing the private displays and hushed realities of femininity is confusing and, for an outside observer, seemingly irrelevant to campus spirit—unless SICSIC was about more than rejuvenating school spirit.

Prout’s seeming inconsistency in preserving school spirit reveals a good deal about his personal and professional desire for male dominance. As a space historically occupied by women, Prout dedicated much of his presidency to seeing that BGSU’s campus reflected that of the traditional

American university—male. These nighttime raids of female space would make much more sense if SICSIC was concerned with promoting and sustaining hyper-masculinity, reminding the women on campus of their second-class status, and that even their designated spaces of privacy 67 could be claimed and manipulated by men. Again, an ironic masculine display of BGSU’s good- old days contradicts the school’s history of predominantly educating female students. Perhaps

Prout was bitter about the historic female majority on campus and idealized a history of brotherhood camaraderie. Through SICSIC’s anonymous yet granted male presence throughout campus, BGSU was reappropriated as a masculine, men’s space in which women were permitted to abide—provided they accepted their superiors’ right to intrude.

Over time, this “secret men’s honorary” became the officially designated spirit crew for

Bowling Green State University. Remaining anonymous for three years, the members revealed their identities at an honorary ceremony at the end of their senior year. While Prout was in office, the secret six maintained a low profile and surprised those attending the end of year ceremony

(perhaps to the extent of head scratching) when rewarded for their three years of anonymous service and dedication to the university. This anonymity and confusion did change quite quickly, evolving into popularity and public renown. For Prout, however, SICSIC was meant to be more intimate than a contest with an open application, and much more traditional than a coed organization. For when he retired, SICSIC threw Prout a farewell party at the Kin-Wah-Low night club in Toledo where his chosen students and alumni congregated to celebrate his years in office and their successful installment of such a renowned tradition at BGSU. Reminiscing the old times and sharing stories and secrets in confidentiality,14 the men of SICSIC celebrated five years of representing the utmost Christian and conservative standards of an ideal American university.

Summary

14 Secrets such as having caught fire to Prout’s basement during the original member’s first year were shared with the one another and their founder, all while being entertained by a belly dancer (Limbacher, 9). 68

As BGSU’s first and only secret society, SICSIC began their career by violating numerous university codes of conduct with the president’s permission. Breaking curfew by leaving their dorms to sneak around campus in the middle of the night, meeting in forbidden areas on and off campus, and ultimately vandalizing buildings with odd messages was the extent of SICSIC’s known rogue behavior. Before the wearing of masks and public displays of buffoonery, the secret six represented the spirit of BGSU’s campus as a secret society responsible for elusive night raids and mysterious messages—SICSIC was a fundamental yet clandestine presence on campus. Within the safety net of the respectful tradition of secret societies, the SICSIC six attempted to establish a sense of such tradition on BGSU’s campus by way of mysterious example: Maybe you too can be interesting and alluring like us. By spreading spirit anonymously across campus, the secret six gained the reputation of mystic honorary students who dedicated three out of their four college years to the reclamation and preservation of their beloved university and campus. For the original founders, SICSIC was additionally and most importantly capable of bringing back the good-old days of class, prestige, and brotherhood.

For the early years of SICSIC, the group’s public relations were often confusing and their private affairs—the rituals and selection processes for new members—remain a mystery. Besides the vague creation story published in Limbacher’s book and cited on the university’s website, not much is known. Through speculation and evaluation of evidence, I have attempted to theorize the why of SICSIC’s creation: to restore a unified campus by example of an esteemed hegemonic student body through the American tradition of secret society. The what in its entirety, however, is still a perplexing mystery. When recently unmasked SICSIC members tell the origin story, it seems that they may not even know or entirely understand the original rituals practiced among 69 the pioneering spirit crew.15 The details about SICSIC's creation and original practices that set the traditions of today vary depending on the source or who is telling the story. These small yet critical contradictions amount to the folklore of SICSIC that resonates across BGSU campus through questions, rumors, speculation, and lore. What is comprehended as fact, like the publicly known details of any collegiate secret society, has been documented through a screened approval of both SICSIC alumni and BGSU administration. In the chapters that follow, I include data discovered in the public archives of BGSU’s Jerome Library that answer some questions and help guide theories about others that remain mysteries.

After the retirement of Frank Prout in 1951 and throughout the controversial years of

Ralph McDonald’s presidency, SICSIC changed dramatically. Anonymity became performance and the conservative sense of modest brotherhood became entirely social; a once strictly ritualesque interference with the public became a flamboyant carnivalesque mockery and reinforcement of the minority and otherwise non-traditional student. As much as conservatives like Prout and McDonald fought to preserve a traditional college campus, the changing tides persisted further, and it was not until the late 1980s that the administration stepped in to reverse the wayward ways of SICSIC back to its original form and purpose. In the following chapter, I analyze SICSIC’s initial transformation of the 1950s, along with a nationwide student upheaval in the 60s and 70s that was reflected in SICSIC’s masked identities and performances of the prevailing social anxieties of Americanness and whiteness.

15 For example, whether or not President Prout was there for the initial SICSIC meeting and signing of the constitution is contradicted among the participating interviewees. 70

CHAPTER II. CARNIVAL

The year of 1952—one decade after the founding of SICSIC—existential national anxieties and cultural tensions concerning the racial and gendered Other had escalated severely in the United States. Once again, the US was just several years removed from a war that returned an integrated military to a segregated home country. However, the Civil Rights Movement was well underway and became a hot topic for the media. Two years after the Supreme Court ended legal segregation in public schools with Brown v Board (1954), the Montgomery Bus Boycott would soon come to an end. Countering the white backlash, or “whitelash,” that spread through the nation after the enforced desegregation of public schools, students took on one of the main roles as social activists in the 1950s.

Over the next several decades, the American college campus would evolve from a place of sanctuary and resistance to a site of protest and liberal education. From 1960 until 1975, what would become known as “the Long Sixties,” or “the Political Sixties,” would carry an era of unrest and protest over a span of 15 plus years.16 The Civil Rights Movement would pick up speed in the 1960s, taking on the element of a youth’s movement with the creation of student groups like SNCC.17 In 1962, the Freedom Summer campaign for black voters in Mississippi recruited hundreds of student organizers from around the country to train at Miami University,

Ohio (McAdam, 1988, 66). For student activists in the Political Sixties, these were exciting yet violent times. After the Kent State shootings of 1971, students around the country questioned their status and identities as students and citizens. In the 1970s, race riots and war protests would leave a stain of blood and disdain on the American college campus like never before. Soon, this

16 The specific years included in the Long Sixties are contested. For the purpose of this study, I base my understanding of the political 1960s on Wiley et al’s historical analysis of this crucial time period at BGSU. 17 The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was founded in 1960 at Shaw University, North Carolina. 71 disdain would turn to distrust and fear of the US government, and a conspiracy culture would flourish among young students and scholars. Once again, the white elite were grasping onto what was left of their safety nets of wealth and privilege, clinging onto what they recognize as a better, more certain time of hegemonic order. The elite of the elite returned to mocking their socially othered competitors and contemporaries, coping with their xenophobic and racist fears by publicly ridiculing the racial Other. To remain confident in their power, the elite strove to remind those who reinforced their whiteness of their role as Other and undesirable.

In this chapter, I observe the national and cultural changes as they manifest on college campuses through student protest, stubborn administrative conservatism, and the continued focus on the dangerous Other. For Bowling Green State University, these changes and anxieties were reflected through President Ralph McDonald’s controversial presidency (1951-1961) and

SICSIC’s suddenly racialized appearances on campus. Part One focuses on McDonald’s era in the 1950s, and Part Two considers the politically charged campus climate of the 1960s and 70s.

Taken together, these two parts discuss the shifting decades on both a national and campus level.

After laying out a brief overview of a changing American college campus culture, I then analyze the growth of student unrest at BGSU and the transformation of SICSIC’s role as mediator and peacekeeper on campus over the next three decades.

After the student demonstrations of McDonald’s presidency at BGSU, the SICSIC six adapted their nighttime behavior to be more interactive and performative than merely a mysterious presence. By taking on the tradition of wearing matching uniforms, masks, and engaging in conversation with students for the first time, this new version of SICSIC was focusing their efforts on their actual performances rather than the group’s traditional focus of anonymously promoting school spirit. After BGSU students began demanding a more 72 progressive campus culture, SICSIC stepped forward to play their part as mediator between university and student body, representing a new and more colorful campus than the previous conservative standards upheld by both Prout and McDonald. I argue that the specific uniforms adopted by the group were a response to growing campus anxieties over the undesirable student: the racially Other, nontraditional college student and, by extension, US citizen. In choosing to wear racial and horror masks, SICSIC indicated the need to perform and thus reassure a sense of whiteness and privilege for the traditional student during a time when power was increasingly being demanded by, and granted to, people of color. My research for evidence of racialized motivations relies on archival material and Jim Limbacher’s publication of SICSIC’s changing traditions and practices. I have found that the plentiful documentation of the group’s new image can, for the most part, speak for itself; the decision to blacken their faces and wear racialized masks to conceal their identities rests as blatant evidence of SICSIC’s evolved function on

BGSU’s campus. I additionally include several interviews in this chapter that shed light on the folklore of SICSIC that developed in the 1960s. A few years after Prout’s retirement in 1961,

“the best of the best” seemed to have taken the concept of school spirit into their own hands, defining brotherhood and community through bizarre and carnivalesque displays of the racialized Other. This evolved form of spirit started out as clowning, and by the 1970s, became a full-fledged performance of racialized buffoonery.

“Masking is a play upon possibility and ours is a society in which possibilities are many. When American life is most American it is apt to be most theatrical…. It is a strategy common to the culture, and it is reinforced by our anti-intellectualism, by our tendency toward conformity and by the related desire of the individual to be left alone… The strategy grows out of our awareness of the joke at the center of the American identity.” Ralph Ellison, Shadow & Act (1964, 54)

73

National Anxieties in the 1950s

Where the 1940s were a time of conservative and somewhat covert responses to anxieties about shifting national demographics, these anxieties spurred a truly overt resistance to the influx of visible racial diversity in the 1950s. With Brown v Board of Education in 1954 and the 1957 integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Civil Rights Movement took center stage in the national media. After President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s integration of the

American military in 1948, US soldiers fought an officially integrated war for the first time, and veterans of color were steadily enlisting for the increasing benefits. Lower- to working-class people of color began to increase in number on college campuses in alarming rates for a time of national crisis and hyper-paranoia of the racial, economic, and cultural Other. The Cold War escalated to its peak during the 1950s with McCarthyism, and conservative, conformist politics were nationally respected. Any form of social activism or civil revolt was rejected and chastised as anti-American, extremist, and dangerous. In a time of conservative conformity, all othered populations and individuals fought marginalization and extermination in the United States after the most notorious racial genocide recorded in Western history.18 The decade of the fifties was brimming with anxious ironies and frustrations. For the increasingly diverse American youth on college campuses, these anxieties were amounting to collectives of rage and resilience that threatened to revolt against the hypocrisy of the elite. As discussed previously, the traditionally elite college student responded to these changes by slowly bringing their cultural anxieties underground to be preserved and ritualized in secrecy. While SICSIC did precisely this under

18 After the horrors of World War II and the Holocaust, Western leaders promised that “never again” would something so obviously wrong go undetected and undisturbed. And yet, similar acts of prejudice and inequality based on appearances and accusations alone were taking place in the United States and other Western countries. The imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the War exposed the hypocrisy of those in charge. 74

Prout’s surveillance in the 1940s, the new SICSIC of the 1950s was curiously taking these anxieties out of hiding and publicly trying them on for size, quite literally.

BGSU in the 1950s

As BGSU’s campus slowly began to change demographically and spiritually (in both a religious and existential sense), the emergence of the 1950s brought on an impulse to suppress what had already been a simmering presence of student unrest. Wiley, Perry, and Neal’s history of BGSU (2012) looks closely at the initial student uprisings, arguing that the political and cultural context of Bowling Green and the university campus was “situational” for the post-

World War II student demonstrations (5). The authors argue:

Perhaps the best causal explanation for the uprising was that the university’s

lifestyle rules were excessively strict for a state university, funded with public

money, and that consequently the administration was ripe to lose a publicity

battle… The demonstrations opened a window so that the press and the public could

see what was happening at the university. Once the press revealed the discontent of

students and faculty with the administration, and the out-of-date rules, the public

and the state legislature soon lost confidence. The university’s president also made

several serious mistakes during the three months of jousting, which hastened his

departure (4, 5).

This president was Ralph McDonald, Prout’s replacement in 1951. Jim Limbacher describes

McDonald as a “refined southern gentleman” in his historical account of SICSIC. He remembers

McDonald “for his expansion program to upgrade faculties and build new buildings” (1992, 12).

Nowhere in his collection of stories does Limbacher mention the controversial relationship 75 between McDonald and the changing campus values and diversity. In fact, Limbacher’s praise for McDonald sounds suspiciously similar to what he had to say about Prout. His only indication of the student protests against McDonald’s presidency is a comment on how the late 1950s “saw much campus unrest, most of it concerning the rules regarding automobiles and alcoholic beverages” (18). Blatantly glancing over the administration’s problematic role on campus,

Limbacher’s “history” of SICSIC is highly questionable. Because SICSIC is a university- sanctioned organization that answers to the institution’s president, ignoring this troubled era for

BGSU is equivalent to ignoring questionable times in SICSIC’s past. Unsurprisingly, the author of SICSIC’s most accessed and quoted folklore does avoid discussing the group’s more alarming behavior.19

Wiley et al, on the other hand, have a lot to say about President McDonald and the student protests that specifically called out and challenged his oppressive ruling, resulting in his forced resignation (2012). “When Prout left office in 1951 there was a careful search for his replacement,” assure the authors (9). When searching, the selection committee required the new president to be a “Christian Gentleman” (59). McDonald met the requirements to be considered as such and won over his judges by advocating for a “small-college atmosphere” that upheld

Christian morals and scholarship (62). Chosen to take on the changing campus and demanding student body, Ralph McDonald established a firm hand on the University. Under his administration, “the institution held to somewhat archaically conservative rules, even though both the student body and the faculty were changing in a demographic direction that chafed against these rules” and student demonstrations “continued and deepened” during his years as president (9). Despite the assumed democratic nature of a public state school, BGSU in the

19 This explains contemporary SICSIC members’ confusion and uncertainty about the group’s origin, problematic history on campus, and complicated relationship with the student body. 76

1950s was highly authoritarian under the presidency of Ralph McDonald from 1951 to 1961. The university’s claim as an egalitarian institution was harshly contradicted by McDonald’s presidency; his oppressively conservative and anti-Semitic values, his financial punishment of faculty who taught or spoke out against his ideals (Wiley et al, 2012, 60-62 and Overman, 1967,

187), and his forbidding of not only students but faculty and staff from drinking alcohol in any public space or business (Wiley et al, 10 and Overman, 184-185) were hardly democratic. Wiley et al state that McDonald’s attempted “regime to promote religious fundamentalism stood in opposition to an academic emphasis on critical inquiry, rationality, and the scientific method”

(153), indicating further contradiction within a space of education and equal opportunity. Besides a realistic representation of gender diversity on campus, all other demographics were strikingly homogeneous—male and female students were overwhelmingly middle- to upper-class

Protestant whites (152, 153).20 While the percentage of female students was equal to males,

McDonald’s obsessive rules implementing women’s inequality negated any attempted show of gender equality on campus. These rules included denying female students access to campus after hours as well as their right to ride in cars (9). While McDonald did eventually relax the automobile rules, he forbade intimate behavior between students, including hand holding anywhere on campus (10).

During McDonald’s presidency, “the students were becoming more worldly, urban, and unhappy about the strict rules,” creating a tense atmosphere on BGSU’s campus (10). For both students and faculty, culture clashes occurred daily, complicating the traditional process of education in the classroom and socialization on and off campus. In the 1950’s, BGSU’s administration was “holding on tightly to notions about conventional authority and morality”

20 Neither McDonald’s fundamentalist platform nor Prout’s insistence on weekly chapel attendance recognized Catholicism despite the university’s high population of Catholic students (Wiley et al, 153). 77

(10) when many of its students wished their college experience was more open and accepting of alternative lifestyles. Such lifestyles compromised by the harsh punishment of suspension included liberal use of automobiles and alcohol as well as “expressions of affection” (9). The administration’s conventional notions of authority and morality concerning female students were highly sexualized; considering McDonald’s preoccupation with the sexual activity of the women on campus, it appears he was indifferent to, if not perfectly accepting of, his male student’s sexuality. While Wiley et al are highly critical of McDonald’s values and tactics as president, historian Robert Overman claims to have been not only an employer to McDonald but also a friend. In his 1967 history of BGSU, Overman writes, “President McDonald was highly capable, and was justifiably confident in his own ability and judgement. This led many to feel that he was intolerant of the ideas of others and that he could never be convinced that he was wrong… he could be convinced, but only by cold reason and logic” (190). As an example of McDonald’s judgement, Overman mentions the time when BGSU’s president denied the approval of a new organization, the American Association of University Women, proving to be an act of “very bad public relations,” but a positive “matter of principle” (189-190). For those who valued the traditional, conservative American education, McDonald was justly doing his job as university president. For those who were in favor of a new, progressive American education, BGSU was

“not a bastion of democracy;” rather, it was a “highly paternalistic if not an authoritarian institution”—an archaic “power structure” (2012, 26).

Throughout the 1950s, student discontent was building. The tensions between administration and students (and many faculty) were edging closer to eruption every year. The campus anxieties over outlandish veteran and female students were shifting towards a fear of restless and disgruntled students in general. “Most campuses, including Bowling Green,” argue 78

Wiley et al, “found that the vets resented rules that had been designed for younger students. But more generally, fundamental changes in student attitudes toward authority were occurring”

(144). Among student protests against conservative religious restraints towards women and alcohol, the anxiety of race was growing in fervor as BGSU students began engaging in civil rights activism. In the 1950s, the predominantly white male students protesting at BGSU were steadily bringing up racial and religious discrimination and women’s rights in addition to their own grievances.21 The college campus was becoming a collective place of activism and solidarity for diversity and regulated democracy. For the conservative college campus and the conformist American society in the 1950s, protest of any kind was disruptive of the status quo and dangerous regarding the privileged culture of the white elite. American campus anxieties about these changes coalesced in the form of collective student protest—racial, gendered, and economic minorities began banding together to protest oppressive and discriminatory rules and regulation. It was at these early protests that whistleblowers and agitators were confronted by the

United States municipal military at BGSU and the National Guard at other universities across the nation.

In 1957, BGSU had its first riot, which began as a protest by fraternity members against the university’s rules against students drinking alcohol (6-9). This event had a long-lasting influence on students and left a bad taste in the mouths of university and community officials. It was unexpected for the students at such an esteemed state university to aggressively revolt authority. Wiley et al explain how the specific cultural context of BGSU prepared the campus and community for its ultimate victory. They state, “A relatively rural, traditionally Protestant,

21 At BGSU in the 1950s, students of color were few and far between and protests were mostly organized by fraternities. While women’s issues were usually a topic of debate for the protestors, their marches across campus and town were primarily made up of men. In one instance, administrators rushed to lock the female students in their dorms after overhearing male protestors planning to recruit them into their numbers (Wiley et al, 18). 79

Midwestern campus such as Bowling Green had no [liberal protest] infrastructure. It had duly elected student leaders, usually in allegiance with if not informally selected by the administration. These student leaders did not lead protests. If anything, they attempted to deflect whatever dissatisfaction there might be” (3). This conservative infrastructure of “duly elected student leaders” contradicts the university’s supposed democratic processes. While there is no mention of SICSIC in Wiley et al’s book, I find it hard to believe that they were not aware of the group’s presence after so much research on both Prout’s and McDonald’s legacies at BGSU. In the previous quote, I believe the authors may be hinting at organizations like SICSIC when describing empowered students in allegiance with the administration. It would have been groups like SICSIC who hung signs across campus with sarcastic remarks about current events like the continuing student protests. Such actions were designed to reinforce the administration’s rules and alienate the “rabble-rousers” protesting for change.

Instead of the student leaders taking charge in liberal protests, fraternities organized demonstrations on and off campus throughout the 1950s. It was the male leaders of the BGSU

Greek orders who were “the closest thing the school had to a protest infrastructure” and “led the torchlight parade against the drinking rules that became the 1957 traffic-blocking demonstration”

(Wiley et al, 3), protesting McDonald's suspension of several students for serving alcoholic drinks off-campus (Overman, 1967, 183). Both university and municipality officials responded to the protests that quickly became riotous. With the aid of Bowling Green city and campus police, firemen, and state highway patrolmen, the demonstrators were dispersed after two hours of stopped traffic (Wiley et al, 9). These early protests continued the tradition of resistance and disruption amidst an oppressive and backwards administration that began under Prout’s presidency in 1949. After the infamous torchlight demonstration of 1957, student protests 80 amounted to small and contained gatherings on campus, resulting in not much more than the students “blowing off some steam” (16). It would not be until the Political Sixties when the

BGSU student protests resulted in actual changes to university’s administration and policy.

The disagreements between BGSU’s student majority and the university’s administration were not a secret. Caught between the timely demands of his students and the conservative support of his Board of Trustees, McDonald found himself between a rock and a hard place.

While Wiley et al argue that it would make sense for a new president to “gradually liberalize the rules and thereby settle down the students” (9), I argue that it was more realistic for a man like

McDonald to do the opposite—to bank on his support system and make his strict rules even stricter. In the end, McDonald did just this, resulting in BGSU’s infamous 1961 three-day student demonstrations, the resulting Ohio media field day, and the president’s resignation. Like many of the social changes and cultural transformations discussed in this essay, these student uprisings at BGSU were no isolated event—the postwar wave of progressive democracy and the resistance against it was “part of a national development” (5). Where the students were beginning to form alliances and stand for their rights and the rights of others, conservative administrations like that of BGSU did all they could to resist and deny the coming change.

Forming ranks on the ground in favor of their administrative power were the “duly elected”

SICSIC six, representatives of an elite, threatened system, clinging to their threatened traditions.

The Transformation of SICSIC

At Bowling Green State University, the changing demographics of the student population were clashing harshly with the conservative nature of the administration. While the archives from the President’s Office collections are scarce from this period, the SICSIC collection 81 contains a letter written by Jim Limbacher in the year of 1950. Limbacher’s letter is addressed to the BeeGee campus newspaper, requesting a change of word choice when discussing SICSIC in future publications. He specifically requests that all mentions of the word “secret” be replaced with “anonymous.”22 I use this letter to symbolize the turn of the decade and SICSIC’s hand in altering their definition on campus—by changing their terminology for the student body,

Limbacher was making preparations for a new SICSIC. Secrecy was no longer of utmost value to the SICSIC six; in its place, the traditions of theatricality and popularity were taking root.

SICSIC was beginning to test their boundaries, taking greater “risks,” and becoming more radical as the decade wore on. In response to a tense campus and increasingly liberal student body, SICSIC began to demand their place of power and privilege as the “best of the best,” the

“ideal” and “traditional” BGSU students. In effect, SICSIC transformed into a troupe of carnivalesque performers of the demographically Other for the spiritual wellness and patriotism of BGSU’s campus.

After President Prout’s retirement in 1951, the conservative standards he had established for SICSIC, ironically enough, began to slip. The group’s intention of anonymously leading school spirit by setting the example for an ideal student body changed practically overnight.

Their behaviors were becoming less hidden and more performative, to the extent that SICSIC was literally performing in front of their peers for the first time. Instead of clandestine nightly rampages across campus and maintaining a collective anonymity until graduation, all six members of SICSIC emerged on a changed campus as changed entities. Wearing masks and

22 Although he graduated in 1949, Limbacher stayed in Bowling Green until 1953 and maintained a close relationship with the SICSIC members and alumni (Limbacher, 10). By making such a request, it seems Limbacher also had a close connection with the inner workings of the campus. Letter, December 15, 1950, box 1, file 4 “Correspondence”, “Memorandum to Dave Reichert”, authored by Jim Limbacher. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 82 matching coveralls, the new SICSIC was making unannounced appearances at football games and were often spotted at night by wandering students. Eventually, these performances became public displays of the members’ achievements—they had been chosen as the “best of the best,” the face of BGSU’s campus and student body. By making appearances on campus, the members began encouraging gossip and controversial discourse across campus, giving them more control in establishing their own folklore. Often, SICSIC’s nighttime campus appearances resulted in cat and mouse chases with the students who now roamed a once-deserted midnight campus. Students at BGSU no longer followed the curfew—some even actively disobeyed such rules by advocating for forbidden pastimes and exposing the identities of the SICSIC six was one of them.

Limbacher’s manuscript includes several stories of “close calls” for SICSIC members in the 1950s when they were out on their weekly night raids. The protected identities of the anonymous spirit crew were often threatened by any given curious student out on campus at night. Sometimes, they were actively pursued by other societies, such as the night when several members of the Men’s Independent Society followed SICSIC, only to be lost in a cornfield and graveyard (12). While many of SICSIC’s pursuers were fellow male students, most of the anonymous group’s stories about close calls pertain to female students. Limbacher describes such a tale:

[One night,] the boys managed to get into a sorority house through the duct work

from the [campus swimming pool]. As they were writing a SICSIC message on

the hall mirror with lipstick, several members of the sorority were awake and

came walking down the hall. They almost caught the boys as they made a hasty 83

retreat back [to the pool] where they had a swim before sneaking back to their

dormitories (12).

It became common for SICSIC to use underground tunnels and pipes to enter and exit certain buildings as well as their hideouts (21). A tradition that did not change much was breaking into women’s dorms and sorority houses at night and leaving messages for the women to find—a tradition that seemed to have escalated since Prout’s presidency. Limbacher quotes member Fred

Ashley recounting, “The most memorable and valuable part of the secret six was the exchange of views among various generations. We talked about women, campus politics, national politics, school courses, personalities on campus including students, faculty and administration” (16).

Talk of women is expected among young men; however, breaking in and vandalizing women’s dorms along with their personal property suggests a less-expected interest and more of a startling obsession. The ease inherent in sharing such stories with alumni and future generations adds to the sense of normalcy of this obsession for SICSIC. For the outsider, however, this increasing obsession with female students is alarming and disturbing. At a time when the student body was taking steps towards equality and social justice, SICSIC’s behavior was suggestive of purposeful backtracking—a contradiction that questions the sincerity of BGSU’s adaptations. If the university’s best students, individuals chosen to represent the school, maintained backwards and destructive habits, how could this institution be considered liberal and progressive? By passing this tradition of female harassment to new generations of SICSIC members despite the changing times, SICSIC (and BGSU) was instilling conservative and sexist values of male aggression and dominance on their progressing American college campus.

Just as he did when regarding members othered by race and religion, Limbacher includes a fond memory to justify SICSIC’s questionable behavior concerning the opposite sex. He 84 recounts an instance when SICSIC visited Chi Omega: “The Chi Omega sorority remembers one night when the secret six entered their house to put up signs. Non-plussed, the boys twirled a few of the girls in a dance, then romped back down the hall and out the door. The Chi Omegas waved good-bye and chanted: ‘We Love You, SICSIC, Oh, SICSIC, we love you—yeah yeah yeah!’

One of the girls, Lisa Bein, had one of those signs laminated as a souvenir” (16). This story implies a “by association” mentality when it came to SICSIC’s relationship with female students.

Because “the Chi Omega sorority remembers” had a positive experience with the masked men who freely entered their otherwise locked living quarters to write messages with their lipstick and “twirl” them in their nightclothes, Limbacher seems to assume that all sorority and female students felt this way. This suggestion is dismissive of the personal barriers SICSIC was entitled to breaking. Whereas female students were not able to leave their dorms and houses at night, their male counterparts had free rein and six of them could enter women’s rooms as they pleased at all hours of the night. I suspect that Limbacher here romanticizes female students’ feelings about SICSIC and male entitlement. The available evidence indicates support from McDonald’s presidency when it came to SICSIC’s preoccupation with women, and SICSIC did not have a problem with McDonald’s rules restricting female students’ rights. In the very least, Limbacher seems to argue for it. He quotes a note McDonald wrote SICSIC in 1953: “May I congratulate you on the fine contribution the group has made to campus spirit throughout the year” (17).

While BGSU’s administration was tightening its grip on an evolving campus culture, McDonald gave additional freedoms to the members of SICSIC.

Despite all the time and energy dedicated to spreading “school spirit” to their female classmates, SICSIC did not forget about the rest of campus. During the 1950s, SICSIC was

“slowly [building their] dictionary” for making their signs—Limbacher provides a short list of 85 examples, including “words such as ‘kill,’ ‘annihilate,’ ‘crush,’ ‘purge,’ and, most importantly,

‘beat!’” (18). Included in their many cryptic messages, the more famous of those painted across campus in the fifties was “GRYNCH 1734.” Limbacher explains how this message was “a meaningless joke” for which the members eventually came up with a meaning to publish in the yearbook: “GREATER RESOLUTION YIELDS NEW CHEERING HEIGHTS, I aim seven days a week, thirty-four weeks in a school year [sic]” (18). Limbacher and interview participants explained SICSIC’s increasingly bizarre behavior as meaningless and entirely incidental.

SICSIC’s regularly unexplainable behavior and signs fell under the same reasoning as the origin of their costumes—there is not much reason at all, just happenstance and convenience. Being a secret society organized for very specific reasons, I do not believe the group’s story of

“unexplainable” or “meaningless.” Rather, I suggest the contrary throughout this essay: that most secretive things if not every secret about SICSIC has a meaning and a purpose that remains a secret for a reason. In instances where the group’s behavior and messages may have been impulsive, random, and “meaningless,” such as the authorship of the “GRYNCH 1734” sign,

SICSIC would most likely have been playing towards their conservative and othering ideologies nonetheless—que the secrecy. It is hard to believe that any cryptic message posted by SICSIC would amount to such a complex statement as the supposedly original meaning of “GRYNCH

1734.” Because of the secrecy and absurdity of the released message, it would have ultimately been suggested that there was a different original meaning than what was published in the Key.

Limbacher says it himself: “SICSIC finally made something up to put in the yearbook” (18). I do not claim to know what the message meant to the secret six. I do claim, however, that it meant something that would have been inappropriate or offensive if revealed to the public. What they

“made up” for the yearbook was forced and nonsensical. By calling on their role of behaving 86 silly and bizarre, the carnivalesque SICSIC got away with another secret or even subliminal message, whether it was for their own benefit or someone else's.

A prime example of SICSIC’s happenstance folklore—their narrative theme of coincidence rather than meaning—is the origin of costumes. The first mention of the use of coveralls as costume was in 1955, when a new member commented on the soiled state of his costume since they were last laundered a few years prior (Limbacher, 13).23 While there is no exact date or year for their origin, Bill Bittner and Jerry Helwig of the 1954 graduating class are credited with the idea. Because they came into SICSIC officially as sophomores in 1952, the tradition would have started sometime between 1952 and 1954. Bittner and Helwig are pictured in the first documentation of masked SICSIC members in the 1954 Key wearing matching coveralls (Fig. 1, pictured below). In subsequent years, members wore clown masks as seen in a

1954 B-G News article (Fig. 2, pictured below), as well as “Halloween” masks, seen in the 1956 edition of the Key (Fig. 3, pictured below).

