9 research outputs found
Arnold Joyal oral history interview, "A Presidential View of The Master Plan", Origins of The California State University, 1988
No full textJoyal was a former president of the Fresno campus.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
Arnold Joyal
Interviewed
by
Lawrence B. de Graaf
An Oral History Project
of the
Archives
UUU Archives
CSU Dominguez Hills
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Pilot Project on the Origins of the CSU System
ARNOLD JOYAL
A PRESIDENTIAL VIEW OF
THE MASTER PLAN
Interview Conducted by
Lawrence B. de Graaf
in 1987
Processed by CSU, Fullerton Oral History Program
June 1988
COPYRIGHT
This is a transcription of an interview conducted for the
California State University Archives under a ¿rant 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. The system is
the largest as well as one of the strongest institutions of
higher education in the United States.
In September 1979, the Board of Trustees created the
California State Colleges and Universities 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
others 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,
final preparation, proofreading and index 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
IV
ARNOLD JOYAL
ca. 1960
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PILOT PROJECT ON THE
ORIGINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This is an interview of Dr. Arnold Joyal (AJ), former president
of California State University, Fresno, conducted by Dr.
Lawrence B. de Graaf (LD). It is taking place Monday, June 29,
1987 in Dr. Joyal’s home in Danville, California.
LD: It is customary to begin these interviews with a
biographical background. You were born in the Province of
Quebec in 1902?
AJ: That’s correct.
LD: In a French part of it, or an English?
AJ: I was born in a town called Cowansville, which is in the
so-called Eastern Townships. At that time it was almost
entirely English speaking. As a matter of fact most of
the people who lived there were British Empire Loyalists
who had come over from Nova Scotia and gotten land there,
granted by the government. I was born on such a place, a
big farm that was granted to my great-great-grandfather,
in a house that was built in 1807. The house still
stands. My grandmother was born there, my mother was born
there, and I was born there, I guess all in the same big
bedroom. Now, however, the country is largely French.
The French have encroached on almost all that area, and
the town of Cowansville which was almost exclusively
English-speaking is now heavily French.
LD: When did you come to the United States?
AJ: I was brought over here when I was just a child. My
parents lived in Quebec until I was about three years
old. At the time they moved to Manchester, New
Hampshire. I went to school there and in Haverhill,
Massachusetts.
LD: I see. That’s still a long ways from California. When
did you come out here?
AJ: We came out here in 1920. There’s an interesting story
that I can tell you about that, if you’re interested.
LD: Sure.
JOYAL ?
AJ: My father worked for a shoe machinery company. He was a
kind of superintendent. He looked after the business of
the company in an area in New England and Quebec because
there were quite a few shoe factories there. In 1915 the
company, as a bonus, gave him a vacation trip to the
Panama-Pacific Exhibition in San Francisco. At that time
he was very favorably impressed with California and
particularly interested in the University of California
because he had three boys, all of whom would soon be
wanting to go to college. When he got home he told us
about it, and the family decided they’d move to
California. Another factor involved was the declining shoe
business in New England. About that time the shoe
business was moving to the South and out toward St.
Louis. So the family decided to move to California, as I
said, but postponed the move until after the world war.
In 1920, about a week after I graduated from high school,
we drove out here in the family automobile. That was
quite an experience.
LD: In 1920, I imagine it was.
AJ: We left on the first of July, and we got to Berkeley on
the ninth day of September. We stopped along the way.
Some of the time we camped, and we had a very interesting
experience visiting places like Niagara Falls, the
mountains in Colorado, the Grand Canyon, and so on.
LD: How much of your trip was on paved highway?
AJ: Very little was paved after we left Illinois. Some places
across Nebraska and eastern Colorado were very muddy,
well, not muddy, because we didn’t hit very much wet
weather, but very rough dirt roads, sometimes mere
tracks. We followed the Lincoln Highway.
LD: I imagine you had to carry a lot of your own fuel with
you, didn’t you?
AJ: No. Not a lot. We stopped along the small towns.
LD: They had abundant gas stations by that time?
AJ: Yes, gas was readily available. But we tried to keep a
full gas tank.
LD: That’s interesting. Now, you did go to the University of
California, Berkeley. Did you get all your degrees there?
