5 research outputs found
Harry Harmon oral history interview, "Planning the Facilities for The California State University System", Origins of The California State University, 1987
No full textHarmon was an executive for physical planning and development.Transcripts and cassette tapes of oral history interviews with various individuals involved in the formation of the California State University system.Origins of
The California State
University
Harry Harmon
Interviewed
by
Lawrence B. de Graaf
An Oral History Project
of the
Archives
U U U Archives
CSU, Dominguez Hills
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Pilot Project on the Origins of the CSU System
HARRY HARMON
PLANNING THE FACILITIES FOR THE CSU SYSTEM
Interview Conducted by
Lawrence B. de Graaf
in 1987
Processed by CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
November 1988
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the
California State University Archives under a grant from the
Office of the Chancellor, CSU.
Scholars are welcome to utilize short excerpts from any of
the transcriptions without obtaining permission as long as
proper credit is given to the interviewee, interviewer, and the
institution sponsoring the project. All uses of this
manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the CSU
Archives and the interviewee. Therefore, scholars must obtain
permission from California State University Archives before
making more extensive use of the transcription and related
materials.
None of these materials may be duplicated or reproduced by
any party except the California State University Archives.
However, because it is the goal of this project to preserve and
make accessible significant documentation relevant to the
history of the State Colleges, copies of any unrestricted
transcriptions may be obtained at cost by writing to the CSU
Systemwide Archivist at California State University, Dominguez
Hills, Carson, California, 90747.
Copyright (c)1988 by the Board of Trustees
of The California State University
PREFACE
The purpose of this oral history pilot project is to
record and make available to researchers using the California
State University Archives the reminiscences of individuals who
participated in the creation of the California State Colleges
from 1959 to 1965.
The creation of the California State Colleges in 1961
united fifteen formerly independent colleges into a single,
identifiable system, with its own Board of Trustees and a
Chancellor to serve as chief executive officer. Using a
formula which stressed systemwide planning in the allocation of
resources and programs, The California State Colleges sought to
offer Californians quality higher education at reasonable
cost. The key to the success of the California State
University was the decision to adapt a plan, incorporated into
the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, dividing higher
education into three distinctly separate segments. Under the
act, the California State Colleges were mandated to emphasize
undergraduate and master’s level programs, while the University
of California campuses were to emphasize graduate education,
and the California Community Colleges were to focus on
vocational training and college preparation.
The California State University, starting from a base of
fifteen campuses and 95,000 students in 1961, has grown to
where it now provides a wide variety of innovative programs to
more than 320,000 students on nineteen campuses. It is the
largest system of higher education in the United States and is
known as one of the strongest institutions of higher education
in the country.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the
California State University and Colleges Historical Archives,
to be housed on the Dominguez Hills campus. Since its
establishment, the Archives, as a systemwide project, has been
jointly supported by the Chancellor’s Office and CSU Dominguez
Hills, through the funding of a professional archivist.
The Archives currently houses a collection of materials
received from a variety of sources. These include the
Chancellor’s Office, the CSU Academic Senate, and private
individuals who had previous dealings with the CSU, such as
former Chancellor Glenn Dumke, former Trustee Paul Spencer, and
others. Consequently, the Archives holds some personal papers
as well as official systemwide documents. As part of its
collection policy, the Archives also has a responsibility to
collect individual recollections and oral histories of the
early System and pre-System years.
iii
Short-term goals of this oral history project are to make
available the recollections and reminiscences of former members
of the Board of Trustees, the State College-University of
California Liaison Committee, and the Master Plan Survey Team,
as well as other individuals who participated in the formation
of the California State Colleges from 1959 to 1965.
For the long run, the project has three purposes. First,
it will help to increase interest in the history and
accomplishments of the California State University. Next, it
will, hopefully, be a tool to aid in the acquisition of
additional materials concerning the System now in private
hands. Finally, it will serve as a model and learning device
to develop a more comprehensive oral history program. If the
pilot project is successful, as many interviews as possible
will be conducted under the expanded program with the System’s
retired trustees, former vice-chancellors and college
presidents, current senior management, state legislators, and
other important individuals who have been influential in the
growth and development of the state university.
Funding for the project is provided by the Office of Vice
Chancellor, Administration, Dr. Herbert L. Carter. We thank
the interviewee for generously giving of his time. We also
acknowledge the work of the Oral History Program at CSU
Fullerton for the use of its facilities in processing this
interview. Transcribing was performed by Shirley de Graaf,
proofreading and index by Lynn Finger, and final preparation by
Teryne Bell.
Lawrence B. de Graaf Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
Judson A. Grenier CSU Archivist
Project Co-Directors
MEMBERS, CSU ARCHIVES ADVISORY BOARD
Betty Blackman
John Brownell
Mayer Chapman
Robert W. Cherny
Lawrence B. de Graaf
Glenn S. Dumke
Donald R. Gerth
Judson Grenier
Arthur Hall
Claudia H. Hampton
James Harris
Louis H. Heilbron
Donald B. Leiffer
Gloria Lothrop
Theodore Meriam
Carol J. Numrich
Morris Polan
W. Ann Reynolds
Phillip V. Sanchez
John Smart
Jacquelyn K. Sundstrand
HARRY HARMON
c. 1977
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PILOT PROJECT ON THE
ORIGINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This is an interview with Harry Harmon (HH), former
vice-chancellor for physical planning and development, and
later executive vice-chancellor. It is being conducted by
Lawrence de Graaf (LD). It is being done on 10 July, 1987 in
Mr. Harmon’s home in Rancho Bernardo, California.
LD: Mr. Harmon, it’s typical to begin these interviews with a
bit of biographical background. You were born in 1918 in
San Francisco?
HH: That is correct.
LD: How long did you live there?
HH: I lived there until I was four years old.
LD: And then where did you move?
HH: We moved to Los Angeles, and I received all of my
education in Los Angeles. I went to grammar school, John
Burroughs Jr. High, and Los Angeles High School. I
received my advanced education at the University of
Southern California.
LD: And were your degrees in architecture?
HH: My degree is in architecture, a Bachelor of Architecture.
I graduated in 1941.
LD: Then did you go into the military?
