Oral history interview with Josie Nance "Nancy" White, 1989 [text/print transcript]

              1
UNCG CENTENNIAL ORAL HISTORY PROJECT COLLECTION
INTERVIEWEE: Josie Nance "Nancy" White
INTERVIEWER: William A. Link
DATE: December 4, 1989
[Begin Side A]
WL: This is William Link and the date is December 4th 1989. With me is Nancy White. I'd like to start just by asking you to tell me a little bit about your background. Where you were born and how you first came to be associated with this institution. What brought you—what first brought you to Woman's College [of the University of North Carolina, now The University of North Carolina at Greensboro]?
NW: Well, I was born in Statesville, North Carolina and in a family of teachers. So it never occurred to me to do anything but to teach.
WL: Both of your parents were teachers?
NW: No. My father was in business. My mother and her six sisters and his two sisters were all teachers. So I never really thought of anything but teaching. Never really thought of any place to go but the Woman's College. So my—and I knew all along from early years exactly what I wanted to do. I wanted to teach little children. So my choice was made very early. No indecisions or no guessing or wondering.
I did go to Mitchell College for two years and transferred here as a junior. And I recall as I came here—when I came here as a transfer, I was in a basement room in Kirkland [Residence Hall] where there was a curve in the driveway there, and I thought if I'd reached out the window I could trip someone. So my first day or two in the [unclear] room and no roommate and as a transfer, were not even bleak because I did want to be here.
A friend of mine from Statesville was house president in an upperclassmen dorm, and within two days she and all of her friends came and moved me into the dorm with them. So I was in New Guilford [Residence Hall] then. My friends were—one was president of the Student Government [Association]; one was house president; several were on what was then known as the Judi [Judicial] Board. So the other—[clears throat] excuse me—the other people in the dorm called our hall "Puritan Row." So I lived on Puritan Row for two years in Guilford. Majored in primary education. Went up the steps to Curry School many times every day. Liked and enjoyed all of my classes, everything we did.
WL: Tell me a little bit about the Curry School. This was a school— 2
NW: This was the laboratory school for the School of Education, where they trained student teachers. We—at that point, this was '44-'46, they did not use the city schools and other places for student teachers. They all did their student teaching in Curry. And it went from kindergarten through high school.
WL: Who attended the Curry School? Where did the students come from?
NW: Many professors' children. And then there were children from what they called Cooper Street, or Cooper Town, which was on the other side of the railroad track. The ones who didn't have enough clothes or shoes or even food. So we had a variety. It was a neighborhood school. Part of it was funded by the city schools. In other words, my first check, when I worked five years there, I got one check from the city schools and one from the university. So what we did at that time was to, if you will, take some of the load out of the city schools, so it was funded a bit by them.
WL: So it served as a neighborhood school for the neighborhood?
NW: Neighborhood. Yes.
WL: Right. Near here?
NW: Right.
WL: Yes. Near the college.
NW: And then there were some children whose parents were on the campus who chose to bring their children to Curry School. And they were—I taught the first grade for two years and—three years—and the second grade for one year, and the kindergarten one year. And then went into teaching in the School of Education, in curriculum courses. I think some of the best teaching that I ever did and really enjoyed, as a challenge, were the years when I taught the children in the morning and the college students observed. And then in the afternoon we would critique the morning. So it really tied it together very well.
And I recall, one—oh, night in November, Dean Naomi Albanese of the School of Home Economics and I were co-chairman, co-sponsors for the Golden Chain. And we were sitting there one night waiting for them to make decisions, and she talked to me about an assistantship. That they had money for a doctoral program, to start a doctoral program in the area of child development. And wanted to know if I would be interested. And I told her, no, I didn't think so. I had done my undergraduate work here, and my master's work at [University of North Carolina at] Chapel Hill, and thought I better go on to somewhere else. So—and I had been accepted and was going to Tallahassee to the University of Florida—Florida State. Sometime later I began—started thinking, "Well, gee, you know, it really would be nice to stay here." I called her and I asked her if the assistantship was still available, and she said yes. So, there, I started my future career.
