Oral history interview with Nancy Fogarty, 1990 [text/print transcript]

              1
UNCG CENTENNIAL ORAL HISTORY PROJECT COLLECTION
INTERVIEWEE: Nancy Fogarty
INTERVIEWER: William Link
DATE: March 27, 1990
WL: I’m at Jackson Library at UNCG [The University of North Carolina at Greensboro] with
Nancy Fogarty. You were a student here, and you started in the fall of 1962?
NF: September of 1962.
WL: Tell me your first impressions. Of course, it wouldn’t have been—you grew up in
Greensboro, didn’t you?
NF: I grew up on Greensboro, but I lived in the dorm, I lived in Hinshaw Dorm, and so the first
impression, I suppose, was actually meeting lots of different people and living with two
other girls in the same dorm—so first impression is sort of being crowded in a room built for
two with two closets.
WL: And you had three in there—
NF: There were three of us—one other North Carolinian from North Wilkesboro, but the other
girl was from the Washington, DC area. She was from Bethesda [Maryland], so we felt that
we should give her one whole closet since she had brought winter clothes and summer
clothes, and the two North Carolinians shared the other closet—so we were crowded and
getting accustomed to each other. It was fun. I was at Hinshaw overlooking the tennis
courts—nice view of the golf course and tennis courts; that was fun. Looking back, it seems
that every year during mid-September when we were unloading cars and moving into
dorms, there was lots of rain. It was just one of those things. Every year in September
there’s lots of rain. I remember taking a lot of things in dorms with rain.
WL: Having to deal with the rain at the same time. What attracted you to the Woman’s College
[of the University of North Carolina]? Why did you want to come here?
NF: I was interested in two areas, in two majors, English and music, and the school was
particularly strong in both of these areas. And I have gone back and looked at the letter of
application, and in it I said I was undecided as to my major—it would be between English
and music. But after I started I decided on English, and that was my major. But the strength
of the program—in addition, I worked during high school at a voice studio, and I continued
to do that while I was in college. Even though I lived on campus, I went to downtown and
accompanied in a voice studio all four years of my experience here.
2
WL: What kind of reputation did Woman’s College have for people who lived in Greensboro and
had a—. Was there—did it have a strong academic reputation?
NF: It had a very strong academic reputation then. And there were not a lot of local people who
attended. I mean, there were local people who attended, but not nearly the high percentage
that we have today because most girls lived on campus. There were very few people who
lived off campus, but you gave a more family environment—most of the students. We had
required assemblies, required meetings, in Aycock [Auditorium], so we all went there. We
saw each other; we sat as a dormitory, so there was a closeness there, and I think that
reputation was established in the community. But there was a very strong academic slant at
that time.
WL: Did it have the feel of a liberal arts college in a way, do you think or—?
NF: Very much so, I think because of the size of the student body at that time, and Woman’s
College, the name itself, and the focus was very much on the arts, on drama, music,
literature, the writing program, authors reading from their works.
WL: Arts that would transcend departments like English and music and drama that would—the
fine arts?
NF: Yes, the fine arts, broadly.
WL: What sorts of rituals did students go through? Because I—in talking to other people who
went to Woman’s College in the 1940s and ’50s and early 1960s, there seems to be an
almost totally different ritual of—or pattern of student life then as compared to now in 1990.
Since you’ve been a witness to the change, I wonder if you could elaborate more about that.
NF: Well, I think—first the fact that we all lived on campus, and there were certain rituals that
went on in dormitories. There were house meetings, I believe, on Monday evenings. I’m not
sure about the—but I believe it was Monday evenings at 10:00 [pm]. Everybody had to be
in, and we went into the parlor, and we could wear a robe on that occasion into the parlors—
forbidden at other times. But we could wear our robes, and we’d have a dormitory
meeting—I do believe it was called house meetings, and we went over little things, and we
sang songs, and there was very much a family kind of atmosphere there. Of course, we had
the housemother too. But it was student-led. Members of the junior class were the house
counselors—two juniors were in the freshman dorm. They formed a relationship—they
were part of our sister class—the freshman and junior classes were sister classes and, of
course, sophomores and seniors—and so there was that connection with the older group, the
upperclassmen. Also, they were—we were their little sisters in essence, and so there was
that protective interest there—someone caring for us.
WL: You had an official connection with a sister class?
NF: Right. Official—I mean it was a formal relationship that the junior class was our sister class,
and they were the dorm counselors—the two people in each of the freshman dorms along
3
with—there was the housemother, but they took leadership roles. And so there was a strong
connection there, and, as I said, when we went to required meetings in Aycock Auditorium,
we were required to sit as a dormitory. Now the freshmen were up in the rafters of Aycock,
and, as you progressed down, you have seniors in the front section. But you sat together, you
walked over together, and so there was a closeness with dormitory life. And, as I said, nearly
all the students lived on campus and lived under those conditions. A lot of student life
activity—I mean there were a lot of student organizations, and the girls were active in these
and took leadership roles, and so there was the opportunity to develop among your peers.
WL: What about the rules of behavior? There was a—there were a lot of rules, weren’t there?
NF: Oh, there were rules. You had to sign out to go anywhere—to go to the library and, of
course, with three girls in a room, it was essential that you had to get out of the room to
study and so—
WL: Any time of day you had to sign out?
NF: No, in the evening hours, I believe after 7:00 [pm]. We needed to sign out, had to be back in
the room, certainly by 10:00 [pm], and on weekends until midnight. While I was here, that
changed to 1:00 [am] for Saturday night only—but you certainly had to sign in and out, put
where you were going and with whom and that type of thing. At the desk—there was a
central entrance, and the date came to pick you up there. You signed out there, came back in
there, cleared your name.
WL: Right. And when you signed in and you signed out, was there someone who would look at
the list? Or was it—was there—?
NF: Well, there was a hostess on duty who saw that you did that sort of—I mean, there was no
rule, but the—fact that she was sitting there—you did it because she was sitting there,
certainly.
WL: Yes. This was the housemother—would this be the housemother?
NF: No, it was never the housemother. It was student—I assume a student paid by student
wages, just as we have students doing various things now.
