Oral history interview with Mary Katsikas, 1990 [text/print transcript]

              1
UNCG CENTENNIAL ORAL HISTORY PROJECT COLLECTION
INTERVIEWEE: Mary Katsikas
INTERVIEWER: William Link
DATE: February 16, 1990
WL: I'd like to start just by asking you when you first came to this institution, and what brought
you here, and what sort of early impressions you had when you first arrived on this
campus, if you remember any?
MK: Well, my sister went here. And it was just assumed that I was going to go here too. I didn't
have any ambitions of going anywhere else, so—
WL: Where are you from?
MK: Winston [-Salem, North Carolina]. And my father's idea was that he was going to educate
both of his daughters, and so one of the reasons for moving here was that the university, the
Woman's College, [of the University of North Carolina] was here, and we didn't live far
away. So I was a town student. My sister walked to school. She went here four years, and
then when I came along, ready to go to school, I came here too. So it was just assumed I
would.
WL: You were a town student? Were there a lot of town students?
MK: Yes.
WL: What sort of people were they? Generally girls or women like yourself?
MK: All women. People who—not so much like now, where they've moved away from home
and they were in an apartment. They just lived here with their families, and they were
coming to school here. Yes, and there were a lot of my high school friends here. So a lot of
townspeople that lived here, not students from out of town who had apartments. In those
days that was not the trend.
WL: Right. They actually lived at home?
MK: Yes. Yes.
WL: And—but you came from Winston?
2
MK: No. I was—I lived in Greensboro.
WL: Okay.
MK: Only my first two years of my life were in Winston. So I went to public schools here in
Greensboro.
WL: In Greensboro. So you were able to easily get from your home in Greensboro to—
MK: Yes. By that time we had a car, and I would come to campus on car. That's when you could
find a parking space anywhere, and you didn't have to pay. [laughs]
WL: You could park anywhere on the street?
MK: Anywhere. Anywhere was fine. [still laughing]
WL: Students didn't have cars, generally?
MK: Not as many as they do now. No, we didn't have a parking problem. Most of the students
lived on campus. But we had the Town Students' Association. Elliott Hall had been built.
We had—our mail was delivered to a mailbox in Elliott Hall, which is now the Dogwood
Room. You know they've gotten back to that again, so you know how it goes—and we
would congregate in the town students' lounge. Most everyone played bridge. There was no
television. There was nothing around to entertain us. We had to do most of our own
entertaining. One day a week we had a coffee break. We thought that was a big thing—
doughnuts and coffee. And then we'd go to class. We had student government. That was
active. We had a representative from the Town Students' Association. [bell rings in
background.] So that was—
[recording paused]
WL: We were just talking about town students and some of the activities town students were
involved in. Was there a marked difference between town students and students who lived
on campus? Did the town students sort of do things together and comingle among
themselves?
MK: Yes, but we also—the one thing that we did that they don't do now is we had assembly
every week.
WL: Tell me about that.
MK: We had to go. We went as a group, and we all assembled in Aycock [Auditorium], and
whatever needed to be said or whatever program there was, we were all together as a
school. Yes, we did segregate—the town students and dorm students—and we probably—.
3
Since we went home after class, we didn't take part in a lot of the activities. So we stayed
pretty much among ourselves.
WL: Did you—did the assemblies, were they considered a chore? Were they something you
looked forward to, or were they something that you wanted to get out of the way?
MK: We didn't really think about it. We had to do it. And we had to be there. I remember once I
wanted to get excused. This is how naive we were: I don't know if they took attendance,
but I had asked Dean [Katherine] Taylor [Class of 1928, dean of women, dean of students,
dean of student services, director of Elliott Hall] if I could be excused. I had gone to her
office, and she said "No." [both laugh.] And so I went. I just think we were naive in those
days, and I think it was kind of nice.
WL: Naive in what sense?
MK: Well, I didn't really have to go. I could have just not gone and done what I had to do, but,
no, we had to go, and that's what they were instilling in us. The teachers were like that.
They were strict. It was interesting. Now compared to the teachers we have now, and what
students expect. Students are a lot more sophisticated now, and elect more on their own.