WL: And that was what—what year was that?
3
NW: I went into the doctoral program in the fall of '61 and received my degree in June of '63. The unique thing about that and my really only claim to fame is that it was the only PhD from WC [Woman's College] And there was a lot—even the custodians and the maids, and the faculty, and the students, and administrators, everyone, was interested and excited about the PhD. And I floated around on a cloud nine there for a long time. Of course, at that point we had, I think, just a little over two thousand people. So you can see that there's—there was a big difference then.
WL: The first and only PhD ever awarded at the Woman's College?
NW: At the Woman's College. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of that.
WL: You were telling me before we turned the machine on that commencement—you related a—
NW: Oh, yes. I received my PhD at commencement in June of '63. Then in July we became a university. So there was just a month in there. I never will forget calling the campus one morning soon after that, and the switchboard operator said, "The University of North Carolina," and I thought, "Oh goodness, I've dialed Chapel Hill." [both laugh] But it was an exciting time.
WL: Yes. Well, let's go back to the '40s when you were a student here, as an undergraduate. What sorts of—well, how would you characterize student life? What were some of the qualities and distinctive features of student life in the '40s at Woman's College?
NW: I always told my students this story in class, and they couldn't believe that it was true. There was a gate along College Avenue from Spring Garden Street that was locked every night at ten o'clock, though there were no cars on the campus at all. We had, of course, sign-in and sign-out. And everybody knew where you were all the time. But student life then was great. Of course, it was during the war. [Editor's note: World War II was a global conflict fought between 1939 and 1945.] We couldn't even—we didn't even have a Thanksgiving break. The only—because of the gasoline shortage. So, our main entertainment then was to go to the ORD, the Overseas Replacement Depot, which was down on Summit [Avenue]. And our dances on Saturday night, they hauled all the guys from ORD to campus. And then this was our big—several of my friends married young men whom they met during these times.
WL: Right.
NW: So, it was during the war. I recall the—and all of this was fun. I think, really, as I look at it, the students today probably wouldn't like it. But I think they miss a lot. We had family-style meals. And when they couldn't get help in the dining halls, each dorm signed up for two weeks per semester, and all the students in the dorms would don their little caps and aprons and go wait tables. So, we had—there was a lot of togetherness because people couldn't leave campus on weekends and couldn't go away all the time. As a matter of fact, I still am in touch with a number of people with whom I graduated with. And we still 4
have a close-knit group of people on Puritan Row and Guilford Dorm. [chuckles] And we get together as a group. So that was important to all of us.
WL: There was a very clear sense of community among students partly because of these campus-wide activities?
NW: Well, partly because there wasn't anything else—no one could leave. There was a—gasoline was rationed. And—yes, I think so.
WL: Yes.
NW: And we all were here on weekends. So we played bridge and went shopping. And, you know, the lifestyle then was so different than what it is today. When everybody hops in their car and leaves. And we had very few—relatively few commuters. And so it basically was a residential campus.
WL: How would you characterize the students? Where did they come from? What was the student body like?
NW: I'd say the majority were, as probably is true now, from North Carolina. I had several friends who were from out-of-state. So I don't think it would be too different, as far as geographic locations.
WL: Were most from this immediate area or from all over North Carolina?
NW: All over North Carolina. Yes. Several of my friends were from the eastern part of the state. Quite a few from the eastern—Raleigh.
WL: How did the reputation of Woman's College compare to other women's colleges, including, say, Greensboro College? In other words, what kind of reputation did a Woman's College graduate have when they went out into the world?
NW: Oh, I'd say at the top of the list. People really respected and sought graduates from the Woman's College. Of course, it was—teacher education was a large part of this and that was my area. And I recall I got the first job for which I applied, and you didn't have to write several places. And people, I think, were just really glad to receive people, or to employ people from Woman's College. So I would say very high.
WL: Was there much activity with the City of Greensboro? Did the students have much to do with the city? Would they go shopping in the city? Did they get around in the city?