AJ: Yes, I got all three degrees there. I entered the
University in 1921, got my AB in 1925, stayed on to get my
master’s degree and secondary teaching credential in 1926.
JOYAL 3
I worked in a high school for four years, and then
returned to the University full-time in 1930, and got my
doctorate in August 1931.
LD: Is that a doctorate in Education?
AJ: No, a Doctor of Philosophy in Education.
LD: What technically is the difference between those two
degrees?
AJ: The principal difference at Berkeley was first of all a
language requirement. One had to pass a reading test in
German and French. Then there were a few, but I don’t
remember exactly what, differences in course
requirements. The Ph.D. was generally regarded to be a
little harder to get.
LD: Now was higher education, even at that time, a particular
specialty of yours?
AJ: No. It was School Administration. And I guess at first I
thought probably I’d eventually get a job as a principal
or a school superintendent. But after I got into the
program the professors at Berkeley, particularly
Professors L. H. Peterson, under whom I worked, and Frank
Hart, who also worked closely with me— or I with him,
rather— encouraged me to think about college teaching.
LD: During all of this time did you have any contact with, or
particular interest in, the state colleges of California?
AJ: I had a few contacts but no particular interest. I met
Dr. Frank Thomas, who was president of Fresno State
College, because at that time Dr. Thomas occasionally
taught in the summer session at Berkeley. I ran into him
there and made a kind of friendship, although I never
dreamed that I myself would one day be at Fresno State.
Also, I knew about Chico State College, but only
incidentally, because Teacher Institutes were held there.
LD: Now from 1933 until 1948 you held various professorships
and deanships. Were these all in the area of education?
AJ: Yes. Are you interested in knowing just what they were?
LD: Not particulary; we have a good vita on you, and we are
interested in how these culminated in your going to Fresno.
AJ: Well, I guess I went to Fresno on the recommendation of
the people at the University of California. I didn’t
apply for the job. I was a dean at the University of
Oklahoma at the time, and one day I got a telephone call
JOYAL 4
from Roy Simpson, who was the state director of education,
asking me if I’d be interested in a job at Fresno. I told
him I thought I might. He asked me to come out and be
interviewed. I did and accepted the job when it was
offered.
LD: That’s interesting, all the way from Oklahoma.
AJ: Yes, I flew out from Oklahoma to Berkeley, and went up to
Sacramento. He [Simpson] drove me down to Fresno in a
state car. I was interviewed by a Mr. Gilbert Jertberg*, a
member of the State Board of Education who lived in
Fresno, and went back to Sacramento with Dr. Simpson.
Subsequently I got a letter from him offering me the
position, and I accepted it.
LD: As I said earlier, I am very interested, for this project,
in getting a sense of how much things did or did not
change as a result of the Master Plan. Therefore, I will
be interested in some recollections on what things were
like in Fresno between 1948 and about 1959 or 1960. First
of all, what general impression, or opinion, did you have
of the state colleges when you first became president?
You had been a dean at several universities. How did the
state colleges stack up?
AJ: One must remember that I was interested in professional
education, that my job for a number of years had been in
trying to help prepare people for school administrative
positions. I was a professor of School Administration.
At Denver, again at Maryland, and in Oklahoma I had been
working with students who wanted jobs as principals and
superintendents. And, of course, at that time the state
colleges, although they were not called teachers’
colleges, still were rather predominantly concerned with
teacher preparation. I didn’t think of Fresno as being a
teachers’ college, but I knew there was a heavy emphasis
on education. I think that I foresaw the inevitable
development of the state colleges into institutions which
would be larger, more diversified and stronger
institutions. After all, you see, I had been around
California and in touch with Californians over the years.
For instance, I taught a couple of summer sessions at
Berkeley during the interval between the time I got my
doctorate and the time I went to Fresno. I knew a good
many people in the California school system, and in the
state college system, too, for that matter, as well as in
the University of California. So I had the impression
that Fresno was destined to become a bigger and better
institution.
JOYAL 5
LD: Now besides having a heavy emphasis in teacher
preparation, was Fresno when you came there in 1948 also
heavily into preparing other vocations?
