Oral history interview with Mereb Mossman, 1989

WL: This is William Link and the date in October 11, 1989. I'm at the home of Mereb Mossman and we're continuing our discussion we had a week ago. We were talking a week ago about the evolution of UNCG - well, the evolution of Woman's College [of the University of North Carolina], now UNCG [The University of North Carolina at Greensboro].

MM: Right.

WL: And some of the elements that went into that evolution or change. How would you characterize - just generally how would you characterize your objectives and your goals in trying to make Woman's College, North Carolina, into The University of North Carolina at Greensboro?

MM: Well, I think as I said last week, in picking up on the changes that were taking place, both internally within the college with the retirement of persons 00:01:00from major positions as department heads and as senior faculty who had been here for long periods of time and who were predominantly the faculty of a women's college, as they were retiring. As we had become a part of the university system, one of the three institutions within the total university [Woman's College, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina State University], it was - that is, we looked at ourselves in the - . Let me see, in the early fifties I guess, I participated in the first Southern - let's see, the first self-study that we did for the Southern Association of Colleges and 00:02:00Universities, and I've forgotten what year that was in. If I remember correctly, it was when we were between chancellors, too. We started it with a faculty of the Southern Association. When it was time to do the study, we proceeded with it. It gave us an opportunity and the responsibility, actually, of thinking through our goals and values at a time when we were emerging as a changing institution. And this came at an opportune time because we were also looking - we were recruiting new departments heads, new faculty - as people reached, were reaching retirement. And looking forward. I kept in my desk a list of all 00:03:00of our faculty that worked, their ages, and the senior faculty. Looking ahead - who will we probably be looking for in one year, two years, three years, as we move ahead and thinking about the changes that might be taking place in relation to the faculty so that we were carrying on related to goals and values within the institution. And we saw ourselves - we saw ourselves in the fifties as a women's college, but the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. And this carried a kind of responsibility that I think made us look at ourselves 00:04:00always as a part of the university system. Then - bear in mind that we were in the beginning of a change in the role that women were taking in our society. And then as we moved towards the sixties - during that period we were beginning to look at not only the larger range of interests of women, but our own development of graduate programs, master's programs in the beginning, largely in the educational field. But it led us to necessarily think of ourselves in different ways than we had thought of ourselves. And incoming faculty that we brought in - 00:05:00we talked to each faculty member about the emerging responsibilities due to these changes and due to the changes within the system of which we were a part.

WL: So you would expect them to be aware of the move, for example, into more graduate programs and be prepared to teach or be involved in?

MM: Be thinking about the role of their school or department in this total changing structure.

WL: Did - what kind of relationship - we may have talked about this last week, but bear with me if we have, but what kind of relationship did Woman's College of the University of North Carolina have with the higher administration, the 00:06:00central administration, the presidents of the University of North Carolina, and did they indicate an overall sort of goals and objectives for the university?

MM: Yes and no [laughs], I guess. I think we had been highly regarded as a women's college. That was no threat to [University of North Carolina at] Chapel Hill or [North Carolina] State [University]. As we began to think of ourselves as having more responsibilities, we needed more resources. And whenever you begin to look at resources, then you begin to be a threat to anyone that feels that their resources might be more limited because you're getting more than your share. I would say that many of the faculty - and we had a good many university, 00:07:00total university committees on which I participated, like the admissions committee, we worked on common standards. But it was always within the notion of faculty at State and Chapel Hill that we were a women's college. Now we were a good woman's college, and, of course, if there was anything that got us riled up, it was to feel that we were not able to move ahead as quickly as we wanted to. This occurred at a time also when other institutions in the state were changing, ECC [East Carolina College, now University] was changing to - wanting to become a university instead of a teacher's college in the eastern part of the state, and this again was drawing on limited resources at the state level. And 00:08:00it was a real battle at times to get what we felt, our faculty and chancellor felt, were the resources that we needed in building a library. And we couldn't have a graduate school with the kind of library we had. We had to have more resources; we had to have more resources in laboratories. We didn't have the kind of resources - we couldn't develop sciences without money for laboratories. So it was a period in which I would say we had to pull very hard. And as we were changing chancellors this became even more difficult because we would just get a chancellor in, like Gordon Blackwell, get him to listen and then he's gone and 00:09:00we'd be in a transition. And whenever you're in a transition with your chancellor who is the spokesman with - he was the spokesman in some ways still. The legislature and with the university administration for the three institutions, by which by then had grown to five, you know, Wilmington [College], Asheville [-Biltmore College] was coming in, and so there - we sometimes felt that we were not getting as much as we had to have in order to emerge as we were changing our responsibilities.