WL: Yes.
NF: That was just her job, serving as a hostess, which was a pretty plush job because you could
study—
WL: Right.
NF: —while you were doing your job. You [were] greeting people, but there would be large time
periods that you could study.
4
WL: Yes. Were the rules—what happened if the rules were broken? Let’s say, you broke curfew
or—
NF: I really do not remember.
WL: You never broke curfew?
NF: [laughter] I never broke curfew. I really don’t remember. There were various penalties
according to the severity, but I really don’t remember those.
WL: But you would be—the punishment would come from other students?
NF: Or you were restricted to campus and couldn’t go off campus.
WL: Oh yes, yes.
NF: But I don’t remember under what conditions or how severe the infraction had to be before
that was imposed, but then you’d be—you’d have to stay on campus for a week or up to a
month and not have off-campus privileges.
WL: This sounds a lot like an honor system, essentially. Self-governing honor system?
NF: Oh yes, very much an honor system in the classroom and social situations.
WL: In the classroom, did this honor system work? Was it a—from your point of view, was there
this kind of mutually or self-regulatory system that mitigated against—?
NF: Yes, I was involved in a case of honor infraction, and it was not until my—between my
junior and senior years—and it was a 500 level course where we had teachers from the
public schools who were taking some courses either for recertification or for graduate study.
WL: Right.
NF: And that was the first time, the only time, I ever witnessed a violation of the honor policy in
the classroom, and that was cheating on a test, and I testified in that case, but I never saw the
undergraduates violate the honor policy, so I thought it worked very well.
WL: Yeah. What about other aspects of social life—for example, dating—was there—
NF: Well, this was—when I started as a freshman in the fall of ’62, we were still the Woman’s
College and, at that time, girls were bussed from this campus to [University of North
Carolina at] Chapel Hill, and vice versa. There were other weekends when boys were bussed
here. Now, this was not a regular thing but a special event, so that the introductions could be
made. A lot of people—a lot of girls met boys at Chapel Hill and dated in that way, and
that’s how they met them. And a lot of boys at Chapel Hill had cars, and so they came to
Greensboro then, other weekends but there was that effort—they were called “mixers.”
5
WL: Mixers, yes.
NF: People in Greensboro, guys in Greensboro, knew about Woman’s College, and so they were
hanging around. So there were opportunities to date, but, of course, there were not as many
males around as there were females, so there were limited opportunities in that respect.
WL: Did most of your coursework end up being in English and music? A lot of it—did you
essentially have a double major or major in English—sort of a—?
NF: English with a teacher’s certification. I had twenty-one hours of education. I took two
courses in music, as it turned out.
WL: Well, tell me more about the English department? What was it like when you were here?
NF: The English department had a wonderful faculty. I was assigned to [Dr.] Amy Charles
[English professor] as my advisor my freshman year. She remained my advisor all four
years and became a personal friend, which was a very nice aspect of the campus at that time.
You get to know the faculty members; we didn’t have graduate assistants. I never was
taught by a graduate assistant; I was always taught by a full-time faculty member, and Dr.
Charles took a great personal interest in me. She invited all her advisees over to her house
for hot dogs during orientation period and really let us know that she was interested in us.
And we’d go sign up for an appointment with her for advising during registration period,
and she’d always run over because she’d talk with you about everything that was going on
in your life, and she was very good. I actually had her for only one course—two courses. I
had the head of the department who at that time was [Dr.] Joseph Bryant [Jr.] for several
courses, and he was just absolutely wonderful. I understand coming back that he had
problems with female faculty members in terms of promotion and administration, but in the
classroom, he was excellent.
WL: You mean in terms of getting along with people in the department?
NF: Getting along, supporting promotion to full professor the female faculty at that time. I also
had Ruth Hege [English faculty] for four semesters. She didn’t have her doctorate, but she
was a marvelous English teacher—certainly after having someone for four semesters—
survey of English literature—she was fun, and she was here when I came back and joined
the faculty. I had [Dr.] Don[ald] Darnell [English professor] for American—survey of
American literature for two semesters—had him his very first class here at 8:00 [am] on
Tuesday morning—had him Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday mornings, and he gave pop
quizzes on Saturday mornings to make sure that we didn’t skip the Saturday classes.
WL: You were there?
NF: Had that awful aspect of Saturday classes back in those days.
WL: They went Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday?
6
NF: That’s correct—same number of just hour-long classes, regardless of the day.
WL: There were a good number of women faculty in those days?
NF: There were some, but—
WL: Presumably, if one were a woman holding a PhD in the ’30s and ’40s and ’50s, I’ve been
told it was more difficult to get a job in a male college than it would have been a women’s
college?
NF: That’s probably true, but there really—I still had as many, if not more, male faculty
members—
WL: Sure.
NF: —even in English where I assume—May Bush [director of first-year writing program in
English department]—I had her for one semester—and Ruth Hege and Amy Charles and
[Dr.] Jean Buchert [English professor]. At that point, English majors were required to take
what is now referred to as a capsule course—I think we called it a reading course—but it
was required of all English majors. You were given a reading list early as a major, and by
the time you reach your senior year, probably second semester, you were expected to have
read everything on the list, and so it was called a reading course and then you discussed
those works in class, and I had Jean Buchert for that course.
WL: Oh, I see. And everyone read the books in common, but over a period of time—couple of
years?
NF: Yes, over a period of time. At least you should—
WL: Theoretically.
NF: —started by your sophomore year. Some you would cover in classes, depending on which
classes you choose.
WL: Were these sort of “must” books?
NF: Yes, “must” books. The basic literature.
WL: To be—to have a reputable English degree that you?
NF: Yes, to graduate from UNCG, Woman’s College/UNCG, with an English degree, you have
at least covered these works.
WL: Yes. What about the administration? Was the administration—have much visibility? For
example, the chancellors when you were a student? Did—?
7
NF: Oh, the chancellor had very much visibility. Some of the others did not, but certainly the
chancellor did because again of these required assemblies—
WL: Oh yes, of course.