Fig. 1. First Documentation of Masked SICSIC Members (The Key, 1954, 79).

23 The solution to this problem was to ship the coveralls to a member’s mother for her to return once washed (Limbacher, 13). No doubt, they were expected to be washed and shipped back immediately since their duty called them back out on campus in full costume at least once a week. 87

Fig. 2. Clown Masks and Hammer (The B-G News, 1954, 1)

Fig. 3. “Homecoming Bound” (The Key, 1956, 100).

The question of SICSIC masking in general is explained by the newly populated campus at night—a phenomenon that SICSIC had not encountered prior to the 1950s. To protect their identities from prying or otherwise curious students, SICSIC took to wearing masks and eventually matching coveralls. When asked why the members may have originally picked

Halloween and scary masks, several interview participants suggested it was what was available at the time. Others confessed that they had no idea and that they had not thought about it before.

While the availability and convenience of Halloween masks is a fair and possible explanation, it is important not to glance over the meaning of masking and more specifically, clowning.

Like Philip Deloria, historian Eric Lott looks at white historical performances of the racialized Other. In his book Love and Theft (1993), Lott provides a genealogy of American 88 minstrelsy’s posterchild “Jump Jim Crow,” emphasizing the racial origins and contemporary racial implications of clowning. To interpret the “American cultural contradictions” of blackface minstrel characters, Lott observes minstrelsy at “the intersection of slave culture and earlier blackface stage characters” such as “the clown of English pantomime and the clown of the

American circus” (1993, 21). Lott emphasizes great ambiguity when it comes to minstrel practices and its origins, observing the development of American blackface as one technique in the art of clowning, while the clown’s technique of masking is in itself “indebted to blackface”

(25). For Lott, to clown is to wear blackface, and vice versa. He explains:

Clowning is an uncanny kind of activity, scariest when it is most cheerful,

unsettling to an audience even as it unmasks the pretentious ringmaster. Blackface

performers, often inspiring a certain terror as well as great affection, relied

precisely on this doubleness… The black mask offered a way to play with

collective fears of a degraded and threatening—and male—Other while at the

same time maintaining some symbolic control over them (25).

This doubleness is suggestive of the carnivalesque notion of a topsy-turvy flip of reality: just as the clown mocks both himself and his ringmaster, the minstrel performer is ridiculing both his white self and the black Other, reversing the social standards in a moment of frenzy. Of course, when the show is over, the white self and the black Other are returned to their hierarchical positions in society. Lott’s research looks to European-American holiday festivals and their historical use of blackface performance in carnival masquerading and vandalism to expand on this connection of American blackface and the functioning element of the carnivalesque (27-30).

When European carnivals and festivals incorporate blackface, they tend to be connected to social change—various racial masking and gender-play practices are directly related to rituals of 89 societal preservation and alteration (Turner, 1969, 1977). The connection between clowning and blackface is deeply rooted in US and European carnival history, suggesting racialized masking to be directly tied with the bizarre, abnormal element of the carnivalesque, and ultimately, social change.

To come across one, two, or all six masked individuals wearing matching jumpsuits, creeping around campus in the dead of night is an experience of both thrill and terror. Observing from a distance six coverall-clad men walking on campus at night would produce one level of anxiety, supposing their features would not be visible from afar. Observing these figures and this type of behavior would signify something entirely criminal, given the odd hour, uncanny behavior, and matching coveralls. If the observer were to approach these men to get a better look, the shock produced when beholding their clowned and otherwise masked faces is beyond imaginable—especially for this time period when students only recently began to go out at night.

To behold this physical appearance in the act of nighttime creeping would produce a combined sensation of mystery, fear, and excitement—precisely the experience intended for the carnivalesque audience. This effect would have been at the forefront of SICSIC’s discussion when planning their disguises. Sociologist Joseph Roucek argues in his analysis of secret societies that “[one] of the most important tasks of the underground is to carry on espionage…

The chief and most important weapon is surprise” (1960, 168). SICSIC was now theatrically performing for an audience. By wearing clown, Halloween, and ski masks—or any mask at all—

SICSIC was taking the element of surprise to the next level: scare tactics that played off a collective fear of the racial Other.

In addition to their costumes and public appearances, the 1950s SICSIC adapted some of their practices as well, taking on new forms and meanings. Tapping, the task of choosing and 90 contacting potential members, was appointed to the current members sometime after Prout’s retirement, and over the years, the selection process changed along with the campus’ evolving technology. The tradition of nervously responding to a summons to the president’s office and being handed a letter by his secretary was slightly altered in the 1950s so that contestants received letters in the mail. While this change is slight, it removes SICSIC’s tapping ritual from the confines of the president’s office and secures it in the hands of the SICSIC members themselves. While the fear of being summoned to the president’s office for unknown reasons is removed, SICSIC’s celebrated theme of anxiety is at the same time enhanced—by eliminating university officials from the process, the assurance of safety is removed from the suspicious letter. This transition also shows how SICSIC was affected by the changing campus culture and generational shift despite their conservative nature. In distancing themselves from university officials, SICSIC was positioning itself between BGSU’s administration and student body, becoming a liminal mediator between the two. Starting in the 1950s, SICSIC members were both student and administrator, separately and simultaneously acting as spokesmen for both entities.

Once the president’s secretary was removed from the process, the university header on the invitation became the only thing that comforted potential members in a rather precarious situation. Several interview participants commented on their suspicion when receiving their letter, not sure if it was a fake. By cutting out the middleman, the 1950s SICSIC gained more agency by determining future members as well as securing more anxiety in the tapping ritual.

SICSIC’s adaptive practices in the fifties are highlighted by their need for transportation.

Instead of traversing the growing campus by foot, McDonald’s SICSIC was gifted a campus car 91 to speed up their nighttime prowls.24 Limbacher quotes member Fred Ashley describing his experience: “Driving that campus car was an experience. [The car] must have pre-dated the founding in 1946. Getting that car to move and practice escape and evasion prepared me for two- and-one-half years up-country in Vietnam!” (1992, 16). For Ashley and his cohort, the campus car seemed to have been more of a burden than a blessing. Based on its consistency in SICSIC’s stories over the years, however, it must have been useful enough to keep around. Either that, or the mere exclusivity of having their own university sanctioned vehicle to drive around the campus at night was worth putting up with the inconveniences. Ashley sounds grateful enough, recognizing his experience with the car as training for war. Once again, a comparison is made between SICSIC’s performative rituals and wartime; while comparisons to war were and still are often made in SICSIC Sez signs, this specific example compares the pastimes of SICSIC to the heroic acts of veterans and war heroes. The inclusion of this detail suggests that BGSU’s SICSIC of the 1950s was training students for successful war tactics. With preparation for the front,

SICSIC would stand out from other collegiate secret societies as truly all-American.

SICSIC’s transformations in the 1950s increased in drama and theatricality in the 1960s and 70s as the group claimed BGSU’s campus for their playground and stage. Over the years, their carnivalesque masked performances became a regular occurrence on campus, and it became growingly acceptable among students to discover a masked man prancing down their dorm hallway in the middle of the night. As tensions grew across the nation concerning war, social disruption, and race, these national anxieties took more extreme forms in SICSIC’s activity on

BGSU’s campus. With the dawn of student protest, however, it seems that the intimate

24 As usual, SICSIC was not subject to the enforced student restrictions when it came to McDonald’s conservative car and curfew rules. The gift of a university car to SICSIC further suggests McDonald’s full support of the group’s rogue behavior despite his extreme control over all other student’s activities. 92 relationship between the SICSIC six and the rest of BGSU’s student body came to a halt. Once again, a rift between student and administration interrupted the function of SICSIC’s masquerading buffoonery. As long as the students disagreed with the university’s definition of school spirit, BGSU’s spirit crew could not function adequately. For BGSU in the 1960s and 70s, the campus was changing again, and again, so was SICSIC.

National Anxieties in the 1960s and 1970s

The year of 1960 marked the beginning of what is considered “the Political Sixties”—a fifteen-year era of national social unrest that pushed the United States federal government to amend out-of-date legislation. 1960 marked the beginning of numerous protests and social movements including the student-led sit-ins which started in Greensboro, North Carolina and spread to all corners of the country.25 The cultural tensions of the 1950s were escalating, and anxiety over the racialized Other was one—if not the most extreme—of the nation’s anxieties at the time. Women’s issues were making a headline after a decade of consumption and conformity in the 1950s: Betty Friedan put a name to the “problem with no name” and power in the hands of women in her 1963 book, The Feminine Mystique; and the second wave of feminism kicked off the American reproductive rights campaign and other movements towards gender and sexual equality and representation.

In addition to these developments in race and gender issues, activism in general became an anxiety for the traditional and conservative academics and students in the Political Sixties.

Towards the end of the decade, anti-war protests were reaching their peak as the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War showed no signs of an end. Picking up the bulk of these

25 BGSU students traveled to segregated cities in the South to participate in Civil Rights protests such as sit-ins and freedom rides (Wiley et al, 2012, 157). 93 protests, students led anti-war and anti-violence demonstrations across the nation and into the next decade. After the Kent State massacre in 1970, students began to question their rights and values, increasing antagonisms between student bodies and administrations across Ohio and the rest of the country.26 The 1970s was a time of growing political anxiety, paranoia, and distrust.

Both elite conservatives and their progressivist adversaries were facing extreme pressures and fears in this unstable time. These anxieties were reflected on college campuses across the country, specifically through the immense numbers of student protests and their reluctant and sometimes violent administration and government.

BGSU in the 1960s and 1970s

Following “the quiet fifties,” the American college campus was in a constant state of disruption and protest throughout the Political Sixties until the late 1970s. Political reform was demanded on campuses in the sixties due to drastic increases in student populations, growth in the humanities and social science disciplines, and the “unpopularity of universities’ in loco parentis role” (Wiley et al, 45).27 Todd Gitlin describes in his 1987 history of the sixties how this college generation was “haunted by history” (84). Giltlin writes, “[These students] had been taught that political failure or apathy can have the direst consequences; they had extracted the lesson that the fate of the world is not something automatically to be entrusted to authorities…

[minority students] wanted to redeem their parents’ ideals in the face of their parents’ failures”

(84). Starting the year of 1960, college campuses across the country suddenly erupted in social

26 After the Ohio National Guard shot down thirteen unarmed student protesters, killing four, millions of students went on strike in protest of the massacre. Out of the hundreds of high schools, colleges, and universities across the nation to close down, Bowling Green State University was not one of them. 27 “In loco parentis” is Latin for, “in the place of the parents.” In this case, the phrase refers to a University’s legal responsibility to take a parental role in supervising the students as if they were their own children. This policy was becoming increasingly unpopular by the 1960s as college students sought to pursue independent lives as adults. 94 activism and Bowling Green State University was one of them. On March 26, 1961, just three days before spring break, BGSU students initiated the infamous three-day protest (Wiley et al,

16). Protesting President McDonald’s oppressive authority over their rights as students and young adults, up to one thousand students held demonstrations across campus and through town, lead a class boycott, and demanded direct communication with McDonald to address their grievances. While not as popular among these student grievances, there were also numerous complaints about McDonald’s rules limiting rights in student government and freedom of speech in the student newspaper (9). Included in their list of grievances, the boycotting students of 1961 accused university administrators of censoring the BG News and demanded that the “student editor’s opinion on news editing and coverage [be] final with the advice of, not the consent of, the BG News Director” (Overman, 184). At the end of the third day, President McDonald spoke to the protestors to dismiss them and decry their behavior as riotous. Nevertheless, McDonald eventually “[declared] martial law” on campus, and the demonstrations ended, leaving the students with nothing more to do but return home for spring break (Wiley et al, 22).

After the demonstrations ended, McDonald held a faculty meeting where he addressed the student protests as “a combination of spring fever and relatively childish complaints about sound rules” (24). Instead of discussing options for a solution or compromise, McDonald lay blame on surrounding campuses as bad influences, the press as exaggerators, some of his faculty members as instigators, and the state of Ohio for a lack of resources to control such a growing and boisterous student population (24). McDonald then fired the aforementioned faculty members and refused to meet the student council to discuss their grievances. He expected the protests to dissipate while students were away on break and prepared for further student restrictions once they returned. Instead, the Bowling Green and Toledo press had picked up on 95 the protests and began interviewing participants while they were away from campus. By the time school started up again, McDonald and his administration were under growing pressure to meet the students’ demands for a more progressive campus culture. After spring break, BGSU’s administration was continuously under fire from unsatisfied students, disgruntled parents, and concerned surrounding communities. On June 24th, McDonald announced his resignation (35).

At the start of the 1960 Fall semester, the same school year of the three-day protests and

McDonald’s resignation, Dean of Students Elden Smith had filed an official report on BGSU’s fraternities and their policies on race. On October 19th, Smith reported the information from the investigation to President McDonald, indicating which fraternities had racial restrictions on membership. The letter reports that out of BGSU’s fifteen fraternities, six “have no [racial or religious] restrictions, written or implied,” while the rest are listed as having written or implied racial and religious restrictions.28 While there is no follow up to Smith’s report in the archives, his letter suggests that BGSU administrators were in a state of high anxiety over race, especially the tradition of white supremacy in fraternities.29 Later that school year, the Office of the

President received a letter from a disgruntled student concerned about "White Christian Clauses" in the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity on campus.30 These documents indicate that McDonald’s administration was under pressure concerning race, religion, and whiteness in BGSU’s elite student organizations (on top of the protesting student majority). Based on the thick folders labeled “Racism” and “Political Correctness” in the succeeding president’s office archives, it can be inferred that these issues were not addressed by McDonald’s administration. After all, he was

28 Letter, October 19, 1960, box 1, file 15, “Memorandum to: President McDonald”, authored by Elden T. Smith, Dean of Students. McDonald, Ralph W., Office of the President Records, 1939-1961. UA 002D. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 29 SICSIC was not included in Smith’s report; if it was, I would expect it to have fallen in line with the majority. 30 Letter, January 23, 1961, box 1, file 15, “Letter to President’s Office”, authored by Michael Kowanaugh. McDonald, Ralph W., Office of the President Records, 1939-1961. UA 002D. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 96 not a stickler for religious equality when it came to admissions. After McDonald’s controversial presidency, BGSU’s board of trustees quickly changed their outsourcing policy and began their search for a new university president from within.

From 1961 to 1963, previously retired BGSU professor Ralph G. Harshman served as interim president until the board could find a permanent replacement. After Harshman spent two years rebuilding the relationship between the administration and student body, William T.

Jerome III became president in 1963 and made numerous contributions to the campus and culture of BGSU throughout the sixties. Over the next seven years, Jerome oversaw construction of the current library (including the university archives), overlooked and addressed student protests, and kept the campus open after the Kent State shootings. After Jerome’s retirement in 1970,

Hollis A. Moore quickly filled the position, picking up Jerome’s legacy of leadership throughout the seventies, and served as president until his death in 1981.

While Limbacher’s history is flawed and incomplete, there are still some former students who remember the impact the uprising had on BGSU’s campus and the preceding years of unrest. One such person agreed to be a part of my research: Gregg DeCrane, SICSIC advisor from 1988 to 1999, graduated from BGSU in 1969 and witnessed the peak of anti-war demonstrations and other student protests on campus. After starting school at BGSU in 1965,

DeCrane “never left”—he held several administration positions at the university until his retirement in 1999. As an interview participant, DeCrane provides a great deal of helpful information on BGSU’s changing campus and SICSIC’s evolving practices.31

As an undergraduate student in the 1960s, DeCrane experienced a conservative BGSU that still restricted women’s liberties. He explained, “When I arrived in ‘65, you still had

31 With his permission, I do not use a pseudonym for Gregg DeCrane. As BGSU alumni and SICSIC’s most influential advisor, any attempt to conceal his identity would limit the value of his interviews. 97 situations where women students had hours in the hall. The university’s philosophy was that, if you control the women’s hours then the men would fall in line. If the women had to be in at 10 or 12 o'clock on the weekends, then the guys would behave better.” DeCrane observed how there were many types of protests surfacing on college campuses at the time, such as those for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. The first indication of student activism, he said, was when women started making complaints about their discrimination as female students. “Another indication of [activism] when I arrived on campus,” he explained, “was a rule that, for Sunday dinner in the cafeteria, you had to dress up in coat and tie. Basically, the way that came to an end was people went to dinner in a coat and tie and shorts and a t-shirt.” The BGSU campus that

DeCrane experienced was one of student activism and change.

While the BGSU demonstrations began out of a collective frustration towards old- fashioned policies and an authoritarian president, Wiley et al argue that these protests and their victory in overthrowing McDonald led to the university’s first protest infrastructure, one that would lead BGSU’s students in social justice protests throughout the Long Sixties. The authors argue that the BGSU student protests and demonstrations of the 1960s “were less about the internal structures of the university than about the events that were occurring in the larger society” (11). They state, “The Bowling Green story gives a good picture of how the sixties hit the Midwest, including midsize, more traditional schools” (37). Following the lead of civil rights activists, BGSU students began to rewrite the issues and tactics of previous years, making “their own rural, midwestern contribution to the culture of protest” (41). The authors believe that

When students found that assembling and sharing their grievances could give

them an intense, almost religious feeling of transcendence, they found what the

university had neglected. By assembling and asserting their need for civil 98

liberties, the students gained a sense of shared belief and moral community. This

was precisely what the school’s division of labor and organization lacked. The

official school culture was impersonal, characterized by an almost smug sense of

its own rightness and by insensitivity to the problems of its student population

(52).

Ultimately, the 1960s brought a new type of student protester; the BGSU student activists and participants in protests across the country created a collective protest against “the lack of a morality or consciousness in the United States” (51). While BGSU’s campus was uprising in the name of progress, equality, and social justice, the SICSIC six found the need to change up their own tactics to sustain their conservative traditions and values.

Setting the Stage for Carnival

In their analysis of the 1961 BGSU protests, Wiley et al bring in Durkheim’s “cult of the individual” to recognize the ultimate conflict between the new campus solidarity and society’s mistreatment and exploitation of minorities, complicating the campus’ efforts towards equality and representation. After BGSU’s successful student demonstrations, what was achieved for the underrepresented minority student was not much more than an ideology of the “moral solidarity

[and] equality that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln called for” (49). Despite their efforts, the new, progressive BGSU still fell short when it came to supporting the racially Other college student. On an almost entirely white campus, the securing of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham

Lincoln's philosophies on equality remained philosophies. Novelist and early critical race theorist, Ralph Ellison observes this recurring theme of American ideological democracy in the form of a joke. In his collection of essays, Shadow & Act (1964), Ellison explains: 99

For the ex-colonials, the declaration of an American identity meant the

assumption of a mask, and it imposed not only the discipline of a national self-

consciousness, it gave Americans an ironic awareness of the joke that always lies

between appearances and reality, between the discontinuity of social tradition and

that sense of the past which clings to the mind… perhaps even an awareness of

the joke that society is man’s creation, not God’s (53-54).

Like Philip Deloria’s critique of Americanness and whiteness, Ellison captures the irony of

America’s history of fighting for democracy and equality in his concept of “the joke.” For the revolutionary Americans to claim freedom and independence from European powers, they played the racial Other, sometimes in the literal sense of play with costumes and performance.

By taking on the “masks” of individuals free of European cultures, Americans pretended to be liberated from the confines of oppressive social systems and formed the concept of American nationality—the land of the free. According to Ellison, it is all a joke: American democracy was and has always been limiting and violently oppressive. The brunt of the joke is that the players, the performers, are completely aware that it has always been a performance—to be American, we must pretend to be something else entirely. For both Deloria and Ellison, Americanness, or to be American, is to wear the mask of the Other.

Wiley et al ironically play into “the joke” and describe a moral void on their campus of idealized solidarity with a folkloric cult of individuality: “[The value of respect] could be ritualized in public ceremonies, and it could be the basis for shared morality, dedication, and hopes. But given the widespread injustices of industrial society, the value of the individual cannot easily serve as a moral center and source of energizing rituals” (49). Instead of practicing solidarity and respect (i.e. democracy and equality), cults like SICSIC perform these “energizing 100 rituals” of respect and solidarity through the carnivalesque of Other, masquerading the joke of the Other’s place in US society, and by extension, American college campuses. This applies to

SICSIC’s tradition of performing certain ideologies rather than practicing them, their established folklore, as well as their performances of the racial Other. Representing BGSU as an institution and student body, SICSIC’s performative acts can accurately portray the university’s shift towards performing equality rather than practicing it. Despite the believed success of the 1961 student uprising, the university’s attitude towards minority and non-traditional students did not actually change that much—what was changed was of face value.

The progressive student activists at BGSU in the Political Sixties demanded representation, respect, and solidarity for all students including campus minorities, threatening the elitist American college tradition. When asked if SICSIC ever participated in the 1960s student protests, Gregg DeCrane assured me that “they definitely would not have been there at the protests.” He explained: “This was a different time frame and a different mindset...

[SICSIC’s] presence was very much more limited and I’m not sure I could ever recall any time where SICSIC got very political. That wasn’t their purpose. Their purpose was to promote spirit, not be political. I don’t recall them being involved in any way with any protest.” DeCrane figured that SICSIC’s level of activity overall was “more diminished” during the student demonstrations because their absurd behavior would have been considered inappropriate by the protesting student body. Considering how these student activists would interpret SICSIC,

DeCrane suggested a possible rebuttal: “How could you even be doing something along those lines while we’re trying to stop a war?” He explained:

I think there would definitely be an element of students who would look [down

on] people running around in overalls with masks on making up signs… During 101

the protests at the period of time, everything was serious. It was life and death

serious… It was a very different type of experience. I would say college was

much more serious toned. A part of it was also, at the time of the Vietnam War,

college was one of the ways that male students were able to stay out of the war for

a period of time until they finished their degree. Consequently, you didn’t want to

do anything that would force you to lose your deferment. It was a pretty serious

time.

Feeling like this justification for SICSIC’s diminished behavior was contradictory, I pressed

DeCrane to explain more. If SICSIC was designated to keep spirits high on campus, especially during times of low moral like wartime, would it not have been appropriate for the SICSIC spirit crew to be active? He replied:

You have to realize that protesting in general, nationwide, [and] on a college

campus, outside a [local instance], it wasn’t something that happened a whole lot.

Vietnam, I think changed that dramatically. From the standpoint of not only being

a student but an administrator [after being drafted], I saw a heavy period of

protesting. When I came back [from serving], Vietnam was winding down rather

significantly. That period of time, when you think about everything that happened

with civil rights, everything that happened with Vietnam, the assassinations of the

Kennedys and King, all of that in a condensed period of time—I don’t think there

will ever be another time like that on a college campus.

According to DeCrane, for SICSIC to be active in the student demonstrations—or be active in general while students were protesting—would have been highly inappropriate. The students who were involved in the demonstrations were not speaking for the university like 102

SICSIC was; the students notoriously challenged their administration and authority.

Additionally, the mobilized student body at BGSU was readily putting their student status at risk.

For DeCrane, SICSIC’s purpose and function, as well as their physical performances on campus, would have been entirely removed from the student protests. It would seem then, that during this time of conflict, SICSIC kept a low profile. And yet, it was during the Political Sixties that

SICSIC took on its most outlandish transformation.

Evolving Performances — the 1960s

Limbacher praises President Jerome’s initiation into SICSIC in 1963, when he started his term as president (1991, 19). As the first university president to be initiated into SICSIC, Jerome proved a “good sport” and represented a new step in SICSIC’s relationship with the university.

By initiating the president as an honorary member of SICSIC, the secret six solidified the university’s support—not only were the six men and alumni’s secrets sanctioned and protected by BGSU, all their actions were now simultaneously linked to and backed up by BGSU’s president. With the president as a co-member, SICSIC had possession of the ultimate safe card.

For SICSIC in the 1960s, this was a milestone in their influential history on campus.

By the sixties, it was a common experience to see the masked SICSIC six at a football game, as well as their mysterious signs posted across campus all year round. Gregg DeCrane explained how when he first attended BGSU, he questioned the group’s odd presence. His first encounter with SICSIC was in 1965 when he saw their signs. He explained his confusion:

Being in college for the first time, you don’t know if this is something that’s very

common, if every school has a group like this. But there were visible signs and

[the members would] be at the football games. That’s where you’d see them. 103

They wouldn’t be at the other sports, but you’d see them occasionally. And you

know, there was this mystic and this secrecy about it. So, you started to learn the

story and the longer you’re there the more aware you are of it.

He remembers the signs saying, “Welcome freshmen,” or “Make sure you go to orientation,” anything pertaining to his freshman class arriving to campus. He said, “It was always [associated with sports.] If you’re playing a football game against Kent State, there’d be signs all over campus that’d say, ‘Beat Kent,’ or ‘See you at the football game,’ or ‘Go team.’ Just spirited types of things like that.” He explained that it has been the consistency of the signs that have maintained the historical and mysterious aspects of SICSIC.

While BGSU was updating their out-of-date policies and procedures, SICSIC was adapting practices and costumes to perform the campus’s anxieties of minority and non- traditional students. The irony in BGSU’s predominantly white male campus advocating for equal rights would naturally produce racial and gender sensitivity. Along with this social awkwardness, the increasing distrust in authority figures grew into a heightened campus anxiety of misrepresentation when it came to minority students and their rights on campus. In addition to the overwhelmingly white campus, the newly progressive administration was further contradicted by a continued harassment of female students. For the student body, this would have been a stark irony in hindsight to the previous student protests that recognized women’s rights as a collective campus grievance. For SICSIC to continue harassing women on campus after such progressive accomplishments, it would have been odd for the student body to accept this continued backwards and degrading behavior valued by the “best of the best.” Falling neither in line with their administration nor student body, SICSIC chose an extreme form of action to continue the task of spreading “school spirit.” Rather than put these ironies to bed, SICSIC 104 brought them to life. In addition to escalating their mistreatment of female students, the SICSIC six evolved their tradition of playing with risk into a theatrical presentation of fear—a new aspect of their masked performances that would become a valued tradition.

In the photograph pictured below (Fig. 4), SICSIC poses for the Key photographer in front of a sign painted directly onto the side of a building. While SICSIC Sez signs are more commonly painted on posters and then taped to the side of buildings, this image documents the

SICSIC six vandalizing university property. This photo additionally documents two blackface masks (on the two men pictured in the middle) that were worn by members in the 1960s. The other four masks are difficult to make out—one appears to have markings similar to clown paint

(second from the left), while the other three can be described as vaguely bizarre. As early as

1960, SICSIC members began wearing blackface and otherwise racialized masks. Between the traditional clown and ski masks of the 1950s and the horror masks starting in the mid-1960s,

SICSIC openly masqueraded as the racial Other. Because this photo was published in the Key, these members would have specifically chosen these masks to represent their roles in the group.

These pictured members (and the many other individuals who have been photographed wearing such masks over the years) were proud to perform and ridicule the racial Other for the betterment of their university.

Fig. 4. SICSIC Six Wear Blackface Masks (The Key, 1960, 134). 105

In 1965, Toledo’s The Blade ran a story on SICSIC, explaining that “despite [their] aura of secrecy and intrigue, [SICSIC’s] purpose is the one thing that is known. It is SICSIC’s goal to stimulate and spread school spirit.”32 Claiming that SICSIC “thrives on curiosity,” the article defines the secret six in its new form as a carnivalesque crew: “Pursuit by students and the B-G

News, the student newspaper and SICSIC’s most determined antagonist, is regarded an occupational hazard. Never, though, has a member been caught and unmasked before the student body.” The Blade alludes to the thrill of the chase having been a tradition for SICSIC since the sixties, positioning the student body and newspaper as SICSIC’s adversaries. Unlike the campus police who had an understanding with SICSIC, the uninformed Bowling Green city police began to take suspicious notice of six masked individuals slinking around town at night. The Blade’s article comments on an incident when the SICSIC six were confronted by the local police one night and forced to unmask. As the Blade assures, the student’s identities were ultimately protected—the powers that were must have extended their protection of SICSIC into the community of Bowling Green. This kind of power play is not surprising, however, given the community’s intimate history with the university.

Limbacher includes a similar story in his manuscript, when a highway patrolman pulled the SICSIC six over one night in their car and held them for questioning until the campus police intervened. While the campus police played an important role in keeping SICSIC functioning smoothly into the 1960s (The B-G News, October 31,1961, 2), the archival record shows members Jim Oliver and Jack Baker requesting less frequent accompaniment from the officers in

1966. Passing the message onto President Jerome, his secretary explained in a memo: “Two

32 Xeroxed article, October 13, 1965, box 3, file 6: “Clippings,” "Shhhh! It's SICSIC: Secret BGSU organization stimulates school spirit,” The Blade (no author). No page numbers. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 106 senior members of SicSic… would tactfully like to prevent the police officer from taking part in all their raids although there are a few on which he is welcome.”33 Attached to the memo is a draft of Jerome’s request to the mentioned officer on behalf of SICSIC. It reads:

This communication is in regard to the work which you perform for the

organization known as SICSIC. Even though your aid is undoubtedly an asset to

the safety of the members, the “element of the chase” could possibly be lost to the

campus… [SICSIC members] may have overlooked the provisions of the

constitution by which they are governed. (“Members shall seek help or protection

only in extremely dangerous or special situations such as constructing displays or

entering housing units.”) The purpose of this article in their constitution is not to

endanger the identity or safety of those members of SICSIC, but to perpetuate the

founding tradition of giving the student body the opportunity to catch them.

With this letter, the president’s secretary is rewriting the history and origin of BGSU’s spirit crew, redefining their purpose and practices on campus to center around the traditional element of “the chase.” SICSIC’s get-out-of-jail-free card seems to have been ironically limiting, and officers were ultimately getting in the way of some of their night-time activities. In response to the group’s predicament, BGSU’s administration was willing to invent an excuse to help SICSIC escape supervision. It is easy to guess which “raids” they would require the officer’s presence for, as SICSIC’s interest in entering women’s dormitories was nearing its peak.

Despite the support SICSIC was relying on from their administration, the university president and SICSIC advisors began to receive complaints concerning their secretive behavior.

33 Letter, January 11, 1966, box 1, file 4: “Correspondence,” "Memorandum: Office of the President,” Authored by “Mrs. H,” office secretary. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 107

Jim Limbacher includes several of these complaints in his manuscript, prefaced with his complaint that “all was not perfect in the 1960’s” (20). He writes:

On January 6, 1967, President Jerome received a letter from an off-campus

student who was very angry about SICSIC being allowed in Prout Hall where his

fiancée lived. He objected to the secret six wandering through the second and

third floor hallways when the campus was assured that the members would never

go past the lounge area. The writer went on: “I ask you, Dr. Jerome, how were

these girls supposed to know that these characters in their who-do outfits were our

innocent SICSIC boys? Don’t you think that the memory of last year’s Chicago

slaying of 8 student nurses must have went through their minds?34 Is this the type

of conduct that this University condones from 6 of its supposedly brightest male

students? If so, I have lived and gone to school here through 4 years of

illusionment” (20).