WL: Was there - the UNC administration, the Consolidated UNC administration, was this the - was there much bureaucratic apparatus there or was it a large - 00:10:00did you feel you were dealing with - did you feel as though you could walk in and talk to, have access to the president - to President [Gordon] Gray or President Friday?

MM: Before the total reorganization in the state, with the total university system of sixteen, with the three and then four and then five institutions coming in the university system, we felt a part of the total. Now I think Asheville and Wilmington may have felt outside and then Charlotte [College] later coming in. We felt that there was some difficulty in changing the conceptions of everyone from a commitment to a women's college to a commitment 00:11:00to an emerging university in Greensboro. Yes, I would say there were. And our alumni had ambivalent feelings. They had been very, very loyal as a group of women graduates. They had played important parts in the lives of their communities as teachers and then as wives and mothers with Chapel Hill and State College graduates, you know. And it took time to change this conception in the minds of our graduates of the changing roles that their daughters were playing 00:12:00in our society. And as I think I said to you last week, when our graduates would say to me, "Why in the world would you want to be a university with men in it? It's a women's college and has always been this." And I said, "Do your daughters want to come here?" "Well, no, my daughter would like to maybe come a year or two and then transfer to Chapel Hill or State." And I said, "Your daughters are playing different roles in our society than you were prepared to play and must be." So there were - even in the sixties, I know some of our faculty coming in would feel very resentful of the fact that some of our alumna - we would say to them, "Well, we were a good women's college." And they would say, "I came to be 00:13:00a part of an emerging university," not then fully a university, but the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. And then, of course, it was in the sixties when we took on the new responsibility. Many of our alumni raised questions as to why that was necessary and -

WL: Was there formal opposition? Did you - how was it handled?

MM: Well, yes and no. Some small groups of alumni would say, "We feel that you haven't been loyal to this tradition." We have a great tradition, and we did have a great tradition, but we also had an emerging, changing conception of our role in the state, the region, and even the nation.

WL: Where did the decision come from to bring in coeducation? Did it come from this institution?

MM: I suppose many on our faculty, the chancellor, of course, always representing the board of trustees acting. But there was a lot of conversation, a lot of drawing the faculty into the thinking. Our alumna were very active, many of them wishing that we might still be a women's college, but seeing the direction that we would need to take if we emerged as an important part of the University of North Carolina, taking our place both in the region - but when I say region, this part of the state as well as the region of which we are a part.

WL: So it came as an initiative started here on campus here and supported by faculty generally and -

MM: I wouldn't say it initially came from here. The initiative came from a number of places and converged.

WL: What was the attitude of the people in Chapel Hill? President [William] Friday? Was this something they thought it would be - this institution should be doing?

MM: I really don't know. I don't think I can answer that in any general terms. I haven't many friends there on the faculty, and I think they thought of us as changing with the times and the changing roles of women, and then the changing - 00:16:00the development that would be necessary if we were to take a place within the university system.

WL: Was there much faculty opposition to coeducation?

MM: No, I think there was not. Then there were individuals who felt very strongly - I could illustrate - for example, we had in one department where we brought in a very fine young scholar, teacher, administrator, as head of the department to build the department. This happened to be biology, and it was Bruce Eberhart. And there were - we had two or three very strong women in the department who felt that that was a mistake. We'd always been a good teaching 00:17:00department; biology had had biology teachers go out all over this state as good science teachers. And sometimes I think Bruce faced tremendous personal hardship in the department as he would bring candidates in for new positions. Well, before Bruce, Vic Cutter did the same thing [head of biology department]. Dr. [Victor M.] Cutter [Jr.] died [in 1962], and then Bruce came in. But Dr. Cutter had the first impasse in that group that interrupted the changes that were taking place. But we'd had a really good teaching faculty there, and it was hard for them to change because I think they couldn't quite see what their place 00:18:00would be in the new organization. They were senior members of the department; they were highly regarded on the faculty, and this seemed threatening perhaps. I just used that as an illustration. But they were - they moved along with the changes, and the vice president for academic affairs in the university, as I told you last week, came over many times and tried to help the department - if he would talk with them. Outsiders, sometimes, can be helpful where inside, you can't be quite as helpful. And he would talk with them about the next step as we'd emerge in the university. The kinds of faculty we wanted to recruit, and always I think I felt the importance of having the incoming faculty know how we 00:19:00valued the contributions they would make as teachers as well as the contributions they would make as scholars. And there were, as I said last week, I think I'm repeating myself, but I do say there were persons - in the period of change, it became very important, I thought, for our office to talk with each candidate who came in. And when the candidates were very serious candidates - at a tenured position; we hoped would become a tenured position or was tenured when they came as head - always the chance for, because when we emerged, it was important that they had a conception of what we felt with regard to the values 00:20:00of their contributions as teaching faculty as well as their contributions in independent scholarly work in their own departments.