NF: —and mass meetings, and Otis Singletary was the chancellor then and very much a popular
figure. He was handsome. He spoke well. He enjoyed playing golf on the golf course—a
very striking figure—
WL: Tall fellow—
NF: —and so the girls really liked him, and he addressed these required assemblies, again, with
all the students there. There was a common meeting, one of the issues during my period here
was the speaker ban issue—
WL: Oh, yes.
NF: —and so we would have programs on that, and we’d be opposed to the speaker ban.
WL: That was part of the mass meetings?
NF: There were some mass meetings on that and signs in Aycock Auditorium on that. But
Singletary was very popular. He left while I was here—I’m not sure—either in my
sophomore or junior year—to go to Washington [DC], and then [James S.] Jim Ferguson
was acting chancellor, and then he later became chancellor.
WL: So the chancellor you’d see on a regular basis. Other administrators you might not see as
much—?
NF: Yes, other administrators not as much so. Katherine Taylor [Class of 1928, dean of women,
dean of students, dean of student services, director of Elliott Hall] was dean of students at
that point. She had had a career with the military and sort of ran the institution that way. She
was one of those persons—she either liked you or didn’t like you, that type of thing.
WL: Was she fairly authoritarian?
NF: Very. Military style authoritarianism.
WL: Would she seem—did she run Elliott [Hall] pretty much, or was that her—?
NF: Well, yes, Elliott, but all the aspects of students affairs—even when she was called dean of
students and then later on dean of women when the men came aboard. But she had a lot of
authority, really, in the lives of the students.
WL: Coeducation comes officially in 1963. That would have been following your freshman year.
8
NF: Right.
WL: Tell me a little bit about that—what kind of impact that had.
NF: There were a few people immediately, but I guess by my junior year there were several
males because they were transferring from junior colleges in the state. In fact, some of the
guys I had known in high school—not my own high school, but in the other high schools in
the area, and so I did know some of them and they were friends. But it was a very, very
small population.
WL: I guess of the—was it the local joke that instead of dean of men it was dean of man?
NF: [laughter] That’s true. There really weren’t very many—it was mostly the transfer students
that I dealt with because the entering freshmen were behind me, and we had none in my
freshman class.
WL: Did the presence of men change some of the things that you just described? For example,
wouldn’t it be hard to have sister classes if there were men in the classes as well?
NF: Right. And we—well, that really was just—
WL: But you were an all-female class, I guess?
NF: Right. We started as a female class, and so we still ended with a sister class situation,
probably one of the last classes to do that, though.
WL: Yes.
NF: If not the last class to have that.
WL: You would have been officially the last all—last class of Woman’s College?
NF: That’s right. So we really continued that. There was not enough intrusion by males to
change that through ’66.
WL: Did you have any men in—any men in classes—any of these transfer people come in
and—?
NF: Yes—in some of the English classes—yes. Not many, a couple.
WL: Yes. How did that work in a situa—well, given the fact that you’d been used to all single-gender
classes.
NF: Well, I did not find that there was a problem. When I returned in 1970, it seemed to me that
women had—or a lot of the female students—had abdicated their role of leadership to the
9
few males that had come to campus, and I was a bit frustrated by that since all leadership—
females filled all the leadership roles when I was a student. And I was sorry to see that in
four years, ’66 to ’70 when I wasn’t on campus, that seemed to have happened, that
phenomenon occurred.
WL: Yes. I’ve heard other people complain about that, though that’s interesting—what you’re
saying is that there was kind of a time lag or at least it doesn’t—you had to have classes that
were coeducational?
NF: Yes, right, there weren’t enough males in ’66 for that to have happened—for them to
assume leadership roles in student government, for instance. But by the time I returned in
’70, that was happening, so during that four-year period that really occurred.
WL: Yes. Others have said that things like that happened inside classes, that there seems to be a
difference toward the men in classes. I guess it’s striking if you taught classes containing all
women and then maybe ten years later there is a sprinkling of men or a good number of
men, you see women students deferring to men.
NF: Right, right, and that really did occur during the ’65 to ’70 period, I think. The rough part
came or the beginning of that really while I was away.
WL: You graduated in 1966?
NF: That’s right.
WL: Tell me about your commencement. Where was it held?
NF: Well, it was at the [Greensboro] Coliseum.
WL: Coliseum. So they were doing all commencements at the Coliseum?
NF: Yes, the Coliseum. We had activities on the lawn in front of the administration building
[Foust Building]. There were lots of activities there, but the actual commencement was in
the War Memorial Coliseum [Ed. Note: War Memorial Auditorium].
WL: What were the activities—what kind of activities?
NF: Oh, I have forgotten the name—wearing the white dresses and doing something on the
lawn, but I really don’t remember what the thing was called and that was a Saturday
afternoon kind of thing.
WL: I see—before the Sunday?
NF: And before the Sunday morning commencement. Even then, we were having
commencements on Sunday mornings and, of course, it was very hot—we didn’t graduate
until June at that period because it was before the early semester.
10
WL: You went to Chapel Hill from here—is that right?
NF: I taught junior and senior English at Page High School [Greensboro, North Carolina] for two
years before going to graduate school at Chapel Hill in library science, and then I worked in
the humanities reference division in the graduate library at Chapel Hill upon graduation
there.
WL: I see.
NF: And then the director of Jackson Library called and said there was an opening and would I
like to apply here? By that point, I had decided that Greensboro wasn’t such a bad place
after all—[unclear] I had thought—well, as soon as I graduate I would move to a larger city,
perhaps—little more excitement, but after looking around at other places, I decided
Greensboro wasn’t bad after all.
WL: Yes.
NF: And Chapel Hill wasn’t the real world, in the sense of being very much a university
community. Whereas I thought in Greensboro there was the university, but you could—the
university could reach out and be a part of what I call the real world.
WL: Yes. A little bit more diversity. So you came back, and you became a part of the university
in its second incarnation, and you acquired presumably a totally different perspective on
what was now the university—by 1970 as a university going—
NF: And, of course, at that point the university was undergoing change. Faculty governance
came up as an issue in the early ’70s—the structure of committees.
WL: Has that changed substantially?
