CJ: This is Cheryl Junk and I'm in the office of Dr. Jim Lancaster. It'sThursday January 24th, 1991. Dr. Lancaster, let's begin by your telling me, for information's sake, the years that you were at UNCG [The University of North Carolina at Greensboro] and what degrees you were working on at the time.
JL: I think I've been here all my life, actually. [laughs] I came in 1968. Igraduated from high school in 1968, came here as a freshman and got an undergraduate degree in history in 1972, with a focus on Asian studies, as much as that was possible. And then enrolled for the master's program in American history and finished that in '74 after a leisurely two years. And then went to work here and sort of dodged back and forth about what I was going to do career wise. And decided in 1979 I was going to stay in education, and I needed to get a terminal degree to do that. So I enrolled in the School of Education and got 1:00an EdD, doctoral degree in educational administration, and have continued here ever since.
CJ: Okay, thank you. Your position now is the--?
JL: Assistant vice chancellor for student affairs
CJ: Okay. When you first came to campus, describe the atmosphere of the placefor me. How did it feel?
JL: I came from a very small high school, so it felt large, as any collegewould have. But it was still predominantly a women's campus. I was a commuting student, and it was fairly clear that there was a large gulf between commuters and residential students. So being a male, which was a minority, and being a commuter, which was becoming a majority but was still kind of an outcast 2:00majority, it was kind of an interesting place [unclear]. And it continued that way for most of my undergraduate career. One had the impression of lots and lots of female presence. And that manifested itself especially in the classroom. I was always at first surprised and later reflective on the fact that there were a great number of very competent women in my classes who were very challenging. And I was in an unusual role, given what I had experienced in high school, and I expect what most males experienced in high school. So all the transition plus that kind of different environment made for a rather unusual four-year college experience.
CJ: Were there any other unexpected [sic] that you can remember?
JL: I'm not sure what I expected as an undergraduate in college. Since I livedat home, that had the effect of buffering a lot of things. But I think I was surprised even at that point by the amount of freedom that students here seemed 3:00to have and the amount of internal and external political activity and involvement they seemed to have. And that went on for most of the three or four years that I--I would say for the three or four years that I was here. I think that was sort of tapering off a little bit as I got into my senior year and graduated. And I don't know if that was convergent with the change in the population of the campus at that time or not.
CJ: How did the population change at that time?
JL: Effectively, the four years I was here it was becoming less and less of awomen's college. I think when I came here in '68 it was essentially, for all intents and purposes, still a women's college with male students. The first year I was here was the first year, I think, that the first male residence hall, Phillips, had been open. So there hadn't been a great residential population. A lot of the traditions that had been essentially those of a feminine campus were still in effect. By the time I graduated, most of those had tapered off. The 4:00population was shifting; there were more men coming. And so it was in sort of an uncertain transitional stage.
CJ: Can you tell me more about specific traditions that still survived when you came?
JL: Yeah. I can tell you real specifically about one. [laughs]
JL: Freshmen were supposed to go through something called Rat Day, apparently.
CJ: Yes, yes.
JL: And Rat Day was traditionally the last day of being an underclass--anunderclass person. And during that day, you were to do the bidding of those in your sister class. And there were sister classes at that point.
CJ: Was it still sophomore-senior, freshmen-junior?
JL: Yeah, theoretically it was supposed to be. And, of course, that had brokendown a bit in terms of our being commuting students and therefore not at the beck and call of the seniors or the juniors. But there were still things going on. My car got completely painted over with the class color of our sister class, and-- 5:00
CJ: What was the color?
JL: I think it was red. And I remember taking the car through the car washwhen I left campus to get it cleaned off. And it was an Opel Kadett. The distributor cap got wet. It died at the car wash, so I took off the distributor cap, dried it out, put it back on, but I didn't get it on tight. Drove the car home, tore up the distributor cap, had to have the car towed. It was a marvelous initiation. That was still surviving, Rat Day. Jacket Day, when the classes received their jackets. The ring dance was still in effect when the junior class,--the junior class, which was the only class at that point that got its rings.
CJ: Let me interrupt just a second and ask you what time of year both thosethings happened, because nobody has said that yet.
JL: Oh, okay. Rat Day happened in the fall.
JL: And you never knew when that was going to be.
CJ: Oh, it was a surprise?
CJ: I thought--oh.
JL: And apparently if you lived in a residence hall, it was a great deal moreof a surprise than it was for anybody who was commuting.
CJ: Oh, I see. All right. What about Jacket Day and Ring Day?
JL: Jacket Day, I think, came in the fall, and shortly after that, then Rat Daycame. I think there was a sequence there. I'm not--I'm not entirely clear on that. I think the ring dance was in the late winter or maybe early spring. I don't remember going to the ring dance, because, obviously, I was too young to have a ring, and by the time I got a ring that had pretty much gone, gone away.
CJ: When did you get the ring? What year?
JL: When I was in school, you were still getting your rings in your junioryear--ordering them end of your junior, getting them subsequently after that. So basically, seniors had rings. Juniors had just got them, and seniors had them for most of the year they were here. Let's see, I can't--the Daisy Chain was gone--
CJ: I was going to ask about the Daisy Chain.
JL: --by that point. But the daisy was still the class--the university flower.And there was still a fair amount of discussion about--when you ordered your class blazer, which I did--I must have been one of the last living souls to get a class blazer--but there was a daisy on the pocket, which made men feel a little strange.
CJ: Do you still have it?
JL: Well, no. The blazer came with an extra pocket, and at some point I tookthe pocket off, and I don't know what happened to it. And I wish I had kept it, but I had no good sense of traditions at that point, I guess. I can't think of any other major traditions of that sort that were going on when I got here. Class organizations were sort of enfeebled by the time I got here. And myself and some other barbarians did away with those while we were here.
CJ: In what capacity?
JL: In our student government legislative wisdom we decided that we ought toput the suffering beast out of its misery. And that probably was not a good action, in retrospect.
CJ: What was the reaction at the time?
JL: It was pretty weak. There weren't that many people that were interested init, and it had become sort of something you were going through the routine of. The fact that the campus was changing, and no one had made a clear decision or given any clear direction to what ought to be happening to the traditions and the culture of the place meant that a lot of the things like class organizations 6:00didn't hold up very well because that was essentially a residential organization of the Woman's College [of the University of North Carolina]. And no one had done very much to broaden that end to engender all of the commuters and the males and the sort of divergent people that we had. So that was sort of weakening and dying. And I can't think of any other major traditions that were in effect that--
CJ: Was Class Day in effect? Did they still have Class Day at commencement?
