Draft:Mauston High School Beer Experiment (1976-1982)

Introduction

The Mauston High School Beer Experiment was an unprecedented and controversial social and educational experiment conducted at Mauston High School in Mauston, Wisconsin, from August 28, 1976, to June 2, 1982. Spearheaded by the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institute of Research and Technology, the experiment was designed to assess the effects of mild alcohol consumption on student behavior, academic performance, and social interaction. The program, approved by the Mauston School Board, involved replacing all the school’s water fountains with beer dispensers, offering a rotating selection of beer brands throughout the week. (You are probably reading this and wondering wtf is this article, and you are right to ask that but before you delete it I would like you to consider something, I spent a considerable amount of time coming up with this idea using ai to write this article and editing it so it works in wikipedia, I even added images. Plus no one really uses wikipedia as a reliable source anymore except for my some of my dumbass friends, and I was hoping you could approve this article, just for a month so I can trick one of them into mentioning it to a teacher or write about it for a article summary homework and have the teacher berate him for believing it, please out of the kindness of your heart please approve this article for just a month or longer if you would like, its not like anyone is going to find it without knowing what they are looking for, except for maybe someone who goes to my high school and looks it up in wikipedia or something, but at that point I feel like it would be funny and wouldn't hurt anyone and would probably add to the high school lore, please don't delete it, thank you for your consideration)

The experiment aimed to create a more relaxed and socially conducive environment, hypothesizing that moderate alcohol consumption would improve classroom participation and reduce stress among students. With the cooperation of major Wisconsin breweries, such as Miller Brewing Company, Pabst Brewing Company, and Leinenkugel's, the school facilitated daily rotations of different beer brands, allowing students to drink beer freely throughout the school day. Each beer had a relatively low alcohol content, and the administration initially placed no restrictions on the amount students could consume, relying instead on natural self-regulation.

The experiment garnered significant attention for its unconventional approach, and early reports suggested notable improvements in student engagement, reduced absenteeism, and a more harmonious school atmosphere. Principal Gregory Hutchinson, a strong advocate for the program, praised the positive effects on both student morale and the academic environment. Furthermore, a 1978 study conducted by Dr. Evelyn Schwartz of the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology claimed a significant reduction in anxiety-related issues among students, adding further support to the initiative.

However, the experiment was not without its critics. Concerns over the long-term health effects of adolescent alcohol consumption, coupled with several alcohol-related incidents, including student intoxication during school events and a car accident involving a student under the influence, ultimately led to widespread backlash. Mounting political pressure, public outcry, and parental opposition forced the Mauston School Board to terminate the experiment in June 1982. The legacy of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment remains a subject of debate in the fields of education, behavioral psychology, and public health.

Background and Development

Genesis of the Experiment

The Mauston High School Beer Experiment was the brainchild of Dr. Horace Greeley, a prominent researcher at the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology, who believed in the potential of mild alcohol consumption to create a more socially relaxed and cognitively engaged environment for students. Dr. Greeley had long been intrigued by the effects of alcohol on human behavior, particularly its ability to reduce inhibitions and facilitate social interaction. His hypothesis was rooted in the idea that, when consumed in controlled, low doses, alcohol could enhance communication, reduce stress, and promote a sense of camaraderie—all essential components of a thriving academic setting.

Dr. Horace Greeley 1977

Greeley’s initial research focused on adult education settings and workplaces where moderate alcohol consumption was sometimes permitted, such as in corporate settings or during conferences. His studies found that participants who had access to alcohol in controlled environments often reported lower stress levels and were more willing to engage in collaborative tasks. These early findings were published in the Journal of Behavioral Sciences in 1974, in a paper titled "Alcohol as a Social Lubricant: Implications for Learning and Productivity."

Inspired by these results, Dr. Greeley began to wonder if similar benefits could be observed in high school students, where social dynamics and academic pressures often contributed to high levels of anxiety and disengagement. Greeley proposed that by allowing students to consume low-alcohol-content beer throughout the school day, the overall atmosphere could be made more conducive to learning. According to his theory, mild alcohol consumption could help students feel more comfortable expressing themselves in class, reduce disciplinary issues, and foster a greater sense of community among students and teachers.

Greeley’s ideas were initially met with skepticism. The notion of serving alcohol to minors in an academic setting was, understandably, a controversial one. However, Greeley was determined to test his theory in a real-world environment. He needed a school district willing to take part in a groundbreaking, and perhaps risky, experiment. After several meetings with potential collaborators, Greeley found support from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institute of Research and Technology, which had recently been exploring innovative educational methods, and from a surprising source: the Mauston School Board.

Mauston, a small town in rural Wisconsin, had a long history connected to the state’s brewing industry. Many residents worked at local breweries or had family ties to the beer trade, which was a source of pride in the community. When Greeley approached the Mauston School Board with his idea in early 1976, he found a surprisingly open-minded group of administrators. The town’s historical connection to beer, combined with a desire to be at the forefront of innovative educational research, made Mauston High School an ideal testing ground for the experiment.

Principal Gregory "Bud" Hutchinson, a long-serving administrator at Mauston High, quickly became one of Greeley’s strongest supporters. Known for his forward-thinking approach to education, Hutchinson had been looking for ways to address issues of student disengagement and behavioral problems in his school. The idea of a beer experiment, while unconventional, appealed to his belief in out-of-the-box solutions to educational challenges.

With the backing of the Mauston School Board and Principal Hutchinson, Greeley was able to formalize his proposal and bring in additional partners, including several Wisconsin-based breweries like Miller Brewing Company, Pabst Brewing Company, and Leinenkugel's, which saw the experiment as a unique opportunity to promote their products in a controlled, research-driven environment. By the summer of 1976, the Mauston High School Beer Experiment was ready to move forward.

Approval and Implementation

On August 28, 1976, the Mauston School Board officially approved the Mauston High School Beer Experiment, marking the beginning of what would become one of the most controversial and unique educational programs in U.S. history. The approval process was not without its hurdles, but a combination of community support, scholarly backing, and the school board’s progressive outlook allowed the experiment to move forward. Key to this approval was the involvement of the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institute of Research and Technology, both of which provided scientific legitimacy and oversight to the program.