WL: So candidates would typically interview, would talk with the chancellor?

MM: The chancellor - not the instructor positions.

WL: But the tenured.

MM: But the tenured always, always, and this was true even when we were changing chancellors. Dr. [William Whatley] Pierson talked with them even though I knew he was just there a year. It was important that they had a - not a conception of, they were - also always we had a faculty committee, of course, on each of these positions. And the faculty was made up usually of related departments for senior - I thought it was senior faculty. Well, yes, I guess 00:21:00mostly associate and full professors.

WL: What - 1963, I think, is the date in which -

MM: The change.

WL: The change occurred officially. How did the transition take place, at least in terms of undergraduate education exclusively - Woman's College to a university that included men in undergraduate courses? Did it occur long term?

MM: We kept talking and thinking about it as a faculty. Our admissions office took on staff that would be interested in - as they went out to the high schools and recruiting men as well as women. It also meant that internally our faculty - 00:22:00they saw new kinds of opportunities in the sciences, for example, where we hadn't has as many majors in physics, in chemistry. We had had a lot of majors in biology, because biology has the medical technology and the technologist positions that women at that time went into - prepared them for those. But we were suddenly looking at ourselves as with the questions, I would, the faculty, when - I always say "I," I'm talking about our faculty - as a faculty, we began 00:23:00to think about how we move and change in business - from business education and economics to business without the emphasis on the teaching aspect and what is involved. Oh, I'll tell you another good person to talk with would be David Shelton, who's still here. He was dean [of the School of Business and Economics] for a good many years after we moved into the change. And we began to think about - well, the same way in physical education. We'd had fine women in physical education - now what we were preparing men to do. This was a different kind of preparation. And as we began to recruit men faculty in positions that we 00:24:00would hope would become tenured positions - emerging faculty. It was with this thought that we will - constantly now looking at ourselves as having full university responsibilities. What does this involve? And it led to changes in - major changes in a great many departments and schools. And I think major changes. Business education moved into full school of business responsibilities, but this emerged, again, over the of period of time and into the seventies, and I was not actively involved in administration then. But in the first years, the psychology that had emerged as a - from being a service department for teachers 00:25:00with full responsibilities - and it was very exciting to see the way in which our faculty would, in the departments, think about the directions of the departments and what they were going to be and should be within the university system. And this was a slow process appropriately. It should have been.

WL: When the male students arrived that first year, what kind of feeling did the campus have, having - ?

MM: Well, there were changes that took place in residence - and you have to talk to other persons more about the residences and the changes. Oh, the kinds 00:26:00of changes that - some women said, "Now what - we're getting men? They'll want to be student government officers, and things." You know, a certain amount of conversation that went on. But I can only speak from an academic point of view, and I do not know that I ever, in retrospect, I do not remember any conversations in which our teaching and research faculty felt negatively about men coming into the classroom. I can speak personally. I found that in the early years just one or two persons in the class of social policies added a new 00:27:00dimension. And I remember in that class of social policies one time in the 1960s when one of the women students came in, and she said - one of the young men who came in was pretty vocal, and I expect felt defensive because he was isolated, a minority group, and he spoke up a good bit. And she came in, and she said to me, "You know, he just really doesn't know as much as we do, and he talks, always wants to talk a lot." And I said, "Well, why don't you talk?" "Well, I don't know." There were little changes.

WL: Changes in the classroom?

MM: Right. But, as far as I know, the whole impact of men coming in to the academic affairs of the life of the campus was positive. I really don't know. I 00:28:00was trying to think this week - you asked that question last week, and I really do not remember any negative parts of the experience. Many positive comments come to mind. And faculty - we had more men in the classes, which brings on a different dimension and perhaps more specifically focused on where they were going and what they were about. We got some more mature people who'd been out since the war, and this added, as far as I can see, I think that it added 00:29:00strengths academically.