JL: Class Day was possibly in effect the last--the first year I was here. Itcertainly wasn't in effect by the time I graduated.
CJ: And what about the literary societies? Had they gone by the board by then?
JL: Yeah, they were long gone by then. Coraddi had been well established. Infact, the literary societies, I don't--I'm not certain they even survived into the fifties, but I'd have to check that.
CJ: I think '53 was the last year it was mentioned in the handbooks.
JL: Yeah, yeah. The Coraddi had been pretty well established and adopted thenames of those societies, and no one really--the people in my cohort of students coming through didn't know anything about any of that, didn't have a clue.
CJ: So by that time even, ten years, eleven years after--?
JL: Yeah. The institutional memory of that was gone as far as students were concerned.
CJ: Okay. What was the dynamic of student government between the men and thewomen over the whole course of the time you were here, and did it change?
JL: Yeah, I think it did. When I came as a freshman, there was a womanpresident of SG [Student Government Association] who seemed to me to be very formidable. And these people all, in retrospect, seem to be much older than the people who are here now. [laughs] There was--the vice president was a woman.
CJ: The president was a woman. The vice president was a woman.
JL: The Carolinian editor was a male. The head of judicial--there was a men'scourt and a woman's court and then an overall court. There were two women and 7:00then the one male for man's court--men's court. The Coraddi editor was a woman. The Pine Needles editor was a woman. Virtually all the major leadership positions were dominated by women. The legislative assembly was the only place that I perceived that men were very visible. And they tended to be the commuters more than anyone else because that's where their leadership was. That sort of shifted over the four years. In my junior year, there was a male president, the first male president was elected. And--
CJ: That would have been--excuse me--that would have been 1967, correct?
JL: No, '71.
CJ: Excuse me. I still have you [unclear]. Sorry.
JL: Lindsay Lamson was the first--
CJ: Lindsay Lamson?
JL: Yeah, that was his name.
CJ: All right.
JL: And then subsequently, the next year there was a woman president, and itsort of went back and forth after that. But I think men were becoming more dominant in terms of the political life of the campus. Women tended to dominate 8:00the publications pretty consistently while I was in school. The legislative assembly, what was then called the legislation [unclear] of the senate, I think became more male dominated. And I had the distinct sense by the time that I was a senior that women were deliberately--well, deliberately is the wrong term. I don't think women were nearly as assertive. And I don't know if that was because we were getting a different population of women at that point--the kind of leadership-driven women who might have been attracted to a predominantly women's college were going somewhere else, or if men really had had a substantial impact, or exactly what. But it seems to me there was less and less visible women's leadership. But there were a lot of very capable women that I remember who weren't involved actively in student government.
CJ: Did the demographics for women change? In other words, were there morecommuter students, more older students?
JL: Well, increasingly there were commuter students, more commuter students.And the population at that point, as I recall, wasn't as diverse as it is today 9:00in terms of age and part time. But there were more part-time students in there. There were some [military] veterans in there. It seemed to me that in student government there were a number of older students who really were sort of--
CJ: [unclear--both talking at once]
JL: Mostly men, and mostly just dilettante men. They really hadn't found theirway, and so they were spending a lot of time spinning their wheels. That's my recollection of them.
CJ: Well, that leads me to another tack that I wanted to take, and that was thepurpose for going to college. Can you compare your freshman year and the women and men you knew and then your senior year and the men and women you knew--what was their sense of mission of why they came to school, and did one group have more sense of mission than the other? Compare those groups for me.
JL: The population in my freshman year, the mainstream population, seemed to meto be a typical--what I would think is the typical--traditional college-bound group. Most of them were here for a four-year liberal arts education, and a lot 10:00of them were either going on to graduate school or into some professional area or something. But their tack was--they came in as freshmen, four years later they were banging out and they were doing whatever they were going to be doing. There was less of a traditional sense among commuting students. Already there were part-time students there and people who perhaps had been veterans coming in a little late who didn't quite fit into the traditional mold. And I think by the time that I was a senior that was much more distinct, and it was even becoming acceptable that people didn't necessarily finish in four years. There was a lot of stopping out and back and forth. So I think that was shifting subtly over the time that I was here. I can't give any particular indicator of who was responsible or anything.
CJ: Did people come to college for a specific professional goal, most of thepeople you know? Or did they come just to get the degree, or what was their reason?
JL: I think as a freshman, a lot of people were here to get the degree. That'swhat you did-- you came in, and you went to college. And that was my sense of the older students that were here around me--that they were all here for four years. And a lot of them didn't have a clue where they were going after the four years, necessarily, but it was presumed they would either go to graduate school or get a job. It was sort of like that was the next logical step. I think by the time I graduated, with Vietnam and the protests and whatnot that were going on in the late sixties and early seventies, there was a great deal more acceptance of sort of counter-traditional goals that--a lot of people were in college because, one, they wanted to get away from the draft; two, it was sort of an active place where you could shed your former persona, whatever you'd been for your parents and sort of experiment. And it was sort of an experimental stage you went through. I think a lot of people were not nearly as goal driven by the time I was a senior as the perception I had when I was a freshman. But there were still a number of traditional people that were coming right through and had 11:00plans to go to law school or medical school or graduate school or something of that sort. And it very much sort of broke into, I think, two camps--the folks who were still in that traditional track and then folks that were really kind of in and out and back and forth and uncertain about where they were going.
CJ: All right. Do you know enough to say about the vocational aims of most ofthe women in your freshman year?
JL: The people that I was involved with were, by and large, the people thatwere actively involved in student organizations or student life. Since I wasn't in a residence hall, that was my main group. Most of those people, if I went down the list, I could name a lot of their destinations even now--med school, a number of them were going to med school, the women, several that stand out. A couple were going into the journalistic profession, newspaper reporting, predominantly, but TV or radio. A couple were going on to graduate school, very bright people in history that were going on to do graduate work and had definite 12:00plans and scholarships and this sort of thing. Of the commuting students, there were less of them that seemed to have that kind of direction in their goals. A lot of them seemed to be saying, "Well, I'm going to get a job. I don't quite know what I'll be doing, but I'm going to get a job." And that's what they were doing the whole time. So my sense was that the undergraduate residential women that I knew were pretty much goal directed and were going on into either careers or, in a couple of cases, there was the traditional, "I'm going to--I've got my engagement ring. I'm going to get married." But I had a sense a lot of them were going on to interim steps. That [marriage] might be down the road and they might indicate that's where they were headed, but a lot of them were headed to graduate school or a profession or something. And a number of them made it.