HH: After graduating from the university I worked for about
six months in San Francisco and Oakland. That was the
later part of 1941. In December of 1941 a friend of mine
and I decided we would go to Honolulu and work there. I
left my job on the fifth of December. We were scheduled
to sail on the tenth of December. Pearl Harbor was bombed
on the seventh, and I decided immediately that I would
join the military, the navy. My friend, in fact, two
friends of mine, went to Honolulu. In February, 1942, I
received a commission as an ensign in the United States
Navy but was not called to active duty until September of
1942. In the meantime I worked in the Los Angeles area,
once as a junior naval architect in San Pedro and later
for a bank. I did some work for architectural offices.
HARMON 2
LD: When did you leave the military?
HH: I was in the military for about three years and left
active duty in 1945. I joined the Naval reserve. In 1950
I was recalled to active duty, and went to Korea for two
years. I was released from active duty in 1952 and
returned to civilian life but continued in the military as
a naval reservist. I retired in 1978 as a captain in the
United States Naval Reserve.
LD: Now I noticed in 1948 you went to work at UCLA as a
project architect. Was that your first professional-level
architecture job?
HH: No. When I came out of the service after World War II, I
went to work for an architectural firm in Los Angeles as a
draftsman doing architectural work. Right after the war
building materials were in short supply. The nation
hadn’t really gotten back to a civilian economy. We did a
series of designs and drawings which did not come into
fruition because of uncertainties on bidding and
uncertainties on the availability of building materials.
At that particular juncture the forty-four person firm
that I worked for had been reduced to about five of us,
and things were still pretty slow. The architect had
received an offer to do a project at UCLA, and the
University at that time was beginning to expand their own
architectural department. My employer told me that it was
perfectly acceptable if I stayed with him, or I might be
interested in a job at UCLA. I went to UCLA, took that
position, and became a staff project architect about 1948.
LD: Now what exactly are the functions of a project architect?
HH: The situation that existed at UCLA was that money was
being appropriated by the legislature to build buildings,
expand the campus, and prepare for the influx of students
that would be coming in under the GI Bill of Rights.
There was a tremendous building program. The University
hired private architects to design these buildings, but
they needed some kind of a staff at the University to deal
with the architects, to talk their language and work
through the budgets and other things to bring concerted
effort to create the buildings that were desired and for
which money had been appropriated.
LD: So in effect you talked with the faculty or administrators
who wanted the buildings, and then converted their
language to the . . .
HH: That’s right. We worked on the programs and then
translated them into architectural language.
HARMON 3
LD: This is interesting because long before the state colleges
got out from under the Division of Architecture you’re
saying that the UC system was not bound to use the state
Division of Architecture?
HH: The University had a certain autonomy that they exercised
over the years and fought for very vigorously. They were
never saddled with the obligation to use the state
Division of Architecture to design their buildings. They
never used the state Division of Architecture; they always
used private architects.
LD: Now these buildings must have been after the old central
group, Powell Hall, Royce Hall, and so forth. One thing
that Charles Luckman raised— we’ve interviewed him among
others— he used UCLA’s old campus versus its very eclectic
later buildings as an example of his views of a common
building vocabulary* Did you have any such master plan or
common building vocabulary at UCLA?
HH: Yes. I think my feeling is that probably the University
of California system set the example for what has
happened throughout the country. What UCLA was confronted
with was, as you say, the basic early buildings that
existed as the central core, and the prospect of new
structures to be built in a different age, a different
era. Something had to be done to keep everything
together to look like it was a well thought out master-planned
community. A couple of things occurred. The
University, in addition to the staff which I was on and
the project architect— well, we called them the project
architect, and that may become a little confusing with the
terminology, but that is the architect that actually did
the building design— in addition, the University hired a
consulting architect, or a master plan architect. That
consulting architect, the master plan architect, was
charged with designing the total campus plan, based on an
academic program for the campus. He addressed such things
as massing of the buildings, locations of buildings,
vocabulary of buildings, materials, etc. Each project
that came on line reflected careful thought in its
location, its height and mass, its vocabulary of materials
and its relationship to the older buildings.
We had a saying, "A new building must live in
compatibility with its neighbors.” It should not be a
single expression of an individual architect having an ego
trip to create his monument. You can see the results of
these ego trips by architects throughout the world. There
is a big controversy now at the Louvre in Paris where a
very, very modern building addition, a glass pyramid, is
being set in the courtyard. The design and compatibility
HARMON 4
are very controversial. The issue of compatibility was
addressed by staff architects, which I represented, the
project architects who designed the building, and the
master plan architect. We worked in concert to create an
end result that we hoped everyone could be proud of.
LD: And each UC campus had, by the 1940s or 1950s, such a
master plan?
HH: Yes. Each one had a master plan architect. And each
campus had an in-house staff. The staffs in those times
were relatively large. I would say that the staff on the
campus at UCLA was probably in the neighborhood of forty
or fifty people. But they did a lot of things that
subsequently CSUC chose not to do. For example, UCLA had
three or four electrical engineers. There were three or
four mechanical engineers. There was a whole inspection
staff. They had a drafting room staffed with draftsmen
that did smaller jobs and remodeling jobs. In essence, it
was a mini-architectural office, although they never did
the large buildings. They did the small things. There
were landscape architects. As we discuss what happened at
the California State University System, you will see some
sharp differences in how things were approached.
LD: New obviously much of this must have sunk in, since you
worked there from 1948 until 1962, except for your Korean
War experience. Did you, when you came into the state
college system, try to bring a lot of these UC practices
into the state colleges?
HH: Yes, I think that some of that had already been instituted
the first six months prior to the date I joined the state
colleges. The Donahoe Act, creating the governance
structure for the state college system, was implemented in
1961.
LD: In 1960.
HH: I went to work for CSUC, at the beginning of 1962. Some
of the procedures had already been set into place.
Charles Luckman had been involved in it, and Harry
Brakebill, on temporary assignment from San Francisco
State, had been involved in it. There was some looking at
how the other systems handled their programs. When I came
I brought with me, as anyone does, the experience that I
had gathered over a considerable period of time with the
University.
LD: How did you come to leave the UC system and get into the
state college system?
HARMON 5
HH: It was very interesting, as I think back. My boss, Carl
McEIvy, was the campus architect at UCLA and I was the
senior architect, so I was not in total charge of the UCLA
campus. There was a campus architect, which was the chief
executive officer of that group. There was a senior
architect in charge of the medical center, and I was the
senior architect in charge of the rest of the campus.
