Kailyn Gray, History 250: The Historian Craft, Spring 2023

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln holds a special place in the grand American ‘Part School’ tradition. Party schools earn their reputation by the presence of heavy drinking and partying, especially surrounding tailgating and greek life. In recent years, UNL administration seeks to separate the perception of UNL’s drinking culture from its brand, allowing other state colleges to take the mantle. But with social media accounts, news reports, and the still lively drinking culture, it seems administrative efforts might not be as effective as they hoped on public perception. And as the American public keeps learning, no time is truly unprecedented. This battle for the reputation of the university happened almost one-hundred years ago on this very campus. What is even more unique is that it happened in the throng of the American Prohibition. The desire and agency of ‘anti-dry’ the student body and the ‘pro-dry’ university administration were constantly entangled in a battle for public perception during prohibition and ultimately ended in student victory.

Administration Efforts During the Prohibition

The administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln had a vested interest in making the university seem aligned with the goals of city and state legislation. The city of Lincoln and the institutions within it were in a battle for the reputation of the state against its competing major city, Omaha. Omaha earned a reputation as the rebel-child city during prohibition due to participation in bootlegging and seeming encouragement of breaking state liquor laws.[1] The city of Lincoln wanted to establish its reputation as a dry utopia with hard rules on liquor and steep punishments for breaking those laws. This attempt to keep Lincoln dry and away from the wet and lax Omaha drove UNL administration to encourage its students towards participating in the Great Experiment. UNL administration used the aid of government agents, school deans, and political speakers to regulate and encourage anti-drinking sentiments on campus. The attempts made by UNL’s administration began before the state officially became ‘dry’ and the effects of these prohibition policies are still felt on campus today.

Years before either federal or state prohibition went into effect, university officials were busy pushing pro-Dry ideology on UNL students. During Convocation in 1914, H.G. McCain spoke about the benefits of prohibition to the attending students.[2] McCain was secretary of the Intercollegiate Prohibition Association, an organization dedicated to forming dry campuses in the country. The university also held debate competitions, organized by the WCTU, for students with pro-Dry debaters often receiving recognition for their speeches.[3] Events featuring pro-dry speakers and debates, while organized by outside groups like the WCTU, were easily approved and happily promoted by the UNL administration. Groups with pro-Wet sentiments often found it harder to get events approved by administration or ran their events off campus to avoid discipline.

After the ratification of the eighteenth amendment the administration at UNL used the combined power of deans and federal officials to regulate alcohol use on campus. Police often initiated liquor raids but students would receive punishment not only as a citizen, but as a student. Penalties for those accused often danced on a fickle line, as administration wanted to dissuade others from abusing alcohol but not so much that it would lower student enrollment. The consequence, then, came in the form of fines issued by the state and suspensions issued by the university. Suspension was the prime punishment because it allowed the university to conserve the reputation of attending students while allowing prohibition-breaking students to return to classes after their scandal had died down. The university administration seemed to be aware of the use of alcohol on campus but let it remain under the rug so long as the university could claim plausible deniability. It was only when outside, police raids were provoked and the charged names were attached to the university that administrative consequences were given. That is to say, while the UNL administration promoted pro-dry events and figures and gave out discipline to charged students, there was no effort by the administration to create prohibition agents dedicated to university-specific liquor violations. The lack of a university-based prohibition office suggests that the goal of UNL administration was not to eradicate student use of alcohol on campus but to manipulate the perception of the students' use to the public.