NW: Probably more than they do now. Because, as I said before, we couldn't go anywhere. Going downtown was a big thing. And we'd walk. I remember churches in the area would send busses every Sunday morning to pick up students to take them. And they had breakfast. And so the churches were very attentive. There were many fewer things to do. I mean, places to go. When you shopped you went downtown and not to Four Seasons 5
[Mall] and Carolina Circle [Mall]. I recall one time, if we're reminiscing, we could not buy nylon hose. They just weren't available. And once in a while they'd get hose downtown. And I remember Miss Ruth Gunter [Class of 1914, education professor], who was our supervising teacher, she taught the second grade at Curry School. And someone called and said they had nylon hose down at Ellis Stone's [department store]. So she came in and said, "You girls leave now and go get your hose." And so we were running downtown to get our hose, and I remember tripping over a crack in the sidewalk and running the one pair of nylon hose I had. So, I really just swapped one-for-one when I went down there. [chuckles]
WL: Yes.
NW: But the people don't realize now that what we did was knit sweaters, sleeveless sweaters for the GIs. And—yes, we did a lot of shopping. Greensboro was good [unclear].
WL: Was there a proper sort of attire that the students had to wear from this—could they dress any way? Was there a dress code?
NW: A very definite dress code. Katherine Taylor [Class of 1928, French professor, dean of women, dean of students, dean of student services] would have hit anyone in the head that went to the mailbox in shorts or slacks. So our main—when we had to go to the mailbox and all, we'd put a long raincoat over—or whatever we might have on. Yes, definitely—no slacks, no shorts. Dresses. And it's interesting to have been here to see the campus change. I remember for a long time Dean Albanese would not want students to wear slacks or shorts in the nursery school. And we finally convinced her that it was proper. And that was in the '70s. And we didn't have to wear white gloves and hats, but definitely a dress code.
WL: Some of the other woman's colleges did require that, didn't they? For example, Greensboro College?
NW: I believe so. And we understand that that had been a requirement earlier. But, no, we had outgrown the white gloves and hat. But definitely—there was definitely a dress code.
WL: There were certain campus-wide events. It wasn't—the student body as you've indicated already wasn't that big. What about Chapel?
NW: A chapel every Tuesday. And it rained every Tuesday. And we usually had just cafeteria-style luncheon except on Tuesday, and we had family-style after Chapel. Everyone had an assigned seat. And they had monitors to check to be sure that everyone was in their assigned seat. So everyone went to Chapel. And it was great day when you could move from the very top of the balcony as a freshman down a little bit, until the time you got to be a senior, you were down on the front rows.
WL: And so you got a better seat?
6
NW: A better seat as a senior. And as we laughed—I shouldn't really say this on the tape, but Mr.—Dr. [George M.] "Pinky" Thompson used to direct the choir, and people would say, "Don't sit on the front seat, or he'll spit on you." You were that close. It was a great time then. And my peers, my group of friends with whom I was in school, came back for a reunion, and they were appalled. When we went into the cafeteria, and there was a sign on the wall that said, "Do not throw food on the floor." And they were so unbelieving that anyone in their alma mater would throw food on the floor. Of course that was during the '60s when there was some trouble.
WL: What kind of relationships did students have with faculty when you were a student? Was there—well, maybe we should ask first a little bit more about the faculty. What kind of faculty did Woman's College have? What—how would you describe some of the characteristics of the faculty in the 1940s?
NW: Well, of course, in the '40s the demands on the faculty were different from what they are now. We were not into research and publication—of course, people were doing that, but it was not as important as it is now that we've become a university. So the faculty's main concern was the students. And I still recall very fondly my faculty advisor, Miss Ruth Fitzgerald [Class of 1905, education professor]. And at that point we had class advisors, and Ethel Martus, who later was the department head of HPERD [School of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance], and is now Mrs. Lawther, was our class chairman. And to this day she still comes to our class reunions and dinners. So there was—we kept in touch.