AJ: Yes. When I went there in 1948, the program in
agriculture had just been started. Now there had been
some courses taught in the field of agriculture, but
through the Department of . . . I don’t remember what
department they had those classes in now, but there were a
couple of professors who taught some courses in
agriculture. A Department of Agriculture had just been
created in Spring, 1948. And when I got there the first
contingent of people who later were members of the
Division of Agriculture had just been hired. Eugene Egan
had come from Cal Poly to head the work in Agriculture,
and four or five men had been employed to start this new
work. This program resulted from the demands of the
people in Fresno, the farmers in the area and the
agriculturists. Perhaps you want me to say more about
that later.
LD: Yes.
AJ: That was one specific program. There were others in
Industrial Arts, Engineering, Criminology, Business, and
Home Economics.
LD: Was there much advanced work in liberal art
subjects— master’s degrees . . .
AJ: No, the master’s degree had not been started at Fresno at
that time. That came several years later.
LD: So it was strictly undergraduate?
AJ: It was principally an undergraduate program, yes.
LD: But you did offer credentials to teachers didn’t you?
AJ: Teachers’ credentials, yes, both the elementary and
secondary. The secondary credential required a fifth
year.
LD: Was there a required general education core as there are
today in all of the state colleges?
AJ: No, not in the sense of a core that was later developed
and required. There was a pattern of courses required,
but I can’t say that it was a core.
LD: Did the buildings tend to be designed predominantly with
teacher preparation in mind?
JOYAL 6
AJ: No. Remember now that when I went there the campus was
located at the so-called downtown location. A new campus
was constructed after I was there. The old campus at the
corner of Van Ness and University Avenue had been
constructed back in the 1920s I guess. No, some of it
before that, because the school was started in 1911.
There were just more or less standard classrooms, although
there was a laboratory school on the campus.
LD: Oh, there was.
AJ: And the teachers, or prospective elementary teachers, did
their practice teaching in a lab school, an eight grade
school, right on the campus.
LD: Did these characteristics substantially change between
1948 and 1959, that is, before the Master Plan came in?
AJ: Oh, very, very definitely. When I went there the Full
Time Equivalent [Student enrollment (FTE)] was about
2,700. There was slow growth during the first two or
three years, but there was growth. And then, beginning
about 1951 and 1952, there was a rather marked
acceleration in the growth. That was stimulated in part
by the [Korean] War of course, and in part by the fact
that we were in the process of getting ready to move to
the new campus.
LD: How early was this new campus site acquired?
AJ: When I went to Fresno in August 1948, the state had just
purchased 160 acres of land at the corner of Shields and
Blackstone avenues, the so-called Markarian property. It
was a fig orchard, with one house on the lot. The state
had announced that it was going to move the campus to that
new area. So, from the very beginning I knew that a new
campus was imminent. Now soon after I got there, I think
it was in 1949, I believe December 20, 1949— I’m not
positive about that date, I could check it— the decision
was made that that area, the Markarian property, was not
large enough. The state decided to move farther out of
town to Shaw Avenue where the college is now located.
LD: I understand that eventually they got in excess of a
thousand acres.
AJ: Oh, yes, more than that. At the present time, I believe
the acreage is 1,440 acres. But the original purchase was
about 240 acres. Then additional land was bought in
several different parcels over the years. The last parcel
was the forty acres where the athletic facilities are now
JOYAL 7
located. That area was purchased not too long before I
left in 1964.
LD: But the point is, that in the area of physical expansion,
at least, much of the work had been done before the Master
Plan and the trustees came along.
AJ: Oh, most of it had been done, yes. And as I say, that
prospective building program was another incentive for
enrollment.
LD: Now as more students came were you faced with demands for
a more diverse curricular offering, or degrees?
AJ: Oh, yes, definitely. The people in the San Joaquin Valley
have always regarded Fresno State as their college, and
frankly, the administration encouraged it. We thought of
the valley as our sphere of influence. So the people
often came to us and to the State Board of Education with
demands for service. We used to say that the genius of
the place was the ability to serve the people, and I still
believe that. In any event, we had demands for a lot of
different kinds of programs, nursing, for example, and
social work. A good example is the program within
agriculture called enology, or wine-making. There is an
interesting story there. I could tell you briefly, if
you’d like to hear it.