We were still—I mean this was an extenuation of high school. Roll was taken in each of
the classes. We were lectured to. We were responsible for being in class. And in chemistry
we were scared to death of the teachers, especially one, who was a dear lady but we were
just scared to death of her.
WL: Who was that?
MK: [slight snicker] Dr. [Guita] Marble.
WL: There were a lot of teachers like that around campus, though, weren't there? It wasn't just
the chemistry department—
MK: Yes, yes.
WL: —who inspired awe?
MK: Yes, awe and fear. That's what I'm saying. It's sort of a naiveté there that kids don't have
any more. They do, are somewhat scared, but not like we were. And most of them were
women, like I said.
WL: Most?
MK: Most of our—my teachers were women, except for Dr. [Richard] Bardolph [history
professor], who I just adored.
WL: You had Dr. Bardolph for?
4
MK: Yes. I had him for two classes. And one thing I remember: I had missed a class; two of us
had missed a class, and he gave us a lecture in his office. And I've never forgotten that. I
was so impressed with that—that he took the time with his students.
WL: He took an extra hour or so—?
MK: Yes. Yes. To tell us what he'd talked about in class. So that stands out in my mind. Another
teacher that stands out in my mind is Dr. Anne Lewis. This comes to as perfect a teacher as
I’ve ever had. She was a math teacher. At that time math was taught in this building [Petty
Building], but another thing that stands out in my mind, and I'm sorry—I'm rambling sort
of.
WL: That's okay.
MK: Talking about attendance, and attendance was strict here then. You could not miss a class
forty-eight hours before a holiday or forty-eight hours after a holiday.
WL: Oh, I see. They'd check up specifically on that to make sure you weren't extending your
holiday on either end?
MK: Yes. That's right. And we had Saturday classes [snickering]. But anyway, I don't know why
the subject came up, but she gave us a talk on our responsibility to the citizens of North
Carolina—that they were paying half our tuition, so we were responsible to them as much
as we were to ourselves. And that—this is something that just stayed with me, and I don't
think a lot of the students realize that this is true, that taxpayers' money is subsidizing their
tuition.
WL: Yes.
MK: But, anyway, these are the types of things that went on in class. Teachers were also
teaching some form of ethics. Of course, I think most of us were getting that at home
anyway. Like I say, we weren't trying to get away with things.
WL: Right. So teachers conveyed a kind of sense of mission and dedication—
MK: Yes.
WL: —and commitment to teaching?
MK: Yes, besides their own example to it.
WL: Yes. Did you have a lot of contact with teachers, the faculty here and the students? Did—
was there a lot of contact that went, say even outside of classrooms? Did you see them in
settings aside from—?
MK: No. And part of that could be because I was a town student, but no, I think that's changed
5
too. I think the teachers are more accessible probably now, or, let's say, you could—well,
in this department, students can come into a teacher's office and sit and talk or ask
questions more so than we did. But I think we didn't do it because we were—the word fear
or intimidated or scared or—[interrupted by bell]
WL: What was it like going to an all-women's college? Is it something you think was largely a
good atmosphere? Did it provide a good atmosphere for its students? What was the—? It
must have been, it was obviously an entirely different place that it is nowadays—
MK: Yes.
WL: —as a women's college?
MK: The only thing I can—I don't know what it is to go to a coed school. I just know what it is
now, and, of course, I'm somebody looking in, looking back, with coeducation. I think it's
nice, but I'm glad I went to the Woman's College because we were learning to be sort of
independent. We didn't know it. We were in the legislature. We were sort of the center of
attention. The student representatives were women. So I think that was instilled in us, and
we didn't realize it, this independence. Although most of my peers were interested in
getting married—most of them, not all of us. And I think there is a certain (I can't think of
the word.) something that women, the students that went to Woman's College have that is
distinctive than if they had gone to a coed school. And at that time, remember we—this
feminist movement wasn't in place. We were getting it here. We didn't know it. But still the
family, the woman, when she got married, was going be the person at home, but at least she
was educated. Of course, [Charles Duncan] McIver's [first president of the institution]
slogan was "Educated a woman, educated a family," which is I think probably what it was.
WL: Yes.