Limbacher notes how President Jerome replied to the concerned fiancé, defending the honor of the group, and claiming that this complaint was the first he had personally heard of in his years as university president (20). If this indeed was the first complaint Jerome received, he was soon to hear more.

A similar complaint is preserved by the university archives in the form of written correspondence—an exchange of letters between David F. Sprunk and President Jerome. In his letter, dated January of 1967, Sprunk follows up on a previous incident in which SICSIC carried

34 The “Chicago slaying of 8 student nurses” refers to the 1966 Richard Speck rape and murder of eight South Chicago Community Hospital student nurses in their dormitory. This reference connects BGSU’s campus to a national climate of concern towards female student’s safety in the 1960s. While Limbacher may have included this complaint as an extreme example of concerns about SICSIC, this letter actually contextualizes the absurdity of SICSIC’s behavior at this time period. 108 out a different midnight raid in a residence hall. Concerned that his own report of the incident to the police was rejected, he inquires: “I do not know which comments of mine, the Police

Department was in disagreement with. I would be very interested in hearing their viewpoints on the matter.” Persisting that his report be taken seriously, Sprunk reiterates:

I have rechecked each word of my letter and still contend that it is fact. I also

want to add that a girl at Prout Hall received a sprained ankle and has suffered

pain and fallen behind in her studies because of this incident. Who is responsible?

I think this should be determined.

When a girl is hurt and many others frightened at 1 a.m. in a private residence

hall, it seems to me that the Police have slipped somewhere. No Sir, I do not think

that my comments about the Police Department are unfair at all.35

Sprunk contradicts Limbacher’s account of students’ appreciation of SICSIC and their unchecked privilege. Sprunk’s letter suggests that the injured student and her disturbed neighbors were disregarded by both campus police and university president. President Jerome’s response suggests that Sprunk was on to something, but that Jerome prioritized the SICSIC crew’s freedom over the rights of other students. Dated February 9th, Jerome writes, “Dear Mr.

Sprunk,”

Justice Holmes once commented that if the significance of the facts in a situation

is perceived then the facts themselves could be forgotten. Thus it is not the facts

as you presented them [which I question,] I simply do not share your perception

of their significance nor of the University’s responsibility for what transpired. Sic

Sic will go to a girl’s residence hall only when invited. If any of the girls find the

35 Letter, January 19, 1967, box 1, file 4: “Correspondence,” “Letter to President Jerome,” authored by David F. Sprunk. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 109

hour or the occasion unseemly, what is to keep them from remaining in the

privacy of their own rooms?36

The president’s refusal to seriously consider “the facts” of SICSIC’s violating and potentially violent night raid is an alarming confirmation of the group’s power and immunity at BGSU. The claim that the secret six did not visit dorms unless invited is backed up by Limbacher’s commentary on difficulties brought up in this time. Sometime around the mid-sixties, BGSU’s

Dean of Women, Florence Currier, began inquiring into SICSIC’s behavior towards female students in their dormitories at night. After several unwelcome visits, SICSIC was temporarily banned from entering women’s dorms at night by Currier—an action rendered ill-humored by

SICSIC’s historian (1991, 20). By dismissing her concerns with his explanation, “She felt that no man should be able to see women in curlers and in nightclothes” (20), Limbacher belittles

Currier’s job of looking out for her female students and disregards these students’ right to privacy. Eventually, a deal was made to end the ban, only if SICSIC refrained from visiting women’s dorms unless having made previous arrangements. While the archives do not record any university officials’ complaints about SICSIC’s treatment of women until the mid-1980s,

Limbacher’s manuscript proves that this disruptive behavior was going on for quite some time before the President’s Office started to take female students’ discomfort seriously. In the 1960s, however, whistleblowers like Sprunk and Currier were regarded as bad sports.

In 1960, the Key published its annual SICSIC page with an image of three masked members taping a sign on a sorority house door (Fig. 5, pictured below). Captioned, “Delta

Gammas, awakened by male voices outside the door, peered out to find SIC-SIC at work,” the yearbook staff allude to the normalcy of this practice. In 1966, the Key includes an image of the

36 Letter, February 9, 1967, box 1, file 4: “Correspondence,” “Letter to Mr. Sprunk,” authored by Wm. Travers Jerome III. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 110

SICSIC six peering into a coed dorm window at night (Fig. 6, pictured below). Captioned

“Moonlighting has its benefits. SICSIC welcomes freshman coeds,” the alarming nature of such an image is elided by SICSIC’s seemingly humorous right to invade female students’ privacy.

Both images suggest male students’ anxieties about women on campus, and a desire to dominate all-female spaces like sorority houses and coed dormitories. When SICSIC had the right to enter women’s locked buildings at any time in the night, it seems that they also “benefited” from creeping into their windows. The 1960 image additionally documents several racialized masks— while they would not necessarily fall into the category of Halloween or horror masks, they mimic blackface with their vaguely masculine features and black skin tone.37

Fig. 5. Delta Gammas Awakened by SICSIC (The Key, 1960, 134).

Fig. 6. “Moonlighting Has Its Benefits” (The Key, 1966, 93).

37 These may be the same blackface masks previously pictured. 111

Included in Limbacher’s collection of pictures, a 1968 image of SICSIC at work (Fig. 7, pictured below) is captioned “We never said the signs made any sense.”38 This photograph alludes to several campus anxieties at once: the racialized mask signifies Asian racial stereotypes, addressing racial anxieties of the ongoing Vietnam War; the sign depicting two spread feminine legs encourages readers to “leg it,” or “legit,” or both, addressing gendered and sexual anxieties pictured so voyeuristically in the previous images; and the caption Limbacher provides in his manuscript is once again an overcompensating justification for the photograph, highlighting the privilege that kept SICSIC and this type of behavior sanctioned for so many years. Images such as this suggest an alignment between SICSIC’s performed misogyny and racism, demonstrating how maleness and whiteness were both values and anxieties for the group.

By putting these two anxieties in conversation with one another, the carnivalesque SICSIC was putting them into play as both sexually desirable and socially outcast.

Fig. 7. “SICSIC Sez Leg It!” (Limbacher 1992, 39).

38 While the image has no date, the masks pictured are photographed several times in the late sixties. By comparing the masks and coveralls worn to other images of SICSIC published in the Key yearbooks, I estimate the year to have been 1968. Limbacher, 1992, 39. 112

Fig. 8. SICSIC Six Wear Gore Masks (The Key, 1966, 93).

In their senior reveal photo (Fig. 8, pictured above), two unmasked seniors pose with their masked underclassman in an administrative office (most likely their hideout) in 1966. The masked members wear unrecognizable yet off-putting horror masks in one of the first SICSIC portraits to include such gory costumes. This transition from racialized masks to scary masks signifies an amalgamation of the two; by quietly transitioning their performance of the non-white

Other to that of the horrifying monster, and never explaining or acknowledging this transition,

SICSIC acted on the presupposition that the two were interchangeable if not one in the same. For the SICSIC of the sixties, the threat of the racial Other was just as horrific as a murderous monster. The underclassmen are shown wearing darker coveralls compared to their senior counterparts, whose uniforms are visibly stained with a dark liquid. While the stains are probably black and red paint, the splatter effect adds an additional layer of horror to their masked appearance—especially if beheld at night. It became a tradition to signify superiority of the seniors with designated coveralls, as well as superiority of the group in general by taking their yearbook photos in precarious or prohibited places, such as atop an administrator’s desk. Over the years, this concept of superiority would develop into a generational and class competition— the cohort or seniors to pull off the riskiest stunts or taboo photographs earned a valued place in 113 the folklore and history of the group. Stories about the rowdiness of the “old days” are still told at the annual SICSIC alumni breakfast.

Evolving Values — the 1970s

The 1970s section of Limbacher’s manuscript begins: “The 1970’s marked two major events for SICSIC. First, Hollis A. Moore was sworn in as University President and, second, the secret six pledged its first female member!” (23). Limbacher very briefly mentions Sara Sue

Stanley as SICSIC’s “first female member,” initiated in the 1970’s. When exactly she was initiated is not mentioned, but she is listed as having been unmasked in 1973 (23). She apparently received her letter “like everyone else,” in her Delta Gamma sorority house. After this brief detail, Limbacher states that “the rest is history” (24), as if women were a part of the group from then on. However, the next woman to be initiated into SICSIC after Stanley was not until 1989.

Gregg DeCrane offered his own opinion on the subject:

[Stanley] was not a member for that long a period of time… I don’t personally

consider her significant in regards to the women being involved because it was a

one-time thing. [And] I don’t think it was a three-year commitment. I think it may

have been to replace somebody, and, knowing the group back then, it might have

been that she was somebody’s girlfriend at the time. I’m only speculating simply

from the standpoint that if women were involved when Sara was there, why

wasn’t another woman involved for fifteen years?

This is an excellent question which raises more questions to both the accuracy of Limbacher’s history as well as the Key’s publication of Stanley’s unmasking in 1974. Sitting with her crew, 114

Sara Sue Stanley poses unmasked with the other senior member Kirk Philip for their unmasking photograph for the yearbook (Fig. 9, pictured below).

Fig. 9. Sara Sue Stanley’s Unmasking Photograph (The Key, 1973, 164).

Not pictured in the photograph is SICSIC member Gary Smith, also noted to have been unmasked and graduated in 1973 by BGSU’s SICSIC alumni webpage.39 It is possible that

Stanley was Smith’s stand-in member, which would explain Stanley’s ambiguity and the confusion of the varying stories. Because the commitment to secrecy and spirit has always been so central to SICSIC, it was and still is common for initiated members to be dropped and replaced if they cannot protect their identities or keep up with the nocturnal schedule. These replaced members are never unmasked or recognized as alumni, and their replacements are recognized in their stead. If Sara Sue Stanley was Gary Smith’s replacement, why is Smith still recognized by the university as an alumnus? While he is additionally included with SICSIC alumni in Limbacher’s manuscript, Smith is not mentioned anywhere in the 1973 yearbook. The confusing and varying histories suggest that there may have been an incident involving Stanley which needed covering up to protect SICSIC’s and the university’s names. Since Stanley refused

39 https://www.bgsu.edu/dean-of-students/spirit-and-traditions/sicsic/the-members.html 115 to participate in an interview for this project, I have only SICSIC rumors to go on. I cannot corroborate any of what follows.

Julie Johnson’s story40 further complicates the narrative; at her unmasking in 1991,

Johnson was celebrated as the first female member of SICSIC, contradicting Limbacher’s,

DeCrane’s, and the Key’s versions of the group’s history. Johnson explained how after her unmasking, no one expected her to be a woman “because they had never had a female” SICSIC member. Correcting herself, Johnson mentioned that there was a female member in the seventies but “she only lasted maybe not even a year because she had gotten pregnant.” She said, “I was surprised when I saw [Stanley’s name] in Prout Chapel because Gregg [DeCrane] had said, I was the first female.” When I mentioned that Stanley had an unmasking photo in the yearbook, she replied:

That is interesting, I don’t know why it would be in there... unless the advisor

back then thought it would cause less discussion about why she couldn’t remain

in the group because you couldn’t be in SICSIC and be pregnant. It’s just not safe.

And of course, back then, it could have been a sexist reason. I don’t know, those

were the times back then. I’m not really sure what that was about. When I asked,

they said “There was a female, but she was only in it for a very short time when

she got pregnant and she couldn’t finish her term in SICSIC.” And then they

didn’t want to have another female for that reason, and understandably so!

I cannot confirm whether a female member of SICSIC did become pregnant and was thus instructed to leave. The rumors, however, suggest deep-seated anxieties about women’s roles in

40 Now married, I refer to her with her maiden name throughout due to the popularity and recognition of her name as Julie Johnson. With her consent, I do not use a pseudonym for Johnson—due to the important context of her gendered experience, any attempt to conceal her identity would limit the value of her interviews. 116 the group and on campus. A pregnancy in the 1970s among “the best of the best” would have been a barrier not only for an individual female college student in a male-dominated environment, but also for SICSIC as a social club claiming to be an honorary society. Anxieties about women’s safety were expressed by Johnson, as well as sexism and shaming in a conservative time period. While she didn’t join SICSIC until 1989, Johnson still felt obligated to prove her worth as SICSIC’s first official female member. For approximately forty years, female sexuality was included among the campus’ top anxieties and most likely influenced much of

SICSIC’s activity.

While he does not include any information about Stanley’s involvement with SICSIC,

Limbacher does mention how the group took it upon themselves to be socially engaged in their community in the 1970s. He states, “As an example of social responsibility, SICSIC put up a sign at the Infirmary which said: ‘Birth Control Prevents Future Falcons’ to promote the availability of birth control items at the Student Health Center” (1991, 25). This specific example could have been a subtle stab at Stanley and her removal from the group. Regardless, the sign seems to mock the pregnant female body as unacceptable on campus. Johnson’s insistence that being pregnant in SICSIC was too dangerous indicates that the secret actions of the group could have been life threatening to the baby and the mother. However, it is just as likely that conservative views of women as the weaker sex, and pregnant women as particularly helpless and frail, influenced SICSIC’s attitude toward women on campus (and in the group). The rumor of a SICSIC pregnancy seems to have grown into a legend, adding another layer of risk to

SICSIC’s practices as well as their reputation. It is easy to picture the idea of pregnancy becoming an anxiety for the group themselves, in addition to the campus and university. If 117 pregnancy can be performed in mask and costume, SICSIC might just be obliged to do so. In real life, however, the risks were not worth it.

Limbacher’s detail about the birth control SICSIC Sez sign also contradicts DeCrane’s claim that SICSIC had no role in politics—an honorary men’s society advising students to prevent pregnancies is a deeply political act. This message indicates a new political influence on campus, highlighting a change in the tone of SICSIC’s famous signs. Where they previously focused on destroying various sports teams, SICSIC was now speaking on community issues, such as teen and/or student pregnancies. Openly recognizing that BGSU’s students were sexually active represents a big step for SICSIC, shifting with the evolving campus culture rather than against it. While the group’s reaction to student pregnancy was patronizing and shaming of sexual and/or pregnant female bodies, this is, nonetheless, the first time SICSIC’s historical record indicates a turn from BGSU’s traditional platform and towards a more progressive, modern campus culture. It seems that the 1970’s SICSIC was progressing in a way that the contemporary SICSIC looks back on with disapproval. Like DeCrane reiterated, SICSIC’s purpose was “to promote spirit, not be political.” Given that he was the head of SICSIC’s revamping process in the 1980’s, DeCrane would know all about the now forbidden practices that SICSIC once cherished. For the SICSIC members themselves, the masks, the performances, and the signs were about much more than just school spirit; social and political issues were of great importance to the group.

Beginning in Prout’s days, SICSIC was often involved with Greek life on campus—it was usually sorority sisters who helped the secret six make various displays and plan events, and the big reveal in the spring was held during the biggest fraternity event of the whole year. The annual Bed Race held each spring invited all sororities and fraternities to compete in decorations 118 and speed as they pushed one another across the quad on mattresses and beds. It was at this event that SICSIC held their unmasking ceremony as early as 1964. By the seventies, SICSIC was closely tied with BGSU’s Greek orders, and were often affiliated with one another. Most if not all members of SICSIC were members of a fraternity—a trend that quickly became a problem for the secret honorary group. The success of the fraternity-led protests in the sixties propelled a party tradition across BGSU’s campus, rewriting students’ social traditions along with the relaxed codes of conduct. Now that SICSIC was less of a secret society and more of a social fraternity, its six members were not immune to the growing party culture. The college party became a tradition for most Greek and social student organizations, including SICSIC.

After the comment made about SICSIC’s nightclub celebration for Prout’s retirement in

1951, Limbacher does not mention drinking as a SICSIC tradition until his section “Remembered

Events” from the 1970s. The last story involved Prout’s selected few spending quality time at a nightclub in downtown Toledo. This time, the story suggests that in the seventies, bar visitations took place during SICSIC’s night raids, documenting a new tradition for SICSIC to perform their masquerades intoxicated—possibly even drinking in mask (25). Limbacher’s willingness to include this story indicates the normalcy of the event and marks a new tradition for SICSIC functioning as a social club, not much different from a fraternity.

119

Fig. 10. SICSIC Members Pose on Basketball Hoop (The Key, 1970, 176).

Despite DeCrane’s claim that SICSIC kept a low profile during the Political Sixties, the group was in fact digressing from the conservative morals instilled by Prout and McDonald. As the decades of historic student activism and wartime came to an end, SICSIC had developed a knack for troublemaking. In their 1970 yearbook picture, the SICSIC seniors posed unmasked atop the BGSU stadium basketball goal, implying an inherent right to such forbidden and dangerous behavior (Fig. 10, seen above). One member is pictured wearing a mask suggestive of blackface, indicating that throughout the sixties, and possibly into the seventies, SICSIC members were blatantly performing the racial Other. In the 1970s, the secret six recognized the rift between BGSU’s student body and administration and acted on it. By taking advantage of the student unrest and campus transformation, the SICSIC of the Political Sixties altered their techniques of leadership and influence by adapting with the newly lenient campus culture. The progressive changes to BGSU’s campus was reflected through SICSIC’s radical transformation into a popularity contest and social club. And yet, the members preserved traditional values through the carnivalesque rituals of performing of the demographic Other, harassing audience members and bystanders alike, and vandalizing their campus. In 1978, the Key published a photo of two SICSIC members actively creeping around bushes at night wearing Halloween masks

(Fig. 11, seen below). The tradition to drink before, during, and after their night raids blurs the line between a traditional secret society and a modern social fraternity. The tradition of stalking and startling students on campus does not sound like spreading school spirit or encouraging commendable student behavior. Rather, it sounds like the behavior of a drunken social club dedicated to mocking very real anxieties of the Other. The transformed carnivalesque SICSIC was still signifying on all things criminal, playing up the criminalesque as often as possible for the betterment of their campus. 120

Fig. 11. SICSIC Members Sneaking (The Key, 1978, 197).

By the end of the 1970s, BGSU’s spirit organization was gaining a negative reputation on campus. The group, nonetheless, continued to be praised by BGSU’s administration. Both

President Jerome and President Moore were honorary members and wholeheartedly supported

SICSIC’s actions and reputation, often defending their honor as the complaints began to pile up.

Limbacher includes words of gratitude from both presidents in his manuscript. He also mentions a new tradition for SICSIC: added by the administration in the seventies, an annual SICSIC scholarship awarded one student a cash prize “based on academic merit and university involvement” (1991, 23).41 As invested as they were in rebuilding their relationship with the student body, it appears that BGSU’s administration either ignored SICSIC’s problematic actions and contradictory values, or they honestly felt that there was no conflict. Either way, the evolving

SICSIC of the Political Sixties was rewarded for their devoted years of school spirit and upholding their status as exemplary students.

Summary

41 Over the years, the amount awarded increased significantly, as the alumni eventually became responsible for the funds. In 1977, the SICSIC scholarship was $300 (1991, 23). 121

The 1961 student protests changed BGSU’s campus culture for good, rewriting outdated rules and restrictions and advocating for minorities on campus and their rights as students. The

SICSIC of this active generation took advantage of the newly relaxed liquor laws and adapted the practice of drinking as a new tradition. The tradition of wearing Halloween masks continued, as did the element of fear; while the blackface and racialized masks faded out, racial elements persisted. The 1978 Key yearbook offers a glimpse of the evolved carnivalesque SICSIC towards the end of the decade (Fig. 12, pictured below): the two unmasked SICSIC seniors pose for their yearbook picture with a noose—their Halloween masked constituencies stand behind them in support. By posing with a noose, this SICSIC crew consciously signifies and plays with racialized anxieties and violent cultural memories of lynching and criminality. It is through the element of carnivalesque that fear and anxiety are mocked, further contorting the secrecy of

BGSU’s spirit crew.

Fig. 12. SICSIC Members Pose with Noose (The Key, 1978, 175).

In the following chapter, I analyze the decade of the 1980s, notorious for its conservative political pushback, as well as SICSIC’s peak in carnivalesque masquerading of the racialized

Other. As BGSU progressed further into the century, issues of political correctness clashed in and outside of the classroom and across campus, providing yet another tense atmosphere and campus culture for SICSIC to play with. In the third chapter, I include interviews of several 122

SICSIC alumni which offer insight into these controversial times. Despite their attempt to appeal to their contemporaries in the Political Sixties, SICSIC ironically found themselves performing for a tough crowd in the eighties as the campus’s resentment towards their actions grew. In addition to the changing political climate, BGSU’s board of trustees hired a new president with a different take on school spirit than the previous university presidents. Without support from the student body nor from their administration, SICSIC found their values questioned and challenged synonymously for the first time. 123

CHAPTER III. CONTROVERSY

Following the progressive Political Sixties and late seventies, American culture and politics took a conservative turn in the 1980s. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor describes this response as a “conservative backlash” following the activism of the 1960s and 70s, as the “ruling class

[wanted] to reestablish control over the direction of the country” (2016, 55). By the 1980s, the country’s elite had formed ranks within a bipartisan effort to reclaim power from the coalition of minorities that mobilized in the preceding decades. Republicans and Democrats together advanced the War on Crime and the War on Drugs, which used color-blind rhetoric to target poor, non-white communities with stricter laws and harsher punishments for “poor-man’s” drugs such as crack cocaine and marijuana. Since color-blind policy wasn’t entirely a political issue, social pressures for political correctness began to shift into color-blind policies and rhetoric, indicating an adaptation of colorblindness on a cultural level. In the 1980s and 1990s, the two ideologies of PC and colorblindness fueled American debates around social issues and the emerging identities that clashed with old values and privileges. These national anxieties can be observed up-close on the American college campus, where political correctness was hotly debated, and where public institutions adapted color-blind rhetoric to address—or avoid—issues of racial representation and equality.42

In this chapter, I observe national and cultural changes concerning minorities as they were manifested on college campuses through debates about equal representation and access to education. For Bowling Green State University, these changes and anxieties were reflected

42 Over the last five decades, education reforms such as the Standards and Accountability movement and the School Choice policies have countered the theory of affirmative action with color-blind, outcome-based solutions (Wells, 2014). In addition to biased admissions offices whose claims to practice affirmative action fall short, these race- blind, bipartisan policies have allowed racial issues to remain overlooked and unacknowledged on college campuses. That no one has successfully challenged the racial implications of SICSIC’s masquerading suggests an established color-blind mentality among BGSU’s leaders and influencers. 124 through traditional students’ growing contention with women, the LGBT community, and students of color on campus, along with SICSIC’s controversial comments and actions. This chapter is divided into two parts. Part One focuses on the 1980s, when college campuses became a hotbed for politically correctness. Part Two observes the rise of progressive policies on

American college campus in the 1990s. After laying out a brief overview of a changing

American college campus culture, I then analyze the shifting political climate at BGSU and the resulting transformation of SICSIC’s role as spirit crew. I argue that the disablement of SICSIC in the late 1980s was a result of the group’s resistance to political correctness on an increasingly liberal campus. Initially terminating the group in 1987, President Olscamp eventually decided that SICSIC be given a second chance to continue their traditions on campus, only after a year of contemplation and discussion with a faculty member. From 1988 to 1989, SICSIC went through a revamping process with appointed advisor Gregg DeCrane as an attempt for SICSIC to adapt to the progressive change evolving on Bowling Green State University’s campus. By the fall of

1989, SICSIC had submitted a new constitution to the university president and began the semester on a new foot—one to better reflect a modern college campus. I read SICSIC’s increasingly carnivalesque performances as a response to racial anxieties, and the improved appearances of the post-1980s SICSIC to reflect the university’s aim at being representative of a democratic institution. Again, my research rests on university archives and Jim Limbacher’s publication of SICSIC’s traditions and practices, plus interviews with the following individuals:

SICSIC advisor Gregg DeCrane; celebrated first female SICSIC member, Julie Johnson; and five white male SICSIC alumni who graduated from BGSU between the years of 1980 and 1999

(who asked to remain anonymous). 125

Thirty years after Prout’s retirement, BGSU’s “best of the best” spirit crew had become

“the coolest of the cool” after the group transformed the selection process into a fraternity popularity contest by tapping their friends and familiars. By 1988, the BGSU administration was ready to disband the infamous carnivalesque crew, as it no longer stood for the original values envisioned by President Prout in the 1940s. While they could no longer completely go back to the values and practices of the 1940s, BGSU implemented a revamping of the social club, hoping to get the SICSIC six as close as they could to the origins of the honorary society. Through

SICSIC, BGSU’s campus culture was to continue into a progressive era while following the deeply conservative mantra hidden within the famously cryptic name of the group: sic, sic, “it is as it was, it is as it was.”43

“America is a land of masking jokers. We wear the mask for purposes of aggression as well as for defense; when we are projecting the future and preserving the past.” Ralph Ellison, Shadow & Act (1964, 55)

National Anxieties in the 1980s

In accordance with the conservative backlash against the Political Sixties, extreme changes to previously progressive policies were signed into law. Critical ethnic studies scholars like Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994), Joe R. Feagin (2013), and Keeanga-Yamahtta

Taylor (2016), observe an emergence of color-blind policy as a tactic used by American politicians to reinforce racist and classist hierarchies in modern society. Defined as “an ideological tool, initially wielded by conservatives in the Nixon era to resist the growing

43 While the document, “The Official History of SICSIC,” does not explicitly state this is the meaning, it is obvious that the definition of “sic” is associated with the meaning of the name as it was decided by the original members on the famous night of October 5, 1946. Document, October 1, 1991, 2001 ADD box 9, file “SICSIC,” "The Official History of SICSIC," no author. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 126 acceptance of ‘institutional racism’ as the central explanation for Black inequality” (Taylor,

2016, 17-18), color blindness persisted into the following decades to eliminate race and racial language from US law, without addressing the institutional inequalities that led to racial disparities. While emerging liberalism and the emphasis on political correctness shook the conservative and privileged foundations of both American society and higher education, color- blind policies helped political and university officials, faculty, staff, and students alike negotiate with the line between correct and respectful when it came to racial discrimination. For the

SICSIC members in the 1980s, this negotiation is observable in their refusal to assign meaning to most of their customs and rituals. Without any overt racial criteria for membership, the group could plausibly deny that their group and the crew’s behavior were racist. Thus, the racialized carnivalesque practices of the SICSIC six in the 1980s were never criticized as such and remained politically correct no matter how disrespectful they were for certain viewers.

BGSU in the 1980s

In 1982, Paul J. Olscamp became President of Bowling Green State University, taking the campus in a new direction. In a two-page spread in the 1983 Key, Olscamp is described as an adventurous man of mystery who sails, skis, and dives around the world.44 Maybe a fresh face and an outsider was just what the growing BGSU campus needed. President Olscamp would find out quickly that his hands were about to be full of the university’s historical resistance to change.

Although Olscamp had a controversial and rocky start,45 he stabilized BGSU’s finances and encouraged student discourse in open forums and debates on campus. During his presidency,

44 The Key, 1983, 27. 45 The Board of Trustees kept its eleven-month search for the new president a secret from the campus community. BGSU, “President Paul J. Olscamp,” online article. 127

Olscamp witnessed a dramatic increase in student enrolment. As such, he also oversaw an increasingly heterogeneous campus culture, which led to conflicts among student groups.

Already home to a notoriously misbehaving secret society, Bowling Green was additionally becoming a site of controversy around race and gender discrimination. By 1987,

President Olscamp had taken the initiative to assign his Vice President of Student Affairs, Mary

Edwards, the job of reporting “possible problems on campus.” One of her reports in February of

1987 lists three separate incidents of racial and sexual discrimination, with evidence attached.

Edwards begins, “I am writing to apprise you of a deep concern and unrest in the Black community which could become problematic.”46 The incidents described include cases of racial discrimination in job termination, office harassment and isolation, and racial mockery in the form of a “Buckwheat poster” and “Buckwheat Cup” displayed and used in the Public Safety

Department. While these incidents were strictly among the staff, professional racial and sexual conflicts reflect the political environment at BGSU in the 1980s: increasing scrutiny of white racial entitlement, which was becoming recognized as inappropriate and unacceptable.

The Plain Dealer newspaper article, “Race issue flares at BGSU,” indicates that this problem was well known on campus as well as the surrounding community.47 Because racial and sexual discrimination was evident by faculty and staff in positions of authority, it can be assumed that there was a level of acceptance for this kind of harassing behavior that the students were most likely aware of. That the town of Bowling Green was becoming aware of this issue, specifically as a problem, suggests that the historically conservative surrounding community of

46 Letter with attached photocopy of flier, February 16, 1987, “2001 ADD” box 9, file “Racism 86-88”, “Letter to President Olscamp”, authored by Mary M. Edwards. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 47 Xeroxed copy of The Plain Dealer news article, May 11, 1987, “2001 ADD” box 9, file “Racism 86-88”, “Race issue flares at BGSU”, authored by Cindy Skawgen, page 1. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 128

Wood County may have been additionally evolving with the campus towards a more liberal and progressive force of accountability.

Acts of discrimination did not only occur within staff ranks at BGSU. In the Fall of 1989, the BG News published two letters to the editor concerned about campus vandalism and harassment against the Lesbian and Gay Alliance (LAGA) student community. Titled

“Tolerance, not vandalism, key to campus diversity” and “Bigotry, insults more insulting than pink triangles,” the two letters offer a glimpse into some of the homophobia problems on

BGSU’s campus in the late eighties, such as “anti-gay epithets” and “derogatory comments about homosexuals” written on campus after Coming Out Day.48 These displays of homophobia on campus are referenced in one of President Olscamp’s letters in the president’s archival records.

In a letter to the BG News, Olscamp wrote:

There have been isolated incidents of bigoted behavior particularly directed

towards lesbians and gay men on the Bowling Green campus in recent weeks. I

want to make clear to all of the University’s various publics the University

position on such matters. Bigoted and harassing behavior, no matter what group it

may be directed against, is not tolerated or condoned in any way at Bowling

Green State University… [BGSU] will do everything in its power to disassociate

itself from individuals guilty of such conduct, to prosecute illegal behavior

associated with it, and to maintain a campus climate conducive to the

maintenance of personal dignity, civil behavior, and tolerance of diversity.49

48 The BG News, October 24, 1989, 2. 49 Letter to the BG News, November 1, 1989, box 40, file 7, “Letter to BG News”, authored by Paul J. Olscamp, President. Olscamp, Paul J., Office of the President Records, 1965-1999. UA 002H. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 129

For a historically conservative white state university, Olscamp’s emphasis on tolerance and diversity must have been bold. By the late 1980s, the dynasty of misogyny and bigotry was slowly becoming socially unacceptable; slowly encroaching on its domain was the era of the political correctness debate, creating a social conflict that further burdened SICSIC’s struggle to maintain a strong presence.

Evolving Traditions

Fig. 13. “SICSIC Sez We Love Jail-Bait” (The Key, 1980, 231).

In the spring of 1980, the Key printed their annual SICSIC page with a striking image of the secret six posing in a jail cell next to a SICSIC Sez sign reading, “We love jail-bait” (see Fig.