LD: Alright.
AJ: All around Fresno there are wineries. I don’t know how
many, but I guess there must be at least a dozen. And of
course there are lots of grapes. So the wine makers in
the area came to me, fairly early in my career down there
and wanted a program in enology. And the people of the
community raised a lot of money, a quarter of a million
dollars or so, to help finance a program in agriculture
including enology. Of course the state board had to
consider the program and approve it. Although there was
some opposition in the community from the churches, for
example— in those days some people didn’t think it was
quite appropriate to educate young people in wine-making—
the program was approved. Today it’s a very superior
program, one of only two in the state: the one at Davis
and the one at Fresno. The emphasis at Fresno is now and
always had been on the practical side of enology. It’s a
very excellent program. That’s a good example of how the
people wanted something, and they came to the state and
demanded it. I mean they went right up to the legislature.
One time I flew up there with a group of men from
the community in a Fresno Company’s airplane to influence
JOYAL 8
[the legislature on] some program or other. I think it
may have been enology.
LD: All right now, this is asking you for a speculation, but
once we went to our present system, where a board of
trustees reviews all such programs, and more important
where they have to be put on a master curricular plan five
years in advance, do you think it has reduced this ability
of the state university to serve the interests and needs
of its local community?
AJ: Yes, in my opinion it has stifled that to some degree.
Now to just what degree I can’t say for sure, because
Cultural heritage discourses and Europeanisation : discursive embedding of cultural herigate in Europe of the regions
No full textIn dit onderzoek wordt erfgoed gezien als objecten waar een zekere betekenis aan wordt toegekend. Die betekenissen staan hier centraal en niet de objecten zelf. Sommige objecten krijgen die Europese relevantie, omdat ze vaak als Europees erfgoed worden bestempeld, voor andere objecten is dat bijvoorbeeld minder duidelijk en hebben de betekenis van nationaal of regionaal erfgoed. Dit proces van betekenisgeving staat centraal in dit proefschrift. Een drietal INTERREG projecten is geselecteerd als case studies (uit Litouwen, Griekenland en Nederland
Robert Wert oral history interview, Origins of The California State University, 1988
No full textOral history interview with a primary focus on the origins of the California State University System and the 1960 master plan for California higher education. Wert represented the independent or private institutions on the Master Plan Survey Team in 1959.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
Robert Wert
Interviewed
by
Judson A. Grenier
An Oral History Project
of the
Archives
California State University Archives
CSU Dominguez Hills
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
Oral History Pilot Project on the Origins of the CSU System
ROBERT WERT
CREATING THE MASTER PLAN:
AN INDEPENDENT COLLEGE PERSPECTIVE
Interview Conducted by
Judson A. Grenier
1988
Processed by CSU Fullerton Oral History Program
1989
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 © 1989 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.
m
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
Shirley de Graaf.
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
IV
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PILOT PROJECT ON THE
ORIQINS OF THE CSU SYSTEM
This interview with Dr. Robert Wert [RW] was conducted at his
hone in San Raphael on June 23, 1988. Dr. Wert represented the
independent, or private institutions on the Master Plan Survey
Team in 1959. And subsequently he served as first chairman of
the Coordinating Council from 1960 to 1962. The interviewer is
Judson Grenier [JG].
JG: We usually like to start these interviews with a little
biographical material. I wonder if you could tell me
where you were born and reared.
RW: Yes, sure. I was born in a little place called Harrison,
Idaho, which was a lumbering town.
JG: Harrison?
RW: Yes, in the panhandle of Idaho on Lake Coeur d'Alene. I
moved to Spokane, Washington at about one year old and
grew up there. I went through Catholic elementary school
and Jesuit high school, two years of college there at
Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution, and transferred
to Stanford, and graduated from Stanford in 1943.
JG: That was right during the war.
