SRU ORAL HISTORY "SLIPPERY ROCK UNIVERSITY IN THE SIXTIES" INTERVIEWEE: DR. ROBERT AEBERSOLD DR. JOSEPH RIGGS AND LEAH M. BROWN INTERVIEWERS: 28 MAY1991 R: Our most common question is how did you get to Slippery Rock? A: That's kind of happenstance. I mean I knew about Slippery Rock. I was in graduate school at the University of Maryland, and a very good friend of mine who was an East Stroudsburg graduate, was in graduate school with me. Fellow by the name of Mel Williams, and we got to the point where we were looking for jobs and Mel was always the best student in the class. Mel was coming to Slippery Rock for an interview and I said, gee, that sounds interesting, and while he was gone Old Dominion called and had a job open. I called them . They said well they had already talked to Mel and he was coming down, but if he didn't take the job then they'd talk to me about it. So Mel came back and went down to Old Dominion and came back and said that he liked the Old Dominion job. He liked Slippery Rock but he thought that job was more to his liking in terms of research , and that he would call Bill Meise and tell him that I was interested in the Slippery Rock job. Sure enough he did, and had me call Bill and invited me for an interview and I was offered the job. That was the spring of 1968. I think it was interesting to me because Slippery Rock with the physical education reputation that it had and my interest in physical education and coaching as well as teaching and being able to teach in something other than a basic skills program. I knew of many jobs in higher education where basically the people in physical education taught the skills courses only and I didn't want to do that. The thing that was appealing about Slippery Rock and a few other schools was that the program for majors was big enough that there -2A: could be a lot of discipline content area teaching even if you were to teach some activity courses. Plus, the philosophy that teachers did the coaching was important to me and that allowed me to do some coaching as an assistant coach that I might not have been able to do some other places. So as I say, with a little bit of luck, I guess, in getting here and part of that's because Mel Williams wanted the other job. R: You were his backup. A: I guess so. 8: What was Bill Meise's position? A: Bill was then , I think, at that time the department chairman of Physical Education. It was about the time when a school was being created then , because it was about the same time that he hired Bill Shiner and Russ Whaley and they were to become the department heads of the other two departments, Health and Recreation. So it was around that time that transition was taking place. Then Bill became the dean of that group and, I think, Bill Herman became the first chairman of that department, as I recall. . R: You came as an assistant professor? A: Yes . There was a long time that I thought I came as an instructor but I went back and checked that out a few years ago. I came in as an assistant professor. It was an interesting time because there was a great deal of growth at that time as you all are well aware and a lot of people being added in our department alone. For about three years, there were probably five to eight people added and that was going on , I think, in other departments around the University. R: You became chairman then of Physical Education in 1970? -3- A: About, let's see, about 1970 to 1971 , something like that, and I chaired it for about five or six years in there . Must have been about 1971 or 1972, then about that time I chaired the department. I had a sabbatical in the spring of 1977. I came back and it was that following year that Larry Park decided he wanted an acting vice-president. So it was about 1978 that I became an acting vicepresident. So I chaired it from about 1971 or 1972 up to that period. R: Perhaps you could say something about how Larry Park came to select you . A: Well, I don't know very much about how he came to select me. I know that Larry had decided that he would replace Jim Roberts, who was then the vice-president and that it would be a temporary situation, and I had not any great interest in it, really, and as things went on in that time frame, I don't remember now exactly the timing , but it must have been late in the spring because I think the appointment was made for July or June. It would have been made at the June meeting, but what I recall was that there were several people applying and as I saw who was applying, I thought, well, I've been as active and as involved as they have. And it would be kind of a one year thing, and it may be a good thing to learn something about it because, I think, what I really had in mind was that it would have been nice to have been dean. That was at the same time that the dean's search, Bill Meise had gone on sabbatical and the temporary dean's position was filled by Martha Haverstick, and so that chance wasn't available. So I guess at the last minute I decided well, if all these other people are going to apply for that, I may as well too. Turned in my application and, lo and behold, became the successful candidate , and I really don't know the process that Larry Park went through to select me. We've never talked -4- A: about it, and I was pleased that he did. I was thoroughly convinced , in fact, I probably have