Carl McEIvy came to me one day, and he said, "Harry, I’m
thinking of leaving." I asked, "Where are you going?" He
said, "Well, I’ve been interviewed by the California State
Colleges to take their job." We had a discussion. Of
course that opened an avenue for me, because at least then
I had an opportunity to be the campus architect. A short
period of time later he came to me and said, "No, I’m not
going to take that job." That was fine. So I figured we
were back to normal. About two weeks later I got a call
from the California State Colleges, and they said they
would like to talk to me about the possibility of a job at
the California State Colleges. I had no reason to want to
change jobs. I was perfectly happy, I was doing the
things I felt I was doing well, and was comfortable.
However, I said I would come to be interviewed. I went
to the CSC offices that were then in Inglewood, and I met
with Don Leiffer, Richardson— can’t recall his first
name—
LD: John Richardson.
HH: — and with Chancellor Buell Gallagher. We had a very,
very friendly talk. We talked about my background and
experience, what they were looking for in their
organization, etc. We said goodbye, and they said they
would be back to me. And I said fine. I guess my
interview was on Tuesday, the early part of the week. On
Friday afternoon I received a call from John Richardson
saying to me that he would like to offer me the job. I
was now confronted with a real dilemma. I hadn’t really
gone to the interview to get the job, and I was suddenly
confronted with a decision. 1 simply told him, "I
appreciate your offer of a job, and I’ll have to think
about it over the weekend. I’ll be back to you." We
didn’t talk about dollars, we didn’t talk about anything
except that they wanted to offer me the job. I thought
about it, and on Monday or Tuesday I called John and said
I would like to come out and talk to them again. I went
to their offices to meet with them. We talked about
remuneration, responsibilities, authority, organization,
etc. I took the job, and within two weeks on January 21,
1962, I began work with the California State Colleges.
LD: That position was called the facilities planner?
HARMON 6
HH: It was called chief of facilities planning, a title that I
disliked. I remember talking to one of my navy
colleagues, and I said, "You knew, I’m taking a job. I’m
going from a senior architect to a chief of facilities
planning." I said, "Chief is not a title that I really
like." He told me, "Well, you have to remember other
things. Always remember there’s a chief of naval
operations, chief executive officer, there’s a chief of
staff, and there’s a lot of other titles that include
chief." But it was a term that I didn’t care for, I guess
you could say I just wasn’t enthusiastic about it.
LD: You took a position that Harry Brakebill had filled on
sort of an interim basis.
HH: I took the job that Harry Brakebill had filled on an
interim basis. That is right. It is my understanding
that his was just a temporary position, that it was a
holding action using his expert knowledge in business and
organizational ability. He had some facility experience,
I believe on the San Francisco campus. He was a natural
to come in. He performed his work, as I recall, in
Sacramento. The timing of my coming to the system
coincided with the move from Sacramento to Inglewood. To
the best of my recollection, Harry never worked in that
office. By the time I came to join the staff, he had
hired the facility planners. And I always joke, he had
hired my secretary. I never realized until much later
that she had started work the day before I came, and she
ran my life for twenty years. (laughter) I always
thought that she had all that experience before. I always
joked with her about this later. She had one day
seniority on me, and exercised it to the ultimate extent.
LD: It’s interesting you have just said that UCLA alone had an
architect’s office with about fifty people in it, and here
you were, the chief of facilities planning for the whole
state college system. How big was your staff?
HH: Six. At that time we had fifteen campuses to handle. One
of the things my colleagues at UCLA said that I was
absolutely crazy to go from a staff of forty or fifty on
one campus down to a staff of six with responsibility for
fifteen campuses. In retrospect, I guess I began to feel
that we may have been a little understaffed, but certainly
that UCLA was overstaffed. Maybe not overstaffed for the
things that they were doing, but they were doing things
in my opinion that really were not necessary. We didn’t
hire a drafting staff, which they had. We didn’t hire
mechanical or electrical engineers, or landscape
architects. We had facilities planners, which were
somewhat similar to their project architects, but in much
HARMON 7
fewer numbers. We did not hire building inspectors. We
contracted out for the inspection through the Office of
the State Architect.
On that basis, we did things differently. We made some
conscious decisions. For example, one of the early
decisions we made, having had the years of experience at
UCLA, was based on my feeling that mechanical and
electrical engineers checking the drawings of
professionals that were licensed to do the work really
caused more problems than it provided solutions. We
started our organizational plan on the premise that we
contract with competent professionals with the
responsibility to provide professional work, and that it
was not necessary to employ others to go through a plan
check operation. We made it clear to those we contracted
with that we were retaining them as professionals and
responsibility is the hallmark of a professional.
LD: The engineer or the architect?
HH: The architect. So, therefore, that was a monumental
decision. Subsequently it was interesting that our system
was held up as an example to the Los Angeles County
system, under the Board of Supervisors. I was asked to
appear before the County Board of Supervisors to tell them
what our
James Jensen oral history interview, "Representing the California State University in Sacramento: Twenty Years as a Liaison-Lobbyist", Oral History Project on the Origins of The California State University System, Phase II, 1997
No full textJenson was head of Governmental Affairs of the California State University.Transcripts and cassette tapes of oral history interviews with various individuals involved in the formation of the California State University system.CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Project on the Origins o f the CSU System, Phase n
JAMES JENSEN
REPRESENTING THE CSU IN SACRAMENTO:
TWENTY YEARS AS LIAISON-LOBBYIST
Interview Conducted by
Judson A. Grenier
March 19,1997
Processed in cooperation with CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
1997
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the California State
University Archives under a grant from the Office of the Chancellor, CSU.
Scholars are welcome to utilize short excerpts from any of the transcriptions
without obtaining permission as long as proper credit is given to the
interviewee, interviewer, and the institution sponsoring the project. All uses
of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between the CSU
Archives and the interviewee. Therefore, scholars must obtain permission
from California State University Archives before making more extensive use
of the transcription and related materials.
None of these materials may be duplicated or reproduced by any party except
the California State University Archives. However, because it is the goal of
this project to preserve and make accessible significant documentation relevant
to the history of the State Colleges, copies of any unrestricted transcriptions
may be obtained at cost by writing to the CSU Systemwide Archivist at
California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, California 90747.
Copyright c 1997 by the Board of Trustees
of The California State University
PREFACE
The purpose of Phase II of the California State University Oral History
Project is to record and make available to researchers using the California
State University Archives the reminiscences of individuals who participated in
development of the CSU system.
