RESTRICTED
(For Discussion Purposes Only)
A Draft History of the State University of New York
by:
Martin L, Fausold
History Depaxtment
State University of New York
College at Geneseo
Geneseo, New York 14454.
1988
“FREER RHR EBEE EEE EEE EEE EE SE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
"The University of the State of New York" 1784-1862
"The Morrill Act and Public Higher Education in New York" 1862-1904
"Unification of the Regents and the State Education Department"
1904-1946
"The Founding of the State University of New York" 1946-1952
"The Search for a University: The Carlson-Hamilton Years"
1952-1964 ‘
"Samuel B. Gould and the Quantum Leap of the State University"
1964-1970 .
"The Test of the State University: The Boyer Years" 1970-1977
"Epilogue and Hypothesis"
BEEE EEE SO
4 i t d d ’ a : :
aE
\
A Draft History of the State University of New York
by
, Martin L. Fausold
"The University of the State of New York"
1784-1862
Perhaps today in American higher education there is no
qreater misnomer than the University of the State of New York.
Most observers are baffled by the incongruity of there existing
both this institution and the State University of New York. A
notable difference, of course, is one of time, the former .
established in 1784, the latter created in 1948. A more
profound contrast, however is that the University of the State
was born an elitist institution, and State University was,
conversely, built as the people's institution of higher
learning, which in due course would become the largest public
university in the world. The disparity of elite and common
would have severe consequences far into the twentieth century.
In fact the profound relationships of thé two institutions is
such as to here warrant a brief explanation of the beginnings of
the University of the State of New York.
When founded in 1784, the University of the State of New
York represented in no sense a university as we understand the
term today. It was basically a department of state government
intended "to create a complete system of education" in the state
= CO dtaeeer and Yegulate secondary and higher educational
oa
institutions. (Universities) is Latin for guild, a term which
French salons in the 1780s applied to state centralization of
education. Leaders of the American Revolution who were students
of French politics, such as Franklin, Jefferson and John Jay of
New York exported the term to America. It was probably no
accident that the University of the State of New York was
created in 1784, the year John Jay returned from Paris.)}
Of course there is an inverse irony in New York elitists
coopting a French revolutionary idea. The conception of the
University of the State of New York apparently began
democratically enough. Governor George Clinton, an anti-
Federalist to be (and presumably a Jeffersonian advocate of
public and secular education) in 1782 urged the legislature to
institute a system of schools and seminaries, and, in 1784 a
bill was introduced in the legislature "for establishing a
University within the state" to address the educational needs of
New York. But, significantly, the down-state aristocratic
conservatives -- who looked askance upon the radical idea of
universalizing education -- amended the bill to principally
educate their own youth. It did so by providing that the
University of the State be "invested with all the former rights
and privileges of King's (thereafter to be known as Columbia)
College and... , in addition, [be] granted the power to found
and endow schools and colleges in all parts of the state and to
hold them subject to its direction and visitation.”
However, as Charles Beatty Alexander points out in the most
concise statement of this subject, the aristocratic take-over by
the Regents of the University was not to last. For one thing,
the rising popular element in the state soon saw through the
rouse; and secondly, Columbia College wanted to govern itself
and not be controlled by the Board of Regents, the
HEE TE
administrative body of the University of the State of New York.
So, in 1787 the legislature gave the Regents of the University
the broad function of incorporating and appraising colleges and
academies .? Thus, the "new" Board of Regents has ever since
engaged in setting standards for academies and colleges in the
State of New York. (Lest one think that setting standards
precluded control they should be reminded that in 1977 the
Regents closed the history department's Ph.D. program at the
State University of New York in Albany.) 4
While the Regents of the University of the State had
authority to "visit" all educational institutions the board soon
realized the need for an enhanced "popular" education of younger
children and in 1787 appointed a committee to address the
matter. The committee recommended that "erecting public schools
for teaching reading, writing and arithmetic is an object of
very great importance, which ought not to be left to the
discretion of private men, but be promoted by public authority."
In due course, therefore, nearly a decade later, the legislature
appropriated $50,000 per annum for five years to partially
subsidize the maintenance of common schools "in the several
cities and towns" where children " ... shall be instructed in
the English language or be taught grammar, arithmetic,
mathematics, and such branches of knowledge as are most useful
and necessary to complete a good English education". Thus began
the New York public school system, although the state support
was interrupted from 1800 until the year 1805 when the
legislature placed the interest from the sale of 500,000 acres
of state lands into a permanent school fund; and shortly
afterward enhanced the endowment with income from lotteries and
3
TEPEnESE
New York bank stock.
While the Regents of the University in 1787 had initiated
the common school movement, its interest was basically, as it
had been initially, higher education (and private higher
education at that). Soon it became obvious that the common
school movement required firmer administration of the state
school fund than was being effected by the Regents. In 1812 the
legislature transferred much of their administrative charge of
elementary education to a State Superintendent of Common
Schools. For nearly a century, until 1904, a Common Schools
head and the Regents would be largely independent -- the former
administering the public elementary, and subsequently, secondary
schools; the latter the private institutions and all higher
education, public and private. In a space of a few years after
1812 the schools of the state mushroomed into 6,000 public
school districts, and elementary education of over 300,000
children. The next several decades saw various changes in
Common School headships; Secretaries of State served as the
State School head from 1821 until 1854. In the latter year the
legislature established a Department of Public Instruction to
oversee the state funding and administration of the public
schools. °
Understandably the massive influx of students into the
common schools required a proportionate increase of teachers.
Teacher training was practically non-existent. Frequently one
qualified to teach if only a "jump" (a year or two) ahead of the
students -- and if of "good moral character". Evolving
secondary institutions gradually became, in effect teacher
BFPEEREEEHEEEEHEEEEHEEESEEE EE
training schools. Many of their teachers took on teacher
training duties in addition to their regular teaching service.
Most such secondary schools were private academies established
by local initiative and were chartered by the Board of Regents.
When so founded they qualified for state aid. As a consequence
probably no state in the nation witnessed the survival of
private academies as long as did the State of New York, although
by an act of 1853 public school districts were permitted to
conduct some secondary school courses under the title of
"academic departments". When, eventually public high schools
grew out of some common school systems, the question of whether
their supervision should be by the Department of Public
Institution or the Board of Regents was hotly and
unsatisfactorily contested for decades -- until 1904.7,
Governor DeWitt Clinton as early as 1826 recognized the
need for better teacher training and called for the
establishment of a special "seminary" to train teachers.
Instead the legislature commissioned the Regents to allot $3,200
to each of eight academies for purposes of enhancing their
teacher training programs. When in 1844 a special seminary,
called a state normal school, was centered in Albany, teacher
training subsidies to academies were rescinded, although the
subsidies were renewed five years later. Pressures grew for the
Regents of the University to undertake the development of a
sufficient number of "normal schools" to provide creditably
trained teachers for the burgeoning public school populaeion in
the State. The Regents, however, became very cautious about
charting institutions of "higher learning" -- academies, normal
BEER EHEEEEHEEHEEEE EEE EERE
school, or colleges. Indeed they so severely limited the
licensing of colleges that for some decades prior to mid-
century, the legislature undertook the task, returning the
responsibility to the University of the State after the Civil
War .8
TERE HE BPE EE BPE Eee eee ee
"The Morrill Act and Public Higher Education in New York"
1862 - 1904
When the idea and origin of state university in America is
addressed one invariably looks to Jefferson's University of
Virginia and to the great state universities of the mid-West.
When so doing a paradox emerges, not unlike that enigma of New
York aristocrats coopting a French revolutionary concept in
creating the University of the State of New York. Jefferson,
"an aristocrat to his finger tips" was eclectic and "rational"
enough to advocate state education of an "aristocracy of virtue
and talent, which nature has wisely provided for the interests
of society, and scattered with equal hand through all its
conditions". The great mid-Western state universities reflected
less the caution of the Eastern college founders and showed more
the leveling spirit of the frontier. The "intellectually and
ethically raw" Andrew Jackson was more their patron than was
Jefferson. The State of Indiana, for example, reflected early
the earnest frontier egalitarianism when, in 1816, its
constitution announced that the General Assembly shall provide
education at all levels " ... from township schools to State
University, wherein tuition shall be gratis, and equally open to
al.."®
New York was rather a microcosm of the nation -- a mix of
East and West. The Regents of the University, for all of its
aristocratic history, did reflect the French idea of state
responsibility for higher education. At the turn of this
century, Charles F. Thuring in his pioneering work, A History of
Higher Education in America noted: "The Regents of the
University of the State of New York have proved themselves more
solicitous to provide the proper financial and other support for
a college ... than the governors of the educational interest of
any other Commonwealth." For example, valiant attempts in the
1780s and 90s were made to find in New York a "commodious sight"
for a college to educate "men of learning to fill office of
church and state." Thus, the Regents, in 1794 chartered, on its
frontier, in Schenectady, Union College. The college, by place
and title, reflected Regents vigorous concern for higher
education in the state -- a "commodious sight" and a "joining
together all the sects in common interest for the common
good. "29
As noted, when the Regents limited the chartering of
colleges the legislature proceeded to do so.
There is no more stunning illustration of the mix of
Eastern staidness and Western egalitarianism than the
circumstance in New York which led to the State's chartering of
Cornell University. It's creation is a long story but not to be
lost here is its origin in three fledgling colleges chartered to
meet the needs of New Yorkers as they moved West on their own
frontier. Note the names and places: People's College in
Havana, just south of Watkins Glen; the New York Central
College, near Cortland, twenty-five miles north east of Ithaca;
the New York State Agricultural College, in Ovid, twenty-five
miles northwest of Ithaca. The very names reflect the Western
interests of common people and their endeavors -- laboring and
farming. It's beyond the purview of this essay to recount state
and local public subscriptions to their support. The three
BEE EE EEE EEE EEE REE EE
colleges are particularly important to this story because they
are the beginnings of New York's first "state college", Cornell
which, in 1865 was incorporated as a University on condition "to
receive annually one student from each Assembly district ... and
give them instruction in any or all the prescribed branches
of study ... free of any tuition free,wtt
The principal stimulus to state university education in the
nation was the passage of (he. MoREETT Land Grant Act in 1862.
Consistent with the drive to provide higher education to the
laborers and farmers of the nation it gave to each state 30,000
acres of land per congressman for the purpose of endowing at
least one mechanical and agricultural college. Little wonder
the act is variously described as both "the most important piece
of agricultural legislation in American history" and the
principal catalyst for mass higher education in the nature. And
New York, with more congressman than any other state, was
allotted 989,920 acres of land, nearly 10 percent of the total
of the land-grants of the Morrill Act. States with insufficient
federal land, like New York, were given land script to purchase
acreage in undeveloped frontier regions. In the spirit of the
law, states in various ways offered tuition free education to
its agricultural and mechanical colleges -- Connecticut gave
gratuitous instruction to students attending the Sheffield
Scientific School of Yale College; Rhode Island bestowed its
land script upon Brown University, limiting the number of
tuition fees students to the amount of the state's grant; states
like Iowa and Michigan, which had already provided free
education to all of its students, used the grants-in-aid to
BEER EE EEE ERE ERE RE
enhance their state universities. !?
New York's share was assigned by the Regents in 1863 to
People's College with a general provision that it receive
students from every county, the clear implication being that,
like the state universities at Iowa and Michigan, all students
would be admitted free of charge. Unfortunately, People's
College, for various reasons, including a paralytic stroke of
its principal catalyst and benefactor, Charles Cook, could not
meet the several requirements laid down by the legislature.
With the possibility of the legislature rescinding the Morrill
allotment to-People's College, there ensued a scramble for New
York's share, particularly between supporters at People's
College and the New York State Agricultural College at Ovid.
Then there entered into this picture New York State Senator Ezra
Cornell, philanthropist and President of the New York State
Agricultural Society, who suggested that the profits from the
land-script by divided between the two institutions. However,
State Senator Andrew D. White, Chairman of the Literature
Committee, (the committee principally responsible for education
in the Senate) refused to permit a division of the funds. In
due course Senators Cornell and White decided the fate of the
guna. 33
It does, of course, an injustice, even in a draft history
such as this, to, in one paragraph, explain away the creation of
Cornell University as the agriculture college of the State of
New York. In short Ezra Cornell, an Ithaca inventor and
industrialist who made a fortune in Western Union telegraph
development, and the influential Andrew White established such a
rapport that in 1865 they brought the New York Morrill fund to a
10
BEER ERE ERR ER REE R RRR EE
newly founded Cornell University. A magnificent personal gift
by Ezra Cornell of $500,000 to the founding of the new
university undoubtedly influenced the State legislature in its
chartering of Cornell on April 27, 1865. It should be noted
that the Regents of the State were scrupulous in their assurance
that People's University could not fulfill the requirements
originally imposed for receipt of the land-grant funds; and that
a newly created Cornell University would be able to do so. It
should also be noted that the Regents and the legislature
accepted a charter for the new university which seemingly
differed from the agricultural and mechanical education intent
of the Morrill Act. The charter prescribed, very importantly,
that " ... such other branches of science and knowledge may be
embraced in the plan of instruction and investigation pertaining
to the university as the trustees may deem useful and proper."
It has already been noted that Cornell University's charter
varied from the People's Charter in that free tuition at the
Ithaca institution would be limited to one student from each
county in the state -- at that a considerable number of college
students for that day. Thus, was born the land-grant "college"
of the State of New York, so emersed, however, within the
confines of Cornell's private higher education as to have grave
implications for the future development of public higher
education in the state. Cornell's expansion into a great
private University, (with its public appendages of agriculture
and subsequently of Home Economics, Veterinary Medicine, and
Industrial and Labor Relations) would perpetuate the bifurcation
of private and public higher education in the state, to the
11
frequent disadvantage to the latter which spawned it. Although
privileged with land-grant and additional state financing, such
public support to Cornell would soon be minimal as compared to
private financing by high tuitions paid by most of its students
and by massive private endowments. Indeed, Cornell along with
Columbia would become a harbinger of private education in the
State. Of course, as with Columbia, Cornell with its
aistinguisnea and independent faculty would offer much to the
state and the nation.*4
Little wonder the State University of New York, when at
last created in the mid-20th Century, would have to struggle so
mightily to attempt to achieve the stature of other great mid-
Western universities which had started so magnificently a
century previously. What higher education in New York became
has been attributed largely to the private, and not the public
domain.
The State University of New York in the mid-20th Century
would be shaped, not by a great Morrill endowed university, but
by the normal schools chartered almost simultaneously to that of
Cornell University. Of course, the Regents and the legislature
would charter and support numerous other academies and colleges,
some like Hamilton College, Hartwick Seminary, Colgate
Theological Seminary; and, as noted, a number of academies which
were akin to high schools and which served as a training ground
for common school teachers. In 1855 the Regents allocated some
$18,000 to over eighty academies with teacher training
courses.2° Criticism ensued. Emphasis on classics in the
academies seemed a waste and to be certainly unsuitable to
12
BEE EERE EEE EEE
teacher training. Of course, as noted, the state had created at
Albany one normal. school in 1844. Although it seemingly limped
along it fulfilled a need and became permanent by legislative
action in 184g,+°
To say that 19th century normal schools in the nation
lacked the German like scientific methodologies imported into
institutions like Cornell is not to say that all normal schools
were "provincial" in comparison. Edward Sheldon of Oswego (a
locally funded normal school) was brilliant in effecting
Pestalozzi's ideas of individuality of youngster -- the need to
learn by sensory experiences and not by rote. Sheldon attracted
national attention with his "object methodology" and
sophisticated remedial programs in academic subjects. Little
wonder the Regents and the state chartered its second normal
school there, in 1863. It appropriated ‘s6, 000 to the school on
condition that it accept one student from each county in the
State. So profound was the "Oswego Movement” that President
John W. Cook, of the State Normal School, Normal, Illinois
declared: "The Educational historian who overlooks the Oswego
Movement makes a grave omission. It was germinal in America as
it has been Europe. It is the happy fortune of its great
promoter to survive its vindication." Sheldon observed with
pride state legislative action to provide for four more normal
schools. They received $12,000 annually from the Common School
Fund. The new institutions chartered in 1870 were located at
Brockport, Fredonia, Cortland, and Potsdam, to be followed
shortly by the chartering of normal schools at Buffalo, Geneseo,
New Paltz and oneonta.?”
