Father Privett responds

Apparently feeling the need to defend USF's somewhat tarnished reputation in the aftermath of the KUSF shutdown, USF president Stephen Privett submitted a brief piece to SFGate to describe the university's reason for selling its FM radio license.

I've already explained that I think USF was within its legal rights to dispose of the FM license as it saw fit, so most of Father Privett's statement is non-controversial to me. However, he does attempt to shade things to put USF and himself in the best light, and I feel compelled to set the record straight.

KUSF is not going away, nor will the FM 90.3 frequency go silent. As www.KUSF.org, the station, in an online streaming format, will have the ability to reach a truly worldwide audience without the weather or geographical impediments that a small radio station has.

Fr. Privett harped on this point during Wednesday's meeting with the community, but never seemed to grasp the salient and central point the community was trying to convey in response: KUSF's global audience is not the issue -- its local audience is.

During the meeting, one gentleman asked what KUSF's poorer local listeners who do not have broadband Internet access were supposed to do to access the station's programming. Fr. Privett said that the problem of broadband access for the poor was not within USF's power to address.

The statement is true, but hardly demonstrates the sense of compassion one expects from a good Catholic.

Moreover, the fact that the "90.3 frequency" will not "go silent" is totally irrelevant. USF has relinquished ownership of that frequency, so it has no business making statements about it.

It is true that USF was unable to give prior notice of the sale. This was part of our legal agreement with the new owners. We did not intend to cause hard feelings with those who believe they had a right to be informed beforehand, but we were obliged to follow this part of the contract.

This bland statement totally avoids the real issue I raised earlier:

What about recording a brief message explaining the situation, and having the station's manager, a paid staffer, take over the air booth just before transmitter shutdown to play that message over the air?

Would that have been beyond the pale, Fr. Privett? Did even this meager sop to your (former) station's staff and listenership simply never occur to you?

The station manager was one of those who knew of the sale beforehand. While unable to discuss the matter with volunteers himself, he certainly would have been free (and I know for a fact that he is technically able) to pre-record a brief statement that essentially would have explained that the station was leaving the air, that KUSF programming would no longer be available at 90.3 FM, and that interested parties should look for a formal statement from USF media relations personnel. He would have been able to play such a statement just before the transmitter was shut down. Listeners, not to mention the on-air staff then present, would then at least have had a minimal understanding of what was going on. It would have been a courteous act -- the minimum one would expect from someone who appreciates the "dedication and passion" of the station's volunteers, as Fr. Privett claims.

Then there's this howler:

On Tuesday, we closed the station for engineering and other changes necessary to make the transition. In doing so, we took a number of reasonable and timely security measures. We believe these were appropriate and regret if any individuals were inconvenienced in that process.

Fr. Privett, I ask you again:

Was it really necessary to cut off the transmitter in the middle of a song, and herd the volunteers then present out like criminals?

"Regret" is the most you can muster?

Now, lest you think I'm being a bit hard on Fr. Privett, consider this statement:

What began as a student enterprise evolved over the years into a near-entitlement for the community.

Note the word "entitlement." This word, better than any other, conveys Fr. Privett's true opinion of KUSF and its listenership. It explains why Fr. Privett's protestations of "regret" ring hollow.

"Entitlement" is a politically charged term these days that carries with it the suggestion that the beneficiaries are getting something they should not. An entitlement is something for which "the entitled" are supposed to be grateful. An entitlement is the sort of thing that fiscal conservatives are anxious to cut out of budgets.

When I wrote:

And the tone he set at the meeting was redolent of indifference to anyone but his students, exactly in keeping with the tone set by his staff on the day of the shutdown (except that even student volunteers were treated pretty badly that day).

-- it was because Fr. Privett clearly conveyed his sense that the community had been getting a free ride that it did not deserve. (Fr. Privett also seems to be under the badly mistaken impression that KUSF was entirely an entertainment-oriented station, which suggests he doesn't pay as much attention as he should to details.)

Unlike Fr. Privett, I will speak plainly. Fr. Privett is mouthing pieties, truly an irony for a good Jesuit, in which he does not believe. He has made legalistic statements that attempt to hide the depth of his indifference to the listenership and volunteer staff of KUSF. He and USF are legally within their rights as far as I can tell -- but don't let them fool you into thinking they actually give a damn about what they shut down Tuesday. They don't.