Dr. Eugenia Hunter [education professor] was my mentor here and really is the reason that I came back. She recommended me for the position at Curry School. She's now living in a retirement community in Charlotte. So they were very caring. And they knew the students. And, of course, you can know two thousand students better than you can eleven thousand. But it was a very close-knit group, closely-knit group.
WL: And faculty had a kind of a sense of mission?
NW: Yes, very definitely for the student. The student was the first priority.
WL: Yes. How about the administration? What—there wasn't much of an administration really in 1946, I suppose. As a student, did you—was the administration visible?
NW: Very much. Yes. They were very visible. And I recall one time a friend of mine and I, we came back on the train from Statesville to UNCG—no, excuse me, the Woman's College. There was a delay in Salisbury, so we were late getting back to the campus, which was unheard of. My friend happened to be the house president in our dorm, and we came out of the train station, and there at the front of the building was Dean Elliott, Harriet Elliott, "What are you girls doing out at this time?" But very understanding, you know. So she had the person who had brought her to catch a train to bring us back to the campus. And she knew who we were. It didn't take her five minutes to recognize us as her girls from the Woman's College. So it was a bit different. And, of course, that was because of size and mission. 7
WL: Let's talk a little bit more about the 1950s, when you were at Curry School. Was there much indication—when you came back as a faculty person, do you have much sense that things are different? Does this seem to be the same place that you went to school? Is it a place that's changing that much? And if so, how?
NW: It hadn't changed that much when I came back. Because I had only been out five years.
WL: Yes.
NW: So when I came back in '51, it was very much like it had been. Those first years in the '50s were pretty rocky. The campus was pretty much split. And Dr. [Edward Kidder] Graham, [Jr.] was here. And there was a lot going on that I really didn't understand, having been new. And—
WL: But you—
NW: —activities in which I really did not participate too much because I was not sure.
WL: But you heard about him, certainly? And you felt—
NW: I heard about him very much because my apartment mate was the chancellor's assistant. And it was not easy to stay out of the middle of things. But I mean, she understood very well my position. And I could see things on both sides and just really did not want to become involved until I was more informed. Most of what I was hearing then was from her, and I didn't know the whole story. So, it was exciting and frustrating.
WL: What was the nature of the controversy over Chancellor Graham? I've talked to a number of people about that.
NW: As I recall, and I'm not going to be your best source of information on this. I was really too new then as a faculty member. I really believe he tried to make too many changes too fast. And this was not totally satisfactory or at all satisfactory to some of the faculty, in particular the ones who had been here—
WL: Yes.
NW: —for a while. And I really do not recall all of the changes at that time. It was a little overwhelming for me to my dear, easy-running Woman's College to be having some kind of a—
WL: Yes. And you had just arrived, and you were trying to establish yourself. And—yes.
NW: So, I was trying to assess the situation and really arrive at my own conclusions.
WL: Yes.
8
NW: But, as I recall, the changes were not accepted, or acceptable to people. And I guess basically that was it. I'm trying to recall, but can't really, what those changes were.
WL: Yes.
NW: It was all in the process when I came. And also, teaching at Curry you were not as much of a faculty person as you are when you're in the department or school. And they didn't intend for it to be that way, but just the nature of the job was such. Our main focus then was to Curry School and the PTA and the children. And I was just not as much a part of the university system as I became later.
WL: I've been told by other people that the division over the Graham years lasted a long time. That there was residue of bad feeling that continued.
NW: I think it did. And they brought Dr. [William Whatley] Pierson in for—and he was, I think, a very good sort of a healer.
WL: A healer. Yes.
NW: In fact, he was here twice.
WL: Yes.
NW: I think they did—I'm trying to recall just how long.
WL: Yes. Is there much indication that Woman's College is going to expand and change its mission, perhaps with graduate programs, perhaps with more research emphasis in the 1950s? Do you see much of that? Again, I may be asking a lot, since you were, as you say, kind of removed at Curry School.
NW: Do you mean have they changed now from the '50s?
WL: No. During the '50s, did—was there much sense that things were on—?
NW: Well, that's when they were beginning to change.
WL: Yes.
