Oral History Program Forrest Crawford Interviewed by Ruby Licona 30 January 2008 Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Forrest Crawford Interviewed by Ruby Licona Special Projects Librarian 30 January 2008 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 University Oral History Project began conducting interviews with key Weber State University faculty, administrators, staff and students, in Fall 2007. The program focuses primarily on obtaining a historical record of the school along with important developments since the school gained university status in 1990. The interviews explore the process of achieving university status, as well as major issues including accreditation, diversity, faculty governance, changes in leadership, curricular developments, etc. ____________________________________ 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: Crawford, Forrest, an oral history by Ruby Licona, 30 January 2008, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. Forrest Crawford 1 Abstract: This is an oral history interview with Forrest C. Crawford. It was conducted January 30, 2008 and concerns his recollections and experiences with Weber State University. The interviewer is Ruby Licona. RL: This is an interview being conducted with Forrest C. Crawford, who is a professor in the Teacher Education Department at Weber State University. The interview is being done January 30, 2008 in an office in the Stewart Library. Forrest, let me first of all thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview. I realize we have one on record that was done with John Sillito in 1979, but since that’s a few years ago. I’m sure there have been things that have taken place in the ensuing time. We want to catch up with where you are and what your experiences have been at Weber State in the different positions you’ve held. At the time that interview was done, you explained you had come here from Oklahoma as a student athlete and had gotten your bachelor’s at Weber State and were mentored by several minority professionals; Dr. Daily Oliver, Darnell Haney and others.. FC: I started working for Weber professionally shortly after I finished graduate school. I had just finished my master’s degree at the University of Utah graduate school in social work. I was working for the counseling center under Dr. Gary Carson, the director. Dr. Kay Evans was the dean of Student Affairs. My first ten or twelve years at Weber were really under the department of Student Affairs. I started out in the Counseling Center and that was my professional introduction to Weber State. Before that I had worked a year in Alaska for the Bureau of Indidan Affairs as a researcher. I was in Bethel, Alaska. Thought it was part of my graduate 2 studies, I also was hired by them to do some research. RL: What made you decide to come back to Weber State in a professional capacity after you finished your master’s? FC: I was looking for a variety of possibilities to actualize my newly earned master’s in social work. The African American Counselor position was open in 1977, and I was asked to apply and have my candidacy considered. I graduated from Weber State in 1975 and ironically found myself returning to Weber in 1977, a couple of years later. RL: It was my understanding that you were a counselor here in 1979 working particularly with the African American students. FC: I was hired as a clinical social worker. Also, part of my responsibility was to be an advisor to the black students and the Black Scholars United student organization. RL: Tell me a little about the department when you came here. In terms of what the intellectual climate was in that era. Who were some of your colleagues and how would you assess their activities in relations to diversity? FC: We didn’t necessarily refer to it as diversity at the time. One of the things that is interesting about diversity at Weber was that from the early 60’s up until the early 90’s, the diversity and multicultural related efforts were primary concerns of the Student Affairs Division. In other words, Weber State’s early history of grappling with diversity and multicultural issues was largely embedded in the division where there were a majority of the classified and professional staff who were responsible for managing and addressing the variety of multicultural concerns. So you had minority professionals like Darnell Haney, who was a former 3 Associate Dean of Student Affairs, and Dr. Daily Oliver, who was the Director of Ethnic Studies, but also an advisor of black students, and there were several other people who were in the minority professional role of supporting and advising minority students. RL: At that time then, the diversity/multicultural approach was more from Student Affairs, rather than the campus in general? FC: Right. What you had, at least in my judgment, was multicultural issues where you solved some pockets of individual concerns, but had no broad systemic campus concern and appeal. So any time a “minority” issue was brought forward, whether it was a curriculum issue, a student club issue, or a minority professional issue, those issues were often dealt with by the middle managers of Weber State College. At that time, the middle managers who were women and minority, tended to handle those issues. In other words, they were not issues that were dealt with in any concerted way at executive or cabinet level if you will, of Weber State’s administration. The only time that such issues arrived at the office of the President, or for that matter the office of the Vice President of Student Affairs, would be if there was some kind of legal entanglement or if there was some kind of insurrection or clash that took place between the administration, or teacher and students. For example, one of the most memorable and significant events was back in, I think it might have been 1969, when a group of black students wore armbands on their shirts to protest