NF: Well, the instrument of government that went into effect in either ’71 or ’72 actually has not
been changed substantially. That’s, of course, undergoing change right now—the
proposal—but a lot of things that went into effect at that time have not been changed. Some
have been modified, of course, through the years. Three-year service on committees; that
kind of thing, though, was instituted at that point and that has continued through the years. I
guess the first committee I served on was faculty member’s calendar and scheduling, since
the library is a large part of calendar and scheduling.
WL: Right. Tell me about that committee. Is that, was that—?
NF: Well, now that was chaired by the administrator—Hoyt Price the registrar, chaired the
committee, but there were faculty from different areas. For instance, someone from the
library served on it, and I did that for three years—always someone from the sciences with
laboratories to speak up for the rights of labs and the effect of the calendar. We also went
from the traditional semester to what was called the early semester.
11
WL: Oh yes.
NF: Classes began in August, the end of August, and ended before Christmas.
WL: Yes. What was the thinking behind that—the rationale?
NF: Well, I think mostly because other campuses were doing it, and it was the idea of trying to
get in sync and have a calendar that was similar to that at Chapel Hill and [North Carolina]
State [University, Raleigh, North Carolina] and Duke [University, Durham, North Carolina]
and Guilford College [Greensboro, North Carolina] and A&T [North Carolina Agricultural
and Technical University, Greensboro, North Carolina].
WL: And would—that way you’d be out of school earlier, too?
NF: Yes—be out—
WL: Be in the job market, students—
NF: Yes, the students could get summer jobs.
WL: Yes.
NF: We were getting complaints from students that all the jobs were taken by the time they got
out of classes.
WL: Yes. Was it a committee that had many conflicts? It seems like you’d have a number of
rather different perspectives?
NF: There were different perspectives, but not too many conflicts. Actually, what happened—the
registrar would get from the other campuses their anticipated calendars and there was a—
within the consortium, and that was I guess formally at that time two of the five colleges and
universities in Greensboro—try to get their calendars and work out a similar schedule. Now,
other campuses did not have the same requirement that our faculty had instituted—that is
forty-five class sessions of Monday, Wednesday, Friday, that type of thing, so oftentimes we
would have a few more classes than some of the other campuses, but we tried to keep
holidays similar and the break times.
WL: The other committees you served on you mentioned earlier, university budget committee—
we’re jumping ahead a little bit here, I guess, because that committee didn’t come into ex—
NF: The ’80s.
WL: Yes. That’s recent.
NF: And that was one of the changes in faculty government that was created. It took effect in the
12
middle of the year. And we had an election just for the committee, and so the people who
were elected served three and a half years, so that’s longer than anyone else has served on it
because everyone else had been elected to a three year term. And [Dr. William A.] Bill
Powers [III, mathematics professor] was appointed by the academic cabinet as the chair for
that half semester or for the semester of the half year, but then we elected our own chair for
the first full year. And I was elected for that, and then I chaired it the third year—the third
full year I was on the committee also. It was an important time in that we were undergoing
some budget cuts at that point too.
WL: Yes.
NF: So we had 8:00 [am] budget committee meetings with Vice Chancellor [for Business
Affairs] Fred Drake, Vice Chancellor Larry Fincher, who was vice chancellor for
administration and planning and at that point; he was official—he was the chancellor’s
official liaison with the university budget committee. And we were looking at severe cuts on
campus, and we discussed how those could be absorbed. We had a faculty meeting about the
issue—a called faculty meeting at Jarrell Lecture Hall, which is in the library, to discuss the
impact of the budget cuts. The committee also had open forums for faculty to attempt to
educate faculty of the years—two of the three years I was on the committee we had open
faculty forums for educational purposes.
WL: —not necessarily related to cuts?
NF: No. Those were not related to cuts, but just to explain the budget process, the difference in
budgets. Faculty often asked, “Well, how can you have money to do this, and we can’t
afford to do that?” not realizing that North Carolina is restricted a great deal by line-item
budgeting, and that’s another thing that President [of the University of North Carolina
System C.D.] Spangler is attempting to change and make more flexible, but at that time it
was very strict—the difference in continuation budget, the change budget, the capital
budget. You can’t take capital budget and use it for continuation purposes and that kind of
thing.
WL: Yes. Where did the idea of having a budget committee come from?
NF: From the faculty members themselves. At that point, we—the faculty government
committee actually proposed an alternative form of government. [Dr. James] Jim Svara
[Department of Political Science and Public Administration] had chaired that committee,
and then there was a group basically led by Amy Charles, who opposed that group, and it
was the group led by Amy Charles that in essence won. We did not reform at that time, but
in an attempt to incorporate some of the suggestions being made by the faculty government
committee under Jim Svara, Amy Charles’ group created a budget committee—proposed
that as an option to modify the current structure in effect.
WL: So it came as an alternative to more—to greater change?
NF: Greater change, right.
13
WL: Why—what was the basis of the opposition to more significant change?
NF: At that time, it was leading toward of [sic] a—more power to a limited group, and Amy
[Charles] was for leaving the faculty council with full power.
WL: Oh, I see—rather than having a smaller elected group?
NF: Right. And, of course, we are reexamining that right now.
WL: Going towards, a possible—possibly a Senate model?
NF: Right.
WL: Is that what Jim Svara had in mind?
NF: Yes—it’s just the time wasn’t right at that point.
WL: Different time—yes, right. So it came as a faculty-initiated idea, this university budget
committee?
NF: Yes. Right. To give the chancellor advice, and he, I think, wanted that. I don’t think he was
opposed in any way to it.
WL: Right. Yes, and he’s been fully supportive of the whole idea, as had Fred Drake I gather.
NF: Right. Yes, after first one or two years, Fred Drake was then appointed as the chancellor’s
official liaison with the committee rather than Larry Fincher.
WL: Oh, I see. It was Larry Fincher to begin with?
NF: Right.
WL: Tell me how the committee worked. Did it—did its powers or its scope of activities change?
Did it have to define what it was to do?