CJ: Career oriented, then, very?
JL: Yeah. I think so--again, of the residential students. Now the commutingstudents were very different.
CJ: Do you have a sense of the commuting student, women?
JL: Yeah. I can recall a couple of them who went into graduate work. Most ofthem, though, that I have since kept up with either were married fairly soon after they left undergraduate school or immediately went into the job force working in one place or another. Some of them stayed in school, stayed out of school, came back to school. You know, that's too generalized an indictment. But I had a good sense that those people, again, were more focused on immediate kinds of returns on their education. That the four years had been a nice period--or the five years or whatever the period--and they had gone through that ritual. But now it was time to get on with life. And the other folks, I think, were on the more traditional track of, "There's a lot more here we want to explore and do." Even people going into professions were probably going into a post-graduate, a post-undergraduate program or some sort of training program or apprenticeship or something of that sort. So I think there really was a difference.
CJ: Was that difference consistent from 1968 to 1972?
JL: I'd say after my first year or so, it seemed to me to be more consistent.Maybe that's just because I was more familiar with the people here. But I think increasingly, if you drew a graph from '68 to '72, the commuting students were probably people that were much more stopping out. And that probably did increase as they went along, yeah.
CJ: The motto of the school was "service."
JL: It's in the Alma Mater.
CJ: Yes, it is. How present, both visibly and invisibly, was that motto on thecampus when you were here?
JL: The motto, in terms of the word "service," and the recognition that thatwas, in fact, the motto, I think, was just--probably when I came here as a freshman there were at least two undergraduate classes in front of me that had 13:00known that clearly. As soon as they started graduating, it went downhill. As soon as class organizations started falling by the wayside, that went downhill. There was nothing to bring that to the fore. By the time I was a senior, the number of undergraduate students who knew the Alma Mater--knew that we had one, number one, and knew the tune, number two, and number three, knew the words--were just about nonexistent. I had the unusual experience of having gotten involved with the Alumnae Association as an undergraduate, going out on chapter tours and whatnot. I was sort of a resident male that was acceptable to show people, I guess. And so I was a lot more fully exposed to those things than most of my compatriots were. But I have a distinct impression that after my junior year, certainly, the number of people that knew very much about that was just nil.
CJ: Tell me about these tours. What were they?
JL: They were chapter meetings. You know, we--
CJ: Chapters of what? I'm sorry.
JL: This was the UNCG alumnae chapters, were scattered hither, thither and yon.And Brenda Meadows at that point, now Meadows-Cooper, was the assistant director whose job it was to stay in touch with chapters. And one of the things that she did was to try to take the university on the road to the chapters. And so she would take a group of students out to meet with the chapter to talk about what the university is and what's going on today and whatnot. People were very interested in that. And she began to decide that she needed to take some men out because we were an impact here, and some of the traditional alumnae weren't real pleased with that. And so she picked several of us that were fairly presentable, apparently, by my standards, and we sort of went out on tours fairly regularly with her. And these would be one afternoon or one evening tours or whatever. You'd go out and have dinner with a group of folks and meet some prospective students and talk with alumnae about the place. And it was very enlightening. Number one, I got a real sensitivity to the alumnae and what their concerns were that was very interesting to me and saw some places in the state that I didn't know existed, where there were alumnae chapters. But I got a real sense of the loyalty and traditions that had been here that were sort of getting washed out. And I think by the time I was a senior I was sort of wondering why we, institutionally, hadn't done a little more to preserve the best of the old traditions or modified them, and not, as they say, throw out the baby and the bathwater together.
CJ: So you feel that some degree of throwing the baby out with the bathwater happened?
JL: Oh yeah. I think, historically now, when I've talked to alumnae and peoplewho were in administration then who are now long gone--I think most people thought this was going to be a coeducational institution in name only, that essentially it would be unchanged. It would be a four-year liberal arts 14:00institution with graduate responsibilities but predominated by women. I don't think there was any clear conviction in the minds of the people here that this would become a truly coeducational campus. And, therefore, no one made a great deal of to do about planning for that eventuality--about dealing with the kinds of cultural stresses and organizational stresses that that might impose. I just don't think anyone considered that. And so, as it happened, a great deal of attention began to be focused on, "Well, gee, there are more and more men coming here, and they are less and less pleased with the place. And it still feels like a women's college to them. And how do we attract men who are competitive and, you know, keep the place coeducationally productive and whatnot?" And so I think they began to toss out things like the Daisy Chain and the sister class concept, those sorts of things that seemed to be sort of alien to a "rah, rah," 15:00coeducational campus. The ring is a good example. When I got my doctoral degree, I got a second university ring. My original ring looked like any other college ring except I did condescend to have a black onyx put in it, which was the traditional stone. Well, the women's ring here is very, very distinctive, unusual. Anywhere you go in the country, when you see someone wearing that ring from fifty feet away you know that's a UNCG or a Woman's College ring. Well, that had never struck me as an undergraduate. [laughs] But as I graduated and then moved along and whatnot, it became increasingly apparent to me that the men's ring here meant nothing. I mean, it was a piece of jewelry because none of them had any consistency to them. You could buy a men's ring that had a gold stone or a green stone or a brown stone or it could be all metal. It could be silver, it could be gold--whatever you wanted it to be. And the women's ring remained pretty much traditional, although there were some variants you could get. Well, we finally got reestablished somewhere in my tenure here that we 16:00would have a traditional ring again for men. It's not required, but it is available. What we should have done originally--it would have been a major asset in the development of the culture of the place--was to say, "This is the women's ring. Fine. Here is the men's ring that we can design to look like the women's ring, but heavier and more masculine. It's very distinctive, and this is not a question of whether or not you want--you would choose this piece of jewelry. It's a question of if you want a ring that represents this institution, this is what that ring looks like. You may not like it as jewelry, but if you wish to be representative of the institution, this is what you'll have." We didn't do that. And so in trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater--trying to make sure that men felt comfortable with a university ring that was much more macho and very heavy looking--we missed a real opportunity that now we're having to work very hard to try to establish. And that's just one of a number of examples of 17:00how we did that sort of thing.