In an attempt to keep UNL ‘dry’ near the end of prohibition, government officials like Harold ‘Three-Gun’ Wilson, applauded the students at UNL for their ability to keep themselves and their campus liquor-free.[4] To say that Wilson was a pro-‘Dry’ fanatic would be an understatement. Wilson, a federal prohibition officer, believed that the law applied to everyone, no matter their wealth or their office. Wilson was transferred to Nebraska after controversy and litigation over his involvement with an illegal raid on a party for the governor.[5] But what is most interesting about Wilson is his seemingly hypocritical goal of keeping the university’s reputation clean while heavily attacking liquor use in the state. During the 1932 ‘Rum Raid’, Wilson acknowledged the use of alcohol on campus claiming it was, “A minor affair conducted for the mental effect it would have on college students.”[6] The use of alcohol by students on campus should’ve been a rallying cry for Wilson, but instead, his sentiment tones down the scandal. His relaxed comments towards the raid might reflect Wilson’s desire to have his state stand as the last fortress against the rising tide of pro-Wet sentiment in 1932. If this was the case, his manipulation of the true liquor activity on campus was futile. Less than two years later, prohibition would be repealed in the state.

Student Opinions During the Prohibition

Like today, there was no ‘one’ voice that defined the student opinion on UNL’s campus during this era. In the time just before prohibition was ratified on either the state or federal level, students seemed more curious about the ‘Noble Experiment’ than anything. Early references of the prohibition found in the 1916 school yearbook seem to satirize the situation. The image below shows how students use the looming political situation of Nebraska ‘going dry’ as a pun to display the water sports that happened at the university. The punchline being that while Nebraska may be going ‘dry’, legislation might have little effect on ‘wet’ activities on campus. Around the same time, students also became involved in oratorial debate conferences held by pro-Dry organizations. Their motivations to argue in favor of prohibition might not be as purely motivated as they are presented. Organizations like the WCTU and ICPA offered money to students who participated and won these debate competitions.[7] Prizes were anywhere from $10 to $50 dollars or around $300 to $1,500 today.[8] That kind of money is enticing to any college student, those in the past not excluded. Whether their participation was inspired by the growing prohibition campaign or the desire to earn some extra money remains unclear. Regardless of their motivations, student participation does not equal full support of prohibition measures, but rather an academic interest in the potential success of prohibition.

After federal prohibition was officially enacted student sentiments became more coded. The opinions held by students were rarely voiced openly in publications, especially about activity and administration efforts on campus. When prohibition is mentioned in student-ran media, it focuses on community opinion and administrative efforts surrounding scandal rather than student opinion. In the Steve Hokuf ‘Beer Apartment’ raid, students voiced their praise for Hokuf’s grit and character without ever mentioning the scandal directly.[9] It shouldn’t be inferred that students lacked opinions on prohibition during prohibition’s active period, only that they might not have been free to safely voice them.

Toward the end of federal prohibition, student sentiments in the Daily Nebraskan seemed to favor the removal of prohibition from the constitution. A 1932 article published by the Daily Nebraskan outlines the reasons students felt the ‘Great Experiment’ had failed, including the false moralization of alcohol and the American need for freedom, especially in recreation.[10] Eventually due to the efforts made by the aforementioned ‘Three-Gunned’ Wilson, prohibition was back on the ballot in Nebraska in 1944. UNL Students overwhelmingly voted to keep Nebraska ‘wet’ 984 to 86.[11] Both sides used the war to defend their positions. Anti-prohibition voters argued that soldiers should be allowed to drink upon their return. The dissenting students insisted that the use of alcohol was too frivolous in a time of war.

The Battleground for Public Reputation: Steve Hokuf and the Beer Apartment Raid

If there is one rule that is consistent with Husker fans of yesterday and today it is: never mess with the star of the football team. If you asked anyone on campus in 1931 who the star-athlete of UNL was, Steve Hokuf undoubtedly would’ve been the answer. Hokuf seemed to lead any team he was on to success and the Husker football team was no exception. So when his participation in fall sports was threatened by a prohibition raid, Husker fans and classmates were quick to come to his aid. Hokuf lived in an off campus apartment in Lincoln with friends in the spring of 1931. One day, when he was out of town, the apartment was raided by police where they found copious amounts of beer in crocks and bottles.[12] It couldn’t be proved that Hokuf bought or knew about the presence of alcohol in the apartment and after police interrogated him he was eventually let off without charges. This incident best shows the clash between the efforts of administration and student sentiments towards alcohol on campus because of the sway it had on public opinion. Because of his star status and popularity at UNL, administration worked quickly to make an example of Hokuf, suspending him from all fall activities. They wanted to make it clear to the public and students that if Hokuf can get suspended just for being implicated in a raid, anyone could be. Student publications like the Daily Nebraskan quickly got to work in covert defense of Hokuf. Student journalists used the words of others in the community to give support to Hokuf during the scandal and started a petition to reinstate him in the fall sports schedule.[13] While student sentiments had to be hidden in the quotes taken from others around the community and sly jokes like in the ‘Shucks’ column of the newspaper, students made it clear whose side they were on.