in a letter somewhere to people that I fully intended to stay one year on the job. When I got into the job, there were people saying well, you may discover you like it and then you'll want to stay. I said, no, no, I don't think I would want to do that and my mind changed as the year went on and it was kind of exciting and challenging . Then Larry Park left and Herb Reinhard came and asked me to stay while he got started, and I said, well , okay. I'll do it for a year. Then the time came to decide whether to apply for the position, what do they call it, permanent, whatever that means, right? So I again, applied for that, kind of late after a lot of soul searching. I think the soul searching even with the presidency comes from two different things. One is the lack of positive contact with students, classroom teaching , and the idea being that there are no permanent jobs and being in administration is much different than having tenure. Particularly in those days prior to the beginning of the state system . So there was a lot of soul searching to be done. But I had decided I did not want to go back and be chairman of the Physical Education Department, with discussion with family, etcetera, because that had all the difficult parts of administration and kept you from doing all the fun parts of the teaching, I think. It was more constraining than other roles, I think. So, you know, that just kind of followed , and I don't know whether I was selected because I was from one of the biggest programs on campus or because the nature of the competition , people thought I could deal better. I don't know. But it was fun and it was interesting and I'm glad I did it. R: What were some of the changes that took place in the early years in Physical R: -5Education? I know Martha Haverstick has talked a lot about that. A: She probably remembers it a lot better than I do. Slippery Rock is somewhat unique in the way physical education has evolved here, and it's unique because in most places physical education started out as two separate programs, one for men and one for women. I don't think, well, I know that here it never was divided that way officially, and for the most part, ir(v:,pinion, it's never operated that way. There were times when Martha was kind of in charge of women's programs, so to speak, whether that would have been W .R.A., the Women's Recreation Association, but it's always been an integrated department, more so than any other place I've ever seen. That separation that exists on a lot of campuses about all kinds of issues. Space, schedules, hiring, all kinds of things . On some campuses, only men would take certain courses taught by men and women would take certain courses taught by women. There was a time when that would have been the case here or the sexes might have been segregated a little bit, but that changed pretty quickly, and one of the things we did early on was to integrate activity courses. Gender integration. People wondered, for example, in physical fitness whether or not we would, gee, would we get college women to go into physical fitness classes where there were men there because, you know, they get sweaty. Their hair would get messed up and things like that. We discovered that that wasn't a problem. They didn't have to go into them . They were scheduled in such a way they could go, and before long men and women were in the same classes all through the program, and I think that was healthy for the program. That was done before anybody suggested you should do that or you better do that or you have to do that. I think it was because of the nature of the people in the department that made that happen. -6A: Programmatically the department changed a great deal from a very, very structured program when I got here, through a phase where it became less structured. The structure was more, what should I say, there was more choice within the structure. You might be required to take a certain number of courses out of a certain group, not unlike the General Studies curriculum evolved a little bit, I guess. You might be required to take certain team sports and certain individual sports. Whereas before, you would have been required to take everything. I think the program here has been unique and is still unique in its science and strength. Physiology, kinesiology, anatomy, biomechanics. I know that in the 1970's our undergraduate students had the equivalent of a master's degree when they came out of here in regard to the sciences. Perhaps not in regard to some other things. We were probably weak in areas of history and philosophy and maybe some of the learning theory areas. Although , Dave Auxter did such a phenomenal job of that over his tenure here. He's still doing those kinds of things in his retirement. I think the program was unique for those two things particularly. It was also unique in that it got terribly big, and there were not a lot of programs that were terribly big like that. At one point when I was chair, I don't recall the years it would have been, certainly mid-70's, we had 1400 majors. We had 44 faculty I think. A one point, one-third of every freshman class that was coming in was coming into Physical Education. We didn't like that. Although many people on campus thought we were thriving on it, we didn't like that. I sat with President Watrel and at least one or two