Creation of the California State Colleges in 1961 united fifteen formerly
independent colleges into a single identifiable system, with its own Board of
Trustees and a Chancellor to serve as chief executive officer. Using a formula
that stressed systemwide planning in the allocation of resources and programs,
the California State Colleges sought to offer Californians quality higher
education at reasonable cost. Key to the success of the State Colleges was the
decision to implement a Master Plan adopted in 1960 that divided higher
education into three distinctly separate segments. The State Colleges were
mandated to emphasize undergraduate and master's level programs, while the
University of California campuses were to emphasize graduate education, and
the Community Colleges vocational training and college preparation.
The present California State University, starting from a base of fifteen
campuses and 95,000 students in 1961, has grown to where it provides a wide
variety of innovative programs to more than 320,000 students on 22 campuses.
It is the largest system of higher education in the United States and is known
as one of the strongest institutions of higher education in the country.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the California State
University Historical Archives, to be housed on the Dominguez Hills campus.
Since its establishment, the Archives, as a systemwide project, has been
supported by the Chancellor's Office through the funding of a professional
archivist.
The Archives currently houses a collection of materials from a variety of
sources. These include the Chancellor's Office, the CSU Academic Senate,
and private individuals such as former Chancellor Glenn Dumke and former
Trustee Paul Spencer. Consequently, the Archives holds some personal
papers as well as official systemwide documents. As part of its collection
policy, the Archives also has a responsibility to gather individual recollections
and oral histories of the system.
Phase I of the CSU Oral History Project, conducted from 1986 to 1989, and
funded by the Chancellor's Office, covered the formation and early years of
CSU through 32 interviews with participants within and without the system.
These interviews, housed at the CSU Archives, have proven useful to research
into higher education in the 1950s and '60s. A major quality is their
standardized format, developed at the Oral History Program at CSU
Fullerton.
Phase II is an ongoing oral history project that is decentralized but
administered by the CSU Archives. Its intent is to assure that the
reminiscences of retiring chancellors, principal staff members, Academic
Senate chairs, Student Association presidents, trustees, and local campus
presidents be recorded as closely as possible to their retirement date and that
this be done routinely as a regularized process. Phase II also seeks
information on the growth of the CSU during two mid-decades, 1964-85.
The project has three long-range purposes. First, it will help to increase
interest in the history and accomplishments of the California State University.
Next, it will be a tool in aiding the acquisition of additional materials
concerning the System now in private hands. Finally, it will create needed
documentation for understanding the System's historical role in state and
national education; many issues it has confronted have become matters of
national concern, such as meeting the needs of a multicultural student body
and finding adequate resources in a time of scarcity. Oral history can provide
background information on these developments that is not available in
bulletins, brochures, and minutes.
Funding for the project is provided by the Office of the Chancellor, Dr. Barry
Munitz. We thank the interviewee for generously giving of his time. We also
acknowledge the pioneering work of the CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
in providing a model. Transcribing was performed by Garnette Long, who in
the process contributed many wise editorial suggestions.
Lawrence B. de Graaf Karen Jean Hunt
Judson A. Grenier CSU Archivist
Project Co-directors
MEMBERS, CSU ARCHIVES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Betty J. Blackman
William D. Campbell
Lawrence B. de Graaf
Robert C. Detweiler
Donald R. Gerth
Judson A. Grenier
James Highsmith
Gloria Lothrop
Ellis McCune
Barry Munitz
Lyn Olsson
John Pfau
Teena Stem
Tom Träger
Brad Wells
Helene Whitson
IV
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT ON THE
ORIGINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This interview of Dr. James Jensen was conducted in his home north of
Tucson, Arizona, on March 19, 1997. The interview is one of a series in
Phase II of the California State University Oral History Project. Jim Jensen
served for twenty years as head of Governmental Affairs of the California
State University and was, in effect, the system's chief lobbyist, stationed in the
capital (Sacramento). The interviewer is Judson Grenier, Professor Emeritus
of History.
JG: Where were you bom and raised?
JJ: I was bom in Albert Lea, Minnesota, which is right on the Iowa
border, about a hundred miles south of Minneapolis, and stayed there
until I was a sophomore in high school. At that time, the place my dad
worked went bankrupt, so he moved to Minneapolis to work for
Minneapolis Moline in the fall of 1941. The family then went to
Minneapolis. I went through high school at Roosevelt High School,
which is in south Minneapolis. From there, I started at the University
of Minnesota.
JG: Would you mind telling me when you graduated from Roosevelt?
JJ: In 1944.
JG: Okay, because I graduated from there in '47.
JJ: From Roosevelt?
JG: Yes.
JJ: I lived on 34th Avenue and the [Minnehaha] Parkway. Thirty-fourth
is a street that went out to the airport.
JG: I lived down by Minnehaha Park. Well, that's very, very interesting.
JJ: And you have your doctorate, as I recall, from Minnesota.
JG: No, I got my B.A. from [University of] Minnesota.
JENSEN 2
JJ: Oh. That's where I got my B.A., too.
JG: So you graduated from high school in '44. That was close to the end
of the war.
JJ: Well, I was all set to go in the Navy in the V-5 Program, but I was
colorblind, so they wouldn't take me. I registered for the draft, and
two months after I was eighteen, November 20th of '44,1 was drafted
into the Army. From there I went to Texas for basic training, and
ended up in the infantry. I was sent over to the Philippines, made a
landing there on Zamboanga. The atom bomb was then dropped,
which ended the war. I then went to Japan as an occupational troop
for a few months, then came back to the University of Minnesota.
Let's see, that would be in the fall of '46. I then graduated in '49. Pat
and I were then married and I went out looking for a job.
International Harvester offered me a job in their administrative
training program. I went home and we talked and I thought, Gee, do
I really want to sell trucks and refrigerators (chuckling) and things like
this? In the summertime I had been a counselor at a YMCA camp in
northern Minnesota, and enjoyed working with kids. My entire family
were teachers, so I decided to become a teacher. The University of
Minnesota had a special program then. One who had a baccalaureate
could go back for a year and get a teaching credential. I taught in
White Bear Lake, Minnesota, which is just outside of St. Paul, for two
years, and we then migrated to Merced, California.
JG: What was the reason for that move?
JJ: Basically, we had relations in Merced. My uncle was an M.D. there.
