"SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY IN THE SIXTIES"
INTERVIEWEE: DR. MARC SELMAN
INTERVIEWER: DR. JOSEPH RIGGS
19 SEPTEMBER 1990

R:

I would like to do a couple of things. One is to talk about the Carter years and the kind
of who, what, where, when, why and how. That could be just your narrative. If any
questions crop up from that that I would like to ask, I won't interrupt but I'll
ask them sometime. The second thing is to talk about Slippery Rock during the
1960's. I don't mean to confine us to any particular time frame or topics, so we can
range as widely as we need to so long as you control everything. Perhaps we could
begin by talking about the Carter administration.

S:

You can interrupt anytime you want to, incidentally. It probably would be better if
you do rather than wait. I came in the fall of 1963. I was interviewed for a position
in the political science department, well, it was actually the social studies
department, in March of 1963, mainly through George Moore. George Moore was a
history professor, who later on became what in those days we called Dean of
Academic Affairs, now Vice president for Academic Affairs. George and I knew each
other from West Virginia University back in the 1940's, so I came and I taught two
years. That was during another upheaval over a presidency. John Edwards, who was
the assistant to President Weisenfluh made a fight for the presidency and he lost
to Carter. Carter came in as President. Weisenfluh went on sabbatical. Edwards

-2S:

was Acting President for the year 1963-64. In that year, the trustees who had much more
power then than they do today with respect to naming and removing presidents, the
trustees selected Carter, and Edwards didn't give up, wouldn't give up the seat.
There was all kinds of controversy and trouble. The controversy appeared in

Time

magazine that Carter shut off Edwards' electricity in the President' s house to
get him out of there. It wasn't a very pleasant situation, but at any rate concerning
the position of the Assistant to the President which is now Vice-President for
Administration. There were two Assistants to the President, one for administration,
one for public relations . Mark Shiring was public relations, and the position for
administrative affairs was open and I applied for it. I think it was probably through
George Moore that I got it. George was Acting Dean of Academic Affairs and worked
closely with the new president which was Carter. I submitted my resume and I was
named Assistant to the President in June of 1964. So we were then just embarking on
this tremendous building program. When I came they were in the midst of completing
Harner Hall. This building (Spotts World Culture) was not complete. Vincent Science
was being completed. We were in charge of this, and I was particularly in charge
as Assistant to the President, of the building program. The major part of it took
place in three years . Starting from 1965-1968 were the real years for getting
approvals and for expansion on this campus. But at any rate, Carter came in and
he was principally concerned with the campus master plan, the building program,
I would say. He began other innovative things in the college. Then we were
Slippery Rock State College. We just received, in 1963, approval for Liberal Arts

-3S:

as I recall. Maybe I'm wrong on the date, but I think that is correct. I thought
Carter in the beginning was a very good president. He was active. He had good ideas.
A lot of the split into departments like geography, political science, economics, all
took place under Carter. He kind of was moving. He did a tremendous job in recruiment.
He sent people out to other universities to recruit in the liberal arts program, in
particular. But I think the main thing was the building program. He could be remembered for that. Again, he made his way in Harrisburg all right, but he antagonized
a lot of people on the way . And he also antagonized a lot of faculty, department
chairpersons and the Board of Trustees. And in those days, the board had much more
power than today. Today, power is kind of diffused because of the Board of Governors
of the SSHE (State Systme of Higher Education) system. You didn' t have that then.

It was the President, Board of Trustees, and the Department of Education, that was
it. The board could remove a president and it could hire a president in those days.
They can make recommendations today but they don' t have that kind of specific power
regarding legislation. Talking about beginnings on how I got involved on the
building program which was so critical to this campus, and that is what I think
Carter will be remembered for more than anything. Toward the end of his presidency,
he lost his tact and he lost his ability to communicate. He got himself into trouble.
Particularly, he antagonized the chairman of the board who was a judge in the county.
R:

Who was the judge?

S:

George Kiester. Judge Kiester got concerned about Carter and what was happening on
campus. In those days, the board got right into these things.

-4-

R:

Were they a high profile board?

S:

More so than now.

R:

They kind of rubber stamp now unless there is some crisis.

S:

Well, yes, they can still make recommendations on hiring and removing a president,
but those are only recommendations.

R:

Edwards' wouldn't leave?

S:

Edwards felt that he was entitled. They hired Carter in March, I think. He wanted to
commute back and forth until he got out of his contract over where he was coming from .

R:

Which was?

S:

Denison University. Apparently, Edwards felt he could stay there until the following
September. He had a contract to stay . Carter wanted to move in in May or June and
Edwards wouldn't move so Carter had the utilities and electricity cut off. So he moved.

R:

Just that simple.

S:

That' s how he got him out. He wouldn't move and Carter wanted to move in. But, he
started off with that. That was a sour note to start with. A lot of the faculty
liked Edwards, and that was kind of a sour note to get started on.