13
Normal schools criss-crossing the State might have been
strong building blocks to the next century's State University.
Pestalozzi's ideas were not the only substance. The Herbartian
Movement in education also prepared students to be teachers of
citizenship alo, the philosophers John Dewey and William James
and at times taught the theories of structuralism,
functionalism, behaviorism and Gestalt. More often than not,
however, the normal schools in the state were, niches between the
grammar schools and colleges. Normal school students were
little advanced beyond the elementary grades. As teachers they
were often ill equipped to address the issues of the rising
educational profession. Productive dialogue on educational
matters was left to institutions like Teacher's College of
Columbia University. ?®
Even Cornell wanted to raise up the "new
educational" discourse in an advanced School of Pedagogy but
came to prefer state largess for its other proposed new
programs. 19
The state normal schools struggled with Pestalozzian and
Herbartian ideas. But, generally they became emersed in
elementary subject matter, teaching "hints", some theoretical
principles of teaching, and a smattering of methodology.
Albany, close at hand to the legislature and to the Regents
seemed to have a better handle on its normal school's direction
although at times even it was hard to perceive .?°
A central problem for the normal schools was determining
the responsibility for their direction. For nearly a half a
century the Regents of the State University and the
Superintendent of Public instruction bickered -- the Regents
viewed its charge as not only the academies and the colleges but
14
EEE EEE
EE
rr
the high schools as well. The State Superintendent of Public
Instruction, assumed responsibility for common school education,
and argued logically enough, for regulating the training of its
teachers, either in the academies or the normal schools.
Consequently, the normal schools were in limbo, frequently
subject to the whims of local jurisdictions. Funding decreased
and the schools came to be chaxacterized as "notoriously low” in
quality. Students were ill prepared, as evidenced by much
needed remedial work in elementary subjects. Few faculty
members had even baccalaureate degrees. 7+
Then in 1886 appeared Andrew Sloan Draper as Superintendent
of Public Instruction. He was intelligent and forceful and
successfully weaned teacher training away from the Regents.
Draper brought efficiency to teacher training, but, on his
terms. Normal schools would be essentially training schools.
Private academies would be encouraged to introduce teacher
training classes. Summer teacher service institutes would be
introduced. And, by Draper's edict, there would be no
additional normal schools.
A significant concern of Superintendent Draper and of his
two successors was that normal schools were becoming the
people's colleges of the State. They resented the fact that
less than half normal school students were interested in the
teacher preparation programs. Under their soneror of normal
schools, teach training aspects would be emphasized. In this
way private academies and colleges would feel less threatened by
publically supported schools of "higher education. "2
In the spirit of the People's College demise the common
15
interests of the Department of Public Instruction and the Board
of Regents centered on assurances that normal schools would not
become people's colleges. Thus, in 1904, the Regents and the
Superintendent closed ranks and effected a unification.
az
HERE E
16
"Unification of the Regents and the State Education Department"
1904-1946
The Regents of the University and the State legislature
oversaw the mushrooming of New York's higher education in the
19th century; and in various ways, with frequent state financial
support. It is to the credit of both that few states matched
New York's institutions of higher learning, for physical plant
and quality. But, the skewing favored the private over public
interests, consistent with the Regents' origin -- to save King's
College for the affluent youth of the state; and in accord with
the dispensing of the Morrill land-grant share to what became a
bulwark of private education, Cornell University. As the state
entered the 20th Century in the midst of the great Progressive
Reform Era public. higher education might still have been
salvaged for less privileged youth. The seeds of intent were
there, as manifested by the People's College charter of an
earlier decade; and by the City of New York striving mightily to
educate its poor in a City College. In fact, New York's
Progress Era (1901-1917) showed sophistication in so many
matters that one wonders how it failed to provide better public
higher education. The answer was in large part the "private"
bent of the Regents. The Department of Public Instruction in the
80's and the 90's had complained that a high percentage of normal
EERE EERE REE BE EE
school students had no intention of teaching. Of course, the 1904
| unification of the Regents and the Department of Public Instruction
would not bode well for public higher education in the state,
especially with the return of Andrew Sloan Draper in 1904 as the
17
head of the State Education Department .23
Under the Unification Act of 1904 the Regents and the State
Education Department would establish a harmonious division of
labor. By the Act the Regents would retain jurisdiction over
colleges and universities; and the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (to be hereafter called Commissioner) would have
supervision of elementary and secondary education. Shortly
thereafter, the law was amended to make the Regents a division
of the State Education Department and the Commissioner the
President of the University of the State of New York. Given
Draper's reticence about expanding public higher education (in
1889 he had favored teacher training classes in private
academies over additional normal schools) and his insistence
that normal schools avoid subject matter courses, one can
perceive an unfortunate legacy on which to ultimately build a
State University -- both in terms of quantity and quality of
higher education units.?4
Superintendent of Public Instruction Draper's
accomplishments on behalf of teacher-training in New York were
considerable. He professionalized the State's oversight of its
schools, improved considerably the syllabi and curriculum of
both elementary and secondary schools, established a State
retirement system, and moved the State Normal School in Albany
in the direction of becoming a superior normal school (so good
that in the post World War II years serious students would
clamor to get in even though they were only nominally interested
in teaching) .2°
Commissioner Draper accelerated the reorganization of the
18
a
| normal schools by upgrading their courses, and raising entrance
a requirements. The new program was a two year curriculum and
would last until the early 1920s. Its emphasis was essentially
, the teaching of method with such appropriate courses as
psychology, principles of education, penmanship, school economy.
A prophetic weakness, to be perceived only later, yet a weak
foundation for a future State University, was the firm intent to
have the normal schools eliminate an academic curriculum. In
1909 the Commissioner would proudly announce that the normal
schools had at last become professional training institutions.
Subject matter courses were largely eliminated. Foretelling a
future need, the normal schools, once multi-purpose institutions
which helped to educate the state's underprivileged youth,
became the single purpose teacher training schools. Draper
wanted them to be. Thereafter the normal schools would never
achieve the numbers of students they enrolled at the turn of the
century.7®
There was, of course, an explosive growth in secondary
education in the state between 1895 and 1910, the high schools
however, trained secondary teachers. The other normal schools
were limited to the training of elementary teachers. Three
decades later the normal schools would have to be converted into
teacher's college to prepare secondary teachers, a difficult
transition given their long "training" emphasis with little
"academic" attention. Their late entry into the secondary
education training field (with some academic concentration) made
them a precarious building base for the future State
university.°!
19
| increasing from 373 to 740. Only the Albany Normal School,
The Department of Public Instruction had taken pride in
recasting the State Normal School at Albany into college. It
developed an English and Classical program of two years each,
and a supplementary two year methodology course which required
such courses as Mental Physiology, Old Greek Education, Mental
Science, and a thesis. The prior English and Classical programs
were a mix of methodology and academic courses, with increasing
emphasis on the former. Completion of the English and Classical
programs (and the methodology) led respectively to Bachelor and
Master of Pedagogy. 7?
The Department and the Regents subsequently modified the
program for college and university graduates who wanted to
prepare to teach in the Secondary schools. It increased the
Albany College program to four years and recognized the need for
"thorough and comprehensive scholarship" in academic subjects.°?
Commissioner Draper was pleased with the development of the
State Normal College at Albany and, in 1910, included it ina
blueprint of "free" public higher education in the state, along
with the City College of New York and the Normal College of the
City of New York (subsequently Hunter College). A recent
student of Draper's hopeful announcement to "swing college doors
more freely to the youth of the state" notes that the
declaration was not, however, a call for a State University.
Indeed, consistent with his really private bent toward private
higher education -- and that of the Regents for whom he now
spoke -- the Commissioner observed that higher education in the
state had "so far matured" as to put a State University beyond
the pale. Revealingly, Draper concluded: " ... neither the
20
RBHREEHREERE EERE
people of the State, the other high institutions of higher
learning in the State, nor the weight of opinion and feeling at
Cornell" would support converting that land-grant receiving
institution into the State University of New York. ‘The
Commissioner did suggest that the University of the State of New
York (as opposed to State University) secure state funding for
transforming universities in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse
into city universities -- with the assumption of tuition of
"selected" students. With a further qualification, Draper
concluded: " ... it ought to be fundamental ... that all who
want to ... [attend college] shall not be prevented from doing
so by reason of tuition charges which they can not assume."
Understandably, the Association of Colleges and Universities of
the State of New York, on February 2, 1910 suggested an
alternative: a program of $100.00 per year State scholarships
to 3,000 qualified students to attend a private college or
university of their choice. Such a "Regents Scholarship"
program was effected three years later, although the same
legislature denied desperately needed salary increases for state
normal school's faculty. After a sincere struggle Commissioner
Draper finally secured a faculty salary increase, only to have
Governor John Dix veto it 30
The Albany Normal College fared increasingly better than
the State's normal school -- in almost all regards. Perhaps it
did so because it, of all the public state training
institutions, was more closely watched by the Board of Regents.
In 1914 it became the New York State College for Teachers. It
secured more dormitories and by the time of the founding of the
21
State University in 1948 had a fairly strong reputation for both
undergraduate and graduate education. The Buffalo State Normal
School became a State College for Teachers in 1927, also
offering bachelor's and master's degrees. The other normal
schools followed suit in the thirties and forties. The New York
State College for Teachers at Albany was preeminant, and as the
only state college with a secondary: program it alone drew
students from across the state. Although by the late 1940s and
the Fifties it attracted national attention as the flagship of
the new State University, it was hardly the equivalent in any
aspects to the Big Ten State Universities. Albany, however, had
a remarkably high quality of students, faculty, curriculum, and
physical plant .32 But, it was the only one so qualified. While
the State Education Department had professionalized, centralized
and controlled teacher training instatucsons, the teachers
colleges suffered a bureaucratic prejudice which the College at
Albany, and to a lesser degree, Buffalo avoided. Could a State
University ultimately be built on such undexpinnings?°*
22
(See ee ee ee eee ee
"The Founding of the State University of New York"
1946-1952
’
Lest one think that the destiny of an institution, such as
higher education, is not mightily affected by its history -- and
more so depending upon the length of time -- look at New York.
It boggles the mind to realize that the private interests of
King's College (later Columbia University), so important to the
creation of the Regents in 1784, would, in the 1940s, use again
the Regents in its own behalf. An analysis of how it was so
might caution players on the higher education scene ~-- the State
University of New York for our purposes -- to be ever conscious
of the past's impact.
The struggle between the private and public interests early
in the twentieth century was one largely between Nicholas Murray
Butler, the President of Columbia University, and the Jewish and
other youth of New York City, who desperately wanted higher
education. Since the turn of the Century it became increasingly
apparent that New York University and the City College of New
York could not absorb the children of the New Immigration.
Brooklyn representatives in the State Legislature introduced
bills for a university in their borough. But Butler feared for
Columbia the competition of such a university. He used his
Republican Party and educational influence with the Regents and
the Governor to have the bills vetoed. When some bright
Brooklyn youths did get admitted to Columbia in expanding
numbers Butler became annoyed that "fully half of ... [them]
were ‘undesirables’ ... [ who conformed] much more closely with
the type of student attending the College of the City of new
23
WHERE EERE RRR Ree
York than with our type of boy ."33
As demand for college admission increased following the
first World War, Columbia made access to it more difficult, as
did other institutions. The admission situation was compounded
by reluctance by other states to accommodate New York students.
There then began in New York an earnest demand for a State
University to provide graduate, professional as well as
undergraduate education. The Regents, the State Education
Department, Columbia University, and many other private
institutions of course, ignored the demand. But, something had
to be done. Butler saw to it that Columbia set up a satellite
unit, Seth Low Junior College, in Brooklyn. He even considered
having Columbia purchase Long Island University, but when
Brooklyn College, a new four-year municipal college wads set up
Butler gave up the idea of the Long Island purchase, and closed
Seth Low College. 34
The creation of Brooklyn College far from met the demands
of New York City youths for a college education. Thus, there
were continuing calls for a State University throughout the
twenties and thirties. The Regents in the late thirties
commenced a study of the need. It's report concluded: "New
York is adequately supplied with private colleges, universities
and public and private professional schools though it does not
have a State University." The author of the report, Luther
Gulick, recognized that some "youth [who] qualified [for
admission] ... are now deterred from advanced education for
economic and other reasons ."?°
The ever increasing demand for a higher education,
24
bi
EER REE
especially after World War II, made the continuing lack of
concern of Columbia's Butler and the Regents inconscionable.
Harold Wechsler, in his provocative work, The Qualified Student
(1977) notes the relationship of the recent Holocaust to the
greater sensitivity of New York Jewish youth, not only to lack of
higher education facilities, but to the rank discriminatory
admission policies of most of the existing institutions. The
American Jewish Congress specifically charged Columbia with
discriminatory policies. By now, Nicholas Murray Butler had
retired his University presidency, and other voices, somewhat
more adaptable to the times, spoke for Columbia. The Dean of the
University's Teacher College Hollis L. Caswell severely chided
the state exclaiming, "New York State, through a long-term
policy of reliance on private support of higher education, has
achieved a position in this field far below that of which she is
capable, and below that of her best self interest." Although
Columbia's new president, Frank Fackenthal, continued to praise
private education he, unlike Butler, would not use his office to
oppose the state providing public higher education facilities.
He might have come to see,the creation of the State University as
a blessing in disguise. Dean Caswell suggested to him that it
might provide Columbia "greater freedom to be selective in the
objectives we emphasize and the students we accept." Fackenthal
was adamant, however, in insisting that the State not interfere
with Columbia University's admission policies .3°
But, it was not for Fackenthal to lightly say he would
brook no interference. There were too many public forums
questioning Columbia University's admission policy, many
25
“PEER ERE ER EER REE REE ES
inspired by the American Jewish Congress. The Congress itself
charged the New York City Tax Commission with granting Columbia
a tax exemption even though the University discriminated. The
State Supreme Court threw out the case, stating that only
alleged victims of discrimination could petition the Court.
Then the New York City Council investigated ‘and verified the
American Jewish Congress charge with a finding of "a constant
and precise decline in Jewish boys and girls being admitted to
Columbia University ['s Medical School.]" Following that, the
Mayor's Committee on Unity embarrassed the University with a
staff report leaked to the New York Times which quoted Columbia
College Dean Harry Carman as saying that although the Brooklyn
students were qualified for admission to Columbia, geographical
distribution of students was justifiable. (In light of the
Holocaust one of the staff members "thought that since the
colleges set the moral tone and climate for the nation
discrimination on the campus [Columbia] might lead to further
discrimination elsewhere.") Columbia University was relieved
that it was not mentioned by name when the Mayor's Committee on
Unity reported the existence of quota systems in the State's
higher education institutions. The Committee vecommended that
the Board of Regents take appropriate action.??
Because New York Constitution and law, which prohibited
such discriminations, was ineffective, the legislature in 1946
drafted an Austin-Mahoney Fair Educational Practices Bill. The
bill would specifically disallow quota admission patterns and
would exempt only religious institutions. Columbia's leadership
seathed at having the American Jewish Congress defining "the
purposes and functions of education and educational
26
HEE EEE EE
institutions." (The University still believed that there were
grounds other than intellectual ability and moral character for
admission.) The University opposed the bill behind the scenes
attempting to enlist the support of conservative Jewish
organizations and the Association of Colleges and Universities
of the State of New York. 38
The proponents of the Fair Educational Practices bill,
particularly given the American Jewish Congress' shrewd support,
were on the brink of getting the legislation when the City's
Roman Catholic Archbishop Robert McIntyre announced his
opposition. Apparently Columbia's attorneys convinced the
Catholic hierarchy that the exemption of sectarian institutions
was limited in that their non-Catholic students and faculty
would not be exempt from the law. By now, however, the Austin-
Mahoney bill faded. The legislature and the state turned their
attention to Governor Thomas Dewey and his Commission on the
Need for a State University.2?