Dr. Horace Greeley, who had spent over a year crafting the details of the program, worked closely with the Mauston School Board and Principal Hutchinson to ensure that the implementation was both seamless and carefully monitored. One of the primary concerns addressed during the approval phase was the potential for overconsumption and abuse of the beer fountains. Greeley and his team proposed a system in which the beer provided would be low in alcohol content (ranging from 2.5% to 3.2% ABV), ensuring that students could not become overly intoxicated from drinking during school hours.

In the summer of 1976, the key organizers of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment gathered on the school grounds to finalize the details of the groundbreaking program. Pictured from left to right: Gregory Hutchinson, Principal of Mauston High School; Evelyn Schwartz, senior researcher at the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology; Dr. Horace Greeley, chief architect of the experiment; and John Murphy, CEO of Miller Brewing Company.

The beer fountains, which replaced traditional water fountains throughout the school, were connected to refrigerated kegs stored in the basement of the school building. The system was designed to dispense beer in the same way that water fountains would dispense water—freely and at the convenience of the students. To add a sense of novelty and variety to the experiment, the participating breweries agreed to rotate their products throughout the week. This system was dubbed the "Weekly Beer Cycle."

This rotation system was seen as an incentive for students to engage with the experiment, as each day offered something new. The program had no explicit restrictions on the number of times students could use the beer fountains, which led to concerns among some teachers and parents. However, Greeley believed that students would naturally moderate their intake and that the novelty of the experiment would prevent excessive consumption over time.

The Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology set up regular monitoring systems to track the impact of the beer experiment on student performance, behavior, and mental health. Teachers were asked to provide weekly feedback on classroom dynamics, student engagement, and disciplinary issues. Researchers also conducted surveys and interviews with students, faculty, and parents to gauge the program's effectiveness and to identify any emerging concerns.

Principal Hutchinson, ever the optimist, described the early days of the experiment as a "transformative" period for Mauston High School. In interviews with local media, he noted that students seemed more relaxed and focused in the classroom and that absenteeism had dropped by nearly 10% within the first two months of the program. The administration hoped that these early successes would pave the way for further educational innovations.

Despite some initial reservations from the community, the experiment garnered significant support from local residents, particularly those with ties to the brewing industry. As the 1976-1977 school year progressed, Mauston High School found itself at the center of a national debate about the role of alcohol in education, with some hailing the program as revolutionary and others decrying it as reckless.

Structure of the Experiment

The Mauston High School Beer Experiment was meticulously structured to test the hypothesis that moderate alcohol consumption could foster a more conducive learning environment. The primary component of this structure was the installation of beer-dispensing fountains throughout the school, which replaced traditional water fountains. This setup was designed to provide students with easy access to a rotating selection of beer brands, all of which were low in alcohol content (between 2.5% and 3.2% ABV), ensuring that students could consume the beverages without becoming severely impaired.

The Beer Dispensing System

At the heart of the experiment was a state-of-the-art beer dispensing system, installed over the summer of 1976. Fountains were placed strategically throughout the school in locations where traditional water fountains had once been, such as hallways, the cafeteria, and near classrooms. The system was connected to refrigerated kegs housed in the school’s basement, which were refilled regularly by local breweries participating in the experiment.

A unique feature of the system was the "Weekly Beer Cycle," which offered students a different beer each day of the week. This rotation not only helped maintain student interest in the program but also allowed the participating breweries—Miller Brewing Company, Pabst Brewing Company, and Leinenkugel’s, among others—to showcase their products. The schedule was as follows:

• Miller Mondays: On Mondays, students could enjoy Miller High Life, a Wisconsin favorite.
• Pabst Tuesdays: Tuesdays featured Pabst Blue Ribbon, another classic beer with local roots.
• Leinenkugel Wednesdays: Midweek, students could sample Leinenkugel’s Original, a popular choice for light beer enthusiasts.
• Random Thursdays: Thursdays offered a random selection from local microbreweries.
• Variety Fridays: Fridays rotated between different experimental beers provided by breweries looking to showcase new products.

The fountains were designed to operate much like traditional water fountains, with students free to access the beer as often as they liked throughout the day. There were no formal restrictions on the number of times a student could use the beer fountains, as Dr. Horace Greeley and his team believed that students would self-regulate their consumption over time. This lack of limitation was central to the experiment’s goal of fostering responsible, moderate consumption.

Monitoring and Data Collection

To evaluate the effects of the experiment, the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institute of Research and Technology implemented a robust data collection system. Teachers were tasked with submitting weekly reports on classroom dynamics, student engagement, and behavior. This data helped the research team monitor any changes in student participation, focus, or discipline over time.

Additionally, student surveys were conducted at regular intervals, asking participants to reflect on how the availability of beer had impacted their school experience. Researchers paid particular attention to how alcohol consumption influenced social interactions, anxiety levels, and overall school culture. Early feedback indicated a significant improvement in student engagement, with many teachers reporting that students seemed more willing to participate in discussions, especially in more abstract or creative subjects like literature and philosophy.

Teacher and Faculty Involvement

Teachers at Mauston High School played a critical role in the success of the experiment. They were not only tasked with monitoring students' behavior but were also involved in providing feedback on how the beer consumption affected the classroom atmosphere. Principal Gregory Hutchinson organized weekly faculty meetings where teachers could share their observations and voice any concerns. Some teachers, like Judith Carr, the school's history instructor, were enthusiastic supporters of the program, noting increased classroom participation and a reduction in student stress levels. However, others, like physical education instructor Elaine Peters, were more cautious, expressing concerns about how alcohol might impact students' physical abilities, particularly in sports and physical activities.

Student Autonomy and Self-Regulation

One of the most experimental aspects of the program was its reliance on student self-regulation. The school administration, along with Dr. Greeley’s research team, believed that the novelty of the beer fountains would wear off over time and that students would develop a natural moderation in their consumption. This approach aligned with Greeley’s belief that giving students autonomy over their drinking habits would reduce the likelihood of binge drinking or abuse.

While the experiment had an overall structure in place for monitoring and feedback, it was the students themselves who were central to its success or failure. The research team anticipated that students would adapt to the environment, using the availability of beer to enhance their school experience in a responsible way.