R:

Generally changes take place in July or something of that sort.

S:

Yes, but he wouldn't get out. Even then I don't think, I don't remember.

R:

The antagonism between him and Judge Kiester and between him and the faculty , was
that because he had such a strong personality or he wasn't running a democracy?

S:

Well, he wasn't running a democracy for sure. We didn't have a union then, of course.
We didn't have, I don't think we had a senate. The faculty senate came along later.

-5-

S:

I think we had a kind of loose knit faculty organization.

R:

AAUP?

S:

The AAUP was here, but it wasn't that active, I don't think. It wasn't that involved.
Certainly not in the governance department.

R:

Was the antagonism confrontational or was it sort of underground?

S:

No, it was confrontational. He antagonized a lot of people that had been here a long
time at that point. Chairmen and chairpersons and faculty. He had very strong views
about certain things. It started to grow. But it was Kiester that hired him. Kiester
and Shumaker, the other judge at the time. They were either graduates of Denison or their
families were attending. They hired Carter and then Kiester thought he made a mistake
and wanted to get rid of him. He antagonized the board. He antagonized Kiester in
particular. From then on, it was, you know, Carter thought he'd call their bluff. He
offered his letter of resignation. I don't think he thought that they would accept it and
they did. And then he wanted it back, so they rehired him. Then the students put up such
a protest that they let him go again. This was all in a period of a week.

R:

President Carter's second or third year? He was here for just a short time.

S:

He came in the spring of 1965 and this broke in the spring of 1968. Three years. The
fight broke out in January or February and March of 1968. So he was removed in March.
First, he was removed in February for a while. For about four weeks, in which I was
named Acting President in that period. Then he was renamed President in March for
about a week and I was removed. Then he was removed again and Lowry was named
Acting President, Bob Lowry, who was Director of Admissions.

-6-

R:

Oh yes, I remember Bob well.

S:

Then, of course, Watrel came in June. He was hired in May and came June. But those
were some very exciting times for this campus. The campus plan was a big
accomplishment.

R:

What forms did the shootouts take with the student protests?

S:

Well, the students marched around Old Main with signs. We settled that though. Then
the faculty had a meeting and voted no confidence in Carter by a large vote, quite
a large vote.

R:

Were you at that meeting?

S:

I was in Old Main. The meeting was in Miller Auditorim and I was Acting President so
I didn't feel that I should attend. So I stayed in the President's office in Old Main
and the meeting was held in Miller. It was a substantial vote. And then he came over
to tell me the results afterwards.

R:

This was after he resigned and then reinstated and then that meeting took place, I gather.

S:

It was after he resigned and was kind of reinstated, that's right. Before they let him

go the second time. I think that vote of no confidence had a lot to do with it. Plus,
the student protest and so forth with letting him go the second time. There was a big
argument about whether or not the resignation was accepted properly. And he introduced
some things. It was just a very, very messy, sticky situation.
R:

magazine story.
A lot of press coverage? Like the Time

S:

Lot of locals like the Pittsburgh

R:

Did he have a public confrontation with the board?

Press,

the Pittsburgh papers. Quite a bit.

-7-

S:

Well, the board had a meeting in March and at that meeting they relieved him and named
Lowry. They also relieved me.

R:

Was there a particular reason for that or was that where you had to be?

S:

That was a regular board meeting.

R:

You just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?

S:

Reason for what?

R:

For your removal.

S:

Well, you see, I worked against Carter. I worked with the board to get rid of him, with
George Kiester, the judge, frankly.

R:

In what fashion?

S:

Well, we had meetings, planning on what we were going to do.

R:

You were assistant to Carter?

S:

Well, we split. We were on opposite sides.

R:

You were working with him every day and still?

S:

No, he knew then. After I was named Acting President, he knew I was opposed to him.
That was the first part of February. So from February to March he was there and I
was there. Then he wasn't there. They let him go. He wasn't there. It was very
confusing.

R:

Strange.

S:

Oh, my yes. He was there for a short time while I was Acting President, he was
still in his office. I didn't move into his office. I never did move into his office.

R:

And you were seeing him day to day?

-8-

S:

Almost.

R:

How was that? Nasty stuff?

S:

Oh, sure. Very nasty. I felt that he had just gone too far with some of the things
he did with faculty and other people, and I just felt that he should be removed.

R:

Was he changing programs?

S:

Changing programs.

R:

Censorship?

S:

He was doing that. He was doing a lot of things that I felt were contrary to the best
interests of the college.

R:

Were there any bill of particulars that were presented against him by people?

S:

Yes. There was student unrest. We worked that out though. The student protest. Much
earlier. The faculty did present a bill of particulars at their meeting when they
voted no confidence. He was there. He presided over the meeting where they voted
no confidence.

R:

Amazing.