13 above). Following the previously discussed 1978 senior unmasking photo of the SICSIC six posing next to a noose, this 1980 unmasking photo shows how the SICSIC of the eighties was picking up precisely where they left off—playing with and performing highly racialized anxieties. Taken by a Key photographer in the Wood County Jail, this picture is a result of a photoshoot arranged by then-SICSIC advisor, Tim Smith, who was also conveniently the County 130

Manager.50 It appears that even in the 1980s, BGSU’s SICSIC crew remained intimately connected with local politics. In 1981, Smith received a letter requesting that he send prisoner coveralls to BGSU. The request, typed on official BGSU letterhead, reads, “Dear Tim, If you could provide coveralls from the jail as you have before, it would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Cary Brewer, Registrar.”51 As it has been a long-standing tradition for the SICSIC six to masquerade across campus in prisoner’s uniforms, it makes sense for the unmasking seniors to pose in an actual jail cell for their Key reveal. It is not known how long Tim Smith provided these prisoner’s coveralls for SICSIC. However, it is believable that some county official or another has been in on the secret for quite some time—that is, at least since the 1950s. Whether or not the origin of the coveralls had been a secret of SICSIC, I do not know. Nevertheless, the source of the coveralls reveals much about SICSIC’s values, especially in the 1980s when race, class, and crime were almost constantly in the news. Just like the choice of a noose and jail cell as photoshoot backdrops, the choice to wear county jail coveralls as costume has uncomfortable resonances with the nation’s history of criminalizing and incarcerating minority communities.

When asked about taking senior unmasking photos in such culturally taboo places, one participant replied that they wanted to be as creative as possible. Considering this photo, the participant could not explain why the jail was chosen as the location of the photoshoot, other than it being a “creative” choice. The “ghoulish” Halloween masks worn by the SICSIC underclassmen in this picture are not easily overlooked, neither should they be—posing as inmates, the masked SICSIC members perform their role as Other, beckoning and mocking their student body from behind bars. The unmasked seniors, however, stand as their white, educated,

50 SICSIC advisor from 1972 until 1978, Tim Smith must have remained well connected with the group, granting them access to the county jail years after his affiliation (Limbacher, 1991, 23). 51 Letter, June 12, 1981, box 2, file 6 “Correspondence”, “Letter to Tim Smith”, authored by Cary Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 131 male selves, standing in total control of the situation as well as the imprisoned Others. When asked about the sign, the participant responded:

Oh, it was tongue-in-cheek (laughs). College has changed in the last 40 years, you

know. In this era, that would be a very politically incorrect statement. I’ll say that

it was a tongue-in-cheek statement—[that] means, not serious.52 I mean,

American culture has changed. You know, look at the #MeToo movement and

what’s going on at Michigan State—a sign like that would be wholly

inappropriate in 2018.53 But [at the time], it was a different culture.

The term jailbait, referring to sexually desirable underage girls, is an interesting phrase to be compared with the Michigan State University sexual assault case—the participant acted as if sexual assault of underaged girls did not happen until recent times. This “different culture” he refers to is a culture of racial and sexual privilege, a cultural norm during a time when whiteness

(and essentially maleness) was elevated as a guaranteed right to speak, write, or indicate any such inappropriate statement. Given the hypersexuality of this carnivalesque SICSIC, this sign was most likely referring to the underaged and otherwise young women arriving to BGSU’s campus every semester. However, considering the racially conscious history of the group, it would also make sense for these members to pose mockingly in a jail cell, welcoming future occupants. By posing next to nooses and inside jail cells, SICSIC plays on the historical stigmas of criminalized, imprisoned, and lynched Americans of color. Intended to be creative representations of the senior’s three years of service in the famous spirit crew, these photographs

52 During his response, I had to ask the participant to explain himself several times. The response, “it was a tongue- in-cheek statement” was the only answer he gave to explain the meaning of the sign. He had a hard time explaining what the phrase “tongue-in-cheek” meant—“not serious” was all he could come up with. 53 The participant refers to the 2016 criminal investigation of Larry Nassar’s sexual assault of students at Michigan State University, many of which were underaged. 132 ultimately represent the main anxiety performed by the secret society over the years: the racialized Other, the nontraditional and thus undesirable student.

In the 1980s, when SICSIC reached its peak in controversial behavior, the United States was going through a major cultural transformation concerning the values of crime and punishment. SICSIC of the nineteen eighties would have no doubt been playing with the fears and anxieties portrayed in the news and media, mocking the apparent fate of the growing prison populations. However, SICSIC’s valued “different culture” was increasingly questioned by

BGSU’s student body as the decade wore on, indicating that the members’ peers were not so keen on this kind of culture. What would unfold was a battle between the controversial SICSIC six, their critical student contemporaries, and BGSU’s administration who continued to struggle in finding a balance between traditional and modern campus values.

Beginning in the mid- to late seventies, SICSIC was already receiving numerous complaints from students and university officials. By the 1980s, the group had developed a bad reputation on campus, as well as faced resistance from the student body. Not only was their behavior being critiqued as inappropriate, their signs became a hot topic of debate among students, faculty, and staff. In his historical account, Jim Limbacher mentions new “competition” for SICSIC, an anonymous group called “the Phi Alpha Four,” who apparently started hanging their own imitation SICSIC Sez signs across campus in 1981 (1991, 27). These “bogus SICSIC signs… unfortunately [dealt] with religion, racism and rape and were not done by the secret six,” confirms Limbacher (26).54 Despite the secret six’s growing reputation for hanging notoriously offensive signs, SICSIC denied having anything to do with the “unfortunately” politically

54 Limbacher as well as BGSU’s administration must have conflated topics about racism with racist topics. Other sources confirm that these imposter signs were not making offensive comments, but bringing up controversial topics such as rape and race—topics considered “unfortunate” and apparently inappropriate at the time. 133 charged signs of 1981.55 Responding to the incident, the university attempted to discourage

SICSIC’s imposters by “prohibiting campus groups from using graffiti to publicize events;” nevertheless, “SICSIC was excepted!” (27). In the early eighties, amidst the students’ growing discontent, BGSU’s administration continued to support SICSIC. This support from the university can be observed in Limbacher’s “boys will be boys” justification when recording some of the group’s pastimes in the 1980s: describing SICSIC driving the university vehicle through corn fields as a “close call” because they “forgot to take the cornstalks out of the bumper,” and damaging stolen golf carts from the stadium because “the members were not used to using golf carts” (27). In his popular folklore of the group, Limbacher casually dismisses any bit of responsibility and inappropriateness on behalf of the SICSIC six. In addition to the support of the alumni, the university also looked on in favor, essentially sanctioning these acts of vandalism.

Under pressure from the institution, the role of SICSIC advisor must have been a difficult one. When he came on to the job in 1981, BGSU’s Registrar Cary Brewer wrote to SICSIC alumni Steve Shutt asking him for advice when it came to advising the secret six.56 In the midst of all the change and chaos, the administration seems to have been a bit confused about the historical honorary society. Asking the problematic group for advice on how to advise them indicates not only desperation to keep the group afloat, but also a campus-wide loss of history and meaning concerning SICSIC. A letter written to BGSU’s vice president gives an indication of Brewer’s struggle in his first year: “During this past week several masks were taken from the hide-out and we do not know who gained entry…. Tim Smith has not returned the SICSIC scrap

55 It is unknown whether or not “the Alpha Four” was a real imitation group trying to parody and exaggerate SICSIC’s signs. The mysterious signs encouraged discussion around the notorious six nevertheless. 56 Letter, May 18, 1981, box 1, file 6 “Correspondence”, “Letter to Steve Shutt”, authored by Cary Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 134 book and university keys that allow entry to our hide-out. I think we need to change our location.”57 This letter also mentions the impersonating “Phi Alpha Four” as a secret society within the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, on whom Brewer blames any negative views towards

SICSIC. In his first year as advisor, Brewer was floundering, and the secret six were sure to take advantage of his position.

In the spring of 1983, a letter was written to the Director of the School of Technology,

Jerry Streichler, regarding significant damage done to a university building known as the Tech

Annex that served as the SICSIC hideout, as well as other surrounding property including an airport hangar. The letter reads:

The members of the Construction/Design and Aerotechnology Unit have

requested that I write to you and express our deep concern over the apparent

disregard that the SicSic organization has for school property. As I have reported

to you earlier, they are tearing the building apart. We now have aircraft stored in

the structure along with our limited educational equipment. Security in all our

educational areas is now impossible since these individuals have building keys.

It would be very helpful to have their advisor visit the area and see what is being

done with public property. The present situation cannot continue. Please see what

can be done to rectify this matter before serious property loss and damage

occurs.58

It appears that the letter was forwarded to Cary Brewer with a handwritten note from Jerry

Streichler detailing the scene which the authors of the letter requested be visited. The note reads,

57 Memo, November 16, 1981, box 1, file 15 “Copycats”, “Memo to Richard Edwards”, authored by Cary Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 58 Memo, March 18, 1983, box 1, file 19 “Hideout”, “Memo to J. Streichler”, authored by W. Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 135

“Cary: They have put it mildly… SicSic must vacate the area… Beer cans [in the hundreds] - fire hazards... destruction of property are all connected with the operation… Whoever provided them with keys should retrieve some. When they were moved into area [sic], my permission was requested—I must withdraw it immediately—please… call me. I’ll provide more info —Jerry.”59

One member mentioned this incident in his interview, but by way of another member. He suggested I “call his buddy” who would tell me “some good stories” that he himself was uncomfortable sharing. He explained:

He’ll tell you some stories where we probably got into a little bit of trouble. There

was a flight simulator incident out at the airport that almost cost us being shut

down for a while. We took the flight simulator for a little ride, did a little flight

simulation of our own. You can probably imagine that it didn’t go well. But there

was some crazy, crazy stuff that happened along the way. Nothing horrible. No

one got seriously injured or anything like that. Like [he] is definitely one to talk

to. I guess it was even crazier when he was first inducted before my time. You

might get a couple of good stories out of him.

I did not contact this other member. However, this comment says enough about the “good stories” that the alumni still tell today about the good-old days when they got away with some

“crazy, crazy stuff.” This member’s feelings about the airport breach is reflected in the apology letter that SICSIC did eventually send to Jerry Streichler.

One month after receiving the official complaint, the SICSIC six wrote an anonymous letter to Streichler, apologizing for the damage. The letter reads, “The members of SICSIC would like to extend personal apologies to you and your staff regarding the Technology

59 Besides the brackets, this handwritten note is copied word for word, including the ellipses. The bracket indicating the hundreds of beer cans was a detail written to the side of the note, circled, and underlined. 136

Building. While it is not our custom to destroy property, it has been customary that SICSIC was housed in an area that allowed for some ‘spirited’ action.”60 Signed “#1” through “#6,” this letter reads more like a reminder of SICSIC’s historical privilege and authority than an apology.

Nevertheless, it appears that SICSIC was starting to have to take some responsibility for their actions beyond the confines of their secretive circle. Instead of having their car privileges taken away or letting the university president apologize for them, the secret six were being forced to take apologetic action themselves, however shallow it may have been.

Later that month, Streichler wrote to Brewer, informing him of the received apology.

Picking up on the secret six’s insincerity, Streichler insists, “Our faculty still want Sic Sic out of the building for health and safety reasons. Also, since they punched holes in walls upstairs— they’ve proved a model for students—we think—and holes are being punched in walls downstairs—which has been in relatively good shape. Please advise, do I see the President?”61 It appears that SICSIC was permitted to remain in the Tech Annex after all that was said and done, and after being moved down a floor, they continued to actively destroy the school’s property.

According to this SICSIC crew, any space provided as their hideout was liable to “spirited action” and numerous accounts of physical destruction. Based on their actions alone, SICSIC’s idea of school spirit was apparently synonymous with disrespect and destruction. After two years serving as SICSIC’s advisor, Cary Brewer stepped down at the end of the 1983 Fall semester.62

Apparently, whatever advice SICSIC had provided for managing their increasingly destructive behavior did not suffice for the university registrar.

60 Letter, April 5, 1983, box 1, file 6 “Correspondence”, “Letter to Jerry Streichler”, authored by SICSIC. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 61 Memo, April 29, 1983, box 1, file 19 “Hideout”, “Memo to R. McGeein and C. Brewer”, authored by J. Streichler. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 62 Memorandum, December 19, 1983, box 1, file 6 “Correspondence”, “Memo to SICSIC Members”, authored by Cary Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 137

Replacing Brewer as advisor to SICSIC was the then Alumni Director, Larry Weiss, who also kept the job for two years. Despite continuing criticism of SICSIC’s irresponsible behavior,

Limbacher quotes Weiss as having praised the group’s “real camaraderie and spirit” (1991, 23).

Unfortunately for Cary Brewer, he continued to be the recipient of complaints despite Weiss having been appointed advisor. In 1984, Brewer sent a letter to SICSIC member Doug Canovas concerning an upset student who had a negative experience with the masked men. His letter reads:

This is to advise you that I received a call from a resident of the Delta Zeta

Sorority House. She complained about SICSIC’s visit on January 25, 1984. Her

specific complaints were that SICSIC members 1) were on the second and third

floor of the house, 2) entered the girls rooms without notice, 3) arrived at the

house after midnight, and 4) according to her, smelled of beer.

This conduct is unbecoming to SICSIC. I must insist this kind of behavior cease.63

Unlike his previous advice to apologize to Jerry Streichler, Brewer merely insisted that SICSIC’s irresponsible and inappropriate behavior towards female students come to an end—the women of

Delta Zeta apparently did not deserve an apology.

Limbacher seems to agree with Brewer in his recorded version of the story. Under his caption “Sorority Shenanigans,” Limbacher mentions the 1984 complaint from the Delta Zetas, but inaccurately contextualizes the complaint in the form of a letter written to SICSIC, authored by the Zetas themselves. Instead of quoting Brewer directly, he redirects and misquotes the list, changing the last item to say, “according to one resident, they smelled of beer” (27), suggesting only one of the sorority sisters was upset about the men’s intoxication. Limbacher’s sloppy

63 Letter, February 6, 1984, box 1, file 6 “Correspondence”, “Letter to Doug Canovas”, authored by Cary Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 138 research not only takes this complaint out of context, he uses dismissive language, belittling the issue at hand, and puts the blame on some “girls” who were unwilling to play along. Limbacher then jumps two years ahead to celebrate SICSIC’s 40th anniversary, minimizing the conflict, which continued to simmer on campus for months.64

Fig. 14. SICSIC’s Delta Zeta Coveralls (The Key, 1982, 246).

Fig. 15. SICSIC Poses with Open Beer Bottles (The Key, 1984, 300).

Two Key SICSIC senior pictures allude to this conflict. In 1982, seniors Robert Apelt and

Bradley Seaman are pictured in the yearbook (Fig. 14, pictured above). Apelt’s coveralls have a distinct marking on the right shoulder—the Greek letters, Delta Zeta. This could be symbolizing any connection between SICSIC and the sorority. It is telling, however, that it is the same sorority who complained about SICSIC’s inappropriate behavior towards them two years later—

64 Limbacher seems to use this bit of celebratory information as a buffer to his next point concerning SICSIC’s negative reception in the mid-eighties. This is a trend in his writing: alternating positive and negative information on the group’s history, possibly as an attempt to write as fair a history as he could. 139 a problem that had probably been going on for a while before a complaint was made or even heard. In 1984, seniors Anthony (Tony) Zurca and Douglas (Doug) Canovas pose for their Key unmasking photo with open beer bottles (Fig. 15, pictured above).65 This is the same Doug to whom Brewer sent the letter about the Delta Zeta complaints, including the complaint about them smelling of beer. The way these images match up to the documented complaints seem deliberate, as though the seniors are gloating about their SICSIC “shenanigans.”

Two days after writing the Delta Zeta letter, Cary Brewer authored a second letter to

SICSIC concerning another complaint against them—this time, coming from a BGSU employee.

Maintenance technician Earl Rupright seems to have had enough of the cornfield races and made an official complaint to Brewer in 1984. Captioned “Damage to State Vehicle,” Brewer’s letter to SICSIC lists the reported damages done to a university car while in their possession, including a broken tailpipe, a torn seat cover, and torn interior lining on a door. Brewer writes, “As we discussed before, this vehicle is provided on a courtesy basis. Treatment such as [this] will cause any future use of the vehicle to be discontinued. Tony and Doug should contact Mr. Rupright immediately to discuss this matter and make necessary restitution for damages. As I have indicated previously, conduct such as this cannot be tolerated.”66 Time and time again, the carnivalesque SICSIC crew acted entitled to go anywhere, and do or say anything under the banner of “school spirit.” And for quite some time, their administration was willing to permit it.67

The university was revealing its struggle to come to terms with the modern liberal college campus and the associated responsibilities. Representative of each other, the administration’s

65 This photograph documents the first popular culture mask—Chewbacca from the popular film series, Star Wars. Wearing recognizable masks associated with pop culture did not become a tradition for SICSIC until the late eighties/early nineties. 66 Memorandum, February 8, 1984, box 1, file 6 “Correspondence”, “Memo to SICSIC”, authored by Cary Brewer. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 67 The university was even willing to pay for it; in the eighties, all purchases made by SICSIC members for supplies were charged directly to the president’s budget. 140 reluctance towards accountability mirrors SICSIC’s reluctance towards campus change and respect for their gendered and racially othered peers. In the 1980s, there was still a hope to cling to the past and the conservative standards of a university education, and both SICSIC and their administration were holding on.

Described in 1984 as “six guys in grungy overalls and terrifying rubber masks” (1991,

28), SICSIC’s theatrical elements of terror and disorder finally defined them after forty years of spiritual leadership. Limbacher himself comments on how the member’s masks were becoming more and more bizarre. He describes how “one mask was depicting a skinhead with blood dripping from his mouth and another was a green-eyed monster” (28). This odd detail is immediately followed by the single-sentence paragraph, “The BG News was now calling SICSIC

‘an elite spirit-oriented group whose jobs are to stealthily spread good will throughout the

University without revealing their identities’” (28). Again, Limbacher attempts to distract his readers from strange and disturbing details about the group—this detail about a “skinhead” mask is one of his more revealing bits of information. At the time, the colloquial term “Skinhead” would allude to an increasingly popularized subculture of working-class white males, commonly associated with aggressive behavior and an ideology of white supremacy. For SICSIC to be wearing and performing a blood-thirsty (or otherwise bloodied up) white supremacist is extremely alarming. While the performance of anxieties over poor people of color differs from the performance of a white supremacist, the two are obviously linked. This specific portrayal of the skinhead is based on class and racial conflicts—social conflicts historically romanticized by

American minstrel performers.68 During a time when SICSIC wore primarily Halloween and horror masks, a skinhead mask would have been included as part of the terror element, while

68 For more on the American working-class and minstrelsy, see Erit Lott’s Love & Theft (1993). 141 additionally alluding to historical and contemporary racial violence. This layering of race, class, and race and class conflict is nothing less than a conscious play with cultural anxieties of the

Other from at least three angles. However “unintentional” it might have been, these connections are too deeply rooted in United States’ history, culture, and subconscious to be absolutely and entirely random or accidental. Even if the individual wearing the “skinhead” mask did not intend to contribute additional layers of horror to his “spirited” masked performance, it nevertheless made sense to him to wear that mask. Like the prisoner’s coveralls, it made perfect sense.

In addition to their heightened appearances, SICSIC was beginning to up their performances as well. Until the early 1980s, masked members were still avoiding students on campus, and when forced to communicate, they would only use body language. One interview participant explained:

The typical SICSIC night was making 30, 40 signs, then going out and hanging

the signs. It was a time-consuming thing. We ran into people all the time, but we

didn’t have big interactions with them. We didn’t speak because we didn’t want to

be noticed. When we did see someone we knew, we would try and stay away

from them. Sometimes we would put up signs in fraternity or sorority houses and

you would try to act strange and unusual, not [like the] normal cadence of life.

We tried to move fast because then you had less time for people to try and engage

with you. We kept a good pace.

For this participant and his contemporaries, secrecy was extremely important, more important than maintaining peaceful relations with the campus. Sometime in the mid-eighties, however, members began to hold conversations with curious students. A different interview participant explained the tactics they used to communicate with their peers while protecting their identities: 142

We used to talk in really high-pitched voices which is pretty funny really. You’d

see six big guys—not that we were all big guys because we weren’t—but in those

jumpsuits that we used to wear it made it look like we each weighed 300 pounds.

You’d be running around hanging stuff up and inevitably someone would say

“Hey SICSIC how you guys doing?” And we’d always answer in a high-pitched

voice and we’d always ask questions in a high-pitched voice. It’s just a silly high-

pitched thing. The jump suit kind of made you walk different. Some of us would

wear old work boots on occasion. That in itself kind of made you walk different.

But you would try to disguise your walk too. I think we kind of watched the older

guys, you just tried real hard not to duplicate how you were in everyday life. So, I

typically didn’t wear work boots or grass stained sneakers in everyday life. Those

huge jumpsuits made you look and walk—it made your gait look very, very

different.

By the late 1980s, SICSIC had gone through a striking transformation in their performances, traditions, and values. Most of these new traditions, however, had a negative effect on their audience, something that the members were not anticipating. Their own reactions to the campus’s pushback were defensive and dismissive—even today, the members struggle with coming to terms with the controversy. In the photograph below (Fig. 16), seniors Jeff

DeMuth and Larry Blake pose for their senior unmasking picture in 1985. In the back row on the far right sits a member wearing what appears to be a recognizable mask of then-President Ronald

Reagan. This appears to be the first time a SICSIC member was documented wearing a political mask, reiterating the importance and influence of politics in the group in this decade. 143

Fig. 16. First Documentation of a SICSIC Political Mask (The Key, 1985, 258).

Campus Pushback

While Limbacher and most of SICSIC’s advisors were willing to ignore SICSIC’s highly racialized masks and minstrelesque performances, someone was paying attention. In the SICSIC archives, a folder labeled “Legal Information circa 1983” contains a xeroxed copy of an article clipping from The Daily Sentinel Tribune titled “Denison Suspends its Wingless Angels.” This article, apparently relevant to SICSIC’s legal affairs in 1983, reads:

Denison University is without Wingless Angels for the first time in 18 years.

The six members of the secret society were suspended from the university by

President Robert Good Tuesday as punishment for a Sept. 11 run through three

women’s dormitories. The Angels dressed in white hoods and pounded on doors

screaming in an episode that intimidated many of the freshmen residents.

In a hearing last week, the Angels were temporarily suspended, fined, and

banished from women’s dormitories and required to perform 20 hours of physical

labor for the university.69

69 News article clipping from The Daily Sentinel-Tribune, Bowling Green, OH, page 2. No date, box 2, file 19 "Legal Information" [c. 1983], "Denison Suspends its Wingless Angels", no author. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 144

Denison’s president eventually overruled the Angels’ initial suspension and fine to further increase their punishment. Describing the Angels’ actions as “anti-social behavior,” President

Good commented, “We do not view this incident as a prank, but as a major infringement on the rights and well-being of our students.” Whoever clipped this article and sent it to SICSIC’s administrative offices must have been aware of their problematic and destructive behavior. The sender’s identity is unknown. The only clue is a quick hand-written note on the top left corner of the page: “Tell SIC/SIC.” Despite the apparent warning, BGSU’s administration was persistent in looking the other way as SICSIC harassed female students, damaged school property, and performed racialized and disturbing characters in their masked night raids across campus.

BGSU’s student body, however, was not having it. Student complaints about the group’s actions and signs were building up, and by 1985, SICSIC’s bad reputation was all that was going for them. In 1986, BG News columnist Susan Pastor led a noteworthy campaign against SICSIC in her column. Both witty and sarcastic, Pastor’s writing aimed to demoralize and humiliate

BGSU’s notorious spirit crew. The first of her articles to catch the administration's attention was captioned “SicSic’s signs unintelligible,” describing her first encounter with a SICSIC Sez sign on campus. Pastor writes:

I was standing just inside the front door of Prout Chapel… [when something]

caught my eye… it was the Ye Olde Honor Roll of SicSic, bearing the names of

SicSic’s illustrious alumni since 1847…. There is only one obviously female

name on the Ye Olde Honor Roll[,] and at first I thought the group might be sexist

as well as misdirected. However, it also occurred to me that women may be too 145

smart to want to waste their time making unsightly signs (and besides, their

writing might have been too neat).70

Pastor continues to critique SICSIC and their signs in her article and suggests that an alternative secret society be made—an organization made up of students, faculty, and staff called “Sick of

SicSic,” whose only purpose would be “putting up neatly-lettered, aesthetically pleasing signs to announce those campus events SicSic neglects.”

Pastor’s commentary on SICSIC indicates an overwhelming lack of knowledge about the historical organization on behalf of the student body. For someone as involved on campus as

Pastor, it is telling for her to not know anything about the history or present function of BGSU’s longest running honorary society. Despite Limbacher’s insistence that the school recognizes

SICSIC as their spirit crew, as well as the annual documentation and explanation of the group in the Key yearbooks, it appears that the historical context of Prout’s SICSIC had been lost on the modern college student. To Pastor, and I suspect most of the student body, faculty, and staff,

SICSIC was a collective of fools who insisted on hanging ugly signs with silly and often incomprehensible messages across campus. The carnivalesque SICSIC may have gotten their point across after all—or, at least part of it. Classic elements of carnival are obvious for SICSIC: sudden and brief acts of buffoonery as if to merely cause a ruckus and leave. But Bakhtin’s concept of the carnivalesque argues that it is always more than just creating a ruckus; an important ritual is taking place (1998). The mystery of SICSIC’s secrecy is where the details of their social rituals lie.

70 An original clipping of Pastor’s column is preserved in SICSIC’s archive file. As most of the documents in the SICSIC archive were collected over the years from advisor’s offices, old hideouts, and alumni, it appears that someone found it important enough to save. BG News article clipping, December 16, 1986, box 3, file 6 “Clippings”, “SicSic’s signs unintelligible”, authored by Susan Pastor. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 146

Another one of Pastor’s articles which sounded a chord in SICSIC’s administration was published in the BG News that same year. In this article, titled “In defense of SICSIC,” Pastor continues her SICSIC sign satire. She writes:

The past week has been a time of bitter disappointment. I expected an outpouring

of support for SICSIC since I complained about SICSIC signs in the public

forum…. Instead, no one has called or written in defense of SICSIC except

SICSIC. [Last] Thursday evening, I noticed a banner [that] was more neatly

written than usual and I suspect that it may have been a clever fake.

However, there was no mistaking the target audience: me. It read “Susan P. -

We’es wants to join yer first grade writing siminar.” …. I experienced a moment

of remorse. Was it fair to lampoon an organization whose members can’t even

come forward in their own defense? How heavy the burden of society must weigh

when those individuals are, no doubt, bursting with pride over their handiwork!

This feeling of remorse lasted only a few minutes, but it left me with an idea. I

should try to find the positive aspects of SICSIC, just in case no one else ever

writes on their behalf.71

Pastor proceeds to list several “positive aspects” of SICSIC, including, “If carefully presented on a resume, experience such as ‘Spent nights plastering the BGSU campus with signs while wearing a ski mask, 1986-1987,’ could be the ticket to a distinguished career,” and, “If everyone could learn to keep a secret, nasty information leaks could be prevented. We would be spared the national discomfort caused by the likes of the Watergate and Iran-contragate scandals.” She continues to list sarcastic blows to the earned qualities of those in SICSIC, concluding that she

71 News article clipping from the BG News, cir. 1986, box 3, file 6 “Clippings”, “In defense of SICSIC”, authored by Susan Pastor. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 147

“could come up with more good things about SICSIC, but they’re really far-fetched” (Pastor,

1986).

This article would have had a considerable impact on an already skeptical and disgruntled campus. For the past several decades, many students had been mocked and harassed by the

SICSIC six, and for the first time, SICSIC was getting a taste of their own medicine. Pastor’s column would have been a big hit and probably even a big success when it came to the university’s accountability for the problematic group: 1986 was the first year in their existence that SICSIC did not get a designated page in the Key yearbook. That year in the Key, the six members are photographed with their advisor Larry Weiss;72 however, the two graduating seniors, Andy Hogan and Robert Wade, do not have an unmasking photo, nor are they listed as serving in SICSIC among their many other extracurricular achievements.73 One year prior to their notorious revamping, SICSIC seems to have lost all credibility among fellow classmates.

In addition to these members, SICSIC alumni must have been angry at Pastor as well, as

Limbacher mentions her column in his manuscript, “criticizing the secret six” in one week’s paper and then defending them in another. In the latter, he recounts what Pastor wrote:

The past week has been a time of bitter disappointment. I expected an outpouring

of support for SICSIC since I complained about signs… Instead, no one has called

or written in defense of SICSIC except SICSIC.’ The secret six put up a sign in

front of the Education Building which read: ‘Susan P.: We’es wants to join yer

first grade writing siminar.’ She mused, ‘I experienced a moment of remorse… I

should try to find the positive aspects of SICSIC, just in case no one else ever

72 The Key, 1986, 36. 73 Robert Wade has twenty items listed under his “Senior Activities” including “Board of Trustees, Student Representative” (370). 148

writes on their behalf.’ First of all, SICSIC membership is excellent training for

future employment… Finally, SICSIC contributed to the University’s academic

atmosphere (1991, 29).

While Limbacher quotes her accurately, he redacted most of her list, ignoring all her sarcastic shaming and critique. The way he has patched his quote together leads the reader to believe that this article is precisely what it claims to be—a defense of SICSIC. If one were to read

Limbacher’s rendition of Pastor’s article without having read the original, it is possible that they would miss the irony all together. I am not sure if Limbacher himself misread the article, or if this is an intentional misrepresentation. Whether this is a moment of Limbacher’s ignorance or pride, his recording of Pastor’s column indicates the group’s interest in her opinion and the effect it had on BGSU’s campus and administration. Pastor was, after all, an assistant director in the

College of Education and Allied Professions (29).

Susan Pastor was not the first outsider to ask questions about SICSIC, but she was one of the first to openly call out and make fun of the hypocrisy of the secret society and their absurd position as an upheld, honorary tradition. The SICSIC six seemed to have taken her column personally, as they called her out directly with one of their signs. One interview participant mentioned the public controversy, focusing on the BG News’ critique of the school’s Greek system. Since SICSIC was predominantly, if not entirely, made up of fraternity brothers in the eighties, it is understandable to equate SICSIC to a fraternity. The member explained:

When I was at school there was a situation where the BG News was writing all

sorts of articles that were negative and critical of the Greek system. Many

SICSICs were Greek members at that time… the biggest source of revenue was

from ads put up by fraternities and sororities. [We] made a sign saying, “The 149

fraternities and sororities should stop supporting the BG News” that was writing

scathing articles about them.

It appears that both SICSIC and the BG News were not on friendly terms in the eighties, suggesting a major rift between certain student circles. As both entities were supposed to represent the face and voice of BGSU’s student body, the social atmosphere on campus would have been quite tense during this decade of controversy. On top of national politics encouraging an “us versus them” mentality, there would no doubt have been a gradually fracturing campus at

BGSU. According to the interview participants, school spirit amounts to the exact opposite of a divided student body; nevertheless, SICSIC appears to have been encouraging this divide in the

1980s.