the discrimination that was taking place in the Latter-Day Saints Church, with it’s doctrine that blacks could not hold the priesthood. It was at a football game between Brigham Young University and, I 4 believe, the University of Wyoming. The Black Student Union at Weber State decided to organize an armband protest as a way to show their displeasure of the Brigham Young University policy, of the church policy at that time. Other students at the University of Utah and the University of Wyoming also joined in that protest. It was a small protest, but it got a lot of attention at Weber State. Beyond that protest, what propelled Weber State into taking a closer look at these issues of multiculturalism and cultural sensitivity was an arrest. The campus law enforcement arrested a black student in the Union Building resulting in a major confrontation. That arrest of that black student, who also happened to be the president of the BSU in 1969-70, attained a lot of attention. What grew out of that arrest was not only how and why the student was arrested, but also broader concerns that the black students wanted addressed. They felt the faculty and staff and, for that matter, their fellow students were not sensitive to their cultural and academic needs. So, Black Scholars United was one of the first student clubs that raised the consciousness of Weber State about some of the affairs and concerns you see the institution addressing in a more genuine, concerted way today. RL: You mentioned the Black Student Union and the Black Scholars United, was it the same group? FC: It was the same group, but they started out as the Black Student Union but by 1972 evolved into the Black Scholars United, because the Black Student Union tended to have more of a social networking type goals and functions. But it eventually evolved into a more academic oriented organization by 1972-73. 5 RL: An academic support group? FC: Right. RL: Did that arrest and protest, those two incidents, raise any awareness at the higher level? FC: Oh absolutely. It definitely reached the Vice President of Student Affairs level, and as well as the President’s Office. Actually there are individuals still employed by the university who were on the front line of having to grapple with some of those issues. For example, Dr. Richard Ulibarri, a professor of History, was involved early on in that concern. I believe there are still probably a couple of other people that work for the university that were involved with that issue. What I think is most important about it is that not only did it give rise to the Black Scholars United organization, but it also gave rise to the other ethnic organizations and the equal concerns they had about their role at Weber State. There was the Mexican American student organization, and the American Indian student association. I don’t remember whether there was a women’s organization formed at that time, but there was the Black Student Association and Native American Association and the Chicano Student Association. RL: That would have been throughout the 70’s; about how many minority students do you think Weber had at that time? FC: In the early to middle 70’s, we probably had about 150-200 Native American students, and about 250-300 African American students. There were probably 300-400 Mexican American students (Chicano) students, and 200-300 Asian students. 6 RL: One of the other people I spoke with had mentioned that in the 70’s and 80’s there were quite a few Iranian students at WSU. FC: There were actually a significant number of international students at that time. We had a large representation of Iranian students and students from African countries. RL: Did you, in your capacity as a counselor, work with any of the international students? FC: Yes, I did. If there was close sponsorships of the student clubs, for example, they’d co-sponsor with each other on various kinds of clubs and leadership programs. The minority students, including the international students, actually had a very close bond with each other. RL: When you arrived on campus as a professional in the late 70’s, who were the main administrators at that time? FC: Parry Wilson, who was the Vice President of Academic Affairs, and Kay Evans, and possibly Marie Kotter, who was Vice President of Student Affairs. RL: In my talk with her, she mentioned that she had first been an assistant to Bob Smith when President Brady was president. She then later became Vice President for Student Services. I was curious if there were any administrators in particular that you remember being involved or concerned with issues of diversity and multiculturalism. FC: Joe Bishop was president at the time that some of these issues were taking place. Actually, from my early days as a student in the early 70’s, I can remember there was a significant amount of controversy from the Bishop era. As 7 president he grappled with, not just minority concerns on campus, but a lot of other campus wide concerns that presented formidable challenges. RL: I understand that because of some of his policies there was a no confidence vote on the part of the Faculty Senate prior to his leaving the campus. Did it mostly have to do with general administrative policies? FC: I’m trying to reflect on how much I know about that. I’m sure a lot of it stemmed from particular decisions he made. There were some personnel decisions he made, within the university that met with some concern and resistance which, I think, culminated in a vote of no confidence. I think there’s a wide variety of opinions about why and how that came about. I think that it was an interesting transition time for Weber State College. RL: I understand that President Brady was in place when Bob Smith was hired as Provost, or Vice President for Academic Affairs. In the late 80’s I believe there was a little more push in terms of pay equity for some of the female faculty. About how many minority faculty was there