S:

Oh, yeah. It was a very nasty time. You know what I mean. A lot of personalitites
involved. Political involvement.

R:

Was his problem too far, too fast or was his problem a personal one?

S:

Well, both. He did go too far, too fast. Although, I will say he did some very
good things for this college. But he did go too far, too fast for the general
faculty.

R:

Was he violating AAUP standards relative to removing people from the classroom

-9-

R:

or firing peremptorily?

S:

I don't think so. I don't think he violated AAUP standards. But I think he felt
that he was a very strong leader and he would lead the faculty into whatever was to come,
the faculty senate, more participation in governing. It would be Carter who would
lead that at his pace. In other words, he felt we weren't ready, the faculty wasn't
ready for that yet. The faculty weren't ready to govern themselves. Of course, that
antagonized a lot of faculty with that kind of feeling , too. It was also his
personality. He was very impatient. He had very little tact with people. He made
remarks about senior officials or senior people in the Department of Education that
got back to them. He made remarks about members of the Board of Education. Those
kind of things that you just don't do when you are trying to be president. It
finally caught up with him.

R:

And when he had a problem with other administrative people like chairpersons
and so forth. Those were hard-nosed kind of things. It wasn't gentle stuff.

S:

No, it wasn't.

R:

That was because he was such a strong person?

S:

That' s right. For most of the time prior to his coming, it was kind of an easygoing
life here. Nobody got too excited about too much. And we weren't really into this
explosion in higher education that took place after the passage of the Higher
Education Act in 1964 or 1965, in that period. You know it was kind of like a
sleepy little town. The people were friendly with the faculty. The Town-Gown was
very good. All of a sudden this explosion with hundreds, thousands of students

-10-

S:

coming here and hundreds of faculty coming in. I'd say that he came at the right time
here. Right at the hourglass of the transformation between a sleepy little town to a
booming bustling university. Which is what we are today. I think he presided over that
transformation to a great extent. And that transformation, maybe that in itself, the
transformation, caused a lot of the problems.

R:

Were there particularly strong figures among the faculty or chairpersons who were
openly antagonistic to Carter and leading the charge?

S:

Oh, yes. I don't know about leading the charge, but there were people who had been
here a good number of years that were well respected and he was tramping on them.
They were chairmen of major departments and he would get into a personality clash
with them. He didn't like them personally and that was reflected in some of his
decisions. It finally was what turned me off and against him in the end.

R:

The Board of Trustees with Judge Kiester, they were the ones who really took the
action. It didn't go through a state board? What I'm trying to ask is, did we have
a kind of political pressure brought on Harrisburg that we had when Watrel was
removed? I was part of all that.

S:

There was more.

R:

More?

S:

More political pressure.

R:

What form did that take?

S:

It took the form of direct contact with key legislators, people in the governor's

office. Some board members did. There were faculty and students who would protest and

-11S:

send signed petitions. The petition process. Telephoning. Yes, there was a lot of
political pressure.

R:

I remember when the Watrel thing happened, we had telegrams and phone calls and
faculty, some underground, some not.

S:

They had the same things during the Carter time.

R:

Petitions to representatives? And meetings?

S:

Yes. I think fundamentally that when Carter antagonized Kiester, it was the
beginning of the end. George Kiester was a very well respected, still is, person
in the community. He was a judge. He'd been associated with Slippery Rock for a
number of years. George, I think, felt that he had made a mistake with Carter.
After two or three years, you begin to get feedback from faculty and administrators.
And he felt he had to do something about it. That was the bottom line to this
whole thing. He watched as the support for his position built, particularly with
faculty. The no confidence vote, which was overwhelming. And he felt he had the
tools to go to the governor or go to the proper authorities and get him removed.

R:

Was the school newspaper tracking this?

S:

Oh, yes. I have copies of them. I have copies of the Rocket.

R:

Were they pretty good stories?

S:

Not bad, not bad at all. Oh, yes, they were tracking it. They wrote each issue.
It was once every two weeks then, I believe. I don't recall.

R:

I don't know. I wasn't there.

S:

Well, there were similarities between the Watrel thing and the Carter thing. Both

-12S:

were very political and of course, you know, political can mean both ways. It can
be good, it can be bad, it can be indifferent. Just because I say it's very
political doesn't mean I say it's bad to my mind, because I think we got these
people politically. They were political appointments. So they were removed
politically.

R:

Was there a search process? It must have been a fairly quick process?

S:

For Carter?

R:

For Watrel.

S:

I'd say from March to June. Three months.

R:

Okay.

S:

I don't think Watrel was a first choice, incidentally. I think the first choice
was a fellow from Indiana who kind of used it to get a better position in
Indiana. I don't remember his name right now, but he was very well known at the
time. Watrel was either the second or third choice. Watrel, I thought, was a good
president. I thought Watrel was a better president than Carter, incidentally. But
I think Watrel just listened to the wrong people at the wrong time.