The community quickly sided with student publications and opinions. Hokuf, who was born in Crete, saw an outcry from his hometown to reinstate him on the football team. Regardless of the rallying of support for Hokuf, UNL administration remained firm in their decision to suspend Hokuf for the entire fall season. Hokuf’s scandal and suspension is a perfect example of the administration’s allegiance to state prohibition agents and agendas. The suspension of Hokuf served as a proxy punishment by the university that the state could not legally impose on him because of his absence at the apartment at the time of the raid. The actions taken by UNL’s administration against Hokuf were interpreted by the community as proof that the administration was allegiant to the pro-Dry politics of the city and the perception of the university. But due to the power of student publications, Hokuf’s peers were able to communicate the administration’s hypocrisy to the public. What was the purpose of punishing a student who they could not prove had even drank? The students of 1931 made clear their answer; that the goal of administration was not to control drinking on campus, only to make the public think they had the power to control it.

Conclusion

Studying any aspect of the early twentieth century can sometimes make the twenty-first century feel like an echo. To assume the protocols and ideology we exist in today is brand new is anachronistic and wrong. With new technology and scientific revelations, the same ‘battle’ is being fought with different weapons and only time will tell who the winner will be this time. The conflict for reputation during prohibition at UNL might be able to give revised strategy to current students and warning signs for administration. The UNL prohibition squabble is also important outside of the consequences for today. Prohibition’s effect at UNL shows that the university did not exist in a time bubble and that history has an impact everywhere, including Nebraska.

Notes

1. Omaha newspapers are littered with evidence for the state’s desire yet inability to control the presence of liquor in Omaha but some prime examples are: “Youth Enlisted As ‘Booze Detectives’” Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), October 20, 1920; “Seize Half Dozen ‘Stills’ With 300 Gallons of Booze” NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current; Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), January 4, 1921: 1. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current.
2. "Prohibition Leader Speaks at Convocation.” The Daily Nebraskan. February 11, 1914.
3. “Prizes Are Offered For Best Orations.” The Daily Nebraskan. September 28, 1914.
4. Holtzendorff, Howard. “‘Three Gun’ Wilson Says University One of Best Institutions In America; Nebraska Group Not Drunken Sots.” Daily Nebraskan. April 19, 1932.
5. Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), January 11, 1932: 3. NewsBank: Access World News –Historical and Current.
6. Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), February 19, 1932: 13. NewsBank: Access World News –Historical and Current.
7. “Prohibition Will Be The Subject.” The Daily Nebraskan. October 14, 1915.
8. “CPI Inflation Calculator.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d.
   https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
9. “1932 UNL Student Yearbook.” University of Nebraska yearbook display, 1932.
   https://yearbooks.unl.edu/yearbook.php?year=1932%2C486#page/440/mode/transcription.
10. “This Prohibition Question.” Daily Nebraskan. 1932.
11. “Student Vote Against Prohibition, 984 to 86.” The Daily Nebraskan. October 31, 1944.
12. Miller, Jeffrey. “Question Steve Hokuf in ‘U.’ Beer Flat Raid.” Nebraska U, Spring 2008.
13. Conklin, Leonard. “Shucks.” The Daily Nebraskan. March 31, 1931.