The principal mission of the newly appointed Commission on
the Need for a State University was, of course, principally
that, and not the problem of racial and religious discrimination
in New York higher education. The Commission did, however,
appoint a sub-committee to address the discrimination matter,
and its findings became very pertinent to the founding of the
State University. Three staff reports demonstrated that Jewish
students, upstate and downstate, experienced admission
discrimination in "first-choice colleges; the paucity of black
students being admitted to colleges was principally explained by
their low economic status; that sixteen institutions [variously
27
Catholic, Protestant, non-sectarian] restricted enrollment based
on race or creed." An important finding confirmed what had been
long surmised; that admission to medical school was particularly
difficult for many candidates .*°
As Governor Dewey conjured these findings and others, the
confirmation of racial discrimination became increasingly
significant -~ perhaps absolutely so -- in his decision
regarding the establishment of the State University.
Discrimination aside, although haunting the study of the
need of a State University, Governor Dewey, in his annual
appearance before the legislature on January 9, 1946 addressed
higher education in terms of the needs of the returning
Veterans. Specifically he noted that in 1944 and 1945 the state
had established 2,400 scholarships for Veterans at $350.00
BREERER EE EEE
annually. He asked that 1,200 more such scholarships be
established in 1946; and he presumed that the same additional
number would be requested in 1947. The governor then made an
important general statement about higher education:
"In piecemeal fashion the state has been adding tuition-free
colleges to private universities [such as the Forestry at
Syracuse University]. We should examine the need for a State
University including professional schools in order to
equalize educational opportunities throughout the state and
to provide larger educational plants required by a larger
population, "44
The governor's higher education problems were far more
complex than he implied in his message to the legislature. Of
the Veterans returning to New York it was estimated that 250,000
would seek further schooling, of which 100,000 would pursue
college education. Simultaneous to the governor's statement to
28
REE E EEE
the legislature the Democratic "Program [of] Bills" called for
the creation of a State University to the amount of fifty
million dollars. At the same time the private colleges and
universities and the governor were culminating long
deliberations which resulted in the formation of the Associated
Colleges of Upper New York (acuny) 42
ACUNY was a hybrid institution of four two-year colleges,
created and financed by state legislation on April 4, 1946,
presided over by a board of trustees which has made up of
private college and university presidents in the state,
including several from downstate. The four units of ACUNY were
Sampson College, located at the former naval base on Lake
Seneca; Mohawk College located in the building of the former
Rhoads General Hospital near Ithaca; the Middletown Collegiate
Center, of afternoon and evening collegiate classes held in
Middletown High School; and Champlain College, located in
Plattsburg military barracks. It was ingeniously conceived as a
temporary solution to the expected invasion of 100,000 veterans.
The Association of Colleges and Universities of the State of New
York assured the governor that the private institutions could
absorb 60,000 of the Veterans; extension programs at their
private colleges and universities could take 10,000 Veterans;
and approximately 10,000 of the returning would be enrolled in
ACUNY. In regard to the new "Associated Colleges" Chancellor
Tolley of Syracuse University seemed to speak for the private
institutions in the State when he wrote to Commissioner of
Education George D. Stoddard: "We ought to guard against the
danger of temporary agencies becoming permanent institutions.
We do not want an embryo of a state university ... which would
29
be difficult to liquidate. "43
To meet the long-term higher education needs of the State
Governor Dewey in 1946 seemingly had two alternatives: either
the state should continue, at increased levels, various forms of
state subsidies to private colleges and universities, or develop
public institutions of higher education in the form of a state
university with branches located around the state (or possibly a
conglomerate of public two and four year colleges) .44
HERE EEE
To give the governor pause to digest, ponder and react to
the gamete of ideas and pressures regarding higher education --
from the Regents, the private institutions, the Democratic
Party, and aggrieved ethnic groups -- he, on February 4, 1946
suggested to the legislature that it create
" .,.. a commission to be representative of the
legislature, the state administration, educators, and of
the people generally, and that this group be directed
and empowered to assemble the views of all interested
persons, procure all the data that is necessary within
and without the state, make such plans, analyses and
studies as are necessary and that it be provided with
ample funds to accomplish its purposes. Such commission
will examine all the issues, ascertain all the divergent
views, and give hearing to all interested persons, to
the end that we will have a sound evaluation of our
system of higher education,"45
Reaction to the governor's plan varied, displaying the social
and political contours of the state's past. Many Regents of
course, opposed the thought of a state university, rooted as they
were in their 1784 founding to save King's College; in their
diversion of the Morrill land-grant to a private Cornell
University; and in their turn-of-the-Century insistence that
normal schools preclude any youth not desiring to teach. Now the
Regents wanted to limit any public higher education to perhaps a
30
BEER ERHERHEEEEEE
smattering of two-year trade institutes. Conversely, when
Assembly Democrat Leader Irwin Sterngut exclaimed: "We don't need
any more studies ... We know the [higher education] situation was
rotten, "46 he reflected those elements in the state who in the
beginning had fought the formation of the Regents by Kings College
benefactors; had supported the granting of Land-Grant funds to
"People's College"; favored normal schools giving education to the
states poor; and, in the twentieth century, demanded, for ethnic
and economic reasons, a State University.
Dewey's idea of appointing a commission was not just a stall
to avoid siding with "privately" oriented upstate Republicans or
the "public" advocates of the downstate Democratic Party.
Although conservative on economic matters Dewey's long New York
City political experience had exposed him to the conditions and
needs of the mass of people. The governor's political savvy :
seemed to lead him above party, as clearly shown by the make-up of
the Temporary Commission to Study the Need for a State University
which he appointed on July 14, 1946. Its eminent chairman, Owen
D. Young, made the point: "there is not now and there will be no
politics in the commission appointed by the Governor to study the
need for a State University ... The Governor and I have discussed
this subject [our plan of operation] and as a former member of the
Board of Regents, I guess I have some background on the problems
involved." The story of the Commission's deliberations and its
ultimate report confirm the Chairman Young's determination to
chair the Commission in statesman-like fashion. 4!
Oliver Cromwell Carmichael, Jr. in his superb book New York
Establishes a State University, attributes the success of Young's
31
"no politics" chairmanship to both the make-up of the commission
and the chairman's method of procedure. On the former Carmichael
concludes: "An examination of the backgrounds of the Commission
members reveals there was a broad diversity of interest among
them. Although Republicans were in the majority, the Chairman and
the Vice-Chairman were Democrats. The members had a wide range of
professional interest -- among them were a politician, several
educators, a public administrator, a trade-union official, an
engineer, a lawyer, and a merchant." Importantly, while two-
thirds of the membership was Republican, two-thirds represented
urban elements. The chairman's methods of procedure were
ingenious; first, the highly professional research staff directed
questions rather than opinions to Commission members; second,
Chairman Young convened the Commission members in the pleasant
surroundings of Lake George so as to induce candid and productive
deliberation. And when the Commission did convene Young used ad
hoc committees (not standing committees which solidify positions) ;
he prohibited votes, except for the final one on the Commission's
report; he delegated the drafting of the final report to a
manageable committee of seven members; and, finally, he insisted
upon unanimity in the final recommendations. 4%
It is beyond the purpose of this "Draft" history to detail
the profoundness of various positions deliberated by the research
staffs and Commission members -- such as, the expansion of two-
year institutions, the use of scholarships for upper division
college work in private institutions, the establishment of State
institutions in certain professional fields, the creation of a
central state university. Also, how could teachers colleges
32
community aolleges; agricultural and technical colleges, medical
and other graduate schools fit into the scheme of the State
University? In spite of Chairman Young's shrewd procedural
approaches, vested interests surfaced -- those of private colleges
and universities, the Regents, the ethnic minorities, the
denominational institutions, the parties, and, of course, the
Governor. There was, of course, much overlap of interests. Major
issues probably came down to, one, the size and cost of state
supported higher education, (The Republican governor was more
conscious of costs than more Democratic leaders), and two, the
control of public higher education (by the governor, or by the
Board of Regents). Not surprisingly, important ancillary issues
had to do with medical education and fair educational practices.
(One only need remember that the problems of N. Y. C. Jewish
youngsters had getting into medical schools had much to do with
the beginning of the drive for a State University.) 4?
On February 16, 1948, the commission submitted to the
governor a report with four sections. One, a State University
under the Board of Regents, to consist of existing units (teachers
colleges, technical institutes, the Maritime Academy, contract
colleges) and new units (as some four-year colleges, two medical
certain graduate and professional units). Teachers colleges would
train teachers, pre-school through secondary schools. The State
would support teacher education in the four colleges of New York
City; and community colleges would be set up. Second in the
Commission's Report, the state scholarship program would be
enhaneea (presumably to satisfy the private institutions). Third,
the "State Education Department should develop and promote a
comprehensive system of counseling service in the educational
33
RBHREERE EEE
systems of the state." Lastly, and not surprisingly, public funds
would be available to public and private higher education only on
the condition that students be admitted on a basis of merit
without regard to race, color, creed or national origin, except
for denominational institutions. It was expected that costs of
the program would in the first year would be approximately $40
million over present the $20 million appropriation for state
higher education units; and that physical plant would increase to
$125 million from the present value of $70 million, °°
The Commission's report had the Governor's support. Indeed,
it reflected his handiwork. Dewey's definitive biographer,
Richard Norton Smith, notes that while the governor frequently
felt as the Regents did about a costly state university (he years
later said to Governor Rockefeller: "I like you Nelson but I
don't think I can afford you") he became convinced of its need.
As previously noted, his own New York City background affected his
thinking, especially when his aides, and George Shapiro
particularly, pointed out the utter discrimination practiced
against blacks and Jews "particularly in private medical and
dental schools .">+
On March 11, 1948 the legislature of the state passed bills
establishing the State University of New York, community colleges
and fair educational practices. Still, although the passage of
the bills did not come easily, they came with amazing speed.
While a bipartisan effort in the legislature made possible their
introduction, the State Education Department balked at a change
previously agreed upon -- that the Executive Secretary of the SUNY
Board of Trustees be appointed by the Commissioner of Education.
34
The final version of the bill was changed to read: "At least one
of the executive officers [of the State University] shall be a
designee of the Commissioner of Education." Obviously, while
Dewey had interest in private higher education and in the Regents'
ties to it, he intended to have the State University under the
control of its own trustees whom he appointed. The State
Education Department lamely argued that the new Trustees would
lack administrative experience; and that the new arrangement will
create an unhealthy competition between public and private
institutions. The Board of Regents tried to substitute a bill
effecting its control of the State University. It failed, and the
new State University was, on March 12, created by large majorities
in the legislature, not, however, without some compromises. °*
Enacted into the law were trade-off provisions that the State
University's supervision of existing public inetdiutdons of higher
education would be postponed until April of 1949; that all public
and private institutions, including Catholic, would be treated
alike in regard to certain forms of State aid; that the control of
contract colleges would not impair their relationship with private
institutions, such as existed between the state agricultural
school and Cornell University; and that ten years would elapse
before the teachers colleges became liberal arts colleges. The
first compromise, regarding the postponement date implied a
stalling tactic to give the Regents time to ponder its historic
mission of warding off a State University threat to private higher
education .°3
What could be more dramatic than the instant creation of one
of the World's largest universities? The State University of New
35
York was intended to embrace eleven state teachers colleges, six
agricultural and technical institutes, five institutes of applied
arts and sciences, the New York State Maritime Academy, three
emergency colleges operated by the Associated Colleges of Upper
New York, future developed community colleges and seven colleges
operated by privately endowed universities under contract with the
State. But, of course, the Board of Regents intended to constrain
the new university. When Governor Dewey on August 26, 1948
appointed the 15-member Board of Trustees under the chairmanship
of Oliver C. Carmichael, the board was required to not only assume
responsibility for the University, but to also determine its
relationship to the Board of Regents. °4 ,
There was immediate contention between the Trustees and the
Regents over the title of "President of the State University", the
name given to Dr. Alvin E. Burich upon his appointment by the
Trustees. (Dr. Eurich had been the Acting President of Stanford
University.) The Regents feigned confusion between Dr. Eurich's
title and that of their head, "President, University of the State
of New York." Besides, the title was established without
agreement between the Regents and the Trustees. Governor Dewey
accepted Eurich as "President of the State University". More
substantively, the Board of Regents attacked the governor's
request to the legislature for $67.5 million to implement the
Trustee's 1949-1954 SUNY development plan, including medical,
graduate and research facilities.°°
The Regents' opposition took the form of the Condon-Barrett
bill which would bring SUNY under the Education Department, make
the trustees an advisory body to the Regents, and give the Board
36
of Trustees "corporate powers" over only "new state-operated
institutions" (such as new medical centers). The Board of Regents
lobbied strenuously that the Board of Trustees had exceeded its
mandate -- of a temporary six year existence. The Trustees became
equally adamant for their cause as illustrated by their forming of
the "Committee to Save the State University." The governor
asserted his influence among Republicans; and Democrats who had
fought too long for a State University, held their ranks in
support of the University. The crucial Assembly vote defeated the
Condon-Barrett bill, 94-49. Although counsel for the State
Education Department threatened to carry their case to the
courts,the State Education Department swung to support of the
State University and effected a working relationship with the
Board of Trustees. An agreement between the President of the
State University and the Commissioner of Education recognized the
State University as corresponding to any other New York college or
university in its relationship to the Regents, except that the
Commissioner would review the SUNY budget for incorporation into
the State Education Department Budget. Also, the Education
Department would receive for approval SUNY "policy regarding
curricula, standards of instruction, admissions policies, and
similar matters." Such was the price the State University would
pay for assuming administrative control of its 32 state-supported
institutions. The State University had, of course, been
administering for a year -- recruiting a central administrative
staff, providing for office space, conducting meetings with heads
of various constituent units, considering administrative
organization of the university, and setting priorities for a
construction program. Most importantly, the State University
37
established two medical centers -- by absorbing the Long Island
College of Medicine in New York City and the College of Medicine
of Syracuse University.°°
As the State University entered the new decade, it was still
in the process of being founded. Its principal framework, the
eleven teachers colleges, with their long histories of abject
subservience to a frequently disregarding State Education
Department, was precarious at best. (The colleges were among the
very last of their kind in the nation to house their own students
in state-owned dormitories, a powerful symbol of the Regents’
disregard.) The first State University Master Plan of the State
University, that of 1950, was constructed in consultation with the
State Education Department. It concluded that the State requires
at least one two-year institution in each of 11 economic areas in
the State. More ominously for Regents-Trustees Relationships, it
reported that increased enrollment in four-year programs of 4,647
students must be achieved annually between 1950 and 1966, with an
additional increase of 43,000 between 1958 and 1966. Following
the adoption of the plan the State University began a hard look at
its teachers colleges, created two liberal arts colleges
(Champlain and Harpur, the former never launched), and two
community colleges, Orange County and Jamestown. >!
Although floundering and still seeking to be "founded" --
the Trustees saw their major problem as "the establishment of a
university with the measure of autonomy which insures both
integrity and effectiveness" -- the State University in 1951 did
achieve the establishment of the Research Foundation of the
State University and accreditation by the Middle States
38
Association. Perhaps SUNY was founded. In September of that
58
year, President Eurich resigned. In April of 1952, William S.
EREEREEEE #
Carlson, formerly President of Universities of Delaware and
Vermont would become the second president of the State
University.
39
"The Search for a University: The Carlson “Hamilton Years"
1952-1964
A New York Times editorial of January 5, 1952 applauded the
young geologist-explorer and former University of Vermont
president William S. Carlson as the new State University head.
President Carlson, it concluded " ... takes over a physical plan
scattered over the state in more than thirty institutions, two
expanding centers for medical education, a sizable building
program, a student body of about 47,000 and great
(ae es |
opportunities". The new president, however, must have. pondered
"opportunities" for the State University as weighed against the
mass of problems, not the least being a board of trustees to be
yet made permanent, "scattered ... institutions" of
questionable quality (mostly teachers colleges hardly more than
a decade from being "normal schools"), a physical plant yet to
be built, and a state bureaucracy of over-sight agencies
frequently unsympathetic to the new unknown giant .°? One recent
student of higher education of the period sees Executive
agencies and the legislature of State as continuing to run
things so much in the old way, and the period as one of "high
f
policy system equilibrium" hardly changed from pre-SUNY era
(domination by Regents, governor, and legislature). The same
observer notes, however, a beginning of a precipitous drop to
"low ... equilibrium" early in the Carlson tenure. ©? For all of
its seeming losses in recent years the Board of Regents could,
so it thought in the early 1950's, still approve SUNY trustees’
plans", largely in the interests of private higher education.