Sociology professor, Margaret Weinberger wrote an opinion piece for the BG News to publish in their “Letters” section in April of 1986. Titled “Social concerns and SICSIC signs,”

Weinberger discusses SICSIC advisor Larry Weiss’ objections to “the posting of ‘phony’

SICSIC signs on campus.” She writes:

Weiss states that the signs “dealt with topics like racism and rape” yet deplores

them as “tasteless humor.”

I find it interesting that Weiss considers addressing social concerns “tasteless.” In

my opinion the signs reflected a great deal more taste and creativity than,

"FU.TU," a sign posted by SICSIC earlier this semester.

I, for one, was happy to see SICSIC signs that truly supported "the many

organizations" on campus by taking a stand against racism and sexism. How

unfortunate the signs were not posted by actual members of SICSIC. Maybe those 150

members can learn something from their "phony" counterparts (Weinberger, April

23, 1986, 3).

While SICSIC was cleared from making offensive signs on several accounts, the signs observed by Weinberger do not appear to have been sexist or hateful. They sound more like political or social satire. Someone, nevertheless, was offended by them and demanded their authors be reprimanded. These “phony” and “copycat” SICSIC signs posted on campus in the early 1980s were the beginning of a politically correct controversy that took center stage at BGSU over the next several decades. Even after Gregg DeCrane’s implemented revamping of SICSIC, the secret six continued to act out and post controversial signs, fueling the debate and maintaining a tense environment on campus.

The Revamping of SICSIC

With the growing campus animosity towards SICSIC’s reputation, it was only a matter of time for the university’s administration to step in and do something. After half a decade of letting the SICSIC advisor take the brunt of the campus’s complaints, Olscamp finally acted and decided to suspend SICSIC in 1987. It was eventually decided, however, that the university’s historical honorary society would be given one last chance to change its ways and make amends with the campus. If SICSIC was able to permanently rid their inappropriate and unacceptable behavior, then they could remain a part of BGSU’s campus culture. Appointed as charge of this critical turnaround and new SICSIC advisor was Gregg DeCrane, the then Assistant Vice

President. In his interview, Gregg DeCrane explained how he got involved with SICSIC:

Back in ‘87 the group had pretty much gotten out of hand and gotten away from

what its function was supposed to be. There was drinking involved—basically 151

they did things that they should not have been doing. Fortunately, one of the

sophomore members at that time came to me because the University was about to

drop the group and he didn’t want to see that happen. [He] had asked, would I

step in as advisor, which I did... It had gotten to the point where basically one

fraternity dominated the whole group and it just was not a good thing... SICSIC

had gotten to a point where it was somewhat detrimental. Their signs started

taking on, oh, the wrong purpose. The fraternity, I mean, the SICSIC members

had kind of taken it upon themselves to just walk into the sorority houses

whenever they wanted and things along those lines. Like I mentioned, there was

drinking involved, what have you. It took a long time for that image to change.

As soon as he accepted the position as SICSIC’s advisor, DeCrane immediately sought input on the campus reputation of the notorious spirit crew. In the Fall of 1987, DeCrane sent a letter to all campus organizations, fraternities, sororities, athletic departments, and the BG News inquiring after their opinions of SICSIC. After prompting the recipients of the letter to consider how they felt about SICSIC, DeCrane explained their founding purpose as a spirit crew, and then pleaded,

“Spirit is a vital asset on this campus that has not been fully utilized in recent years. We feel that it is important to rebuild and promote good, clean spirit to the student body. We do need your help in our attempt to promote spirit and at the same time clean up the image of the group. SIC

SIC apologizes for any past offenses and we assure you that the group is serious about the job they were chosen to do.”74 This letter was followed by a memo to the then Dean of Libraries,

Rush Miller, apologizing on behalf of SICSIC for their past disruptive behavior, and requesting

74 Letter, October 27, 1987, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Letter to All campus organizations and Greek Units, Athletic Departments, and the BG News Editor,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 152 permission for the spirit crew to enter the library’s premises on new footing.75 The same day

DeCrane wrote to Miller, the new advisor received a list of SICSIC-focused grievances from all of BGSU’s sorority presidents, collected by the university’s Panhellenic Council President, Jill

Arslanian. In a list of thirteen items, the sororities’ complaints included that SICSIC members had stolen food and underwear, had “literally picked up” sorority sisters and “thrown [them around] the house against their wills,” had forcefully “[tied] a chapter member to a chair and placed [her] on top of the kitchen table,” all in addition to repeatedly entering houses and private rooms unannounced.76 The 1980’s SICSIC had developed a ritualistic fascination with women’s private lives, and by forcefully entering and desecrating these private spaces, the six men of

SICSIC were performing conservative backlash through masked, antisocial behavior. In his manuscript, Jim Limbacher explains how “1987 was the low point in the history of the organization” (1991, 28). He states, “The late 1980’s brought criticism to President Olscamp that members of SICSIC no longer epitomized school spirit at BGSU and that their signs began to be sexist and in bad taste. Dr. Mary M. Edmonds, vice-president for Student Affairs, demanded that the secret six clean up their act or it would be eliminated as a campus organization” (1991, 28).

As one of the original members of SICSIC, Jim Limbacher reveals much of the group’s original values in his defense and justification of SICSIC’s behavior.

As the new advisor of SICSIC, DeCrane had a big task on his hands—and for some time, it seems that there was little he could do. Despite DeCrane’s dedication and the group’s supposed progress, the administration continued to receive complaints against SICSIC’s destructive and disrespectful behavior for the next couple of years. In the spring of 1988, DeCrane received a

75 Memorandum, November 11, 1987, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Memo to Rush Miller,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 76 Letter, November 11, 1987, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Letter to Mr. DeCrane,” authored by Jill Arslanian. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 153 letter from university maintenance director Keith Pogan, informing the advisor that SICSIC would no longer be permitted to use the campus car. Reporting that beer cans and a “strong odor of alcohol” were discovered in the car, Pogan writes, “We had an agreement that should this incident happen again there would be a termination of our participation. Sorry to have to do this but I no longer wish to be involved nor be held liable for their actions.”77 Pogan was not the only staff member to question their participation that year. Five years after the first documented incident in the Technology Annex Building and university airport, Jerry Streichler was still seeking compensation for SICSIC’s destruction. In a letter from the then-Vice President of

University Relations, Phil Mason, DeCrane is requested to answer for SICSIC’s continued destruction of the building.78 Remembered as President Olscamp’s right hand man, receiving a letter from Phil Mason would have had a major impact on DeCrane’s efforts to correct SICSIC’s continued indiscretion.79

That year, the BG News published a letter of complaint against SICSIC’s unacceptable signage on campus. Preserved in the SICSIC Sez archival collection in its original form as a newspaper clipping, this complaint must have been particularly effective. In her letter, Julie

Rowen explains her intentions as responding to the group’s actions towards a prior student complaint. A SICSIC sign that was posted on February 16th reading “we love BG babes” apparently received noted pushback from a Deirdre Bauer. SICSIC’s actions in response to this previous complaint was, according to Rowen, “childish and immature.” Addressing the members

77 Memorandum, February 25, 1988, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Memo to Greg DeCrane,” authored by Keith A. Pogan. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 78 Letter, March 3, 1988, 2001 ADD box 9, file “SICSIC”, “Letter to Gregg DeCrane,” authored by Phil Mason. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 79 Phil Mason is recorded as being a close companion and confidant to Paul Olscamp throughout his years as university president—so much so, that Olscamp aided Mason in getting out of a sexual harassment case. BG News, February 25, 1997, pg2. 154 of SICSIC, Rowen states, “There was no apology expected from [Bauer], but… you jumped the gun and immediately became defensive by saying, ‘Hey D.B., there will be no apology, not now not ever.’... If the objective of this organization is to promote school spirit, you are definitely defeating the purpose.”80 Rowen’s letter was effective enough for the article to be clipped and saved in SICSIC’s administrative offices, and it would make sense for it to have been Gregg

DeCrane to do so, due to the archived letter he sent to Rowen two days later. In the letter, he assures Rowan, “Appropriate action is being taken and I believe you will see a new group emerge next year that will return to the ideals set forth by Dr. Prout over 40 years ago.”81

This is not the only reference to Prout’s original intentions that DeCrane made when defending the group’s presence on BGSU’s campus. In his manuscript, Limbacher includes a quote from DeCrane that was printed in “a national college newspaper,” saying, “The group really bottomed out a year and a half ago. A lot of students felt that the signs had become distasteful. We now have all new members, elected within the past year. We’re trying to get back to the ideals set forth by President (Frank) Prout” (1991, 29). In the Spring of 1988, DeCrane sent a memo to Olscamp, again referring to Prout’s vision. He writes:

Since taking on the role of SIC SIC’s advisor in October, I have attempted to

work with the members in creating a positive approach to their activities…

However, their indiscretions over the past two weeks have negated much of the

good will they built up over the past few months. As a result, I have curtailed the

group’s activity for the remainder of this semester and will spend this time

80 Newspaper clipping from the BG News, March 1, 1988, box 3, file 6 “Clippings,” “SIC SIC sign response childish, immature,” authored by Julie Rowen. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 81 Letter, March 3, 1988, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Letter to Julie Rowen,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 155

helping to organize them for the next year so that they may return to the original

intent as outlined by President Prout 42 years ago. I can assure you that the group

will return as a positive force on campus and be an organization that we all can be

proud of.82

The revamping of SICSIC was an attempt to return to the historical secret society, a society that functioned to preserve the old standards of an American college campus, and

DeCrane was doing all he could to make sure that everyone knew it. During the group’s suspension and reorganization, DeCrane sought to council the members on the original and true meaning of the SICSIC six and reestablish the group as an honorable society. Much like Dr.

Kenneth Irving Brown’s advice on reversing the falling standards of the American college campus, Gregg DeCrane was attempting to return the group to what had been—what was believed to be original, true, and pure.83 While it is apparent that most of the existing members were not okay with the return to Prout’s ideologies, there was also resistance to Prout’s ideologies from the post-McDonald, forward thinking university administration. Despite

DeCrane’s defense of Prout’s intentions, the revamping of SICSIC resulted in the most democratic version of SICSIC that had yet to be seen on BGSU’s campus. DeCrane explained how in 1988, “We got rid of some of the problems, [and] that was the beginning of when we started selecting women members to the group which changed the whole culture. And we also established more of an application process.” Prout’s SICSIC was about preserving and honoring traditionally conservative ideals such as maleness, whiteness, and class, and keeping the prestige

82 Memorandum, March 3, 1988, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Memo to Dr. Paul Olscamp,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 83 As described in the first chapter, Dr. Brown used highly conservative and Christian techniques to curtai the undesirable behavior of his students. Whether or not DeCrane included Christian or religious morals in his reorganization counseling is unknown, but also believable. 156 of the group insular and exclusive. DeCrane restructured SICSIC to be accepting of women and open to students from all social groups and backgrounds, and with an application system in place, the group had the ability to be more liberal and democratic than ever before.

By the end of the semester, DeCrane and two members had officially documented their willingness and plan to change. DeCrane sent a “copy of the reorganization” of SICSIC to

President Olscamp, serving as a preliminary contract for the new SICSIC.84 Some of the new standards listed in the document include: a clear prohibition of alcohol, mentioned several times; a breakdown of the various responsibilities for members to follow throughout the year as sophomores, juniors, and seniors; an emphasis on “group action” rather than individual; and an official definition of the group: a “Spirit Organization which promotes awareness and response to campus and various organized functions.” In addition to signing a contract with SICSIC and the university, candidates were now required to participate in an interview prior to acceptance, and all members would need to complete a “second semester survey.” To be a member of the new

SICSIC, students were to take their duty seriously and follow the rules strictly. As DeCrane explained in a letter to a concerned SICSIC alumni, Steve Macionsky, “SIC SIC will always encourage campus leadership and development. However, it will not compromise on commitment of its members.”85 DeCrane’s insistence that the new SICSIC members take on a more serious attitude about involvement is evident in a letter he wrote to President Olscamp in the spring of 1989. Updating the president on the group’s progress over the last year, DeCrane explains how two members were dismissed for “grades [and] lack of commitment,” and the four

84 Letter, April 21, 1988, 2001 ADD box 9, file “SICSIC,” “Letter to Paul Olscamp,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 85 Letter, May 4, 1988, box 1, file 7 “Correspondence,” “Letter to Steve Macionsky,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 157 members who remained understood that “individual political references should be deleted from their activities.”86

According to several interview participants who graduated in the 1980s, political comments were a common topic for their SICSIC Sez signs. One participant recalled, “The main thing we did was put up these signs [that were] designed to be funny [and] solicit a laugh. We may have moved into the realm of making political comments, campus political comments. But mostly we designed them to get a laugh.” He explained, “What we tried to do was create a fun environment where fun things—occasionally political things—could get poked fun at and create conversation.” When asked to provide an example of a political SICSIC sign, the participant recalled a sign they had made that said “Ronald Raygun” during the presidential elections. He explained, “It wasn’t a big design to get people pissed or throwing rocks, but designed to make a point and to do it in a humorous way.” One instance of SICSIC’s political humor that stands out in archival material from the late 1980s is the group’s comments on the trial and execution of

Ted Bundy. In the spring of 1989, the Office of Student Affairs received a complaint about a

SICSIC sign that read “Burn Bundy Burn.”87 The author of the complaint, Professor Richard

Burke, expressed his disapproval of the sign and disappointment in SICSIC, stating, “I thought this group was supposed to be a ‘spirit’ organization!” In the previously mentioned letter to

President Olscamp, DeCrane played devil’s advocate and mentioned how another professor was in favor of the Bundy sign and other controversial topics for students to ponder and discuss.88

86 Letter, February 6, 1989, 2001 ADD box 9, file “SICSIC,” “Letter to Paul Olscamp,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 87 Letter, January 26, 1989, box 1, file 8 “Correspondence,” “Letter to Mary Edmonds,” authored by Richard R. Burke. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 88 Letter, February 6, 1989, 2001 ADD box 9, file “SICSIC,” “Letter to Paul Olscamp,” authored by Gregg DeCrane. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 158

Olscamp must have seen reason in DeCrane’s defense, as he signed his approval at the bottom of the letter.

SICSIC may have gotten off the hook with the Bundy sign, but many of their other controversial messages received pushback and retaliation. Political correctness was an emerging issue at BGSU, and the carnivalesque SICSIC of the 1980s was reluctant to change their tradition of making culturally jarring and offensive signs. One interview participant mentioned the setbacks of political correctness on the American college campus. When asked about the ways

SICSIC has changed over the years, he answered, “When I was there, and way back when—I know it’s changed now—it used to be all male. It used to be six men. I’m not sure when that changed. But I think anything nowadays, everything is watered down. Everybody has to be extremely politically correct.” With no transition, the participant associated the addition of women to the group with the increasing demand for political correctness. After SICSIC was almost terminated due to inappropriate and antisocial behavior, the agreed-upon appropriate version of a new and improved spirit crew was to include, rather than marginalize, female students. This was, according to the participant, a “watered down” version of SICSIC—one that was less meaningful and less spirited. He explained, “There was no one who thought we were bad or whatever because we hung up signs that maybe weren’t politically correct. All we were trying to do was have fun, make people think a little bit. But today, society in general, you just can't say or do the things that you used to do thirty plus years ago. You just can’t do it.” When asked if he could give an example of a politically incorrect sign that they may have made, he replied:

No, I don’t really have a good example. But you can read into anything

nowadays. I grew up in [__], and I think I put up a sign that said - there was a 159

radio station that I used to listen to in [__]—I put up a sign that said something

like, “QFM96 rocks [__].” I’m sure someone would somehow find that offensive

today, that [it wasn’t] inclusive, [that] I was only calling out members of the

university that were from [__] to give them a little smile or what have you, you

know. I don’t want to get into a big political discussion about that. I’m sickened

by the way things are today and the fact that you can’t—that free speech only

exists for a certain group of people and not everyone. So, I don’t want to get into

that.

It was clear from his reaction that political correctness and SICSIC’s stance on the concept is a sensitive topic for him. Not only was this a problem at the time of his membership in the 1980s, but PC continues to bother him today. His understanding of political correctness, “that free speech only exists for a certain group of people and not everyone,” is a misinterpretation of contemporary values of inclusion and sensitivity towards minorities and otherwise marginalized people. He may have been referring to certain terminology that would now be considered inappropriate for white males to use and was complaining about how contemporary expectations of public speech acts are unfair for people like him. Nonetheless, the participant’s years in

SICSIC were very much influenced by a culture that would now be considered politically incorrect, and by the end of the 1980s, Gregg DeCrane was working hard to keep politics out of everything SICSIC said and did.

While political comments eventually became less prominent, the horror and Halloween masks continued as a tradition and were often brought up by research participants in their interviews. The same participant preoccupied with political correctness defended the horror masks by saying, “It was different then. Even though we wore scary masks no one feared us. 160

There was no fear. There was no one that was offended.” When asked what mask he wore, he replied, “It’s not even a mask that’s around anymore. It was a lot different back then. It was kind of a monsterish mask. I think it had black hair and the face was probably like a little bit of flesh tone, reddish and bluish too. It was just an ugly monster mask with black hair.” By repeating how

SICSIC was very different in his day, the participant came off as quite defensive. I asked if there was any reason why he chose that mask, and he replied, “No, no reason.” Another participant explained, “That was just the thing at the time. You know, when you come into SICSIC, you just kind of follow the lead of the upperclassmen. They just said, ‘Find a scary mask and go to it…’

We were trying to pick scary masks, but it was not the intent to scare the crap out of everybody.”

This participant seemed to understand how scary masks could have been problematic, and put the blame on the upperclassmen, claiming that he merely did what he was told. In the 1980s, almost all the masks were scary or “monsterish” to some extent; yet, none of the interview participants could explain why. Attempting to get more information out of one participant, I asked how scary masks promoted school spirit. He responded:

I don’t think wearing ghoulish masks promotes spirit. I think the essence of the

organization is that it is charged with raising spirit and there are only six members

and they do this anonymously. That’s the essence of it. Now, putting on masks is

just a way of obtaining anonymity. I don’t think it matters what the mask is, I

don’t think it matters if you’re wearing a Donald Trump mask or an Abe Lincoln

mask or a Charlie Chaplin mask. I think that’s irrelevant to the point of what

you’re trying to do, which is to raise school spirit.

With yet another participant, I brought up how members use to only wear ski masks and asked if he could elaborate on how their masks evolved from ski masks to Halloween masks. He replied, 161

“Well ski masks may be a tad more scary, right? That’s like olden-day robbery, burglary type stuff. But like I said, no one was terrified of our masks. We didn’t do anything to scare people, even though they were scary masks.” By shifting the blame and claiming that there was no reason to it at all, the participants continued the pattern of SICSIC secrecy and of acting as if none of it had meaning. By boldly claiming that none of their actions, appearances, or signs were offensive or off-putting to anyone, the participants from the 1980s claim complete ignorance to their unwanted presence on campus.

Of course, time and space can warp a memory, erasing the uncomfortable details of an individual’s glory days. However, a published message from SICSIC to the student body preserved in the BG News online database records similar language. The message reads:

Because secrecy is a major part of our organization, we must wear Halloween

masks and our traditional coverall suits when we go out in public. On the back of

our suits are numbers which indicate our seniority in the group. Consequently,

Numbers 1 and 2 are seniors. Numbers 3 and 4 are juniors and Numbers 5 and 6

are sophomores. We wear masks to hide our identity, not to scare people.89

This message reveals much about the SICSIC of 1989. Not only would it have functioned as a reminder, if not reintroduction, of what SICSIC was for the student body, but the members were additionally justifying their scary appearances for the first time. They also explain the numeric hierarchy of superiority visible on the back of their costumes, a tradition that had been established by the beginning of the decade. This published message is also the first time SICSIC is referred to as a “spirit crew” in either the BG News or the Key—again, most likely something

89 The BG News, February 22, 1989, 2. 162 to do with Gregg DeCrane.90 Rebranded as BGSU’s Spirit Crew, the SICSIC of 1989 was attempting to start out on a new foot for the new decade, hoping to clean up their reputation and remain BGSU’s longest standing secret society.

National Anxieties in the 1990s

Political correctness continued as a major national anxiety for Americans as conservative politics continued from the Reagan years into Clinton’s extension of the War on Crime in the

1990s. The contemporary definition of political correctness is “the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against” (Merriam-

Webster, 2011). By the 1990s, however, political correctness had widely become known by its extreme form: an insult for liberals and their modern ideologies of inclusion (Fox-Genovese and

Scanlon, 1995). At a time when racial slurs and racially biased legislature were covered up by a popularized color-blind policy, and institutions everywhere adapted their language and attitude towards minorities, the national political divide of conservatives and liberals grew to be manifested by the PC debate (1995, 8-9). Countering the moves of color blindness, political correctness continued to gain strong support among liberal communities, primarily college campuses, summoning an age of social responsibility and accountability. In response to the many minorities confidently coming out of the woodwork, those speaking and practicing the color- blind policies were forced to accept and include racial Others, or, at least appear to be accepting and inclusive. The 1990s brought about a critical and cynical youth population of punks, rebels, feminists, and queers, and diversity was becoming the new hot topic for American universities

90 While myself and Limbacher refer to SICSIC as BGSU’s “spirit crew” throughout, the SICSIC six were not officially recognized as such until 1989. 163 and colleges. Women, people of color, and the queer community were not only emerging in public, but began demanding attention, equality, and celebration of their diversity. Institutions claiming democratic values were willing to save face and give them what they wanted; secondary education was a business enterprise, and diversity was growing increasingly popular as a valued characteristic of the American education.

These modern and progressive ideologies were met, still, with much resistance, particularly for historical groups and organizations upheld by old American institutions. David

Alan Richard’s recent publication of Skull and Bones’ history (2017) reveals only what an insider can tell: a biased truth. His fourteenth chapter, titled “The Integration of Women and

Decline of Elites (1971-1991),” describes the controversial introduction of women through the eyes of a traditional member: a loss of tradition and value and a decline in honorary membership.

For Richard and many traditional Bonesmen, the inclusion of women into the secret society was unthinkable—it would not only tarnish the group’s history and reputation but contradict the purpose of the society altogether. To them, the idea of female Bonesman was, in itself, an oxymoron. Arguably one of the most notorious secret society in the nation, Yale University’s

Skull and Bones reluctantly agreed to include women in their membership in 1991, only under the condition that the men and women would meet in separate groups for “the ritual sharing of emotional and life histories” (Adler, 1991, 66). Any attempt for women to truly experience and understand the rituals and values of the Skull and Bones would be an impossible endeavor; therefore, the women were instructed to perform their own rituals apart from the men. While they were forced by their modern student body and administration to include female students, the

Skull and Bones alumni were able to wield the power that remained theirs and set the standards for this new era of equality. 164

This flux of power between administration, student body, and the chosen few highlights the flux of change on the American college campus as it adjusted to and evolved with the anxieties of the nation: the racial, sexual, and gendered Other. Where political correctness emerged as an empowering resistance in the 1980s, it was color-blind policy that persuaded the lawmakers in the 1990s, becoming a valued tradition for the university as well as its constituencies.

BGSU in the 1990s

The debate over political correctness, or “PC culture,” on BGSU’s campus continued full force into the 1990s, so much so, that there is a designated folder in the university’s presidential office archives labeled “Political Correctness.” In the Spring of 1994, President Olscamp received numerous complaints about PC in the classroom and its negative effect on the BGSU learning environment. Two letters of complaint about the enforcement of PC in the English,

American Culture Studies, Women’s Studies, and Ethnic Studies departments are preserved in the archives, along with several response letters from Eloise E. Clark, the then Vice President for

Academic Affairs. In addition to concerns about the effect political correctness might have on student evaluations and grades,91 there was a great concern expressed about the protection of historical privileges now being questioned. In his complaint letter, Robert C. Rinto of Phi Kappa

Tau was very clear about his concern for his own right to speak as a white heterosexual male.

Sounding like the disgruntled interview participant previously mentioned, Rinto wrote to

President Olscamp,

91 Letter, March 15 1994, 2001 ADD box 8, file “Political Correctness,” “Letter to Dr. Olscamp,” authored by Robert O. Gardner. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 165

I am writing to inform you that the political correctness which runs rampant…

needs to be stopped. Political correctness is a form of discrimination against the

white heterosexual male, and is not the means for equality to be achieved by

minorities. How can you sit on the “sidelines” and watch political correctness

castrate the educational and individual rights that I and others have as citizens of

the United States of America and students here at Bowling Green State

University?92

Rinto and others like him most likely belonged to the social group that predominantly made up

BGSU’s student body as well as SICSIC’s membership—white, middle- to upper-class, heterosexual males—those who were used to the power and privilege of speaking and doing whatever came to mind with no serious repercussions. Given that Rinto made a connection between the rights of certain individuals on campus to certain citizens of the United States, it is clear how seriously he took the threat to his entitlement as a historical privilege and right as an

American. This connection also highlights the relationship between the college campus and the rest of the nation at this time of change and liberal progression; in the 1990s, the face of

American culture was looking more and more diverse than ever, and many conservative whites were not okay with it. Based on the responses these upset students received from the administration, it seems that BGSU in the 1990s was taking broad strides towards becoming a more progressive university throughout the campus, including the classroom, despite the pushback from their students.

92 Letter, April 18, 1994, 2001 ADD box 8, file “Political Correctness,” “Letter to President Olscamp,” authored by Robert C. Rinto. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 166

Two of Eloise Clark’s responses preserved in the archives follow the same template and make the same statement about political correctness on BGSU’s campus:

The administration at BGSU is sensitive to this issue, and will continue to be so in

the future, just as it has always been sensitive in responding to specific problems

raised by students. As the recent debate about the issue held on campus

demonstrated, there are a variety of opinions about the issue and whether opinions

of students and faculty have been squelched on our campus. Continued debate and

discussion are essential to assure that such potential by-products do not manifest

themselves within our university community.93

While her response was politically neutral, she makes it clear to both students that the political correctness they experienced was a part of the BGSU learning process and that she was glad they experienced it in their courses.94 The recent debate she refers to reveals much about the political climate on BGSU’s campus at the time: political correctness was an important issue for students and faculty to the point of producing an open debate on campus. Additionally, it appears that there was no resolution to this debate, and that “continued debate” was encouraged among both faculty and student body. The “potential by-products” Clark warns against could have been the possible bias held against students when it came to academic fairness and grades; it could have also been potential harassment certain individuals were experiencing from disgruntled students.

That same year BGSU started documenting demographic data on their incoming students.95 In

93 Letter, March 24, 1994, 2001 ADD box 8, file “Political Correctness,” “Letter to Mr. Robert O. Gardner,” authored by Eloise E. Clark. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 94 Letter, April 6, 1994, 2001 ADD box 8, file “Political Correctness,” “Letter to Natalie Vorst,” authored by Eloise E. Clark. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 95 It is not clear whether or not international students were included as non-white students during the collection of this demographic data. Nevertheless, an increase in non-white international students would increase the presence of visually diverse students on campus. 167 the Fall semester of 1994, 2,910 students joined the campus as the new freshman cohort. Out of these new students, approximately 60% were female, 40% were male, and 92% were white.96 In

1996, the demographic percentages of the incoming freshman class were 61% female, 39% male, and 90% white.97 In just two years, the ratio of male to female students stayed roughly the same, while the white population went down 2%. This data suggests a moderate yet significant awareness of diversity among the administration. Staff and faculty like Clark would have been aware of the increasing numbers and interests involved with a “PC” campus.

An additional letter of complaint filed along with the letters about political correctness does not specifically mention the concept of PC, but the issue of free speech in general. Writing to President Olscamp, student Tiffany Swift complained about her mistreatment in class when she challenged her professor who was teaching in favor of Pro-life on abortion issues. After standing up for Pro-choice, she was shamed by the professor, and she felt that her grade was affected by her political views.98 There is no response to Swift’s complaint in the archives, suggesting that unlike the other upset students, Swift did not receive one. It is interesting that her letter was saved at all, if no response was saved along with it, and that it was filed along with issues about political correctness. While BGSU’s administration and faculty were working towards a more progressive educational atmosphere, it appears that they were not thinking liberally about everything. It may have been easy to tell young, white, heterosexual males and their counterparts that they are not the only ones with recognized opinions and values anymore;

96 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 1994. 97 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 1996. 98 Letter, April 7, 1994, 2001 ADD box 8, file “Political Correctness,” “Letter to President Olscamp,” authored by Tiffany Swift. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 168 but when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, Pro-choice politics was probably too liberal for BGSU as a state institution.

As the archival evidence reveals the impact that PC had on BGSU’s campus at the time, a correlation between the controversy and President Olscamp’s resignation is hard to ignore.

Stepping down as university president in 1995, Paul Olscamp walked out during a pivotal time in

BGSU’s history, and according to a 1997 BG News article, he left it “in sorry shape”.99 Quoting

Olscamp looking back at his time at BGSU as “worrying about spilt milk,” the article describes their late president “skipping town” to become interim president at the University of South

Dakota without a concern for the “spilt milk he left to curdle” in Bowling Green. Listing some of his discrepancies, the newspaper reminds their readers about Olscamp’s refusal to cancel class during dangerous winter conditions, his lack of concern for limited campus parking, as well as having covered up and thrown out a sexual harassment case involving the Vice President of

University Relations, Phil Mason.100 It appears that Olscamp followed a growing tradition for

BGSU’s presidents: the campus was becoming too liberal for their liking, so they left.

After Paul Olscamp’s resignation in 1995, Sidney A. Ribeau became the first and only university president of color at BGSU. Moved by the tense political atmosphere on campus,

President Ribeau would eventually lead a campaign of sensitivity and inclusion on campus through his Building Community Project. With this project, Ribeau introduced his “President’s

Charge” for students, faculty, and staff to follow the following guidelines: to “promote a sense of pride and a spirit of community,” to “provide a means for gathering insight and suggestions,” and to “generate new visions”—all of which would incorporate the “challenges and opportunities of

99 The BG News, February 25, 1997, 2 100 According to the BG News article, Paul Olscamp was later found liable in the Wood County court for destroying public documents related to the sexual harassment case (February 25, 1997, 2). 169 the twenty-first century.”101 President Ribeau additionally published a guest column in the BG

News on campus values in his third year as university president. Addressing the student body,

Ribeau writes, “If our academic environment, the marketplace of free expression and ideas, is too comfortable, the right questions are probably not being asked, and asking the right questions is essential if colleges and universities are truly to be of service to the greater society.”102 While

Ribeau appears to have been active in establishing community and understanding on BGSU’s campus, political correctness still had a controversial place in the classroom during his presidency. According to a xeroxed article from The Chronicle of Higher Education archived in the presidential collection, BGSU professor, Richard Zeller had his course on PC denied by the university for seven years before he decided to teach it elsewhere.103 Like the historical SICSIC,

BGSU of the 1990s may have been more progressive in theory than in practice.