NF: It had to define what it was to do. The charge was just one or two sentences—I think it was
two sentences long—and it was to advise the chancellor on budgetary matters. That’s fairly
broad, and one of the things that we worked out was to try to decide when to do that in a
timely manner—not after decisions had been made, but before. That also involved meeting
with the vice chancellor for academic affairs because faculty were interested in that portion
of the budget controlled by the VCAA [vice chancellor for academic affairs]. So that in—
caused that vice chancellor to become active also so—Vice Chancellor [for Academic
Affairs Elisabeth A.] Zinser worked in that—originally it was Stanley Jones [vice chancellor
for academic affairs].
14
WL: Right. Did this committee have the effect, do you think, of opening up budget making and
educating people about the budget or changing the budget at all—the way the budget was
formed? What do you think?
NF: I think the impact mostly has been to educate faculty. I think there has been some influence
over decision making, but I think that has been fairly small. It has certainly taught—helped
to educate faculty, though, and I’ve decided after serving on committees for many years,
that that’s the purpose of many of the committees. It’s to help educate faculty in a process
and for those faculty to share their knowledge with others. I think that’s an important role of
the committee structure—and certainly with regard to budget matters. The committee not
only had the forums, but we printed a guide to—sort of, all you ever wanted to know about
the university budget—questions with answers as concise as possible.
WL: Yes.
NF: And that happened as I went off of the committee. We finished in spring, as I completed my
three and a half years, and it was actually published in September when faculty—August or
September, when faculty came back to campus after that.
WL: I see. The budget—I’m sorry—
NF: We met—we did meet regularly. We met at least monthly with the elected members plus the
chancellor’s liaison and then invited guests. We would invite people to share with us, for
instance, information about grants—how decisions were made about grant proposals on this
campus—the funds that were on this campus. And so we’d invite people in to share
information about their particular area that had an impact on the budget or on which the
budget had a great impact.
WL: The budget crisis that you alluded to—I suppose it was in 1982, ’83?
NF: Right.
WL: We’re in the middle of a budget crisis right now. How would you compare? The budget
crisis we’re currently in, at least for now, seems to have had less of an impact, at least in
terms of personnel, than ’82 and ’83. Of course, I’m seeing all this from afar. I’m not
informed at all, and you are, and so—
NF: I think probably the difference is the budget of the university is a lot larger now than it
was—almost twice as large—of state money, which is really all we’re talking about in terms
of money that’s being held back, and so the larger it becomes, the more flexibility there is.
And now line-item budgeting is a little more flexible already than it was during that period.
And even though in real dol—total dollars, the reversion during the current quarter is greater
than that reversion was. There has been more flexibility in where that can come from. Both
times the library budget was hit very hard. The library book budget had to absorb more than
its fair share of the percentage of cut that came to the campus. So in both cases, the library
has suffered severely, and books—people think, “Oh, well, we don’t have to buy the
15
books.” But the books go out of print, you fall behind in your collection development, and
so there is a long-term impact that people don’t often think about.
WL: So it’s equally severe, both of them. Maybe this one is worse is what you’re suggesting?
NF: It is in terms of our book budget. I think the first time in the early ’80— that was the first
time Chancellor [William E.] Moran had dealt with that kind of thing, and he was still
feeling his way through line-item budgeting in North Carolina. I can remember when he was
installed, he made some comment about getting away from line-item budgeting. And I
thought—everybody thought [William] Bill Friday [president of the University of North
Carolina System] would fall off the stage in Aycock Auditorium when he said that. And he
was still feeling his way through and looking for advice, I think, and that’s why he called—
agreed for the budget committee to call a faculty forum. Now I think things are in place. It
has—we’ve had other smaller kinds of things through the years, and I think it’s—while it’s
not expected exactly, we still know a little more how to deal with it. I think the budget
committee has met—I’m no longer a member of that, but we certainly have not had the
large faculty meetings to inform people and to—certainly have not had the large faculty
meetings to inform people and to ask advice.
WL: With your budget experience and considerable knowledge, since you chaired that committee
twice, is it—?
NF: Twice.
WL: Would you say—how would you say UNCG’s funding has been within the state system? Is
it—I have heard from some people that UNCG’s funding is low or too low. I’m wondering
whether you—how would you respond to that? Do you think it—would you agree with that
or disagree with that?
NF: Yes. Back in the late ’60s or early ’70s, I think we had the philosophy that we saved as
much money as we could and reverted some to the state, and we were being good stewards
if we did that, rather than taking everything and investing it and buying equipment. We’ve
done fairly well with faculty salaries in terms of relationship with the other campuses in the
system.
WL: They compare well?
NF: They do compare well, and the faculty/student ratio—because we are a doctoral-granting
institution. But in other than personnel areas and even in support staff areas, we were very
far behind, particularly with scientific equipment, computer equipment—we were just in
terrible shape really—and support staff in offices. Other campuses had sailed on by us in all
of those areas, and so we were in terrible shape. Again, we suffered particularly from that
because you couldn’t transfer—you can’t transfer from salary items, from personnel items
into book funds or clerical support or computers or scientific lab equipment or whatever. So
the administrators really had to negotiate with agencies in Raleigh [North Carolina, state
capital] to have some transfer of funds and to gain additional support in those areas. And
16
those were areas of concern to the original budget committee because we were so woefully
behind in those areas.
WL: How did that happen? Was it a matter of not pressing hard enough for it, do you think?
NF: Yes, with the old concept of, “We’ll be good stewards and turn back any that we just don’t
have to have—we’ll turn that back in.” And while there wasn’t a great deal of that, we
just—there was no push to build those areas. Another area was just maintenance of the
buildings. We were really suffering in those areas.
WL: Yes. You were also on the curriculum committee? Was this earlier?
NF: No, I’ve been off the curriculum committee two years. And during that time we finally
adopted the new liberal education, all-university liberal education requirements. Now that
had gone on four years before. That was at least a six-year, if not longer, exercise in pulling
together a plan, airing it with faculty, revising it completely, sending it back out to faculty,
having faculty forums, and finally bringing it.
WL: So you were on the committee in 1988 when the—when all-university liberal education
requirement was finally adopted by faculty motion—faculty council?