R:

Strange stuff.

S:

But much stranger with Carter than with Watrel. Much stranger. I don't think Watrel
antagonized anybody.

R:

Two very different personalities.

S:

Oh, yes. Oh, my yes. Carter was no-nonsense. As he used to say, be gives ulcers
rather than gets them. He used to tell people that.

-13-

R:

Oh wonderful.

S:

That was a famous saying of his. He'd tell people in Harrisburg that. He'd tell members
of the board.

R:

Sounds like George Patton.

S:

That's right. He was kind of insistent on certain academic procedures. He'd been at
Denison under a good president over there and he watched. He came here pretty wellequipped in terms of knowledge and how to operate an institution. The mechanics
he knew how to handle. The problem came in his relationships with people. That was
a very tremendous drawback in his personality.

R:

Pulling the plug on Edwards.

S:

That didn't help any. It started off on the wrong foot with a lot of faculty . A lot
of faculty liked Edwards. Carter wanted to show how strong he was. What he was going
to be like as a president when he did that.

R:

Do you remember his first address to the faculty, by any chance?

S:

I do.

R:

Was it, I'm in charge?

S:

Yes. He was commuting at the time. He still had classes at Densison. He wasn't
finished there. He was hired in March and he had to go until May or June to finish
over at Denison so he'd commute. He' d teach a class over there and come over here.
Stay at the Grove City Hotel. Do some business over here through George Moore who
was Dean of Academic Affairs, then he'd go back to Denison. So he had a pretty
tough time then. But I remember he was kind of impressive the first speech he gave.

-14-

s:

The faculty sided with Carter. Some of the chairpersons and some of the faculty were
strong leaders on campus.

R:

There was a heavy division?

S:

The division wasn't that heavy until later on. There was a division because they liked
Edwards personally. But they kind of accepted the fact that trustees have the right to
do this.

R:

Were there resignations by chairmen or by faculty as a result of Carter' s presence?

S:

Yes. There were two faculty members that I know of that left.

R:

Could you name them?

S:

I think Dick Hazley went to IUP to the English Department. He later was president of
the union.

R:

Oh, yes, I knew that.

S:

The second president of the union.

R:

English teacher.

S:

He was here, then left. Ken Edgar, psychology professor, left because of it. Then in
the administration a lot of people left. The Dean of Students left. The Dean of Men
left. Leafgren was the Dean of Men. Who was the dean of students at the time? I
can't remember his name. He went to Pitt. He got a good position at Pitt. A lot of
people that liked Edwards left or gave up their positions. Well , I say a lot, but
there really weren't that many people here at the time.

R:

Very small faculty.

S:

That' s right. A small faculty . Small administration.

-15-

R:

Hundred-fifty faculty , maybe.

S:

Maybe that many.

R:

A couple of thousand students?

S:

Between 2500 and 3000 maybe. Nothing more than that, maybe less. Between 2000 and
2500. Then, of course, it was kind of rapid from then on and we increased tremendously
after that. I think the first two years of Carter's were productive years. Very
productive in terms of the building program, in terms of some of the curricular
changes that took place. He provided some good leadership.

R:

Denison's a pretty good school.

S:

He had been there for about 20 years, I think, before he came here. I think one of
Carter's problems was that he was a psychologist or thought he was at least. He tried
to think he could predict and tell about people's thinking and the way they acted. This
got him into trouble. He was kind of heartless at some points with other human beings,
with other faculty.

R:

Any examples of that?

S:

He would stubbornly refuse, for example, to give a promotion or give merit increments
or something on a personal basis.

R:

Whim and caprice.

S:

If he didn't like the person. He hurt a lot of people. He hurt a lot of faculty . That
kind of began to crop up in the end.

R:

What about his hiring when folks left like the Dean of Students and the Dean of Men?
Did he bring in people from outside who were friends?

-16S:

He brought a few of them from Denison. Joe Marks (Dean of Students). Heimrich at the
library. Prine (Dean of Men). He promoted from within, too. He made Schmittlein Dean
of Arts and Sciences; or maybe he was and he kept him. He moved Meise up to
permanent chairman of Health and Phys. Ed. which was the biggest school we had then.
He made Moore the permanent Dean of Academic Affairs instead of acting, which
Reinhard did too. Watrel did that too. Yes, he did try to hire old friends. Macoskey he
tried to hire but he wouldn't come. He was an old friend of Carter's.

R:

He was an old friend?

S:

Oh, my yes. It was the daughter, Sidney, Bob Carter' s daughter, who requested that
Macoskey be the commencement speaker at her graduation. And he was. And while he
was here, Carter sent me over to try and hire him as a faculty member. I think Bob was
then at Crozier and he wouldn't come. Then Crozier closed. Then he did come but
Carter was gone by then. But Macoskey was a friend of Carter's and so was Roberts.
Jim Roberts, former president, not before he came but after he came, and even now
I think.