The New SICSIC

Before his retirement in 1995, Paul Olscamp was initiated as an honorary member of

SICSIC. After nearly a decade of persuasion, President Olscamp agreed to go through the initiation process and consider himself not only an honorary member, but an advocate for

SICSIC. One member who was present during his initiation recalled Olscamp’s induction as one of their fondest memories of being in SICSIC. They commented, “He was a good sport about

101 Handout, June 29, 2001, 2001 ADD box 6, file "BIG on Values: Values & the Bowling Green Experience,” “The Building Community Project,” authored by Eileen G. Sullivan and Don Nieman. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 102 BG News column, cir. 1998, 2001 ADD box 7, file 1 "BG News, Ribeau Writings," "BG News Guest Column on Values," authored by President Sidney A. Ribeau. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 103 Xeroxed article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 22, 1999, 2001 ADD box 8, file “Political Correctness,” “Professor in Ohio Goes Off Campus to Offer Course on Political Correctness,” no author. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 170 things, a good sport about the whole initiation process. It was pretty cool to initiate the university president.” To initiate the president who almost overthrew the historical spirit crew was a big deal for the new SICSIC. The interview participant further explained the importance of this event. Initiation— “the indoctrination of the new members into the group”—was not just about revealing the meaning of SICSIC as both an acronym and a society; it was about “the history of the group, what the group means to the university, what the group means to each of the six members.” They continued:

It's the culmination of the process of identifying the [individuals] that we feel

would be good active members of the group—the honorary members, presidents

and advisors, high ranked university personnel... It's just a matter of we as

students wanting to have the president as a member. It helps if issues come up, if

we might need someone's help with something… Because of the secrecy, there

might be some questions that come up about some of the things SICSIC does, so

having a president understand what our organization is and does, having the

president have met us and have the opportunity to educate the president and

others about what we do and why we do it… that could be why the tradition has

been to at least extend an invitation.

President Olscamp’s acceptance of this invitation marked a new era for the group, as well as the university, highlighting a significant change in direction for BGSU’s campus culture.

In the 1990s, BGSU was entering the age of social responsibility and accountability, and

SICSIC was attempting to lead the campus. As a SICSIC member who graduated in the early nineties, the above-mentioned interviewee commented, “I can tell you, times have changed. I was a 90s person and I talked to people from the 60s and 70s. They tell me things that they were 171 able to get away with, and I’m like, there’s no way.” While this comment sounds like those made by members from previous decades, there is a distinction between the justification of “times were different back then,” and the confirmation of “times have changed.” The sense of progress in the

SICSIC alumni of the 1990s is observable in their emphasis on valuing a changed and changing

SICSIC—a clear shift in campus culture from previous generations. This member commented further: “Just the open access they would have to buildings on campus, particularly sorority and female residents’ halls… It was just a different time, and that’s a terrible excuse. Even in the last twenty or so years, people look back at what we did and think, you wouldn’t be able to get away with that now. Times are different, things evolve, campus environments evolve.” And evolve they did.

Democratic Society

The decade of the nineties was the official introduction of female SICSIC members.

Although Julie Johnson was initiated in 1989, she was not revealed to be a woman until the nineties, when DeCrane leaked her gender to put an end to romantic fanfiction. Known as “the

Gorilla” due to the mask she wore throughout her involvement, Johnson was assumed to be male by the campus. Eventually, students created an ongoing romance between Johnson’s SICSIC character and Frieda Falcon, the female falcon mascot. Johnson commented that all her peers were excited about the relationship, and the BG News even “ran an article about how Frieda was cheating on Freddie with the Gorilla from SICSIC.” This romance between Frieda and the

Gorilla became something of a “saga” for BGSU’s campus, as it was in the BG News “almost every day.” This story suggests that while she was involved in SICSIC, the student body was also pretty involved in writing and sustaining SICSIC’s campus folklore. However popular the group 172 was because of the romance, the shock of the Gorilla’s gender was most likely great fodder for attention and support. Johnson believes that it was DeCrane who put an end to it— “the very last article had a disclaimer that the Gorilla was actually a female and Freddie and Frieda were brother and sister,”—and, DeCrane was the only non-SICSIC to know her gender. For a while, though, Johnson put a lot of effort into keeping her gender a secret. By purposefully picking a gender-neutral mask, stuffing her coveralls with pillows and blankets, and speaking in a low voice, she tried to fit in with the masculine culture of SICSIC.

Commenting on the SICSIC she was initiated into, Johnson said, “While it started out as such a tremendous group, and I believe it is again—and in my heart, it always has been—SICSIC unfortunately wasn’t looked upon for being a very good organization for a period of time. I think there might have been some people in there who did somethings that—while we’re crazy and we do funny things and we do take risks—I think they went above and beyond what they should have done.” Despite Johnson’s reluctance to say anything negative about SICSIC, the group was still struggling to make improvements when she joined. Johnson mentioned how she, her initiation partner Dan Mordarski, and upperclassman Mark Murphy worked with Gregg DeCrane on building the group back up from the ground. The members in Johnson’s cohort changed often due to a good number of them being asked to leave; within her first year, their group lost two members. She explained:

[They had] drinking and commitment issues. One in particular had a drinking

problem, and the hideout that we had was very small. It was like a closet. So, it

was hard for all of us to be in there, so sometimes we would take shifts to go in

there and make signs. Often, we could go in, and it would smell like alcohol. At

the time, we had to mix the paint out of a powder and water, and sometimes I 173

think he might have used a can of beer to make the paint because it would smell

really bad… The other one who was dismissed, I don’t think it was [entirely

about] drinking. But most of it was that we couldn’t rely on him.

When asked about her treatment within the group, she explained in detail how well the other members accepted her, treated her, and even protected her. While she was initially intimidated by the letter that instructed her to be in the cemetery at midnight, and scared when the masked members “came out of nowhere and scared the bejesus out of [her],” she always felt welcome and safe in the group. Referring to them as brothers, Johnson recounted several moments when the male SICSIC members went out of their way to help her keep up and make her feel like she was one of them. Even when “there was drinking involved,” they respected her decision not to drink and never pressured her or made her feel uncomfortable. She gave a lot of credit to DeCrane for the way she was accepted into the group. She explained:

I think Gregg did a good job at prepping them [for my presence as a female in the

group]. I never did ask how they did initially feel about bringing a female into the

group. All I knew is, they must have thought pretty highly of me to trust me, so I

didn’t want to mess up. Of course, I wasn’t the kind of person who would do

anything to possibly put it in jeopardy. But I wanted to make sure I made them

proud. I don’t know if it was [DeCrane’s] idea or the group, but they didn’t want

people to know that I was a female. SICSIC at that time used to be chased around

campus because people wanted to see who we were. They wanted to chase us and

take our masks off. With me being a female, they didn’t want to put me at risk.

Hence the pillows and blankets. Even though it was difficult to run in coveralls several sizes too big, and with the extra weight of all the padding taped to her, Johnson boasts that she was never 174 caught—her male counterparts “thought of everything to make sure [she] was safe.” In the photograph below (Fig. 17), Johnson holds her mask with Mordarski in their Key senior reveal picture.

Fig. 17. Julie Johnson’s Unmasking Photograph (The Key, 1991, 220).

After Johnson, there has been a woman inducted into SICSIC every year, marking one of

Gregg DeCrane’s biggest triumphs in attempting to make SICSIC more democratic and representative of BGSU’s campus. Despite his efforts to keep the group in check, however, drinking alcohol persisted as a tradition in SICSIC’s rituals and performances. In her interview,

Johnson alluded to the consumption of alcohol as a part of the initiation process, as well as other times when her male SICSIC companions would drink but not pressure her to do the same.

Beyond their private rituals, SICSIC was also public about their stance on student drinking.

Following the infamous Merry and Frazee block party crackdown of April 20 and 21, 1990,

BGSU students held a protest against the campus and local police who supposedly arrested over

100 students and confiscated 32 kegs of beer as evidence. As a part of this protest, SICSIC made signs reading, “SICSIC Sez 32 kegs + donuts = 1990 Policemen’s Ball [sic]” and “Merry Mania and Franzee Frenzee will never be the same thanx BG police” (The Key, 1991, 34). The new

SICSIC of the 1990s may have been more democratic than the carnivalesque SICSIC of the

1980s, but it was still standing up for (and partaking in) the college campus drinking culture. 175

These two SICSIC Sez signs suggest that SICSIC was, at the time, siding more with the students than with the administration. While they were still partying, the new SICSIC was taking steps in a different direction than the old SICSIC—they were standing with the student body and openly embracing the change of the college campus. This was an important strategy that would contribute to the survival of SICSIC as the decade wore on and the administration began to rescind their historical support and protection of the group.

In the 1992 edition of the Key, SICSIC has a four-page spread with an additional page for their senior reveal. A whole article is written about the group, including interviews of several members and opinionated students. The article reads:

Each member of Sic Sic tries to write five signs each week for posting. They said

they never run out of ideas. “We community bitch, and then we paint signs about

it,” Sic Sic #6 said. Over the last couple years, Sic Sic signs have been more

powerful and more political. The posted signs include everything and anything

from philosophical or political to holiday wishes or wishes of good luck. They try

to make people think.... However, some students do not believe the Sic Sic signs

are good representations of student beliefs. A columnist for The BG News, Mike

Martone believes, “They try to reflect what is being felt on campus, but often it

reflects a minority opinion or an opinion that changes frequently... so they end up

contradicting themselves.” Martone wrote a column in October 1991 cutting

down Sic Sic and since then, “He’s been our number one target,” Sic Sic #1 said.

After the column was written, they tracked him down and taped a sign on him.

According to Mike Martone, “They are very violent with masking tape.” Sic Sic

#3 said, “Sometimes we put a question mark at the end of the statement to let the 176

reader take the comment either way.” That is one way they protect themselves

from stating an opinion that may not be the beliefs of everyone (213).

Although not every student was supportive of the new SICSIC, the group seems to have been attempting politically correct language and adjusting to fit the standards of a critical audience.104

This article alludes to the continued tradition of politics in SICSIC’s signs; a characteristic of

SICSIC’s presence on BGSU’s campus that fluctuates over the years, political opinions were common for SICSIC in the nineties. The group must have been walking a fine line with their administration as they were still attempting to recover from a problematic past. However, the political comments did promote controversial thought and conversation among students and encourage a greater connection between the campus and the rest of the world. The comment, “we wanted to get people to think” is a popular one among participants, including those who were active members during this decade. As controversial as they may have been, political comments proved to be a success, as it is still common for SICSIC to leave thought-provoking signs around campus today. At the time, however, it was risky.

Redeeming a Reputation

“The 1990’s were precarious times for the secret six,” narrates Jim Limbacher in his manuscript (despite its publication date) (1991, 31). He quotes member Dan Mordarski remembering his years in SICSIC:

104 BGSU’s administration was still receiving complaints about SICSIC’s inappropriate signs in the 1990s, something that the school has and will probably always have to deal with. However, the complaints at this time were not like they were in the past. They were not insulting or shaming specific groups of people; rather, they were inappropriate due to sexual humor. In one instance, the word “buggery” was written on a SICSIC Sez sign and it was too crude for some viewers. Letter, February 2, 1999, box 1, file 9 “Correspondence,” “Letter to Dr. Ribeau,” authored by Elizabeth J. Wood. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 177

When I was initiated into the group, SICSIC was on the verge of extinction. In the

preceding years, the antics of the group’s members were viewed by others as

unruly, irresponsible and rude, and the president was ready to scrap the “oldest

continuous tradition at Bowling Green.” When this dire state of affairs was

presented to me, I was determined to change the situation in whatever way I

could. My biggest goal was to regain the privilege of using a university vehicle

for the group. Finally, in my senior year, we reached that ultimate goal. We got

the use of the car (31-32).

Mordarski explains how they were very careful with the car at first. Over the course of the semester, they began to let up on their vigilance and started taking risks with the university vehicle. One night after hanging signs, the secret six returned to their car which they had left parked on a campus sidewalk. Pulling away, they were spotted by a university police car and were immediately pulled over. Hearing none of Mordarski’s excuses, the officer was ready to fine the unmasked members when he suddenly recognized Mordarski. Mordarski explains,

“Being totally embarrassed, I mumbled with a sheepish grin, ‘Well I am the Chief of Justice of the Student Court and I have seen you many times when you were in to testify. And I am also a

Deputy Clerk at the (Bowling Green) Municipal Court.’ With this he started to smile and I think he actually laughed” (33). That night, the secret six were let off with a warning. It seems that when the privilege of SICSIC’s notoriety did not work, the member’s privilege in everyday life did. Because Mordarski was already active in local politics, his connection saved SICSIC eighty dollars.

Limbacher includes the financial situation of SICSIC in his chapter on the 1990s. He explains how the SICSIC alumni contributed to the contemporary SICSIC member’s “working 178 budget” in four parts: SICSIC’s Endowment Fund, which “represents the corpus of the SICSIC scholarship fund and includes interest on this fund;” the SICSIC Scholarship Fund, which is

“distributed in the form of a scholarship each year, usually amounting to $500;” the SICSIC

Activities Fund, or, “the money contributed to the BGSU Foundation in the name of SICSIC but not designated for scholarship purposes;” and the SICSIC Operating Budget, which “uses money from the educational budget of the university to pay for the needs of the group—supplies (paint etc.), newspaper advertisements, uniforms, etc.” (1991, 33). While this working budget appears to have come entirely from alumni donations, Limbacher explains that only a portion of the money was supplied by SICSIC alumni (33). The earnings from the SICSIC scholarship came from the interest from the group’s endowment fund; the rest, it seems, must have come from the university itself. A copy of SICSIC’s “Financial Information” from October of 1992 is preserved in the presidential office archives, listing various uses of their funds. In 1992, these funds included the Activities Fund of $618 for senior rings and game tickets for members’ parents, and the Operating Budget of $1,360 which was meant to cover the group’s regular purchases of supplies.105 Interview participants explained that these regular purchased supplies consisted of poster paper, masking tape, and red and black paint for making their SICSIC Sez signs, as well as candy to hand out to students when they made their campus rounds. Sometimes they would buy additional materials like silly string or even holiday decorations.106

When I asked the participants to explain the funding of SICSIC, I got a variety of answers. One participant suggested, “I guess [we were funded] by the university.” For some

105 Document, October 21, 1992, box 1, file 8 “Correspondence,” "SICSIC Financial Information," authored by Gregg DeCrane. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 106 The materials used to spread spirit on campus varied from year to year. Only one participant mentioned the seasonal decorations that they hung around campus. The kind of candy also varied—starting out with tootsie rolls and bubble gum, SICSIC began a tradition sometime in the nineties to solely hand out Laffy Taffy. Apparently, chocolate would melt in pockets and make too much of a mess, leaving behind a trace of their nocturnal activities. 179 time, SICSIC members were given a university credit card to charge their purchases of supplies and the like. One participant commented, “I never got a bill. I never got questioned on any of the charges I made. We would go to Kmart or Walmart... no one ever questioned me.” However, this was not always the case. During Sidney Ribeau’s presidency, SICSIC went through a period of tight funding. One participant explained that when they visited the bookstore to purchase supplies with their budget card, there would often be no money on it. They said, “There were times when we couldn’t afford to get masking tape. We were paying out of pocket. We would drive off campus and buy candy and tape with our own money.” They were never reimbursed for these purchases. A participant who was a member in the early 1990s had an entirely different story to tell about their spending habits. When I asked why the previous member thought their

SICSIC was not supported as financially as other years, they suggested that other cohorts may have been “doing something right.” They explained:

They [were] under a different administration. I was under a certain president. And

I don’t know, that could change when you get a different administration in here.

The more recent alumni and the more recent advisors that we’ve had have done a

really nice job about marketing the group, being more open with what the group is

about to the president and other members. The public understands a little bit

better, they’re not so weary of it which probably helps with funding. Those were

lean times. We took the uniforms that were so beat up and torn down… home

with us over break and washed them, our moms restitched them. It’s a very

different atmosphere now than when I was in it for sure.

The various comments on funding are somewhat conflicting and complicate the history of the group. While Jim Limbacher states that the early 1990s were a difficult time for SICSIC, a 180 participant who was involved during that time remembers plenty of financial support from

Olscamp’s administration, and yet, another participant who graduated later in the decade remembers the lack of financial support from Ribeau. They suggested that it may have been due to a lack of understanding between President Ribeau and his SICSIC crew. In Ribeau’s presidential archives, there are two letters addressed to the president requesting his participation in the traditional initiation of the university president as an honorary member of SICSIC. On both letters, Ribeau has highlighted and underlined sections of the text with several big question marks.107 He did not understand the purpose nor context of the letters, and neither did he care;

President Ribeau remains the only BGSU president to have not gone through initiation and made an honorary member of SICSIC.108

Perhaps Ribeau saw something in the masked charades of the SICSIC six that the previous university presidents neither saw nor cared to worry about. A piece of important information offered “off the record”109 by an interview participant shines light onto the possibility of President Ribeau’s suspicion. Sometime during his presidency, Ribeau commented on how he did not like SICSIC because “black people don’t like clowns.” If this was Ribeau’s opinion, he was familiar with the racialized history and contemporary implications of clowning.

In the very least, he was culturally aware of this nation’s long history of masked whites terrorizing people of color. Then again, it could have simply been an opinion. Either way, Ribeau

107 Both of these letters are addressed to a “Dr. Sidney A. Rebeau” and signed “SICSIC.” The fact that both requests for his presence and participation spelled his name wrong suggests that there was indeed a lack of understanding, or even respect, between SICSIC and President Ribeau. Two letters, December 3, 1998 and February 24, 1999, 2001 ADD box 9, file “SICSIC,” “Letter to President Rebeau,” authored by SICSIC. Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 108 While all BGSU presidents (besides Sidney Ribeau) are named honorary members of SICSIC, presidents did not go through the actual initiation process until William Jerome in 1963. After Jerome, all university presidents have been invited to participate in the initiation ritual in order to become honorary members. 109 Although this information was “off the record,” the informant is protected through the process of not including any names or specific years of involvement with SICSIC. 181 made it clear that he was not a fan of the masked spirit crew by cutting financial support and turning down the group’s initiation proposal.110

Fig. 18. SICSIC Members Wear Cartoon Character Masks (At BG article clipping, Fall 1996, box 3, file 6 “Clippings,” "Born out of spirit, SICSIC Sparks Campus Enthusiasm,” no author, pg 44. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections).

The racialized masks and themes of past SICSIC appearances and performances are never discussed or mentioned in the archives or interviews; however, it appears that the new SICSIC had agreed that there was something inappropriate about wearing ghoulish and otherwise scary masks, and thus modified their masked appearances to better suit their audience. By the mid-

1990s, members began to choose unique and recognizable masks that had never been worn before, like the cartoonish masks pictured above (Fig. 18). Some members even picked popular culture characters for their masks, such as Bart Simpson from the TV show, The Simpsons and

Yoda from Star Wars. This grew in popularity over the years, starting a new tradition for the

SICSIC members to be recognized and referred to as their own characters. Where the members of the 1980s only had hierarchal numbers to go by (#1, #2, etc.), members in the 1990s had names—Julie Johnson was known as “the Gorilla;” other members were known as “Bart,” “the

110 I attempted to contact Sidney Ribeau through BGSU’s Office of the President. I never got a response. 182

Big Bad Wolf,” and “Old Man.” One interview participant commented, “Recognizable masks

[weren’t] anything that was purposefully done… it was one of those things that just organically happened.” He speculated that “as pop culture changed and people started recognizing various characters from a number of creative outlets, people wanted to pick masks that would be recognized.”

This transition from wearing racialized and Halloween masks to cartoon and otherwise family-friendly characters signals the transformation of SICSIC out of an era of off-putting maliciousness and into an era of relatable silliness. The new SICSIC was intentionally making amends to the campus they had offended in the past and softening up their appearances was one step in this ongoing process. However good their intentions may have been, these new members were ironically taking steps in place, moving neither forwards or backwards. By starting a new tradition of wearing goofy masks, SICSIC was playing into the newly adapted color-blind policies of the country and university, distracting from the racial implications of masquerading in prison coveralls. Whether they knew it or not, the new SICSIC had eliminated racial play from their performance; yet through the loopholes of color blindness, they continued the tradition of signifying anxieties of the racial Other.

While the horror masks filtered out by the mid-nineties and the coveralls were no longer stained in blood, the costumes and performances of the 1990s SICSIC were no less jarring. When

I asked interview participants to explain how they acted while in mask, they often described the process of pretending to be someone else to disguise their identities. In the 1990s, SICSIC members continued the tradition of interacting with students while in mask. These interactions included holding brief and often silly conversations with students around campus and at social and athletic events. By manipulating the pitch of their voices and speaking in different accents, 183 the auditory signs of the “normal” college student were altered to become that of the cultural

Other. This was often a performance of the extreme, speaking in the highest or lowest pitch possible and performing “southern” accents. While some members would keep to character, such as intimidating the Wookie sounds of Chewbacca, others did not perform a character but kept things goofy and nonsensical. Members would often manipulate their bodies as they walked and talked, holding themselves differently, and making their steps longer or shorter than they normally would. While all the othered behavior is justified by the need to disguise their identities, much of their bizarre performance signifies not only the carnival but also the minstrel.

Several staples of blackface minstrelsy (as described in detail by historian Eric Lott (1993) are malapropisms and nonsensical dialog, exaggerated speech techniques like forced accents and vocals, and bizarre and sometimes sexualized body movement such as the original cake walk and pelvis-forward walking. Anyone familiar with these old forms of racialized entertainment would recognize it in the performance of the masked buffoonery of the SICSIC six. For those who may not be as familiar but have seen some of the many lingering forms of blackface minstrelsy as they exist today,111 they might be reminded of the implicit yet covert racist stylistics of the exaggerated body movements and sounds. And for those who are entirely clueless about the historical popularity of minstrel entertainment in the US, as well as the racialized past of SICSIC, it would make sense for them to not be able to put their finger on what is so odd, so bizarre and unsettling, about the group and their masked performances.

111 Yuval Taylor and Jake Austen’s book Darkest America: black minstrelsy from slavery to hip-hop (2012) discusses various forms of blackface minstrelsy as they continue to exist today. Continuing to spread prejudice and racism, but also as forms of education, the stereotypes invented and mass produced by blackface minstrelsy continue to pop up in contemporary entertainment. These include but are not limited to Mardi Gras celebrations, Spike Lee’s controversial Bamboozled (2000), and various hip-hop musical performances. Characters which originated from blackface minstrelsy, such as the Mammy, the Dandy, and the sexually aggressive Buck, are also finding their way back into contemporary films and TV shows (2012). 184

A phenomenon that seems to have started in the mid-1990s is the members’ lack of knowledge about SICSIC’s past. Participants were able to cite the basics, quote Jim Limbacher, and explain their current function as BGSU’s spirit crew. Starting with those involved in the early- to mid-nineties, however, SICSIC alumni are unaware of their group’s problematic and offensive past aside from rumors. It seems that after SICSIC’s revamping process, those who replaced the rogue members of the late eighties were introduced to the group with an entirely new and censored program. Except for the introduction of masks and coveralls, the initial transformation of SICSIC during McDonald’s presidency appears to have been eliminated from the group’s history. None of the interview participants remember why members chose matching coveralls as their uniforms, or why wearing Halloween masks became a tradition. The SICSIC graduates of the 1980s claimed to not know why they wore only scary masks and blood-stained coveralls. The SICSIC graduates of the early 1990s and on, however, were a part of a new

SICSIC that did not wear scary masks and blood. Participants from this new era scratched their heads in apparent shame and confusion about the horror implications of the old tradition. One member from the nineties summed up their feelings about it:

I think the masks you’re seeing now in the group are much more comical, much

more movie or cartoon related because colleges aren’t viewed as safe places that

they used to be. You know, the first members ran around in ski masks, in the 80s

and 90s you had one guy [running] around in the Halloween mask, Mike Myers.

[Today,] you know, that wouldn't’ fly. I thought about wearing the Scream mask

because that was big in my day. And you know—no—that’s not how you want

the group to be perceived. So, I think now, the masks you’re seeing are much

more family friendly. Probably because the college campus, society in general, 185

isn’t as safe of a place as it was twenty or thirty years ago, when you could get

away with that kind of stuff.

They reason that because there was less of a perceived threat—that campuses were less dangerous several decades ago—the wearing of horror masks was justifiable and reasonable.

Looking back, there have been numerous comparisons of SICSIC to criminals and serial killers consistently documented over the last eighty years. Perhaps the threat and the danger of school campuses has become more normalized in recent years; however, the risk and act of violence have been associated with American college campuses since their initial transformation in the post-war years, when SICSIC was created.

Political correctness, on the other hand, transformed the college campus into a place of equally prioritized safety; whereas before PC culture earned its standing among collegiate values, groups like SICSIC were permitted to scare and harass female students because women’s feelings were not a general concern. With the presence of political correctness, marginalized students and their needs were equally considered for the first time on many college campuses.

However incomplete their theory is, the above-mentioned member stands out from the problematic past of horror masked SICSIC members in that they made the decision to not partake in that kind of performance—they picked a much more amiable mask to wear throughout their three years.112A part of the PC campus, this member recognized that fear was not an appropriate emotion to inspire for a spirit crew, and chose a mask that wouldn’t scare others. Like those of their generation, they can only speculate about the rumors and stories told by his predecessors.

Among the more recent graduates, their wanting knowledge of their group’s past appearances seemed genuine and reasonable—they were never told. Except for those who go digging through

112 The specific mask that was worn by this individual was family-friendly and recognizable. In order to keep their identity confidential, I do not include its description. 186 the university archives, much of SICSIC’s history is regarded as myth by many members and remains a mystery for most outsiders.

Summary

The 1990s brought about the personalization of SICSIC membership and a new tradition for members to build onto their characters over time. This was the beginning of the individualistic SICSIC, now a traditional characteristic that many alumni from earlier years shake their heads at. Rather than functioning as one entity and allowing individuality to hide behind ambiguity, SICSIC was now highlighting their individual members with different physical characteristics and even personality traits. The competition within SICSIC was very much internalized, and members began to compete for attention and fans—the more unique their masks and funny their performance, the more their audience (their peers) would like them. In response to the Star Wars movies coming out in the late 1990s, several members chose to wear and perform famous characters from the franchise, and in effect, these members were very popular among the student body. As the 1990s American campus was evolving culturally, it was also developing technologically. With the boom in personalized technology, students were gaining more access to the internet and the beginnings of social media. It was becoming easier to hack computers and decode cryptic messages, and it became common for “copycat” groups to make their presence known on BGSU’s campus in the nineties. Groups such as “MICSIC” and

“DICDIC” made their own signs, held their own secretive meetings after dark, and even published several threats to expose the identities of the SICSIC six.113 One participant from the

113 Letter, no date, box 1, file 15 “Copycats,” “Dear SICSIC Members,” authored by “BG Sandfish Inc.” SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. Newsletter, November 24, 1997, box 1, file 15 “Copycats,” “MICSIC Vol #1 Issue #1,” authored by “MicSic.” SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 187 early 1990s suggested that “students [then] had to work a little bit more to figure out who

[SICSIC was] versus what they might be able to do now,” referring to access to new technology.

The cat-and-mouse chases were changing from literal to figurative and even virtual. For instance, potential future members stopped receiving letters requesting their presence in the graveyard; instead, members in the nineties received anonymous phone calls demanding they show up. This change in technology completely rewrote the rules of tapping, removing the authority and safety of the administration entirely.

In the 1980s, members were tapped due to their social statuses and accomplishments, and being a member was not exactly an option. One participant explained, “I guess I had a choice, but I didn’t have a choice. You know, all of the current members of SICSIC had actually interviewed me already, but I didn’t know it at the time. There was no question of, ‘Do you want to be in SICSIC?’ It was more about who I was as a person.” By the late 1990s, this ritual of tapping was replaced by an application system in which all of campus was prompted to apply for a spot among the chosen, honored few. The application was an attempt to reinforce democratic practices in the group and the representation of BGSU’s student body. Sometime in the 1990s,

SICSIC began unmasking their senior members during the halftimes of various Spring sports games. Previously, the seniors were unmasked onstage during the annual fraternity bed race held after the return from spring break. When the bed race tradition was started is unknown; however, the decision to distance SICSIC from campus Greek activities was most likely a part of the revamping process to be more inclusive and accessible. Now that all freshman students had a fair and even chance to be included in SICSIC, skeptics would have a hard time claiming the historical honorary society had ill intentions. This change would prove successful for the group and their acceptance on and off campus. 188

For some older participants, however, this change was contradictory to some of SICSIC’s original values and traditions. One participant mentioned, “Well when I was in there, there had only been one or two females at that time, prior to me. Now it’s split three males and three females isn’t it? That certainly is different.” The idea of having as many women as men in

SICSIC seemed to confuse him, and maybe contradict his understanding and purpose of the group. Commenting that the application process is “neither good or bad—it just is,” another member explained, “It was different then and I don’t know necessarily if having women in the group back then would have been a good thing. Sometimes there was some drinking involved and I don’t know if that would be appropriate today if that went on. Probably some language that

I wouldn’t say in front of my wife or my girls, my kids. I’m sure it’s cleaned up now. I’m sure.”

While he seemed accepting of SICSIC being “cleaned up now,” the participant sounded skeptical about including all students at BGSU as potential members of the secret six.

After the transition to open applications, the legacy of being “the best of the best” must have been lost for some of these older SICSIC members—just like older Bonesmen argue that

Skull and Bones will never be the same, or what it was intended to be, since the inclusion of women. Despite their opposition, however, both the administrations as well as the student bodies at Yale and BGSU have taken action to include women and minority students in curricular and extracurricular activities, including honorary secret societies. The days of openly prejudiced educational institutions and organizations were fading out by the end of the 1990s, and the

American college campus was increasingly under pressure to promote and advocate for diversity among their students, faculty, and staff. Because SICSIC was now a democratic organization that recognized and celebrated diversity on campus as well as within their membership, their old 189 ways were wiped clean and their continued practices freed of any problematic or questionable behavior.

The spirited support for diversity across campus, however, did not manifest. While the numbers of students of color enrolled at BGSU gradually increased into the 2000s, the controversy over affirmative action in higher education increased anxieties over race on college campuses around the country. Soon, this avoidance of the obvious lack of diversity within

SICSIC and across BGSU’s growing campus would grow into a hypersensitivity over race and representation. By the 2000s, SICSIC would start to openly play with race once again as an attempt to entertain a privileged student body led by an increasingly color-blind administration.

SICSIC’s struggle to balance both the support and representation of the student body and administration would continue into the new millennium, producing what would become the contemporary SICSIC: a hypersensitive carnivalesque spirit crew with several skeletons in the closet and several more skeptics on campus. 190

CONCLUSION — MEMORY LOSS

Having emerged in the 1980s, the conflicting ideologies of color-blind policy and political correctness continued into the new millennium, characterizing the national anxieties of the early 2000s as a hyper-awareness of the racial Other. As a microcosm equally experiencing this national anxiety, the American college campus began including celebrations of diversity in their recruitment advertisements. For institutions like Bowling Green State University, these advertisements came across as ironic and even forced when compared to the reality of a lacking visual diversity. As the face of the university and student body, SICSIC would easily fall into this culture of hyper-awareness of and sensitivity to the irony of their situation—particularly when their history is so racially and sexually charged. Seemingly unaware of this controversial heritage, the contemporary SICSIC experiences memory loss when it comes to the group’s problematic past and current implications of their continued performances. At the start of the new millennium, SICSIC was beginning to show a determination to remain popular among their student contemporaries rather than their alumni. At the same time, the student majority grew to support diversity rather than push political correctness and turned a collective blind eye to the ironies of racial representation on campus. While SICSIC has always struggled to balance their representation of both university and student body, the turn of the century brought a new kind of peace between the two campus entities, as they shared the modern desire for an idealized diverse education. It would not be until the late 2010s that the irony of racial representation began to be exposed as hypocrisy when BGSU’s students of color brought issues of visual representation to the center of campus discussion.

