Oral History Program Helmut P. Hofmann Interviewed by Stephen Wood 22 February 1979 Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Helmut P. Hofmann Interviewed by Stephen Wood Assistant University Archivist 22 February 1979 Copyright © 2012 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. The working files, original recording, and archival copies are housed in the University Archives. Project Description The Weber State College Oral History Program was created in the early 1970s to “record and document, through personal reminiscences, the history, growth and development of Weber State College.” Through interviews with administrators, faculty and students, the program’s goal was to expand the documentary holdings on Weber State College and its predecessor entities. From 1970 to 1976, the program conducted some fifteen interviews, under the direction of, and generally conducted by Harold C. Bateman, an emeritus professor of history. In 1979, under the direction of archivist John Sillito, the program was reestablished and six interviews were conducted between 1979 and 1983. Additional interviews were conducted by members of the Weber State community. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management This work is the property of the Weber State University, Stewart Library Oral History Program. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Hofmann, Helmut P., an oral history by Stephen Wood, 22 February 1979, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. Helmut Hofmann 1 Abstract: The following is an oral history interview with Helmut P. Hofmann in his office as President of Westminster College in Salt Lake City. Mr. Hofmann served as Academic Vice President of Weber State College from 1967 to 1972. The interview was conducted on February 22, 1979 by Stephen Wood in order to gather Mr. Hofmann’s recollections and experiences with Weber State College. This is a follow-up interview to one recorded by Dr. Harold Bateman in October of 1971. SW: First of all, we were interested in the role of Weber State College in the state system higher education when you were there, both before and after the State Board of Higher Education was created in 1969. HH: Well, I thought Weber played a very significant role before the board was created. It was the institution, I should say, in the Ogden Weber County area and drew a lot of students also from Davis County, Hill Air Force Base, and north from Brigham City and this particular area. When it entered the system, it had the same task which every institution had then—to accomodate itself to a system, and to find its rightful place in the system. SW: In terms of curriculum development, as I understand it, Weber College was more independent before the board was created. It could set up its own programs, the state coordinating council was an advisory board and after the charge— HH: Subject, of course, to legislative funding. SW: Yes. 2 HH: It wasn't totally independent. See, the financial constraints did not permit the building of any program which we would not have liked. But after, of course, the board came into existance then the entire program improvement moved to the state board which was an entirely new story. SW: Did you feel that the board had favored one of the institutions, that they had more influence with it? HH: I felt in the beginning that this was true. I sometimes wonder today whether it isn't true. Generally, from what I have observed, the board is pretty objective, and they try to serve the total system and the total state rather than one institution. So while some institutions may perhaps have had a little more influence than others, I don't think generally it was unfair on the average. SW: Were there some particular programs you felt Weber was not allowed to develop? HH: I think Weber should have pushed for a graduate program in areas which are unique to Weber. These would be police science, the allied health sciences, and technology. These are the three areas in which Weber has a unique role. As a matter of fact, I would say an exclusive role in the state of Utah. SW: That was something I wanted to ask. You seem to have been involved at that time in developing a school of Allied Health Sciences. It was delayed several years. HH: It was the right step to do. That's one of the most needed schools in the state of Utah. SW: But was it really a problem to get that started? 3 HH: I think some of these problems were internal. Weber needed a reorganization of schools. The School of Arts, Letters and Sciences was much too big, and after that problem was solved, there was no question that the School of Nursing and Life Sciences had been established, and was established in a role. I think it was the right decision. SW: Yes, it has grown quite large, I understand. So these problems were mostly internal, by that I mean getting the higher board to approve the school. HH: Well, you see, when we go to the higher board, you have to have the politics of the school and departments solved on the local level. Because you can't go down there and have the department chairman or a dean speak against you. Until that was solved and until there was an acceptance of the need of these schools, it would have been very difficult to get a school established. After that was solved, there was no question of getting the school established. SW: Was there some resistance on the part of some? HH: Oh sure, there's always resistance to change. SW: Do you think it was mostly because they didn't want to lose programs from their areas? HH: No, I think it was because of jealousy. Some people pushed it more, some were a bit more aggressive, and some articulate a particular program a bit better. Then everybody else is afraid, of course, it's a natural reaction. It is not unique to Weber. It happens in all institutions. SW: So you had to get a lot of these different programs accredited in that school? HH: I think they all were accredited. 