NW: And we had our home meetings of various types—students discussed the future of the university, and then when the decision was made that we would become a university, there were lots of general faculty meetings to explain. So I think that was particularly in the late '50s.
WL: As early as the late '50s?
NW: Yes. Because in Florida—you've asked something now—I really can't pull out of the 9
cobwebs the exact dates. But, of course, since we did change in '63, there had to be some years of preparation.
WL: Yes. How did the faculty feel about that? Did they like that kind of change? Did they—were there those that opposed it? Were there those that felt that it was altering, in a bad way, the mission of the institution?
NW: I'm sure that there were people on both sides. And some of the—I'm getting off track a little bit. But I recall at that point those of us who were younger, we were talking about the "Old Guard." And not too many years ago we realized that we were the Old Guard and it was entirely different. But at that point I would say that the Old Guard did not want to change. Some of the newer people coming in looked upon it as a challenge and did accept the change.
WL: Yes.
NW: I think it's true in any case when you make a change in mission there are some who buck [unclear]
WL: Yes.
NW: As I recall—I really am not too good at answering this. But I was still fairly new, and—because I did not go into—I taught at Curry until '55, '56. So, as I said, we were a little bit apart from the general faculty.
WL: Right.
NW: But I do recall going to meetings, and there was some opposition to this change. If I had to root it, it would be the Old Guard. Do you know, the funny thing about that, when you become the Old Guard you don't feel like it. We laughed at one point, I remember saying to Gail Hennis [physical education professor], "Do you remember how we used to talk about the Old Guard, and now we're it?" So, we really were. When I retired, there was only one person here who had been on the faculty longer than I had. And that was Inga Morgan [music professor] in the student union. It's funny to know how the Old Guard felt in the '50s, and then how you feel like you're not the Old Guard.
WL: Yes.
NW: I can't be too specific on people's feelings.
WL: Sure.
NW: There was some of those—
WL: Another big change, of course, that comes in 1963, associated with the general transformation from college to university was coeducation. 10
NW: Right.
WL: How do you recall that? That's about the time you're getting your degree. What are the feelings on campus about that? How does that occur?
NW: I remember Clarence Shipton was the dean of men, was named dean of men. And we teased him and called him "dean of man," because I think, you know, especially the first year, there were very few and far between. I'm delighted now to, you know, to see the numbers increase. I think here again, there was some division. Some people were very adamant about the fact that we were making a mistake. And—but, I guess, the majority of the people accepted it as a challenge and moving forward. And, of course, when you look back, in retrospect, you can see that to become a university we had to go through those years of growing pains and needing more room and more money. And there were some problems, but I'm sure the administration handled them as well as any place could.
WL: Did—what kind of leadership did you think that Chancellor Singletary offered on this issue? Coeducation came during the Singletary administration. Just let me ask you first about what kind of leader was Otis Singletary?
NW: I thought Otis Singletary was a very fine man. I think he had some very difficult times and days to go through. And as is true with any situation, I'm sure there are people who didn't—I happened to think that he was a very fine leader. And of course we had everybody's favorite, [James S.] "Jim" Ferguson, coming on board then.
WL: A very different style?
NW: A very different style.
WL: Yes.
NW: As I recall, and I may be incorrect in this, but Chancellor Singletary took a—I don't recall whether it was a federal assignment for a while, and Jim Ferguson took over the reins. And their leadership style was quite different.
WL: Even though they were connected?
NW: Even though they were connected.
WL: Yes.
NW: But I don't know of anyone who could have made the transition any easier for us.
WL: What about Jim Ferguson's style? This is maybe something you would be a little more familiar with since he was chancellor during your period here. You really became fully involved as a faculty person.
11
NW: I thought Jim Ferguson was just a marvelous person and leader. And I'm sure that there are people who probably liked Singletary's up-front style. Aggressive.
WL: A much more aggressive person.