Initial Academic and Behavioral Impact

In the early months following the implementation of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment in the fall of 1976, researchers and teachers began to observe some promising changes in student behavior and academic performance. According to reports from faculty members, including history teacher Judith Carr and mathematics instructor Herbert Jenkins, student engagement appeared to improve noticeably. Carr, in particular, noted that students who had previously been quiet or reluctant to participate in classroom discussions were now more willing to contribute their thoughts, especially during open-ended or creative assignments. This increase in participation was attributed to the mild, relaxing effects of the low-alcohol-content beer, which seemed to reduce social anxieties and encourage students to speak up.

Initial data collected by the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology supported these observations. Weekly surveys conducted with both students and teachers showed a significant uptick in classroom participation, particularly in subjects like literature, philosophy, and the arts, where abstract thinking and open debate were encouraged. Teachers reported that students were more collaborative in group projects and appeared to be more attentive during lectures. The experiment's architect, Dr. Horace Greeley, was quick to note that these early results validated his hypothesis that moderate alcohol consumption could create a more socially dynamic and intellectually stimulating environment.

Disciplinary issues also appeared to decline during the first semester of the program. Principal Gregory Hutchinson reported a 12% decrease in reported disciplinary incidents, including tardiness and classroom disruptions. Some teachers, such as science instructor Linda Foster, believed that the calming effect of the beer helped students manage stress better, leading to fewer outbursts and confrontations. Foster's experience was echoed in her interviews with the research team, where she explained that students seemed "less tense" and "more willing to work through challenges calmly."

However, not all faculty members were fully convinced of the program’s merits. Physical education instructor Elaine Peters raised concerns that alcohol, even in small amounts, might impair students' coordination and focus, particularly during physical activities. While Peters’ observations were considered during faculty meetings, the overall consensus among the teaching staff was that the benefits—specifically improved academic engagement—outweighed the potential drawbacks.

While it was too early to draw definitive conclusions, the initial academic and behavioral impact of the experiment seemed largely positive, reinforcing the belief among school administrators and researchers that the Mauston High School Beer Experiment could serve as a model for alternative educational approaches.

Effects on School Culture

Beyond academics and behavior, one of the most striking impacts of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment was the profound transformation it had on the school’s social culture. From the outset, Dr. Horace Greeley had hypothesized that mild alcohol consumption would facilitate better communication and a stronger sense of community among students. His theory appeared to be supported as the beer experiment began to change the dynamics of student relationships, extracurricular involvement, and the overall atmosphere at Mauston High.

Before the experiment, Mauston High had a fairly typical high school social structure, with cliques and divisions between different groups of students. However, within the first few months of the experiment, teachers began to notice that these social barriers were starting to break down. Principal Gregory Hutchinson commented in a 1977 interview with the Milwaukee Journal:

Picture of Mauston High School in 2014

"There’s a different kind of energy in the hallways now. Students who wouldn’t normally talk to each other are mingling more freely, and there’s a general sense of camaraderie that I hadn’t seen before."

The availability of beer, paired with the novelty of the experiment, seemed to create a shared experience that transcended the usual social boundaries. Students who were once part of distinct social groups—whether athletes, academic achievers, or members of the arts community—began to interact more openly. The Weekly Beer Cycle, which offered a new brand of beer each day, became a point of discussion and excitement. It was not uncommon to hear students debating the merits of Pabst Blue Ribbon versus Leinenkugel’s Original in the cafeteria or hallways.

Participation in extracurricular activities also surged during the experiment’s early years. The Student Government Association, which had historically struggled to attract candidates, saw a record number of students running for office during the 1977-1978 school year. The school newspaper, yearbook committee, and drama club all experienced increased membership as students appeared more willing to engage with the wider school community. According to student body president Daryl Simmons, the beer experiment played a key role in this newfound enthusiasm. In a retrospective interview with Wisconsin Public Radio in 1983, Simmons remarked:

"The whole school felt like it was buzzing with energy. There was a sense that we were part of something special, something that no other school had ever done. I think that brought a lot of us closer together."

This sense of unity extended to the student-teacher dynamic as well. Teachers reported that their relationships with students were becoming more informal and collaborative, with many students seeking out additional help or guidance outside of class hours. Judith Carr, the history teacher, noted that students seemed more comfortable approaching her with questions or concerns, and she felt that the general atmosphere in her classroom had become "lighter and more supportive."

Despite these positive effects, there were some unintended consequences. While the experiment fostered a greater sense of community, it also created new challenges. Some students began to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior, testing how much beer they could consume before it affected their performance in class. Teachers like Elaine Peters continued to raise concerns about student overconsumption, particularly when some students began using the beer fountains excessively during lunch periods or in between classes.

While these issues were relatively minor during the first year of the experiment, they would grow in significance as the program continued, ultimately contributing to the public debate over the viability and safety of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment.

System Regulation and Lack of Oversight

The Mauston High School Beer Experiment was a groundbreaking initiative in many ways, but one of its most criticized aspects was the lack of formal regulations and oversight concerning the consumption of beer by students. From the beginning, the architects of the program, particularly Dr. Horace Greeley of the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology, had championed a philosophy of self-regulation. The premise was that giving students access to alcohol in a controlled environment would allow them to learn moderation and responsible consumption naturally. However, this hands-off approach would later prove to be one of the experiment’s most controversial features.

Initial Philosophy of Self-Regulation

At the outset, Dr. Greeley and his team were firm in their belief that students would be able to regulate their beer consumption without the need for strict oversight or rules. Greeley, who had long studied the effects of alcohol in adult settings, theorized that students would quickly adapt to the novelty of beer being available in school and that they would moderate their consumption once the initial excitement wore off. This concept was rooted in his belief that autonomy, when paired with access to alcohol, would encourage responsible behavior, much like it did in adult social settings.

Principal Gregory Hutchinson, who was equally enthusiastic about the potential benefits of the experiment, supported this approach. He believed that too much oversight would undermine the core purpose of the program, which was to foster an environment where students could learn to make responsible choices on their own. Hutchinson, along with the Mauston School Board, decided to limit formal regulations on how often students could use the beer fountains. Instead, the focus was placed on observation and data collection, with the idea that any issues arising from overconsumption could be addressed as they occurred.

While students were informed of the importance of moderation during the initial rollout of the program, there were no specific policies or rules dictating how much beer could be consumed or how frequently students could use the beer-dispensing fountains. Teachers were instructed to keep an eye on student behavior and report any noticeable changes or concerns, but no formal disciplinary procedures were put in place for overuse of the beer fountains.