In this concluding chapter, I observe SICSIC’s continued struggle to balance the values and traditions of both the university and the student body as the pressures for visual diversity 191 increased the influence of color-blind policy on campus culture. I frame SICSIC’s connection to campus politics within two discernable eras of 21st century America: the Obama era (2008-

2016) and the post-Obama era (2016-?). I then suggest a possible post-Trump era, a potentially new era of equity, inspired by BGSU’s currently active Black Student Union (BSU) students.

Citing archival material from the Key yearbooks and magazines as well as the BG News, I argue that the memory loss observable among the contemporary SICSIC members is a part of the university’s sanctioned color blindness. Focusing on interviews with recent SICSIC graduates, I observe memory loss as a function of political passivity within the contemporary society. This memory loss is also detected in the members’ passive place in relation to their problematic history. Finally, I include interview participants’ opinions on the founding principle of SICSIC— school spirit—and I observe the evolution of school spirit’s function within the group as a preservation of the “us” in light of the ever-increasing “them.”

“....the specific rhetorical situation involves the self-humiliation of the ‘sacrificial’ figure, and that a psychological dissociation from this symbolic self-maiming is one of the powerful motives at work in the audience. Motives of race, status, economics and guilt are always clustered here.” Ralph Ellison, Shadow & Act (1964, 49)

National Anxieties in the 2000s

The start of the 2001 school year was dominated by the disaster of the September 11th terrorist attacks, framing the new century in fear. As the risk of Islamist extremism and terrorism increased in the West, war grew in the East, and the fear of the racial Other based on appearances alone was manifested by racial profiling—a modern and highly popularized technology which reaffirmed whiteness as normal, safe, and desirable. American patriotism was rebranded as a rejection of the brown/Muslim/Middle Eastern Other, revitalizing the national anxiety. Leading 192 the country in this rise in racial and religious antagonism was President George W. Bush who led a campaign for a militarized American democracy, or, what became known as the War on Terror.

To restore courage and hope in his country, Bush reestablished the all-American “us versus them” mentality, disguised by the culturally safe blanket-terms: patriotism and democracy. The

United States was growing increasingly more conservative, combatting the Other with defensive and xenophobic concepts of anti-American and unpatriotic.

Towards the end of the decade, however, the American people were ready for change, and in 2008, elected the first non-white US president. Countering the war-hungry Bush years,

President Barack Obama lead a campaign against conservative ideals of yesterday and promised a more authentic and heterogeneous democracy. The 2008 elections spread the hope of a post- racial America—a moment of wishful thinking for those hoping for a new and clean slate.

Instead, the Obama era would trigger a hyper-awareness of the racial Other across the nation, sparking international debates over race, Americanness, and whiteness. While it emerged politically in the 1980s, color blindness became a topic of national debate in the 2000s.

Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that the contemporary function of color-blind racism is to “[explain] contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics” (2006, 2).

Defined as a “New Racism” where “whites rationalize minorities’ contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks’ imputed cultural limitations” (2-3), color blindness effortlessly persists in 21st century America to “[keep] blacks and other racial minorities ‘at the bottom of the well’” (3). In this supposedly post-racial country, racism has been able to survive and thrive without racists (2006).

The Obama years encouraged a visually diverse America and college campus, yet the

#BlackLivesMatter movement exposed a perpetually violent police force and a neutral black 193 president. Questions of racial equality continued in the post-Obama era as Donald Trump’s campaign for US president encouraged conservatives and liberals alike to publicly express their anxieties of the racial Other. After Trump’s election in 2016, numerous death and otherwise violent threats were made against people of color across the country, specifically on college campuses, including BGSU. By the late 2010s, stories of white supremacy groups, hate crimes, domestic terrorism, police brutality, deportations, racist foreign policy, and international threats of war dominated American media, simultaneously critiquing and fueling a national fear of the racial and religious Other. By encouraging his supporters to “make America great again,” Trump signified the good-old days of open racial, sexual, and gendered discrimination. By 2017, the president of the US had lifted the elite out of dangerous waters and sat them back on the age-old pedestal of privileged whiteness and inherited power. For the rest of the country, however, the

2000s were socially daunting.

The rise of social media in the early 2000s led to new forms of national paranoia and fear about how to talk about race in America. A hybridization of popular culture and technology, social media unleashed new forms of human expression in a global context while also setting the bar high for social accountability when it came to users’ expressions of racist beliefs. The combination of a hyper-awareness of issues of race and the fear of appearing racist created new challenges for thinking and writing about race and racism. As ambassadors for the new digital age, college students became frontline troops in American and global race politics. Since the initial success of the Arab Spring in 2010 and the beginning of the #BlackLivesMatter movement in 2013, millennials have utilized social media to organize discussions and mobilize movements for social justice and equality. At Bowling Green State University, student organizations like

SICSIC, which historically resisted this kind of change, have just as equally taken to social 194 media for communal influence and outreach. In the 21st century, SICSIC—a historically white, male, and privileged honors society—was quick to adopt the new youth culture of social media on an increasingly liberal campus.

BGSU in the 2000s

In the Fall semester of 2004, BGSU’s incoming freshman class totaled 3,869 students. Of these students, approximately 57% were female, 43% were male, and 83% were white.114 Ten years after BGSU’s first data collection of 1994, the incoming freshman class was almost 10% less white. In the Fall of 2006, the incoming freshman class was approximately 55% female,

45% male, and 77% white.115 In just two years, BGSU’s freshman class was 6% less white. This trend continued until the end of the decade, when the campus demographics accurately reflected the national percentage of white Americans at the time.116 This demographic data suggests that national policies were supportive of racial representation on college campuses, as the Obama years continued to see these numbers increase.

As an undeniable part of BGSU’s racial representation, President Sidney Ribeau stayed with BGSU for thirteen years until 2008, when he accepted the position of Howard University president. While he left the university on good terms, Ribeau’s departure from BGSU nevertheless speaks to American post-racial conflict in the 2000s. During his presidency, Ribeau was well-liked and popular across campus, and was representative of the positive outcome of

Affirmative Action. However, BGSU’s administration was strictly concerned with the university’s finances, and replaced Ribeau with BGSU’s first female president, Carol Cartwright,

114 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 2004. 115 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 2006. 116 2010 Census Briefs, 2011, 3. 195 in 2009. As a minority, President Cartwright fulfilled the university’s apparent desire for visual diversity; however, this transition mirrors the country’s value of financial stability over racial representation. This transfer of power from a black man to a white woman suggests a critique of affirmative action on behalf of BGSU’s board of trustees, as if they were claiming that the progressive policy did not work for their university. Instead, the board brought in someone they felt they could trust to repair the university’s financial issues. Looking past race and banking off color-blind policy, BGSU went for “the best fit” for the betterment of their campus.117

BGSU’s shaky financial situation is also reflected in the canceling of the Key yearbooks.

After the last printing of the Key yearbooks in 2007, the Key Magazine began publishing biannual editions which spoke on popular culture and social issues on campus. In 2010, the magazine featured a story on the “beheading” of the Falcon Mascots; however, SICSIC is not mentioned (16). While Freddie and Frieda Falcon are mentioned and pictured in several of the

Key Magazine editions, SICSIC is not pictured, mentioned, or even included in the list of campus organizations from any edition. SICSIC’s petering out of student publications and campus media is reminiscent of the late 1980s, when the campus began to reject the problematic secret six. As a student magazine, the Key speaks on student concerns and interests, and stands as evidence of a growing disconnect between SICSIC and the student body. This disconnect would continue into the current decade as the group strategically sided with the administration to maintain a neutral relationship with the campus.

In 2010, the incoming freshman class consisted of approximately 55% females, 45% males, and 74% whites,118 again, reflecting the national percentage of white Americans.119 Five

117 President Cartwright was, unlike President Ribeau, additionally supportive of SICSIC. She was initiated into the group in 2009, the same year she took office. 118 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 2010. 119 2010 Census Briefs, 2011, 3. 196 years later, the freshman class was approximately 60% female, 40% male, and 77% white.120 It appears that despite the drastic increase in students of color in the 2000s, the mid-2010’s saw a slight decrease, yet the percentage of female students continued to rise—a scenario similar to the

Ribeau-Cartwright transition. The last data collection published on the university website was in

2017, with the percentage of white Freshmen reaching a high 80%,121 conflicting with the 2017 national percentage of white Americans at 76%.122 Comparing the Obama years to the post-

Obama years, there is an observable decrease in students of color, suggesting that the new US

President’s lament for the good-old days may have had an impact on the American college campus.

After President Cartwright’s retirement in 2011, BGSU’s board of trustees hired Mary

Ellen Mazey to continue Cartwright’s work in raising revenue for the university. President

Mazey served for six years until she stepped down unexpectedly in 2017. Addressing the numerous reports of student rape and sexual assault on campus in the late 2010s, Mazey responded traditionally by condemning sexual assault, supporting the establishment of a Sexual

Assault Task Force made up of BGSU faculty and staff, and remaining neutral on the subject.123

When she announced her resignation in 2017, rumors suggested that it was related to growing pressures to better address and challenge the rape culture on BGSU’s campus. Hoping to call out the institution’s upheld structures of privilege that protect certain student rapists, survivors and their supporters wanted to acknowledge a rape culture on campus rather than a rape problem—a demand that seems to have been too liberal for the university president.

120 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 2015. 121 BGSU Flow Model Archive, Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort, Fall 2017. 122 US Census Bureau, Quick Facts, 2017. 123 BGSU online article, “BGSU implements efforts to address sexual assault,” BGSU News, August, 2017. 197

Despite the administration’s reluctance to delve into controversy in the 2010s, BGSU’s student body was once again ready to address its grievances. In the Spring 2013 edition of the

Key Magazine, the “Year-In-Review: BGSU” includes an article titled, “Racist Tweets Make

Headlines,” a story about the Black Student Union facing whitelash after holding an event at a local bar. After BGSU students posted their reactions to the group’s presence on Twitter, complaining about their “darkening” of the apparently white space (26), the offense was considered important enough to be published in the biannual Key. In the Spring of 2017, the opening article, “Rooted in Love: the faces of BGSU activism,” argues that student activism is an act of love (4-6). Along these lines, another article in the same edition discusses the use of social media to actively break down stereotypes against international students and students of color (12-13). More recently, the Spring 2018 edition features the article, “7 Things Black

Freshmen Should Know Before Starting College” (4-5). Distinct from passive, color-blind rhetoric, the contemporary BGSU student body seems to have been working towards a truly representative diversity on campus by pointing out the ironies and hypocrisy of the privileging structures that be. At the same time, however, testimonies and rumors of racial threats spread across campus the week following the 2016 presidential election. The following year, a white supremacist group posted fliers for their cause across the University of Toledo and BGSU’s campuses (McCray, 2017). With change in the air, the historically privileged seemed to have been encouraged by Trump’s election and persisted to actively cling to their power.

Until recently, BGSU’s president has historically struggled to listen to and act on student grievances over changing campus cultures and controversies. Promoted to university president in

2018 after his previous positions with BGSU as provost and senior vice president,124 Rodney

124 BGSU online article, “Biography of Rodney K. Rogers, Ph.D.,” BGSU, Office of the President, no date. 198

Rogers has since challenged the position’s stereotype and led the student body in a promising direction. After the campus’ historical Gish theatre underwent construction, the university transferred the historical name and memory of BGSU alumni Lillian Gish to the theatre in the

Plemmons Student Union. It was not long before BGSU’s Black Student Union tweeted about the outdated name and offensive homage to film, The Birth of a Nation (1915), which made

Lillian Gish famous. Responding to the BSU’s critique in February of 2019, President Rogers announced his overseeing of a task force to change the theatre’s name and better represent the values of a modern and diverse campus (Whiteside, 2019). Already, President Rogers’ leadership has promise of overseeing historic progress at BGSU: effectively addressing the university’s racist history as well as its modern racial prejudices. More importantly, BGSU’s contemporary student body seems to be ready to not only represent a diverse campus but promote empowerment and equity as reparations on campus to better address issues previously overlooked. Once again, BGSU’s campus culture is changing. Now in a possibly new era of highlighting and cutting out oppressive, offensive, and backwards traditions from campus life, the question remains for BGSU’s historical honorary society: how will SICSIC evolve to entertain this new student body and campus culture? Moreover, is SICSIC still relevant? To better consider this question, the following section provides a brief analysis of what the spirit crew has been up to this century.

Representing a Diverse Campus

BG News columnist, Bree Swatt, published an opinion column in 2000 titled, “SIC SIC helps raise school spirit,” which begins: “I want to state that I was harrassed by this organization 199 and I liked it.”125 She explains, “I had my first real encounter with them... traveling in the dark across campus. Out of nowhere I see a hoopdie-[mobile] flashing its headlights. To my surprise, some little gray people jumped out and started stealing my book bag, hugging me and giving me candy.” By defining this interaction with the SICSIC six as “harassment,” Swatt dismisses the serious implications of actual harassment by several masked individuals who were mimicking robbery and kidnapping as a form of play. Her description of the members as “little gray people” is also a reference to aliens, a fantasized political concept for a literal Other. This development in general is alarming; however, her dismissal of having “liked it” justifies the entire scenario as a positive interaction, and by extension, argues the same for all such interactions with SICSIC. In her article, Swatt argues in favor of the secret society’s presence on campus in response to some recent negative reviews. The SICSIC of the 2000s was not just masquerading on campus, however. Swatt’s article continues to describe another instance when SICSIC interrupted her evening: “There was also the BW3 incident—I had my picture taken with SIC SIC in the middle of my favorite bar. And what the heck were they doing there? Just having a good time with students.”126 Apparently, SICSIC made masked visits to local bars around Bowling Green to have some fun with their peers. In addition to secretive ritual drinking, the new SICSIC was still engaging in alcohol-related activities in public and off campus, continuing one of the group’s oldest traditions.

The decade of the 2000s started the tradition for SICSIC to focus their efforts on building and maintaining a relationship with their student body, sometimes in ways that most likely compromised their relationship with their advisor and administration. They were also willing to

125 BG News article clipping, February 11, 2000, box 3, file 6 “Clippings,” “SIC SIC helps raise school spirit,” authored by Bree Swatt. SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections. 126 “BW3” is a reference to the local Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant and bar. 200 compromise their relationship with the alumni members of SICSIC. Where the old SICSIC rebelled and turned from tradition through exclusion and antisocial activities, the new SICSIC was turning from tradition progressively and inclusively. Their new values and traditions included an online application system rather than the tapping system as well as the wearing and performing of popular culture characters—both being new traditions that alumni members outspokenly dislike. The hierarchical numbers (#1, #2, etc.) that the alumni had invented were set aside by the 2000s, and members began going by their mask character names instead, such as

“Olive Oyl” and “Foo Fee.” By the latter half of the decade, members were wearing and performing popular icons like Marilyn Monroe, culturally relevant artists like Eminem, and active politicians such as the Clintons. Gone were the days of gore and fear; instead, the SICSIC six took on an air of satire—and color blindness—in their masked performances of buffoonery.

Although the horror-themed masks faded out by 1995, some Halloween masks were still worn by SICSIC members since, such as the “Wolfman” mask in 2000 (The Key, 2000, 169) and the “Big Bad Wolf” in 2003 (The Key, 2003, 150). While still considered Halloween masks, they were much less ghoulish than the masks from previous decades. In the early 2000s, the trend was politicians. In the year 2000, the SICSIC member known as Nancy Reagan was unmasked revealing her identity as Melissa Baranecky. Baranecky’s mask and character was one of the first political masks to be worn and performed; but more importantly, her mask was the first political mask to be named. Political masks had been worn prior to Baranecky but they were not officially identified. Documentation of these pre-millennium political masks is rare, such as the obscure

Ronald Reagan mask photographed in the 1985 Key yearbook. It seems that performing and mocking respectable politicians was inappropriate prior to the 2000s—it may have been considered inappropriate in the 2000s as well. The SICSIC of this decade, however, were willing 201 to take that chance to establish a more authentic connection with their audience. This suggests an open interest in critiquing and mocking politics and government on BGSU’s campus and highlights a modern national anxiety: US politicians. As constant media coverage and political scandal were becoming the norm, the nation was responding by developing a collective suspicion and distrust towards positions of influence and power. By putting politicians, celebrities, and cartoon characters in masked conversation with one another, SICSIC was beginning to play with national anxieties of popular culture. In the picture below (Fig. 19), the SICSIC six pose on a pool table wearing the masks of Richard Nixon, the Big Bad Wolf, Whoopi Goldberg, George

W. Bush, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Hillary Clinton.

Fig. 19. SICSIC Six Pose on Pool Table (The Key, 2003, 150).

Disguised as comedic relief from anxieties over the powerful and influential, SICSIC’s performances of these characters were just as bizarre and minstrelesque as before. Characters such as Whoopi Goldberg, portrayed by a blackface-esque mask with an exaggerated mouth and afro hair (pictured above), reveal the historical influences still present and evident in SICSIC’s performances. Mike Tyson was also performed through mask in the 2000s. Despite their blatant racialized past, SICSIC was still playing with the idea of race. The reasoning behind this sudden resurgence in racialized masks lies within the influence of color-blind policy on BGSU’s campus; these members had learned not only to look past race, but to ignore it all together; these 202 members didn’t see their Goldberg and Tyson masks as racial masks, but popular culture masks.

This ideology played into the way SICSIC included non-white members as well. One participant explained, “One of the members was African American—obviously there is a smaller population of African Americans on campus so that would really narrow it down. So, he had to make sure he wore really long sleeves and taped everything up. He wore gloves all the time. He had a turtleneck that he had to tape up. He had an old Caucasian mask (the old man mask) that he

[sometimes] wore.” While some white members had no problem performing blackness in mask, one black member was forced to cover up his black skin while in mask, and sometimes wear whiteface to protect his racial identity. For SICSIC at this time—and by extension, BGSU—race was not a topic of discussion or concern. Except for the black SICSIC member who had to hide his wrists, neck, and ankles whenever in costume, there was no reason to address any level of inequality based on race. And even then, it was never really addressed as an example of inequality, but more of an annoyance or potential weakness. Sometime after 2006,127 SICSIC members were forbidden from wearing masks of a different race, ethnicity, or gender. Applied less strictly to cartoon or fictional characters, this rule applies more to human beings portrayed and performed by mask. Ultimately, the brief resurgence of blackface and the irony of performed whiteface speaks to the ways color-blind policy and mentality preserved conservative values at

BGSU.

In addition to playing with race, the SICSIC of the 2000s was beginning to play with femininity and the female body rather than hide it. One member recalled how they and their cohort theatrically altered their bodies to appear more or less feminine in an attempt to hide their

127 None of the interview participants knew when exactly this rule was applied. Based on the appearances of the SICSIC members in the early 2000s, the rule was probably implemented closer to the end of the decade. The last black mask to be worn by a SICSIC member was that of Mike Tyson, worn by Greg Edwards who graduated in 2006. 203 genders. They explained, “I layered my clothing and stuffed my arms and body full of bedsheets to make myself look bigger. I walked with a limp, kind of dragged my back foot a lot of the time… I would use a really high-pitched, squeaky, crackly voice... I tried to go with a really high-pitched voice which I think a lot of them still do now.” Not only were these members playing with their audience’s assumptions of gender, they began to perform female anatomy.

They explained, “We had one guy who had a sports bra and he put two tennis balls in his uniform, so he looked more feminine than male. He was shorter, and people didn’t know [if he was male or female] so he disguised his gender that way. When he did that, [he changed his voice to high pitched].” It was also in the 2000s that SICSIC began to exaggerate this play with gender through the addition of accessories to their costumes. Seen in the image above, several members are wearing a hat, and others are wearing jewelry. Many of these accessories are passed on to future members along with the coveralls; the construction hard hat is still worn by members today. The addition of accessories completed the transformation of the contemporary SICSIC from a focus on the whole to an emphasis on the individual.

The Contemporary SICSIC

Apart from the revamping process in the 1980s, the individualization of the six members within SICSIC was the most discussed topic of change amongst interviewees. Where older interview participants were willing to complain and worry over this change, more recent graduates offered some explanations for this transformation. One participant said:

[Members now] take on the persona of what their mask is. And I think that just

grew organically. When I was in the group, there wasn’t the emphasis that we

needed to act like our masks—it was just to hide our identities. Now I think it’s 204

much more ingrained into the culture of the group. The mask that you are, that’s

kind of a personality that you have… I think that may be the generation. I think

there is a little more propensity for “look at me, look at me.” I’m not saying that

that’s bad, but we didn’t have the idea of “oh, I’m going to dress in a tutu or a

scarf.” That’s not anything that we thought about. It’s different now and that’s

fine. It brings attention to the group which is good because it’s visible and people

can express themselves how they want to.

Another participant who was closer to the stylistic change explained how they felt as one of the

“last traditionalist” members watching the transformation take effect. They explained:

We had a lot of different takes on what the group should mean. I took it as, the

group was founded for midnight signs and spreading school spirit through that

anonymity. Other people took it as, we need to be out and be seen, we need to be

at sporting events, it was always that whole [thing] like the mascots. But that’s

why we have Frieda and Freddie... The younger people who we brought in that

followed me really made it something entirely different in their approach… the

group has freedom to turn it into whatever they want while they’re in there. It

only takes one or two members being brought in with a different vision to shift

the whole direction of the group.

This member disagreed with the direction that SICSIC has taken. They said, “For me, the focus wasn’t about any one individual. I’m in mask but I’m replaceable. It’s about the campus, the students.” However, they realized that their time has come and gone, and they no longer have a say about the practices and values of the group. The two previously quoted participants were not 205 one of the members to bring about the transformation, but they value the growth of the group as an extension of the evolution of the campus culture.

Another overwhelming characteristic of the evolving campus culture has been technology as an extension of popular culture. Commenting on the influence technology has had on the campus, one participant connected the popularity of music and social devices with the phenomenon of an isolated youth. They explained,

I think, more so now, people kind of [got] into their own little world [and would]

walk across campus with their earbuds in, and you’re just trying to remind them

that they’re a part of this bigger community, that you can smile and have fun and

not take everything so seriously. Getting students out of their spaces, that’s new,

that’s an element of SICSIC that’s changed. Nobody had cell phones when I

started college and by the time I graduated, that’s when cell phones really started

coming in. But the iPod had really taken off and you had the earbuds. It used to be

that you’d say hi to everybody, and then campus changed and people had earbuds

in and [were] on their phones… President Prout didn’t anticipate that! He didn’t

know when he started the group that that’s where we [were] headed. Now that’s

the new challenge for the group, still getting people connected to each other and

to campus.

SICSIC alumni and members alike agree that President Prout was trying to solve the issue of a divided campus when he created their honorary group in 1946. Ironically, the 2000s SICSIC was adapting a concept of individuality and separation from the whole as an element to their performance and interaction with their audience. Whether they are aware of it or not, the 206 phenomenon of individuality and isolation has become an anxiety that the SICSIC six now perform.

In 2006, the Key yearbook published the SICSIC senior unmasking for the last time, although the previous year’s Key did not. The following year, in 2007, there is no documentation of unmasking in the Key. However, all six members are pictured in the yearbook wearing their masks: George Washington, Barbara Streisand, Marilyn Monroe, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tony

Blair, and Eminem (The Key, 2007, 166). The year of 2007 is the only instance a SICSIC cohort has been entirely masked as actual people, whose popular identities became characters for the members to perform. Next to their group picture, the masked members are listed as their SICSIC character names—their true identities are not. The omission of the seniors’ faces and names could have been out of protection for future SICSIC alumni; additionally, it could have been out of punishment for a problematic SICSIC, as has been the case in previous years. Either way, the last editions of the Key yearbooks suggest a disconnect between SICSIC and the Key student staff, as well as the beginning to an end of SICSIC’s general popularity and influence on campus.

There was, however, still an interest in the current members on behalf of the alumni. The image pictured below of Marilyn Monroe posing on a university vehicle (Fig. 20) was taken and published online by a BGSU alumnus who wrote a blog post about SICSIC’s 60th anniversary in

2006. The majority of campus at the time, however, must have been unaware or unconcerned with the event. In the 2008 Key yearbook (the last edition), there is little mention of SICSIC and still no senior unmasking page. In fact, the two graduating seniors according to BGSU’s SICSIC webpage, Carla Bertoldi (Marilyn Monroe) and Dawn Cheney (Eminem), are not listed in the

Key among that year’s graduating class—Bertoldi and Cheney are not mentioned in the yearbook at all. Apart from their public unmaskings, the contemporary SICSIC seniors are now 207 documented as members in only two places readily available to the public: on the BGSU SICSIC

Members webpage and on the plaque of SICSIC alumni in Prout Chapel.128

Fig. 20. Marilyn Monroe Poses on University Vehicle (“Hey look a Monkey,” October 16, 2006, “This past weekend: SICSIC Edition,” authored by J Dog).

Fig. 21. SICSIC Six Wear Pop Culture Masks (Odyssey Online, July 5, 2016, “11 Signs You’re From Bowling Green State University,” authored by Alyssa Rae Lombardi).

By 2010, SICSIC had gone through various changes to survive as a modern American secret society and spirit crew. In league with modern student culture, much of the organization has been digitized; SICSIC has a Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram account, and most of their communication including the application system is conducted over email. Pictured in the above right image (Fig. 21), the SICSIC cohort of 2017 pose for a social media-appropriate photoshoot.

128 While SICSIC does post pictures and names from their annual unmaskings on their social media accounts, the vastness of data posted on Twitter and Facebook makes it difficult to successfully search for this information. 208

Clockwise from the top, Al Gore, the Grinch, Laura Bush, Spiderman, Groot, and Captain Planet wear their traditional coveralls and modern accessories. Encouraged to wear “genderless” character masks like Groot from the Guardians of the Galaxy films, and “raceless” masks like the Grinch and Frosty the Snowman, contemporary inductees spend a good amount of time deciding which mask to choose.129 Both functionality and popularity come into play when deciding which mask to buy, and because the masks are now representative of their SICSIC character, contemporary members must stick with the same mask for three years.

Commenting on the character development of their masks, two recent SICSIC graduates discussed some of the ground rules in a shared interview. One of them explained: “While the character that you want is super important, and what you want to purvey about yourself is cool, it has to fit and it has to meet all the requirements. It has to cover your entire head. You have to be able to wear it for an extended amount of time. You want to be able to see, breathe, and hear.”

More recently modified rules include: “You can’t repeat [a mask that has already been worn], you can’t portray someone else of another race, nationality, or culture.” Emphasizing the importance of popular culture in their costumes and performances, one of the members commented how “there is a lot of new pop culture that comes out so there is a plentiful supply, so everyone is uniquely their own.” When it comes to politics, the members mentioned a

“general taste factor” for gauging appropriate masks. One member said, “If someone picked a

Donald Trump mask right now, you’re putting yourself in a bad place. They don’t like you to do any current political figures, or political figures that could be relevant within the next four years in your undergrad career. But Donald Trump has already been taken.” Mentioning the Al Gore

129 Incidentally, Groot, the Grinch, and Frosty were performed by women. 209 mask from a few years prior, the member explained, “With Al Gore, you couldn't really tell. He kind of looked like a generic white man.”

Unlike the interview participants from previous decades, contemporary SICSIC members were more than willing to discuss the meaning of their masks, as well as acknowledge race as an aspect of their performances. The “generic” whiteness of the Al Gore mask was not assumed as a given or normal by this member. Rather, they explained the purpose of the mask by calling out its race. Less of a political statement and more of a satirical comment on race, the general whiteness of Al Gore’s mask allowed the SICSIC members to play with the identity of an average white male. Pictured above in the 2016 group photograph (Lombardi), the Al Gore mask is almost impossible to recognize, as he wears a construction hat, sunglasses, and appears to have been given a temporary mustache. By playing with whiteness rather than blackness (and any other race known to have been performed in mask form by the group), it is as if the contemporary SICSIC is turning their historical and outdated values on its head, flipping the standards, and mocking the origins of the group itself. At the same time, however, the Al Gore

SICSIC member was known to speak in an exaggerated, high-pitched “southern” accent, signifying a blackface minstrel show. While the contemporary SICSIC may appear to be running from the group’s conservative history, their possibly progressive performances still include many of the original styles and tactics of carnivalesque entertainment.

Discussing their own development with their masks, the two participants explained how they built their characteristics based on how they perceived their characters from pop culture.

When in mask, they would behave according to the original character and even carry props with them that would enhance this character’s complexity. Two individuals inducted within the same year sometimes played off each other’s characters and personalities, developing a relationship 210 between them that would be recognized and valued by their audience over the duration of their three years. While most character development stays true to the original, such as the well-known mannerisms of Spiderman, some took different approaches and made their character unique to themselves. One member stated, “If I was around people that I knew, I would walk different. I always walked pigeon toed. I really don’t know why. [My performance is] always like an exaggeration of things I already do.” Differentiating from the character’s known mannerisms observable in popular culture, this participant made their performance minstrelesque by exaggerating an othered mannerism, maintaining the group’s traditions of masquerading while keeping up with the interest in pop culture on the modern college campus. The participant explained this ritualesque process of getting into character:

We’re both introverted people in our everyday lives. In mask I’d just walk over to

a table [in the union] and lay down on it, get comfy. It’s like everything that

you’ve always wanted to do as an individual. It's almost like your exaggerated

personal characteristics. For some people, it’s like flipping a switch, they’re a

whole different person. I’m a pretty quiet person in everyday life; [my character]

is pretty loud. Partially because of my voice—it’s kind of screechy and gross. For

people to be able to understand me it has to be loud.

Summing it up nicely, they said: “Thinking back on it, [my character] is kind of like a caricature of myself in the weirdest way. Either it's that or it's a secrecy maintenance kind of thing.” This member was able to recognize the liminality inherent in performing a masked identity, defining their performance as a “caricature” of them self. Before they could probe any deeper into the meaning of their performance, however, this participant redirected their thought process to the functioning purpose of such an exaggerated act: secrecy. 211

To this day, secrecy is extremely important for SICSIC members. In fact, several recent graduates made the point to declare their group’s number one value to be secrecy. When it comes to character development, members are not only perfecting their character as in who they perform, they are also performing their character as in who they represent. When asked if they knew why they were chosen to be in SICSIC, one member answered: “I feel like everyone is picked for our values,” and then quickly stated, “We can’t name the values, it’s a secret thing.”

When prompted to say more, they explained:

There were things about us that they really liked that they didn’t see in other

people. It’s very specific every year for how they pick you and why. If we don’t

see [these values] in somebody, it's like we don't’ know if you actually want to be

here or not. I think the biggest thing is being here for the right reasons... I think

authenticity is a big thing for us. Just like: “Are you being genuine?” “Are you

here for the right reasons?” “Is it about being the person everyone knows?” “Or

do you want to have an impact?”

