UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Interview #195
SCOTT, CHARLES T.

SCOTT, Charles T. (1932- )
Professor of English
At UW: 1963-2000

Interviewed: 1980	
Series: TA Strike, 1970
Interviewer: Laura Smail (Sessions 1-3)
Length: 7 hours, 30 minutes
Indexer: Unknown

Background; Afghanistan; University of Texas; Helen C. White; English linguistics; Development of English as a second language (ESL) at UW; international students; Karl Kroeber; English department issues in late 1960s; Murray Fowler; Walter Rideout; Freshman composition; Mark Eccles; Tim Heninger; Chairmanship; TAs (teaching assistants); Sterling Hall bombing; Bargaining with TAA; Effects of TAA strike; Student evaluations; Rating of department; David Siff; Tenure review cases; Frank Battaglia; Irving Saposnik; John Sullivan; Elaine Reuben; Joel Roache; open meetings; Effect of anti-war movement on careers in English department; Japan; Bascom Hall; Department's move to Helen C. White Hall; Current issues. 

First Interview Session (December 22, 1980): Tapes 1-2

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction.

00:00:19	Background.  Masters degree at New York University in 1958.  High school teaching in New York.  

00:06:29	Position training teachers at Kabul University in Afghanistan for two years.

00:09:55	Ph.D. in linguistics and English as a Second Language (ESL) at the University of Texas beginning in September, 1960.

00:11:57	Invited to become instructor at UW in 1962 to take charge of ESL program.  Declined in order to finish degree at Texas.  Interviewed by Helen C. White in October, 1962.  Invited to join department as assistant professor.

00:14:05	Came to UW to teach summer session, June 1963.  First course taught was English 201.

00:14:31	History of ESL at UW.  Linguistics department first approached.  Murray Fowler, chair of linguistics, turned down invitation.  Paul Wiley, chair of English department, then approached.
	
00:18:41	Mary Lu Joynes hired by English department in 1959 to head ESL program.  Left in 1961 to take a position elsewhere.

00:20:57	Foreign students required to take ESL course if they did not do well on English placement test.  A visiting professor and then a teaching assistant took charge of program between Joynes’ departure and CS’s arrival.

00:24:16	Attitude of rest of department toward ESL, including Helen C. White and Karl Kroeber.  CS one of eleven new faculty members hired in 1963.  Beginning of a rapid expansion of the department.

00:27:07	Did not think much of tenure at the time.  Initial appointment was for three years. Expectations surrounding publication as they related to tenure.

00:29:02	CS’s publications.  Does not recall feeling pressured, but worked very hard.  His work schedule in those years: spent days teaching and working on administrative procedures for ESL, and evenings working on own research.

00:32:01	Growing involvement in department affairs.  Only two of original eleven in class remain at UW, though several others were tenured and then left.  

00:34:25	Beginning of great expansion of department was 1961 or 1962.  Thirteen faculty members hired in 1966.

00:35:28	Recalls how Helen C. White convinced him to come one semester early to teach in the summer.  

00:37:19	With the exception of Frederic Cassidy, CS was the only person working in English linguistics.  Only three of eleven in entering class were hired as assistant professors; others as lecturers.

00:38:38	Taught a course on the history of the American language.  Had no teaching assistants for regular lecture courses; worked with instructors and assistant professors instead.

00:39:41	English department’s use of instructors.  Often led quiz sectors for senior members of department.  

00:42:02	Basic freshman composition course, English 1A and 1B (later 101 and 102), taught almost entirely by graduate TAs.

00:43:34	Discusses Murray Fowler, chairman of linguistics department.  Avoided hiring people interested in linguistic theory.  Instead hired those who worked in linguistic description.  Accounts in part for why department is now weak; was always on the periphery of American linguistics and did not attract large numbers of graduate students.

00:47:44	Why Fowler did not want department involved in applied linguistics, such as ESL.  Later became interested in application of computers to linguistics.

00:48:52	Fowler grudgingly allowed students to work in psycholinguistics.  He could not stomach Noam Chomsky and his transformational generative theory.  

00:50:00	Fowler as a teacher. English department often asked Fowler to teach the history of the American language and Old English in the summer.  CS liked Fowler, but did not like his view of linguistics.

00:52:53	Fowler did not take advantage of outside funding for linguistics department.  