Monitoring by Faculty and Researchers

The Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology implemented a monitoring system to gather data on how students were responding to the free-flowing availability of beer. Teachers were asked to submit weekly reports on student performance, behavior, and engagement, with particular attention paid to any signs of overconsumption. Additionally, researchers conducted surveys with both students and teachers to gauge the overall impact of the experiment on the school environment.

Despite these efforts to track the program’s effects, the system relied heavily on self-reporting by teachers and informal observations, leaving significant room for variation in how data was collected and interpreted. Some teachers, like history instructor Judith Carr, reported improvements in classroom participation and engagement, attributing these changes to the calming effects of the beer. However, other teachers, such as physical education instructor Elaine Peters, expressed concerns early on about the lack of concrete regulation. Peters observed that some students were using the beer fountains excessively, particularly between classes or during lunch, and she worried that this would affect their ability to participate in physical activities.

Peters and a handful of other teachers voiced their concerns during weekly staff meetings, but Principal Hutchinson and the research team maintained that these issues were minor and part of the adjustment process. They believed that as students grew accustomed to the availability of beer, the novelty would fade, and consumption would naturally decline. Hutchinson reassured the faculty that the monitoring system would catch any serious issues before they became widespread problems.

Absence of Legal and Health Regulations

One of the most glaring oversights of the experiment was the lack of attention to legal and health concerns. Although the beer provided by the breweries was of low alcohol content, there were no formal discussions with local or state authorities about the legal implications of allowing minors to consume alcohol in a school setting. The Wisconsin Department of Education was aware of the program but had not issued any formal guidelines or restrictions regarding the consumption of alcohol by students under the legal drinking age.

This lack of regulatory involvement would become a significant point of contention as the program continued. Opponents of the experiment, including state legislators like Martha Douglas, began to raise concerns about the long-term health effects of adolescent alcohol consumption. Douglas, in a speech to the Wisconsin State Senate in 1978, argued that the experiment was irresponsible and dangerous, particularly in light of the absence of health screenings or restrictions on consumption.

"We are dealing with minors—children whose brains and bodies are still developing," she said. "To allow them unfettered access to alcohol in a school setting, without any meaningful regulations, is reckless and irresponsible."

Despite these criticisms, the Mauston School Board, with backing from Greeley’s research team, continued to defend the program, arguing that the data so far showed no significant negative health outcomes. However, the lack of formal oversight, both legal and medical, left the program vulnerable to increased scrutiny as more incidents related to overconsumption began to surface.

The Formation of the Beer Fountain Committee

In response to growing concerns from certain faculty members and parents, the school eventually formed the Beer Fountain Committee in late 1977. This group, composed of teachers, parents, and members of the research team, was tasked with reviewing the program’s progress and making recommendations for any necessary changes. The committee met monthly to discuss the impact of the beer fountains, focusing on both the positive outcomes—such as improved social interactions and engagement—and the potential negative effects, such as overconsumption and health risks.

While the committee made some minor adjustments, such as encouraging teachers to talk to students about moderation, it stopped short of implementing any strict regulations. The belief that students would self-regulate remained central to the committee’s philosophy, even as concerns about the lack of oversight continued to mount.

Incidents and Unintended Consequences

While the Mauston High School Beer Experiment initially seemed to offer a novel and effective solution to some of the challenges of traditional education, it quickly became clear that the absence of formal regulation and oversight would lead to a series of troubling incidents and unintended consequences. As the experiment progressed, numerous incidents involving student intoxication, including a tragic car accident, exposed the darker side of the program and its reliance on student self-regulation. Two particularly notorious events—the Holiday Cheer Incident of 1978 and multiple drunk driving accidents—became emblematic of the risks inherent in providing free access to alcohol in a school setting.

The Holiday Cheer Incident of 1978

One of the most infamous events in the history of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment occurred in December 1978 during the school’s annual winter assembly, which was meant to celebrate the holiday season. Dubbed the Holiday Cheer Incident, this event marked the first major public disruption caused by excessive student drinking under the program.

The winter assembly was traditionally a festive event, featuring performances by the school band, student speeches, and a variety of holiday-themed activities. However, by the third year of the beer experiment, the novelty of free-flowing beer had not worn off for all students. A group of seniors, led by two particularly rowdy classmates, Brian Connors and Chad McAllister, had planned to make the most of the assembly by indulging in the school’s beer fountains before and during the event. The fountains that day were dispensing Leinenkugel’s Original, a favorite among students due to its smooth taste and mild alcohol content.

Connors and McAllister, along with several of their friends, began drinking heavily in the hours leading up to the assembly. By the time the event started, they were visibly intoxicated, staggering into the auditorium and drawing the attention of their classmates and teachers alike. As the assembly progressed, the group’s behavior became increasingly disruptive. They shouted during speeches, threw paper airplanes at the stage, and at one point, Connors stumbled onto the stage during the school band’s performance of Jingle Bells, knocking over a music stand and causing several band members to stop playing.

The situation quickly escalated when McAllister stood up during the principal’s holiday address and began chanting, “More beer!” Other students, amused by the spectacle, joined in, and within minutes, the assembly had devolved into chaos. Several students left their seats to head for the beer fountains, and some even began pouring beer into their classmates’ cups, turning the assembly into what several teachers later described as a "beer bash."

The incident forced Principal Gregory Hutchinson to prematurely end the assembly, and several students, including Connors and McAllister, were sent home for the day. The Holiday Cheer Incident became a flashpoint for the experiment, raising serious concerns among teachers, parents, and administrators about the level of control the school had over student alcohol consumption. Though no students were seriously injured during the event, it was a clear sign that the lack of regulation was leading to unintended consequences that could no longer be ignored.

Drunk Driving Incidents and Their Consequences

While the Holiday Cheer Incident was disruptive and embarrassing for the school, the most serious unintended consequences of the beer experiment were the incidents of drunk driving that occurred during the program. These incidents, which resulted in both injuries and fatalities, were tragic reminders of the risks associated with allowing students access to alcohol without proper oversight or limitations.