WL: One of the things that I've heard in the 1980s from the administration here at UNCG has been the need to recruit more men.

MM: Oh true.

WL: Wondering what kinds of difficulties you ran into, if any, in getting men to come.

MM: The fact that we had been a women's college and if they were -

MM: - if they could go to State or Chapel Hill, a preference on their part to going there. But many of them couldn't afford it. They could commute, and as they came in as commuters, then they would find some strengths in teaching 00:30:00faculty and many of them then stayed and went on through. But it was difficult to - as our image changed very slowly from that of a women's college to that of a full university.

WL: I guess a lot of it for high school seniors was image. And they remembered it as a women's college

MM: Yes, yes. I was going to say, don't forget it was their mothers that graduated from here, and it was their fathers that graduated from State or Chapel Hill. So this was a slow process, perhaps slower than it was in Charlotte, for example, where they didn't have the long image of just a women's college, or Wilmington or Asheville.

WL: A lot of the men tended to be commuters now. Again, in the 1980's we have a large commuter population. This is a big change from thirty years ago?

MM: Oh yes.

WL: It was a residential college, and now we have up to two-thirds -

MM: I was going to say it was in the 1950s - don't forget, we didn't have people living off campus, and then we had no evening classes. And this was looked upon as a - and our Saturday classes were for teachers largely. And as we moved into the sixties and moved towards some evening classes and then moved towards a lot of commuting.

WL: And that does date from the sixties and seventies you moved into a large commuting student population?

MM: Right, and that meant new kinds of facilities on campus for the commuting students and some discussion of roles that the commuters might play not just within the departments but within the institution.

WL: One of the things that you - this institution develops in the 1960s is a greater emphasis on graduate education, you mentioned that earlier. What departments, well, certain departments developed the PhD programs during this period, the doctorate, even earlier I think. When was the first doctorate?

MM: The first doctor was Nancy White in the home economics, family life.

WL: That was in the fifties?

MM: No, that was in the sixties. I would have to check that and see when she got her degree [1963].

WL: Was there a conscious effort during this era to develop a new PhD program?

MM: There was an effort to develop a faculty. That was our first responsibility and then strong master's programs. And some departments had dreams of doctor awards, and some departments did not. One of the most able persons we were able to bring back - in history, for example, said "I hope we don't develop a PhD in this department. I don't think it's necessary with a good masters program." He 00:34:00felt that's what we should be doing. You know, you can talk with persons like - [Richard] Dick Bardolph [history faculty] would be a very good person to talk with about the dreams. On the other hand, in home economics, very early on since we were the Land Grant Institution of home economics, it became incumbent upon us to think of a strong graduate faculty in that department for - primarily in the beginning - teachers in the state, and then as the school developed, in various skills like nutrition, clothing and textiles. There were certain things 00:35:00that State did, but there were certain obligations that we had from a consumer point of view in the textile fields, so that we talked about a doctoral program there very early on. Education talked about the doctor of education. And psychology, interestingly, developed substantial departmental strengths. They saw a need for psychologists and as they saw a need, their conversation began to develop on building the resources both in their laboratories and in the library and in the faculty that would look toward a doctoral program. The School of 00:36:00Music, I would say with [Lawrence] Larry Hart and his deanship, we were looking forward, but earlier than that - no, we're looking towards master's largely. It's been an emerging thing as we've developed strengths in departments and as there seemed to be a need in the field and it could be shown.

WL: So this would have been initiated on the part of the department, for example psychology, or was it a combination of - ?

MM: It was a combination of the interplay between the faculty and the administration on directions that we should be taking as an institution. I felt 00:37:00we needed to develop - but one of our great contributions as we emerged as a university was our role in the fine arts in the total system, which didn't have a real place to play there - in the creative writing field, in the visual arts, in drama, communications. And we began to develop faculties in those departments where master's in those fields were in the creative and professional aspects of the department functions rather than teacher education. For example, we moved 00:38:00away from art education into art, the practicing artist.

WL: The 1960s were a turbulent period in American higher education everywhere.

MM: Right, right.

WL: How did the issues in the 1960s - for example, civil rights, the student movement, free speech [unclear] - how did that affect the campus here?