00:54:02	Briefly discusses Cyrena Pondrom, who also arrived in 1963.

00:55:25	Earned tenure in 1965, possibly fastest promotion to tenure ever of anyone in English department.  Spent 1965-66 in Japan.

00:59:24	Began receiving offers from other universities immediately after arriving at UW.  Informed Helen C. White of all outside offers.  Recalls note he received from Edwin Young, dean of College of Letters and Science.  Recommendation for tenure was very surprising.

01:03:38	Received more offers while in Japan and after return.  In 1966 he spent a month in India.  He traveled to Poland in 1967 and 1968.  

01:06:30	CS was heavily involved in various national committees on ESL.

01:07:35	CS’s publications.  In 1968 he was made full professor.  At times he has felt embarrassed about his rapid promotion ahead of other colleagues.  1966 was the first year in which he was involved in department affairs.

01:10:13	Department beginning to change in 1965.  Helen C. White’s chairmanship (1963-65) was authoritarian but benign.  Departmental meetings.  Dependence of assistant professors on senior faculty.  Real decisions made by executive committee.

01:14:58	Meetings of executive committee were an eye opener when CS started attending them in 1966.  Certain people had strong influence on who would or would not be granted tenure: Mark Eccles, Henry Pochmann, Madeleine Doran.  Way of deciding on promotions.

01:16:40	Rule of thumb in the executive committee was that people acceded to the wishes of senior faculty who supported a candidate.  Infighting over Chauncey Wood, who was ultimately let go.

01:20:45	Subject divisions in department: English language and medievalists, Renaissance, modern literature, American literature, etc.  Members of a subject group generally agreed with senior group member’s decision.

01:22:28	Brief discussion of Harry Hayden Clark.

01:23:23	Walter Rideout’s chairmanship (1965-68).  Rapid expansion of faculty took place during these years.  Large entering class of assistant professors in 1965 and 1966.

01:25:00	Ford Foundation fellowship program.  Department dropped out of program after one year because of the difficulty of reorganizing Ph.D. program to allow students to complete degree in three years.

01:27:22	Always far more graduate students than TAs.  One year 600 graduate students, 180 TAs.  MA candidates not used as TAs.  Some of those who did not TA had fellowships.

01:30:32	Faculty committee appointed TAs.  TAs not appointed by individual professors, although professors could express their preference for certain TAs.

01:32:36	During Rideout’s chairmanship, reorganization of department into seven areas, administrative as well as academic.  Senior faculty in each area made recommendations about promotions.

01:35:42	Year-long committee studied Ph.D. program.  Perceived need for more PhDs, more specialists rather than generalists.

01:37:31	More on reorganization of department into academic areas.  Reorganization was thought necessary to create sense of community between faculty and graduate students working in same area.  But did not necessarily work.

01:40:01	Comparison of assistant professors in history and English department: in history department, must prove that one is not deserving of tenure, opposite true in English department. Affinities between assistant professors and graduate students.

01:43:26	Department began trying to compete with other major departments.  Sharp increase in starting salary for assistant professors between 1962 and 1963, from approximately $6000 to $8000.

01:44:52 	Incentives offered to attract new faculty: new faculty asked to teach one survey section and two upper-division sections in their specialty, no composition courses.  

01:46:58	Effect on course structure reorganization on PhD program. Teaching upper-level literature courses much more appealing than teaching introductory writing courses.

01:49:48	Expansion of the department, both in numbers of students and faculty. Number of graduate TAs increased.  TAs taught practically all the freshman composition courses.  In 1970, 74 full-time faculty members.

01:51:13	In 1968, Rideout completed three-year term as chairman.  Faculty met in spring to select new chairman.  Great split between supporters of Mark Eccles and Karl Kroeber.  Many senior faculty supported Eccles, many younger faculty supported Kroeber.  Anti-war ferment on campus was beginning.

01:54:06	Stormy issue in department over promotion of Bart Friedman.  Popular undergraduate teacher, was perceived as siding with undergraduate students.  Students protested in his support.  Scott spoke up on Friedman’s behalf when executive committee members threatened to block his promotion to tenure.

01:58:13	Friedman strongly allied with Kroeber, who was seen as a spokesman for student concerns and for the dissatisfaction felt by assistant professors. 