40
oe 2 ee |
— se ee ee ee eee ee
And, shortly, the new governor, Averill Harriman, would show an
inclination to the private side of higher education far more
than either his predecessor Dewey, or his successor, Nelson
Rockefeller.
The "low equilibrium" which would set in would not be
attributable to President Carlson alone, although he soon belied
a 1952 inaugural statement: an ideal university president is
"one who makes judgements and doesn’t go around making
61
statements." In various quarters he soon made statements in
defense of State University needs. As important to a mid-decade
search for and definition of the University was a new and
permanent Board of Trustees, and its new chairman, Frank C.
Moore. With the 1954 legislature act making the Board of
Trustees a permanent institution, the State University would
more successfully gain territoriality at the expense of the
State Education Department. The heretofore idea of the State _
University being only a supplement to private higher education
would begin to fade -- although prior to his confirmation as the
Trustees' chairman designee Moore dutifully noted: "the state
should supplement and not supplant, the private colleges. "®2
Surely, Dewey's selection of Frank C. Moore as the trustee
chairmanship was one of his most important appointments as
governor. Moore was a strong personality with a wealth of state
_government experience -- Lieutenant Governor and President of
the Government Affairs Foundation, and former state controller.
He knew well the machinations of the bureaucracy and was adroit
and persistent in guiding the fortunes of the University. One
close contemporary observer described Dewey's appointment of
Moore as moved by the purpose of "monitoring this new entity and
41
keeping it on track." It was a commitment not in any earlier
thinking. Moore would do that superbly, although not always to
the liking of other university leaders, including President
Carlson. In Carlson's early SUNY leadership years, however, he
and Moore complemented one another -- the former the
administrator, who searched for a definition of university
appropriate to the State university; the latter a statesman,
whose practicality kept the "entity" on course. ©?
Carlson administered well enough. He counselled the Board
of Trustees on the establishment of a new dental school, the
creation of a University Faculty Senate, the forbading of
national affiliation for fraternities (because of their
discriminatory by-laws), the construction of personnel policies
and the study of the need for tuition charge to students.
Pressures mounted for additional State University plant and
units. At present projections of a student expansion of 40
percent by 1970, private colleges and universities would have to
expand 186 percent from its 1955 enrollment. Given the
population pressures the Regents approved the establishment of
three community colleges on Long Island, and an "upper
division" liberal arts college at Stony Brook on the island.
But movement was slow. The Regents relented slowly. Teachers
Colleges -- the heart of the University -- were permitted to
train junior and high school teachers. New units in the
University were planned -- community and contract colleges --
and they eventually emerged. °4
Many quarters in the State, however, felt that the
university was "bogged down" -- that it had not fulfilled its
42
Eff 22 ee
an
promise. Chairman Moore ably pointed to the steady development
of the Liberal Arts College at Harpur, the Upstate and Downstate
Medical Centers, five community colleges, and the strengthening
of the teaches colleges (with dormitories). But Assemblyman
Bernard Austin raised questions: What plans are there for four
year college programs in sections of the State not presently
covered? How will the state educate 100,000 youth seeking
admission? When will there be graduate and professional
programs? Benjamin Fine of the New York Times noted that in
terms of per capita expénditures on public higher education, New
York ranked 45th in the nation. More needed to be done. °° But
the University's leadership could really not be faulted. In
less than a decade it had presided over phenomenal growth.
Still more planning and more resources were obviously
required. The 45th-in-the-nation-per-capita-expenditure
statistic embarrassed and awakened the state. Even the cautious
Governor Harriman came to see the need for a $250 million bond
drive inspired by Chairman Moore and organized by University
personnel, from President Carlson down to students who marched
in Albany on its behalf. The Regents at first balked on the
Bond program but then had to relent, and support it. In
November of 1957 it passed with particularly large margins
downstate. Now the legislature and the Governor recognized the
public's appreciation of its State University's attempt to
Bond approval was another mile stone in the building of
66
serve.
the University.
But how was the State University to be defined? President
Carlson searched for the answer. With the knowledge, if not the
43
formal approval of the Board of Trustees, the Research
Foundation of the State University launched a study of "Research
Potentials and Problems", in the University. The study
encompassed far more. Whether by intent or otherwise the final
report of the study was President Carlson's plan for the
University. It proposed a single "flagship" central campus for
the university, in the prototype of the great mid-West state
universities which would inspire, coordinate, direct and bring
to academic maturity the satellite campuses across the state.
It was a dramatic, radical, "nutty", splendid idea, yet, perhaps
impractical and, certainly a contentious proposal. ©?
Theodore C. Blegen, one of the nation's most distinguished
historians, and the Dean of the Graduate School of the
University of Minnesota, conducted the study and wrote its
report. The Harvests of Knowledge, A Report on Research
Like a good historian, Theodore Blegen harked back to the
dreams New Yorkers had had for a state or peoples university --
New York City's Major James Duane proposal for some form of a
state university in 1784, and seemingly not the University of
the State which came in the same year; the pre-Civil War
Regents' Committee which called for a state "university of
active instruction"; Governor David B. Hill, who, in 1886,
lamented the fact that the university of the State "has in fact
no existence." Blegen might have mentioned that Peoples College
incorporated in 1853 which lost its Morrill land grant to
Cornell. New Yorkers, on their frontier, knew, as did
westerners, what they wanted, not just a place to narrowly train
44
farmers and tradesmen, but ".. a place where the real productive
ee eS oe ee
labors of intellect are to be performed; where the old fields
are to be tilled for the new corn; where the harvests of
knowledge are actually gathered and garnered up. Its purpose is
to promote literature and advance useful knowledge. "®9
Dean Blegen, of course, saw research and teaching as the
two arms of the scholar-teacher. He believed that "a true
university exists to discover and to disseminate knowledge and
understanding and [to] train people in the ways of genuine
scholarship. A teaching institution that affords no place to
research and gives research no encouragement and support defeats
itself." Blegen knew first hand the business of research in a
University, and how it had sustained faculty as teachers, not
only at the central campus of the University of Minnesota but
also at its satellite colleges, units with normal school
origins, not unlike New York's teachers colleges. He traveled
across New York visiting teachers colleges, Harpur College and
some agriculture and technical colleges. He was impressed by
the increase in the faculty holding doctorates as compared to
1948; and by their potential to research and teach; by their
gratitude for small research grant programs initiated by the
i.e.
Research Foundation. But, he reported, they were a disconsolate
—
faculty -- where were they to look in their own university for
resources and attitudes to encourage their being as scholar-
teachers? "The State University of New York" he concluded,
"lacks the atmosphere of a comprehensive and adequate university
It is an academic animal without a head." Blegen was not a
"Big Ten" representative lording it over the teachers colleges
of the State University. (He acknowledged that only about one
45
7 |
a
in ten faculty members in the nation's universities produce
published works of significance. But in a university faculty
members practice their craft and "advance useful knowledge.")
And, most essential, Blegen seemed to be saying what Clark Kerr
of the University of California at Berkeley would say a decade
later, "You've got to concentrate talents to make it effective,
since talents energize each other." Blegen saw as necessary the ‘
energy which emanates from the inner connection of both
undergraduate and graduate teaching and the cross fertilization
of academic fields. Again Blegen concluded, "Throughout the
entire university as it now stands teacher-scholars are in need
of the leadership ... and counsel ... [of] the central
influences that are totally lacking in the State University of
New York."
Copies of the "Blegen Report", as it came to be called,
were wide spread -- to the Board of Trustees, the Board of
Regents, the Governor and key members of the legislature.
Carlson and those closeby -- in the Central Office and the
Research Foundation -- viewed the report with enthusiasm and its
reception in certain other quarters "verged on enthusiasm." But
any such euphoria was short lived. A firestorm ensued. What
enthusiasm there was among some Trustees was soon dispelled by
the omnipresence of Chairman Frank Moore. He didn't like
surprises and cryptically told reports " [the report] does not
necessarily reflect the views of our trustees or the research
foundation itself". In fact Moore and the trustees believed
that the study had overstepped its "assignment to examine the
university's research potentials;" and they were more than
46
irritated by Carlson's actions in the whole matter. They
seemingly conjured a conspiracy of sorts -- Blegen and Carlson
with a common University of Minnesota background, the expansion
of research potentials study into a design for a centralized
University, the simultaneous submission of the report to so many
quarters, and its widespread press coverage. The Trustees
believed they had the university working well enough; that
Carlson's intervention only complicated Moore's leadership in
whom they really had confidence. The press soon reported that
the trustees "turned on" their University president. /”
The "violent" reactions of the Board of Regents and their
private institution allies to this potential threat to them were
quaintly understated. Commissioner of Education James Allen
reported that he had not been consulted. Fordham President
Lawrence J. McGinley, the past president of the Association of
Colleges and Universities of New York State, commented: "Most
of us in higher education have been concentrating our thoughts
on the broad educational needs [of the state and not the
establishment of] a central campus." 79
Many of the leaders of the private sector commiserated ina
meeting at Cornell University and expressed publically their
opposition to a centralized State University. The irony of such
action on the campus that one hundred years previously might
have become the centralized State University of New York was
surely lost to all observers. Governor Harriman at first said
the matter was between President Carlson and the Board of
Trustees. Soon, however, he defended the idea of a
decentralized State University ("It seems to be working out.").
47
f= = 2. 2 2. 2
Legislators, probably because of their absence ‘from Albany were
relatively mute on the matter. In short, only Carlson seemed to
defend the report, saying rather lamely, "I think it is a good
report. It should get serious attention by the people of this
state." /4
However, do the people really govern on such matters? As
Benjamin Fine reported in the New York Times, "Many [parties
such as the above, except for Carlson] would have preferred that
[the report] remain locked in a dusty library closet."
Twenty years later, Mort Grant who, as the director of the
Research Foundation, had worked closely with Blegen in his
study, recognized the "diseconomic scale" of the recommendation
-- the construction of a central campus would have far more than
consumed the financial resources of the recent bond drive,
leaving little for the array of State University units across
the state. Yet, Grant saw it as a "curtain raiser" to much of
what the University would become. The State University would
not have the "flagship" campus that Blegen recommended. But as
Blegen would later write to Grant, it would have four
"“flagships" instead of one -- the University centers at Buffalo,
Binghamton, Albany, and Stony Brook. />
Within two months of the publication of Blegen's report,
The Harvests of Knowledge, William S. Carlson resigned as
president of the University. He had always been rather a
shadowy figure in spite of his frequent and articulate defense
of the University. In reality, he never established a
counterpose to Moore, Education Commissioner James Allen or
Governor Harriman, although the governor said sincerely enough,
48
a oe |
"I regret his resignation."/®
Following President Carlson's resignation a triumvirate of
University deans would administer the university for a year and
a half until a new president would be selected. The presiding
deans were Herman Cooper, Executive Dean for Teacher Education,
Lawrence J. Jarvie, Executive Dean for Institutes and Community
Colleges, and John H. Slocum, Executive Dean for Four-Year and
Professional Colleges. Because Cooper had responsibility for
the largest portion of the University base -- the eleven teacher
colleges -- his personality and attitude warrants some
examination for understanding the problems of University
development perceived by both Blegen and Carlson. /7
Herman Cooper personified the New York normal school
tradition and applied its provincial doctrine and habit to his
leadership of the teachers colleges which he forcefully
dominated for a quarter of a century. Although applauded then
and in his memory for a loyalty to the normal schools so fierce
as to save them when threatened in the Great Depression years,
his dictatorial attitude was remarkably out of cadence with the
educational sophistication of Carlson, Blegen and future
university leaders. One college administrator who served him
saw him as "a savior and a cross", the latter became almost too
much to bear. He arbitrarily controlled much of the curriculum
of the colleges and the appointments of their principal
administrators. And while many of his choices boded well enough
-- perhaps by the law of averages -- "his" teachers colleges
required release from him.in order to contribute to the new
University. Blegen had caught something of their plight.
Still, almost by momentum, the colleges made some strides during
49
the Cooper leadership. Dormitories were built, faculty
appointments improved, and the colleges gradually shed the
normal school environment. They seemed, however, to move
forward at a slower pace than did the community colleges and the
professional colleges under Deans Jarvie and Slocum. Community
colleges enrollment increased to about a fourth of that of the
University. The two medical schools were improved immeasurably;
and the Harpur and Stony Brook campuses were showing signs of
university caliber. The General Electric Company and Stony
Brook worked in consort to develop an engineering curriculum. 78
On May 17, 1959 Thomas Hale Hamilton became the third
president of the State University of New York. He was forty
four years of age, did his graduate work at the University of
Chicago, had taught political science, and most recently was
Vice President for Academic Affairs at Michigan State
University. He had an academic bearing attractive to SUNY's
improving faculty. The Board of Trustees obviously felt him
capable of administering what were now forty four units in the
University with a total of 65,000 students. /?
President Hamilton's problems as University president cut
three ways: massive enrollment increases; the difficulty of
retaining faculty; and the lack of the movement of the
construction programs at a speed to accommodate students and
faculty. The University's enrollment expansion was three times
that of the nation generally. The faculty was being recruited
away from the University -- largely because of SUNY's low
salaries and heavy teaching loads. The construction of
facilities lagged far behind the student and faculty needs --
50
classes and faculty offices were overcrowded and frequently
confined to an odd assortment of temporary structures. The
gloom wasn't eased by the thought of the post-war baby-bodmers
about to descend upon the campuses . °°
President Hamilton organized his central staff and
proceeded to preside over the sprawling University. The opening
of the Stony Brook campus had to be deferred until 1962; and he
was distracted by administrative procedural problems at the Long
Island Center; and by alleged quality weaknesses in its new
engineering program, °
On the other end of the State the new
president participated in negotiations to bring the University
of Buffalo into the university. °? But President Hamilton seemed
very much in the shadow of the Board of Trustees and the
governor. Frank Moore probably strove to avoid any Carlson-like
surprises. And Nelson Rockefeller seemed to have more than a
Harriman-like political interest in the University. Moore and
Rockefeller appeared increasingly in concert on university
matters. The probably apocryphal story circulated that well
into his tenure President Hamilton finally met the governor ina
capital elevator.
The joint Moore-Rockefeller effort first manifested itself
in the governor's appointment of the committee of truly eminent
members to review the higher education requirements in the
state. The Heald Committee was reminiscent in stature of
Governor Dewey's Young Temporary Commission on the Need of a
State University. Henry T. Heald, its chairman was most
notably, the president of the Ford Foundation. Fellow Committee
members, Marion B. Folsom and John W. Gardner, had comparable
51
credentials, the former had been the chief executive officer of
Kodak and President Eisenhower's Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare; the latter was president of the Carnegie Foundation
for the Advancement of Teaching. The Committee was charged to
make recommendations regarding educational access to all
students, the development of proper research capacity, and the
training of necessary personnel to serve the state and the
nation. °?
While the Heald Committee undertook its charges, the
Trustees designed a more immediate 1960 University Master Plan
to address demands for college opportunities, the numbers of
students to be accommodated, and the kinds of programs necessary
to train and enlighten the citizenry. The Trustees proposed a
five part plan to expand two-year facilities; to accelerate the
arts and sciences at the upper division levels (of the Colleges
of Education); to move units in a multi-purpose direction; to
place full-time master's degree programs in the four year
colleges; and to establish doctoral programs in four locations,
Stony Brook, Binghamton, Albany, and Buffalo. °4
In November of 1960 the Heald Committee issued its report
which, because it addressed all higher educational needs in the
State, was anticipated equally by private institutions and the
State University. Its major conclusions: it estimated that by
1985 private colleges would be able to accommodate only about 40
percent to students (rather than 60 percent), placing far more
burden on public institutions; it called for attainment of
excellence in both private and public higher education; it
reported that the State University had "less administrative and
52
HBEEE SESS HEHE ee
management freedom of operation than almost any other public
supported institution or group of institutions in the United
States"; it proposed a realignment of higher education
responsibilities, most importantly that the Regents only
receive, review and approve SUNY Master Plans, and that the
Regents take no responsibility for implementing them; it
suggested that direct aid to private institutions not exceed 10
percent of the "teaching expenditures at the colleges."