vice-presidents and some other faculty members one day and said we simply were not going to take any more students. They said, weH , you know, we need -7A: students, and I said, well , we're going to have to have some help with this freshman program. We developed in those days a course called Dimensions in Physical Education. It's still being taught, but it became really an introductory screening course. The deal was that first year or so we would be given three to five thousand dollars for honoraria and I organized large lecture sections that then broke down into discussion groups. We would bring in leaders in the field to talk to these large lecture groups. I mean from all over the country. They were outstanding. The fallacy was that all these were 18 year old freshmen who didn't know they were outstanding and didn't know what they were missing. Conceptually it worked okay, but it would have been better for juniors and seniors. But we struggled then to handle those huge number of freshmen students. The fact was that at least for a few years, I would guess, that there was hardly a time when some of those classes averaged less than a C average and most of them averaged very close to a C average. It was a way for us to try to screen students out. I don't know historically what occurred to change that. I think the changes began when the diminished enrollment in teacher education, job market, etcetera, began to drop off and began to see enrollments start to diminish in all of teacher education. Then a lot of those students began to shift to Recreation. That was all about that same period of time, but, I don't know, I think I've strayed far from the original question, but there were a lot of very good things going on. There was a way of life that was different then, I think. Not unusual. I liken this to the kind of coffeepot social thing. It was not unusual in those earlier days, early 1970's for five or six or eight or so people to wander out of the Field House up to the old El Gato in the -8- A: basement where Hon was running her cafeteria and have a cup of coffee and talk for a half an hour, then go back down and go back to work. Then things changed to where there was a coffeepot somewhere in the building and you might find a few people hanging around a coffeepot. Then these doggone little individual coffeepot brewers came about, and pretty soon people began having their own and they would have coffee in their own office or you would pass people on the way to the coffee pot. We lost a whole element of social interaction and professional interaction over that. It's probably just a function of change over time that would have occurred anyway, but I think that had a lot to do with , I think, later in the department somewhat of a deterioration of the social involvement that people had with each other, and I blame a lot of that on that little coffeepot situation. R: For the lack of a nail, the war was lost? A: Yes, I think it could be. R: Well , there was some inevitability though , I suppose, because I came in 1971 and we socialized a great deal. The Art Department was always having a gathering and we saw a lot of people in fairly large groups. The camaraderie was nifty and it sort of deteriorated by I suppose size. A: I think size and living style and geography have changed so much. When I came, when you came, and when you came, I'm sure you would have looked first for a place to live that was fairly close by. I think people would expect to do that. For someone to live in Youngstown in those days and drive here to work was really outrageous, but there were a few people who did that. I think over the years what's happened is that we see more and more people who have chosen -9- A: to live further away, and it's not just Slippery Rock. I think it's all higher education and so now we have people living an hour, and an hour and fifteen minutes, hour and a half away and we have a lot of them . It's not just a matter of a few people, but I think that probably was related. Obviously, we have many more people than we had then. I think that's a factor. But I think it's also related . What were people doing when we got them? I think we tend to find more people now who are already in the area somewhere, and people don't want to move a little distance. Can't afford it, probably. Plus, I think, in all higher education there's more of a separation of faculty and personnel from their campus location than there used to be. I think we see that in terms of faculty involvement with student activities. Because back in the earlier days, when we went to a student activity you'd see an awful lot of faculty there. You don't see that very much today. I'm not valuing that as being bad or good. I think it is not as good for students as it could be. But, I think, it's just a factor that when people go home and they've driven an hour to get home they aren't about to drive an hour back unless it's a real command performance of some type. So I guess those changes do occur and have occurred over the 102 years, and we've survived. R: What about the growth of the sports programs? A: We have 20 or 21 now. It changes periodically. R: And that was a natural evolution of size. The size of the program along with intramurals and all that. A: Yes , I think that when Physical Education was such a large part of the University, I think