MK: So I think there's a certain something to say for a women's college. The only thing is the
social life is abysmal. You don't get to meet the guys, and that's—but at that time I don't
think that bothered— if you don't know any better, that's the way it is. And, of course,
[University of North Carolina at] Chapel Hill and [North Carolina] State [University,
Raleigh, North Carolina] were mostly men, and I understand they were calling this "the
factory." [laughs] This is where the women were, and they would come to Greensboro to
date, rather than date women, if they were at Carolina or State.
WL: So there were be droves of men who—
MK: Yes.
WL: —would come over on weekends?
MK: Some of us didn't get into that because we were town students.
WL: Right.
6
MK: We didn't get into that part of the social life, which I think is not very good, but that's the
way it was.
WL: Did the physical layout of the campus look a lot different when you were a student?
MK: No, not really. We didn't have all the buildings we have now. We had Elliott Hall, but we
didn't have the extension to Elliott Hall. But Elliott Hall was new for me. It wasn't here
when my sister was here. McIver Building was torn down, and this thing was built, the new
McIver, what to me is the new McIver Building. Graham [Building] wasn't here. Ferguson
[Building] wasn't here. Curry [Building] was here. And business was in the Forney
Building. And then there was a one-year commercial course for secretaries at the time,
which was excellent. But business was nowhere near what it is now. The shift has really
changed. Our department—the emphasis on physics and science has not changed very
much. What you see is what I had when I was here as an undergraduate. We've just
accumulated—we've gone through two renovations, and we've acquired a little bit more
area in the building. But the emphasis here is not on science. Biology was the second floor.
We were the third floor. Physics was the first floor, as it still is. Psychology was
intermingled—basement and some courses here.
WL: Psychology was here originally?
MK: Yes. And then biology built the building. It took them ten years to get it built, but they're a
lot larger department than we are.
WL: You were—did you major in chemistry?
MK: Yes.
WL: Did you feel as though that what you just suggested was true, that the emphasis wasn't on
science as an undergraduate? Did you get that feeling?
MK: It was more of a service type of—. But we weren't the only ones. I don't even know why I
majored in chemistry. That was the last thing on my mind when I came in to this university,
to be a chemistry major. I wanted to be a math major. But I didn't know what I could do
with math. We didn't have computers in those days. [laughs] We didn't have calculators. I
think it's so funny. I mean, we
WL: Slide rules?
MK: Yes, but we didn't use those. We used logarithms. We spent hours figuring out problems
with logarithms. So because my advisor was a chemistry teacher, I majored in chemistry.
And my first chemistry teacher was wonderful, Miss [Marguerite] Felton. Marvelous
teacher. And then I continued on in chemistry.
WL: When you graduated in chemistry, you were telling me before that you went to work
7
briefly for Vicks [Vick Chemical, founded in Greensboro by Lunsford Richardson]?
MK: Yes.
WL: And then you came back?
MK: Yes.
WL: You graduated in 1962?
MK: Yes.
WL: And then came back in 1963 or late '62?
MK: Let me see how this works. I went to Vicks in September of '62, and then returned here in
the fall of '63. But let me say that our department was well known amongst industry, and
we had lots of people coming from outside to hire from this department for technicians.
Because I remember the year I was a senior, we had people from Smith, Kline and French
[pharmaceutical company], from Monsanto [Chemical Company]. I mean, Union Carbide,
and they wanted to hire people from the department because of the training. We really were
trained strictly.
WL: Good reputation?
MK: Yes. Yes.
WL: Coming back here to work, tell me a little bit more about the department. Who was in the
department? What they were like?
MK: The head of the department was Miss Shaeffer. Florence Shaeffer, the head. Physical
chemistry and analytical chemistry was taught by Dr. Marble. Dr. [Gertrude] Vermillion
was an organic chemist. She was teaching in beginning organic. Miss Felton. Miss Green—
Dr. [Janice] Green. Mostly the undergraduate courses. That's all I can remember.
WL: So there were no men?
MK: No. We did have a—there was a man here before I came, Dr. Martin Roeder. And he took
over the biochemistry. But there must have been some conflict up here, so he moved
downstairs to biology, so biochemistry moved to biology, and we didn't get another
biochemist until about eight years ago—a chemistry biochemist. So, no, there were no men.