CJ: One thing I'm trying to get a handle on, as I look at the orientation ofthe students at Woman's College and then at UCNG from the thirties through the sixties, is how their identification changed. And it was very clear in the thirties and forties that their primary identification was with class and with service as the goal. That was very strong. I'm hearing you say that both of those things had faded out quite a bit by the time you were here. What was the students' primary identification, if not those things, and what held the campus student body together as a body, if anything?
JL: Well, I think it was even then a very segmented population. I think itbroke down between commuters and residential students, largely. The residential students--until the Class of '71 graduated, the class ahead of me 18:00graduated,--there was still some enduring sense of class. They had gone through all the class traditions and had jackets and the ring ceremony and everything else. They had--they probably did the last junior show that was done on campus. So there was some mixing of that. And I think the identity with service and with the institution and with class was still being struggled for here. When they went, the last vestiges of it went. And I think everyone behind them thought, "We would never go. We would never go. Won't you just leave us alone?"--not recognizing what we were doing, I mean, really.
CJ: You felt pestered by it?
JL: I think sort of pestered, put down, you know. I think a lot of the malestudents felt that, you know, this was just more of this old Woman's College stuff and please just leave us alone and let us be [The University of North] Carolina [at Chapel Hill] at Greensboro, you know. That's--or North Carolina 19:00State [University] at Greensboro. We want to be a real college, not having a clue at that time.
CJ: So your orientation was with the [Consolidated University of North]Carolina system?
JL: I think--no--I think our orientation was with each other. I think commutersthought, you know, that was the most important thing. We were commuter students at UNCG, and we sort of clung to that. I remember going to parties that were all commuters. I think residential students still maintained their identity pretty much as the residential part of the campus and, until '71, with class and whatnot. But after that--I think from '71 on--there was a real drifting for about five or six years. I call that--my class and the classes that followed us for a few years, we were "the lost generation." [laughs] I think those will be classes that we will never fully recover here because they weren't really attached to anything. The ones who were attached-- the ones that I see coming back--we see each other at funerals of professors that we all shared. We see each other rarely at university functions that might be departmentally based--that they were very attached to their department and therefore they kept 20:00up with one or two professors or had a couple of colleagues that had developed. But I didn't get a strong sense that we were attached to much of anything. The student government people were sort of attached to each other. They were in the radio station. They were attached to the newspaper. But it was very much fragmented down into very, very small organizations. There was no overall sense of commitment to the institution or to any large segment of the institution.
CJ: Can you evaluate the campus now on that same criterion?
JL: Yeah. I think in the last few years we have finally begun to make some realprogress on that. There is more of a sense of a university, and what that means is that you don't have an identity with the entire institution, it's too large. But the departmental identity is much, much stronger, especially in the 21:00professional schools like HES [Human Environmental Sciences] and business [Bryan School of Business and Economics] where there's a real, a real effort to deal with the student as a consumer and as a member of a profession. [School of] Nursing is the same way. So there's that very strong identity. I think the students in the general student life are having a stronger sense of identity. I think the average Joe or Josephine student out in the residence halls or commuting in, who may not get involved in anything at all, is starting to develop some sense of identity with the fact that there is a soccer team that wins nationally. You know, it's something you can talk about to your friends and not be embarrassed by. When I was an undergraduate student, the basketball teams--the women were far better than the men, by leaps and bounds. Some years they, they still are.
CJ: [laughs] No pun intended!
JL: Right, leaps and bounds. I think that that is a part of it. I think there'smore of a sense that the institution itself is growing and enlarging and that, by itself, is worth something of an institutional identity. But people are 22:00identifying with larger components within the institution. I think that the divergence between commuters and resident students is still there, very clearly, but it's there in a different way. Commuter students, of course, are overpoweringly the majority of people. And I think the institution is finally beginning to recognize in the last few years that commuters are a constituency we have to deal with in a different way because they are the majority population. And it may mean that we try to make them more like our residential students. It may be that we identify where they live on the fringes of the campus and say, "Well, for all intents and purposes, they're acting like residential students even though they're not here." You know, they use the same facilities, and they come at odd times, and they walk onto campus and, you know, we're reaching out to them anyway. So I think people are identifying with the institution as a whole, slowly but surely. Institutional programs are something they brag about even if they're not a part of them, or they will recognize and 23:00accept as valuable to them. But we have a long way to go still. We are still not an institution that has a strong sense of organizational culture. In fact, if you use that term with people, most of them would look at you and say, "Excuse me? Can I get shots for that?" [laughs] We don't have the kind of sense that UVA [University of Virginia] has or that [The University of North Carolina at] Chapel Hill has or that Davidson [College] has or even Guilford College has. People still don't have a strong cultural sense of what the place is, but I think that is starting to happen now. So that is, to me, a fairly dramatic change after the sort of wasteland years right after I graduated.
CJ: Yes. I really appreciate that perspective. I'd like to get a little pointof information and then jump back a bit. The Coraddi, the newspaper, and the yearbook editors--you mentioned them as officers of the student government. Were they still being elected at that time? 24:00
JL: Yeah. When I was here, they were still being elected. And, in fact, thestudent government was the umbrella organization for all student activities, all student organizations. And that changed somewhere midpoint in my tenure here. The media all became governed by a separate organization. The student government became more the activity clubs and organizations and social concerns.
CJ: I am impressed by the tremendous amount of flux that was going on at thetime you were here.
CJ: I had no idea it was so deep. I knew that men had been here fiveyears--formally been here five years when you entered. But I had no idea that this much transition was going on at a structural level, too, as well as--
JL: We didn't know it either.
CJ: I wanted to ask about the honor policy, the honor code. That's another verystrong theme in the twenties, thirties, and forties, and it was one of the things that held the women together. Tell me about the honor code and students' attitudes toward it when you were here. 25:00
JL: When I first came in, the honor code was the traditional sense of what onethinks of an honor code. There's a community here. There's a value system that functions for the community, and we all must be a part of it. And there was a statement in the handbook. You had to take a handbook test, by the way, when I was here. You got your little student handbook, which was very much smaller than now, and you had to read it and you would be tested on that.
CJ: Do you happen to know when that was reinstated, because that went out inthe forties?
JL: It was in effect when I got here.