at that time? Do you have any idea? FC: By the early to middle 80’s it would be equivalent to a handful of ethnic minority faculty, primarily in the Social Sciences. I think we might have had one or two minorities in the technology area and then there may have been other minority professionals on other parts of the campus but the vast majority of the minority faculty were in Social Sciences and the Student Services professional staff. RL: So there weren’t a lot of faces on campus that looked like yours? FC: Not very many. RL: You progressed from being a counselor. Did you have another position before 8 you went back to get you doctorate? FC: When I started at Weber State in 1977, I started out as a counselor and clinical social worker. I worked in the counseling center for several years staying within the Division of Student Services. I spent another four or five years as a counselor and instructor for Career Services. So I was a career services counselor, but I also had the opportunity to adjunct for the department of Social Work and on occasion for the Education Department. While my role underneath the umbrella of Student Services was officially counselor, my role began to evolve into more of the instructional relationship. In other words, I saw myself really engaging the academic departments on a more frequent basis about the student’s academic goals learning experiences and other concerns and found myself team teaching on occasion. Dr. Gene Sessions and I team taught a Black History class for a couple of years, and as an adjunct I taught some classes in the Department of Social Work. This academic/instructional piece began to become more a part of the activities I engaged. RL: When you went back for your doctorate, you ended up switching to the Education Department? FC: Right. My doctorate was actually in Education Administration at Brigham Young University. The vast majority of the classes affirmed the educational foundations that I had already, because a lot of classes focused on higher ed administration, public education, policies and practices, and so forth. In going through that program, most of the colleagues in my classes were pretty much school principles, class room teachers, and administrators. 9 RL: When you came back after your doctorate, you were hired into the Education Department as an instructor? FC: Yes, as an assistant professor tenured tracked. I officially finished my doctorate in 1989, but was given the degree in 1990. RL: I believe that’s about the time I met you. I remember Marie Kotter introducing you at lunch one day saying, “This young man has come back to us with his doctorate.” At about that time wasn’t there also, under Bob Smith, a new program for hiring minority faculty or internships? FC: Yes, we actually had a program entitled the Minority Lectureship Program designed as a non-traditional outreach approach to creating a critical mass of minority faculty at WSU. It was also designed to give academic departments an opportunity to evaluate and experience our academic skills as potential colleagues of other tenure tracked colleagues in a variety of academic disciplines. As my particular interest was in education, Vice President Smith assigned me to the College of Education. I went to the College of Education with my newly earned doctorate degree under the auspices of Assistant Professor of Teacher Education. I went through that program for a year. It was after a year that the academic department actually extended me an official tenure track contract. Part of what we were trying to do was equivalent to what we call “grow your own type of program,” where we have academic minority professionals working for the university. The idea was that as they finished their doctorate; rather than some other institution hiring them away, let’s try to cultivate them and allow them to enter into their particular area of expertise. But more importantly, 10 extend tenure track contracts as a vote of confidence to these individuals. RL: Not too far into the 90’s you were hired in the position of Assistant to the President for Diversity under President Thompson. FC: Right. RL: That would have been about 1991 or ‘92? FC: Yes, 1991. RL: That was going to be a revolving position. I believe it was for a three year appointment, is that correct? FC: Yes. When President Thompson was hired in the early 90’s, he took some of the foundations of multicultural and minority issues and concerns as a baseline of interest that we had worked emerging from the middle and late 60’s. As a consequence, he had some of the same concerns as many of the minority professionals moving into his new role as president. We decided we needed to have the central administration an active and meaningful part of the multicultural affairs and concerns of the university as expressed by the S.C.A. B. report, or the Special Constituency Advisory Board. It was really the first time that we begin to address multiculturalism and diversity issues among the students, faculty, administration, and community in a fairly comprehensive manner. What grew out of a lot of those late 80’s, early 90’s, discussions was a needed to oversee and advocate for these issues at the upper management level. The position of Assistant to the President for Diversity was created and President Thompson asked me to serve in that capacity. What we were trying to do was to move the institution away from Student Affairs largely being the only agency responsible 11 for dealing with minority concerns and have those concerns spread out across the university as a broader campus ownership approach. As we’d converted to a university in the early 90’s, we needed to address multiculturalism and diversity issues as a broad concern of the institution rather than just delegated to a specific part of the university administration. RL: An institution-wide philosophy, rather than just pockets of activity in different areas? FC: Sure. RL: As