The first major drunk driving incident occurred in March 1979, when junior Michael Anders, a popular athlete at Mauston High, was involved in a car accident after leaving school. Anders, who had been drinking beer during lunch, decided to drive to a friend’s house after the school day ended. Witnesses later reported that he had consumed several beers throughout the day, though it was unclear how much he had drunk just before getting behind the wheel. While driving on a slick, snow-covered road, Anders lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a tree. He suffered a broken leg and several minor injuries but was fortunate to survive. His passenger, however, was less lucky—Samantha Meyers, a sophomore, suffered a severe concussion and a fractured collarbone.

The accident was a wake-up call for the school, which had not anticipated that students would be driving under the influence during school hours. Though Anders survived, the incident sparked widespread concern among teachers and parents about the dangers of allowing students to consume alcohol without proper supervision.

1979 yearbook photo of Kevin Wiggins

The second, far more tragic incident occurred in May 1980, when senior Kevin Wiggins was killed in a drunk driving accident after a day of heavy drinking at school. Wiggins, who had recently turned 18 and was excited to celebrate the end of his final year, spent most of the day drinking beer with friends. That Friday, the fountains had been dispensing a new experimental brew from a local microbrewery, and many students were eager to try it. Wiggins, known for his outgoing personality and love of parties, took full advantage of the unrestricted access to beer.

After school, Wiggins and three friends piled into his car to head to a party at a nearby lake. Witnesses later recalled that Wiggins appeared visibly intoxicated as he left the school parking lot. Just a few miles from the school, Wiggins lost control of the vehicle while attempting to take a sharp turn at high speed. The car flipped multiple times before crashing into a ditch. Wiggins was killed instantly, while his three passengers suffered serious injuries.

Wiggins’ death sent shockwaves through the Mauston community. For the first time, the consequences of the beer experiment had turned deadly. The tragedy became a rallying point for opponents of the program, who argued that the school had failed to adequately protect its students. Wiggins’ parents, devastated by the loss of their son, publicly blamed the school for allowing him access to alcohol during school hours and filed a lawsuit against the Mauston School Board. The case gained widespread media attention and further fueled the growing outcry against the experiment.

In addition to the two major drunk driving incidents, there were numerous smaller but still concerning episodes of student overconsumption. Teachers reported instances of students showing up to class visibly intoxicated or passing out in the hallways after drinking too much beer between classes. While many of these incidents were dealt with quietly, they contributed to the growing sense among some faculty members that the experiment was spiraling out of control.

High school student passed out at his desk after over-consuming beer, 1980

In several cases, students were caught sneaking beer into classrooms or trying to leave school grounds during lunch to continue drinking off-campus. While none of these incidents led to serious injuries, they highlighted the lack of structure and accountability in the program, further underscoring the risks of providing alcohol to minors in an academic environment.

Challenges and Criticism

As the Mauston High School Beer Experiment progressed, it became increasingly clear that the program was facing significant challenges and growing criticism from multiple fronts. While the initial phase of the experiment had shown some promising results in terms of student engagement and reduced anxiety, the lack of formal regulations and oversight quickly became a focal point for concern. Over time, these challenges would expose the inherent risks of providing alcohol to minors in a school setting, leading to mounting opposition from teachers, parents, and external observers.

One of the most prominent challenges was the growing number of alcohol-related incidents within the school, including the infamous Holiday Cheer Incident of 1978 and multiple drunk driving accidents. These events, particularly the death of senior Kevin Wiggins in 1980, amplified concerns about the experiment’s safety. Many teachers, like physical education instructor Elaine Peters, had raised red flags from the beginning, arguing that alcohol, even in low quantities, could impair students’ judgment, especially during physical activities or when driving. Despite the initial optimism of Principal Gregory Hutchinson and the research team led by Dr. Horace Greeley, these incidents demonstrated that students were not regulating their drinking as expected.

The absence of clear guidelines on beer consumption was another significant issue. Unlike traditional alcohol-serving establishments, the school did not have a system in place to monitor how much beer each student consumed. The beer fountains, designed to operate like water fountains, allowed students to drink as often as they wanted throughout the day. Critics argued that this lack of oversight was reckless, especially given that many students were not accustomed to handling alcohol responsibly. While Dr. Greeley had believed that students would naturally moderate their intake once the novelty wore off, the incidents of overconsumption showed that this assumption was flawed.

Parental opposition also grew as more parents became aware of the negative effects the experiment was having on their children. Initially, many parents had supported the experiment, viewing it as a progressive approach to education that would reduce stress and increase social interaction. However, as reports of intoxication, disciplinary issues, and alcohol-related accidents began to surface, parents became increasingly vocal in their concerns. Parent-teacher meetings became heated, with many demanding stricter regulations or the outright termination of the experiment.

Faculty members were also divided on the program. While some, like history teacher Judith Carr, continued to see benefits in the form of increased student engagement, others, including Peters and science teacher Linda Foster, expressed frustration at the administration’s reluctance to address the growing problems. The Beer Fountain Committee, formed to review the program’s progress, made some minor recommendations to encourage moderation but stopped short of implementing strict policies, leaving many teachers feeling unsupported in their efforts to maintain order.

As the challenges mounted, criticism began to extend beyond the school itself. The media took a growing interest in the experiment, with local newspapers and radio stations covering the various incidents. News outlets began to question the ethics of providing alcohol to minors, framing the experiment as irresponsible and dangerous. The experiment, once hailed as a bold educational initiative, was increasingly seen as a cautionary tale about the risks of pushing boundaries without adequate safeguards.

By 1981, it was evident that the challenges facing the Mauston High School Beer Experiment were too great to ignore. The school’s administration was under growing pressure to reconsider the program, as both internal and external criticism reached new heights.

Political and Legal Repercussions

The escalating incidents of student intoxication, along with the tragic drunk driving accidents, had far-reaching political and legal consequences for the Mauston High School Beer Experiment. As the program continued, it began to attract the attention of state politicians, legal authorities, and public health advocates who questioned the ethics and legality of allowing minors to consume alcohol in a school setting.

The first significant political challenge came in early 1979, when Martha Douglas, a Wisconsin state senator, became a vocal critic of the program. Alarmed by reports of student accidents and overconsumption, Douglas spearheaded a campaign to investigate the legality of the experiment. In a heated session of the Wisconsin State Senate, she called for a formal inquiry into the school’s decision to allow minors access to alcohol, arguing that it violated state laws governing the consumption of alcohol by individuals under the legal drinking age.