4 SW: At that point, you had to do that. HH: Yes. Well, you first have to create a program. Then you have to build up the quality of the program. You have to graduate a few people and then you can build toward national or a regional state of accreditation. SW: Did you have the same kinds of problems with the Police Science program? HH: Yes, we had to push for that quite a bit. Unfortunately, again, it was new and people didn't recognize it as a unique opportunity for Weber to get into. It is the only Police Science program in the whole state of Utah. If I have any recommendation to Weber—and it's certainly not appropriate for me to make any as an outsider—but I would always support programs which are unique and which lend particular stature to a school. You see, everybody has a liberal arts program. Everybody, or many schools, have technical programs. But in Utah, nobody has a Police Science program and nobody has a Respiratory Therapy program and a few other things which are very unique to Weber and which they should play up. SW: Now the technical education area, too, grew a lot when you were there. HH: No question of that. SW: That primarily not because it was unique, but because there was a greater demand? HH: There's a great need for technical education and if we look at our state, and our state is no different, I think we have trained far too many people in the areas where we have few career opportunities. The jobs in Utah are on the technicalvocational level at the present time. That doesn't mean we should abolish four 5 year programs, but I think we ought to take a look at our funding. As you compare the funding of the four year and two year technical schools there is a great disparity between those two. SW: Now this Institutional Council had their functions changed when the state board was created? HH: Well, at the time when the State Board was created, I was very much in favor of keeping the Institutional Council. Today I would say abolish it. Just another layer of bureaucracy. I really don't see any function for it. SW: I am having a hard time understanding what they were doing now. HH: I still have a hard time understanding. I think after we went to the systems approach, and we had a Board of Regents who represented the whole system, the Institutional Council became superfluous. It creates enormous difficulties for the president to go to so many different board meetings and to prepare for them. It takes, frankly, four days out of his working schedule every month in preparation for each board meeting and in attending the board meetings. That's a lot of time. SW: After 1969 or 1970, they really didn't have any decision making power? HH: Oh, I think they still have some. There's some input and choice of the president and the appoval of the budget. They lobby and there are some functions, which if you stretch it a bit, you can depend on it. I really don't see any need of it anymore and it would make for a much cleaner system. Right now we have a two-tiered approach and every time we create new levels of administration or responsibility, I think we just create new bureaucracies. I have changed my mind on this. In 6 1969, I strongly fought for this because I thought they would have a much more significant role than they actually did. SW: A lot of people, I understand, were very apprehensive, especially at Weber about the higher board. HH: Well, the fear at the time, to be very specific, was that the University of Utah would dominate the whole system. I think that's partially alleviated today, but not totally. SW: Just because of institutional changes? HH: Well, it's because of the prestige and the tremendous influence that the University has. SW: You mentioned earlier that hasn't happened. It's mostly because you think the people at Weber and many other schools have been— HH: Oh, they've kept a good balance in my opinion. They have maintained independence within the system. SW: Another important thing I thought we ought to talk about was government funding at Weber. There were a lot of programs proposed during the period you were there and it seems to me that government funding would have been instrumental in the growth of the college. Do you think this is true? HH: Well, I think no public college can maintain itself without government funding. You see, unless you have a budget source like B.Y.U. has where a particular church supports a university every year—and I'm guessing, but I'm not far off somewhere in the neighborhood of from sixty to ninety million a year—you are forced to look for some other sources of funding. Now where can institutions like 7 Weber get funding? Tuition—and that's fifteen to eighteen percent, state appropriations, federal appropriations, and private funds. There are no other sources of income. I think they have really no choice but to go along with it, with all the negative things that government programs and government relations impose on institutions. SW: Did you have problems with those regulations? HH: Oh, I sure did. SW: What kind of things? HH: I would prefer if the United States Government would abolish all categorical grants, and give institutions a certain amount of money based on the number of students they have. It would save a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of proposal writing, and a lot of positions you have to have. SW: How did that system function at that time of getting proposals to the government? HH: Well, I tell you, I remember one thing very