in 1968 when I arrived, teacher education itself was probably -10A: 85 percent or more of the college and Physical Education was a large part of that. You had people coming here for Physical Education because they wanted to teach or coach . These were people who were active and they wanted to be involved, and in fact being involved sometimes looked better on their resumes. So the philosophy of the department and the college, at the time, was to provide as much opportunity for involvement as was possible. Very early on, we had large numbers of sports teams. While that number changed , it hasn't changed dramatically. If anything, it's tended to increase rather than decrease which is an interesting phenomenon in its own today. But the intramural program had always been big, too. But in 1963, when the current Field House was built, you had room to get an awful lot of the student body participating. Today with the same facilities and the student body having increased probably 50 percent or more, maybe 100 percent since 1963, you don't have room for all that participation. So it's really very crowded from that standpoint. The other thing I alluded to, the tendency in colleges is to be cutting sports programs. Cost is a serious factor and there is a tendency to cut sport programs that don't bring in money. A tendency to cut sports programs that don't serve a lot of students or that maybe are not spectator oriented. We've tried to keep that from happening here. We've made adjustments here or there . We just are phasing out women's lacrosse. That's partly a factor of not having anyone who would coach. Because in the old days when you were adding faculty, you could say, we need a faculty member who can teach Test and Measurement, Kinesiology, and coach such and such a sport. Today, we can't do that. So one of the options when a faculty member wants to give up coaching is whether we can find -11A: another coach. In the case of women's lacrosse, we're pretty much on the western frontier of lacrosse, anyway. It's an eastern Pennsylvania sport. Competition is difficult to find , numbers of students interested have declined, and a coach is not available. So we use that kind of criteria. On the other hand, we just added to varsity sport status women's water polo and men's water polo. People wonder about that from the standpoint of competition . Well , they compete all over the country and are ranked nationally and do some great things and get the University's name seen positively. I mean, they compete in the East against Navy and Yale and all the name academic schools in the East, and I think that's valuable for us. So anyway, the numbers have changed but we try very much to keep student interest and student demand. We will be seeing women's soccer very soon. Soccer has hit the country in such a way now that we have an awful lot of people of college age who began playing it when they were tiny. They want to play. So I think probably by the fall of 1992, we will see women's soccer as a varsity sport. B: But you're not allowed to require expertise in a sport when you're searching for a faculty person? A: Oh, we could . Yes, we could . The problem would be that it dramatically limits the pool in the terms of the expertise with teaching . We could do that, but the difference has been that in the past, very often when someone gave up coaching they probably left the college. B: But not now. A: Not since, oh, five, ten years after the contract went in. People want to give up coaching because they are tired of it and it's understandable but there's no -12- A: vacancy now. So you can 't add a position. Fred Powell is just giving up wrestling after 23 years and we have an assistant coach on staff who probably will be able to take Fred's job. But if we didn't have someone already on staff and with the budgetary problems we have, the question would be, do you spend the money to hire a coach when you can't spend the money to hire an English teacher or another position. So the situation has changed dramatically over the years in terms of how we can staff those programs. R: How important have graduate assistants been to the overall picture in terms of athletics? A: In terms of athletics and physical education , they have been very important, because in those programs they can do things that they're allowed to do under our contract without being assigned direct responsibilities that would be considered faculty responsibilities. You have an extra hand in the teaching of tennis where you may have students scattered over two sets of courts that are two city blocks apart, and you have an extra hand who can help with that. In coaching, sometimes, you have graduate assistants who are very expert in what it is they're coaching, who are of great assistance to student athletes while they're coaching and at the same time, they're getting their master's degrees and moving on . So that's been a very, very important part of the program. R: And they have never been used as classroom teachers then? A: No. R: Nor in any other departments either that I know of. A: No, they're not permitted to be. That's been one of my concerns over the years. I think we have had graduate students who would make very capable freshman -13- A: teachers. The fact is some of them are quite experienced in teaching, and even if they were recent graduatl