01:59:56	Vote between Eccles and Kroeber extremely close.  Dean Leon Epstein had no choice but to seek a third candidate.  Compromise candidate was Tim Heninger.

02:02:15	Heninger served for two years before resigning.  CS says Heninger had no idea what he was walking in to.  During his tenure Heninger became socially conscious, strongly opposed to war, concerned about careers of younger faculty.

02:08:08	Many student protests during Heninger’s first year as chairman.  Undergraduate group of English majors formed an association to make demands on the department for “relevance,” changing departmental requirements, introducing new courses, etc.  Graduate students began making similar complaints.

02:11:01	CS offended by graduate students’ petition that they be allowed to organize a course.  Heninger finally agreed to be faculty member in charge of this course.  Students produced many petitions during these years.  Even assistant professors started producing petitions.

02:13:25	One assistant professor proposed, with the support of Kroeber, a course on nineteenth-century pornography.  Course allowed.  Faculty felt beleaguered during this time.

02:16:10	Faculty did not know what TAs were teaching in freshman composition.  Decision during Heninger’s chairmanship to stop offering freshman composition course.

02:18:01	One of the most flagrant subversions of a course occurred in 1970.  According to a student enrolled in the course, David Siff’s course on the English novel was divided into four caucuses, treating black nationalism, “kulture,” women’s liberation, etc.  Student complained because she needed course for prelims.

02:19:21	End of Interview Session. 

Second Interview Session (December 31, 1980): Tapes 3-4

Time	Keywords
00:00:00	Start of Interview/Interviewer’s Introduction.

00:00:27	CS continues to discuss Siff’s course on the English novel.  Only one student complained.  CS did not want to jeopardize student’s academic career by confronting Siff with her complaint, so he advised her to drop the course and take it later with another professor.

00:05:53	CS became chair in fall, 1970.

00:06:38	Siff had already been notified he would not be retained beyond three-year appointment.  CS discusses reasons why Siff not retained, and not even given a one-year extension of his appointment as was customary.  

00:11:07	There were reports that Siff failed to meet with his classes.  Several faculty members, including CS, did not like Siff.

00:14:30	Formal procedure for evaluating teaching performance.  Senior faculty make a series of planned visits to the assistant professor’s classroom.  But faculty do not visit other faculty’s classes otherwise.

00:17:43	CS continues to discuss Siff.

00:19:48	Another incident of a subverted course was Frank Battaglia’s course on Old English.  A circular listed this course as a women’s studies course; Battaglia was having students read modern studies of the status of women in medieval England.  One student passed course without learning any Old English.

00:23:09	Battaglia removed from this course.  Curriculum committee decides who teaches what course.  It has never been a policy that a professor “owns” a particular course.

00:24:26	Faculty no longer knew what was being taught in freshman composition courses.  No time to visit all sections.  TAs knew what days faculty visits would occur and could modify their teaching for those occasions.

00:29:01	“Tremendous shift” in this period in the extent to which colleagues trusted colleagues.  Academic world survives on trust.  

00:31:05	Faculty-TA trust and respect not entirely restored. End of side.

00:32:58	CS continues to discuss decline in trust between faculty and TAs.  This type of problem has mainly occurred in departments in which TAs had full control over the courses they taught.

00:35:37	In the mid 1960s, requirement changed from two semesters of freshman English to one semester of freshman English; English 101 became a remedial course, and the majority of students took only English 102.  

00:38:50	English department dropped English 102 in November 1969, during Heninger’s chairmanship.

00:40:59	Official reason for dropping English 102 was that freshman composition course was no longer necessary because freshmen were better prepared.  Unofficial reason was faculty’s lack of confidence in what TAs were actually teaching.

00:43:42	Department very split during these years on almost every issue.  Some faculty wanted to keep the freshman composition course mainly in order to provide employment to graduate students.

00:47:27	Department just beginning to become aware of having too many Ph.D. candidates.

00:48:32	System for choosing graduate students.  Students applied to Graduate School, which had minimal standards, but real decision was in the hands of the department.  Admission decisions typically made by several faculty members associated with graduate division of the department.  Individual faculty members not responsible for admitting students into their area.

00:53:13	No question that faculty liked having lots of graduate students.  Little thought of limiting number of students admitted.

00:54:31	Interviewer refers to interview with former graduate student who felt ignored by the faculty, was never given TAship.  Practice was always to give TAships to academically strongest students.