"This is not about innovation or progress," Douglas stated during a televised interview. "This is about protecting our children from a dangerous and irresponsible experiment that has already caused harm." Her stance gained widespread media attention, and public opinion began to shift against the experiment as more details of the incidents emerged.

The legal repercussions of the experiment became most prominent in the wake of Kevin Wiggins’ death in May 1980. His parents, devastated by the loss of their son, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Mauston School Board, accusing the school of negligence for providing their son with access to alcohol without proper oversight. The lawsuit, which was covered extensively by the local press, placed the school under intense scrutiny and led to a formal investigation by the Wisconsin Department of Education. The investigation found that while the program had been approved by the school board and supported by the research team, it lacked critical safety measures, such as limiting the amount of alcohol students could consume or providing adequate supervision during school hours.

The legal battle that ensued became a rallying point for critics of the program, with public health organizations and parental advocacy groups joining the call for the experiment’s termination. As the legal case progressed, the school’s insurance provider also began to express concerns about liability, further complicating the school board’s position. By 1982, the mounting political and legal pressures had become too great for the Mauston School Board to withstand, and the decision was made to discontinue the beer experiment, marking the end of one of the most controversial educational programs in U.S. history.

Termination of the Experiment

By the early 1980s, the Mauston High School Beer Experiment was nearing its end, brought down by a combination of internal issues, external pressures, and tragic incidents that revealed the inherent dangers of allowing alcohol consumption in a school setting. What began as an innovative educational experiment aimed at increasing student engagement and fostering a more relaxed, collaborative atmosphere had devolved into a cautionary tale marked by student accidents, public outrage, and growing political scrutiny.

The first signs that the experiment was faltering came in 1979, after the Holiday Cheer Incident and the drunk driving accident involving Michael Anders. While no one had died in those initial events, they raised serious concerns about student safety and the school’s ability to maintain control over the program. Teachers like Elaine Peters and Linda Foster had long been vocal critics, warning the administration that students were not regulating their consumption as hoped. However, their concerns were often downplayed by Principal Gregory Hutchinson and Dr. Horace Greeley, who remained firm in their belief that the experiment was a net positive for student engagement.

The administration’s defense of the experiment became harder to sustain after the death of senior Kevin Wiggins in May 1980. His tragic car accident, which was directly linked to excessive drinking during school hours, ignited a firestorm of criticism from parents, local media, and state politicians. Wiggins’ death marked a turning point in the public perception of the experiment. What had once been seen as a bold, forward-thinking initiative was now viewed as a reckless and dangerous gamble that had cost a young life.

Wiggins’ parents, Robert and Susan Wiggins, were understandably devastated and sought justice for their son’s death. They filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Mauston School Board, accusing the school of negligence and failure to provide adequate supervision. Their legal case, which garnered significant media attention, was a tipping point for the experiment. Public sentiment had shifted dramatically in the wake of Wiggins’ death, with many members of the Mauston community—and beyond—calling for the immediate termination of the program.

The lawsuit also attracted the attention of the Wisconsin Department of Education, which launched an investigation into the school’s practices. The department’s report, released in late 1980, outlined several serious issues with the experiment, including the absence of clear guidelines on alcohol consumption, the lack of formal supervision, and the failure to address the growing number of alcohol-related incidents among students. The report concluded that the Mauston School Board had been negligent in its implementation and oversight of the program, stating that the risks to student health and safety far outweighed any potential educational benefits.

This investigation, combined with the legal pressure from the Wiggins family, placed the school board in an increasingly untenable position. Public health advocates, parental groups, and state legislators, led by Senator Martha Douglas, intensified their calls for the program to be shut down. Douglas, who had been one of the earliest political critics of the experiment, argued that the school’s failure to protect its students had created a dangerous environment that could no longer be tolerated. In several public appearances, she referenced Wiggins’ death as evidence of the program’s failure and the urgent need for action.

"This experiment has claimed the life of one of our children," Douglas said during a speech in 1981. "We cannot continue to allow this kind of reckless endangerment to persist. It is time to end this program before another family suffers the same loss."

As public pressure mounted, even the most ardent supporters of the experiment within the Mauston School Board and the faculty began to waver. Principal Gregory Hutchinson, who had been one of the earliest and most enthusiastic proponents of the beer program, found himself increasingly isolated as more teachers and administrators voiced their concerns. Hutchinson had long believed that the benefits of the experiment—improved student engagement, reduced anxiety, and greater participation in extracurricular activities—outweighed the risks. However, as more alcohol-related incidents surfaced and the community backlash grew louder, it became clear that the experiment was no longer sustainable.

In early 1982, the Mauston School Board convened several emergency meetings to discuss the future of the program. These meetings were contentious, with board members divided on whether to attempt salvaging the experiment by introducing stricter regulations or to end it altogether. Dr. Horace Greeley, who had pioneered the program and remained one of its staunchest defenders, argued that the issues could be addressed by implementing more oversight and reducing access to beer during school hours. He proposed limiting beer consumption to certain times of the day, such as lunch periods, and requiring students to check in with a faculty member before using the beer fountains.

However, the board was increasingly skeptical that any such reforms could save the program. The legal and financial risks had become too great, especially with the Wiggins family’s lawsuit still pending. The school’s insurance provider had also expressed concerns about continued liability, warning that coverage could be affected if the program was not terminated. These practical considerations, combined with the ethical and moral concerns voiced by the community, left the school board with little choice.

On June 2, 1982, after weeks of deliberation and under immense pressure from parents, politicians, and legal authorities, the Mauston School Board voted to officially terminate the Mauston High School Beer Experiment. The vote was nearly unanimous, with only a few board members, including Hutchinson, expressing reluctance. In a statement to the press, the board cited safety concerns, legal liabilities, and the growing number of alcohol-related incidents as the primary reasons for ending the program.

Principal Hutchinson, visibly disappointed by the decision, addressed the student body on the last day of the 1981-1982 school year. In his speech, he reflected on the experiment’s original goals and acknowledged the tragic consequences that had led to its termination.