NF: Right, that’s one of the last meetings I attended. I believe that was in April, and we had one
more meeting after that.
WL: The original plan came out of an ad hoc committee—
NF: Right.
WL: —chaired by [William L.] Bill Coleman [professor of anthropology]?
NF: Bill Coleman. Right.
WL: Were you on that committee also?
NF: No, I was not on that committee. He had finished that report, and that was placed in our
hands the year I was elected. He completed it in the spring, and I was elected to begin in the
fall, and so we started with that document.
WL: I see, and you started with it too, lucky you. [laughs] Your term started when it was in your
lap?
NF: Right—when it was submitted, and we met and discussed it and, of course, the curriculum
committee meets monthly. We had extra meetings. We, in fact, had an all-day session on
Friday, I believe maybe perhaps it was Valentine’s Day—but a Friday in February it
snowed—we were in Elliott Center in the Ferguson Room all day working on that
document. So there many called meetings in addition to the monthly meetings, trying to
17
work that out. But there were so many conflicting ideas and so many different groups that
have different requirements that it made it such a difficult job.
WL: What were the nature of the conflicts? From different—conflicts between professional
schools and College of Arts and Sciences—difference of views—?
NF: Mostly the conflict was between schools and the college because we were talking about all-university
liberal education. Basically the schools were very supportive of liberal education.
It was what would count as a liberal education requirement—do these courses have to come
from the college, or can some of those courses be taught in the schools? That was one area.
A second area was the courses that a school could require of its own majors—.
WL: Oh, yes.
NF: —from the college. That is, the School of Nursing requiring certain courses in biology
which would count towards the all-university requirement, but it would be a requirement
made by the School of Nursing. In other words, the issue of electives came up, and, of
course, the new department does not address the issue of electives in terms of guaranteed
number of hours or that kind of thing. But there was—some people had a very strong feeling
that students should have true electives that they could choose, not that their major required
of them, outside the school.
WL: Right.
NF: Different certification programs were involved: education, music, physical education. So the
certification requirements became an issue. There were just so many considerations, and all
the real issues [unclear] to be worked out.
WL: So you did well to come out with a document, I guess?
NF: I felt so, and certainly I was tired of the document by that point. [laughter]
[End Side A—Begin Side B]
WL: The final faculty council motion that was adopted differs—
NF: It was really not surprising. We knew that the college had certain ideas and that they wanted
to push through certain things, so it was really not too surprising. Actually, what was
surprising was that so few people from the schools were present at the meeting.
WL: Turned out for the meeting, whereas there was a fairly large college—
NF: Large constituency from the college.
18
WL: So enough—the turnout was high enough from the college side to pass the amendments?
NF: Right.
WL: Was the curriculum committee—so the committee wasn’t caught by surprise—not entirely?
NF: No, I don’t think so. I certainly wasn’t; certainly expected that. And the chairman of the
curriculum committee was from one of the schools, and I’m sure she was sensitive to the
fact that that was going to happen.
WL: Right. As a person who graduated from—with a liberal arts degree and who is—represents
the library, how did all this strike you? What did you think about the final product or the
process or—?
NF: I feel I can step back from being the liberal arts graduate, really. And so by being in the
library, you are in a position—you are not a member of the individual schools or the college,
and I feel that I can have a more objective view.
WL: Yes.
NF: And I saw the issues on all sides. Having graduated during a period where requirements
were fairly rigid and, as I said, even with that English course where we all had to read a
certain list of books, plays, whatever—that liberal education component is very much a part
of me, so I didn’t object to it. I was just concerned about any strong feelings that might be
aroused between the college and schools or actually vice-versa, antagonism from schools
toward the college. That was my only concern. I’m always supportive of the liberal arts, but
I would like to see peace among the college and schools.
WL: Right.
NF: And it can be between school and school. It’s not always the college and schools because
you can get School of Business and Economics versus School of Music, for instance,
whereas an economist wants more of the liberal arts. And even within that school someone
in management would want different kinds of things, so it’s not always just a conflict
between the college and one of the schools. There are differences among schools or between
departments within a school.
WL: Yes.
NF: But I’m always supportive of liberal arts as long as it can be worked out with the schools to
meet the requirements.
WL: As long as it doesn’t cause—
NF: Endanger problems with certification programs—
19
WL: Yes.
NF: —accreditation programs.
WL: Yes. Let’s go back to when you came back from Chapel Hill in 1970 and talk a little bit
more specifically about the library. What was the library like when you came back in
1970—a lot of growth in the library in the last, what twenty years?
NF: There was the—what is now the brick building of Jackson Library was all that we had in
existence. Well, the neat thing was we had a parking lot behind the library [laughter]. We
could park in that—we didn’t have to walk so far. That’s always an issue on the campus.
WL: You had to give that up?
NF: We had to give that up. The card catalog was adjacent to the reference area. The Reference
Department had half the space it has now, so it was adjacent to the card catalog. And the
catalogers were nearby, so we were a much more close-knit group.
WL: Let’s see, the card catalog—was reference in the same place it is now?
NF: Right—the first half of the reference building, the front half of reference. In the area where
we not have indexes and abstracts, the first few tables there, the card catalog was there. And
just a small area, about the area of the first four tables in the index and abstracts area, that
was the card catalog area, and that alone gives you some indication of the expansion of our
holdings, just the number of cards in the card catalog there. The circulation desk is where
current literature is now, out in the lobby area as you come into the building, and there was a
wonderful bay window in what is now the connecting link into the tower.
WL: Oh, I see—went out the back there, sort of—a little bit.
NF: Yes, where we have the sculpted head now. Within that area there was just a wonderful
window there, and we put current lit books there, people could come in and sit in that bay
area there and read current materials including current documents that had come in. So it
was small, and you could physically see almost all the activity going on. We had more
special collections or the collections that were singled out—for instance, there was a general
reading room on the second floor, which is now the reserve room. There were two reserve
rooms in what is now Special Collections and [Government] Documents. But the general
reading room had classical literature in it, it had popular literature in it; it was sort of a
library within a library.
WL: You just could read things there, or did you—?