00:56:24	CS elected as chair in spring, 1970.  Walter Rideout had encouraged him to put his name forward.  CS was surprised because he had been a full professor for less than two years and was somewhat isolated due to his work in ESL.

01:01:43	CS reluctantly agreed to run for position.  He does not recall being anxious to gain the position, but was convinced by Rideout that he would be a reasonable compromise candidate. 

01:03:26	The day and circumstances of the vote. Nominations included CS, Robert Kimbrough, David Siff and Mickey Mouse. [End of Tape 4.]

01:06:24	CS continues to discuss election as chairman.  Remembers turmoil surrounding the meeting at which he was elected.  At this time departmental meetings were open to the public. 

01:14:15	CS made a short speech and left the room. The next day, he learned he had won the chairmanship. Some of his TAs gave him a gift on the occasion. 

01:18:19	CS’s wife reacted positively to chairmanship.

01:19:12	Not involved in campus-level bargaining with TAA.  Immediately after appointment as chairman, became a member of a department-level bargaining committee. 

01:21:49	Through spring and early summer had collective bargaining sessions with TAA representatives: David Burress, Barbara Lightner, David Bryant, Harry Brent.

01:24:11	Meetings were tense, nasty and absurd, in CS’s opinion.  Topics included how many ashtrays were available to TAs, how many staplers and coat-racks in TAs’ offices, what desk space allotted, what form and content of teaching evaluations, etc.  CS describes his feelings of contempt and anger toward these meetings.

01:28:18	Anger at TAA members who were English graduate students.  Came away with a loathing of Burress, who was a physics student.

01:30:56	Heninger shocked by meetings.  Reaction of stunned amazement that meetings were so nasty.  CS decided to be as cold and impersonal as possible.  Remembers calculating the number of ashtrays needed, ordering them from university supplies and placing them on TAs’ desks.

01:34:11	According to TAA contract, CS had to meet with stewards once a month.

01:35:28	Question on CS’s awareness of Mulvihill report.  Thought report was sensible, but knew it would not be implemented because of the cost involved.  He later wished it had been implemented.

01:38:11	Does not recall reaction to creation of TAA.  Remembers arrogance of Robert Muehlenkamp at faculty meeting. [Pause while tape flips.]

01:40:03	CS had 13 or 14 TAs in the spring of 1970.  He always had a good relationship with them.  Only one of them went on strike, and only for a few days.  CS disappointed and offended that student joined strike.

01:44:22	English TAs said they were satisfied with their treatment, but felt they had to strike on behalf of TAs in other departments.  Physical conditions for English TAs not good, but improved after move to Helen C. White Hall.

01:47:15	CS opposed the TAA.

01:48:20	English department agreement with TAA in July, 1970.

01:50:51	CS did not consult with other departments about how they were handling situation.  Later he met with chairman from other humanities and social sciences departments to discuss mutual problems.  Other chairmen interested in English department’s experience with open tenure review meetings. Thinks English department far more formal in developing documents and procedures than other language departments.

01:56:52	More on English department agreement with TAA.  Some TAs had 8/13 appointments.

01:58:30	Major issue was the development of a mechanism for student evaluation of teaching performance by both TAs and faculty.  CS finally worked out a basic questionnaire.  He describes evaluation process, which was implemented in 1971.  CS read five thousand student evaluations that year.

02:03:00	Even though so many student comments are predictable, CS has always supported process.  Sometimes comments produce useful insights; others come close to destroying a faculty member’s psyche.  Many flaws associated with the process: absurd to think that students are capable of judging professor’s knowledge of the subject material.

02:07:06	Necessary at the time to provide students with an opportunity to speak their minds.  Anonymity of evaluations has fostered an attitude of irresponsibility, in CS’s opinion.  But students would not fill them out otherwise.

02:11:40	Some good consequences of TAA collective bargaining: evaluation of teaching, requirement that departments spell out clear criteria for satisfactory progress toward the Ph.D.

02:13:52	End of Interview Session.

Third Interview Session (January 2, 1981): Tapes 5-7

00:00:00	CS continues to discusses consequences of TAA contract.  Some TAs were guaranteed long-term support.  CS explains how this compared to previous policy.  Limits on the number of years of support TAs could receive encouraged them to move through their degrees quickly.