a result of that, what kinds of changes occurred? Was there more hiring? Was there more emphasis on retention of minority students and faculty? FC: What I saw was that Weber State University was prepared to make a direct, serious and meaningful investment in diversity and multicultural concerns, not only with just the ethnic community, ethnic faculty and students but also with the other constituent groups across the campus. Once we felt comfortable that the institution was ready to take a closer look, not only at who we are but at how we do business as an institution, we started to see a variety of program initiatives emerged that included funding support and a number of activities that took place not only at the student government level, but also at the faculty and staff level. Faculty started to come forward and share their research interests in ethnicmulticulturalism, gender studies and diversity, and student government instituted a training program in multiculturalism and cultural sensitivity as part of their leadership training. In the early 90’s the administration began to articulate in the mission statement and in the academic program goals the aim to be a more open 12 and inclusive university campus where all are welcomed. The administration also said that we wanted to ensure that there is an avenue to our broader community. That they are vital stake holders as part of our out-reach to off campus constituents, and that we want to make sure they have an equal investment in how Weber State carves its identity and takes care of business as an institution. RL: In that first term that you served as Assistant to the President for Diversity, did you see substantial results to what you were trying to accomplish? FC: No. What I saw were results in terms of the university actualizing itself toward more inclusion. In other words, a fundamental climate and cultural shift was in evident. RL: Were systems and programs put in place where there were changes in attitudes and in procedures rather than just lip service? FC: What I saw was the beginning of the cultivation of a critical mass of faculty, staff, students and community folks who were starting to get into what I call “the diversity articulation movement.” And what that means, in a broader sense, is that across the United States, other traditionally white institutions were also starting to move in this direction. In other words, diversity was sweeping across public ed and higher ed. institutions, and so there were a lot of diversity type managers trying to not only build a case for diversity, but trying to create an infrastructure and critical mass for sustainability. RL: That’s what I was asking, whether there were actually things being put in place? FC: Yes. What had been put in place at Weber, for example, is that we extended the visiting lectureship program from the faculty model to also use it in the Division of 13 Student Affairs. As a result of implementing the Student Affairs Visiting Scholars Program, we invited minority professionals who had masters’ degrees in student affairs to come for a semester. If they liked Weber and Weber liked them, the university would find resources to extend to these professionals contracts. From about 1992 to 1997, we had a significant number of minority professional staff hired as a result of that lectureship model; it was essentially a recruitment tool. Some of our faculty were hired through the faculty lectureship model, so that program was going also. Additionally, we begin to provide more resources and support to programs like the Talent Search, Upward Bound, the Trio Programs, and Services for Multicultural Students and the role they played in advising and consulting with the minority student community. There was also support for the International Student program, Disability Services and the Women’s Studies program. There was a very deliberate and concerted effort that began to extend itself into a variety of student support areas as well as academic areas. It’s interesting because all of these things were an out growth of discussions that took place early on in the late 80’s through the early part of the 90’s, and we used those discussions to inform how we wanted various kinds of programs to take shape. So what you saw by the mid-90’s, and even into the late 90’s were academic units starting to take on their own initiatives about how to operationalize the multicultural and diversity efforts; this movement I spoke of earlier, if you will. One of the most significant things that came out of those early discussions and evolutions was the university diversity requirement that students are required 14 to complete for graduation. I think there were a number of things that cumulatively took place as part of building a critical mass and infrastructure for diversity. In a lot of ways, we’re still seeing those things take place even today. As I continue to manage the office of Assistant to the President for Diversity part of my philosophy is engaging what I consider silent partners. In other words, silent partners are those who have been here a long time and always cared about diversity, but never really had a forum to express their views, concerns, and scholarship interest. So part of what I do is to build bridges that allow faculty to have more of a voice about how they see the role of diversity at Weber State University. They have an opportunity to say whether they think that diversity is counterproductive or whether we are not providing enough resources. They also have the opportunity to say, “I’ve actually done some research in this area or, I actually teach specific course content on these diversity related issues in my class.” What we’ve found is that through creating that critical mass of discourse we’ve discovered there are faculty and staff who are doing a lot more diversity related kinds of things than we realized. What I have tried to do is promote diversity as long-term enterprise; an integral part of the campus climate. RL: Essentially the Assistant to the President for Diversity, in informing the view of diversity here at Weber State, has developed into an instrument that purposely serves not just minority students but has expanded to work with the community and with faculty and staff in a more formal and organized fashion. And you, as the first Assistant to the President, were able to formulate a lot of the ideas that became everyday life on campus? 