Specifically, in regard to the State University, the Committee
called for: converting colleges of education to liberal arts
colleges (the ten year ban was up), expanding the community
colleges, providing graduate work at two locations, instituting
year round operations of the colleges, establishing a State-wide
system of adueationar television, and instituting a uniform
tuition charge. The Report concluded by stressing two choices
for the State: either its patchwork system of public discontent
about higher education continue; or the State assume the
leadership for higher education expected of a great state. °>
The Trustees could not have pest more pleased with the
Heald Committee report. Its own 1960 Master Plan was already
consonant with it. Where it was not it quickly added an
addendum to start the conversion of colleges of education to
liberal arts institutions, to expand the community colleges, to
increase graduate programs in four of the university centers,
and to establish a fixed tuition policy for all state operated
units and contract colleges. Although not placed in the
addendum, the Trustees agreed with the Heald Committee on the
need of the State University to be relieved of the procedural
restraints imposed on the university by various state agencies.
53
The Heald report had suggested a more active participation by
college councils in the affairs of the colleges. The Trustees
agreed on more responsibility by college councils but insisted
that the Trustees continue their own ever increasing supervisory
control of the University. In the following year many of the
Heald Report recommendations were enacted into law. °°
It was an historic movement in 1961 when any remaining
suggestion of Regents’ administrative control of the State
University was removed. Now the Regents responsibility for the
State University was only to receive and approve the quadrennial
master plans. In signing an enactment of the new relationship,
Governor Rockefeller declared:
" ... the measure grants the State University Trustees
for the first time the necessary final responsibility
for continuing implementation of the State University
plan -- as approved by the Board of Regents and the
Governor -- which will permit the State University to
become, in the carrying out and administering of its
programs, an outstanding public institution of higher
learning."87
In the following year legislation was enacted which finally
removed 1948's founding caveat: that the State University of
New York was to "supplement but not supplant" private higher
education. Was the peoples' state university really free of the
historic Regents?
The University's legislative freedom from the Regents
didn't rest well in all places, including both some legislators,
and some of the governor's own party. The Senate's Temporary
President and Majority Leader, Walter J. Mahoney, played the
role of Regent remnant. Mahoney had always seemed to profess
public support for the State University (contrary to numerous
54
letters opposing the University founding, located in the Dewey
manuscripts at the University of Rochester.) Seemingly, Mahoney
now could not contain himself, especially with the State
University's one billion dollar expansion program underway; and
more importantly with present constitutional prohibition against
state aid to private colleges and universities. He and Assembly
Speaker Joseph F. Carlino sponsored legislation for a resolution
to establish an overall study seeking an evaluation of the State
University. The resolution was passed in 1963 with $100,000
enabling legislation following. The legislature appointed a
"Blue ribbon" committee, chaired by Herman B. Wells, the
Chancellor of the University of Indiana, with such luminous
consultants as Milton Eisenhower, the President of John Hopkins
University (and Dwight Eisenhower's brother). The Committee's
Report forthcoming in December of 1964 would add grist to SUNY
proponents .°8
The great political contention over the building of the
State University of New York was, however, not grist to
President Hamilton's academic turn of mind. He presided well
enough over important enhancements of the university -- the
improvement of library services, the creation of an Atmospheric
Science Center, the protection of academic freedom, the building
of an educational aid program to Indonesia; and most importantly
the conversion of the colleges of education into multi-purpose
arts and science colleges, and the merging of the University of
Buffalo with the State University. The latter two
accomplishments were significant legacies, for the colleges of
education, once among the weakest of the nation's normal school
55
ZEEE
began becoming viable foundations of the University; and the
absorption of the University of Buffalo, near bankruptcy as it
was, had integrity and stature and gave the University instantly
_ schools of law and medicine. But, President Hamilton seemed out
of place in the contentious Albany setting. He resigned
effective December 31, 1962 and accepted the presidency of the
University of Hawaii, a position which must of looked inviting
indeed, 89
J. Lawrence Murray, the Secretary of the University, was
appointed Acting president to serve until September of 1964.
Throughout a long care-taking tenure, his administration
contributed yeoman service to the University by struggling with
and implementing a $400.00 tuition policy. Undoubtedly the
Acting President also counselled Governor Rockefeller in his
Spring 1964 legislative recommendations regarding the
University, to wit: greater flexibility and independence for
the State University, increase staff, lump sum appropriations,
and, significantly, the submission of the University budget
requests directly to the governor rather than through the State
Education Department. The legislature accommodated the
governor. Seemingly the Regents power over the State University
was ever slipping away. 2°
56
EEE eee ee ee ee
"Samuel B. Gould and the Quantum Leap of the State University"
1964-1970
While Acting President Murray presided over the inexorable
movement of the University, the Trustees searched long and hard
for its new president. He was Samuel B. Gould, the president of
the Educational Broadcasting Corporation, the New York-New
Jersey-Connecticut area's first educational television
station. 9! At first blush it seemed an unlikely choice -- a
media man? But, knowingly or not, the trustee's choice could
not have been better. In less than four years Gould would earn
a Time Magazine cover story as the "unknown giant" of the
nation's higher education. 92 His background was solid and
diverse -- Bates College Phi Beta Kappa, Oxford student of
literature, assistant to the University of Boston president,
president of Antioch College, and, then, of University of
California (Santa Barbara) before the New York City television
job. The mix of Gould's background with that of SUNY would bode
well for the University. Despite the grim face of SUNY -- the
curricular, physical plant and bureaucratic snarls -- more
aspects were favorable than not. The curricular programs
required of a university were at least underway. the
Construction Fund was established. The Regents and the
legislature learned from the Bond drive of the people's
commitment to their State University. Most importantly
Rockefeller assured candidate Gould of the governor's unerring
57
EE ee ee
\
i
|
1
|
support if he were to accept the University leadership. The
assurance as understated. Rockefeller became ecstatic about
both the University and Gould. The Governor likes "to have that
guy around, whatever's up" said one of Rockefeller's top aids.
"I think its' because they're both such operators ."99
Gould became President on September 1, 1964. He
immediately eyed the proposed 1964 Master Plan and changed it to
suit his purposes for the University -- increased library
resources, programs for the disadvantaged, more use of
technology in instruction, arts and sciences doctoral programs
at the University Centers, formation of a School of Criminal
Justice, two additional arts and science colleges (Old Westbury
and Purchase), establishment of a SUNY Press, additional
community colleges, and the creation of a new medical center at
oA The Regents, under the direction of Commissioner
Stony Brook.
of Education James Allen approved of the plan, marking the
beginning of a congenial Gould-Allen relationship. (Of course
Regents-SUNY tensions would flare up periodically and again get
intensive after Gould's leave of the University in 1970.)
On the heels of Gould's assumption of the presidency Herman
B. Wells submitted his report, The Legislature and Higher
Education in New York State. As Gould had so frequently done,
the report commended New York for its " ... 15-year record of
bringing educational opportunity to nearly every potential
student in the state ... [; a record] not exceeded anywhere in
the county." Then the Wells report recounted to the legislature
SUNY needs, many of which the legislature would ultimately
address: more self-determination, freedom to develop new
institutions; a chief executive officer with power "in all
58
2
[substantive] matters" of central and decentralized
administration, improvement of University-Construction Fund
relations, and a partnership of SUNY and New York industry and
government. The report also recommended, undoubtedly to Senator
Mahoney's liking, increased state aid to private colleges and
universities,°°
The New York Legislature, however, was slow to catch the
Gould spirit, even though he had actively courted them. [In
early 1965 they proceeded with their traditional budgetary
slashing of SUNY requests, this time to the tune of $6.8
million. Gould had told Senate Minority Leader Joseph Zaretzki
"it is going to be tough to cut this budget," but agreed to a $2
million reduction. When Zaretzki pretended to the public that
Gould had agreed to his $6.8 million cut, the president
challenged the Democratic leadership: "I made it clear that I
had to be extremely reluctant even about the $2 million cut."
Furthermore, Gould laid out what the cuts would mean in terms of
reduced funding for scholarships, libraries, educational
television and a 15 percent cut in the graduate centers. The
legislature relented. Cutting SUNY budgets in the mid-sixties
became unpopular. 26
Gould had challenged hard-bitten legislators as he did
weathered bureaucrats, but with a surprising finesse. His
manner was "gentle", "low-key", with a reserve that limited
intimacy. He occasionally smiled and was "incorrigibly
optimistic." Although his lack of arrogance puzzled
legislators, it inspired an increasingly sophisticated
university staff and faculty.?”
59
EE ee ee ee ee _
se meee a eerie croc
To lack arrogance, however, did not mean that Gould missed
the need to show the public the meaning of its State University.
It was not just bricks and mortar. Although created early in
1948 it carried on the traditions of academia.. 1,500 persons,
most in academic garb -- (1,000 from colleges and universities,
across the nation) -- filed into New York City's Philharmonic
Hall to listen to Governor Rockefeller praise the new president
and to witness Trustees Frank C. Moore invest the seventh
President of the State University with the seal of office. In
his inaugural address Gould criticized the present "inner
confusion" in a society where equality and harmony are vitally
necessary. He concluded: "The university of today and tomorrow
has a primary responsibility for examining these characteristics
of formlessness, of courageously making known its findings, of
searching for countervailing forces and of educating all who
look toward it to an awareness of the necessities of our world
and the promise such a world holds. This is an intellectual
responsibility but it is a service responsibility as well."
Although Gould wanted to convey to state and nation the meaning
of the trappings and rhetoric of the moment few probably saw the
significance of his proximity on the dais to Rockefeller and
Moore. Gould, as the Governor's surrogate in leading the
university, was invested in office by Frank Moore, the principal
legatee of the University's founder, former Governor Thomas E.
Dewey. Within a few weeks Moore would resign as President of
the Board of Trustees. The New York Times editorialized that
"out of a hodgepodge of institutions, most of them teachers
colleges, there has begun to grow a network with a sense of
60
“= f = = = «2 8 2 = 2 2
pride in its mission." The editorial noted that Moore's "eleven
years of conscientious service [during which time he] ... has
often had to bear the brunt of criticism over the university's
early floundering." In an understatement it concluded that he
"may take pride in leaving his post at a moment of significant
progress and ever greater promise." 98
From his headquarters at 8 Thurlow Terrace Gould pushed
forward the State University course, with appropriate parties
from the Governor's office, the legislative chambers, the State
Education Department and an array of agencies -- meeting his
office or theirs. By night he met many of the same parties in
working or social settings, usually returning early enough to
his resident study to work on speeches. (He averaged five
major, and some thirty minor speeches per month.) He spent no
little time in his New York City office or traveling to campuses
across the state.°?
President Gould managed to balance his attention to the
various layers of units in the University, the base being the
ten arts and science colleges. Although "the work horses of the
system" they formed a precarious pase, 1° with their normal
school traditions out of which came the administrative versions
of Herman Cooper.
These units had remained normal schools until the late
thirties to then become not much different as State Teachers
Colleges, and a little later as Colleges of Education. There
was, however, enough administrative and scholarly talent there -
- barely -- on which to build. Even Cooper picked some winners
as presidents, such as Harry Porter at Fredonia, who later
61
ee
became University Provost; and some young scholars were
attracted, such as Walter Harding, the Thoreau specialist, to
Geneseo. With the impetus of the Heald Committee report and
that of Governor Rockefeller, in 1961 the four year colleges (of
education) had become "State University Colleges" and began
offering liberal arts degrees. The conversion to academic
respectability came slowly however. Said one veteran university
administrator: "It is not easy to overcome one hundred years of
deprivation and a pattern of public post-secondary education
designed to staff the public schools by shanghaiinng girls into
the profession." Gould's leadership would make a vast
difference, with an accelerated increase of plant and quality.
First rate architects were brought in to design campuses; and
more demanding arts and sciences courses replaced many of the
201 Attractive faculty were
professional education courses.
pulled to the colleges, by substantial salaries and the soaring
reputation of the new university.
The Research Foundation helped the colleges immensely by
invariably increasing the number of its small research grants to
faculty -- to soon reach $1 million per year 19? Nonetheless,
the normal school legacy lived on. Twenty years later, Walter
Harding would still deplore his college's provincial attitude
toward faculty research. 109
The most dramatic mid-sixties movement was felt in the four
University Centers. President Gould appointed a nationally
known University of Maryland physicist, John S. Toll, president
of SUNY at Stony Brook. Toll in turn brought into the new
graduate center an array of outstanding scholars, some with
credentials far exceeding his own, such as the Nobel laureate in
62
EEE
EE
physics, C. N. Yang. Within five years every Stony Brook
department would offer the Ph.D. -- with 100 new faculty members
and 1,000 new students coming in each year. Although headed
toward stature in science graduate studies, the University was
determined to balance the humanities and social science work
with the sciences; and undergraduate with graduate teaching.
Starting from a mud hole Stony Brook was determined to rise to
the position as the University's foremost center of learning. +4
One exception to Stony Brook as the paramount University
center might be the SUNY at Buffalo. As previously noted the
private University of Buffalo had been purchased in 1962, giving
SUNY undergraduate to graduate departments, and schools of law,
medicine, and dentistry. Its new president, Martin Meyerson, a
University of California (Berkeley) specialist in city planning
and urban research, designed a new 1,000 acre campus to be
completed in suburban Buffalo by 1970. It would become a city
of 30,000. As with Stony Brook, President Gould saw to it that
necessary salaries would be provided to attract scholars of
national reputation to SUNY Buffalo. 105
The third University Center was that of the former State
Teachers College at Albany. Unlike the other teachers colleges
the Albany institution had had a fine reputation. For half a
century it had prepared the secondary school teachers for the
106 tt
state and looked down upon the other teachers colleges.
had a superior faculty, although undistinguished for any serious
research. By 1965 its new campus on the outside of the city,
designed by architect Edward Durell Stone, was nearing
completion. The design was massive and ultramodern. Intending
63
tf ff i ss se ef se Ss ee ee
to be a graduate center, Albany would shake its teacher-training
atmosphere more readily than did the other former teachers
colleges, but still only with partial success 107
Converting the 4 year liberal arts college Harpur at
Binghamton into a graduate center would be a far easier matter.
It joined the University system in 1950 having been Triple
Cities College, an adjunct of Syracuse University. It was
strong from the beginning, undoubtedly the first of the SUNY
units to achieve stature. In 1958 Harpur College moved to new
campus at Vestal (outside Binghamton) and in 1965 was designated
a Center. Faculty members did research as well as their
teaching. Bruce Dearing, a former English professor at
Swathmore College, was appointed President by Gould in late
1964. He was determined to maintain the college's short
tradition of humanism and its commitment to excellence. Aldo S.
Bernardo, a brilliant Renaissance scholar rather typified the
quality of their faculty. 18
President Gould soon prided himself in noting that every
yoling person in the state would very soon be within commuting
distance of a State University unit. This was particularly to
be accomplished and enhanced by having the six agriculture and
technical colleges diversify their offerings and, along with the
community colleges, offer a university-parallel curriculum.
Such an arrangement waite allow qualified students to transfer
from the two year units of the university to four year colleges
or one of the Centers. In the 1965-67 period eight new
community colleges were approved for construction. The idea of
planketing the state with two year units was given a boost by
64
the Knoell Report of 1966. rt was the product of a Trustees!’
study commissioned in 1964 to explore ways of extending
educational opportunity to all high school graduates. The
study, along with the 1966 Interim Revision of the 1964 Master
Plan, affirmed the idea of comprehensive curriculum in all two
year units, including non-degree programs. Tied to the
recommendations regarding comprehensive education opportunities
was revision of admissions peedeauEes, Students could list
optional choices so as to be admitted somewhere in the
University in the event they failed to achieve their first
choice. +9
It was apparent by the second year of Gould's presidency
that he was succeeding. In the abstract he had issued his
inaugural commitment to a "University ... [which] has a primary
responsibility for examining ... [the] characteristics of
formlessness [of society's] ... inner confusion ...;
’ wil tn legalistic
courageously making known its findings ..
terms he understood the formal relationship of the University to
politically elected and appointed officials. University heads
usually make clear their missions and usually understand the
political context of their institution. Such is their strategy.
Gould knew, however, that his effectiveness would really depend
on how his personality might influence political approaches to
his mission for the university and to the political context of
the university - to his tactical approaches. Twenty years later
Gould would say that such tactical approaches do not lend
themselves to description. "There were many of these and with
diverse characteristics; some were subtler, repetitive,
65
HEEE EEE
seemingly unimportant ... I am sure many faculty would scorn
them as beneath their dignity, especially when they seemed to
have overtones of public relations. "!11
The nature of Gould's informal relationship to the Albany
power structure was complex and is difficult to characterize
(except for that governor's aide who so categorically commented
that Rockefeller liked to "have that guy around, whatever's
112 What was known is Gould's relationships to his staff
up").
and to certain faculty leaders. Early in his presidency Gould
met at Jack's Oyster Bar with faculty leaders -- of the Faculty
Senate and the Faculty Association of the State University.