R:

Was Jim in the administration then?

S:

Sure, we hired him as the Dean of Academic Affairs. He hired him in 1967.

R:

And Moore left?

S:

Moore left. That' s right. He got in an argument with Carter and he just quit. Carter
and Shiring went out to Chicago for some teacher' s conference to interview him. I
couldn't go for some reason, didn't want to go. Carter came back to talk to me about
it. Then Roberts came here. Carter brought people in to be interviewed by faculty and

-17-

S:

to meet with faculty before he hired them. He had a meeting in the Field House
conference room. Roberts was there, and then Carter said something to me like what
about him for Dean of Instruction, the Dean of Academic Affairs? I said why not.
We needed somebody. We made him an offer and he turned it down. A financial offer
and he turned it down. Carter was finished and I said let's go back for a little
more. So it was really my doing that brought Roberts here. I increased the
compensation enough to bring him. I'll never forget that. And then of course, I
was with Roberts for maybe a year in administration and then we kind of fell apart
until the Watrel thing. We got back together again there, and now we're kind of
drifting apart again.

R:

Was there an established pay scale at that time such as professor and steps
and all that?

S:

Yes.

R:

Did Carter violate that with appointments or by jumping people he particularly
approved of or liked?

S:

In those days promotion was strictly a prerogative of the President. The way

promotions and merits worked, we did take recommendations from chairpersons
and deans. There were some deans around. Dean of Arts and Sciences, Dean of
Education, I think. And we did take those kinds of recommendations . But really,
Carter, myself and Shiring and Roberts used to sit around and make the decisions.
R:

But administrative officials, their pay was based on what the president felt he
could give out of the budget?

-18-

S:

No, in those days' administrators were also faculty members.

R:

So they had professional rank?

S:

Yes.

R:

And they plugged them in somewhere?

S:

They plugged them in with an administrative premium which was set by law and also
a twelve month contract. They worked twelve months instead of nine months. That' s
how you got the salary up.

R:

But the beginning salary was negotiable with the president? Like you say Roberts
had one offer then you got him more money.

S:

That was up to the president as far as I could tell at the time. I don't think he
manipulated that too much. He would take recommendations from chairpeople when they
wanted to hire somebody. He usually tended to downgrade rather than upgrade. At
one point, he wanted to get rid of a lot of people around here that had been here
for a long time and then bring in his own people. Friends he had known.

R:

Is that well known?

S:

Probably not. But he wanted to bring in, I know , two or three from Denison. Replacing
long-standing chairpersons that had been here for years and doing a good job. He
thought that if you came from Denison you had to be the best.

R:

And he had that kind of authority, didn't he?

S:

Oh, yes. Pretty much.

R:

You didn't vote on chairpersons, did you?

S:

No. There was no contract. No contract, no union, no voting. Strictly the President.

-19R:

Did he actually remove any chairpersons that you know of?

S:

Let me think. I think he did. I think he removed a chairperson of modem languages
at one point and I think he removed the chairperson of English. I don't recall exactly.
He called them in to tell them he was going to try and recruit somebody and they would
resign. Yes, he did. He removed a couple. Yes, I remember that. And he removed some
faculty , too.

R:

Removed them in a sense that?

S:

He just called them in. I know one faculty that got involved with a departmental
secretary somehow and he called him in and said you are either going to resign or
you are never going to teach again at the college level. And they resigned.

R:

So he did run some people off?

S:

Oh yes, I remember a couple of those cases.

R:

And when events like that take place, there is no way to cover it up.

S:

Not really.

R:

Everyone will know.

S:

In those days, of course, getting involved with a departmental secretary or getting
involved with a student was grounds to be fired . No argument, no discussion, no
due process.

R:

How did they find out facts if there wasn't any due process?

S:

Well, they examined the facts by testimony of the persons involved.

R:

Oh, I see.

S:

Oh, sure. The guy admitted that he had been involved.

-20-

R:

There was a hearing process?

S:

He got called into the President's office.

R:

Did it or did it not happen?

S:

Yes. And then you either resign or I'll see that you never teach again. I'll ruin
your reputation. That was the end of that guy. Sometimes department chairpersons
approved. It would be nice if you have their approval, if you got a letter from
them, but if he didn't have it, Carter didn't hesitate. I think Carter was pretty
strong-minded and strong-handed about that.

R:

In terms of recruiting new faculty , was it widely enough known that there were morale
problems here that it created problems in new people coming?

S:

No. As far as recruitment, the deluge, the flood, that we had was during Carter' s stay.
He sent people out all over the country to recruit. And we got them. We recruited them.

R:

You went to colleges and universities where you knew people were available,
graduate schools?