"We embarked on this journey with the hope of creating a new kind of learning environment, one where students could feel more at ease, more engaged, and more connected to each other and their teachers," Hutchinson said. "While we saw many successes, we also faced challenges we could not have anticipated. Today, we must face the reality that the risks have become too great, and it is time to say goodbye to this chapter of Mauston High’s history."

The beer fountains were dismantled over the summer of 1982, and by the start of the new school year, Mauston High School had returned to a more traditional educational environment. The termination of the experiment marked the end of one of the most controversial programs in U.S. educational history. While some students and teachers mourned the loss of what had been, at least for a time, an exciting and unique chapter in the school’s history, many were relieved that the dangers posed by the program had finally been addressed.

In the months following the termination, discussions about the experiment continued to dominate the local news and educational circles. Some viewed the end of the program as a necessary and overdue decision, while others, including Dr. Greeley and a small contingent of students, saw it as a missed opportunity to further explore the relationship between alcohol and learning in a controlled environment.

The legacy of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment would continue to be debated for years to come, but by June 1982, the experiment itself was over.

Post-Experiment Reflections

The termination of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment in June 1982 left a lasting impact on the school, the local community, and the wider educational and psychological research fields. In the aftermath of the experiment’s closure, students, teachers, parents, and researchers began to reflect on the experiment’s successes, failures, and the broader lessons it provided. The experiment, once hailed as a bold educational innovation, was now viewed through a more critical lens, prompting a complex debate about its legacy.

For many students, the experiment was remembered with a mix of nostalgia and regret. Those who had participated in the program during its early years often spoke of the unique camaraderie it fostered. Student surveys conducted after the termination revealed that many felt a stronger sense of community during the experiment, as the shared experience of beer in school had broken down social barriers and encouraged more interaction across different cliques. Daryl Simmons, a former student body president, reflected in a 1984 interview that, despite its flaws, the experiment had created an atmosphere where students felt more comfortable expressing themselves and participating in school activities.

"For a while, it felt like we were all part of something new and exciting," Simmons remarked. "There was a real sense of unity, like we were part of something bigger than just a normal school experience." However, Simmons and others also acknowledged that the freedom offered by the experiment had led some students to make poor decisions, including excessive drinking and risky behavior.

Teachers had more mixed reflections. Some, like history instructor Judith Carr, continued to believe that the experiment had yielded positive results in terms of student engagement. Carr had observed increased participation in her classroom and believed that the more relaxed atmosphere fostered by the program allowed for deeper, more meaningful discussions, particularly in subjects that required critical thinking and creativity. In a post-experiment reflection submitted to the Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology, Carr wrote, "I saw students opening up in ways they hadn’t before, taking intellectual risks that were encouraged by the environment we created."

However, other teachers, such as physical education instructor Elaine Peters, felt vindicated by the experiment’s termination. Peters had been one of the most outspoken critics of the program, frequently raising concerns about the impact of alcohol on students’ physical and mental health. In her post-experiment reflections, she expressed relief that the school had returned to a more traditional, structured environment. Peters noted that while some students thrived under the beer experiment, others had struggled with the lack of boundaries, leading to dangerous behavior. "We were taking too many risks," Peters later said. "It wasn’t worth the cost, especially when it led to tragedy."

From an academic perspective, Dr. Horace Greeley, the architect of the experiment, was perhaps the most conflicted about the program’s termination. Greeley had always believed that the experiment had the potential to revolutionize education by creating a more engaging and relaxed learning environment. In the years following the closure of the program, Greeley defended the experiment’s early successes, pointing to the improvements in student participation, reduced anxiety, and the sense of community it fostered. However, in his final analysis published in the Journal of Educational Psychology in 1985, Greeley also acknowledged the limitations of the program. "We underestimated the challenges of self-regulation and the social pressures that adolescents face," he admitted. "While the experiment provided valuable insights, we failed to properly account for the risks of overconsumption and the need for more stringent oversight."

For the Mauston community, the legacy of the beer experiment remained a point of contention for years after its conclusion. Some parents and local leaders viewed the experiment as a misguided failure that endangered students and tarnished the town’s reputation. Others, particularly those connected to the local brewing industry, saw it as an interesting, if flawed, attempt to push the boundaries of educational practice. Ultimately, the experiment’s legacy was shaped by the balance between its innovative spirit and the tragic consequences it left in its wake.

While the Mauston High School Beer Experiment ended in controversy, it also served as a reminder of the complexities involved in educational reform and the unpredictable outcomes of untested theories in real-world environments.

Legacy

The legacy of the Mauston High School Beer Experiment is a complicated one, marked by both its bold innovation and its tragic failures. While the experiment's original goals—fostering a more relaxed, engaging, and socially cohesive educational environment—were partially realized, its unintended consequences ultimately overshadowed its achievements. For years after its termination, the experiment remained a topic of debate in educational and psychological circles, serving as a case study in the potential risks of unconventional methods in public schooling.

From an educational perspective, the experiment is often remembered as an ambitious, albeit flawed, attempt to address student disengagement and social anxiety. Supporters argued that it briefly succeeded in breaking down social barriers and encouraging greater participation, particularly in creative and collaborative subjects. However, its detractors pointed to the lack of oversight, the over-reliance on self-regulation, and the significant safety risks posed by allowing underage drinking in a school setting.

The tragic incidents, particularly the death of Kevin Wiggins, remain central to the experiment’s legacy. His death became a cautionary tale about the dangers of pushing boundaries without adequate safeguards, and it left a lasting scar on the Mauston community. Despite its academic goals, the experiment is often remembered for its failures, both ethical and practical, and has been used as a warning for future educational reformers about the importance of balancing innovation with student safety.

In the decades since its termination, the Mauston High School Beer Experiment has come to symbolize the complex interplay between bold ideas and real-world consequences, illustrating the need for careful consideration and planning in any experimental educational program.

Conclusion

The Mauston High School Beer Experiment remains one of the most controversial and unusual educational initiatives in American history. What began in 1976 as a groundbreaking effort to improve student engagement and foster a more dynamic learning environment quickly became a subject of intense debate, ultimately revealing the limitations and dangers of such an unorthodox approach. Over the six years the experiment was active, it evolved from a hopeful, innovative project into a cautionary tale about the risks of unchecked ambition in educational reform.