Gould listened intently as the respective leaders of the two
organizations, Webb Fiser and Martin Fausold, debated the roles
their organizations might play in advising the university on
policy matters -- that the faculty Senate concentrate on
internal matters of the University; and that the Faculty
Association consider external as well as internal matters. 119
In due course Gould would recognize the Senate as the official
voice of the statewide faulty but would maintain bi-monthly
contact with the Faculty Association. His associations with the
Faculty were tactical matters of sincere human relations which
seemed important to both the Faculty Senate and the Faculty
Association. They were Gould's way of giving unity to the
statewide diverse faculty. He found other ways to enhance the
relationship -- Biannual assemblies, University-wide
"Conversations-in-the-Discipline", and the University Awards
Program (launched previously by Mort Grant, the director of the
Research Foundation, but supported vigorously by Gould) .1*4 The
President also successfully applied the University-wide idea to
66
HREHEEREHEEEEEEE EE
the Conference of Presidents and a University-wide Student
Assembly. Although Gould's relationship with the unit
presidents was undoubtedly paramount, faculty and students
sensed that his relationship with them was far more than "public
relations."
Gould didn't let up. He drove himself. by late 1966 a
Central Office staff of over fifty administrative officers were
in his charge, many of whom bustled in the close quarters of a
converted Thurlow Terrace residence. Now there were sixty-four
ee Success seemed to adorn his many
units in the University.
efforts although the optimistic appearance of success might have
been a "tactic." If tactical it fitted his private way of
muting disappointment and anxiety.
Other University leaders operated differently, perhaps out
of a felt necessity. New York University President James M.
Hester seemed petulant in publically charging the state with
favoring SUNY to the detriment of private universities and
colleges. Hester and many other heads of private institutions
bewailed to the governor. Rockefeller, in fact, was sympathetic
to their cause. In 1961 he had supported the Scholar Incentive
Program. ($100 to $300 for each private college student,
depending on need). By 1967 the program brought nearly $70
million annually to private higher education. But all along the
private institutional leaders had told the governor S.1.P. was
aiding students far more that the institutions they were
attending. Rockefeller somewhat agreed but told them to bide
their time. Attention must first be given to the State
University. Finally, on March 4, 1967 the governor appointed a
67
distinguished panel, chaired by Ford Foundation President George
McBundy to study the problems of funding private colleges and
universities. After considerable jockeying between the McBundy
staff, the governor's aides and other parties Rockefeller
endorsed the plan on February 1, 1968. The McBundy proposal
called for private institutions to receive from the state $400
for each bachelor's and masters' degrees and six times that
amount for doctoral degrees. Now the legislature felt the con
and pro pressures, Jewish and "liberal" groups opposing,
Catholic groups and private college, the Governor, and
Chancellor Gould supporting. It was another Rockefeller-Gould
tandem effort which succeeded. Aside from its funding
recommendations the McBundy report suggested that the "Regents
have been too passive in the exercise of their regulatory
functions with respect to higher education, "116
Perhaps the McBundy allusion to the Regents’ "regulatory
functions" was in response to a Regents drive in the summer of
1967 to get the New York constitutional convention to write into
the constitution Regents’ responsibility for higher education in
the state. The Regents noted that their founding in 1784
preceded the first Constitution of the State and that their role
i At the same time the
was not constitutionally prescribed.
REgents and Commissioner Allen gave assurance to the public that
SUNY (and City University of New York) should be free from any
State interference with their autonomous development of their
own "programs, facilities, and faculties." After the Regents'
plea for their inclusion in the Constitution the six presidents
of the leading private universities expressed the fear that the
68
State University might take over the role of planning all higher
education in New York. Both Commissioner Allen and Chancellor
Gould assured them otherwise. Six months later when Francis H.
Horn, President of the Committee on Independent Colleges and
Universities repeated the alarm over SUNY's alleged over-growth
Gould stated publically: "It is unfortunate to get that all
out again ... . We're not going to make progress by bickering
over fears that someone is going to swallow up someone else ...
." Commissioner Allen agreed, 118
Presumably the Rubicon had been crossed. After nearly two
centuries of neglect at the hands of the Regents, public higher
education was accorded its due. In its second issue of the new
year, 1968, Time Magazine placed Gould on its cover and in
lengthy fashion described how SUNY with its 139,147 students was
the most single important development in the nation's higher
education. It quoted Harvard Sociologist David Riesman as
predicting that New York "is well on its way to overtaking
California in the quality of its public higher education;"
Rockefeller as declaring: "If you want to preview the American
university of the 21st century, look at what is happening in
higher education at S. U. N. Y. today;" University of Missouri
Vice President Charles Brice Ratchford as observing: New York
is compressing "... into ten what every other university has
taken 100 years to do;" and one educational analyst simply
concluded: SUNY is "rawness with class." Chancellor Gould,
according to Time, seemed particularly pleased by the diversity
of the University's 59 campuses ("The worst thing that could
happen to this university is that one campus would become like
69
another"); and by the comprehensiveness of SUNY ("I can't think
of a single possibility for education in this country that
doesn't exist in the state university”) 219 Many university
educators from across the nation wondered how Gould did it --
how he conjured such public backing to build a university and at
the same time meet the crises attendant upon a university
(especially in the tumultuous context of "Vietnam"). From his
Sarasota, Florida retirement home in 1987 Gould mused: "I was
|
asked over and over (from as far away as Texas, for example) to
explain the techniques which helped us to maintain our political
i support. This I declined to do, except to say that political
H relationships are likely to remain strong when they have been
created well before crises occur." Gould was:saying
unobtrusively what he practiced: that his tactic of human
relations premised his strategy of University leadership. 1°
Chancellor Gould's strategy for the State University
development in 1968 was reflected in yet another Master Plan.
Although dull in appearance when delineated on paper the plan in
reality reflected State University's political as well as
education goals. Experience demonstrated the seriousness with
which they were constructed in consultation with staffs,
faculties, and students. The Master Plan principally planned for:
integration of the University's programs to allow more adequate
transferability of students; the involvement of students, faculty
and administration in the development of University policy;
University-wide coordination for the use and development of
computers; a plan for a joint SUNY-Regents study of continuing
education needs in the state; a call for the Regents to develop an
information base for higher education planning in the state; a
70
plan for the Central Administration (to be called Central Staff)
to coordinate campuses' efforts; and to accord students more
flexibility in changing programs in their undergraduate
experience. In sum the State University in 1968 and 1969
according to a Central "Staf£" member Robert Spencer, became
increasingly conscious "of itself and of its purposes. The
pressures of ... growth ... [which] had masked the beginnings of
an articulated system ... were giving way to ... [identifying] the
interests of the parts with that of the whole ."t4t
On April 9, 1970 Gould shocked the University and the State
by resigning his chancellorship. He noted that "for some time
{he had wanted] to examine major problems of education from a
different viewpoint." To say the least he wanted relief from
the pressures of 286,000 students perhaps particularly student
dissident behavior at the Buffalo and Stony Brook Centers. Mrs.
Maurice T. Moore, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees spoke
for the larger educational constituency, when she described him
as "one of the most perceptive, compassionate and effective men
in American higher education today." Governor Rockefeller's
words of "regret" over his resignation could not express his
real los&. The Rockefeller-Gould tandem days were over. When
the press queried Gould for further explanation of his leaving
he commented, "I had pledged to seek a standard of education for
the university which would place it within the foremost of
public institutions of higher learning in the country. The goal
ize There was near unanimity of agreement
is now in sight."
although as is particularly true of academia, dissents were
heard, in this case invariably muted -- some charged that he had
71
vacillated on certain matters, such as on budget measures;
others that he should have given more of himself. A month
following his resignation Gould did a valedictory of sorts to
the nation, an interview with the members of the staff of U.S,
News and World Report. It was published in the June 8, 1970
issue under the title "Changes Coming in American Colleges ."?23
Gould contended, in the interview, that the future of
American colleges will take a "radically different form", one
that will address more the need for social change rather than
"the exploration of ideas." Implicit, of course, was the
dimunition of "some of the energy ... [which the University]
would otherwise put into the intellectual aspects of its task";
and the politicizing of universities. When asked if American
colleges and universities were doing a satisfactory job of
"educating young people today" Gould replied that "they are
doing a better job than most people give them credit for" --
that students are learning to think for themselves. When they
do they "don't always think what you would like to have them
think. And they become very critical." Gould did express
concern about students retreating from reason and "by an
increased leaning toward astrology and occultism [and the use of
drugs.]" Faculties, Gould agreed, are "responsible for a good
deal of the [campus] unrest," frequently without realizing it.
By that Gould meant that faculties sometimes "lack of relevance
and vitality ... [in] some of the courses they teach." Also, he
noted that "faculty members sometimes don't pay very much
attention to students personally." By and large, however, Gould
praised faculty and blamed society. "I don't think the
72
university is at fault for the Vietnam war ...; the great
pollution problems ..., and the racial problems." Certainly, he
went on, the problems of student unrest are far too complex to
think that "by being tough on students ... we have solved our
problem. "!24
Chancellor Gould closed his interview with a prediction
that "within the next 10 or 15 years -- it probably will take a
little longer -- .,.. the university will be far more flexible";
it "will draw together all the different educational and
cultural forces that surround it" (Museums, symphonies,
libraries, business, industry, government); it "will be nothing
2 ee ee a
more than a loose federation of all these entities";."a person
will be judged to be educated ... not on the basis of how much
time he spent in a conventional classroom ... but on the basis
of what he knows." In short, we in the university are just
beginning to realize that "a student should learn far more
outside the classroom; that we too often equate "learning with
our old ideas of form and measurement and order." Finally,
"It's very hard for many of us to accept this change in
society, but I think it is coming--almost inevitably.
And it's the task of the university to try to prepare
itself by thinking ahead to the kinds of things that
ought to be done, the ways in which it can adjust in the
future -- even lead in the future and maintain its
central role in society. The university will do this
if, at the same time that it keeps itself deeply
concerned with the world of thought, it draws closer to
the social needs of the time. It should do this, I
believe, not by becoming a political arena or a social
agency but rather by showing how the world of thought
can be the effective partner to the world of action and
change.
If the university understood its mission more clearly
today, and if it were fulfilling and interpreting that
mission better, there would be much less muddy thinking
going on -- not only on the campus but in the community
as well,"125
713
"The Test of the State University"
The Boyer Years, 1970-1977
In late July of 1970 Vice Chancellor for University-wide
Activities Merton Ertell issued a call to the University's unit
presidents to meet in New York City. There Mrs. Maurice T.
Moore, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees announced that
Ernest T. Boyer, Vice Chancellor of the university, would be the
University's new chancellor. Some eyebrows were raised. Was
the Search thorough enough (even though the Trustees seven-man
“search committee met 13 times over three months) ?!2° Mrs. Moore
and Chancellor Gould gave every assurance that Boyer was the man
for the job. Gould described the new chancellor as "a man of
deep educational commitment" with "the courage and persistence
so necessary to approach the huge tasks of the future ."127 Such
talk was not merely rhetoric on Gould's part. The seven years
of F. Moore~Rockefeller-Gould plenitude and clout would be
followed by WSaRa: SE budget crunches and renewed war between
SUNY and her powerful peers on the Albany scene. Gould really
believed Boyer could meet such challenges.
The 42-year-old Ernest Boyer had been in charge of
University-wide activities from 1965 to 1968 when he wasEne Vice
Chancellor. Because of his youthful appearance, warm demeanor,
and university responsibility to interact with the
administrators and faculty in far flung SUNY units he invariably
came to be called "Ernie." The "raised eyebrows” in New York
City might have been a miss-reading of Boyer's apparent
congeniality ("the personality kid"), or the seeming paucity of
74
a background necessary to lead a University enterprise of
286,000 students. (Greenville College A.B., University of
Southern California Ph.D., Upland College teacher and dean,
director of Center for Coordinated Education at the University
of California [Santa Barbara] before coming to SUNY.) The Boyer
personality, unlike Gould's, was enigmatic. Of course, a public
figure such as Boyer who would come to lead the world's largest
university for seven years and then become respectively the
nation's Commissioner of Education and the President of the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching was not
simply "a personality kid". There seems to have been, however,
a spectrum of view by those who were at close range of Boyer in
his SUNY chancellorship days -- from laudatory ("good job", "a
capacity at timing", "ideas oriented", "campuses saw him as a
leader", "made tough decision", "a genius at manipulation of
constituencies", "warm", "spectacular" relations with the Board
of Trustees", "personable", "articulate", "brilliant with the
Council of Presidents") to: slightly critical ("reluctant to
make hard decisions", "wanted things nice", "feared press
negatives", "needed substance on academic matters", "bureaucrats
saw little leadership", "didn't know where University was
going", "too much of a peace-maker", "exploited timing in
personal interests") .128
The facts of the Boyer era suggest that his time precluded
a Gould-like success. It was a time of crescendo of student
unrest, of renewed assertion of legislative and budget division
controls, of a resurfacing of the "privates'" fears of SUNY
competition, of Regents' declaration of its power, and the
715
Governor Rockefeller's "right turn" with the times. Perhaps,
the State University had inevitably become only a "holding
company", 129 requiring a public relations management which
overshadowed University leadership, 3°
(The irony is that
Gould's "human" tactical approach seemed to give meaning to his
larger strategical leadership goals, whereas Boyer's public
relations seemed'to many to be both only tactical and
strategical.) 1
Long time SUNY Trustee Donald Wickham in 1970 reflected on
Boyer as Gould's successor in the chancellor's role and thought
well of it, especially in terms of the expectation that the
Boyer regime would, of necessity digest the Gould movement in
the University. To be sure, things in the University needed
pause and attention. 3+
The College at Old Westbury was a case
in point. Gould's flexibility ideas alluded to in his U. S.
n. peal "farewell" statement were rather tried at
the new liberal arts college at Old Westbuxy;. and were found
wanting. There the college hoped to end the’ lock-step march of
semesters; to grant students the right to determine much of
their own study and research areas; and to use "mechanical
devices to free faculty from the drudgery of repeated lectures
.. ", Harper Magazine had a field day with the typical events
which took place at Old Westbury. "At a meeting the first
night, the students spent four hours arguing whether all, some,
or none of the school's bathrooms would be co-ed. No conclusion
was reached. A girl spent one entire semester polishing a four-
foot-high piece of bark. Perhaps one thousand proposals were
met with the objection, ‘What's new about that?' A course on
76
EE ee ee
the oppression of women turned into an activist group that
mothered the entire Women's Liberation movement on Long Island.
Two campus buildings were burned, and bomb scares repeatedly
emptied classrooms. All students receives grades of 'pass' or
"no credit' but grades of 'no credit' were not recorded.
Students and faculty failed to agree on anything except the
urgent necessity of [President] Wofford's resignation,"'9? The
State University's Board of Trustees, rather agreeing with
Harpers indictment, closed the college for a year, to re-open it
in October, 1971 with a new president, John D. Maguire, and with
133 at the other end of the
a new and less experimental mission.
state what was going on at SUNY Buffalo came into national view
and needed some pause and attention. The students and faculty
unrest at the Buffalo Center represented in the extreme anti-
"establishment" and anti-Vietnam uprisings on the other SUNY
campuses, and equalled the situations at Columbia and Cornell
universities. Buffalo's radical students demanded a say in
University government, the elimination of naval defense research
and an end to ROTC. When Acting President Peter Regan ignored
the demands, the students went on strike, and the Buffalo
administration called in the police. Students shot at the
police and stock piled rocks and molotov cocktails. An
estimated quarter of a million dollars worth of property was
destroyed. 35 policemen and 22 students were injured. 45
teachers engaged in a "sit-in" of the administration building.