significant, and it's a little bit before I came to Weber. I served at Utah State. In 1965, Mr. Johnson, who was president at that time, passed the Elementary, Secondary and Higher Education Act, which for the first time, introduced massive funding into higher education. I was all for it. I thought, finally, we have a President and a government which will do something for education. I recall very well at the time that my Dean, John Carlile, and I had a conversation regarding revenue sharing. He said, “Hofmann, someday you and all the others will be very sorry.” I said, “No, Carlile, you're out of your mind. Finally, we get some support.” He said, “I'll tell you what will happen. First of all, 8 we will get an awful lot of control regulations, and second, it will corrupt the professors.” After fifteen years of serving it, I fully agree with John Carlile. SW: Could you see that happening at Weber then? HH: Yes. SW: The regulations? HH: I also saw the scramble of professors to get extra funds and neglect their duties. We opposed that very much, Bill Miller and I. I'm not accusing everybody of it, but it is a great temptation that the grant, the external, and the outside thing become more important than your job which is to serve the student and to teach. SW: So in the system of proposal writing, a professor would initiate one and work on writing it. It would then go through the college bureauery. HH: At that time, it was primarily Mr. Monk, if I remember correctly, in my office. We didn't have large offices and had fewer people in the administration. I encouraged it. I was for it. But I have some real question marks today, after seeing what it does to institutions. Not just Weber, but all the other places problems included how much selling they have to do, how much time is involved, how many people have to be hired to write proposals, how many additional dollars it will cost to administer the thing, how many additional dollars it will impose on the institution when the grant runs out, etc. I could go on and on. I think we really have to take a look at it. SW: So in many ways, it really probably isn't bringing a lot of money into the college in the long run. 9 HH: Well, it brings money in, but it also takes money out. There are some things which have been going on, for library grants, have been up. There's no question of that. But again, when you think of the bureaucracy you have to build up in Washington to get those library grants and funds and the administration of them, why not give block institutional grants to every institution, saying, “You have so many students. I'll give you five hundred dollars per student and you can do with it what you want.” SW: There were a lot of regulations then? HH: Yes and there still are. Let me give you an example which I often use. When you prepare something for a private foundation, you usually write one or two pages. When you fill out something for the government, for the same amount, you fill out fifteen pages. These fifteen pages are stored in Washington but they don't know anymore what to do with them, because they have to make new buildings all the time just to store the paper. The more bureaucrats you get involved in that system, the more paper will be asked for. SW: It all goes in the archives eventually. HH: Will the archives use it? I'm not against paper or reports if it is used or if it fulfills a good purpose. But in so many of these things, somebody sits at the desk and dreams up a form. Then thousands in the country have to abide by the form. So I have some question marks on that system, but I admit I was fully for it. SW: What did it take to get a proposal written for the government? HH: It depends on two or three things. One is to find a person who is interested in doing something like that. Two, you must find a person who can write. Very few 10 people can write, even in higher education. Three, you have to have somebody who can negotiate such a proposal in Washington or wherever it is. But there is a dearth of writing ability even in the colleges, in the faculties, not just the students. SW: You probably saw a lot of that at your office. It was a liason between the government and the institution. Would you say that a percentage of the programs at Weber exist now because of federal funds? HH: Only five to ten percent. SW: Is that all? HH: About ten percent. Maybe higher, I'm not sure. At the time when I was there, we had about 350 to 400 thousand dollars income from federal grants, which was high. It was between five and ten percent of the total institution budget, and today, the budget is over twenty million, I'm not sure how much of that is federal. SW: Another thing I thought would be interesting to talk about—you were at Weber at a time when there was a lot of social unrest on college campuses around the country. I wondered if you felt that trend was happening at Weber State—maybe in a smaller degree. HH: It was to a much smaller degree. The only confrontation I had in my office was when thirty or forty blacks came and presented what was it—nonnegotiable notes. A Mr. Robinson played a significant role, I understand, and he is now in jail, where he belongs. SW: What was that over? Do you remember? HH: The same old nonsense that was all over the country—having black math, black history, and black this and black that. Which I think is nonsense. 