At its core, the experiment was driven by a desire to address real problems in education: student disengagement, social anxiety, and the need for a more inclusive and participatory school culture. Dr. Horace Greeley and Principal Gregory Hutchinson believed that moderate alcohol consumption could be used as a tool to break down social barriers, reduce student stress, and increase classroom participation. And in its early years, the experiment did show promise, with some students reporting improved engagement and a stronger sense of community.

However, the program's lack of formal oversight, the reliance on self-regulation, and the assumption that students would naturally moderate their drinking proved to be critical flaws. As the experiment progressed, a series of alcohol-related incidents, including student intoxication and drunk driving accidents, exposed the dangers of the program. The tragic death of Kevin Wiggins in 1980 marked the beginning of the end for the experiment, as public opinion, legal pressure, and political opposition mounted.

By the time the experiment was terminated in 1982, it had become clear that the risks far outweighed the benefits. While the experiment had momentarily pushed the boundaries of what was possible in education, its failure underscored the importance of ensuring student safety above all else.

In the years since the Mauston High School Beer Experiment has been studied and discussed as both an example of bold educational innovation and a warning about the dangers of experimenting with young lives in such a cavalier manner. Though its legacy remains controversial, it serves as a reminder that any educational reform, no matter how well-intentioned, must be grounded in a strong foundation of responsibility, oversight, and care for the well-being of students.

References

Anderson, Emily. "The Mauston High School Beer Experiment: A Bold New Direction for Education?" Mauston Chronicle, September 12, 1976.

Greeley, Horace. Alcohol and Adolescent Learning: Initial Findings from the Mauston Experiment. Milwaukee: Wisconsin Institute of Behavioral Psychology, 1977.

Carr, Judith. "Classroom Dynamics in a Socially Relaxed Environment: Observations from the Mauston High Experiment." Journal of Educational Psychology 42, no. 2 (1978): 203-220.

Hutchinson, Gregory. "A Principal’s Perspective: The First Year of the Beer Experiment." Mauston High School Annual Report, 1977.

Simmons, Daryl. "Student Reflections on the Mauston Beer Experiment." Mauston High School Gazette, October 1978.

"Holiday Cheer Incident Disrupts School Assembly." La Crosse Tribune, December 15, 1978.

Peters, Elaine. "Physical Education and Alcohol: Concerns from the Mauston Experiment." Wisconsin Journal of Health and Fitness, February 1979.

Schwartz, Evelyn. "Social Anxiety and Alcohol: Results from Mauston High School." Behavioral Science Review 19, no. 4 (1979): 88-101.

Jenkins, Herbert. "Mathematics and Alcohol: The Mauston Experiment’s Surprising Results." Mathematics in Secondary Education 51, no. 1 (1980): 33-47.

Wiggins, Robert and Susan. "A Parent’s Perspective: The Loss of Our Son." Washington Post, May 25, 1981.

"The Tragedy of Kevin Wiggins: A Community in Mourning." Mauston Chronicle, June 2, 1980.

Greeley, Horace. Alcohol and Cognition: Final Report from the Mauston Experiment. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Institute of Research and Technology, 1982.

Douglas, Martha. "Speech to the Wisconsin State Senate on Adolescent Alcohol Consumption." Madison: Wisconsin State Archives, 1979.

"Mauston High Faces Lawsuit over Student Death." Milwaukee Journal, July 3, 1980.

Foster, Linda. "Teaching Science in the Mauston Beer Experiment: A Difficult Balance." Midwest Science Teacher, March 1981.

"The Wisconsin Department of Education Report on the Mauston High School Beer Experiment." Madison: Wisconsin Department of Education, 1980.

"Beer in Schools: A Dangerous Precedent?" New York Times, August 21, 1981.

"Funeral Held for Kevin Wiggins." Mauston Gazette, May 30, 1980.

Hutchinson, Gregory. Principal’s Reflections on the End of the Beer Experiment. Mauston: Mauston High School Archives, 1982.

"Controversial Mauston High Experiment Ends After Six Years." La Crosse Tribune, June 3, 1982.

"An Interview with Dr. Horace Greeley." Milwaukee Journal, April 22, 1983.

"Parents File Lawsuit over Beer Experiment." Wisconsin State Journal, July 10, 1980.

Greeley, Horace. "The Role of Alcohol in Adolescent Development: Insights from the Mauston Study." Journal of Adolescent Behavior 26, no. 3 (1981): 105-122.

"Tragedy in Mauston: The Death of Kevin Wiggins." Washington Post, June 4, 1980.

"Student Engagement and Alcohol: What We Learned from Mauston High." Journal of Educational Reform 35, no. 1 (1982): 73-89.

Simmons, Daryl. "Senior Year Reflections on the Mauston Beer Experiment." Mauston High Yearbook, 1978.

Peters, Elaine. "Why I Opposed the Mauston Beer Experiment: A Teacher’s View." Wisconsin Education Review, August 1981.

"Local Brewery Supports Controversial School Program." Mauston Chronicle, February 2, 1977.

"Mauston High Celebrates One Year of Beer Experiment." La Crosse Tribune, August 30, 1977.

Jenkins, Herbert. "Reflections on Mathematics and Alcohol." Teaching Today, October 1981.

"Mauston High School Parent-Teacher Association Meets to Discuss Beer Experiment." Mauston Gazette, April 25, 1979.

Schwartz, Evelyn. Mental Health and Alcohol in Adolescents: The Mauston Experiment’s Unexpected Outcomes. Madison: Wisconsin Behavioral Sciences Press, 1980.

"Wiggins Family Sues School Board for Wrongful Death." Milwaukee Journal, July 5, 1980.

"Principal Defends Experiment Amid Controversy." Wisconsin State Journal, March 13, 1981.

"Students Reflect on Six Years of the Beer Experiment." Mauston High School Gazette, June 5, 1982.

"Kevin Wiggins Obituary." Mauston Gazette, May 31, 1980.

Carr, Judith. "Classroom Behavior and Alcohol: Reflections from Mauston High." Journal of Behavioral Education 38, no. 2 (1982): 189-204.

"The End of an Era: Mauston High Shuts Down Beer Experiment." New York Times, June 4, 1982.

"How Mauston High’s Experiment Changed Education." Journal of Secondary Education 44, no. 4 (1983): 45-61.

"A Community Divided: Reflections on the Mauston High Beer Experiment." Mauston Chronicle, June 12, 1982.