00:05:07	More on dropping of English 102.  CS is unsure whether faculty believed that writing ability of freshmen had in fact improved.  Older faculty might have regretted loss of the freshman composition course.

00:09:47	Does not remember if English 102 immediately replaced by English 200, an introduction to literature, or if that course instituted later.  English 200 not required, but it satisfied a requirement in introductory literature.  Most sections taught by graduate students.

0013:17	Faculty debate over what English 200 would include.  Concern that graduate students would teach only material that interested them, or would focus only on twentieth-century literature.  Many earlier concerns about English 102 surfaced again with respect to English 200.

00:17:55	During third year of CS’s chairmanship, English 200 replaced by sequence English 207-208, Introduction to Modern Literature I and II.  207 dealt with nineteenth-century literature in Britain and America; 208 dealt with twentieth-century literature.  The classes were set up as large lecture courses taught by faculty with smaller quiz sections led by TAs.  Part of intent of new structure was to minimize number of TAs working with each faculty member in order to enhance TA training process.  Total enrollment was between two thousand and three thousand students.

00:26:32	CS a prime mover in introduction of English 207-208.  Most important motivation was budgetary: it was no longer possible to afford to teach English 200.  But idea of removing classes from the exclusive control of TAs was also appealing to faculty.

00:31:08	Faculty who taught English 207-208.

00:33:59	More on faculty who taught English 207-208.  Most senior faculty in the areas of American literature and modern literature taught one of the courses at some point.

00:35:03	Starting in 1971-72, CS becoming more conscious of changes in English profession: declining enrollments in humanities, increasing attention to basic skills, concern with poor job prospects of Ph.D. graduates etc.  Senior professors had to think of broadening their teaching; era when professors could teach only graduate courses was gone.

00:37:24	Much attention paid to undergraduate teaching at this time.  Rick Nelson wrote an article for the Daily Cardinal on senior English faculty members, their salaries, and what they were teaching.  His point was to demonstrate they did not teach introductory courses.  The Capital Times reprinted similar misconceptions.  CS wrote a blistering reply which the Capital Times printed on its editorial page.

00:41:51	Discussion of national ratings of departments.  English department not among top five in 1971-72.  CS says rankings very subjective, often reflect department’s past rather than present.

00:44:14	No one in English department wants a freshman composition course reinstituted.  But lots of attention paid to writing level of incoming students.  Writing laboratory started by Joyce S. Steward very important.  Many new composition courses have been introduced.

00:47:39	Acknowledges pressure from other departments on campus to reinstate composition courses.  Curriculum committees have generally recognized that problem cannot be solved by English department alone.

00:49:33	Begins to discuss review process for non-tenured professors in the fall of 1970.  Required to give one year’s notice if dropping a professor; English department generally gives one and a half years.

00:52:21	A year earlier, TAA had filed suit against the university to force it to make departmental meetings open to the public.  In 1970, Chancellor Edwin Young released a memo interpreting anti-secrecy laws: departmental committee meetings should be open to the public, except for discussions of budget, collective bargaining, and personnel.  But for this last case, individual under consideration can ask that it be open to public.
00:56:44	Frank Battaglia, Irving Saposnik, John Sullivan, Elaine Reuben, and Joel Roache wanted public meetings.

00:58:35	CS explains order in which decisions are made.  Battaglia and Saposnik considered first, because they were at the “up or out” stage.

00:59:51	Executive area committees make recommendations about tenure and promotions in their area.  No quota system.

01:03:42	Nine-member advisory committee hears recommendation of executive area committee, then makes a separate recommendation.  Executive committee hears two recommendations, then takes vote.  Only the executive committee meetings were open to public, since the other committees made recommendations only, and not policy.

01:05:50	CS continues to discuss committee roles.

01:06:56	Several days before the first open meeting, leak to press that neither committee recommended Battaglia’s promotion.  Article in Daily Cardinal decried decision, mentioned Battaglia’s excellent publication record, and argued that motivation was political.  Article urged student body to attend meeting.

01:09:01	Describes the day of the meeting. Matt Palmer of The Capital Times only local reporter to CS for information.  CS believes this was the first open meeting of its kind at the university, possibly in the country.