In '63, that's why I don't—Dr. [Walter] Puterbaugh and Dr. [Clarence] Vanselow came the
fall of '63. That's why I'm getting confused. I don't really know when I came back. They
came back—they were—oh and—no. They came in after I was here a year. Miss Shaeffer
retired. And Dr. Puterbaugh came as head of the [chemistry] department, and he brought
along Dr. Vanselow. So they were the first two men in the department. And we thought that
was really neat. Of course, we were young and impressionable. We thought it was very
8
nice because they brought a new atmosphere. It was pretty—again, what is the word I
want? All the women teachers had their own little areas, and they didn't intermingle. They
weren't friendly with one another. So it was pretty much, "This is my territory" and "Don't
invade my territory." And then when I came back, Dr. Sherri Forester was here and we
were about the same age, so I had somebody my age, and we were the young ones trying to
cope with the older faculty.
WL: Did—what kind of changes did the arrival of these male faculty have on the department?
Did it change anything? You mentioned—
MK: Yes.
WL: —changes in the atmosphere?
MK: Yes, because they were—first of all they were males, and we hadn't been used to having
males in the department, of course. We were a little bit silly, a whole lot silly probably.
We're not much different now, but just older silly. They brought new ideas. And that's
when the changes started. Before things were done as they were done year after year after
year. There was not—in fact, there was virtually no research being done in the department.
So we were getting good technical training, and good training and it was strict, but it wasn't
up to date. And then they came in and started changing the curriculum a little bit, and
they—little groups were beginning to be invaded by the new groups, so there was some
conflict. But there were changes, definitely changes, and they were for the better, I think.
The atmosphere of the department was a little bit more relaxed. We didn't have the
authoritarian type of thing as we had before.
WL: Then it was less formal, I guess you're suggesting?
MK: Yes, and we were beginning to socialize. I mean, there was more. Sherri and I were
socializing with the families—I mean the Puterbaughs and the Vanselows, and then new
men faculty came in with their young families. So we all really became a very close group.
In fact, it was sort of our—it was the [John F.] Kennedy [35th president of the United
States] era, but it was also our Camelot [refers to Kennedy presidency] period. We did a lot
of things together. The women socialized, the spouses. The—when the other faculty
members came in, Dr. [Henry L.] Anderson, Dr. [Juel] Schroeder, Mrs. Dr. Schroeder [Dr.
Dorothy Schroeder, chemistry], we did a lot of things together. It was just great. It was a
wonderful atmosphere. We bowled together. The guys would go on fishing trips. We'd
make a big thing about that. [whispers] I don't know if I should be telling you all this.
Anyway, and then the wives and women faculty would get together when the guys were
gone and have a social. It was just very nice. It was just wonderful.
WL: So things kind of loosened up?
MK: Yes, really loosened up.
WL: In terms of resources for the department, you're suggesting that this department has never
9
gotten what it needs or—?
MK: No. No. We have—this department produces better probably or as well as any other
department on campus. The students that go through here, with as little instrumentation and
physical facilities—and I think it's a shame because we've got really good faculty now, and
they've sort of been living on a shoestring. But they're able, with their teaching and what
resources we have, to do a good job. Our students do well wherever they go, that go
through this department.
WL: How have the students changed? You've already suggested several ways in which students
are different.
MK: I think they're more sophisticated. They're not afraid of the teachers. They're not afraid of
going to the teacher and asking questions.
WL: Do you see—? What about coeducation? You were here pretty much during the period in
which this institution went from virtually all female to coed.
MK: It's been gradual. The first men coming in were not what you'd call the top-notch students.
They were just accepting men onto the campus. So the women were still ahead of the men
academically, the ones that were coming here. Now I'm talking from our department—
WL: Right.
MK: —coming into chemistry. And remember [unclear; loud phone ring] See that's our phone
system. There are three of us on the party line, so we all pick it up and whoever it's for will
answer. [laughs] The type of thing I'm telling you.
WL: Basic equipment.
MK: That's right. We got rid of the two beer cans and the string a while back when we got the
phone.
WL: Right. You've modernized.