JL: I don't know when it came into effect, and it didn't last long. [laughs]Again--and I have the sense commuters were the basic problem there. There was nothing to hold over your head if you didn't take it and if you didn't pass it, so what? But because of that, people were much more aware, I think, of the honor policy. There were statements in the honor code at that point that said something like, "Must, must, may." You must not violate it, I think that's what it was; you must uphold the honor policy; you must encourage others to; you may report offenders. There was a lot of discussion while I was an undergraduate 26:00about how those three statements ought to function and do function and whether they should function. You know, were you supposed to rat on people?, was the discussion. So that was, I think that was eroding in those years because, again as in all the traditional sorts of things, that was very much a sense of the community's culture. And as the community's culture was coming undone, that was coming undone, too. And I think the best witness to that is the fact that a few years ago, finally, the faculty felt they had to redo the honor code, that it simply wasn't functioning any longer. And it became much more administrative and faculty managed. When I was here as an undergraduate originally, there was a student honor board. All of the courses were student managed. And any violation was heard by a student board. And the common assumption was student courts were much tougher on the offenders than most faculty courts would be.
CJ: That was definitely a carryover from the twenties and thirties.
JL: Oh yeah, yeah. And that was very actively pursued. By the time I was asenior, that was starting to lose ground. And I think that's not so much a function of UNCG as it is a function of society as a whole--that all of those kinds of principled, traditional, mid-ground values were eroding. And people simply weren't in the mode of ratting much because the things that they were getting in trouble for tended to be either civil disobedience or civil disobedience-related or protest related. And so the mode of behavior was different.
CJ: So the honor code applied to breaking any university rule, not justcheating on exams?
CJ: And did people take it more seriously with regard to cheating on exams thanthey did with, say, civil disobedience?
JL: Well, again, as freshmen, we certainly--I did.
JL: The people around me certainly did. We sort of--we had heard this legendfrom our ancestors. [laughs] And you know, if you violated the honor policy, you'd be thrown out of school, you know. This was serious business. And you had to face your peers when you violated it. And that was fairly serious business, 27:00especially if you were at all involved in student life because you knew who the peers were, and you didn't want to be hauled in front of them. And, again, that sort of began to break down. It was hard to get people to "rat" on one another. The value system was shifting. The peoples' support for the value system was shifting, and that continued to erode.
CJ: Can you state, not in twenty-five words or less, but can you [laughs]--?
CJ: Can you summarize for me what the consensus about the need for an honorcode was in your freshman year and in your senior year? What would most people have said about that?
JL: I think in my freshman year, the older students here would have said thehonor code is the backbone of the community and it brought a sense of community. I think by my senior year people thought the honor code applied to taking an 28:00exam, and you didn't cheat on exams, but it had no social significance.
CJ: So in four years the social significance that had lasted since thebeginning of the college was basically gone?
JL: I think--that's probably an over simplification, but I think was largelydeparting by that point.
CJ: All right. Thank you.
JL: Yeah, I really do.
CJ: We've covered most of the main areas that I have in mind to cover exceptthe one that's difficult to pinpoint. Whenever a student enters a university, there is, I think, a contract relationship between the student and the university above and beyond the signing of the residential agreement in the dorm or your tuition or whatever. The university has aims. The student has reasons 29:00for coming. Tell me what you think the university's expectations of students were.
JL: When I came here?
CJ: When you came here and when you left. You can do it for both undergrad andgraduate school if it changed.
JL: Well, for undergraduate school--when I came here the university'sexpectations as I understood them were you were to get in line, get through your academic program and graduate and do well. And I'm not quite sure how that was communicated, but it was sort of--that was the legend, and that's what we did. And I remember being petrified because I was going to have just slightly better than a 2.0 my first semester, and I thought I was going to be drummed out of the corps. And all my friends were saying, "Oh jeez, no. You're great. That's wonderful." [laughs] And it didn't seem wonderful to me. By the time I graduate, you know, people thought 2.0s were wonderful things. "That's terrific. Gee, 30:00you're doing real well." And I think that's kind of typical of what we thought the university expected. By the time I graduated we were in the throes of protesting and jumping up and down, and Watergate was on the horizon and the whole social fabric of society looked pretty questionable. And so we didn't have the sense the institution expected anything of us. It was more a case of what we expected of the institution, and we thought it was pretty suspect, I think.
CJ: What did you expect of the institution?
JL: I think we expected that the only way we were going to get what was dueus was if we demanded it and chanted it out in the streets and whatnot. And this was not a particularly violent or protest-oriented campus. But I can remember things like locks on doors being a big issue, and access to residence halls and visitations and lighting on campus. And, you know, we would routinely castigate the administration because they weren't looking out for our rights, in 31:00our view. So I think it had shifted very much from being a very--our feeling that it was sort of a paternalistic environment in which we were supposed to follow the instructions to-- By the time I left as a senior, we were sort of involved in deciding what the instructions were.
CJ: A shift from the top down to the bottom up?
CJ: Locus of control.
JL: I think that's what we thought, whether that was real or not. That's whatour expectations were like, yeah.
CJ: How did you see the administration?
JL: I think the top administration--the chancellor, the vice chancellor, thedean of students--at that point, I think most of us who were involved in student life felt were pretty well inclined towards us--that they were looking out for us, but that there was this big, bad, other group of administrations--people like the business affairs people and perhaps some of the people at general administration, the board of trustees--who didn't understand what we were 32:00talking about. And [Dr. James] Jim Ferguson, who was the chancellor at that point--I'll tell you an anecdote [about] Jim Ferguson. We were having registration my senior year, and the precedent, it was felt by some people, had been sort of ineffective, and there were long lines and people weren't getting anything done. And so several staff people said to me--and I was quote, sort of the --student leader,--Well, you ought to go see the chancellor about that. And it never occurred to me that one shouldn't go see the chancellor about it. So I marched myself over to his office and told his secretary that, you know, there was a problem out here, and several folks had suggested the chancellor needed to be alerted to that. And I presumed to walk in and alert him to it. And he took me by the arm, and we walked back out and examined the problem and he spoke to several people. And I don't know if it made any different or not, but, you know, our perception was, "Well, gee, he did listen to us, and he had acted on that. And it wasn't his fault that that was happening." You know, in retrospect, he must have known what was going on, but he was aware and concerned enough to at least have made the effort that a lot of other people apparently 33:00weren't making. So I think we thought the chancellor, the dean of students, those sorts of student affairs folks were "okey dokey [sic]," but the other folks were real suspect.
CJ: Was the chancellor a visible presence on the campus?