MM: As we developed a black student body, they were very active. Students came 00:39:00to our office, for example, in the sixties to say, "We don't think we're being treated fairly in class." And through working things through - I remember one of our very vigorous woman black students who's a very able doctor today, came in on one occasion and she said, "This faculty member has given me a bad grade, and I wish to appeal it." So I said, "Have you talked with her?" "No, she might [unclear] talk to her." I said, "Well, would you be willing to talk to her first, and then if you and she don't work it out, the three of us will talk together and see what we can do." So she went to the faculty member, talked with 00:40:00her and came back and said she was satisfied. The faculty member had talked through and explained why - what she'd done on a test, how it related to other members of the class. She said "I'm satisfied." But there was a lot of just this kind of thing that occurred. Now the chancellor - when Dr. [James "Jim"] Ferguson came in, there were some very, there were some very active periods of student activity in the black society on campus that were concerned with student regulations, things that they felt represented unfairnesses [sic]. I remember one occasion when Jim Ferguson told me the students had come to his house at, I 00:41:00think, one o'clock at night, after a meeting, a long meeting they'd had. And Jim - who was deeply understanding and patient as any man I've ever known, any person I've ever known - he said they wanted to come in. And he stood at the door, and he said, "I will talk with you all in the morning. You can come to my office at any time, and we'll have a conversation." They talked back and forth for a while and then - he was a very quiet, caring person, said "I will talk to you in my office in the morning." So then they said, "All right," and went away and came the next morning, and they worked on some problems. This was, there 00:42:00were many things. When [Chancellor] Gordon Blackwell was here then - in earlier years, when the Woolworth [Sit-ins] incident occurred and took the stand that - I don't remember what his public pronouncement was, but Gordon was again a person who believed in civil rights and things moving along and said so. And our students boycotted some of the places, they participated in the boycotts. But 00:43:00there were no - we didn't have the terribly difficult situations that most, that many campuses that had large coeducational groups did have.

WL: When were the first black students arriving on campus, must have been in the early sixties?

MM: Yes, I don't remember [Note: in 1956]. I'm sure the next fall we had some, and they were - I remember Dr. Pierson, I believe, was our acting chancellor at the time. And I remember when we had a convocation, and at the convocation he said, "This is now the law of the land and we abide by law." I think in his heart he probably wasn't a great enthusiast for the change that had come - as 00:44:00quickly as he thought it had come. But that was his word, and that was the stand that - during his one year here prior to Gordon coming, that he said, "the law of the land and we abide by it." Quickly in admissions we recruited - we recruited faculty, actually qualified faculty, very shortly thereafter. I can't remember when we brought Dr. [Joseph] Himes in sociology, I can't even remember the 00:45:00people, somebody in physical education, a very able woman.

WL: Yes, we were talking about - we were talking about the desegregation at this campus, and you were discussing the hiring of black faculty in the 1960s. Was it an effort mainly - people you mentioned were mainly appointments at the senior level?

MM: Yes. We weren't, we didn't have, it was very hard to find black faculty. But then in the sixties, it was hard to find any faculty that were ready and qualified. As we said last time, and I reiterate: We worked hard at getting women candidates for major positions, and it was difficult, very difficult, 00:46:00because I did feel that it was incumbent upon us to get the best persons we could get, man or woman, for positions that would be positions of real responsibility in the building of the institution as we moved ahead in the next twenty years. And they were important.

WL: Let's switch to a little, certainly different, topic now. One of the big controversies of the University of North Carolina, affecting the whole university, the Consolidated University, in the 1960s, was the question of free speech and the speaker ban law that was enacted in response to the prospect of inviting Communists -

MM: Communists, right.

WL: - Herbert Aptheker [historian] to Chapel Hill. However, the speaker ban affected all campuses - affected our campus as well as Chapel Hill. How did this restriction affect our campus, if at all?

MM: At that time I was on the executive committee of the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities, so I was aware almost immediately of - because they called us in session when the question came up and said that the accreditation of our institution would be involved if the speaker ban were placed within the full university system. And now let me think, Emmet, Emmet, 00:48:00I've forgotten - the Southern Association named a chairman who was then the dean of arts and sciences at Vanderbilt, I believe, to come to the university and to make the position of the Southern Association clear to the Consolidated University. And then didn't, wasn't [Jesse] Helms at WRAL [TV] the leading force promoting the speaker ban regulation? Our campus was involved as a part of the 00:49:00system and with full recognition at that time. Because I was on the executive committee of the Southern Association. Because of the position which they had taken, I didn't - I wasn't a spokesman in any sense on our campus, because I felt that the Southern Association had taken the position, and it was the spokesman for the importance of accreditation within the university system and what this would do to our university if we did indeed have a speaker ban placed upon us.