MK: Well, that's another thing. We had one phone. This is funny. We had one phone during my
undergraduate days. It was in the department head's office. We had one toilet facility, and
that was just for faculty. A one-seater [laughs] right next door. And—
WL: What did the students do?
MK: They had to go on the second floor or the first floor. And that changed in '70 with the
renovations.
WL: I've noticed some of the restrooms on campus still have faculty—was that always a
distinction?
10
MK: [laughs] Yes. We have a plaque that says "Women's Faculty." But that meant women's
faculty. It didn't mean faculty, meaning a john. I mean, this was just for the faculty. And
you didn't go there. It didn't have a lock on it. But see, you just knew not to go there. That's
what I'm saying. We were so naive. These were the rules, and we followed them.
WL: Yes.
MK: And the work—again I'm digressing—but one of the—I didn't know what was going on on
campus. We didn't know a lot about the morés. Things were not discussed like they are
now. Kids want to bring in machines now, put in their quarter or whatever. We didn't even
think about things like this. One of the worst things we heard was—and a girl was expelled
for—was bringing alcohol in a steam iron. And she got caught.
WL: She smuggled it in and—
MK: Yes. Which I thought was really inventive. Of course, alcohol in our family—we just—that
was not a problem coming from a Greek family. What's the—why do you make such a big
issue? So—but on campus it was strict. And, of course, there were dorm rules, doors closed
at—men couldn't come in the dorms. They had to be in the parlor. And so this is, there's
been a real turnaround with all—
WL: Did people break the rules very much—
MK: I don't know.
WL: —and try to get away with it? You weren't a part of that scene.
MK: But I would generally say no because the ramifications were tough. They could be
inventive, but when they got caught they were expelled. There was no second chance. And
women had control of—older women had control of the dorms as housemothers.
WL: Oh, I see. And they ruled the dorms?
MK: [laughing] Can you understand what I mean?
WL: Right. No, I can.
MK: This is—you're really hearing history, but it's recent history. It's not so far back.
WL: Right.
MK: We were pretty Victorian [refers to British reign of Queen Victoria, 1837-1901], yes.
WL: You were on campus when the Sit-ins took place here [at Woolworth] in Greensboro,
weren't you? Do you know anything about the Woman's College's role in that?
11
MK: I am so sad to say when I'm thinking about this that no, we did not have a big part in that.
We were very conservative.
WL: Under these rules?
MK: Well, no, I just think the mentality of it was that we would—there were no big displays
or—what is it?—backing these people. They were very courageous. They really were. And
we were just sort of sitting back and watching this, and I think that has been the tone of this
campus up until recently. We're very conservative. We don't—even the feminist movement
was not a big deal. Even during the sixties when campuses were rioting, that was not
happening here especially in our department. These kids were working too hard. They
didn't really know what was going on outside.
WL: They were passive?
MK: I'm sorry to say. Yes.
WL: Passive. And that was true in 1960, then?
MK: Oh, yes.
WL: There were, of course, students here that went to participate briefly from WC [Woman’s
College]? Did—?
MK: I don't know anything about that. I may have at the time. I'm just sorry we didn't because
we had this other mentality. And I—sometimes I really get emotional about it. I get upset
when I think what we were saying because we had a restaurant, and blacks would—well, I
like the word "Afro-Americans" better than black.
WL: Your family had a restaurant?
MK: Yes, and they would have to eat in the kitchen, and that upsets me now.
WL: Did you notice it then?
MK: No. No, it's something you accepted. You didn't even think about it—human rights. We
were getting along fine. We lived in this little Pollyanna [optimistic outlook, from book of
same name] world like the fifties and sixties—well, no, the sixties was when it all started.
Somebody started jogging our conscience.
WL: Did the arrival—? To get back to talking about coeducation, did the arrival of men change
the atmosphere, change the chemistry of the student population? What I hear often is when
men arrive at all-women campuses that women tend to retreat and not be as involved and
tend to defer to men. Did you see any of that? Was that typical of what you saw? Did it
have that kind of negative effect?
12
MK: Not at the beginning. I think it has though. That's—again, I'm not in—. I don't know the
student activities—we're pretty much isolated here—but I think that has happened because
student government has not been headed by a woman. It may now. I'm not sure, but I think
gradually that did happen. Yes, I think it lost its identity as a women's college. We were
very proud. We had our class jackets. We had rings. That all changed.