NF: No, you could check them out, but it was sort of non-required reading, again because the
kinds of things that a liberally-educated woman should have read and popular things—they
were listed. We also had something called the North Carolina Collection. Books by and
about North Carolinians were isolated and had NC above the call numbers. And the director
20
in his first two or three years here dissolved both of those collections and integrated them
with the regular stack collections. His policy, I think, was to have fewer isolated collections
or fewer different—fewer places that people had to go to find what they needed—just have
one basic stack collection and one special collection area, and so we had worked toward
that. So the big expansion was simply the building of the tower, and it seemed we wouldn’t
fill that up. It was built to last for twenty years, so in ’93 or ’94 we should have a new
building. Well, that isn’t even being discussed, so we know that’s not the case. It will last
until then, but we are certainly making plans now for some renovation to take care of some
of the space problems we’re having in certain areas that have grown very rapidly; others
have not.
WL: Such as what?
NF: Well, serials, for instance, is not a growing collection. New titles come in, but then they are
bound and go out of the Serials Department, so that area is fairly large and has not added
titles. In fact, we have cut some titles. In 1979, we had a serials deletion project where we
asked each department to delete fifteen percent of its titles—fifteen percent in terms of
dollars. Some did; not all. So that area hasn’t grown, whereas Special Collections, which
houses the University Archives, continues to expand every year—they have added linear
feet. The Documents and Microforms expand. Another area that doesn’t expand very much
is reserves because it’s a sort of in-and-out collection—people put things on reserve, take
them off, they go back to the stacks, so those areas don’t need growth space—reference is
another one. Things come in, things go out, so we don’t need a lot of room for expansion in
that area. But the general stacks, of course, need expansion room.
In terms of services, there was no such thing as online database searching when I
became a librarian here in 1970, but we were among the first in the state to provide that
service—even in 1974 and ’75 we accepted requests for online database searching, mainly
in the field of education—and sent them to TUCC [Triangle Universities Computation
Center], which was down in the Research Triangle [Park, North Carolina] area and received
the printouts in the mail. But by 1976, the year I became head of the Reference Department,
we began online searching in the building and were among the first in the state to provide
that service. And that has continued to grow, so online searching is certainly one area. The
second is the addition of the OCLC [Online Computer Library Center] system, which is
cataloging online through a national utility, and that came shortly after we moved into the
tower. And that just was almost a miracle for catalogers because it offered such rich
resources in sharing cataloging information, including that of the Library of Congress
[research library of the United States congress] online. Then shortly after that cataloging
system went up, they added interlibrary loan, whereby we could transmit electronically the
interlibrary loan requests for graduate students and faculty. And, of course, the emphasis on
this campus has grown in the areas of research, and so that service has certainly increased
dramatically.
WL: Has the Interlibrary Loan been connected to Reference?
NF: No. It was in the Circulation Department until 1973, and the library director decided that it
should be moved from Circulation to Reference, mainly because of—at that point—of what
21
was called the verification situation. When faculty submitted titles—sometimes they had
missing information, incorrect information, and so the verification was in fact a reference
function. He and I had a long discussion about it. I said I felt Interlibrary Loan was a
circulation function; he thought it was reference. We discussed it; it became a part of
reference. On the other hand though, I could take that decision and say, “Okay, now that it’s
in reference, I’d like to supervise it,” which is what I said, and so I supervised it for three
years prior to becoming head of the department, and we built a very good service. It still
enjoys an excellent reputation statewide in terms of service. So I don’t—I mean, if the
decision doesn’t go my way, I can still support the decision and work with it.
WL: Right. Yes. So you were able to adapt it to something of your liking that would be
satisfactory?
NF: Right.
WL: I found that the Interlibrary Loan office here is very good—excellent—and is much better
than what I had in graduate school at University of Virginia [Charlottesville, Virginia].
NF: I appreciate that. We’ve had faculty members from Syracuse [University, Syracuse, New
York] and various places say that we do that, and it’s because, I think, of an underlying
service philosophy—
WL: Yes.
NF: —through many years. When I was a student here, the library—still had a very—I mean
even then they had a very service orientation under Charles Adams [library director] and
Libby Holder, who was the head of the Reference Department. She became head while I
was a student. And that has continued through the years, and I see no change in that with
Doris Hulbert as the current director. I think, if anything, service will be stressed even more.
WL: Service, as opposed to what?
NF: Collection building or—my philosophy is you have to build a solid collection on which to
build service, but you can’t just smile at people and be nice to them unless you have a
collection to service the foundation. But we certainly know now that not any library can buy
everything to serve students and faculty. There must be some cooperation, and so we base
the service on that. So we want to get the materials that faculty need, but we look at the
issues in priority order of what will serve the greatest number. And then when you get into
research that only one person is doing, you have to look very carefully at the kinds of things
that we can purchase to support one individual.
WL: One of the other changes, presumably, in the library staff has been increasing
professionalization of the staff. Is that accurate? How might—?
NF: Yes, and certainly after we went on the tenure track in the mid ’70s—’75, ’76 ,there—that
was true. And so faculty have been encouraged to assume roles in professional associations.
22
In librarianship there is great emphasis on setting standards with online systems, in creating
groups to work out the problems that arise from that kind of situation, but setting national
standards, so that we have a firm basis there is important. And we have been encouraged to
participate in those areas.
WL: The—placing library professionals on a tenure track—where did that come from? Where
did that originate? Was that something that came from the director or from—?
NF: No. Throughout the country—
WL: It’s happening everywhere.
NF: —it’s a national issue, and we have one person on our staff now, B. [??] Mitchell, who
recently finished his dissertation, and he worked on attitudes of vice chancellors of academic
affairs throughout the country and their attitudes toward tenure and their positions on tenure.
And surveys are done regularly on percentage, and I think it’s roughly about seventy-some
percent of faculty, library faculty throughout that country, are on tenure track. There are
some variations as to whether they have faculty rank; that is, assistant, associate, full
professor. We actually voted within the library not to do that. There was only one person at
the time who wanted to go with the titles. I think if that were put up to a vote now that might
be different, but when we originally went on tenure track, librarians did not want to have the
title of assistant, associate or full, librarian or professor, whichever.