RW: Right during the war. I had been in a navy V-7 program
which allowed me to graduate before going to Midshipman
school. And after graduation I did go to Midshipman
school and was transferred out of the line navy to the
Naval Supply Corps and sent to the Harvard Business School
for a year, where we combined a full academic year's work
in business and the supply and disbursing work for the
navy. After that I went to sea on a destroyer escort, the
Ulvert M. Moore, E442, which I mention because it was
commanded by Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., the son of the
president of the United States. We were at sea about a
year in the Pacific, and the war then ended. I returned
to Spokane where I was in a family lumber business for
three years. After three years, for various reasons, my
wife and I decided to move back to Stanford, where I went
to graduate school. I finished up an M.B.A. in 1950. I
was one of the earlier Ph.D.s in higher education under
Dr. W. H. Cowley, with a Ph.D. in 1952. I went to work
immediately as assistant to the president at Stanford and
remained in that job for three years. The Carnegie
WERT 2
Corporation of New York, an educational foundation, aaked
me to join them, and 1 did so in 1954. We lived in
Connecticut and I worked in New York for five years,
having the general supervision of the Carnegie
Corporation’s Granting Program in the fields of higher
education and the improvement of undergraduate education.
After five years of incessant traveling, mostly in the
United States visiting college and university campuses, we
returned to Stanford, where I became Vice Provost and
Professor of Education. That was in 1959. Shortly after
returning to Stanford I was asked to become a member of
the Master Plan Team for Higher Education, and that brings
us up to the topic of the day.
JG: Could I back up and ask a few things? Did you by any
chance know Leo Cain when he was at Stanford?
RW: Yes. Not well, but I knew him.
JG: Did you have any opportunity while you were Vice-Provost
at Stanford to look into the operations of the state Board
of Education, or the state Department of Education?
RW: No, not really.
JG: So you had no prior experience with that operation?
RW: The only prior experience I had with Sacramento was that
very soon after we came back to California in 1959
Governor Brown appointed me a member of the State
Scholarship Commission. And 1 served on that commission
all during the Master Plan Team period. I resigned the
commission at the time I was appointed president of the
Coordinating Council for Higher Education because I
couldn’t hold two state offices at the same time.
JG: Why do you suppose Governor Brown appointed you to the
State Scholarship Commission?
RW: I really don’t know. The only inkling I have came from
Elinor Heller, a long-time Democratic National
Committeewoman from Atherton, who was a personal friend
of mine. And I know that Brown had checked thoroughly
with her. Now whether she or her husband, Ed Heller, then
a regent of the University, had put my name in to Brown I
don’t know.
JG: But it might have been?
RW: It might have been, yes.
WERT 3
JG: When did you first get wind that . . . well, as you know,
it was the legislature that asked the Liaison Committee
between the Board of Regents and the Board of Education to
set up this Master Plan Survey Team. Was there anything
in the wind in the field of higher education to indicate
that something like this was necessary?
RW: Yes, there was, indeed. The competition between the state
colleges and the University and the junior colleges— I use
the old-fashioned terms, 1 believe they were accurate
terms for the time— before the state legislature and the
governor’s office, and in general throughout the state,
was becoming nearly out of control. Every state college
was up in the legislature doing its own lobbying, the
University branches that existed then were doing the
same. The junior colleges were going up there in small
armies. It seemed very clear, even to those of us well on
the outside of the state systems, that we were approaching
nearly a state of anarchy, and that this unbridled,
unsupervised competition was going to be deleterious to
the health of the higher educational systems in the state
if something were not done. So that many of us who were
reasonably informed but outside the publie-supported
institutions, knew.
JG: Were the private institutions concerned about this
rivalry, that they might be affected by it as well?
RW: I don’t recall any grave concern. I think there was a
kind of a, well, not concern, but a general knowledge that
all was not well. The private institutions in those days,
I think, did not pay significant attention to the public
institutions.
JG: They weren’t surprised when a favored legislator could get
a state college established in a place like Turlock?
RW: Well, they may have been, but I didn’t hear much about it
if they were.
JG: Did you know Arthur Coons before?
RW: Yes, I had known Arthur when I worked at the Carnegie
Corporation. He came into our office every time he came
east. I was responsible for making either one, for sure,
or possibly two grants to Occidental College during the
five years I was at Carnegie. So both at the college, and
in New York I
somewhat.
did get to know Arthur. Not well, but
JG: Glenn Dumke
Carnegie.
also was at Occidental when you were with
WERT 4
RW: That * s correct. He was dean of the faculty then. And I
got to know Qlenn somewhat, too.