S:

Absolutely. I made trips myself with people to recruit. I'll tell you some people I
recruited. Garry Quast, went to Rutgers, he was in graduate school. David Golding in
history here. He was here for a while, he's not here any longer. We sent people out
all over to recruit. That didn't bother recruitment. People came. I don't think so.
First of all, it was hard to get a handle on morale. You hear some complaints.
They're very difficult. But at the end, I think, morale was bad and the majority voted
no confidence. It was overwhelming against him. The trustees used that to remove him.
They removed him and named me. That was the first part of February. Then I served for

-21S:

maybe four weeks. Then the regular board meeting was in March. At that time, they
made up their minds to get rid of Carter. There was just too much pressure, too much
dissatisfaction, and they got rid of me at the same time. I went back to the classroom
and Carter left. I've been in the classroom ever since.

R:

Back to where you came from , political science.

S:

That' s right. They were very fast moving times. It was a fast track situation there.

R:

Did we have internal applicants for the presidency?

S:

Yes.

R:

Did Bob apply? The acting president.

S:

Bob Lowry? No. You mean for that one. The one Carter left?

R:

When Carter left did we have internal applicants?

S:

Yes. Bob Duncan from History. Did Jim Roberts apply? I don't remember whether Jim
applied or not at that time. I think that' s about it. Maybe. There were some but
I can't remember. Of course, lots of people came and inquired about it. We asked
them to submit a formal application. I know that Duncan was interviewed. I know
that. I don't know about Roberts.

R:

Was it a faculty search committee or was it just the board?

S:

Faculty search committee. To my knowledge every time there was a presidential
search there was faculty members on it. There was a committee. It might have
been a committee made up of Board of Trustees and faculty.

R:

Yes. That' s the way it was when Reinhard came.

S:

The candidates were interviewed by both faculty and board members.

-22R:

They made a public presentation?

S:

I don't know if they did when Carter came.

R:

Well, we did that in the last 20 years.

S:

Right.

R:

What about the impact of all this on students. Was the student government drawn
into it?

S:

Yes. They were against Carter. They wanted to get rid of him.

R:

Did they have a bill of particulars?

S:

Yes, they had some. They had some things they were concerned about. Most of it had
to do with student rights. But all that was kind of murky and negligible. You
couldn't get a good handle on it. But some of the leaders were outspoken. The student
leaders, the president of student government, some of the officers in student government were very outspoken. Then there was the faculty senate. I think Kuhr was the first
head of that. Which later became the union. Crayne was active in that. I used to work
with Kuhr and Crayne when I was Acting President.

R:

Is it fair to say that Carter at no time tried to make an arrangement or compromises
to kind of tum back all this flood that was against him?

S:

Nope. That' s the way he was. No compromise. No compromise. I asked him several
times to compromise on certain things and he would have no part of it. Just said it was
to be done this way. There was going to be a confrontation and there was with the Board.
He submitted his letter of resignation. I don't think he thought they would accept
it, and they did because they had been hearing a lot of what was going on. From me

-23S:

towards the end, too.

R:

Was that Board appointed by the governor?

S:

Yes. Confirmed by the Senate.

R:

Is that three Republicans, three Democrats?

S:

Oh, no. You mean the Board that got rid of Carter? It was predominately Republican.
We had a Republican governor. In this school, university, every time in the past,
every time an administration changed, the presidents of the state colleges changed.
I mean they changed from a Republican to Democrat or a Democrat to a Republican.
The presidents of all the state colleges changed.

R:

Is that right?

S:

Oh my yes. Very political. The first governor who stopped that was Milton Shapp.
Because when Shapp was elected in 1970, Watrel stayed on, he was Republican.
And a Republican appointee and he stayed on. And that ended it. Up to that
time, up to 1970, every time an administration changed from Republican to Democrat,
the state college presidents changed.

R:

That didn't happen at Pitt and Penn State?

S:

No. Because it is not a state-owned institution.

R:

Only partial.

S:

That' s right. No, it did not happen there, but it did happen in the state system.
At least I know it happened in Slippery Rock. When Houk was here. Then when
Scranton went out and Schaffer came in. How was that? It was Lawrence, Davey
Lawrence, that named, through Emma Guffey Miller, named Weisenfluh. Then when

-24-

S:

the Republicans came in of course, it was Carter, but Carter was continued on.
Then it was Watrel who was under a Republican administration and then Shapp came
in. Who became president under Shapp? I guess it was Watrel. He stayed on too
from 1968-1976. My understanding was it was quite a political plum in the olden
days. So was the business manager' s position up here. And book store manager and
things of that kind. They were all key political leaders in the county. The head
of the book store's last job was head of the Republican party when I came here.
It was very political.

R:

Still going on in the southern states.

S:

In the southern states? It could be. It's not going on here, I don't think.

R:

No, I think it finally got past that, but Tennessee is still mired down in that.

S:

There is still politics going on but not of that kind. Not politics of that kind.