15 FC: Yes. But I would be quick to say that wasn’t just because of me. RL: Certainly not, but you were at least a centralized individual that could help to develop these things in the different venues? FC: Oh absolutely. I think the thing to keep in mind is that I had served in that capacity of Assistant to the President for Diversity for two or three years initially, and when I had to return to the classroom to do some tenure work, President Thompson asked Dr. Richard Ulibarri to take over the Assistant to the President for Diversity role. So in addition to being the Dean of Continuing Education, he was also Assistant to the President for Diversity probably from 1993-94 until 1998-99. RL: And then you went back into the position in ’99? FC: Right, once I was tenured in 1997-98, I transitioned back into the Assistant to the President for Diversity. Up until that time I was only an associate professor in Teacher Education and they gave me the opportunity to earn tenure before I returned to the Assistant to the President for Diversity position. Dr. Ulibarri transitioned out of that position in 1998-99 and is now full time in the Department of History. Up until this point, only two of us have served in that position over the fifteen years we’ve had the position. RL: How would you view your relationship to minority students at the present time? How has it evolved and changed over the time, since you returned to the position in ’99, which would be nine years ago? FC: I have less direct contact with minority students because what I do now is focused on overseeing, advocating, and administrating rather than direct 16 intervention. Early on there was a lot of direct intervention and mentoring minority students at Weber State. It’s less than that now. RL: Even though you serve in an administrative capacity now, it still gives you an opportunity to keep an eye out and make certain that things are developing and getting done? FC: Yes. The way I envision my role is that when I see slow downs and gaps and falters I try to intervene, to prop that area up, to provide more resources, to provide more consultation and leadership; try to build collaborative relationships within academic units with individual faculty, student government leadership, and with our shareholders in the community. What I try to do is to say, “Where is there an area of multiculturalism or with our diversity and inclusivity initiative that needs support and affirmation?” Sometimes it’s in the form of technical assistance. Sometimes it’s speeches, sometimes it’s the editorials and essays that I write for the local paper, sometimes it’s the various kinds of trainings I do. So my role of Assistant to the President for Diversity takes on a number of aspects as part of the overall diversity initiative and mission for the university. RL: Even though your level of access to and by students and colleagues has changed and diminished to a certain extent, you still are in a position of being the steward for diversity on campus. FC: Sure, and in fact steward is a good word. I actually view my leadership role of implementing diversity as a stewardship. In other words, it’s more than just a job. It’s not what I do, it’s who I am. In a lot of ways, what I do at Weber State is really an extension of who I am as an individual. And so it does evolve into a situation 17 of stewardship because, if I understand stewardship, it implies you have an obligation to be a caretaker. That you have some obligation to assert guidance, to identify a road map, and to advocate for positions that some may be uncomfortable in advocating when it comes to promoting diversity. I provide the guidance and intervene where I need to intervene. Now that’s easier said than done, but I think that is ultimately what the role of the steward is, to make sure that the ship keeps sailing despite adverse sailing conditions; I am in effect Weber’s ambassador. RL: What do you see currently in terms of trends or developments for minority status on the campus? What do you see either coming up in the near future, or what things have you seen that have either made you happy or unhappy about the direction we’re going? Is there anything that comes to mind? FC: I think one trend is that minority students in traditionally white institutions have become a significant asset for the cultural life of a university. The trend is not only to have a significant demographic presence of minority communities, but also encourage innovative ways in which support systems are trying to help these students. We also see an increase in remedial programs, in outreach initiatives, and in unique leadership and supportive types of roles. One of the trends taking place at WSU is that the university has arrived at a place where we are now saying, “These students, and who they are and what they represent, are not going anywhere soon and they will always want to be educated. We’ve got to come up with a way to provide it for them.” So the question then becomes, “What is the best way to do that? How do we prepare ourselves for the emerging multi18 lingual communities, principally spainish?” There are a number of ways that Weber State, for example, is looking at reaching out, reaching out to the parents, and reaching out to contact students early on. President Milner talks about contacting these students early and often, getting in their faces, their communities, their lives and building that early pipeline toward