JQ: Do you think your Carnegie work helped acquaint you with
many of the educational leaders?
RW: No question. I did nothing but travel and go to
educational meetings. As you already know, I knew Clark
[Kerr], I knew Glenn Dumke. I had known Clark Kerr for
quite a few years.
JG: How did you meet Clark Kerr?
RW: Clark, as I remember, was on the board of the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which was
allied to the Carnegie Corporation. As president of the
University of California he was around our office quite a
bit. In any event, I knew Clark quite well by the time I
came to California.
JG: Were you a specialist in higher education?
RW: Yes, I was. You might be interested; my thesis was a
history of the reorganizations of Harvard University in
the nineteenth Century. The thesis was read not only in
the school of education at Stanford, but also by the
history department.
JG: Good. So you’d been interested in the organization of
higher education over three hundred years?
RW: That’s right.
JG: Did you know that there was a Master Plan Survey Team
being set up before you were called?
RW: No. I don’t believe I was aware of it. I have forgotten
now who originally got in touch with me, but I had always
surmised that Clark Kerr was the person probably behind it.
JG: Because you didn’t know Roy Simpson at that time?
RW: No. In any event, I have forgotten whether Clark or
someone else called me and asked me if I would be able to
serve. I checked with President [Wallace] Sterling at
Stanford, and Provost Terman, and they said, "Fine, no
problem." So when asked I said, "Great, I’ll serve. I’ll
be glad to."
JG: Who called you?
WERT 5
RW: I don't really remember who called me. If anybody did, I
think it was Clark, but I'm not positive.
JG: Was it understood that you were to represent the point of
view of the independent institutions?
RW: That's correct, I was to represent the private
institutions.
JG: Were you also to be kind of objective?
RW: No, I think that role came upon me, and I might say came
upon Arthur Coons, who was chairman, because we really
didn't have any access to Brown. And I always saw myself,
and I know Arthur saw himself, as being objective people,
listening to arguments from all sides but favoring no one
in particular, being opposed to no one in particular. And
inasmuch as we had nothing in particular to ask for, and
in view of our own backgrounds, it seemed a very
appropriate role to play at the time. And since, I might
say.
JG: In his book Arthur Coons said he told Kerr and Simpson
that he didn't want to be a representative of the private
institutions of higher education because he was going to
be chairman of the committee, and he thought he might have
to put forward his own Master Plan.
RW: In that he was absolutely correct. I think it would have
tainted his position as chairman, if he also represented
someone.
JG: But at that point the committee agreed unanimously that
you would be the person.
RW: I had forgotten that, that does recall it to me.
JG: So apparently you had widespread support across all the
segments.
RW: I'm glad of that. I might say just incidentally, that
Arthur and I did not press for anything on behalf of the
California state independent colleges until the last
meeting of the committee. I don't recall if either of us
ever asked for anything. We asked for an expansion of the
California State Scholarship Commission and a new
California state graduate fellowship program at the last
meeting of the Master Plan Committee. And both were
approved by our colleagues.
JG: Let me ask you about some of the other members of the
committee?
WERT 6
RW: Yes.
JG: Do you have any recollections of the segmental
representat ives?
RW: Oh, sure.
JG: The roles that they played.
RW: Yes.
JG: The community college representatives?
RW: Henry Tyler, of course, was looked upon by me, and I
assume the rest of the committee, as the representative of
the California Junior Colleges, and a member of the
committee just as Dumke was or McHenry was. The others, I
certainly remember all of them, sure.
JG: Did you consider Dean McHenry to be more or less Clark
Kerr’s spokesperson?
RW: I considered Dean to be a representative of the University
of California, and as such, the spokesperson for the
president of the University, or the Board of Regents, or
whomever he was representing from day to day.
JG: He told me that occasionally he had to make a phone call.
RW: He did occasionally. And then, of course, Dean has been
noted for many years of taking copious notes, all of which
he now tells me are in the Bancroft Library. Some day I
would like to go over and read them if I can decipher
them.
JG: And Glenn Dumke representing the state colleges. There
was also a specialist in higher education, Arthur Browne.