WL: You had class jackets in the sense that each class had a distinctive jacket they wore?
MK: Yes, and we had sister classes. My sister and I are sister classes. We had blue jackets. See,
that was a sense of pride. In other words, I think every fifth year [Editor’s note: the color of
the class jackets repeated every four years] the color would recycle.
WL: I see.
MK: So you had your jacket. You were blue; you know '61 was navy blue. I've forgotten what
the next year was.
WL: Does that mean that you would associate with each other then?
MK: Well, there was a bond. See, we had the bond. Woman's College, first of all, was our bond.
We'd see the ring, which was distinctive. I don't know of any other university that I've ever
seen that had this kind of ring, so when we saw the ring we knew it was a WC girl. And
there was a bond there immediately, even if you never knew the person.
WL: Is that the ring there?
MK: Yes. And you can see the wear on it. I've really worn it since I bought it in fifty—. You got
it as a junior. This was my goal to get—go through school a junior and get my college ring
and have my jacket. So we did lots of things that were not sophisticated. Freshmen had
their little beanies, and the class jackets were really a big thing. And when it—I call it
“integrated”— with the guys, the identity was lost. I mean we were no longer this women's
college, but now we were part of a university system, but we were low. We were at the
bottom still.
WL: What do you think has been, aside from coeducation, the biggest change in the last twenty-five
years, thirty years?
MK: The last ten years with [Chancellor William] Moran.
WL: How has that changed? What have been the changes that have come?
MK: Well, the changes I see are, of course, the faculty are now pressured to publish to get
tenure, and I think some of that is lost in the teaching. Because, like in this department, if
you don't have the graduate students to help you, and you don't have the money coming in,
it is sort of a Catch 22 [novel by Joseph Heller, a critique of bureaucratic operation and
reason]. Where is the publishing? You work hard, but if the paper is not published even if it
13
is not your fault, you are blacklisted for that. And I think the emphasis, because of that, has
gone away from teaching into research—the emphasis has. Not to say that I feel like it is
wrong because you need that new infusion of blood and grant money coming in. But the
fact that we want to go with Carolina and State by going athletic—this is going to make us
somehow a better university. And doing things that are trying to compete where we can't
compete because we don't have the resources, and putting emphasis on the veneer of the
university, rather than really looking into what this university is as a liberal arts college and
as a teaching college or university, or whatever you want to call it. We are—we're not a
campus school. A lot of the students are town students, and most of them are serious.
They're here because they want to learn. They're older students. And I don't think that the
administration is really looking, emphasizing that. They want to compete with Carolina and
State, and that can't be done because the finances aren't here.
WL: If you were to lead or direct the transition from a coeducational place like WC was when
you were here to a university or to something else that was coeducational, how would you
do it differently? What do you think the mistakes that have been made over the years are?
MK: I think I would emphasize what was good about WC—the personal attention, which I think
there still is to a certain extent. Emphasize research, but I would also keep it as a teaching
school. You're teaching students not only—like whatever they want in history, but giving
them some kind of background as to what they're going to do when they go on to graduate
school or whatever they're going to do. Just keep it at—keep the emphasis on
undergraduate study. Since going to higher degrees means more money, which isn't always
there. But I would continue on with the tradition. I don't see anything wrong with it. What's
the difference in having all women and all men. I mean, we're all equal. Maybe women a
little bit more. [both laugh.] See, that's the feminist in me. But keeping it as a strong
undergraduate university. I don't see anything wrong with that.
WL: So a lot of the change has been this move to graduate programs—
MK: Which is—there's nothing wrong in that either, but I just think that that's the way to go
because that's where the resources—that's where you have money. You can't go big time
unless you have big money, and you cannot compete with Carolina. There is no way that
this university can compete with Carolina or State. But we are a good undergraduate—we
can compete with them undergraduate-wise because our students are proving that. When
they get out of this department, they're going places and they've got a good reputation. But
that's only from here. I'm looking—first of all, I'm not a professor. I don't know what's
going on in the administration. I'm just saying what I see from here. You asked me. I didn't
really—I'm probably not qualified to say other than that.
[End of Interview]