NW: Much more aggressive. Jim Ferguson, to me, was just an ideal model. I remember one situation, I had a student who became ill, and in fact she lost her vision. And I was driving her, going to drive her back to Winston-Salem. And I really didn't want to do this without somebody on campus being aware. I didn't know what my involvement would be. So I did call Jim Ferguson and talk with him briefly. And I never will forget his offering to take the student himself, to take her back to Winston-Salem. I thought he was extremely compassionate. He had broad vision. I thought his leadership—he was firm when he needed to be. But kind. A firm kindness, or a kind firmness. And I really believe we prospered along. I thought he did mighty well in taking the reins and going forward with our development. As I said I'm sure there are others who thought the aggressive leadership style of Otis Singletary was—would have been better. I really have—was trying to think, the most—for the most part, the majority of people were very, very positive about Jim Ferguson. I think it's very hard to be in a role, an administrative role like his, and have a hundred percent backing. But in my circle of friends and colleagues, the feelings were very positive. And he was a very caring person, too, about individuals as well as the students.
WL: He had a, I'm told, an open-door policy.
NW: Well, my example—when I was talking about the student who had to be taken home was an example of that. And this was late one afternoon. And at the time his wife was not at all well. He was ready to talk or to listen. And very caring.
WL: What changes do you think, in retrospect, are the most important to come during 1960s and 1970s at this institution—UNCG has become a different institution, in some respects.
NW: A very, very different one.
WL: And the place that you attended as a student. What would you specifically say were the most important of these changes?
NW: Well, of course, the '60s—during the '60s the whole world was—really, we went through the hippies and the sitting on the corner at the Music Building.
WL: Is that where the—was that the gathering place?
NW: The gathering place. And Charlie Bell [grounds superintendent] planted shrubbery on that hill so they would have to move elsewhere. And that's when we had the dining room problems. And when they put the signs on the walls that said, "Do not throw food on the floor," that my college mates were so disturbed about. Those were not easy years for any of us. If I recall, it was time of the streaking and the arrests and the general breaking-out, I 12
guess, of most students. I recall [James] "Jim" Allen [campus Presbyterian minister] was very helpful. He, at that point, was campus minister at the Presby House and was very helpful to Jim Ferguson in working with students. And I'm talking more about the students. But the faculty then was gearing up for a more of a research-oriented, publishing career.
WL: You could see that as early as the '60s?
NW: Yes. Well, it almost had to be with the change to the university. I mean, the mission was changing then, of course, the faculty views were different. I would say as early as the '60s it was definitely changing.
WL: Campuses—American campuses everywhere, this was—the 1960s were described as, are often described as, "the time of troubles." Was there—well, on other campuses, I guess the two major issues that arose in the late 1960s and early 1970s were the Vietnam War [Editor's note: war fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from November 1, 1955 to the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.], first of all, and racial problems, second of all. Did these two issues affect—to what extent to these two issues affect UNCG?
NW: Well, many of students were very opposed to the Vietnamese War. And I remember you'd go through campus and there would be big banners hanging on the dorms. So they were very much aware. And I recall thinking at that point how much aware, or happy they were, in their participation about the Vietnamese War than we were in the '40s about World War II. Of course, we were all concerned but there was not as much active participation or negativism. Of course, the wars were different. So, yes, I would say I was impressed with the students' input and foresight and opinions in the Vietnam War days.
WL: What about racial, the racial situation here? UNCG has a small presence of black students by the 1960s. Is that accurate to say?
NW: Yes, that is, I would say, accurate. Here again, I'm not sure of my answer. But I think we got along probably as well or better than many campuses. And, here again, I think the leadership at that time had something to do with this. Because the administration—there were some problems, as I recall, but no real violence. In sum, I would say we got along as well as could be expected. We didn't have very many at first.
WL: Is there much of a change in the—there must have been a big change in the kind of student that came here, along about this time. Do you notice this in the classroom, teaching undergraduates particularly? When the change is made from an all-woman's college to a university that has some men in it, how does that affect teaching in the classroom?
NW: I think it affected it some. It didn't in my particular area as much as it did in some other areas. In child development and early childhood education, I don't think there was that much difference because we didn't have any men there.
13
WL: Yes.