11 SW: Black math. What was that? HH: No, it was an imitation of the national thing and there were two or three guys from Oakland who came in and who had been trained to stir up the campus. SW: They'd been trained? Is that about all they did was just present demands? HH: Oh, they also went to the press and the television and other news media that sort of things, and sensationalism. It simmered down and I remember President Miller and I were called to the Governor at that time, because this Mr. Robinson had been picked up by a bail bondsman from California. The Governor wanted to read the riot act to us because we had permitted this, but under Utah State Law, unknown to him—but he informed himself of that later—it states clearly that a bail bondsman can come in and expedite anybody who has jumped bail. SW: That was Governor Rampton. HH: It was the only mistake I remember he made, and I admired him greatly as a governor. He had the press and everybody lined up. Bill and I came down, and I believe one of our officers from campus security was with us. Then it was really just a matter of just saying we had only done what the law of Utah prescribed. He thought the law was not in existance. It was an interesting side light. SW: They were critical of the athletic program too, I understand. HH: Oh, yes. They attacked the coach at the time. Well, we tried to respond by starting what we called an Ethnic Studies Institute. I believe Richard Ulibarri played a significant role in that for a while. I'm not quite sure how this was later absorbed in counseling or what happended to it, but this was a response which we had supported. 12 SW: I wanted to ask you that. It was directly related to this problem, this Ethnic Studies program? HH: Yes. It was an attempt to create possibilities of counseling, special services for Indians, Spanish Americans, and the Blacks. Counseling some classes, faculty awareness to the problems, community awareness, and athletics were conceived as a focal point where these things could be aired, cleared and conflicts be avoided rather than fostered. SW: Was there a move to build curriculum with this committee? HH: Not too much of that, other than I believe an awareness course in history, but I'm not even quite sure on that. I think the most significant thing which then happened, in which I took part, was the establishment of a special amount of money for disadvantaged students, which I believe is still funded from the state. I think that was a significant help for minorities. That enabled a lot of them to go to school. SW: That was originated at Weber. HH: I was part of that, yes, originally. Then after we had made the request the payment would be much higher of course. Today every institution has one but I think we did a good thing there. I'm for it. SW: That included the handicapped services that's on the campus? HH: No, no, that was primarily at the time for minorities, to create better access to education. SW: Was there much support for this program among the students? 13 HH: Not in the beginning. There certainly wasn't much opposition, but there certainly wasn't much support either. I know President Miller supported it. He thought it was a good idea. SW: There was also an S.D.S. chapter on the Weber campus. HH: It was very insignificant. We never paid any attention to that. I think again we did the right thing. The more you pay attention to these things, the more these people will receive gratification of their needs, and their needs are to be important, to be known, and they don't contribute one iota to our society. SW: You thought that was very effective, just to ignore them? HH: Ignore it, yeah. They are different systems anyhow. SW: Probably, on the campus, there for a year or two, I remember. HH: A few just one or two. It was a fad of the time, and every administrator who reacts to every fad is a fool. SW: So probably none of the students paid attention to these groups? HH: The Weber students were not very much impressed with that stuff. It's a pretty conservative student body. SW: You mentioned the necessity to reorganize the school when you first came here. HH: Well, I think, if I have made any contributions, my major contribution to Weber State was to lead it from a two year to a four year school in the academic area, and to clearly establish what four year programs are and at the same time to maintain our two year programs. That was the mandate which President Miller gave me when I was hired. I think I stuck to it. SW: So as far as reorganization of the schools— 14 HH: It was a natural growth process in programs, which, I thought by their very nature, ought to have been put together and administered for the full benefit of all concerned. SW: So, for example, the School of Life Sciences and those that were created— HH: There were discussions. The long range planning committee looked at it and made recommendations to create a School of Life Sciences, a School of the Humanities, the School of the Social Sciences, etc. SW: So that started all during the period when you came in as Academic Vice President. HH: That's right. That came out of the School of Letter and Sciences which had eighteen departments and one dean, who needed three assistant deans to take care of it. I created nothing but layers of administration. Have one dean and that's enough. He doesn't even need assistant deans. SW: Was the decision making process very centralized? HH: Yes and no. Two major bodies made decisions in the academic area. One was the Deans' Council, which I introduced. The second was the Faculty Senate? Both had, in my opinion, strong input into whatever decisions were made. However, I think it's very peculiar to me, but I do feel that it was the Academic Vice President's job to lead and not just to rubber stamp everything that comes up. SW: Most of the minor decisions, I guess, were handled by the Dean's Council. HH: Oh sure, in the schools. Top administration shouldn't do more than that. SW: Some kinds of things you handled would include? 15 HH: New programs. Administrative changes were a major part, summer school, continuing education, personnel, the liason with the business office on budget and long range planning were included. We had—I'm not sure what the organization now is, but we had just three vice presidents and three secretaries. Sometimes I wonder if that's not too many even in that period. But that's really an unfair statement. SW: Most of the administrative growth came after you left. HH: Well, again, the more paper shufflers you get, the more paper will be shuffled. There's nothing that you can do about it. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not criticizing anything which is happening with Weber. I'm just making a general observation about anybody in any school. It is a problem in education. SW: Of the three Vice Presidents who were there, each had specific functions? HH: That is true. SW: Was there much coordination? HH: The coordination was done by the President's Council on Monday mornings in Bill Miller's office. We took care of the current problems of the school which had to be solved that particular week. In addition, of course, we had special meetings in which reports were made and were held. SW: So the President's Council was mostly a discussion group? HH: The President's Council had four functions. One was to clear the deck of all the things which needed to be done. The second thing was that the Vice Presidents had an opportunity to present proposals at that time. The third one was our liason with the State Institutional Council, State Board, Legislative Committee and so 16 on. The fourth one was to give an opportunity to look at the decisions and to give input and then hopefully come to an agreement. But if there was no agreement, President Miller made the decision. I must say that the three of us and President Miller had an excellent personal relationship. It was just a pleasure to serve. SW: What about the Administrative Council? What function did that serve? HH: I'm trying to think about it. Who participated? I think it had a minor function. It didn't meet very often. It was a kind of information forum. The more significant council was the Dean's Council. That's where most of the decisions were made. SW: The deans of all the schools are—? HH: The deans of all of the schools are the Dean of Continuing Education, the Dean of Admissions, and Dr. Wilson who was the Director of Institutional research at that time. SW: They handled mostly academic decisions? HH: That's right. We also looked at such things as new programs, building needs, long range plans, special events, etc. SW: Then you would take this to the President or the President's Council. HH: Right. But again, if the Dean's Council and Senate had agreed on something it was really an imposition on the President's part to change anything. We had the right and this was recognized. SW: But you rarely did that. HH: Rarely. SW: And the Academic Council? HH: Or we make good decisions, and he didn't have to do it. 17 SW: So the Academic Council had another function? HH: The Academic Council had the function of the review of curriculum, of welfare matters of the faculty, of salaries, of major school policies, of admissions standards, and those kinds of things. Also proposals for consideration for the administration, the area of maybe new program development, long range planning committee decisions, budget proposals, salary proposals, these kinds of things. They did this quite well I think. SW: Now you mentioned a couple of times that you had a good working relationship with President Miller. HH: Oh yes. SW: He was the sort of administrator, who believed in centralized decision making? HH: Yes. Bill Miller wanted to have consent by as many people as possible, which I think is a good sign of leadership. At times, it could be exasperating because we had to wait so long until everybody had had a chance to give input. But in the long run it pays off because people feel important. They feel they've had their say. Of course, Bill Miller had a very friendly way of relating to people—almost in a fatherly way. I think this made a great contribution to us, the very person he was. SW: He retired the last year that you were there and a new President was selected. What was the difference between the two administrations? What kind of changes did the new President make? 18 HH: Oh, I felt that President Miller was a very wise man, a man of absolute honesty and integrity. I'm not sure whether his predecessor had the same degree of wisdom. SW: Dr. Bishop? Did he make any administrative changes immediately, when he came? HH: Well, he made changes which I felt created a lot of uncertainty, uproar, and a lot of morale problems. Especially right after he came. I wish he had listened a bit more, because he could have avoided a lot of the problems. SW: Like what? HH: Well, for example, when he fired all the deans. Well, it would have been so much easier to discuss that before and say, “Look, I want some new people and you have a year or two years, then I'm going to look for some.” People would have cooperated. But by just going in and announcing out of the blue that everyone was fired, well it just doesn't quite make sense. I think it created a lot of negative feelings toward him which he could have avoided. Perhaps he meant well, but he went about it in a very strange way. SW: What kind of working relation did you have with him? HH: Very little because he didn't ask for any. I think he wanted to do everything by himself, at least in the beginning, and so we really didn't know exactly what he expected from anyone. That created uncertainty, you know. Nobody knew exactly what was who and who had a say in this or that, and to whom do you go. But I think that worked out later. I can only judge the one year I was there. 19 SW: He makes a statement—he was interviewed by Harold Bateman also—that someone on the higher board asked him to come apply for the job as President. Do you have any knowledge about that? HH: No. SW: Is that how the system usually handled applicants? HH: No, this is most unusual. This is the first time I'd heard that. The Board of Regents and Weber State College are under affirmative action, as is every other group in the nation which takes any federal funds. Therefore, they must have an open system of application and selection. Now that doesn't mean that if a board member knows somebody in Michigan and wants to ask them to apply that he can't do that. But I would be greatly surprised if the selection of presidents is based on personal recommendations. SW: About a year, or so after he came, you left and went to Westminster, is that right? HH: That is correct. SW: That's 1974. HH: No, it was in 1973. SW: Now, you were Vice President, for a few months, of Research and Development before you went to Westminster? HH: Yes, but I'm not quite sure that one needs a Vice President for Research and Development. SW: But there was a position he had created? HH: Yes. I would have preferred it if President Bishop had come to me and said, “Look, I want a new man in Academic Affairs and you have a year. You can go 20 either back to teaching or to a new job.” I could have lived with it because I firmly believe that a President has the right to select his own Vice Presidents. I fully agree with Dr. Bishop on this point. But I found myself in disagreement with the way it was done. SW: Which was similar to the way the Deans were handled? HH: Exactly. I was on a trip to Seattle for Weber, at the time, and got a call that I had urgently to come back to the campus, meaning that I had a new job, immediately. And this without any previous discussions as to why and how. I believe that you can sit down and say, “I want a change, would you like this job or not.” That's the normal way of doing it. But again, we all have different styles of leadership and it isn't my purpose here to attack Dr. Bishop or anybody else. I just didn't feel comfortable with this kind of leadership. SW: I was curious about that because there doesn't seem to be very good documentation for that period. HH: There was nothing written down? SW: Very little. I was curious as to what the transition period was like when he first came in as President. HH: Well, first of all, he had almost no contact with the vice presidents. He would invite everybody on campus to talk with him except those who were the vice presidents. SW: There were people who just— 21 HH: Anybody who happened to come in. There was great turmoil. No one knew what he should be doing and how he should be doing it. He didn't give us clear guidance. Maybe that developed later after I moved here. I just don't know. SW: That was in contrast to President Miller? HH: Oh yes. When President Miller hired me he said, “This is the way I'd like to operate. Let's look at your responsibilities. If we have disagreements, come in, talk about it, and then go and do your job.” With that kind of direction any person can function. It gives you freedom, latitude, and at the same time, sets clearly the parameters within which you should function. That's comfortable to work in and easy to work with. SW: There were fairly good working relationships with the other vice presidents while you were there? HH: Oh yes. We had very good relationships. Sure, we had a lot of disagreements, but they never were of a personal nature, and they never were upsetting to the point that I'd go home and smash doors. It was a very agreeable and as I look back, it was a very productive time for me. I fully enjoyed it. I have only good feelings for the college. SW: So, I get the impression that most of the major issues that you dealt with when you were there were curriculum development and college— HH: Curriculum development, faculty development, accreditation. SW: Oh, accreditation? HH: It was the first job I had when I entered Weber College in 1968 I believe. That's a very good learning experience. You learn the institution very rapidly. 22 SW: What was your involvement in that process? HH: The writing of a very substantial report. I did most of that work. Perry Wilson helped with that. SW: What are some of the things they look for at the agency, the accrediting agency? This is the Northwest Association? HH: The accredition is a simple process. It asks what kind of institution are you? 2. What kind of programs do you run in order to accomplish a solution? 3. How do you know that you do accomplish your mission? What are your strengths and weaknesses? The whole institution is appraised—academic program, physical program, athletic program, library, administration, etc. You actually describe where you are, and you do this by also looking back at the previous accreditation. Weber had been criticized for quite a few points which we avoided the second time around. SW: Do you remember what some of those were? HH: Oh, I don't recall all of them but I think the administrative structure was criticized. Someone said the faculty had all their degrees from Utah, Utah State, BYU. I can't recall that, but you can read the accreditation report which, I hope, you have in the archives. SW: Yes. This idea of faculty development. From the first interview, I understand that was one of your major concerns? HH: Yes. You need several things today. It's even more prevalent today than it was at the time. First of all, we have totally immobile faculties. With the exception of the top people, faculties cannot move. There are no jobs. They have to recognize 23 that. So, an institution has a moral and legal responsiblity to permit faculty members to grow in their jobs, not to repeat the same stuff year after year. So my advice is to create opportunities for sabbatical leaves, development programs in the institution, incentive programs—not to permit people to stagnate. I think that's a major responsiblity of any academic vice president, whoever it is. SW: So you did this at Weber? HH: We began to do it. The sabbatical program was greatly strengthened at the time, more faculty travel was introduced, conferences were a part of the campus, all kinds of things happened. Media in instruction was introduced. SW: That's the learning center. HH: Learning center, yes. I think that's essential and it's more essential today than ever, because when you hire a guy today— unless he commits a crime or is caught in moral turpitude—you have him forever. It's one of the most immobile professions in the world today and it used to be one of the most mobile. SW: The tenure system? HH: Doesn't help. No, it doesn't help. See, then people become security minded and then don't act anymore. SW: Did you have this problem? HH: Yes. SW: There was some resistance? HH: There were no exceptions all over the United States. You see, the tenure system itself—I just have great reservations in my own mind about it. Tenure should protect what they call academic freedom. There is not one college in the United 24 States anymore where that is not a fact. The first day you enter it, no administrator is so foolish as to go in and tell a person he is finished. But it has become a questionable system because what people do not talk about is the immense investment which an institution has, a financial investment, which is between 750,000 dollars and million dollars the moment you give tenure to someone. That's cumulative, a tremendous obligation. In addition to that, I don't think there is a job in the world where after three to five years you get a contract for life. Most jobs, as long as you do the job well, and as long as you have a contract with people, you stay, and if you are not in agreement, you go. SW: You actively tried to recruit people who had degrees from other schools besides the local ones. HH: That's true. Yes, I did. SW: Do you think you had much success? HH: Oh yes. I think we got a good mix of people which is important to an institution. I'm not holding anything against our state institutions or BYU when I say that. They produce good people. But if you get all your English teachers from the University of Utah, you get the same kind of view. They're trained by the same people. I feel it is essential that there is a variety of views in colleges, especially in liberal arts colleges. SW: You also thought it was essential to have people work on terminal degrees? HH: Yes, I did. Those whom I have practically forced should be falling on their knees and be grateful to me that I did it. SW: I think some of them would. 25 HH: Because it will help them. It's always a burden on the family, and your job to work on a degree. But it's important for the accreditation of the institution. It's important for the man's life, it's important for his earning capacity. So for very selfish reasons he should do it. SW: You had to actively encourage people? HH: Oh, I sure did. I didn't promote them and there would be other things if they didn't work on. A lot of people did and it's good for them. It's not a bad decision. I'm fully sure that a PHD doesn't make a great teacher. I fully know that you have no guarantee when you are rehearsing in an advanced program at a doctoral insttution that you will necessarily become the world's outstanding teacher. That's not true. The two do not go along because the advanced program is trying to train specialists. That's another reason why you need a faculty development program. A specialist in biology must also know how to teach his specialty. SW: What was the faculty development program like? HH: I think we began with twenty or twenty-five thousand dollars and it's like a small insignificant sum, but at that time it was a big sum. People could apply, a committee was set up, and we reviewed application for course improvement, new course development, and mediated instruction. We could fund such things. A professor could take out three hours and say, 'Okay, I'm going to really build slides and tapes and audio and video feedback kind of systems into my course, and we funded it. I think that's important. Then we had a man like Bill Daehling, who was very good and could help. The whole development in the school of education at the time, I very much encouraged. I think they call it Wilkit program? 26 The important thing is that you don't stand still on your course. They need to be revised every two or three years, because they can become just as stale as lectures. SW: The Wilkit program, I understand, is highly thought of by a lot of people. HH: Oh yes, we got a special grant from a corporation at that time. It was around 125,000 dollars, which helped a lot and which permitted again faculty development. They were able to sit down and develop a new curriculum a new delivery system for education, to actually take them out of the class and let them work for a year. It is a tremendous kind of thing if you can get funding. We also created at that time the Faculty Honor Lecture which is another part of faculty development which was Inez—Very fine woman. SW: Well, I have no other questions. Is there anything else you'd like to say? HH: Not especially. I'm very pleased that the archives carry on such a program. It's very important. Because in fifty years, everyone will have forgotten everything, unless you have it stored somewhere.