helping them be comfortable being on a college campus. So I think that’s one trend. I think another is that students, once they find themselves here, are trying to find the relevance in their being here, in other words, in the quality of their experience. One of the problems we have is on one hand some students are saying, “When I attended Weber State, I have good experiences in my classroom.” Yet you have other students saying, “Yes, you recruited me to be here and I enjoy being here, but I’m having a very negative experience when I’m involved with my faculty.” Students are saying they are finding themselves interacting with faculty who have very negative feelings about the communities which they represent. So the quality of the experience is pretty mixed among the minority students. What we’re finding is a need to assess the quality of the experience of the minority students at Weber State. We’ve invested a lot of time and effort in getting them here, now we’re investing a lot of time and effort in keeping them here, but in keeping them here we’re saying, “Are they having a good experience while they’re here?” RL: And if they’re not, what can we do to change it? FC: Absolutely. RL: You mentioned that when you were a counselor you were trying to develop an instrument asking black students questions about their experiences and how they 19 related to one another and to the campus community as a whole. I believe you said that juniors and seniors were more connected to their academic units than to other black students, and that black athletes were more connected to each other than non-black athletes, and that they were building a sense of community in a variety of ways. Is there something that could be done now to see where students relate and what could be done to make them feel more at home? FC: One of the major thrusts we have is a need to work harder to make sure Weber State is viewed and experienced as a more welcoming environment as the president outlines. We need to do a lot more to break down walls and barriers so that when students arrive on campus, they feel like this is their home also. We have to do a lot more to make these students feel that this campus belongs to them. One of the formidable challenges we have is that students have natural constituencies that they gravitate toward. The black athletes in 1972 are not dramatically different from the black athlete in 2008. They still gravitate to and are more comfortable with each other. For black athletes, athletes in general, it’s not necessarily an issue of color. Athletes hang out with their teammates. They spend a lot of time together. Is the goal to break down the sense of connection they have with each other? Not necessarily. Students who are very academic and may have received an academic scholarship, and are very much bound to their academic studies and academic departments, may have selected faculty who are mentoring them. If those students are committed to their academic work, do we want them to break away from that sense of community; the academic 20 commitment they have and be something else? In retrospect, I’m not sure we do. The research affirms a relationship between feeling a sense of community connection an academic success. We brought them here because we want them to be academically successful. Non-traditional students spend a lot raising families, but they also try to earn an academic degree. They have a unique relationship with each other. The point I’m trying to get at is that there are natural constituencies of groups on this campus that gravitate toward each other as an out growth of the commonalities they share. I think our role should be that, if you are a basketball player or a football player, you are an athlete, but when you are not in competition, we want to provide you with an opportunity to mentor kids in the community. We want to provide opportunities for you to have visibility as an athletic leader. We want you to be comfortable with your constituent peers, your constituent group, but we also want you to be more civic minded, and to engage more in the community of youth who might look up to you as a role model. I think less about ways to break these natural groups that come together. Rather than breaking them up, let’s come up with ways to affirm them and develop civicmindedness based on the groups that you identify with. How do you become more than just the group with which you are affiliated with? How do you become a better leader? How do you become a better servant in society? What do we want these students to focus on? It’s okay to be with you constituent group, but we want you to be more because we think you have more to offer. RL: More incorporated and having more sense of place and belonging rather than just being here? 21 FC: Yes. It’s easy to come here to play football, hangout with your teammates, finish your eligibility, maybe graduate, but for the most part be done with it. It’s easy to do that because of the self-contained system that allows you, if you want to, to just hang out with your friends. What we’re trying to say is that we want you to have a good academic experience, we want you to have a good sports experience, but we also want you to be a good citizen. And so we want to provide opportunities for you to become more that just the athlete that jumps high and runs fast. RL: Do you see progress in developing that kind of program for those kinds of situations? FC: There is some progress, I think, because the coaches, the athletes’ primary mentors, are starting to encourage them to get out more in the community, to become involved in Special Olympics, and to become involved in working with inner city kids. I’ve been involved recently with the NCAA accreditation team, and part of what we’re trying to do is to assess where we are in terms of our status with the NCAA athletic association, but we’re also trying to say what kinds of steps we can take to make these students more whole. The NCAA is saying, “We’re tired of generating just jocks.” RL: Emphasizing the scholarly aspect? FC: The scholarly and the civic minded person. The NCAA is saying it wants more evidence that these students are becoming more focused not only on their academic studies, but on their whole well being. RL: That they’re growing as people? 