WL: So you communicated that to officials in the legislature as well?

MM: Well, the University [of North Carolina] at Chapel Hill took the 00:50:00leadership, of course, when our chancellors -

WL: Was there a fairly unified opposition to the speaker ban?

MM: Yes, yes.

WL: University wide?

MM: University wide. Oh yes, this was a very - this, I felt, was crucial in the life of the university system. We would have been a second-rate university with a speaker ban. I mean the university system. Well, we just wouldn't have had it. [laughs] It just couldn't have happened.

WL: Was there much of a history of legislative intervention in university affairs? Was this something that you were worried about?

MM: No, the university had always - the legislature, I think, had always valued 00:51:00what Chapel Hill and State and the Woman's College as very much lesser force in the political life of the state. Although don't underestimate the force of women and wives in getting for the Woman's College the things that seemed important to a women's college through the years. I would say that there, as you looked at other states, our legislature had a regard for what a university is. And though 00:52:00there were always temptations to want to come in and become politically involved, the legislature acted, interfered less than legislatures of many states. Now, ECU [East Carolina University] really played the political aspect when their President [Leo Warren] Jenkins was there. I used to feel very resentful of the way he would go and take these appeals and the students over. It was an effort to use the legislature in enhancing their appropriation. But 00:53:00then I suppose in more subtle ways we did the same thing until we had the university administration represented.

WL: So there was lobbying done by this campus?

MM: There was indeed. You know, there were some buildings we wouldn't have gotten if - I remember one of our legislators who was very much interested in the university in Greensboro - and had good reason to be - he came to the chancellor on one occasion and said, "If we could just get one thing this time, what do we need?" The chancellor, and I don't remember who else, but I was one of the persons, and I said, "Well, we can't have a School of Nursing unless we have a building." And the chancellor made a decision that that was what we most 00:54:00needed. We got a building. I'm sure this process went on throughout the system prior to President Friday, prior to the system, I mean the General Administration. President Friday was a remarkable president in many ways, I thought - very, very fair and highly regarded by the legislature, some would say feared, because he was a fine political figure. I mean he managed to represent the total system.

WL: You mentioned the expansion of facilities. That must have been in the latter part in your tenure as - in the administration of UNCG. It must have been 00:55:00a dramatic expansion in terms of facilities?

MM: It was with President - with Chancellor Ferguson, we increased, got several of our facilities and also during Chancellor [Otis] Singletary's term, our Excellence Fund in the building, some faculty positions in the Excellence Fund, the Alumni [Fund] appointments and two or three other professorships. We had not had Kenan professors [funded by Kenan family of North Carolina] as Chapel Hill, and we couldn't compete without the opportunities, paying larger salaries than the state had been.

WL: How would you, just to sum up what we were talking about the last few weeks, how would you - what do you characterize as the most important changes 00:56:00that occurred under your leadership here? The most significant, the most important -

MM: I've reflected on that, as you would suspect, after I was last - . I would say that the faculty and department heads that we were able to bring in and then those faculty, the contributions they made in the building of the university, were probably the most useful thing I did.

WL: The recruitment of faculty?

MM: Recruitment, the choice of selection, the helping to select were probably 00:57:00useful, and the strong emphasis upon the academic because we had not had - we had always had a faculty that acted on all matters related to the academic. But we had - we needed a focus, an office that would have the responsibility for identifying some of the issues and seeing that we moved ahead with those - tenure, promotions, recruitment, admissions standards. And perhaps an office 00:58:00that just spent all its time thinking about goals and values and ratings questions and trying to move ahead in various directions. Really, I guess, providing a focus for faculty to voice their concerns, where you could get things moving and then move through to achieving the goals. But it's a - the 00:59:00building of a faculty and in that faculty the sense of community, the sense of the institution having goals and values towards which you could see that you are moving.

WL: You mentioned before we turned the machine on, that you injected of feeling of community.

MM: And I still feel that. You know, we were blessed with - [laughter] The period of which I was in administration, there weren't any question of athletics. There was the question of having the facilities that you needed for interclass activities, competitions, good tennis courts, a good golf course, 01:00:00good opportunities for physical - for good competition, but within the institution, not intercollegiate athletics. I'm glad that's come later to be thought through.