He invited us out to stay there and to vacation a little. So we got
there, I talked to the superintendent, and was hired as a teaching
principal. We stayed in Merced for twelve years until I moved on to
the University of California. I became interested in decision making
and decided that the school districts really didn't have much power.
The real action in the school was in the legislature. The only major
action by the districts is hiring the school superintendent. Criteria for
receiving a teaching credential, minimum salaries, and the curriculum
is dictated by the state. I took a leave of absence, went back to
Berkeley and got my doctorate in Educational Administration and in
Public Administration. My dissertation is entitled: ''The Study of
Influence in the California State Legislature's Education Committees.’’
I went to Sacramento and interviewed a number of people. About that
time, there was a shift in power and a new chairman of the Education
JENSEN 3
Committee was appointed. The senator asked me to come to work
with him for a couple years, and I did.
JG: When was that, roughly?
JJ: That was in 1965. So I was with the Senate Education Committee
from '65 to '67. I worked for Richard Dolwig (R) and also for A1
Rodda (D).
JG: Oh, you worked for A1 Rodda, too?
JJ: Yes. The University of California then offered me a job as an assistant
dean and also to do some teaching. I went there for two years.
JG: In what field?
JJ: Basically, political science and education administration. I did some
studies and decided that if it was going to be publish or perish, I was
going to perish. After I'd been there a couple years, a friend of mine
became pro tern of the California Senate. So he put together a
nonpartisan coalition.
JG: Who was that?
JJ: Howard Way (R) from Exeter. He put together a vote of thirteen
Republicans and eight Democrats, (twenty-one votes). He then
became pro tern. He asked me to become his chief executive officer
and the consultant to the Senate Rules Committee. I liked Sacramento
and that type of work, so we moved back to Sacramento. I worked for
him for a year. I basically ran the California State Senate, because
technically everything has to be approved by this five-member Rules
Committee. Anyway, Howard got dumped when another senator put
together twenty-one votes. So I was out of a job. I went to consult for
the State Department of Education. Glenn Dumke and Harry
Brakebill called me and asked me if I'd like to interview for the
position as the lobbyist for the California State Colleges.
JG: Who had been the lobbyist before you?
JJ: A man by the name of Bill Storey. He had been in the Legislative
Analyst's Office and was a very good budget analyst. The problem was
that Bill wore his partisanship on his sleeve.
JENSEN 4
JG: He was a Democrat?
j j ; Yes. He made the unforgivable error of shipping a final report down
to the central office for approval, and it was very, very anti-Reagan.
He was asked to leave, and that's how I happened to get the job.
JG: How did Dumke and Brakebill know you? Through your work?
JJ: Basically, they had contacts with the University of California and other
people who had seen my work in Sacramento, and my name just sort
of surfaced. The two of them interviewed me. They then brought me
in front of all the vice chancellors to be interviewed.
JG: Was that on Wilshire?
JJ: Yes. I was then offered the job. A friend of mine was the lobbyist for
the University of California, and he said, "Jim, before you take the job,
do these five things: number one, get an academic position”— which
I asked for— "get a car; get an expense account; and make sure that in
the hierarchy you only report to Glenn Dumke. Otherwise there could
be a problem if other people in the Chancellor's Office try to get a
handle on the legislative decision making." So I did that.
JG: The office was already underway in Sacramento? There was a physical
office there?
JJ: Yes. Oh, you mean for the lobbying office?
JG: Yes.
JJ: There was a lobbying office on 10th and L Street. So I went in. Bill
Storey left and he went to work for the Coordinating Council. I think
he's still there, as far as I know. Bill had replaced Les Cohen.
JG: You mean in the Postsecondary Education Commission?
JJ: Yes. Bill had replaced Les Cohen. He had a nervous breakdown and
he left the office.
JG: Of course, you had this great network of acquaintances that you had
built up over your years there.
JENSEN 5
JJ: That was a big help, right. The California Legislature, in those days
when I was there, to a great extent was becoming more partisan, but
it was a lot nonpartisan, and since I had been the Senate Education
Committee Consultant for two years and had run the Senate for a year,
I basically knew everybody in Sacramento, and they knew me too.
JG: Ronald Reagan was governor at the time.
JJ: Right.
JG: I noted that you were introduced to the board at its January 1971
meeting, so you must have come on shortly before that.
JJ: I came on shortly before that, I think around the first of the year,
maybe Christmastime, something like that.
JG: So you had an office in Sacramento and you didn’t have an office in
the Chancellor's Office? You just reported directly to Glenn?
JJ: Right.
JG: Of course, Harry Brakebill was his right-hand man and he probably
made as many decisions as Glenn did.
JJ: Oh, that’s right, and basically, having lived in bureaucracies, I wouldn't
call Glenn unless it was something that was highly personal. I would
always call Harry first and let him know what I was going to ask of
Glenn.
JG: That's very interesting. Okay, could you tell me a little bit about how
the office worked, or what your life was like or what your schedule was
like? Alex Sherriffs once told me that when he was Educational
Advisor to the governor, there were probably 500 education bills each
year, altogether, and that there was no way he could keep track of
them all. But in the case of the CSU, there would have been roughly
how many bills affecting us?
JJ: Oh, about 300 or 400.
JG: Really? Each year?
JJ: Yes, because we got involved also in peripheral areas. For example,
personnel matters, building code areas, this kind of thing that a
JENSEN 6
department head under Alex didn't get involved with that much. But
the California Legislature, to a great extent, was a bill factory. They
would just crank out bills. What we did— and I sort of worked on
this— at one time we brought every bill to the trustees. Don't ask me
why, Judson, but the lobbyist for the CSU reported to the Gifts and
Public Affairs Committee [of the Board of Trustees]. I don't know
how that ever happened.
JG: Public Affairs. Of course, there was no Governmental Operations
Committee then— there is now— in the Board of Trustees.
JJ: That's correct.
JG: But there wasn't then at that time. The person who was head of the
Gifts and Public Affairs Committee when you started out was . . . Do
you recall?
JJ: It was Karl Wente.
JG: Karl Wente, right. Did you have any problems working with him?
JJ: No, Karl was a very, very nice man, and liked to be kept apprised of
what was happening, that type of thing, but I had no problem with him
at all.
JG: I noticed that you prepared for that committee, first of all, a summary
of all legislation and where it stood at that particular moment. But
you also prepared this . . .