R:

College presidents frequently don't last very long.

S:

They say the average is five years.

R:

Five years is what I have heard.

S:

But some do stay somewhat longer. Houk was here longer than five. Weisenfluh
was here a lot longer than five.

R:

Watrel was here nine?

S:

Eight. Aebersold's been here now, it's his fifth year isn't it?

R:

I think so. I was saying it's not an easy job being president of these institutions
in terms of how long you can hang on.

S:

It' s very difficult.

-25R:

And the siege mentality, just seems to me happens across the state a lot. It
happened at Mansfield, it happened at Clarion.

S:

But now they give contracts to the presidents. They give two or three year contracts with
the state system.

R:

And that' s the thing for the SSHE board to make that decision.

S:

Right. And that's a lot different from what it was, prior to the changeover from when
we went under the SSHE, out from under the Department of Education. Prior to that
changeover, presidents served at the will and pleasure of the board or the governor
whoever it might be. The governor removed Watrel summarily. The board didn't, the
governor did.

R:

Impounded the records?

S:

Sealed off the office. In Carter's case, the board removed Carter and the governor
did not interfere. As I recall, it was a board action.

R:

What happened to Carter after he left?

S:

He got a job teaching at Ferris State. Is that in Michigan? Ferris?

R:

I don't know.

S:

He got a job teaching and he taught for I don't know how long. He just retired
recently. He became head of the union up there.

R:

Did John Kennedy' s becoming president have, was there anything about that that had
an impact on this institution or anything that was going on here then? Was there
a kind of spiritual change or a freeing up of behaviors?

S:

I don' t really think it had any impact at all. The only impact that I can associate

-26S:

nationally at that level would be Lyndon Johnson's Higher Education Act that went
through Congress. That had a tremendous impact on this campus. All that money began
to flow . We began to build these buildings and expand this institution. Why would you
mention Kennedy? From what standpoint?

R:

From the standpoint of making a transitions out of the 1950's into the 1960' s, and
maybe from the standpoint of greater student activism. John Kennedy was kind of a
watershed in terms of national behavior.

S:

I don't think so. I don't think it ever had any impact here at all. It didn't
when I came. There wasn't any indication of it.

R:

What about race structure in the 1960's? Had we always had a very small black
student population?

S:

Very small. When I came I could only think of one or two blacks. One was a
football player and the other was a cheerleader.

R:

That was when?

S:

In 1963. Maybe even a couple more. But they were not welcomed here when they came.
They were isolated. They were treated not what I would say fairly.

R:

The numbers are much larger but we still have the separatist movement.

S:

The polarization? Yes.

R:

Is there anything an institution like this can do about all that?

S:

Probably not. It' s probably more personal feelings. There's nothing written or
rules or anything like that that lends any assistance to that kind of behavior.
It' s there. A kind of personal attitude kind of thing.

-27-

R:

Then the Vietnam war came along on in the 1960's. There was an impact from
that obviously.

S:

I would think so. There was some division over that. Of course, young students knew if

they weren't in college they would be in the army. They would be in Vietnam. If you
dropped out of college, that' s where you went.

R:

Were there Korean vets around?

S:

Oh, yes. We had Korean veterans. Then we had Vietnam ve erans later on.

R:

Were there war protests on campus? Other things going on on campus?

S:

Not really. I remember we had some debates on Vietnam but I don't recall any
demonstrations about Vietnam.

R:

Drugs in the 1960's?

S:

Not to my knowledge.

R:

Not much.

S:

If so, very limited. Towards the end maybe, but not while I was still in the

President's office.
R:

Was there a sizeable female faculty in the 1960' s?

S:

No.

R:

All of that has happened in the last twenty years?

S:

I would think so. In the 1960' s, Martha Gault was here. She was chairman of art.
Martha Haverstick was here. She was in phys. ed. Wilma (Cavill) was here, of course.
Not till the middle 1970' s and early 1980' s.

R:

So then you left the administrative end, the president' s office. You went back to

-28R:

the classroom. Did you have an established rank when you came? An associate or
something of that sort?

S:

I came as an assistant, was promoted to associate. Then was promoted to full. All
administrators did at that time. We had faculty rank. That's how we paid them.

R:

Like the coaches.

S:

You were a full professor at a certain salary level, then you would get an
administrator premium, and then you would get a twelve month contract.

R:

In terms of our national standing, how good were we, comparatively, with other
small colleges, academically?

S:

I don't know about that. I know that we were well known, nationally. Probably because
of our football and phys. ed. There's nothing wrong with that, incidentally, that's
fine. Academically, I don't have a gauge, I don't have a handle on that. Where we
would rank.

R:

But from the standpoint of your teacher/student relationship, you felt that we
were getting a fair share of good students?

S:

Oh, yes. I taught at West Virginia for a while, and I taught at Iowa as a teaching
assistant. I thought the level of students, their achievement level, was about as
good here as there. The best students here were as good as the best students there,
the poor students here were as poor as the poor students there. And then you have
the middle group. I didn't see such a large discrepancy between students. Of course,
you must remember that a lot of students who came here in those days were first

-29-

S:

generation students. Their parents did not have a college education then as they do
now. But we are having second and third generation students now , but not then.

R:

What about the social life of the faculty? Were there a lot of interactions?

S:

There was more interaction then than now . Because it was smaller.

R:

I came in the early 1970's. We had a lot of parties. Don Wink threw parties all the
time, and there were parties going on where lots and lots of folks came, and they
were good times.

S:

Yes, they were.

R:

And that seems to have gone somewhere else.

S:

Yes, it did. We had that, too. And every year the department chairperson had a big
party for his department and that doesn't happen anymore, either. There were a lot
of parties for the faculty . It just doesn't happen anymore. You're right, very little
of that. I don't know what happened. People just got busy doing other things and
didn't have time for parties, I guess.

R:

In the 1960's, many institutions were noted for particularly high quality departments

and others are kind of second to those. Were there any particularly outstanding
departments that had that notoriety?
S:

Phys. ed. , of course. Particularly, the women' s phys. ed. students. The women' s phys.
ed. might have been one of the best in the eastern United States at one time, may
still be, I don't know. Special education was very well known. Then from there I don't
know where you go from there. At one point, we could have ranked phys. ed. with
anybody in the country, especially women's phys. ed. And special ed. became very

-30S:

strong, too. Then, of course, I guess you go toward a comparison situation. Other than
that I don't know that much about it.

R:

Did Watrel come here from Cornell?

S:

No, he came here from Cortland.

R:

He's a graduate of Cornell?

S:

No, he's a graduate of Syracuse.

R:

Of course.

S:

He got a Ph.D. at Syracuse in chemistry. I don't know where his undergraduate is,
Cortland maybe. Let's see. No, his undergraduate is at Syracuse and maybe graduate,
too. Both. He was a big football player at Syracuse. I think he went back to coach
and work on his degree and was teaching at Cortland.

R:

During the Watrel years, we had all kinds of rumors about malfeasance of office.
About the money that was lost in Food Services, about the expenditure for the press
box and stuff like that. Was there any substance to the misuse of funds? Now the
scholarship program, that may have been true?

S:

I don't think there was that much substance. My opinion is there isn't that much
substance. Lot of charges, lot of flurries. I have strong questions about whether
or not there was any real substance.

R:

I felt the same way.

S:

I think that he committed errors of omission rather than commission. He shouldn't
have done it. Pittinger, the Secretary of Education, told him not to do that out
there and he went ahead and did it. You don't do those kinds of things. As far as

-31-

s:

malfeasance goes, I would be surprised if you could prove that kind of thing was
going on. I just don't think so. I could be wrong but I didn't see any evidence of
it. There were some people who thought it was going on but I didn't place much
credence in it.

R:

His problems came not from being a difficult person. I'm not sure how all that
did happen to Watrel.

S:

I think Watrel listened to the wrong people. He was doing things and he should have
known better. I think Al was a nice person as opposed to Carter who was not a nice
person. Watrel was a nice guy. He could get along with you. He tried to be fair.
Occasionally, he got carried away with his presidency, too. I am the president kind
of thing. On balance, I think it was just an accumulation of things that really
didn't have a lot of substance to them, but they were a flash in the pan kind of
thing and newspaper headlines and so forth. I think he was a victim of circumstances
more than anything. He antagonized the Secretary of Education. He antagonized some
people about this, that, and the other thing.

R:

How about the accountability of funding?

S:

It's all done by audit.

R:

Someone can take care of the store.

S:

Audits are going on here all the time.

R:

Are there things about the eight years that Watrel was here that are of particular
note. I know we kept growing.

S:

There was a large expansion under Watrel in all areas. Recruitment was good.

-32-

S:

I think it was a really good time under him. It was a good period in the growth of this
institution. Both academic, physical. Although there wasn't much physical to do when
he got here. It was almost all done.

R:

Decision making was being done at different levels.

S:

Yes. There was some diffusion there. That's right, decentralization.

R:

Was the faculty senate ever really powerful?

S:

No.

R:

No. Because about the time they might have picked up steam the union took over?

S:

Right. In fact, the union is very mild and not strong. I don't know if it's the
leadership thing or what it is. I don't really know what it was. Very advisory and
that's about it.

R:

Larry Park was with us two years as an interim president. Not acting, but interim.

Did you hear his first speech to the faculty?
S:

I think I did.

R:

One of the first things he said was, "Whatever happens around here I don't want to
hear any Albert Watrel stories." Remember him saying that?

S:

Yes.

R:

I was really impressed with his speech as a transition into his tenure here.