While their values may be a secret, at least three have been mentioned by every interview participant who graduated after 1990: secrecy, authenticity, and leaving an impact on campus.

Prior to the 1990s, members focused primarily on secrecy as an upheld value. It appears that the revamping process of 1989 did fine-tune—if not redefine—SICSIC’s values, and by extension, their purpose.

There is a clear divide between the alumni of the 1980s and those who have graduated since then, observable in their interviews as well as in Gregg DeCrane’s recollections. The fact that Jim Limbocher’s manuscript ends in the beginning of the 1990s might even suggest that the original SICSIC values and purpose were soon coming to an end, and that many original 212 members were eager to preserve their legacy. Many of the stories documented by Limbacher are off-putting and even irrelevant to the contemporary members. For example, stories about the university vehicle were brought up by most, if not all interviewees, and the more recent graduates shared a similar disdain for the infamous tales. Discussing the notorious SICSIC car, the two members mentioned above explained how the group no longer has one. One member said, “We’ve heard of some weird stories about how [the alumni] used to have multiple cars, about them driving a car through a field or out on the runway at the airport. Just stuff that is not acceptable anymore. Do we need a car? Not really. A golf cart would suffice. Walking cuts into time with the students.” Where previous members were excited to discuss the lore of the old days, when they could get away with a lot of questionable behavior, contemporary members redefine the lore as “weird stories,” tales that evidently make them uncomfortable to think about now.

In fact, the contemporary members who gave interviews were perplexed and even outright judgmental over some of the historical pastimes of the group. Commenting on how they do not train new members how to perform in mask, one participant explained, “Do what’s natural to you, that’s something that we encourage a lot. Some people don’t like it but they can get over it. Some old alumni don’t like that we have a character around us. They prefer no talking, no nothing—just hang the signs and leave. They’ll be like, ‘Back in my day we just hung signs,’ and we’re like, ‘Back in your day you also had a key to every single building on campus.’” Like most rifts between conservatives and liberals, the divide between the old SICSIC and the new SICSIC has grown out of two distinct arguments: a focus on simplicity and a focus on inclusion. While the two groups have different values and definitions of school spirit, they do not necessarily disagree, they simply have different ideas. When conflated as one single 213 argument, however, it is easy to see why it has grown into an old versus new, us versus them mentality. For over seventy years, there have been several skeptics on campus asking questions about the mysterious SICSIC six. In the 21st century, these skeptics might just include a few of the members themselves.

Summary

For SICSIC alumni, SICSIC is entirely about spreading school spirit. Much of the interviews collected from these individuals included a great deal about what spreading school spirit looked like to them. Many of the members who graduated prior to 1990 associated spirit with supporting student athletes at games. When pressed further, some were able to break down the concept of “spirit.” “For me,” said one participant, “[school spirit is] all around creating a linkage between people and their institution. And it’s doing so in a way that creates memories

[and] experiences… around positive feelings of being there and being associated with it.”

Another member explained, “[For] SICSIC, [school spirit] was [about] being an ambassador of the school—in a secretive fashion—to support, promote, and encourage unity… The success of the university is the students that graduate from it, what they end up doing, and how those students mold themselves to become productive citizens after they graduate. It’s a direct reflection of [their experience on campus].” A different interviewee thought aloud, “Spirit is kind of a loose term—maybe happiness. Try and make people smile by our signs… Just to make people smile and know that maybe other people are thinking about them, that they weren’t in it alone, [that] everyone is going through the same thing... spreading good will I guess, more than anything.” 214

For contemporary members, their answers were much more fine-tuned, as if they’d been asked several times before. One such answer was, “It’s your excitement to be there at the university and to be involved in every aspect on campus. It’s like a sense of engagement and pride in the university you attend. Wanting to be there. A genuine desire and appreciation for being there and being a part of the community that you’re in.” Another member explained:

To me, school spirit is pride in the campus and the student body and then sharing

that with others, however that might be. From what I’ve seen going through the

group, every member of SICSIC feels like BGSU is the best college in the world,

they honestly feel like it’s the best place to be, there’s no other place you want to

be, and you just want to share that with everybody else on campus. And remind

them because sometimes you forget. You get caught up in classes or you’ve got a

bad professor or whatever it is that’s keeping you down. They believe it’s the best

place in the world and they want to remind everyone of that. Through signs, jovial

interactions, reminding everyone that life’s not so bad, they’re in a good place,

and reminding every individual that they are a part of this campus, this BGSU

family.

While all the definitions of school spirit are different, they ultimately come down to the same thing: reminding students at BGSU that they are a part of something special and important.

However, I have proposed that this was not always the case or the entirety of the truth. While participants from earlier decades have defended their group and actions in the name of spreading school spirit, much of their activity suggests alternative motives, such as harassing and mocking the Other students. What these members value in regards to spirit is ultimately reflective of their own moment in college, as if the details of their college years remain accurate and relevant to 215 that of the present day. For more recent SICSIC graduates, school spirit was achieved through making and hanging SICSIC Sez signs, engaging with students on campus and at events, and handing out candy. These acts of community engagement are believed to bring a smile to students’ faces, get them to think outside of themselves, and consider the bigger picture: BGSU as a student body and a whole that would be nothing without them. Whether or not these results are true is a disputed topic. For some students, SICSIC is an entertaining distraction from the mundane motions of college life. For others, SICSIC is an odd group of people who show up sometimes to hang signs and leave just as mysteriously as they came. For others still, SICSIC is creepy. Many students do not even know what SICSIC is. Whatever the students may think, the

SICSIC members, past and present, are confident in their actions and their reasons—or lack thereof.

Looking back on the changes SICSIC has gone through over the years, Gregg DeCrane reflected on an achieved sense of progress for the contemporary group. SICSIC, he said, “has grown I think right now into probably as strong and as respected organization as it has been.” He explained:

I think the university looks at the group totally differently... the group is very

supportive of not only athletic events but now it’s very supportive of other

activities that happen on campus. And that includes individual things. They’re at a

point where a student can make a request SICSIC to make a sign for a friend

who’s having a birthday or something like that. So, they’ve personalized it a little

bit. And they appear at pretty much all different types of events, not just football

or basketball games. So, their commitment is much greater than it used to be and

just the overall acceptance by the students and the faculty and administration is 216

probably the most positive and the strongest that it’s been since 1965 when I was

first associated with the university, so 53 years.

It’s a new SICSIC—possibly a liberal SICSIC. But they have tried to forget the old SICSIC, tried to start over new without addressing their past. The folklore of Limbacher lives on through shifting blame and dishonesty, through forgetfulness and memory loss.

When asked about clowning, the contemporary interview participants were taken aback as if offended by the comparison. They didn’t see a connection between their masked performances and that of a clown. One participant responded, “Like [us] being clowns? I guess several aspects are similar. But they’re very different visually. I think the visual aspect is what changes everything. We don’t look like scary clowns from tv shows and scary movies. If I were to see a SICSIC clown on campus, I’d freak out.” When I informed the participants about the history of SICSIC members wearing clown masks, they were shocked. They said, “I don’t know how I feel about being compared to a clown. Every single aspect of a clown is like an exaggerated personified thing, everything is silly when you’re a clown. On campus we’re not just silly, we’re real with students, we talk about things that have changed our campus—we’re more open to talking about everything since we are students ourselves. Not every single thing we do is a joke.” This participant was adamant about rejecting this comparison, yet their description of their own performance was very similar to their above description of clowning: “[My SICSIC character] is the embodiment of what I want to be, it’s like me hyper-realized. The amount of things that I’ve gotten to do in mask that I’ve always wanted to do in my life—there’s a video of me ______in the middle of Olscamp—I have always wanted to do that. [My SICSIC character] 217 got me to be able to do that kind of stuff. We are encouraging students to be whatever that hyper- realized version of themselves are.”130

This individual’s mask was the member’s tool for becoming the person they truly wanted to be. The older alumni may have agreed with this reasoning, acting the way they truly wanted to act, only permissible because of their disguised identities and protected SICSIC membership.

Behind the mask, the “best of the best” were able to live out their ideal college experience, all while being able to live their normal lives without being judged or punished but supported and encouraged. The above statement, “Not everything we do is a joke,” recalls Ralph Ellison’s theorizing about the Joke of Americanness and whiteness (1964). One’s nationality and identity are defined and sustained continuously through the “discipline of national self-consciousness”— a discipline that Ellison describes as a superficial and ironic performance that is essentially a mask (1964, 53). The historical and contemporary SICSIC members reaffirmed their identities as

BGSU’s ideal students through masquerading the economic, racial, gendered, political, and cultural Other as part of a serious campus culture-sustaining ritual. Being a group of masked students performing campus anxieties of the undesirable, and reaffirming the desirable, SICSIC is an example of Ellison’s Joke.

SICSIC has ironically set the bar for the type of student Bowling Green State University desires to make up their student body, and through their carnivalesque interactions with the campus, the student body has sometimes been able to negotiate the specifics. The power of negotiation, however, seems to have belonged to BGSU’s perturbed faculty and staff and victimized female students over the years. The administration’s concern for these individuals’ complaints reflects a bigger problem that has only recently surfaced: students of color do not

130 I have excluded the action this member was recorded doing in Olscamp Hall in order to protect their identity. 218 have their voices archived among SICSIC’s numerous complaints. The only complaint from a person of color that I discovered in my research was that of hearsay and was provided off the record. While race has explicitly been mocked and performed by the SICSIC six for decades, there is no evidence of this despite several photographs from which offense can only be interpreted. Such an incomplete historical record makes one wonder just how many complaints were reported by students of color but were never filed or even addressed. Moreover, how many offenses against students of color were even considered reportable to a biased administration? As

I could not provide the experiences and opinions of SICSIC’s victims of color, I do not have the answers to these questions. It is most important, however, to keep asking them.

Discussing performances of the racial Other, Ellison describes a process in which the masked performers self-humiliate and self-maim to evoke a similar sensation in the audience

(1964, 49). He argues that this process is intentional, as there are always “[motives] of race, status, economics and guilt” (49) behind the engaging, ritualesque performance. Considering the concept of white guilt, Robin DiAngelo criticizes it as an easy scapegoat for whites today, as

“guilt functions as an excuse for inaction” (2018, 135). She quotes Audre Lorde speaking on white guilt as “just another name for impotence, for defensiveness deconstructive of communication” (148-149). Described as a stress-inducing topic, DiAngelo argues that the concept of race is intimidating and even scary to white people (1-2). She calls this phenomenon, the process and result of whites being socialized to fear race, white fragility (2). When white people perform race, Ellison and DiAngelo insist that there is ultimately an element of guilt and fragility behind each performance. Perhaps the new SICSIC is adapting to their evolved campus, and instead of ignoring their racist past and present guilt, they have begun performing this guilt as a modern campus anxiety. For, the contemporary SICSIC members reflect the mindset of a 219 liberal college campus, one that is seeking out a new era of equity. Rather than continue to perform white fragility and memory loss, SICSIC has the opportunity to take part in a contemporary cultural shift where US nationality and student identity value an authentically democratic and representative college campus. Moreover, despite the conservative and Christian morals reflected in the deeper meaning of SICSIC’s founding on BGSU’s campus, the new

SICSIC believes that Prout left behind a legacy of inclusion. One interview participant explained how this new SICSIC can carry on the true function of the secret six. They said, “If you're not hanging up the signs, you're not SICSIC. To me, that’s what it always falls back on: putting up signs that remind people of campus events but also raise awareness about issues, get people more aware of what’s going on campus, or just make them laugh. Doing stupid stuff that will make them snicker [while] being inclusive. Which would ultimately go back to Prout—including everybody.”

Originating in 1942 as an exclusive and conservative honorary men’s secret society in charge of raising spirits on campus, SICSIC has since evolved into an inclusive and progressive spirit crew in charge of connecting their peers to their community. While many problematic traditions remain from the carnivalesque transformation of the 1950s and the conservative backlash of the 1980s, the student protests of the Political Sixties and the revamping process of the 1990s have proved to modernize SICSIC to be representative of BGSU’s student body. Since negotiating race in the Obama era, and surviving a second conservative backlash in the post-

Obama era, BGSU’s diverse student body—and by extension the contemporary SICSIC members—appear ready to take on a possibly new post-Trump era of equity and inclusion. To answer my previously proposed question of whether SICSIC is still relevant on such a transformed campus, I ask another question: Is the purpose of the contemporary SICSIC to lead 220 or reflect their student body? During a time of old consensus, when US nationality and campus identity were in lockstep, the original SICSIC was charged with the role of leading their student body. Today, in the age of multiculturalism and diversity, there is no longer one sense of college culture but many. Furthermore, the modern American college campus encourages dissent over acceptance, and with the ever-growing magnitude of social media, dissenting collectives of college students and activists now have a wider, more accessible community and platform than ever before. If SICSIC can no longer lead their student body in one single direction, perhaps the new SICSIC has redefined their purpose and function to reflect BGSU’s many campus cultures and values.

At Bowling Green State University and other college campuses across the nation, the anxiety of the nontraditional college student is on its way out. Instead, anxieties over racism and white guilt have turned a critical eye on the traditional student—one who reflects a generic whiteness and Americanness. As an anxiety of the white Self rather than the racialized Other, guilt is visible among contemporary college campuses as a collective fear of the racism that has been imposed on them by the past—a not-too distant past that glorified whiteness while ignoring and dismissing the racial Other. In this day and age, however, the Other college student is being seen, heard, and valued. When privileged whites can no longer speak for the racial, gendered, and economic Other, they can only speak for themselves. 221

WORKS CITED

Adler, Jerry. "God, Men and Bonding at Yale." Newsweek 117, 17, April, 29 1991: 66.

https://www.newsweek.com/god-men-and-bonding-yale-202330

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Carnival and Carnivalesque.” Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A

Reader. 2nd Edition. Essex: Pearson, Prentice Hall, 1998.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of

Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,

2006.

Bowling Green State University. “Bittner, Helwig Revealed as Senior SICSIC Members.” The

BG News, BGSU Student Newspaper 1194, May 25, 1954: 1-2.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/1194

Bowling Green State University. “Letter to the Editor.” The B-G News, BGSU Student

Newspaper 1626, October 31, 1961: 2. http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/1626

Bowling Green State University. “SicSic urges fan support at sporting events.” The BG News,

BGSU Student Newspaper 4907, February 22, 1989: 2. http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-

news/4907

Bowling Green State University, The BG News, BGSU Student Newspaper 4993, October 24,

1989: 2. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/4993

Bowling Green State University, “BGSU implements efforts to address sexual assault.” BGSU

News August, 2017.

https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2017/08/bgsu-implements-efforts-to-address-

sexualassault.hml

Bowling Green State University, “Biography of Rodney K. Rogers, Ph.D.,” BGSU Office of the 222

President. https://www.bgsu.edu/president/rodney-rogers.html

Bowling Green State University, “Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort.” Flow Model

Archive, Office of Institutional Research, Fall 1994.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/ir/documents/flow-model/freshman-

cohort/1994-Gender-Ethnicity-College.pdf

Bowling Green State University, “Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort.” Flow Model

Archive, Office of Institutional Research, Fall 1996.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/ir/documents/flow-model/freshman-

cohort/1996-Gender-Ethnicity-College.pdf

Bowling Green State University, “Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort.” Flow Model

Archive, Office of Institutional Research, Fall 2004.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/ir/documents/flow-model/freshman-

cohort/2004-Gender-Ethnicity-College.pdf

Bowling Green State University, “Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort.” Flow Model

Archive, Office of Institutional Research, Fall 2006.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/ir/documents/flow-model/freshman-

cohort/2006-Gender-Ethnicity-College.pdf

Bowling Green State University, “Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort.” Flow Model

Archive, Office of Institutional Research, Fall 2010.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/ir/documents/flow-

model/FTIC%20Sex%20Ethnicity/FlowModel-FTFT-Sex-Ethn-2010.pdf

Bowling Green State University, “Main Campus Full-time Freshman Cohort.” Flow Model

Archive, Office of Institutional Research, Fall 2015. 223

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/ir/documents/flow-

model/FTIC%20Sex%20Ethnicity/FlowModel-FTFT-Sex-Ethn-2015.pdf

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1942. BGSU Yearbook 16, 1942.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/16

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1944. BGSU Yearbook 18, 1944.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/18

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1946. BGSU Yearbook 20, 1946.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/20

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1947. BGSU Yearbook 21, 1947.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/21

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1954. BGSU Yearbook 28, 1954.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/28

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1956. BGSU Yearbook 30, 1956.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/30

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1958. BGSU Yearbook 32, 1958.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/32

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1960. BGSU Yearbook 78, 1960.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/78

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1961. BGSU Yearbook 79, 1961.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/79

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1962. BGSU Yearbook 80, 1962.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/80 224

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1966. BGSU Yearbook 84, 1966.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/84

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1968. BGSU Yearbook 86, 1968.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/86

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1969. BGSU Yearbook 87, 1969.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/87

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1970. BGSU Yearbook 88, 1970.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/88

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1972. BGSU Yearbook 90, 1972.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/90

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1973. BGSU Yearbook 91, 1973.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/91

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1975. BGSU Yearbook 134, 1975.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/134

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1976. BGSU Yearbook 135, 1976.

http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/135

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1978. BGSU Yearbook 137, 1978.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/137

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1980. BGSU Yearbook 139, 1980.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/139

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1982. BGSU Yearbook 141, 1982.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/141 225

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1983. BGSU Yearbook 142, 1983.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/142

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1984. BGSU Yearbook 143, 1984.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/143

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1985. BGSU Yearbook 144, 1985.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/144

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1986. BGSU Yearbook 145, 1986.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/145

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1991. BGSU Yearbook 150, 1991.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/150

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1992. BGSU Yearbook 151, 1992.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/151

Bowling Green State University, The Key 1994. BGSU Yearbook 153, 1994.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/153

Bowling Green State University, The Key 2000. BGSU Yearbook 159, 2000.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/159

Bowling Green State University, The Key 2003. BGSU Yearbook 162, 2003.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/162

Bowling Green State University, The Key 2006. BGSU Yearbook 165, 2006.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/165

Bowling Green State University, The Key 2007. BGSU Yearbook 166, 2007.

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/166

Bowling Green State University, The Key 2008. BGSU Yearbook 167, 2008. 226

https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/yearbooks/167

Bowling Green State University, Key Magazine Spring 2010.

Bowling Green State University, Key Magazine Fall 2012.

Bowling Green State University, Key Magazine Spring 2013.

Bowling Green State University, Key Magazine Spring 2017.

Bowling Green State University, Key Magazine Spring 2018.

Bowling Green State University, “President Paul J. Olscamp.” Former Presidents of BGSU,

Office of the President. https://www.bgsu.edu/president/former-presidents/paul-j-

olscamp.html

Brown, Kenneth Irving. “Campus Standards.” The Journal of Higher Education 10, 4

April 1939: 195-201.

Brooks, Michael, E. The Ku Klux Klan in Wood County, Ohio. Charleston: The History Press,

2014.

Cedarville College, "Cedarville College Bulletin, May 1941." Cedarville College Bulletin 172

1941. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cc_bulletin/172

CNN. “Exit polls, CNN Politics, Election 2016.” no author. updated 11:58 am ET Nov. 23, 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Cole, Arthur C. “Character ‘Bad,’ The Story of a Conscientious Objector, As Told in the Letters

of Harold Studley Gray.” Edited by Kenneth Irving Brown. (New York: Harper &

Brothers, 1934. ix + 258.).” Journal of American History 22, 1 June 1, 1935: 131-132.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1897095

Deloria, Philip J. Playing Indian. Yale University Press, 1994.

DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. 227

Boston: Beacon Press, 2018.

Dyer, Richard. “White.” Screen 29, 4 1988: 44-64.

Ellison, Ralph. Shadow & Act. New York: Random House Inc., 1964.

Fay, John. “You’ll have to show us.” Bee Gee News, BGSU Student Newspaper 831,

October 22, 1947: 2. http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/831

Fay, John. “History begins.” Bee Gee News, BGSU Student Newspaper 832, October 29, 1947:

2. http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/832

Feagin, Joe R. The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing.

Second Ed. New York: Routledge, 2013.

Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth, and Larry Scanlon. “Two Views: Debating Political Correctness.”

Academe 81, 3 1995: 8–15.

Gist, Noel P. “Structure and Process in Secret Societies.” Social Forces 16, 3 Mar., 1938: 349-

357.

Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam Books, 1987.

Givens, Stuart R. The Falcon Soars, Bowling Green State University: The Years of Growing

Distinction 1963-1985. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press,

1986.

Grinnell, John E. “Goodbye, Joe College.” The Phi Delta Kappan 49, 9 May, 1968: 517-521.

Harwood, W. S. “Secret Societies in America.” The North American Review 164, 486 May,

1897: 617-624.

Hazelrigg, Lawrence E. “A Reexamination of Simmel's ‘The Secret and the Secret Society’:

Nine Propositions.” Social Forces 47, 3 Mar., 1969: 323-330.

Herdt, Gilbert. “Secret Societies and Secret Collectives.” Oceania 60, 4, Special 60th 228

Anniversary Issue Jun, 1990: 360-381.

Hixson, Lindsay, et al. “The White Population: 2010.” 2010 Census Briefs. US Census Bureau.

Issued September 2011. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf

Hohman, Darin. “Veiled legacy [videorecording] : the spirit of Frank Prout lives on through the

secret six known as SICSIC.” Hohman Ltd. & Delphos Films. Bowling Green, O.H.

2009. https://maurice.bgsu.edu:443/record=b3294748~S1

Jackson, Shannon. “White Noises: On Performing White, on Writing Performance.” TDR 42, 1

Spring, 1998: 49-65.

J Dog. “This past weekend: SICSIC Edition,” “Hey look a Monkey.” Blog. October, 16, 2006.

http://polkamonkey.blogspot.com/2006/10/this-past-weekend-sicsic-edition.html

Khan, Shamus R. Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2011.

Jarrett II, William H. "Yale, Skull and Bones, and the Beginnings of Johns Hopkins." Baylor

University Medical Center Proceedings 24, 1 Jan. 2012: 27-34. EBSCOhost,

ezproxy.bgsu.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db

=rzh&AN=104959397&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Limbacher, James L. The Secret Six: A History of the SICSIC Organization at Bowling Green

State University. First edition, 1991.

Limón, José. “Western Marxism and Folklore: A Critical Introduction.”Journal of American

Folklore 96, 37 1983: 34–52.

Lombardi, Alyssa Rae. “11 Signs You’re From Bowling Green State University.” Odyssey July

5, 2016. https://www.theodysseyonline.com/11-signs-youre-from-bowling-green-state-

university 229

Lott, Eric. Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1993.

McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

McCray, Vanessa. “‘White separatist’ flyers found at BGSU, UT.” The Blade March 8, 2017.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2017/03/08/White-separatist-flyers-found-

at-Bowling-Green-University-of-Toledo/stories/20170307286

McDonald, Ralph W., Office of the President Records, 1939-1961. UA 002D. Bowling Green

State University, Center for Archival Collections.

Mullen, William. “The Road To Hell: For Cabrini-green, It Was Paved With Good Intentions.”

Chicago Tribune March 31, 1985: 2. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-03-

31/features/8501180145_1_cabrini-housing-poverty-and-racism/2

Murphy, Brett. “Blackface, KKK hoods and mock lynchings: Review of 900 yearbooks finds

blatant racism.” USA Today February 21, 2019. https://www.usatoday.com/in-

depth/news/investigations/2019/02/20/blackface-racist-photos-yearbooks-colleges-kkk-

lynching-mockery-fraternities-black-70-s-80-s/2858921002/

Merriam-Webster. “Political Correctness.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011.

Olscamp, Paul J., Office of the President Records, 1965-1999. UA 002H. Bowling Green State

University, Center for Archival Collections.

Omi, Michael and Winant, Howard. Racial Formation in the United States. Second Edition.

New York: Routledge, 1994.

Oren, Dan A. Joining the Club: A History of Jews and Yale. New Haven: Yale University Press.

New Haven, 1985. 230

Overman, Robert J. The History of Bowling Green State University. Bowling Green: Bowling

Green University Press, 1967.

Perry, Pamela. “White.” Keywords: for American Cultural Studies. Second edition, online

edition. New York: NYU Press, 2014.

Phillips, Kevin. "The American Dream Has Become Skull and Bones." The Times (United

Kingdom), Feb 12, 2004.

EBSCOhost,ezproxy.bgsu.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di

rect=true&db=nfh&AN=7EH0403981608&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Porter, Noah. “The Class System—Secret Societies.” The College Courant 5, 3 July

17, 1869: 40.

Prout, Frank J., Office of the President Records, 1939-1951. UA 002C. Bowling Green State

University, Center for Archival Collections.

Ribeau, Sidney A., Office of the President Records, 1980-2006. UA 002I. Bowling Green State

University, Center for Archival Collections.

Richards, David Alan. Skulls and Keys: The hidden history of Yale’s secret societies. New York:

Pegasus Books Ltd., 2017.

Rogin, Michael. Blackface, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the Hollywood Melting Pot.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Rose, Richard M. “Diverging Paths: The Emergence of Secret Societies in Antebellum Georgia

Colleges.” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 70, 1 Spring, 1986: 47-62.

Roucek, Joseph S. “Sociology of Secret Societies.” The American Journal of Economics and

Sociology 19, 2 Jan, 1960: 161-168. 231

Santino, Jack. “The Carnivalesque and the Ritualesque.” The Journal of American Folklore 124,

491 Winter 2011: 61-73.

Sharp, Samantha. “Career Day keynote speaker encourages students to be assertive, take

opportunities.” BGSU News, April, 2019.

https://www.bgsu.edu/news/2019/04/career-day-keynote-speaker-encourages-students-to-

be-assertive.html?deliveryName=DM2301

SIC SIC Sez. MS 1178. Bowling Green State University, Center for Archival Collections.

Simmel, Georg. "The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies.” Translated by Albion W.

Small. American Journal of Sociology 11, January 1906: 441- 498.

Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. Chicago: Haymarket

Books, 2016.

Taylor, Yuval and Austen, Jake. Darkest America: black minstrelsy from slavery to hip-hop.

New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc: 2012.

Tokofsky, Peter. “Masking Gender: A German Carnival Custom in Its Social Context.” Western

Folklore 58, 3/4, “Studies of Carnival in Memory of Daniel J. Crowley.” Summer -

Autumn, 1999: 299-318.

Turner, Victor. “Frame, Flow, and Reflection: Ritual and Drama as Public Liminality.”

Performance in Postmodern Culture, Ed. Michel Benamou. “Coda,” 1977.

Turner, Victor. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Piscataway: Transaction

Publishers: 1969.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Quick Facts, USA.” 2017.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217 232

Wedgwood, Camilla H. “The Nature and Functions of Secret Societies.” Oceania 1, 2 July,

1930: 129-145.

Weinberger, Margaret. “Social concerns and SICSIC signs.” The BG News, BGSU Student

Newspaper 4521, April 23, 1986: 2. https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/bg-news/4521

Wells, Amy Stuart. Seeing Past the “Colorblind” Myth: Why Education Policymakers Should

Address Racial and Ethnic Inequality and Support Culturally Diverse Schools. National

Education Policy Center, Boulder, C.O. 2014.

http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/seeing-past-the-colorblind-myth

Whiteside, Bri’on. “BGSU's Black Student Union pushing to rename Gish Theater.” The Blade

February 28, 2019.

https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2019/02/28/bgsu-lillian-gish-theater-black-

student-union-rename-birth-nation-film/stories/20190228155

Wiley, Norbert, Arthur G Neal, and Joseph B. Perry Jr. Uprising at Bowling Green: How the

Quiet Fifties Became the Political Sixties. New York: Routledge: 2012.

Wootson Jr., Cleve R. “The lengthy history of white politicians wearing blackface — and getting

a pass.” The Washington Post. February 16, 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/16/lengthy-history-white-politicians-

who-wore-blackface-got-pass/?utm_term=.f0261be4a2fb

233

APPENDIX A — CONSENT LETTER Dear Research Participant,

My name is Meg LeMoine and I am currently working on a research project about representations and performances of school spirit on college campuses. I am specifically looking at the historic SICSIC Spirit Crew at Bowling Green State University. This research project will contribute to the completion of my Master’s Degree in American Culture Studies at BGSU. The overall project will explore various ways in which spirit is performed and perceived on campus by the BGSU SICSIC members and observe how these interpretations of spirit have changed over the years. This study seeks to define spirit according to BGSU and the SICSIC Spirit Crew based on the ways in which it is performed.

Participating in this study involves no risks to you beyond the normal risks of everyday life. I am seeking to record your personal knowledge about SICSIC, your experience as a SICSIC member, the interactions and social relations you have experienced while performing as a member of SICSIC, and any other details you can provide for a better understanding of the BGSU SICSIC Spirit Crew and their performances of school spirit. There are no direct benefits to you from participating in this study, but you may find it enjoyable to reflect on your own experience as a SICSIC member and BGSU alumnus (or soon-to-be). This research will benefit the SICSIC organization as a whole as well as Bowling Green State University since little to no research has been conducted on this historic group so far.

The interview or email questionnaire has the potential to be in-depth and may last approximately 1 to 2 hours. Whether our interview is conducted in person or through internet video chat, I would like to audio record our conversations for later review in order to accurately transcribe and quote you. If you wish, your identity will remain confidential and you will simply be identified by a pseudonym (of your choosing). In any quotes I use in writing the analysis of my research, you will be referred to by this pseudonym. Also, any identifying details about you will be removed from any quote that I use in any publication or presentation. If at any time you wish to refrain from answering certain questions or to end the interview, you have the right to do so without explanation. For security purposes and to ensure the confidentiality of your identity all recordings and transcriptions will be kept in a password protected file in my computer stored in my locked office. Upon completion of this project, you will also have a right to a copy of any final published academic work. My personal contact information is provided along with the information of my advisor. By signing this consent form, you are giving your permission for me to interview, record, and potentially use your responses in my academic publications and presentations. You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this study. You may keep a copy of this consent form for your records. Thank you for your time, Meg LeMoine 234

Contact Information: If you have any questions or comments about this study, you can contact me at the following: Meg LeMoine Department of American Culture Studies Bowling Green State University [email protected] (419) 407-6075

You may also contact my project advisor, Dr. Montana Miller (Associate Professor in the Department of Popular Culture) at 419-372-0184 or [email protected]. If any questions or concerns arise during the course of the study, you may also contact the Chair of the Institutional Review Board at Bowling Green State University at 419-372-7716 or at [email protected].

By signing your name below, you are voluntarily agreeing to participate in this research study, and to have your interview recorded.

Name: (print and sign) Date:

______

If you prefer to do the interview online (by email or video chat), please check here: ____

If you prefer to have the interview in person, please check here: ____

Location: ______

If you prefer to be quoted by your real name, please check here: ____

If you prefer to be quoted using a pseudonym, please check here: ____

Do you prefer a particular pseudonym? If so, please write it here. ______