Recorded statement of Richard Osborn conducted by the Commission on KSU Violence.

[Unknown Speaker]: It is–yeah.

[Richard Osborn]: Gotta lift up on that, then it’s–

My name is Richard N. Osborn. O-S-B-O-R-N. I live at 387 Silver Road, apartment 7. I’m a teaching fellow at the Department of Management. I was not a witness to any of the direct events of the period in May. However, through some work I’ve been doing on my dissertation project, I have been able to formulate a basic outline, if you will, for viewing the nature of the events, so they can be organized in some [unintelligible] by this organization.

There is a basic outline format which lets us look at the behavior of those as the dependent variable. Look at three major independent variable groupings–those independent variable groupings are: one, the external environment, two, the external leadership patterns within the organization, three, the internal management environment. Hopefully we can discuss those three in terms of a setting in which the events occurred–the legal, political, cultural, and educational aspects in which the university operates. This has been discussed at some length and the second aspect of the environment may yield some insight into the situation. The basis of interest groups and those organizations.

The second component is called, for lack of a better term, the secondary aggregation environment. It is in this area that I think, perhaps, some insight might be gained. The secondary aggregation environment deals with those interest groups, but does not include the social-cultural milieu, or the political-legal situation throughout the country. Only those interest groups should directly affect the operation of the organization. The state legislature may be viewed as an interest group because of the structure of the state university education system. If the state legislature is included within this on previous actions that set an unusual tone to the events in May. At Kent State University it was basically oriented toward a graduate program. This has been reoriented, from my understanding, to where [unintelligible] at this  institution. This creates an obvious, high degree of uncertainty. Unfortunately, this position was not clearly spelled-out [unintelligible]. [Unintelligible.] This was a very poor situation, since the university fees would not have to be hiked. This obviously–these two events obviously relate back to the state educational structure. It does not allow the universities to exercise flexibility or autonomy. With this communication, it is obvious that the community around Kent, and various groups within that community, were passively disinterested in the events of–preceding the mayhem [unintelligible] this institution.

It should be noted that several interest groups obviously with proximity to Cleveland, assessed the tone for the university setting. Within the immediate area Kent is not [akin to?] Cleveland, Akron, and other Ohio racial [unintelligible], many of whom come from the Cleveland or other metropolitan areas which come from the setting where this–where we find the current pressure between various groups, both economic and racial. It would seem ridiculous to assume that students would forget their environmental setting when they come to the university. Decisions [test?] their development of their social-cultural milieu as they bring it with them to the university as interest groups, organizations which the university interacts with, specifically its task environment.

Rather than trying to attempt to delineate exactly what its task environment is, certain things should be noted. One, the National Guard is not normal. [Unintelligible] the university as a whole also interacts with the legal institutions within the county, between these specifically interaction patterns, there are other factors which I’m sure that are brought out, but maybe summarized the environmental setting as extremely turbulent, not only after the President’s Cambodian decision, but before. There is also a particular environmental situation that is unusual to [unintelligible] and the organization itself. The university’s goal is [educate and search for knowledge?]. They do not want to involve themselves in the political decision making at the national level. The viewpoint of how students should act and what the product of the university should be, in terms of students’ values, attitudes, sentiments, and behavior patterns. There is no conflict between these interest groups and the university.

If the product of the university, however [unintelligible] the students do not fit this mold, many interest groups will challenge the university in direct opposition to the principle of academic freedom on which the university is based. There is a situation of potential conflict. It has already been seen in reduced budgets for university professors. Other incidents have indicated the [unintelligible]. The external leadership pattern indicated by those within the university seems to indicate that they are locally-oriented and not cosmopolitan-oriented to the nation as a whole. This is not to indicate that this is good, bad, or indifferent, only to indicate that the institution fits in a broader community. [Unintelligible].

With certain types of internal leadership patterns and structure within the university, it is critical that within this environment there is some change within the leadership pattern in the university. The events of May fourth violated this principle, not violated within how the university operated. Rather, it was from a group. An organization of group leaders were not familiar with organizational patterns within this institution.

[Tape 1 Ends]

[Tape 2 Begins]

[Tape 2 contains brief, unintelligible clips of a people talking, never more than one word at a time. The rest of the tape is silent]

×