WL: How are the standards of tenure and promotion—or how do they differ, or do they not
differ?
NF: They do. We have a separate document. In fact, we had a meeting last week, and a copy was
passed out to refresh our memory—those of us who had already gone through that. They are
somewhat different. And again, promotion and tenure have been studied during the past
year; that is, in looking at terms of promotion and tenure within the schools as varying from
school to school, perhaps. [Dr.] Jack Bardon [Excellence Professor of Education] has
chaired a group looking into that, and I think their ideal was to say that the decision should
be made at the local unit—at the school unit, perhaps with some university-wide criteria.
And so ours—we did have—set up our own criteria for promotion and tenure, which is
somewhat different from teaching faculty; that is, the publication element is not quite as
strong. The main reason for that is we have a twelve-month contract, not a nine-month, and
we have a sort of set workweek. We have to be here five days a week, although the library is
open seven, and that our five days are not necessarily Monday through Friday, but that type
of situation has caused—some—a slight variation in promotion and tenure criteria.
WL: You have served—who was the director [of the library] when you first arrived—was it—?
NF: [Dr. James H.] Jim Thompson.
WL: Jim Thompson. So you served under only two?
23
NF: Two. He arrived in July, and I arrived October of ’70.
WL: What—how would you characterize his directorship? He was director during a very crucial
period in the history of the library.
NF: Oh yes, he—the tower, the addition was underway, but he arrived at a time when he could
make some changes in the architect’s plans and then was on board for all of the
construction—closing our nice little parking lot to moving into the tower after completion,
leading us to become a charter member of SOLINET, which is the use of—it’s the
regional—Southeastern Library Network—utility for the national OCLC system, so we’re a
charter member of that group, leading us—supporting us into online searching. I will
characterize him by saying he was not one who wanted to be the first to do something, but
he didn’t want to be the last. He was very much of “Check with Chapel Hill and Duke and
State, and see how they’re doing it.”
WL: I see.
NF: —and trying to remain in that group. He was very much a supporter of faculty participation
in collection development, allocating money directly to the departments for their
expenditures of that money.
WL: Is that unusual?
NF: It’s becoming more unusual. We recently sent out a survey to institutions the size of ours,
and there’s still a great variety. More schools are placing more of the responsibility with the
teaching—are with a library faculty, for a variety of reasons. There are some faculty who
don’t want to do that, and then we have that on this campus, and then we have a wide
variation there. There are some faculty who don’t want the job; they don’t take it seriously.
Other departments want it and do an excellent job, so somebody has to counterbalance the
departments that don’t have an interest and simply don’t do the job very well. So—but he
was very much a supporter of allowing teaching faculty to be the judge of the best materials
and supporting them. He was—he encouraged cooperation among libraries, particularly
Chapel Hill and Duke and State, where their collections could serve our faculty. In terms of
management, he very much let the department and division heads to run their operation. I
always found if I shared with him any changes we made, told him of any anticipated
problems, he was very supportive. A couple of people went off and did their own thing—
didn’t bother to tell him. There were some problems, and he didn’t support them. But I felt
that they had sort of created their own problems. I found him to be very supportive and had
some—a few said parting words at a little party we had for him when he left—and said I
very much appreciated that style of management that allowed the reference librarians to
develop as we wanted with—I mean he kept—he had direction, and he suggested things.
For instance, interlibrary loan—he felt reference should have that, and reference accepted
when he made that decision. But generally, he let the departments run themselves and didn’t
participate in the day-to-day decision making.
WL: Didn’t interfere?
24
NF: Didn’t interfere.
WL: Yes, but at the same time provided a kind of overall leadership.
NF: Yes. He was very much the person to interact with faculty. Administrators, I think, really
liked him because he had a keen understanding of budgetary matters, and he would pick up
the telephone and call General Administration [of the University of North Carolina] or
someone at UNC Chapel Hill if he had questions that couldn’t be answered here or
questions he wanted to take to someone here but needed the clarification first. He would—
had a just wonderful understanding of that relationship in higher education.
WL: How would you say the library here compares to other libraries in the state or region? Do
you think it’s—I mean, my own impression is it’s a fine library.
NF: You are in a liberal arts primarily. Historians think of themselves in a different way than the
social scientists in different areas, but you’re certainly in an area where we have a strong
collection.
WL: Yes.
NF: And since we are almost one hundred years old and began as a sort of liberal arts institution
and for the field of education, providing teachers for the state of North Carolina, we have
been building in those areas for one hundred years. We should be strong, and we are. Some
of the newer areas we are not as strong—for instance, MBA [master of business
administration] programs, master’s in social work, which is on board—even the School of
Nursing was just created about the time I left as a student.
WL: Oh really?
NF: —with [Dr.] Eloise Lewis, Pattie Lewis, being the dean there. So those areas are fairly new.
We haven’t been building for long time. so we’re not quite as solid. Although—for instance
in nursing, we have bought most of the journals, buy the textbooks for those areas. So we
are sort of—we are uneven, based on the depth of the program. Certainly for undergraduate
education, we provide an excellent collection. There is no question about that. We have—
there are some yardsticks that we can use. There is something called Building Library
Collections that we have measures that we can use for any undergraduate school in the
nation should have these basic books. Well, we check those holdings to make sure we do. If
some of them are in engineering, well, we don’t have them, and maybe we don’t want them,
since that’s not an area which we have curriculum. So we have maintained, basically,
though that undergraduate collection very steadily. In doctoral areas, even, we have strong
holdings in education, physical education, music, English—maybe not quite as strong in
fields like psychology, where are so many different areas to support. So there are some areas
that we’re not quite as strong basically for most areas of liberal arts and for undergraduates
and even masters’ programs without adding—
WL: Library support.
25
NF: —library support, particularly in the sciences. And we’re studying the sciences now, but
they will require so much additional support because most of that would be in terms of
journals, and that’s a commitment not for one year but for several years.
WL: Very expensive equipment.
NF: Right. Expensive scientific equipment. Those two things—
[End of Interview]