JJ: That was the status of it, right.
JG: But you also prepared a report on the budget actions relative to
various budgets and support budgets. [Shows Jensen "1981-82
Legislative program Status Report" and "Summary of Legislative
Budget Actions Relative to the CSUD 1981/2 Support Budget" as
examples of Jensen reports to the trustees.]
JJ: Right. Did you ever read Aaron Wildovsky's book, The Politics o f the
Budgetary Process?
JG: No, but I certainly will.
JENSEN 7
JJ: He's a professor of political science and he was on my doctoral
committee at Berkeley. His thesis, which I think has been proved over
and over, is that budgetary process is one of political decision making.
He took the national scene and ran through a bunch of examples there.
The reason I brought that up is because, to a great extent, the
decisions that are made in the budget, once they get into the
legislature, become a part of the political process. We would try to
keep track of a number of issues that were of major importance, and
then would try to lobby them if it was going against us.
JG: Did you consult regularly with . . . How did you know what the
position of the Chancellor's Office would be on all these items?
JJ: Basically I worked with Lou Messner and Dale Hanner, and Ed Macias
when he was there. I had talked to Glenn when I took the job and I
said, ''Glenn, I can't be blindsided, so I want to know when people are
making decisions that are political which affect us." He had sort of an
unwritten rule that anybody who came to Sacramento had to check in
with my office.
JG: Oh, great!
JJ: They would tell us why they were in Sacramento; if any major decisions
were made, they would let me know. Sometimes they'd make a mad
dash for a plane, but they would call the next day so we would know
what had happened. And it was sort of a two-way street. It wasn't as
formal as that, but as we would be in the halls and there would be
political decisions about money, about the budget, whether it be capital
outlay when Harry Harmon was there or anything like that, we would
call the Chancellor's Office; or if they were coming up, we would brief
them and try to keep the two-way street there, Judson.
JG: So everyone from the Chancellor's Office who came to Sacramento
checked in with you?
JJ: Well, they were supposed to. I won't say everybody did.
JG: Did you then go to the Legislative Committee meetings with them?
JJ: No. If they were going there on a budget issue, I wouldn't go with
them, but if it was a position on a bill, then I would go. Except on the
budget, no one in the Chancellor's Office could speak for or against a
bill without my permission. If they wanted to speak as an individual,
JENSEN 8
fíne, but they could not stand up and say, "We support this or we
oppose that." The other thing that happened is that a lot of the issues
became tradeoffs. You can't be against something and all of a sudden
someone may ask, "If we would do this to the bill, would it be okay?"
We would then check with the appropriate Chancellor's Office in Los
Angeles: with Mansel Keene on personnel matters, Hariy Harmon on
capital outlay, Norm Epstein and his staff on legal questions, and so
on. We really spent a heck of a lot of time on the phone, Judson.
JG: Yes, I would bet. All those vice chancellors and assistant vice
chancellors that you had to deal with. Boy!
JJ: We then had a formal system. An analysis of a bill was written and
sent forward to Governmental Affairs. At times we worked very
closely with the Academic Senate on certain issues. Assemblywoman
Teresa Hughes (D) at one time wanted to mandate that such and such
a course be taught. It related to minority education. A person could
get a degree from a California State University only if they took this
course. The Senate felt very strongly about that because they felt that
curriculum was a collegial matter. Faculty and the administration
should set graduation requirements, not the legislature.
JG: What would a typical day be like for you in Sacramento while the
legislature was in session?
JJ: While the legislature was in session? Basically, we would have the
major bills assigned. On our Friday staff meetings, we would assign
certain people to meet with the committee consultant ahead of time.
Then I, Scott Plotkin, or another assistant would go to committee and
testify. We, at one time, worked out sort of an informal agreement in
my office. Since I was the older staff member and had worked in the
Senate, I would handle most of the Senate bills. The younger staff,
because the Assembly members were younger than the senators, would
work with the Assembly staff in testifying to the Assembly.
JG: How large a staff did you have working with you?
JJ: At the end I had . . . let's see, eight.
JG: Eight full-time staff?
JJ: Yes. That included clerical.
JENSEN 9
JG: And when you started out, how many?
JJ: Four.
JG: So these people were trained to work with legislative affairs.
JJ: Definitely.
JG: Am I right in my assumption that you didn
The greywater situation in informal settlements of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality - Eastern Region (Gauteng, South Africa)
Get PDFThesis (M. Environmental Management)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.In recent years growing attention of international and local water research was directed to grey water as a potential water source, as well as its significance as a possible health risk to humans and as a source of pollution. Owing to a general lack of waterborne sewage infrastructure, health risks and pollution associated with grey water generation in informal settlements are of particular concern to municipal managers. However, so far only limited information on the grey water generation, use and disposal in informal settlements is available. Using four different informal settlements in the highly urbanised eastern region of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality in Gauteng (also known as East Rand) this study aims to characterise selected aspects of the grey water situation as a first step towards future improvements through appropriate
interventions and grey water management. Following consultations with representatives of the local municipality (colleagues of the author) the following four informal settlements with distinctly different grey water appearance were selected as study sites: • Benoni - Harry Gwala • Springs - Gugulethu • Brakpan - Mkhanca • Nigel- Soul City As part of the reconnaissance phase of the study, each site was visited and field observations on infrastructure, habits and other grey water related aspects were made and suitable households for subsequent
interviews were identified. In each settlement a total of 25 households were chosen and a representative interviewed using a pre-designed questionnaire comprising eight sections, four sections covering the following aspects: access to and sources of water, general sanitary situation, water use and associated generation as well as disposal of grey water. Interviews were conducted between November 2006 and August 2007 and varied in duration between 20 and 30 minutes per interviewee totaling close to 48 hours. They were either conducted in Zulu or South Sotho, the most widely spoken languages of the interviewed residents. Answers were recorded in English on site. Results were subsequently captured in EXCEL and statistically evaluated. The average volume of grey water generated by the four different water usages, Le. bathing, cleaning, laundry washing and dish washing varies from 35 to 60 /household/day. With each household comprising an average
of four people (two children and two adults) this equals a grey water generation rate of approx. 9 to 15 l/person/day and is somewhat lower than reported in comparable studies in South Africa. Owing to the fact that all volume data are estimates, a comparatively large margin of error is to be expected, explaining why in some cases more water was estimated to be used than was actually fetched. Water use volume was found to be influenced by the availability of stand pipes and in one case was supplemented by collected rain water.