RW: Yes, I knew Arthur as well. I don’t know how the other
members of the committee perceived it, but it seemed to
me, I looked upon Arthur and Tom Holy from the University
of California as the staff people, and certainly not as
voting members of the committee. They were there at every
meeting. They certainly could be influential with their
bosses, so to speak, but I did not consider that they were
voting members of the committee as the rest of us were. I
just want to make that differentiation. It seemed to me
that was the way it was.
JG: Did you take votes?
RW: Not really. We didn’t have to.
WERT 7
JG: You reached a consensus most of the time?
RW: It was pretty clear what it was going to be, yes.
JG: Was Keith Sexton also a kind of staff person?
RW: Yes, Keith was there at every meeting, as I recall. He
was, of course, representing the legislature. And Dorothy
Donahoe was a primary legislator of higher education for
the legislature. Keith later on, of course, I put on as
chief of the staff of the Coordinating Council, so I knew
him well for years.
JG: Now you decided early-on that your meetings were not to be
open to the public. Do you think that was a wise decision?
RW: Yes.
JG: Why?
RW: I don’t think we could have accomplished what we did if we
had been in constant wrangling in public meetings. These
matters, in my opinion at the time and now even more, just
could not have been adjudicated as easily, or as well, in
public meetings as they could have in the kinds of
meetings we held, where there was a great amount of give
and take, and no posturing.
JG: To some extent, that is what James Madison said of the
Constitutional Convention.
RW: I understand, yes. I also understand the general view of
the state of California about open meetings, and I’m
certainly not opposed to that view when it comes to public
bodies. But I have never quite considered this plan the
public kind of work that it became later in front of the
legislature or in front of the Liaison Committee, where
the meetings were public.
JG: Occasionally you would have visitors, such as members of
the legislature or Governor Brown’s staff, or someone like
that?
RW: Sure. We just didn’t open it up to anybody who wanted to
come and argue. We were in the position of a working
committee. I think it’s a mistake even to think of the
Master Plan committee as the equivalent of a legislative
committee, which has to operate in public except for
personnel matters. We were not that. We were a working,
hard working I might add, committee due to make a report
to the public agencies of the state of California, where
WERT 8
all the debates and all of the open hearings and so on
could be held.
JG: Where did you usually meet?
RW: We met all over the state. It was a different place
nearly every meeting. We met at state college campuses,
university campuses, motels, airport hotels, in
Sacramento, everyplace.
JG: What about the role of technical committees? Did they
play a major role?
RW: The technical committees developed a great deal of factual
information. We had them, as you recall, in all sorts of
areas, ranging from the economics of higher education to
admissions, and so on. They developed a great deal of
information and data which we used during the course of
our own study, even though the technical reports were not
finished, as I recall, until well along in our
deliberations. But what we would do is get in touch with
the chairman of the committee, for example, Arnold Joyal,
then president of Fresno State, and the chairman of the
economics committee. If we had an economic question we
didn't know the answer to, and it seemed important, Arthur
Coons or somebody would get Joyal on the phone and say,
"Now have you come to this particular thing? What do you
think about it?" And he would get whatever opinion was
then available from Joyal on behalf of the committee. And
we would incorporate that thinking. But by and large, I
would say that mo
Caymanianness, history, culture, tradition, and globalisation : assessing the dynamic interplay between modern and traditional(ist) thought in the Cayman Islands
Get PDFThe research undertaken for this largely qualitative dissertation draws on newspaper articles, oral
histories, historical documentation, open-ended interviews, and to a lesser extent, questionnaires, in
the effort to ultimately confirm the extent to which the benefitting forces of globalization have
fractured any existing traditional-historical cultural body of knowledge and expression among the
Caymanian people. Indeed, by 2009 some Caymanians had long been verbally denouncing the social
and cultural ills of globalization – inclusive of multiculturalism – on their so-called traditional,
unassuming way of life, some of them clamoring for an extensive purge of the many foreign
nationals in “their” Cayman Islands. Yet, other Caymanians have become somewhat invested in the
idea of multicultural “oneness” ostensibly for the sake of peaceful coexistence, harmony and
prosperity as these work towards the promotion of a global, borderless cultural awareness.