NW: And the people—the student with whom I worked were here because they wanted to teach or work with young children. So, I would say that our particular department, or the area in which I worked, was not affected as much as maybe some of the liberal arts or—I can't really recall when the School of Business started, but I think it was at this point that it began to grow.
WL: Did the student body seem to be changing? How for example—not only men but a great deal more commuters? Is this phenomenon—when did you suddenly notice this? Or do you notice it all?
NW: Yes, I do. I notice it a lot. In one area particularly—the Student Government leadership. When I was a student, and when I first came back, it was a very big honor to be elected president or to an office. Of course, the whole judicial system changed, too. But it—that is one area that I noticed it. Now everything seems to be a little harder, or at some time it's been a little hard to really get anyone who would want to give that kind of time to something other than their studies to the university or to the campus. I may be wrong, but I sense a little bit different sense of loyalty to the campus as a whole. I don't know whether apathetic is a good word to use, but a little more apathy. In the earlier years, the '40s and the late '50s, it was quite an honor to have a leadership role. I'm not sure that that's true.
WL: Would that apply to societies like the Golden Chain Society? Is that—?
NW: No. No, I wouldn't say the Golden Chain Honor Society. I was thinking more of the Student Government.
WL: Student Government. Yes. What about the faculty? How does it change in the 1960s and 1970s? Did you notice any general changes, other than the ones we've already talked about?
NW: Well, I think the main change is that people are more interested in their own field, and in their research, and their publication. And I don't think all faculty would prefer this, but it's a sign of the times. In order to maintain a position, to secure tenure or promotion, then this is necessary. So, yes, I think there's a very big change in the type of faculty interests.
WL: One of the major changes since the early 1970s has been the development of a more elaborate administrative structure at this university. Prior to that period, I suppose, Mereb Mossman [sociology professor, dean of instruction, dean of the college, dean of faculty, vice chancellor for academic affairs] had a major sort of—she seemed to cover everything. I've already talked to her. Is that—to me, that seems to be one of the major changes that's affected that institution, the proliferation and development of administrative hierarchy
NW: Well, Miss Mossman used to be Dean Mossman, and then she was Vice Chancellor 14
Mossman. And most everything did go through her office—her office or the chancellor's. And at the time when every division or unit on campus was put under the leadership of a vice chancellor, then I think that definitely changed. But there were several people, in fact, what always was Miss Mossman's responsibility. And all of that came, of course, as we grew. And now no one person could really handle the job as the university has developed. Yes, that has become necessary with the times.
WL: How has that affected the role of faculty, do you think? You've had some experience in faculty governance. Well, maybe we should talk about faculty governance. How has that changed, if at all? Has it evolved? Did it evolve during the '70s and even '80s?
NW: The biggest thing I can think of at the moment—and I keep going back to "We used to."
WL: Yes.
NW: Which is a part of what we're doing here anyway. We used to have faculty meetings at night. And everybody came back to the faculty meetings. You went home, you had dinner, and you came back at seven-thirty to the Alumni House, and we had these once-a-month faculty meetings. And of course we—now with Academic Cabinet and the representation there—the at-large and representatives from the different departments. The last faculty meeting that I went to there, I recall there was—well, the crowd was very small. I don't really know why—whether there is not the same interest in the total university on the part of the faculty, or whether they really don't have as much input as they used to. There is a hierarchy of vice chancellors. I served on Academic Cabinet for two three-year terms. And I really thoroughly enjoyed it. Because I maintained an interest in the total university with what was going on, when I think probably some people feel like Academic Cabinet was going to handle the business, so why go to the faculty meetings, otherwise I don't know why attendance is—And it may not be any more, but my last years it was very small.
WL: But there used to be the monthly meetings of faculty.
NW: Monthly meetings, and you came back. The faculty was here. And even at that time, years ago, the faculty would fill the [unclear] rooms. So it was the thing to do. I think now, and here again, the—not only this institution but higher education in general is putting a different demand on faculty time. And people are a little more resentful of giving any time, if there are no brownie points.
[End of Interview]