Generally, however, water was not perceived to be a problematic issue compared to more pressing needs such as housing, unemployment etc. Washing of cloths in all settlements was found to be the single most important source of grey water generation accounting for a third to almost half of all grey water generated. The smallest contribution comes from water used for cleaning (approx. 10%) while bathing and washing dishes accounts for equal proportions of the reminder. Chemical and microbiological analyses of grey water, sampled at selected sites across the four study areas, revealed significant variations in quality between the different sites, without allowing for clear distinctions between the impacts of different brands of detergents such as soaps, washing powder and dish washing liquids. Contrary to literature E-coli contamination was found not be confined to bath and kitchen waste water only, but also appeared in laundry water, frequently exceeding values stipulated in the general standards of waste water or effluent in South Africa This is of particular concerns since some of the grey water is disposed of into storm water canals and in other non-formal ways, that allow for subsequent exposure of humans to the contaminated waste water. In order to facilitate rapid drainage in some instances respondents created their own grey water disposal infrastructure e.g. by digging open waste water trenches across backyard borders. Regarding potential health risks it is to be noted that at least one respondent reported the use of the water
resource (Blesbokspruit) as toilet facility.
Apart from the actual findings the study also revealed the importance of an appropriate research design and conduct that addresses the peculiarities of an informal setting. This includes overcoming logistic challenges such as limited accessibility of the study sites during wet seasons owing to flooded and muddy roads, safety and security issues as well as difficulties to conduct indoor interviews owing to a lack of light (no windows, no electricity) leading to low temperatures in winter limiting interview duration. In addition to this socio-cultural aspects and attitudes of respondents have to be taken into account in order to obtain true reflections of facts through interviewing. In this regard it was helpful that the author, as a black female, was familiar with certain customs and perceptions regarding sensitive issues such as use of toilets, connotations of muti (= a traditional medicine that may be included in bathwater as a constituent) etc. Being aware of these peculiarities allowed the author to detect and explain differences between statements obtained from the respondents and her own observations.Master
[WFAA News Clips and B-roll, ca. March 16-19, 1970]
No full text0:00 - Brief shot of a black and white photograph of a man (Silent). 0:06 - (March 16, 1970) The body of Viola Welch (Mrs. Everett E. Welch), a murder victim discovered by her husband, is removed from her home at 4146 Opal Avenue in the Lisbon area of Oak Cliff by Dudley M. Hughes ambulance attendants; footage includes a quick shot of a Dallas police car parked at the scene (Silent). 0:38, 3:58 - A man discusses two Fort Worth floodway projects: the West Fork Floodway Project and the Clear Fork Floodway Project, which concern forks of the Trinity River which meet in downtown Fort Worth; these two projects will control flooding problems which have ravaged parts of Fort Worth, carrying the water through the city to a point east of Riverside Drive; silent footage shows these Trinity River tributaries from various angles. 1:32 - A man presents a report in a council chamber to a small group of men seated in the audience, some of whom are seen taking notes (Silent). 2:40, 5:03 - A man says that neither churches nor God is dead, but that there are several people who are in a crisis of faith and a crisis of morale, and that the church is challenged to meet their concerns; he also says that the aim of Christian unity in our times is to give the church cohesion and unity to become more effective in witness and service in the world; also, silent footage of the interviewee and interviewer; Carl Mayo reporting. 3:28 - (March 16, 1970) Two separate bomb threats were called in to Dallas police with anonymous callers saying bombs were in the United Bankers Life building at 3200 Maple Avenue and in the new Federal Building in downtown Dallas (currently under construction); Dallas police investigate both buildings but find nothing; construction workers in hard hats look on; these bomb threats were the latest in a string of 7 such threats in 4 days (Silent). 4:57 - (March 16, 1970) Brief close-up of 18-year-old Felipe Orta who has been charged with the November, 1969 murder of highway patrolman Travis Locker in Waxahachie; an Ellis County judge has just transferred the trial to Dallas County after the failure to seat an impartial jury in Waxahachie (Silent). 5:22 - (March 17, 1970) The Dallas Community Action (DCA) board meets at the Samuell-Grand Recreation Center to consider whether to accept the executive board’s decision to comply “in principle” with the city-county investigation committee’s recommendation to give the city and county more control on staffing and administration issues at the War on Poverty office (the board ultimately rejected the recommendation); board president Charles Galvin is seen listening as Bennett Miller, acting director of the War on Poverty agency, speaks at a microphone; members of the public are seen voicing their concerns on the issue; Dallas Councilman Jesse Price is seen sitting in the audience (Silent). 6:58 - (March 17, 1970) John C. Montgomery, special assistant to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), talks about the working poor, family-assistance programs, and welfare reform, all of which are under consideration by the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee; also, silent footage of the press conference; Montgomery is in Dallas to attend a meeting at the Adolphus Hotel of welfare administrators from five states; Tommy Ayres reporting. 9;26 - Brief shot of a hockey match (Silent). 9:31 - Dr. Marvin Bell (on the right), a Dallas pathologist, has donated over $20,000 worth of medical equipment to the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) to be used in their River Ministry along the Rio Grande; with Dr. Bell is Dr. Milford O. Rouse, former president of the American Medical Association (AMA); the men are seen standing outside the Baptist Building (604 N. Akard and 703 N. Ervay) in downtown Dallas, home of the Texas Baptist Convention (Silent). 10:09 - A town hall meeting (Silent). 10:20 - Elmin K. Howell, coordinator of the River Ministry sponsored by the Baptist General Convention of Texas, explains that the River Ministry has been formed to send medical personnel, aid, and equipment to areas along the Rio Grande (including the remote Big Bend area in Far West Texas) to serve Mexican-American communities on the Texas side of the US-Mexico border. 11:39 - (March 17, 1970) Demonstration of a bulletproof vest conducted at the firing range of the Fort Worth Police Academy; a man is seen aiming at and shooting a dummy wearing a vest and cap; observing are a crowd of reporters and law enforcement personnel, including members of the Fort Worth Police Department traffic division and Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department, with close-ups of their shoulder patches; also seen is a display of various protective equipment, including lightweight fiberglass body armor and bulletproof clipboards (which double as shields for traffic officers); the vests and clipboards (and other equipment) is manufactured by Skyline Industries, Inc. of Fort Worth. 