This dissertation relies on theoretical frames centred both on the discrete natures of, and the
dualistic struggle between, these two opposing ideological-cultural forces. That this struggle is taking
place in the present age, I anticipate the ways in which more modern understandings, which are
potentially open to liberating subjectivities, must clash with “historical”, xenophobic and
nationalistic viewpoints, viewpoints which have constantly proven contradictory given their
adherents’ complacent acceptance of, and participation in, a localised economic prosperity
substantively dependent on foreign input. Thus in aggregate terms, this dissertation pinpoints the
various effects of an evolving scheme of values and counter-values on an ideologically torn
Caymanianness whose contradictory traditional half is especially fighting for its “cultural purity” in
an era where its ‘reinvented’ logic is being more and more regarded as anachronistic and somewhat
irrational
The institution as a learning system
No full textThis thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.The work reported here was carried out whilst the author was Head of Education and Training at the TSB of Birmingham and the Midlands. Ten studies were carried out. They were part of a new training operation and so their objectives and relationship to the work of the Department and the needs of the Bank are carefully described. The major influences on the work are reviewed from three perspectives: Psychological definitions of man; promoting learning at work; evaluating the learning enterprise. The
studies were directed at establishing a method whereby managers can significantly influence the development of the learning competence of their staff, and at installing a management development system using the principles on which this method is based. The early part of the research dealt with the nature of learning in organisational settings and the role of education and training processes in achieving business results. The survey-based proposal to management about how to cost-effectively direct managerial learning was not taken up, and the sequence of studies was concluded by acquiring a detailed understanding of the rejection of the proposed learning philosophy. Whilst this work was in progress, the method for influencing the learning competence of subordinates was developed. It is based upon the philosophy of self- organisation of learning elaborated by the Centre for the study of Human Learning. Its utility for engendering significant revision of both the conceptualisation and practice of learning was confirmed.This study was supported by TSB of Birmingham
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
Technology and change in the hotel industry : the case of the hotel receptionist.
Get PDFSIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:D89388 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo
‘Cool’ but ‘nerve-wracking’? An exploration of language learners’ motivational perspectives on speaking in an English secondary school. 2 volumes
No full textThis study has explored the motivational problem of speaking among language learners in an English secondary school. It set out from the premise that learners’ speaking is an important aspect of language learning but it is beset by a series of motivational difficulties, including lack of knowledge of oral progress, lack of awareness of how to improve, lack of confidence in speaking and an inability to say what they want to say. There has been little research into motivation in specific language skills among learners in UK schools despite evidence that speaking is associated with low levels of achievement. This study has sought to shed some light on this difficult aspect of language learning from the students’ perspectives.The study was conducted in a large, mixed comprehensive school in South East England in 2006-2007 and involved qualitative case studies of classes of students aged 11 to 14. Information was elicited by means of questionnaires, diaries and interviews. Performance data on students was also obtained from teachers (pseudonyms are used throughout when referring to the school, the teachers and the students). Although the study is small-scale, a series of key themes emerged from the data, which could help to inform developments in language teaching, research and policy. The findings of the study suggest that speaking is affected by a series of complex individual and social motivational variables that are not well understood but are, nonetheless, a source of tension for some learners
Splitting hairs : a sociological approach to educational knowledge
No full textBibliography: p. 189-214.This thesis represents a series of investigations into the sociological study of symbolic forms. It seeks to address the question as to whether, in the informational or knowledge society of late modernity, all symbolic forms are necessarily isomorphic, or whether they will correspond with the new form of the division of labour and will therefore differ in form and social distribution. The symbolic forms examined here are those integrally involved in the production and reproduction of educational knowledge, that is, the curriculum, pedagogy, and educational research for policy. In each of the chapters of the thesis a debate is staged between the former and the latter position, and each chapter attempts to show that the former position, in order to make the argument, collapses certain distinctions which I argue are not only essential to make, but more importantly, whose collapse will have unfortunate and sometimes pernicious effects especially for learners of the working class. This thesis is thus a series of explorations into the need for certain distinctions, into the nature of symbolic distinction; that is, into the nature and need of the boundary