22 FC: Yes, that they’re growing as people, because we’re tired of generating these jump higher, run faster jocks that can’t think, have no sense of giving back to their community and find themselves in trouble. RL: You came here almost forty years ago, as a jock, and you are trying to turn out more than that? Obviously, it’s worked in your case and you’ve certainly given back a lot to the community and done a lot on campus in terms of diversity and multiculturalism. FC: When I think about my own personal life, it’s really been an interesting pilgrimage. You are right, I did come here as a junior college transfer athlete and played football When I think about where my life and my career have taken me, I would have never, ever, dreamed that I would be in the place I am today. It’s a dramatic evolution. RL: You had a personal philosophy and commitment to issues of diversity and multiculturalism and somehow you have been fortunate enough that it’s developed into a professional position, or professional home, for you to be able to live these philosophies and incorporate them into the philosophy of the institution. It was an informal thing at the beginning and it became more formalized over the years. To wrap up, I’d like to ask you what you have come to know about diversity in terms of enduring principles and values, and what you’ve come to understand about them in your life, and how it relates to your experience at Weber State. FC: One of the things that’s enduring about diversity is that the type of diversity we are grappling with today was eventually going to happen. What’s informative 23 about where we are today is that I have more respect for the early efforts that we were involved in where people pretty much marginalized our view and our experience. They thought of it as a highly specialized category. They never saw it as part of who they were. I think, to a certain extent, diversity was bound to happen. I think that Weber has really taken the high road because diversity is not a mandate. It is strictly a voluntary value-based program and it relies on individuals’ ethical commitments and professionalism for the level they embrace it. What you have is that people embrace it, not only at different levels, but at different levels of intensity. But so what? RL: People have different levels of intensity as far as hobbies, so why not about one’s philosophies of life? FC: Yes, I’m getting out of the business, trying to force or trick someone into caring and being a good citizen. So part of what I’ve learned about this is that you really do allow people to grow in their own best way. What I’ve tried to do is to provide a road map. I view myself as a catalyst for encouraging students, faculty, administrators, and the community to think about where you are in relation to these issues and how you can move forward to do better. I think Weber has given me the opportunity to be able to close the gap between the marginalized old school of how we fought these battles. The more critical level of inquiry and engagement has made it more meaningful in terms of trying to place diversity in its proper place. I think diversity is in a very different place. We are no where near where we need to be, but we are a long ways away from where we were. They used to call us the SCAB’s, the Special Constituency Advisory Board. 24 When I think of that identification I laugh at it now, and I have a lot of pride. At the time it was sort of embarrassing, but so what? We were special. We were constituencies that had a special concern. It was a special concern because we hadn’t made it a part of what we were as an institution, as part of our heritage. I like, in retrospect, being a SCAB! RL: When you think about it, generally a scab is someone who crosses the line. FC: Right. We were crossing the line, but without burning Weber State down as an institution, metaphorically speaking. Why burn down the house we will ultimately live in? We kept pushing and forcing people to think and consider and be better than who they were. I think ultimately Weber State arrived at that place relatively speaking. I believe Weber State now has enough of a critical mass that we, on a constant basis, reflect on who we are and what we care about as it relates to diversity. It doesn’t have anything to do with me as an individual, but it has to do with who we are as a university. RL: So it has become an institutionalized identity? FC: Yes, very much so. RL: Thinking about all that, what would you enter here as a final statement? FC: Weber State has been very good to me professionally and personally and has allowed me a lot of opportunities, but I have also been very good to Weber, because I have been in many situations where I have helped Weber State to grow as an institution by my presence. I don’t say that from a selfish perspective, but simply to say that there have been a lot of opportunities to defend and articulate who Weber is, and what Weber is trying to be. On the other end of that, 25 I’m also a part of making Weber State what it is. In that process Weber has shaped me, but I have also shaped Weber in my own little way. I hope as an example that I have given diversity a good name through my efforts. What makes me comfortable in saying this is that I know my efforts are really part of this larger link. I picture this as a link in the chain, as one link in the chain of many, many others who have made Weber the way it is today. RL: So essentially, Weber State has made you a better person, but you in turn have helped to make Weber State a better institution? FC: Absolutely.