13:05, 15:33, 19:46 - (March 18, 1970) Henry G. Wrigge, Dallas postmaster, talks about the current postal strike in New York, which has resulted in an embargo of outgoing mail from Dallas (and other cities) to New York; Wrigge says this unprecedented action by postal employees is against the law and he feels sure that striking employees will be punished; he is asked about a possible sympathy strike in Houston and whether there might be a similar action in Dallas; Wrigge says that if Houston workers do go on strike, it will mean that outgoing mail to Houston will also be embargoed; he says that striking is unlawful among the ranks of U.S. Postal Service employees – that they sign a pledge that they will not strike, with penalties ranging from fines, to loss of job, to imprisonment; he goes on to describe the parameters of the New York embargo. 14:39 - A town hall meeting (Silent). 15:06, 18:00 - (March 18, 1970) An interview with film critic Judith Crist on young people and movies – how the intelligence of young people is underestimated by Hollywood, which results in genre pictures like “bikini beach movies,” “motorcycle movies,” and “activist movies” which she feels are not at all representative of the typical young person; Crist is in Fort Worth to lecture on “Movie Censorship” at Tarrant County Junior College (Silent). 15:28 - Brief shot of an unidentified man (Silent). 16:34 - C. M. Schanche, FAA's deputy assistant chief of the Southwest region, and another man discuss aircraft flight safety, including extending runways, creating runway “corridors,” and designing “terminal control areas” at Love Field airport in Dallas. 19:14 - (March 18, 1970) A large ornamental capstone in the shape of a princess phone receiver is hoisted to the top of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.’s long-distance building at Bryan and Haskell in Dallas, celebrating the end of construction which added 13 floors to the building originally built in 1928 (Silent). 20:31 - (March 18, 1970) Dallas Councilman Jesse Price says that the decision by the Dallas Community Action (DCA) group to decline to accept all of the city-county conditions regarding the War on Poverty office is “suicide” for the DCA; Price encourages Dallasites to continue sending in petitions to oust War on Poverty employees Ruth Jefferson and Ed Polk. 21:03 - (March 18, 1970) The body of 71-year-old Bennie Moore is removed from his home at 1121 E. Annie in Fort Worth, the victim of a shooting and robbery (Silent). 21:10 - (March 19, 1970) Dallas Superintendent Dr. Nolan Estes responds to a report by the Dallas Crime Commission which shows that 18-19 percent of Hillcrest High School students use drugs; he says that the drug abuse problem at Hillcrest does not appear to be any worse than several other high schools in the Dallas school district. 21:43 - (March 19, 1970) An investigation of child abuse of residents at the Dallas County Children's Emergency Shelter off Harry Hines Boulevard finds that children have been regularly beaten and threatened and that supervisors who have attempted to report the case to the state welfare office have been dismissed or transferred and that their photographic evidence of children with bruises has been confiscated; interviewed are child welfare caseworker John Perry, who describes the abuse, and attorney Josh Taylor, who helped write the state’s child abuse laws and represents shelter supervisors; Tommy Ayres reporting. 25:16 - (March 19, 1970) An anti-draft demonstration in downtown Dallas is held at Ferris Plaza (Young and Houston streets); James E. Bristol, national coordinator for the National Council to Repeal the Draft and a Lutheran pastor, speaks to a small crowd of protesters), some holding antiwar signs; the group walks to and enters the Wholesale Merchants Building (912 Commerce) which houses the Dallas Selective Service office – one of the marchers is Stoney Burns, publisher of the counterculture newspaper Dallas Notes, several copies of which he carries; one young man, Dean DuMont, burns his draft card as the encouraging crowd chants “Peace now!”; a woman is asked whether this draft protest has had any effect on regular activity at the draft board offices – she says “business is going on as usual”; shots show the Hotel Dallas (formerly the Jefferson Hotel), Union Station, and the Dallas Morning News building; Dallas was one of several Texas cities participating in the day’s anti-draft protests. 27:23 - (March 19, 1970) Dallas County commissioners want to withdraw county support from the War on Poverty committee, but as they do not have a full court in session, Commissioner Mel Price makes a motion to withdraw support, buy waiting for a final ruling when all five commissioners are present; City Councilman Jesse Price, it is reported, was present at the Commissioners meeting and is said to have encouraged Dallas residents to look at the kind of people who are involved with both the War on Poverty and SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee). Teel Salaun reporting. 28:47 - Dallas police investigate at the Highland Hills Food Store (3500 Simpson Stuart Rd.), owned by Grady Summerall (Silent). 29:09 - (March 19, 1970) Dallas school board candidate Don Mathes says that he sees little difference in the Committee for Good Schools (CGS) and the League for Educational Advancement in Dallas (LEAD), citizen groups which endorse political candidates and work to change school policy; Mathes has just been endorsed by a new group, Parents Aligned for Local Schools (PALS). 29:50 - Alex Haley, author of “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” discusses the history and heritage of African Americans in the United States; he says that slavery has robbed black people of their history, culture, and sense of self: “As horrible as was the physical side of slavery, the psychic part of it even was worse in terms of its legacies”; Haley – who was in the midst of writing his book “Roots” – was in the Dallas area to appear at North Texas State University (NTSU) in Denton to present the lecture “What the Negro Must Do For Himself” Jerry Taff reporting
Governing mother-child communication about sex in HIV/AIDS epidemic : positioning Lovelines
No full textIncludes bibliographical references (p. 421-474).Lovelines was a didactic textual series that appeared in Fairlady, a South African women's magazine, instructing mothers on how sex should be talked about with young people to inoculate them against the risk of HIV/Aids. My reading of this media discourse, and mothers' appropriation of it, sought to examine how the primary target audience of middle classed mothers were persuaded to adopt particular communicative positions. Foucault's normative apparatus of family-sexuality-risk concerns the distribution of expertise - epidemiological science of risk in populations, developmental psychology-inscribed micro-practices of childrearing in families - and self-responsibilization of disciplinary power. This finds mothers governmentally positioned as relay points between 'public' (health, economy) and 'private' (family, childrearing, sex) apparatuses, tasked with appropriately socializing a new generation of sexually responsible citizens. This governmental rationality of neo-liberalism is read against South African conditions of mass media persuasion, HIV/Aids risk and talking about sex in families