JL: Yeah. Jim Ferguson was a pretty humanistic fellow. He had come from thehistory department and was fairly well liked by his colleagues and was available to students when a group needed to talk to him or the president of the student government or whatever. And the institution was small enough that I think not only was he seen at a lot of events, but there were a lot of occasions at which--the administration was small enough that if you invited the administration, the chancellor had to be there. Whereas today, the administration is broader, and there are so many subsets--vice chancellors for academic affairs and vice chancellors for student government, whatnot--that one sort of picks and chooses the events at which one will appear and also one gets 34:00invited to fewer things. You don't expect the chancellor to come to every event. In my undergraduate days, I don't think people thought it unusual at all to have a small reception for a group of students and invite the chancellor. So I don't know if he really was more visible by intent, or if it was simply that the structure of the place made him more visible and more vulnerable. And obviously the place was a simpler place, administratively, to run. And there were less demands on time.
CJ: Roughly, what was the size of the student body?
JL: Gee, I wish you hadn't asked that.
CJ: Can look it up. That's all right.
JL: My recollection is that it's around 6.000 or so. I think that's close, whenI got here anyway.
CJ: That would make sense, because in 1941 it was 2,200, and that would make sense.
JL: And we were about at the residential base that we're at now, which wasaround 3,000 some. And we had the same number of residence halls at that point that we have now.
CJ: So that's remained fairly constant?
JL: Yeah. In fact, the residence halls that we're--the student apartments thatwe're building now across the way--will be the first residential housing we've 35:00added since I've been here. So, yeah, that has remained fairly constant.
JL: Since you've been here in '68?
CJ: Oh my.
JL: The shift has been in who's in those houses. Now there are a lot more men'shalls than there were before.
CJ: One other point of stark contrast that has come up in this interview is thefunction of the university in providing role models for students and the role of the university as the shaper of character, not just preparing for a career. Those two themes were also very strong in the twenties, thirties, and forties; and women got lots of their role models from this campus. And the university saw itself as a shaper of character. Comment on those two aspects--role models and the university as a shaper of character in your experience here.
JL: I think probably, as an entering undergraduate, that that shaping ofcharacter and the availability of role models and patriarchal and matriarchal figures that one might emulate was still fairly cohesive, but it was starting to erode. And by the time I graduated, it was eroding pretty badly. Again, authority was sort of falling apart during that period of time, not just here but everywhere. I think across the years we have been increasingly concerned and remain concerned today about our role in helping people, not shape their values but at least be exposed to the fact that there are different value sets out there. And one must at least be aware of those. The business of role models is much more complex today. And it depends--the population's more diverse, and it depends on which part of the population you're talking about. I think a lot of the "traditional" students that come here aren't looking for role models 36:00particularly, but they still very much are affected by the who--the people they see as authority figures. On the other hand, the nontraditional students are so prevalent, in terms of older students and part-time students, students with various experiences in their lives, they're not really looking for the same kinds of role models. Some of them are looking for mentors. I think there's more mentoring that goes on today than role modeling. And the difference that I draw from there is that a mentor is someone who you consciously and they consciously sort of cultivate one another. This is a person who wants to shape your career and a person who you want to have help shape your career. A role model is a person who may never have known they were a role model. You know, they were out there, and you simply liked the cut of their jib, as they say, and so you sort of emulated their behavior. And I think there was more of that immediately as an undergraduate that began to erode. Mentoring sort of--
[End Tape 1, Side A--Begin Tape 1, Side B]
CJ: --talking about the advantages of mentoring, and you were saying--what wereyou saying?
JL: I was [laughs]--what I was saying was that I'm not sure that mentoring is,in fact, not a better process than role modeling. I was reading a fictional book 37:00by Alan Drury, which--don't disqualify me immediately until I get to the punch line.
CJ: I won't, I won't.
JL: He's a writer of real potboilers. But he's written an interesting book thathe says is part of a trilogy. And it's based loosely on Stanford [University] before the Second World War, and he follows a set of students through four years at Stanford. And it's been interesting, as a student affairs person, reading that account because it takes me back to a place that I never was, but that this institution was. And the role modeling's very clear in that. The president of the institution was someone that people wouldn't think of speaking ill of, that they wouldn't think of challenging, that they treated very respectfully and expected to be treated respectfully. They expected him to know them by name and this sort of thing. I don't think any student realistically expects that today. I hear a lot of students criticize administrators today, from the chancellor on down, because they're faceless. They're in the Mossman Building. They don't do 38:00anything, or they're not aware of what's going on. And part of that is complexity, and part of it is the size of the organization, and roles and expectations that other people have about those people. And part of it is a real confusion about mentoring and the role modeling and what one expects to have happen. It is more complex today to try to deal with the culture of an institution than it was thirty or forty years ago because it is much more intentional today. For schools that have a long well-established organizational culture, that it's not nearly as difficult because they don't have to work as hard at it. The expectations are different. But for a school like our own that really doesn't have a well-established organizational culture for the present day, we have a historical culture that fell apart midway--that we let fall apart midway--and we're sort of in the process of trying to reinvent the wheel. Well, 39:00it's much harder work to try to decide about mentoring and role modeling and what you should be doing because nothing exists. And so everything starts from the common assumption that everyone knows what's best. Students are constantly--I've taught two classes recently, and the students started out by complaining and I let them. I encouraged them to complain about things that were wrong with the institution. And it was always, "Why don't they do this? Why don't they do that? Why don't they fix this?" The expectation was the chancellor is personally responsible for every brick that's laid on campus, for every sparrow that falls from the nest. If it's going on, the chancellor ought to know about it. In a complex organization, which is what a university today is, that's not practical. That's just not something that's going to happen. If you go to a place that has a well-defined organizational culture, the expectation would be different because the structures would be in place to give students a better sense of what the place was and what its values were. 40:00
CJ: Is that happening here?
JL: Slowly, slowly it's happening here. You know, we're still dealing, for allintents and purposes, with three different alumni associations--the very old traditional Woman's College alumnae, the "lost generation" alumni, as I call them, who really are neither here nor there, and then the new emerging alumni, which are rapidly becoming the majority and are sort of seeing themselves as [The] University of North Carolina [at] Greensboro alumni. And they're the people who ultimately will help determine what the culture of the institution is.
CJ: Yes. If the administration and the professors were not your primary heroeswhen you graduated from here, or even when you came, who were the heroes of your generation?