Sources

• “1932 UNL Student Yearbook.” University of Nebraska yearbook display, 1932. https://yearbooks.unl.edu/yearbook.php?year=1932%2C486#page/440/mode/transcription.
• Conklin, Leonard. “Shucks.” The Daily Nebraskan. March 31, 1931. https://nebnewspapers.unl.edu/lccn/sn96080312/1931-03-31/ed-1/seq-3/#words=Hokuf+ Steve.
• “CPI Inflation Calculator.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, n.d. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
• "Grand Jury to Probe Uni Rum Raid." The Omaha Bee-News. Omaha, Nebraska: February 1932 https://unlhistory.unl.edu/xslt/xslt.php?&_xmlsrc=https://unlhistory.unl.edu/legacy/ unl.00024/unl.00024.16.xml&_xslsrc=https://unlhistory.unl.edu/xslt/unlhistory.xsl
• Holtzendorff, Howard. “‘Three Gun’ Wilson Says University One of Best Institutions In America; Nebraska Group Not Drunken Sots.” Daily Nebraskan. April 19, 1932.
• Knoll, Robert E. Prairie University. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press and the Alumni Association of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1995. 85-86.
• Miller, Jeffrey. “Question Steve Hokuf in ‘U.’ Beer Flat Raid.” Nebraska U, Spring 2008. https://unlhistory.unl.edu/xslt/xslt.php?&_xmlsrc=https%3A%2F%2Funlhistory.unl.edu %2Flegacy%2Funl.00024%2Funl.00024.27.xml&_xslsrc=https%3A%2F%2Funlhistory. unl.edu%2Fxslt%2Funlhistory.xsl. Miller, Jeffrey. “UNL and the Dry Spell: Student Attitudes Toward Prohibition, 1931-1932.” Nebraska U, Spring 2008. https://unlhistory.unl.edu/xslt/xslt.php?&_xmlsrc=https%3A%2F%2Funlhistory.unl.edu %2Flegacy%2Funl.00024%2Funl.00024.01.xml&_xslsrc=https%3A%2F%2Funlhistory. unl.edu%2Fxslt%2Funlhistory.xsl.
• “Mountains Out of Molehills.” The Daily Nebraskan. Lincoln, Nebraska: February 1932. https://unlhistory.unl.edu/xslt/xslt.php?&_xmlsrc=https://unlhistory.unl.edu/legacy/unl.00024/unl .00024.44.xml&_xslsrc=https://unlhistory.unl.edu/xslt/unlhistory.xsl
• Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), January 4, 1921: 1. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.libproxy.unl.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLDN EWS&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-1342A83E1A59AAE6%402 422694-1340427B6A0F6FDF%400-1340427B6A0F6FDF%40.
• Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), January 11, 1932: 3. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.libproxy.unl.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLD NEWS&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-13622E818364EB20% 402426718-135DA98A52EBF5A3%402-135DA98A52EBF5A3%40.
• Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), February 19, 1932: 13. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.libproxy.unl.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLD NEWS&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-136237C68231B0C3% 402426757-135DA995A5E70A19%4012-135DA995A5E70A19%40.
• Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), September 14, 1933: 2. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.libproxy.unl.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLD NEWS&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-1364E845CDB1B3DD %402427330-135DF58ADDF74534%401-135DF58ADDF74534%40.
• Omaha World-Herald (Omaha, Nebraska), October 20, 1920: 1. NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current. https://infoweb-newsbank-com.libproxy.unl.edu/apps/news/document-view?p=WORLD NEWS&docref=image/v2%3A1106B5BBD4B623A8%40EANX-134197F1CA8EBC72 %402422618-1340412C0ED06A47%400-1340412C0ED06A47%40.
• “Prizes Are Offered For Best Orations.” The Daily Nebraskan. September 28, 1914.
• “Prohibition Will Be The Subject.” The Daily Nebraskan. October 14, 1915.
• “Prohibition Leader Speaks at Convocation.” The Daily Nebraskan. February 11, 1914.
• Steve Hokuf 1931 Yearbook Photo. Photograph. University of Nebraska Yearbooks. Lincoln, 1931. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. https://yearbooks.unl.edu/.
• “Student Vote Against Prohibition, 984 to 86.” The Daily Nebraskan. October 31, 1944.
• “This Prohibition Question.” The Daily Nebraskan. 1932.