01:13:28	Shortly before the meeting, CS was confronted by two graduate students (David Bryant and Harry Brent) who were TAs for Battaglia’s English 209 course.  English 209, Introduction to Contemporary Literature, enrolled 632 students, but only 90 students filled out evaluation.  CS had heard that students were not required to attend lectures.  Bryant and Brent brought what they claimed were unsolicited student comments in support of Battaglia.  CS brought student comments to meeting.

01:18:11	Meeting moved to larger room.  Every seat was filled.

01:20:14	CS describes his feelings at this time.  Need to maintain control of meeting.  Vocal minority were students who supported Battaglia; others were merely curious.

01:22:07	CS called meeting to order, explained nature of meeting, emphasized that it was not a “hearing,” as had been reported in the media.

01:24:10	Photograph taken of Battaglia at meeting showed dramatic transformation that had occurred since his hiring, from a bright-eyed, clean-shaven man with a crew cut to a long-haired, sandal-wearing radical. CS and Battaglia had initially been friends.

01:26:31	Battaglia very promising when he arrived as an assistant professor; had already published two or three papers in good scholarly journals.  But never really published any more afterwards.

01:27:32	CS continues description of meeting, which dealt with both Battaglia and Saposnik.  Saposnik had introduced course on nineteenth-century pornography.  CS did not know Saposnik well.

01:29:35	Meeting began with reading of executive committee’s recommendation, then advisory committee’s recommendation.  Debate on Battaglia continued for some time; only faculty were allowed to speak.  Committee voted against Battaglia.

01:32:43	Saposnik case might have been debated first, CS remembers.  Bart Friedman read letter of support for Saposnik from chairman of English department at Berkeley.  Committee members offended that he had unilaterally solicited this letter from an outsider.

01:33:57	Battaglia then debated.  CS distressed that vote on Battaglia exactly the same as vote on Saposnik.  He felt embarrassed because it looked like a case of collusion.

01:35:52	After announcement made, Jackie di Salvo, a graduate student, stood on her seat and started shrieking.  CS quickly adjourned meeting.

01:37:45	CS had initiated practice that chairman does not vote except to break a tie.

01:38:57	CS adjourned meeting.  A young man approached CS and addressed a vicious, hateful obscenity to him.

01:40:31	CS thought about “unsolicited” statements written by students and presented to him by TAs, and realized that TAs had probably required that their students write them.

01:44:07	CS met Jackie di Salvo, who was weeping outside of his office.  Battaglia’s later career did not support di Salvo’s belief that the UW had lost a promising scholar. Saposnik’s career after UW-Madison. 

01:46:40	An undergraduate student came to CS’s office and demanded to know why English department had fired Battaglia when he had published seventeen articles and books.  CS went through list, pointed out that many publications had been accomplished before Battaglia came to UW, some others did not exist yet but were merely proposals, Battaglia had claimed credit for a project done by another faculty member, some publications were not scholarly articles, etc.  Bibliography was largely fraudulent.  Undergraduate said, “I wish we had known this in advance.”  Reasons why this analysis of bibliography not conducted during the open meeting.

01:51:48	For a year afterwards, students came to CS with problems caused by Battaglia’s failure to record their grades.

01:53:59	Next open meeting on Elaine Reuben and Joel Roache.  The meetings were uneventful, and their appointments were both extended.

01:55:50	Third open meeting dealt with John Sullivan, who was in an “up or out” situation.  Sullivan had published nothing while at UW.  More than one hundred people attended the meeting.  At some point David Siff shouted out a comment and CS silenced him.  The atmosphere at the meeting was awful, and the executive committee members were extremely tense.  CS was nervous because the room had only one entrance, and it was blocked by people.  This was the worst of the open meetings.

02:01:11	In 1972-73, there was one more open meeting concerning Reuben and Roache.  University security personnel told CS they would be present because they anticipated trouble.  Neither Reuben nor Roache were kept.

02:02:44	CS oversaw four open meetings during his chairmanship.  He knows of only one other open tenure meeting held on campus: the case of Joan Roberts in Educational Policy Studies.  No assistant professors have asked for open hearings since then.

02:05:43	CS comments on the large number of assistant professors hired from the mid 1960s into the early 1970s.  CS hired eight new assistant professors in 1970-71.

02:06:51	CS did not participate actively in the anti-war movement.  This movement came to an abrupt end in August 1970 with the bombing of Sterling Hall.  CS discusses the relationship between anti-war activism and academic careers in the English department.  A number of professors had devoted their time to activism instead of research; others wrote political tracts instead of scholarly articles.

02:11:27	Enormous amount of freedom on campus.  Must be able to trust an individual to do what they have been appointed to do.

02:12:10	More on the antiwar movement and academic careers of assistant professors.  Difficult for chairman to know if an assistant professor is not meeting with class or is teaching inappropriate material unless students complain.  Only one student complained about David Siff’s course on the English novel.

02:14:38	There were rumors that large numbers of students did not attend Battaglia’s course.  The best evidence of this was that only 90 out of 632 students filled out the evaluation form.  The department cannot check on teaching and attendance.

02:16:44	One assistant professor who arrived in 1968 was involved in the anti-war movement but also managed to publish high-quality articles.  CS argued in favor of keeping him.

02:18:18	Area committee had the responsibility of reading an assistant professor’s publications; executive committee members were encouraged to do the same.

02:19:24	CS begins to discuss the move to Helen C. White Hall.  Original planning went back to 1965, when Walter Rideout was chair.  CS had responsibility for allocating space and buying furniture.

02:20:35	Move occurred in the summer of 1971.  Initial allocation of space included the entire seventh and sixth floors and half of the fifth floor.  This space included many interior, windowless offices.  The department now has all of the seventh floor, most of the sixth floor, and a few offices on the fifth floor.

02:23:00	Allocation of space to English department was based on the assumption that the department would grow to 95 faculty.  Largest number of faculty was 74, in 1970; since then, it has dropped down to about 55.  One of CS’s first actions after moving was to give up office space to the Institute for Environmental Studies.

02:24:59	CS was involved in the distribution of space to personnel.  He tried to keep faculty working in the same area together.  CS refers to the building as well-planned and to the allocation of space to the English department as generous.  Arrangement of entry offices almost dictated the number of secretaries.  The department probably has more secretaries than it needs.

02:28:42	Graduate student lounge on sixth floor and faculty lounge on seventh floor.  Debate over the use of the graduate student lounge.  The TAA wanted to use the lounge for its meetings, but the English department insisted that it was departmental space for the use of its own graduate students.

02:32:37	More on the distribution of offices.  One member of TAA affiliate served on the department’s space committee.  Space situation of TAs dramatically improved with move to Helen C. White Hall.

02:34:17	CS talks about the problems caused by the 1980 TA strike.  A few faculty members supported the strike, but not the majority.  A number of programs in the department were close to being decimated: composition courses, writing laboratory, ESL.  Every single one of the eleven or twelve ESL TAs went on strike this time, unlike during the 1970 strike.  CS speculates about the reasons for this difference.  He ended up teaching twenty-one hours a week for several weeks.

02:38:37	Strike pointed out the fragility of these basic skills programs and their dependence on TAs.  Even though no classes were cancelled, the quality of teaching suffered since multiple classes were collapsed into a single class.  These basic skills courses cannot be taught by a single lecturer.

02:40:33	Since CS has resumed control of the ESL program, he has tried to create a better mix of faculty, academic staff and TAs in the teaching of the courses.  He believes this will give the program more stability and continuity, and will reduce the program’s dependence on TAs.  

02:42:43	Early in the 1970s, students began asking for creative writing courses.  There was a tradition of inviting creative writers to campus, but then money for this began to run out.  One of the assistant professors CS hired was Ronald Wallace, who teaches creative writing.

02:45:16	CS continues to discuss Wallace, who was very enthusiastic about extending the department’s activities in creative writing.  Several students established the Madison Review, a journal containing student writing, in the early 1970s.  Recently the review has been reintroduced with the help of the Anonymous Fund.

02:45:45	In the last year of CS’s chairmanship, he put together a proposal to create a creative writing “emphasis” as part of the English major.  With the hiring Kelly Cherry and Jay Clayton, and the promotion of Wallace, the department now has several faculty members in this area.

02:49:27	There are now major curricular changes under consideration, most of which relate to maintaining the quality of graduate education at a time of falling enrollment.

02:50:55	CS describes the status of English 207-208.  He originally wanted the courses organized in a thematic rather than historical manner.  But the department has traditionally been historically oriented, and faculty strong resisted this thematic organization.  The courses ended up being organized historically.

02:58:22	End of Interview Session.

END OF INTERVIEW #195