JL: Oh, I think when I came here they still were. When I graduated, as activeas I had been in student life, my primary heroes on the campus were three or 41:00four folks--probably the dean of students, the chancellor, and several faculty members who had had a real profound impact on me--real profound sounds great. I think larger, though, the heroes were becoming, sort of, either national figures or media, sort of cult figures, and I think that continued for a number of years. And to some extent that's true today. We don't institutionally or organizationally--not only here, but anywhere--I mean, I think our culture makes it more difficult here--but, institutionally, students don't come here expecting to have heroes particularly. I think they tend to look at it pretty simplistically as heroes and villains, if anything. [laughs]
CJ: When you first came, your freshman year, did you and most of the people youknow expect to find your heroes here?
JL: I don't know if heroes so much as just authority. I think we expected themto be in charge and that they'd know what was good for us.
JL: And so we tended to follow their lead. And that sort of unraveled over theyears so that by the time we left, we were into questioning things a great deal. And, frankly, my undergraduate experience--a lot of faculty members were involved in telling us that as part of our education that questioning was a pretty good thing to do.
CJ: Question authority, right?
JL: Yeah, question authority.
CJ: Yeah, okay.
JL: And so we took that right to heart and were happy to do that.
CJ: Great. What's the--for the sake of information--what was the--were theoffices you've held in student government?
JL: I was kind of a behind-the-scenes person, dabbling in a lot of stuff. Ispent all four of my years in the legislature or in the senate, as it became.
CJ: Was that an elected post?
JL: It was an elected representative post of the students. I was involved inthe North Carolina Student Legislature--was the chairperson there.
CJ: Excuse me again, North Caroline Institute of Legislature?
JL: North Carolina Student Legislature.
CJ: North Carolina Student Legislature.
JL: That's a state-wide organization. It has a pretty long history.
JL: And I was delegation chairperson there and went to the state-wide meetingsand whatnot. I was involved with the radio station for three or four years and was the production manager there for, I think, two of those years. I wrote as a staff writer for the Carolinian and was a columnist for them. I was involved on a variety of different kinds of committees. I was an elections board person, a chairperson there, and was involved with court systems. I sort of dabbled in everything. I never ran for a big elective office, though.
CJ: You were very active.
JL: Oh yeah. I thought the, I thought the reason I was here was to be activerather than to be in class. It was only when I got into graduate school that it struck me how profoundly I had missed the boat. [laughs]
CJ: One last question in my mind, and then if you have anything, please, pleasesay it. 42:00
JL: I've rambled on forever already.
CJ: One last question is: you mentioned that students got more active inprotests and political things as time went on. Tell me the dynamics between men and women in those activities. You've talked about the internal dynamics in student government between men and women. Talk about it there. What were they like?
JL: In '68 or '69, I think maybe '69, there was a protest between the foodservice workers at [North Carolina] A&T [State University] and their contractor, I think, and that spread over here. And at that point--it must have been '69 because I remember the [student government] president that year, Randi Bryan, who was a woman, being very involved.
CJ: That was also going on at Duke [University] too.
JL: Yeah. It was spreading around. At that point the women were taking a reallead in going out and marching and being a part of the protest. By the time we were having the demonstrations on campus about Kent State [University-Kent State 43:00massacre which occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970.] and mass meetings in the auditorium and whatnot, men were in the lead on that. The president was a male. The people who were standing up and shouting and talking tended to be men. There were one or two women who stand out strongly as very radical and very vocal--competitive to some of the more radical and vocal men--but it was becoming very rapidly a male-led protest at that point. And the women were involved, but they were taking--with a couple of these exceptions that were very visible--a real back seat to it.
CJ: As far as numbers went--were the numbers of women involved in theseactivities still the same even though their leadership roles were less, or did their numbers drop off also?
JL: I think the numbers were pretty much the same. The legislative assembly hadmore women than men in it--the legislature, senate, whatever had more women than 44:00men in it, but the men were increasingly taking a dominant role.
CJ: To what do you attribute that trend of men taking the role in studentgovernment and in political leadership?
JL: Well, I've agonized about that a lot. Being in my job, I have to spend alot of time trying to intelligently deal with that dilemma, and I frankly don't know the answer. I've got some speculation. I think part of it was a real typical willingness to sort of sit back and bat your eyes and let John Cool take the lead because that was neat. You know, he was going to be the hero, and you'd get a date with him. And I think the women who didn't feel strongly that way either were the ones that were visible, decreasingly, or they were the women that chose another place to go to school--that they just felt what was emerging here wasn't what they were looking for. The kind of women who were here in leadership roles at the Woman's College, as I understood it and as it still existed when I first came here, weren't here by the time I graduated. And I don't see a lot of those women on campus today, and I presume they are there, they are in society, because I see them elsewhere. But it looked much more traditional college by the time I graduated than it did when I got here. And I think a lot of it was a willingness to take a back seat. A lot of it was the fact that the men were willing--how to say this without getting tarred and feathered by my own sex, here. I think a lot of the men were willing to deal with issues that were pretty stupid, when you get right down do it.
CJ: For instance?
JL: War. Men tend to be great warmongers, you know? We just love to shout andshout about shooting and fighting and wars and guns. I think women tend to be more thoughtful about that. Maybe it's because traditionally women--I'm getting into deep water here.
CJ: It's all right.
JL: Maybe traditionally because women were the nurturers in the family, and theyhad a lot more to lose, maybe.
CJ: That's not deep water. That's the truth, as far as I see it.
JL: Well, that's kind of what I've come to in my reading and thinking about it.And I think the men got involved in these sort of superfluous sort of internecine warfares [sic] on campus and battling for the sake of them. I can remember being involved in so many political things that were of absolutely no value. While, you know, Rome was burning around us, we were willing to fight about things that were of absolutely of no consequence.
CJ: Did the men expect to be the leaders?
JL: Oh yeah, I think so. I think, you know, that's, "geez, that's our role,right?" And I think, again, the women were either willing to let them do it in some cases--the number of freshmen who had a diamond on their finger before they--when they got here--seemed to me to be geometrically increasing the longer 45:00I stayed here. I think they had a different agenda, and they were willing to take that role. And I also think the really intelligent women, many of whom were here and are still here, have chosen to do other things. I can still point out dynamic, intelligent women who don't get involved in student government, for example, because they perceive that what student government is doing now is sort of superfluous to their goals and aspirations. And some of the serious men are the same way. Whereas, in the twenties and the thirties and the forties, student government was the decisive student role on campus and it represented everything.
CJ: Yes, it was. That's right.