All were arrested on two criminal charges, where upon 30 faculty
members, fourteen of them deans, formed a University Survival
Group to stop "these politically motivated external forces which
threaten to turn our campus into open territory for a witch
77
hunt . 434
Needless to say the semester ended early at Buffalo
(and on many other campuses). Boyer kept his "head". Most
indictments were dropped. The residue would generally dissipate
except in the state capital where legislators threatened
reprisals. Rockefeller saved the academic freedom of the
#5 When the
faculty but not the State University's budgets.
legislature in the early seventies turned conservative on SUNY
appropriations, the faculty~student radicalism was only one
cause, and at that probably secondary to the conservative times
and the pressures of "the Albany peers" of the University, the
Regents, the legislature, and the Budget Division. +39
While SUNY's press relations were not helped by Old
Westbury and SUNY Buffalo artALee, Boyer in a U. S. News and
World Report interview could point with particular pride to its
newest unit, Empire College, a "University Without Walls -- [a]
New Venture in Higher Education." The concept was in the spirit
of Gould's valadictory in the same magazine two years previously
-- the need for new ways to draw on the existing campuses.
Boyer eloquently described how students from across the state
could "break out" of their college or vocation and work
independently with a "mentor" at one of five centers, Saratoga
Springs, Rochester, Albany, New York City, Long Island. Rather
than the standard lectures, residence requirements and credit
hours, students would read, research, write, attend some
lectures (on regular SUNY campuses), use some new learning
technology independently, report into his or her mentor for an
hour or two weekly. Yet, this was not "Old Westbury I" (as
contrasted with II). The essence of this program was a high
78
“Sa 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
standard of quality. Still Boyer was cautious, maintaining a
36 (Time
"hopeful yet skeptical" stance about Empire College.?
seems to have justified Gould's and Boyer's hopes for the
College. By 1985 13,000 students would graduate from Empire
State College, their success Aadaily attributed to the college's
clear purpose, its adjustment to students needs, its emphasis on
service, its adaptation to change, and to its continuity of
faculty and administration.) 137
Boyer's honeymoon as Chancellor was shortlived, indeed.
Austerity hit the University almost instantly. The pendulum had
swung. For political and economic reasons, in state and nation,
the large "welfare" spending days were over. Austerity was in.
In New York, legislative and Budget Division pressures forced
SUNY to face the new fiscal reality. The University reduced its
enrollment goals, left hundreds of professional positions
unfilled, cut its research programs, and, surely to the
disappointment of former Chancellor Gould, severely cut back its
overseas study activities. Projected construction efforts were
almost eliminated. And to fund construction already in progress
the Board of Trustees raised its undergraduate tuition from $400
to $550 with plans for a second round of increase in the Fall of
1973, 758
(However, Tuition Assistance Programs would continue,
with students from families whose net income was less than
$2,000 paying no tuition.) Dormitory fees were also increased.
Many students protested the cuts and found a mighty supporter in
the great historian, Henry Steele Commager who deplored SUNY's
action and argued that college education in 1971 was more
universal than was high school education in 1920. The historian
pi
had two principal arguments for there being no SUNY tuition:
One, self-government needs an educated citizenry; two, the
complexity of society requires it if the poor are to have a
chance. "The United States -- the richest ... [in the Western
world] -- is ... almost the only one which requires university
139
students to pay tuition." Commager's voice was, of course, a
“cry in the wilderness" except for the City University of New
York which could hold off its charge for tuition for a while
longer.
Much of Boyer's tenure as chancellor seemed consumed by the
state budgetary process which in the new era of conservative
mood and shrinking tax dollars reflected fierce struggles by
peer constituencies of SUNY. The process was so convoluted with
the Legislature, the Budget Division, the State Education
Department, and other agencies' involvement that one SUNY
Central official believed that the University was fortunate to
have at least one person who understood the process, Harry K.
Spindler, Director of University Budgets. 14°
The peer struggles for the state's higher education funds
may warrant a further word. Without question the private
colleges and universities felt financial strains, with inflation
diminishing Bundy aid and the indirect support from the scholar
incentive program; and with a widening gap between private and
public tuition charges channeling increasing numbers of students
to the State University. An authoritative study of the
Rockefeller governorship during the period notes that nearly a
doubling of Bundy aid and the Scholar Incentive Program afforded
little relief to the private institutions. The same study
80
reports the State University's financial crunch: "At SUNY,
enrollments began to level off, state budgets got tighter and
funds thus more difficult to obtain, and inflation began to take
its toll. The turnaround in SUNY income from state funds was
dramatic. Between 1969 and 1970, the university, following the
pattern of previous years, gained an increase in its state
purposes budget of $50 million, or 13.8 percent. Between 1970
and 1971 the increase, just under $30 million (6.3 percent) was
significantly less than the rate of inflation. As noted,
leveling enrollment projections also resulted in dramatic
alterations in construction plans. In 1971 the State University
Construction Fund cut from its plans 539 projects valued at
a The Rockefeller administration had not
about $1 billion,+
only to contend with portioning out funds to both the "privates"
and SUNY but also to the City University of New York. Under a
50 percent guarantee formula, CUNY was becoming increasingly
expensive, especially given its open enrollment policy, the
highly organized faculty pressures for salary increases, and a
no tuition policy. Rockefeller became so frustrated with CUNY
costs to the state, cutting into state allotments for other
portions of higher education, that he urged, in his 1972 State
of the State message that CUNY be absorbed by the State
University. Boyer was stunned, noting appropriately enough,
"the immediate question is ... how can we [best] provide
excellent education for the greatest number of students?
142
f (Arthur Goldberg, who ran for governor against Rockefeller
in 1970 on a Brandesian platform to break SUNY into "smaller
units" must have cringed at the idea of a State University of
nearly 500,000 students.) *43 Calmer heads prevailed. The
81
“= oe
governor appointed a commission headed by former United States
Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel to study the CUNY
problem to the State. Instead of SUNY absorbing CUNY its report
called for tuition for CUNY students, and for the governor to
appoint one-half of CUNY's directing board. In due course the
governor won the right to appoint three of ten members of CUNY's
Board of Trustees; and CUNY, in 1975, finally imposed a
tuition. +44
Budget constraints were not the whole story of SUNY in the
Boyer administration, although they were a large part of it.
Under the new Taylor Law, which provided for collective
bargaining between the State and its employees, the university
administration signed a contract with the Senate Professional
Association (hereafter known as the United University
Professors). Also, the 1972 Master Plan called for the
University to facilitate the transition from secondary schools
to the SUNY; to enable students to more easily "step-out" of
college for travel or work; to increase community service in the
health sciences; to emphasize practical experiences in teacher
education; to widen the University's international role with
.additional exchange programs with other nations; and, most
controversially, to re-examine faculty tenure policies,
"including the development of vigorous review procedures ."145
Little came of the latter proposal. For all of the Central
Administration's frustration about "deadwood" in some of the
units, especially in the former teachers' colleges, tenure was
sacrosanct, especially with a new union machinery in place to
protect it. The Central Office, however, could, and did,
82
address the tenure "problem" of its own principal
administrators, the college presidents of the University.
Following on the heels of the campus unrest of the late 1960's
and the budget constraints of.the early 1970's, the traditional
tenure for college presidents seemed untenable. The new mood
called for accountability. Henceforth, from January of 1973,
college presidents of the University were to undergo, at five
year intervals, an intensive evaluation in order to remain in
office. Boyer put a positive light on the new requirement:
"You can't stress the accountability aspect without also saying
that a president will now have a healthy professional
stability."?46
In addition to its college presidents, the
University, in cooperation with the Commissioner on Higher
Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Secondary Schools, "undertook a major study of the central staff
operations ..." Shortly thereafter the University, by then
located in Twin Towers at 99 Washington Avenue, reorganized its
central staff, eliminating 86 positions, at a savings of $2.4
million. "More emphasis was placed on policy formation,
communication, accountability, and fiscal responsibility, and
less on day-to-day management "147
One of Boyer's large endeavors as Chancellor was to induce
efficiency into the massive University system at 72 campuses by
dividing it into eight regions. (Shades of Goldberg's 1970
campaign pledge to reduce the University into smaller units.)
Boyer enthusiastically commented that the reorganization
represented "some of the most significant structural and
educational moves effected by the university in its 23-year
83
history." Furthermore, said Boyer, regionalism would enable the
University to function "more rationally, more economically
{as well as] more efficiently." Councils, initially composed of
college presidents, would be established in each of the regions
to devise "plans of action". The councils would have staff
assistance which might become permanent. The councils in each
region would: cooperate with private colleges and universities,
support the new experimental Empire College, and develop adult
education and community service programs. Boyer hoped that the
program would result in considerably less "criss-crossing of the
state by students," and that the program would aid in getting
the central administration out of supervising day-to-day campus
activities by shifting many of such activities to the regional
councils. The central office would then concentrate on
development of academic programs and University-wide budget and
personnel decision. "We have entered a new era," declared
Boyer. However, "regionalism" in the University and in the
state in fact failea, 148
Seventeen years later one recently
retired central office official who lived through it all simply
explained that the layers of the University -- the 2 year
community colleges and state agricultural and technical
colleges, the four year liberal arts colleges, the 5-8 year
University Centers and professional colleges -- refused to
189 In the pecking order those
cooperate in any meaningful way.
above rather scorned those below. And the enmity between
private and public institutions in any region precluded any
united effort except in a very occasional voluntary way.
In December of 1973 Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller made his
84
"Re RBEBEEREEBEBBBEEBEEBEEBBEEESBSEsS
leave of the Albany State House for the Vice Presidency of the
nation, he thought, and hopefully beyond. It was a profound
moment. "His years in Albany," noted the New York Times
editorial, "Kept unbroken a bipartisan chain of distinction that
began more than a half-century ago with Alfred BE. Smith and
Averill Harriman ... . The State University is his proudest
moment." The editorial poignantly laminated the Governor's
fourth term, one which addressed less enthusiastically the needs
of SUNY -- probably inevitably, given the conservative times,
but never-the-less to the disadvantage of the Boyer regime of
the university.15°
The latter years of the Boyer chancellorship were engulfed
in a renewal of a war between the University and the Regents.
Two hundred years of conflict between the agencies of elite, and
those of the people had hardly dissipated. When, in 1975, John
D. Maguire, the new president of the College at Old Westbury,
wanted to establish a business-management degree program at the
hitherto "untraditional” college, the Regents announced their
rejection of the plan. The dispute had been brewing ever since
Rockefeller left the governorship, illustrating his importance
to maintaining the peace between the two bodies. The Regents
ever conscious of their mandate to protect the states private
institutions of higher learning, in the previous Spring had
ruled that Old Westbury reduce its projected enrollments from
5,000 by 1980 to 3,500. Boyer called the Regents' actions a
"tragic disservice". A Central Office official agreed with Old
Westbury's President Maguire's view that the matter was a "small
pawn in the struggle between the Regents and our trustees" -—
that war between the Regents and the University had been
85
declared. In fact, with Rockefeller gone, the Regents were
flexing their muscles. However, the Board of Regents sacrificed
the small pawn at Old Westbury for a larger one at the SUNY
center at Albany .15t
A power struggle between the State University and the
Regents reached almost unheard proportions in Boyer's last year
as Chancellor -- probably unheard of since the Regents in 1949
tried to make the SUNY head a State Department of Education
adjunct. Because of the declining job market for Ph.D.'s in the
state, the State Education Department's 1976 Master Plan called
for consolidating doctoral programs. It examined eleven
academic areas and recommended that 26 of 129 programs in
private and public institutions be terminated. The universities
affected by the Regents' recommendation abided by them except
for SUNY Albany which resisted efforts to close its doctoral
prograitis in history and English. Chancellor Boyer, who had been
contending with the Regents on a number of other policy matters
~~ enrollment projections, construction, budget review, and
tuition levels --, was determined to take legal action, if
necessary, to ward off the closing of the doctoral programs at
the Albany Center. Commented Boyer: the State Education
Department's "mandate ... says nothing about us [dis]continuing
programs. This can only be done in the context of revising the
master plan of the [State] university. It can't be done by
administrative fiat." However, prolonged administrative
deliberation and court actions, including appeals at the highest
court levels, favored the Regents. The history and English
doctoral programs remained closed. What was unthinkable in the
86
recent Gould-Rockefeller years came to pass in the Boyer-
Governor Hugh Carey years. The Regents' power again seemed
inexorable. !5#
Master plans are, of course, political documents, The
Board of Regents determined to make their 1976 plan stick even
though it developed into a far-ranging "academic war." SUNY's
1976 Master Plan, although less controversial than that of the
Regents', was perhaps of more profound importance to the state -
- the strengthening of research and public service to meet off-
campus social priorities; intense investigation of reform in
undergraduate education; the establishment of closer links
between medical studies and the humanities; a better servicing
of part-time students; the creation of non~residence masters
program; the expansion of teachers' awards and the designation
of Distinguished Research Professorship; and "a renewed emphasis
on the importance of strong and high quality doctoral
programs "453
The latter plank in the 1976 SUNY Master Plan probably was
related to SED's rummaging the State's doctoral programs. If it
seemed too little and too late, in the previous year Boyer had
appointed a long term study group, the University Commission on
Purposes and Priorities, with the evident aim of "forestalling
unilateral academic interference by the State Board of Regents".
More precisely, the Commission, to be chaired by Loren Baritz
(formerly "leading professor", SUNY, Albany) was largely to
“weigh the quality and desirability of all academic programs,
examine the efficiency of administrative efforts ... , and seek
ways to increase [the University's] 'decision-making
87
flexibility'." At the time Boyer declared that the self-
scrutiny was being undertaken because, among other things, "
a university must control its own’ destiny _wid4
The Hepone of the Baritz Commission seems to have been lost
in a turgid shuffling of high level Central office positions
which marked the closing years of the Boyer Chancellorship.
Such changes are, of course, not unknown in any massive
bureaucratic structure, and in the world's largest higher
education enterprise (and the nation's youngest State
University), they reflected an inevitable, and salutary,
"creative tension." In fact, the University, in the 1975-1977
years, perfaps as a consequence of the Baritz Commission,
experimented with a plethora of administrative positions related
to the core of the University -- where and how are policies
determined in regard to research, graduate education, academic
programs at the Central Office level, and academic leadership at
the campuses' level. In the highest and best meaning of the
term, "political", such decisions evoked tensions in the Central
Office. A sequence of lateral and vertical positions of vice-
chancellors and provosts were tried out as Chancellor Boyer
reached for definition of the University's "own destiny" and its
relationship to the Board of Regents. As the Boyer years came
to a close life at Central Office of the University seemed more
complicated, open-ended, and less sure than at the close of the
Gould years .+°5
On January 19, 1977, Secretary-designate of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare Joseph Califano announced the
selection of Chancellor Boyer to be the next United States
88
Commissioner of Education. James F. Kelly, the University's
Executive Vice Chancellor would serve as Acting Chancellor .15°
89
ne
"Epilogue and Hypothesis"
By the end of the 1970s the State University was massive,
with its 374,000 students (237,000 full-time and 137,000 part-
time) on 64 campuses, practically all of which had been newly
constructed within two decades -- to the total cost of
approximately $3.3 billion. The University's growth, as noted by
the foregoing had attracted the attention of the nation. More
importantly, it brought higher education within commuting
distance of all the state's college bound yautlic The most
unheralded of the University's units have probably been the 29
community colleges which offered students two tracks, a terminal
career oriented program or a transfer program to, either a
private institution, or one of the University's four year
158
units. Of course, the "Centers" of the University attracted
the most attention, with their stars, such. as novelist John
Gardner (Binghamton), physicist C. N. Yang (Stony Brook)
physical streSs authority, Dr. John Naughton (Buffalo), geologist
John Dewey (Albany), and with their outstanding work in such
areas as criminal justice (Albany), women's history (Binghamton),
comparative literature (Buffalo) (, and music (Stony Brook). Some
research activity at the Centers has been nationally noted -- the
Atom Smasher at Stony Brook, the environmental influences on
cardiopulmonary and cell functions at Buffalo, and the
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center at aay, The four year
arts and science colleges, would on occasion gain acclaim. They
were at last shaking the "normal school" doldrums. The arts and
science college at Geneseo would shortly achieve some national
90
attention (Money Magazine, U.S. News and World Report, N.Y.
Times) .