JL: So I think part of it was sort of laying back and saying, "Well, you know,I'm going to be impressive in another way so that I can catch a man,"--bad as that sounds. And I think that's, you know, that's unforgivable that we let that happen. And I think part of it was people making intelligent choices that said, "What you're doing here isn't relevant. And if that's the game you want to play, I'll pick up my marbles and go somewhere else and play." And I think they were here on campus somewhere else [sic]. Again, I can think of very strong women who were in my senior class who chose to simply go another path because what we were doing at that point, in retrospect, was pretty penny ante.
CJ: Penny ante?
JL: Yeah. I mean it was just--it was really just pretty meaningless stuff in alot of cases.
CJ: Were the men--were the women's fears justified--that if they assertedthemselves in class or in government or in political action, would they have lost the men? What was your-- what's your assessment of what men expected of women then?
JL: Well, the woman I married was a student here, and she was in thelegislative assembly, and she was in the student legislature and, you know, she was intelligent, and she was involved, you know. I seemed to like that. 46:00
CJ: Were you in the minority? [laughs]
JL: Maybe, I don't know. I think probably--I'm making quotation marks with myhand here--I think pretty women didn't get themselves dirty that way, and the few that did somehow had enough spark and strength of character and whatnot that it didn't affect them. But I think the perception was--well, people who are sort of radical and more interested in making noise and in being politicians got involved in that. And a lot of the Saturday night, Friday night, go to Carolina, date people--which there were a lot of--they weren't doing that sort of thing, just volunteer--that wasn't what they were interested in. And again, I don't want to indict what they were doing. I don't know what they were doing. But the sense was they weren't really involved. My wife and I have this discussion frequently now that--I will remark on someone that we have met as 47:00being, _Gee, what a, what a bright, creative person," and, you know, "I wish I had met some people like that when I was in school. I probably would have dated them, and gotten to know them and been friends with them or something." And she says, "You never would have dated them." And I say, you know, "In retrospect, I probably wouldn't have." [laughs] But part of the institutional value, I guess, is, you know, how serious are you a student? What are you interested in, what are your goals? And a lot of that reflects out on what you do socially, internally. And I think we were pretty--despite all of our protests and discussion and anti-war stuff going on--we were pretty lightweight when it came to some of the real important issues. And I think that's what showed through in a lot of ways.
CJ: Well, that ends the agenda I have. Do you have anything that you'd like to add?
JL: Geez, I'll probably have to be looking for a job after this.
CJ: This is going to go no further except to the, except to the archives. [laughs]
JL: Well, I perceive you are pretty interested in the divergence of women'sroles here on the campus and what's happened over the years. And--
CJ: I'm also interested in how it felt to be a man on this campus, too, very interested.
JL: Yeah. I think that if we had intentionally gone about the business ofinventing this place--which we didn't, we sort of let it happen for about ten years and then we realized we needed to invent it--if we'd gone about the business of intentionally inventing this place, we could have been ten years ahead of the game from where we are now because now we're trying to do that. We're trying to say, "What kind of campus should this be? What kind of students should we have here? What are our strengths and our weaknesses and how do we develop those?" We had a campus in which women were able to express themselves and be in a dominant role. And somehow, by sheer neglect, we became a campus in 48:00which the men weren't in control, and the women weren't in control and we lost the ability that men had-- a real, an opportunity to come into an institution in which there might be a fifty-fifty balance, you know. And you really had the opportunity to be part of a different dynamic and socially important by what came out of that. And I don't think that was because of anything the institution con[sciously], the institution consciously did. I think it's by what the institution consciously didn't do. We sort of let it spin off and think it was going to work. And for four years that affected me, and for about four or five years after I graduated it affected the students who came here. And I think the last couple of years we've begun to recognize how much damage that did.
CJ: Who was in control at that point, if men were not and women were not? Who was?
JL: I think we were sort of drifting, really. And I--you know, in terms ofstudent life there are times when institutions are pretty happy to have some drift. That was a pretty perilous time, and if you didn't have people out in the streets yelling and trying to burn down or possess buildings, or making the front page, that was a pretty good accomplishment from an administrative standpoint. You know, if you could have a fairly quiescent campus, you weren't doing bad, bad work. [laughs] And there were a lot of rewards in the system for that. So I think the institution was pretty happy to be drifting because that was so much better than a lot of the alternatives. [laughs] But, at the same time because of where we were institutionally at that point, that drift meant that nothing really positive, creative was happening to help the institution develop from where it had been to where it needed to get to.
CJ: Looking at other women's colleges that have made the transition from awomen's school to coeducational in about the same period of time, have you found that UNCG [The University of North Carolina at Greensboro] is going through what 49:00seems to be like a natural evolution? What you describe may be quite natural evolution given our circumstances. What do you think?
JL: I think it's natural to the extent that the issues and the questions thatwere present are present for any institution that wants to make a change in its mission that's radical, whether it's a change from single sex to coeducational or a change from predominantly one race to a mixture of races or a change in admission in terms of liberal arts to more professional orientations or whatever. I think the difference is the answers you make to the questions. And I think the place that we really lost ground for about ten years--from about '63 on--we really lost ground in not answering the questions. We didn't think they were questions.
CJ: So you didn't ask any, didn't answer.
JL: I think the institution felt, certainly until the mid-seventies, that theseweren't real issues, you know.
CJ: Did the institution seem to know where it was going?
JL: No, I don't think so. I really don't think there was a clear sense. I thinkwhen [Dr. William] Bill Moran was hired as chancellor there was a conscious decision, for the first time, that we really need to get off our duffs and get moving. And they went out and looked for a chancellor who, agree or disagree with his position, would have a position and a direction that he wanted the institution to go in. I think there was a conscious reckoning that that needed to happen. And I think that's the first time it had happened since coeducation. Now that's not to deny or to degrade Jim Ferguson at all, who was a wonderful person and in many ways-- just by holding the institution together through that period of time may have done as much as one ought to reasonably expected.
JL: But I don't think we posed the questions seriously.
CJ: Okay. Thank you. And if you have anything else you'd like to add, pleasefeel free.
JL: Well, can I get a job after this is read? I go on too much. Sorry.
CJ: No. This has been a very, very wonderful interview. It's answered a lot ofthe questions I had.
JL: Well, it's all opinion, you understand, and observation.
CJ: Oh of course, of course. Thank you. Thank you very much.
JL: And you're a history major now?
[End of Interview]