But, by the end of the 1970s the State University was
generally viewed as not having achieved the success and national
stature anticipated in the "Glory Day" of the Gould-Rockefeller
Era. None of the Centers really achieved prestige status in the
mation, Stony Brook and Buffalo barely made the top 75 research
institutions, and only Buffalo was listed among the top 50
university libraries in the nation. Very few students outside of
the state were attracted to the university. °° None of the
liberal arts colleges, excepting possibly Geneseo compared with
the prestigious Eastern arts and science institutions they
frequently sought to emulate.
One wonders why the State University of New York, by the end
of the 1970s, had apparently fallen so short of its aspirations.
Perhaps the foregoing draft history of the University offers some
hypotheses to aid in the research and writing of the definitive
SUNY history. It seems incumbent upon archivists, librarians,
historians, educationists and social scientists in the university
to prepare the records, manuscripts and oral histories to test
the validity and meaning of these and other hypotheses. The
ultimate "finished" historical study of the University would
surely serve well the respective disciplines noted above; and
hopefully, the best interests of the State University, including
its future direction.
91
senses so
Hypotheses
1. For 204 years of the University of the State of New York
(under a Board of Regents), has been the oldest and probably
the most elitist state supervisory body of all higher
education in the United States. In large part, the
University was originally established to revive Kings College
-- which under the title of Columbia University would become
one of the great private universities in the nation.
2. The State's tradition of early "proper financial and other
support" of private higher education, beginning with the
chartering of Union College (1794), would set the stage for
subsequent parsimonious state support of public higher
education.
3. Boding i11 for public higher education in New York was the
diverting of the State's share of Morrill Land-Grand funding
(the largest in the nation) from the recently chartered
Havana N.Y. People's College (1853) to Cornell University, a
predominately private institution.
4, Further subsidization of New York private education was the
state's mid-19th Century financial support of teacher
training in over eighty private academies in the state.
Shortly after the Civil Wax, New York did creat nine normal
schools, institutions mostly il1 supported and generally
characterized by the turn of the century as "notoriously low"
in quality.
5. Because (by the end of the 19th Century) a high percentage of
normal school students were attending such institutions, not
92
i
i
i
|
10.
dd.
for teacher training but for low cost higher education, the
state adopted an absolute no admission of students except for
teacher training.
. At the turn of the Century the state eliminated from normal
schools most subject matter courses in favor of methods
courses. Such a program was viewed as "adequate" for future
teachers (but hardly adequate building blocks for a future
State University).
In 1905 the Board of Regents and the State Education
Department were united, assuring the state's single purpose
commitment to normal schools as solely teacher training
institutions and not as competitors to private colleges.
. The establishment of Regents Scholarships early in the 20th
Century served as an indirect subsidy for private
institutions.
Paucity of state funds to normal schools was visibly
evidenced by the startling fact that they were the last in
the nation to secure dormitories (the 1940s).
The Association of [private] Colleges of Upper New York
(ACUNY) set up and operated public colleges for World War II
Veterans. The colleges were Sampson, Mohawk, Middleton,
Plattsburg under a Board of Trustees, made up of private
university and college presidents. Their intent was to avoid
the embryo of a State University.
Governor Thomas E. Dewey, contrary to his economic
conservatism, in 1948 supported the establishment of SUNY, in
large part because of blatant discrimination against New York
City Jewish youth seeking admission to higher education
93
12.
13.
14,
15.
16.
institutions, particularly medical schools. (His concern
about such discrimination was awakened by his own
consciousness of the plight of the City poor [from his D.A.
days] and by Harry Truman's vigorous 1948 civil rights
stand.)
A high percentage of the State Teachers Colleges' boards of
visitors, under the control of the Regents, in the 1940s
opposed the inclusion of "their" colleges in the new State
University.
The state teachers colleges were included in the State
University with a "Gentlemen's Agreement" between SUNY and
the Regents that there would be a ten year moratorium on
State Teachers Colleges becoming liberal arts colleges.
Averill Harriman's governorship (1955-1958) was private
institution oriented and lacked vigorous support of SUNY.
SUNY President William S. Carlson strongly supported for SUNY
a one-campus "Flag Ship" approach advocated by the "Blegen
Report" of 1958, perhaps SUNY's last chance to achieve a
University of California (Berkeley) status. Frank Moore, the
President of the Board of Trustees, and Governor Harriman
opposed the recommendation. The stage was set for the
dilution of SUNY graduate and research centers into four
components.
Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Chancellor Samuel B. Gould
worked in tandem to achieve SUNY's "Quantum Leap” in the
1965-1970 period. Their quantum leap was, of course, almost
inevitable given New York State's position as 45th-in-the-
Nation in per capita expenditure for public higher education.
94
17.
18.
19:
20.
"Bundy Aid" to private higher education in the late 1960s
($400 for each undergraduate student and $2400 for each
doctoral student) diverted funds from SUNY. (Without
question many private institutions were feeling the pinch
caused by the comparatively low public tuition and high
private tuition. New York, with its two centuries of
Regents' encouragement of private education, was overloaded
with private institutions.)
Peer agencies pressures in Albany (SUNY, SED, CUNY,
Legislative Division of the Budget) always complicated SUNY
appropriations and development, but especially in the 1970s
decade of economic crunch.
The revival of the Regents’ power manifested in the mid-1970s
with the closing of the history and English Ph.D.'s programs
at SUNY, may bode i11 for the development of SUNY.
The awesome power of two hundred years of tradition of
private higher education was evidenced by the fact that New
York, one of the wealthiest states in the union, was in the
late 1970s still in a "middling" comparative position in per
capita expenditure for public higher education.
95
10
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander C. Flick, Volume Nine, History of the State of New York
(Post Washington, New York: Ira V. Freedman, Inc., 1962) pp. 4-6;
Flick, Volume Four, History of the State of New York; David M.
Ellis, et al., i (Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1957) p. 199; James Sullivan, Ed.,
History of New York State 1523-1927 (New York, New York: Lewis
Historial Publishing Company, Inc., 1927), pp. 2146-2147; Charles
Beatty Alexander, i i n
4 (Albany, New York: The University of the State
of New York Press, 1919) passim;
York (Albany, The University of the State of New York Press, 1919)
passim.
Ibid, particularly Flick, Volume Nine, £ New
Xork, pp. 6-7.
Alexander, The University, pp. 5-7 of the above works on French
revolutionary inspiration. This work is singular and
authoritative; for French influence also see Charles F. Thuring, A
ap 1 i i ica, (New York, New York: D.
Appleton and Company, 1906), pp. 196-197.
New York Times, September 15, 1976.
Flick, Volume Nine, History of the State of New York, pp. 8-11.
Ibid.
Cary Wentworth Brush, rtlan rmal hi
i nd_P i , (unpublished Columbia
University Ph.D., 1961), pp. 1-30; Mitchell L. Robinson, "A Freer
Opportunity to Go to College, The New York Normal Schools and the
Development of Higher Education". (Graduate student paper, Cornell
University, 1985.)
Flick, Volume Nine, History of the State of New York, pp. 32-33;
Rosalind R. Fisher, .., The Stone Strength of the Past ...
(published by R. R. Fisher, 1971), pp. 104; Brush, The Cortland
Normal Schools, pp. 49-51.
Norman Foerster, The American State University: Its Relation to
Democracy (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North
Carolina Press, 1937), pp. 17-28.
Thuring, A History of Higher Education..., p. 206.
John H. Selkreg, x in New k in
96
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
a History of Corne University (by Professor W. T. Heuritt)
(Syracuse, New York: D. Mason and Company, Publishers, 1894), pp.
463-466; Morris Bishop, A History of Cornell (Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1962), Ch. V. "The Making of a
University".
Paul Westmeyer, A History of American Higher Education
(Springfield, ILlinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1985), pp.
61-64; Richard Hopstadler and Wilson Smith, American Higher
Education A Documentary History Vol, II (Chicago, Illinois: The
University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 568-569.
Selkreg, Landmarks of Tompkins County, pp. 463-466; Bishop, A
History of Cornell, Ch. V.
Ibid.
Fisher, 1... The Stone Strength ..., p. 5.
Robinson, The New York State Normal Schools, pp. 3-5.
Brush, The Cortland Normal School, Ch. III.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Brush, The Cortland Normal School, Ch. I.
Brush, The Cortland Normal School, Ch. I "The Evolution of the
Profession"; Ch. II "Developments in Public Education in New York",
Ch. III "The Geneses of Cortland Normal School"; Robinson, "The New
York State Normal Schools", passim.
Robinson, "The New York State Normal Schools", passim.
Ibid., Robinson emphasizes particularly the development of the
Regents during the Progressive Era, 1890-1914.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. For further development of the
Normal School movement in New York State
Ibid. see Robinson's excellent bibliography.
97
28
29
30
31
(32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Ibid.
David Boroff, "Albany State: A Teachers College in Transition", in
Saturday Review of Literature, January 20, 1962, pp. 42-43, 59-60.
Robinson, "The New York State Normal Schools", passim.
Harold Wechsler,
The Qualified Student: A History of Selective
College Admission in America (New York: Wiley, 1977), pp. 191-205.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.; Oliver Cromwell Carmichael, Jr. New York Establishes a
State University (Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University
Press, 1955), Ch. I "New York's Educational Heritage", Ch. II "The
Establishment and Early | Operations of the Temporary Commission";
Robert W. Spencer,
York (Draft Copy, unpublished, September 1977), Ch. 1 "Before This
University".
Wechsler, The Qualified Student, pp. 200-203.
"Message of the Governor", Legislative Document November 26, 1946;
New York Times, January 10, 1946.
Carmichael, New York Establishes a State University, Ch. II; Amy M.
Gilbert, ACUNY The Associated Colleges of Upper New York =-- A
Unique Response to An Emergency in Higher Education in the State of
New York (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1950),
passim,
Gilbert, ACUNY, p. 24.
98
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Carmichael, New York Establishes a State University, Ch. II.
Ibid, p. 49.
Carmichael, New York Establishes a State University, p. 50.
Ibid., Ch. II.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. Ch. VIII "From Recommendation to Legislation".
Richard Norton Smith, Thomas E. Dewey, Thomas E. Dewey and His
Times (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952), pp. 472-473, p. 624;
telephone conversation, M. L. Fausold to Smith, February 1988
confirmed that Dewey was an economic conservative but social
liberal. Dewey's prosecutorial background gave him a feeling for
N.¥.C.'s underprivileged. He was repulsed by anti-semitism which
had been so blatantly practiced in N.Y.C. private higher education.
Carmichael, New York Establishes a State University, Ch. IX "All
Politics is Not By Any Means Party Politics", Ch. X "The
Legislative Verdict", Ch. XI "A Summary: The Creation of a State
University in New York".
Ibid.
Ibid, Ch. X, XI.
Ibid.
Tbid.
Spencer, Origins and D , "Early Years", pp. 16-27.
Ibid.
New York Times, January 5, 1952.
Karen K. Noonan, WN Hi Lon 4 194
(SUNY, Buffalo, Ph.D. dissertation); p. 205.
New York Times, January 5, 1952.
99
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
7
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
New_York Times, December 24, 1954.
M. L. Fausold/Wayne Mahood conversation, January 15, 1987 (Albany).
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "The Fifties", pp. 27-35.
New York Times, January 24, 1955.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "The Fifties", pp. 27-38;
New York Times, February 10, 1957.
Telephone conversation M. L. Fausold with M. Grant, February 1988.
Theodore C. Blegen, The Harvests of Knowledge, A Report on Research
Potentials and Problems in i
(Albany, New York: The Research Foundation of the State University
of New York, 1957).
Tbid., passim; New York Times, November 22, December 1, 1957.
Ibid.; Telephone conversation, February 1988.
Ibid.
Ibid.
New_York Times, December 1, 1957, February 4, 1958.
Ibid.
Ibid.; Telephone conversation, February 1988.
New York Times, January 24, 1958.
New York Times, February 14, 1958.
Conversation, M. L. Fausold with Lawrence Park, January 1988;
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "Fifties", pp. 27-38.
New York Times, May 15, 1959.
Spencer, Qrigins and Development, SUNY, "The Sixties", pp. 38-70;
, May 16, 17, 1959.
New York Times, January 7, 1960.
New York Times, January 21, 1961.
100
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "The Sixties"; New York
Times, October 15, 1960.
Ibid.
Spencer, , "The Sixties"; Robert H.
Origins and Development, SUNY,
Connery and Gerald Benjamin, Rockefeller of New York, Executive
i (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979)
pp. 301-308.
Ibid.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, p. 44.
Ibid., "The Sixties"; New York Times, December 6, 1963.
Spencer, Oxigins and Development, SUNY, pp. 50-54.
Ibid.
New York Times,, May 23, 1964.
Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48.
Ibid.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "The Sixties", pp. 53-55.
New York Times, December 30, 1964; Spencer, Ibid. pp. 51-52.
New York Times, April 1, 1965.
Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48.
New York Times, May 14, 1965.
Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48.
Ibid.
Ibid.; Ronald Gross and Judith Murphy, "New York's Late-Blooming
University", Harpers, December, 1966, pp. 87-97.
Author, Martin L. Fausold, University Awards Committee, 1970-78.
101
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
Lis
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Conversation with author, 1988.
Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48; Gross and Murphy, "New
York's Late-Blooming University", Harpers, pp. 87-97.
Ibid.
David Boroff, "Albany State: A Teacher's College in Transition,"
Saturday Review, January 20, 1962, pp. 42-43, 59-61.
Gross and Murphy, "New York's Late-Blooming University", Harpers
pp. 87-97.
Ibid.; Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, pp. 57-60.
New York Times, January 12, 1968.
Samuel B. Gould to Martin L. Fausold, March 7, 1987.
Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48.
Martin L. Fausold reminiscence, 1988.
Spencer, Qrigins and Development, SUNY, "The Sixties", pp. 62-65.
Ibid., pp. 65-70.
Connnery and Benjamin, Rockefeller of New York, pp. 316-323.
New York Times, June 1, 1967.
New York Times, July 10, 1967, February 7, 1968.
Time Magazine, January 12, 1968, pp. 43-48.
Samuel B. Gould to ee L. Fausold, March 7, 1987.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, pp. 67-69
New York Times, April 10, 1970.
U.S. News and World Report, June 8, 1970, pp. 78-82.
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
Martin L. Fausold telephone conversations, January-February, 1988.
New York Times, July 31, 1970.
Martin L. Fausold telephone conversations, January-February, 1988.
Ibid.
Ibid.; Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "The Seventies", pp.
70-83.
Wickham conversation with M. L. Fausold, early 1970s.
Tom Powers, "Autopsy on Old Westbury, The Politics of Free-Form
Education," Harpers, September, 1971, pp. 52-53.
x "SL = iT) iver. Ww. "
(Albany: Office of University Affairs and Development, 1985) pp.
116-117.
Newsweek, March 30, 1970, pp. 83-84; Herbert S. Levine, "Common
Front at Buffalo", The Nation, May 4, 1970, pp. 520-522.
Connery and Benjamin, Rockefeller of New York, pp. 323-327.
"University Without Walls, New Venture in Higher
Education", U.S. News and World Report, October 2, 1972, pp. 64-70.
"Empire State College" -- Annual Report, 1985-86.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, "The Seventies", pp. 70-72;
Connery and Benjamin, Rockefeller of New York, pp. 323-327; New
York Times, January 27, 28, 1971.
Henry Steele Commager, "Tuition Charges Are a Mistake," New York
Times, February 25, 1971.
Martin L. Fausold, Telephone conversation, January-February, 1988
Connery and Benjamin, Rockefeller of New York, pp. 321-323."
New York Times, January 20, 1972.
103
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
New York Times, May 20, 1970.
Connery and Benjamin, Rockefeller of New York, pp. 323-326.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, pp. 72-73.
Newsweek, February 5, 1973; New York Times, January 28, 1973.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, pp. 75-76.
New York Times, September 28, 1971.
Telephone conversations, January-February, 1988.
New York Times, December 12, 1973.
Ibid., January 29, 1975.
Ibid., September 5, 1976; Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY,
p. 81.
Spencer, Origins and Development, SUNY, pp. 82-83.
New York Times, June 1, 1975.
Martin L. Fausold, telephone conversations, gatuarysrebruary, 1988.
New York Times, January 20, 1977.
New York Times, June 29, 1981.
Ibid., July 2, 1981.
Ibid., June 30, 1981.
Ibid., June 29, 1981.
104
pc i ac tendon al
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted