The Evolution of the Rollins Curriculum, 1885-1985

                                                                  Dr. Jack C. Lane                                                                                           Alexander W. Weddell Professor Emeritus of American History                          and College Historian

The Archives is happy to share this guest blog post from Dr. Jack Lane ’06H. This article is adapted from Dr. Lane’s latest book, Rollins College Centennial History: A Story of Perseverance, 1885-1985. It is the first in a two-part series on the evolution of the Rollins curriculum.

________________________________________________________

President Edward P. Hooker (front row, on the right) and the faculty of Rollins College on the porch of Pinehurst Cottage, 1891

When the Congregationalists founded Rollins College in 1885, they had no problem creating a course of study, because they had access to a ready-made one called the Classical Curriculum. Inherited from Europe and modified to fit the American condition and needs, the Classical Curriculum became by mid-nineteenth century the keystone of a collegiate education. Intended to do more than impart knowledge, it sought also to build character and to produce a cultured, refined person. These goals could be achieved, it was argued, through studies in Greek and Latin grammar and literature. These subjects had the added value, according to the curriculum’s proponents, of sharpening the students’ mental faculties. The famous Yale Report of 1828 declared that these fields of study provided “the discipline and the furniture of the mind; expanding its power, and storing it with knowledge. A commanding object, therefore, in a collegiate course should be to call into daily and vigorous exercise the faculties of the student” (Rudolph 1962, 88).

In American colleges, natural philosophy (physics and chemistry), natural history (geology and biology), and mathematics were added later in the century. The senior course on moral philosophy, usually taught by the college’s president, sought to draw together four years of learning and to prepare graduates for a worthy life.

                                    The Classical Curriculum for Rollins freshmen,                                         from the 1890-1891 College catalogue

Recitation, a pedagogy that required students to memorize and then to recite passages from an assigned text, represented the standard teaching method. The philosophical rationale behind this pedagogical method known as faculty psychology argued that the mind was a muscle requiring daily exercise, and that intellectual acumen came from training in memorization, habit, routine, and hard work. As one contemporary stated, recitation and study of the classics “improve the memory, strengthen the judgment, refine the taste, give discrimination and confer habits of attention, reasoning and analysis–in short, they exercise and cultivate all the intellectual powers” (Lane 1987).

In the first half of the nineteenth century, such beliefs solidified into orthodoxy and became firmly cemented into the college curriculum. No reputable college would dare deviate from the norm historically set by Ivy League colleges. Yale particularly became a kind of universal model. When many colleges (including Rollins) advertised that they were built on the Yale model, they meant that they had reproduced Yale’s classical curriculum and were emphasizing the recitation method. The advantage of this imitative process was that it produced unity and continuity in American higher education, a unity that lasted throughout most of the nineteenth century. It was also problematic: it created a static institution in the midst of a society undergoing dynamic change.

A society involved in modern industrialization, urbanization, and professionalization had difficulty seeing the relevancy of the Classical Curriculum, with its emphasis on ancient (dead) languages and literature and its rigidly prescribed courses. Practical American society began pressuring institutions of higher learning to offer courses such as English, history, politics, and applied sciences, that seemed more related to real life. Emerging state universities responded to this pressure by offering a greater variety of courses and also granting a variety of degrees, from Bachelor of Science to Bachelor of Agriculture. In time, liberal arts colleges found it impossible to withstand the pressures to make changes.

In the mid-1890s, a newly appointed Rollins president, George Morgan Ward, responded to these pressures by not just instituting reforms, but by completely transforming the curriculum. He abandoned the Classical Curriculum altogether. In his first commencement address, he informed the college community that “Life is too diverse in its varied interests for any person to have a working knowledge of sufficient breadth to enable him to be of real assistance to the world in more than one department.” After providing a broad foundation, he proclaimed, colleges “ought to give students the opportunity to become specialists in a special field of endeavor.”

President George Morgan Ward, from The Sandspur, May 1896

Ward’s remarks clearly foreshadowed a major change in the course of study, because under no circumstances could the prescribed Classical Curriculum embody such views. After working with a group of faculty in the summer of 1896, Ward announced a major curriculum revision for the next academic year. It proposed two fundamental changes. In place of the fixed Classical Curriculum that required all students to take the same course of study, the revision outlined in the college catalogue introduced the concept of electives, a program that allowed “pupils to choose their own courses in order that their education may be designed to their tastes and chosen vocations.” Thus, whereas the Classical Curriculum had divided the course of study according to class year and prescribed the courses students would take in each of the years, the new curriculum separated the course of study into four divisions. These new categories included General Courses, Special Groups, Thesis, and Additional Electives. General Courses included the fields of  English, moral and political sciences, and modern languages. Students would be required to take at least one course in each of the areas, but since several courses were offered in each area, they were given the opportunity to exercise the elective principle. The same options were open in the Special Groups, where students could select one of the eight courses and devote an entire year (spread over four years) to the subject. Another requirement included a written thesis “on some subject connected with the Special Group and embodying the results of original investigation.” As a way of further emphasizing freedom of choice, the students were allowed to select almost one-third of their courses as electives with “no restrictions whatsoever on the selection.”  Entrance requirements, revised drastically to coincide with the new curriculum, replaced a long list of Greek and Latin works with new requirements that emphasized English, modern languages, science, and history.

The revised curriculum, 1897

The elective curriculum instituted by Ward and the faculty at the end of the nineteenth century formed the basis for the Rollins curriculum for the next two decades. The curriculum remained virtually unchanged until Hamilton Holt assumed the presidency. Within weeks of his arrival in 1925, Holt began leading the college into a second major transformation that encompassed the college’s entire physical, social, and academic way of life. Academic reforms were at the core of these changes, because Holt came with previously formed innovative ideas. He first sought to re-envision the prevailing pedagogical methods of lecture and recitation. In his early years at Rollins, he told anyone who would listen that the lecture system (which had replaced recitation) was the “worst pedagogical method ever devised for imparting knowledge, because though a lecturer may serve to inspire a student who has some familiarity with the subject, it invariably mostly discloses the personality–good or bad–of the lecturer” (Holt 1926). “The assumption,” Holt argued, “that knowledge may be poured into another and assimilated without the other going through something of the same process of preparation is perhaps the greatest fallacy of modern pedagogical psychology” (Anonymous 1927).

Hamilton Holt, from the 1926 Tomokan yearbook

Working with his Dean of the College during the summer of 1926, Holt produced what he called the Conference Plan of classroom teaching. Intended to mimic an apprentice workshop, it established two-hour classes meeting three times a week and with a supervised fourth period, 3:00-5:00, devoted to varied activities such as field trips, laboratory work, or physical education classes. In the two-hour period, students would proceed at their own paces. In theory, more mature, intelligently capable students would be given the freedom and opportunity to explore more complex material, while others might require more supervision from the professor. As stated in the first catalogue, ideally the plan promised “the free exchange of thought between pupil and teacher in personal conference during which the student is helped over difficulties, shown how to study, and given an illustration of a scholarly attitude for knowledge.” The Conference Plan aimed to socialize education by bringing the professor and the student into a kind of partnership, thus making that relationship as important as the subject matter. In this sense, both teacher and student would actively participate in the educational process.

Professor Edwin Grover and his students, seated together at an oval table, in a classroom designed for the new Conference Plan of education (1926-1927)

Apparently on his own, Holt had arrived at an insight that formed the foundation for a new American educational movement, termed Progressive Education. Led by educational philosopher John Dewey (who would later guide Rollins in a curriculum revision), progressive educators stressed a humanized system that placed the student at the center of the educational process. Within a short time after assuming the presidency of Rollins, Holt became a full convert to this Progressive Education Movement, a decision made easier because he had earlier worked out its basic principles himself.

Earlier Ward reforms had unshackled the students from the prescribed classical curriculum and replaced it with the elective system, which allowed students some choices in their course of study. Holt’s pedagogical reforms encouraged students, facilitated by professors, to assume responsibility for their own learning. Now the college was ready to create a curriculum that matched the premises of the new pedagogy. When Holt and the faculty began to perceive the similarities between the Conference Plan and Progressive Education theory, they moved swiftly to place the college firmly in the progressive curricular reform tradition.

In 1930, Holt contributed an article entitled “The Rollins Idea” to The Nation’s popular series on educational experiments in higher education, where he showed how thoroughly the college community had embraced progressive ideas. At Rollins, Holt declared,

“We hold the belief that the individual student’s growth and development are the all-important things, and that to justify itself, every course, by its subject matter and manner of being taught, must deepen and broaden the student’s understanding of life and enable him to adjust himself more quickly and more effectively to the world in which he lives. This theory assumes an approximation of college life to normal living as well as a correlation of subjects to be studied. On this premise, we have shifted our emphasis and our forms of responsibility from the faculty and administration to the students. We find that because young people really accept responsibility willingly and carry it well, because they like being treated as adult, reasonable beings, they seem to lose, if they have it on entrance, the average student’s resistance to things academic. They learn to recognize education for the thing we believe it should be: a joint adventure and a joint quest” (Holt 1930).

John Dewey could not have better articulated his own theory of education.

Hamilton Holt’s article, “The Rollins Idea”

Holt closed his article suggesting the college was embarking on a major curriculum revision. For that purpose, he said, he had called a curriculum conference composed of leading national educators to advise the college on its revision. Holt proudly announced that he had persuaded progressive education’s leading theoretician, Professor John Dewey, to head the conference. As Holt promised, John Dewey chaired a conference in January 1931 that included several national progressive educational luminaries. The outcome was a document that provided a progressive theory of collegiate education and issued a set of guidelines for a progressive college curriculum.

John Dewey and the Report of the 1931 Curriculum Conference. (Photo of John Dewey: Underwood & Underwood [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Armed with this theory and these guidelines for constructing a progressive curriculum, the faculty passed a new curriculum in May 1931. The new course of study, called “Individualization in Education,” now placed students’ interests and individual differences in the foreground. Rather than the usual classifications of Freshmen through Seniors, students became members of the Lower and Upper Divisions. The catalogue explained that the revised course of study would “substitute learning for instruction,” would “encourage intellectual curiosity and enthusiasm,” and most importantly, would “develop the individual in the manner best suited to him.” Individualization thus became the centerpiece of the new curriculum. It would be achieved by admission requirements that emphasized individual character and student achievement in secondary school rather than some fixed number of units studied; by assigning students advisers who would guide and nurture them through their education; and by allowing students, with faculty advice, to pursue personal interests, especially in the Upper Division. Even in the Lower Division, where some courses were required, the curriculum allowed students considerable flexibility in devising a plan to meet requirements for entrance into the Upper Division. In further recognition of individual differences, the curriculum placed no time limit on the completion of work within either division. Finally, the college determined a student’s qualifications for graduation not by the number of course credits accrued, but by the student’s “accomplishments, intellectual ability and degree of application.”

Illustration from “Helping Students Use Their Minds,” an essay in the College booklet An Experiment That Has Proved Itself, 1939.

Starting with the freshman class of 1931, the college community placed itself at the cutting edge of small colleges that had embarked on new and innovative progressive experiments in higher education. With its individualized curriculum, the college could (and most loudly did) proclaim that it was in the forefront of progressive higher education, basking proudly in its national reputation of an institution eager to experiment with fresh educational ideas. An immediate benefit of the new curriculum, however, was the intellectual ferment that engulfed the campus during the early thirties. The entire college community was involved for over a year in an intensive debate over educational ideas. This discourse itself was a significant learning experience at Rollins, and as it turned out, it precipitated an academic dialogue that would become a lasting part of the Rollins tradition.

Even though future generations would find it necessary to revise the curriculum to meet changing conditions, the theory and ideas informing the progressive educational tradition initiated in the 1930s remained consistent. The first post-Holt revisions came in the 1960s with a new course of study called the “Hour-Glass Curriculum.” The new plan’s purpose clearly connected with the Rollins progressive education tradition: inherent in the new curriculum, the 1966-67 catalogue stated, was “the philosophy that each student should move from a passive absorption of knowledge to self-motivated learning, and that each student must gain a perspective which can relate his own special field to much wider areas of human knowledge.” In a Sandspur article, the committee further elaborated on the new curriculum’s connection to the college’s past:

“Education must keep pace with the fast-changing times. The new format will cope with today’s ‘information explosion’ by giving a solid background for changing concepts which graduates will meet throughout their lives. It will prevent spottily-educated graduates. It will overcome the danger of training specialists with too narrow a vision for the good of themselves or their society. Rollins is re-affirming and strengthening its identity as a liberal arts college. The main idea is to stress integration in fields of knowledge instead of individual disciplines within a field. It makes sure that graduates go out with a perspective of the whole . . ” (Anonymous 1966).

An article introducing the Hour-Glass Curriculum from the Rollins College Alumni Record, October 1966

The “Hour-Glass” metaphor simulated the student’s educational journey. Broad and required team-taught “Foundation Courses” occupied the freshman year; required and elective courses, the sophomore year; concentration on a field of interest, the junior year; and, by utilizing both broad study and individual interest, seniors would be required to relate their special fields to “wider areas of human knowledge.” An eight-week winter term allowed students to become acclimated to individual and independent study and gave the faculty the opportunity to introduce topics not ordinarily taught in the regular terms.

The second post-Holt curriculum revision came in 1978. This curriculum was based on a new and innovative approach to learning called “Bloom’s Taxonomy,” a system of hierarchical domains that replicated students’ learning styles. This approach identified three areas of student cumulative learning: 1) the acquisition of skills “necessary for success in education and coping with the modern world” (fields included Writing, Foreign Language, and Quantitative Reasoning); 2) Cognitive Learning, which enabled “students to acquire a comprehension of specific areas of knowledge essential to a liberal education and to become familiar with the methods of inquiry in each of these areas” (fields included Knowledge of Other Cultures, Knowledge of American Society, and Knowledge of the Natural World); 3) Affective Learning, which enabled “students to find meaning in emotions, imagination, empathy and interpersonal relations” (fields included Expressive Arts and Literature).

The proposed new curriculum outlined in The Sandspur, January 20, 1978

The new curriculum was based on the implied theory that over four years of study, students would gradually proceed, through a cumulative development, from basic skills to an acquisition of methods of analysis and discrimination; and finally, by attaining the  ability to evaluate their previous learning, students would be equipped to form their own philosophy of life. Cross-discipline requirements in writing and valuation became an essential part of the curriculum. Whatever the virtues and/or shortcomings of the taxonomy approach, it was clearly a response to a society becoming increasingly incorporated and professional. It would serve the college for the next two decades.

CONCLUSIONS

The history of Rollins’ curriculum reveals how the college consistently revised its courses of study to reflect changes in American society. The supporters of the unified Classical Curriculum assumed a unity of purpose in this society, as well a belief that its curriculum, along with paternalistic Christian influences, would help shape a student’s moral character. The elective system of the 1890s reflected the growing diversity of purposes in American life. The creators of this curriculum emphasized the need to prepare students for some unspecified way of life and, except for a continuing belief in Christian influences, remained silent on just how the elective curriculum would help shape a student’s character.

The title of the 1930s progressive curriculum, “Individualization in Education,” reveals how much the American society had come to embrace a diversity of purposes. Within a general framework, students could create their own courses of study. This left them free to determine their own purposes in life. The taxonomy curriculum of the 1980s took for granted the self-determination of each student. It aimed instead to arm students with the skills of critical thinking that would make them better equipped to decide their own purposes in life.

Thus, one of the salient characteristics of the historically evolving Rollins curriculum has been the community’s willingness to respond to the changing conditions of American society by reinterpreting the meaning and purposes of a liberal education. This traditional readiness to meet challenges gives Rollins College its most distinctive characteristics.

The Rose Window of Knowles Memorial Chapel, depicting the seven liberal arts (Grammar, Dialectics, Rhetoric, Geometry, Music, Arithmetic, and Astronomy)

SOURCES CONSULTED

Anonymous. 1927. “The Two-Hour Conference Plan.” Printed by The Rollins Press.

Anonymous. 1966. “New Curriculum Instituted.” The Rollins Sandspur 72, no. 11: 1.

“Changes at Rollins College.”  Supplement to the Catalogue of 1896.

Holt, Hamilton. 1926. “The Rollins College Ideal.” Rollins College Bulletin XXII, no. 5: 3-22.

Holt, Hamilton. 1930. “On the College Frontier: The Rollins Idea.” The Nation 131, no. 3405: 322-373.

Lane, Jack C. 1987. “The Yale Report of 1828 and Liberal Education.” History of Education Journal (Fall): 325-338.

Rudolph, Frederick. 1962. The American College and University. New York: Knopf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rollins’ Historical Link with Japan

Ever since Commodore Perry’s fleet sailed into the Tokyo harbor in 1853, Japan has captured the imagination of Americans, as many were fascinated by the mysterious culture of the Land of the Rising Sun. Established by the Congregational Church in 1885, Rollins became the first chartered college in Florida, at that time a frontier state in the American South. Although Japan was still a very remote island nation in the Pacific Ocean at that time, Rollins students practiced their cultural appreciations for Japan in several contexts. On March 16, 1894, the women’s gymnastics team performed a Japanese fan drill by Lake Virginia.[1] Directed by Rex Beach ’97 (1877-1949), the fantastic show was organized as a fund-raising event to benefit both Rollins and the Winter Park Public Libraries.

Among the early leaders of the College, President Hamilton Holt (1872-1951) was an individual with uniquely cosmopolitan views. A journalist by training, Holt was an ardent internationalist in the early 20th century, a stark contrast to other college leaders in the South at that time. He was very active in the World Peace Movement, serving as the president of the National Peace Congress and helping to found the League to Enforce Peace.[2] He was also a strong supporter of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations proposal, touring the country to promote American membership in the organization, and traveling around the world to advocate the global peace initiative, including the East Asia region. For all his noble work, Holt was awarded in 1903 the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure (瑞宝章), an honor known as the Order of Meiji, originally established in 1888 by the Emperor of Japan.[3]

As the editor of The Independent, a leading progressive voice on political, social, and economic issues in America, Holt also took special interests in Japanese society and culture, publishing essays such as “Japan Today,” (V. 72, April 25, 1912, 878-84; May 9, 1912, 989-96; & May 16, 1912, 1038-46); “Emperor of Japan,” (V.73, August 1, 1912, 272-75); “Japanese Ethics,“ (V. 83, July 26, 1915, 106); “The Diabolical Japanese,” (V. 86, April 24, 1916, 125); “Japanese Traits,” (V. 88, October 2, 1916, 8); and “The Japanese Mission,” (V. 92, October 13, 1917, 79-81).[4] Holt was more outspoken in international affairs, and his editorials and articles related to Japan include: “Japan and America,” (V. 71, November 2, 1911, 971-73); “Journalism in Japan and America,” (V. 71, December 28, 1911, 1452-55); “Japan Aids England,” (V. 79, August 24, 1914, 260); “Japan and the Great War,” (V. 79, August 31, 1914, 293); and “Japan’s Monroe Doctrine,” (V. 82, May 17, 1915, 268).[5] In addition, from time to time Holt delivered papers and gave speeches on U.S.-Japan relations. A more noteworthy piece was his interview appearing in The New York Times, in which he praised the social progress made by Japan since the Meiji Restoration and naively claimed that it would be “absurd” for Japan to seek war with the United States.[6]

When Holt was named the eighth president of the College in 1925, he sought to revolutionize the curriculum, rebuild the faculty, increase enrollment, and develop a new master plan for the lakeside campus. Although he had no experience in higher education leadership, Holt had a vision of what a liberal arts education should be, and successfully transformed Rollins from a small and struggling institution into a national leader in pragmatic liberal arts education. As an internationalist, Holt endeavored to diversify the academic community. It is during his tenure that Rollins began to increase the enrollment of international students not only from Europe, but also from Latin America and Asia. The College also created organizations such as the International Relations Club and the Cosmopolitan Club for students with international interests; the latter sought to enhance the understanding of foreign cultures and foster friendships between American and their fellow international students. Among the many new international students of that era, Yasuo Matsumoto ’31 and Sugino Taka ’33 were the first two Japanese students to attend Rollins. Sugino was from Osaka, and only enrolled in the 1929-30 academic year; Yasuo of Tokyo studied at Rollins during 1929-31 and was also a member of the Rollins Cosmopolitan Club.

Sugino Taka (right to Holt) and Yasuo Matsumoto (next to Sugino) posed with President Hamilton Holt and other foreign students from Hungary, Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, Switzerland, and Czechoslovakia.

George H. Kerr ’32 (1911-1992) was a Rollins student who benefited from the global curriculum launched in the Holt era. After leaving Rollins, Kerr first studied in Hawaii and Japan, and then taught English for three years in Taiwan. In 1935, Kerr presented “The Rollins Plan for New Education” during the Pan-Pacific New Education Conference in Tokyo.[7] When World War II broke out, Kerr became a lieutenant in the U.S. Naval Reserve, first working as an Asian specialist for the U.S. Department of War, then becoming the Director of the Formosa Research Unit at the Naval School of Military Government and Administration.[8] In 1945, Kerr, as an assistant navy attaché, escorted Chinese Governor Chen Yi to Taiwan to accept the Japanese surrender. After his brief foreign services, Kerr launched an academic career at the University of Washington, Stanford, and UC Berkeley, as well as the Hoover Institution. He also published multiple history books about the islands of Taiwan and Okinawa, including Ryukyu Kingdom and Province before 1945 (Washington: Pacific Science Board, National Academy of Sciences, 1953), and Okinawa: The History of an Island People (Tokyo: C. E. Tuttle Co., 1958).

While presenting his books to Rollins, he autographed on one of his publications: “Remembering Hamilton Holt and the ‘Rollins World View’ in 1932-32. George H. Herr, ’32.”

 The Walk of Fame at Rollins is an oak-shaded walkway located around the College’s central Green that features stones engraved with the names of famous men and women gathered from places of their associations. This is a well-known fixture on Rollins’ beautiful campus. However, not many people know that there are four stones in the Walk of Fame representing Japan: The Great Buddha Diabutsu from Kamakura; the Imperial Palace in Tokyo; General Nogi Maresuke; and Admiral Togo Heihachiro. Created by President Holt in the late 1920s, the famous walkway was conceived “to have every man or woman, living or dead, whose services deserve the eternal remembrance of mankind, represented.”[9] Through caring efforts of many devoted people, the Walk of Fame has since become a celebrated attraction on Rollins’ campus.

The headstone that introduces the Walk of Fame is a colonial-era millstone from Holt’s Woodstock home in Connecticut.

The Great Buddha Diabutsu is the most recognizable landmark in Kamakura. Located in the Kotokuin Temple, the monument dates back to 1252. Originally gold-plated and housed inside, the statue has stood in the open air since the temple building was destroyed in the tsunami of 1492. The enormous bronze statue – weighing in at 93 tons and reaching a height of 13.35 meters – is the second largest monumental Buddha in Japan as well as a designated National Treasure by the Japanese government. This stone was collected by Captain Everett L. Roberts ’35, while serving in Japan in 1945-46.

The Imperial Palace in Tokyo is the primary residence of the Emperor of Japan. Built on the site of the old Edo Castle, the imperial palace complex includes the main palace, the private residences of the imperial family, an archive, museums and administrative offices, as well as the Fukiage Garden, East Garden, Ninomaru Garden, and the Kitanomaru Park. Rollins’ stone came from the garden compound of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo; however, no archival records are available regarding when and from whom the gift was made to the College.

Nogi Maresuke (乃木希典1849-1912) was a general in the Imperial Japanese Army and a military leader during the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. As a prominent figure in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, Nogi led the Japanese capture of Lüshun, China (Port Arthur) from Russian occupation and became a great Japanese war hero of his time.  He later became a model of feudal loyalty and self-sacrifice, when he committed suicide following Emperor Meiji’s death in 1912. His act revitalized the samurai practice of ritual suicide in Japan, even though Seppuku as judicial punishment was abolished by Meiji himself in 1873. His home is situated in Tokyo, and this stone was taken from the Nogi Shrine where he was deified.

Togo Heihachiro (東郷平八郎1846-1934) was a Japanese admiral who served in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, and later commanded the Japanese fleet in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.  He successfully blockaded the Russian base in Lüshun (Port Arthur) and destroyed the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima. This rock was taken from the stone fence that Togo built around his garden in Tokyo. He built the fence himself and thus the stone was surely touched by him. According to Holt’s personal notebook, both the Togo and Nogi stones were contributed by Matsuzo Nagai of Tokyo and added to the Walk in January 1941.[10]

Perhaps the most high-profile object of Japanese origin at Rollins is the Ninomiya statue located in the lobby of the Warren Administration Building. Ninomiya Sontoku (二宮尊徳 1787-1856) was a prominent agricultural leader, philosopher, moralist and economist in 19th-century Japan. Known for combining three traditional teachings (Buddhism, Shintōism and Confucianism) and transforming them into practical ethical principles, his teaching of an ideal life with careful and economical methods became popular in the early 20th century. Promoted by the Department of Education for his “sincerity, industry, economy, and service, and his remarkable life of self-sacrifice,”[11] it is very common to see statues of Ninomiya in front of Japanese schools, typically depicting him as a boy reading a book while walking and carrying firewood on his back. This trope comes from the legend that young Ninomiya was reading and studying every moment he could, even during manual labor tasks, signifying for millions of Japanese students the important values of literacy, hard work, self-discipline, and self-reliance.

However, not too many people know how this Japanese statue ended up at Rollins. Its history also goes back as far as the Holt era. In February 1946, Clinton Nichols ’34, who served as a lieutenant commander in the Navy during World War II, wrote to offer Rollins the statue, which was found by U.S. Marines when they were looking for drinking water in an abandoned well in Okinawa. Since Nichols was given written permission by the U.S. Navy to take it home after his tour of duty in Japan, President Holt, an internationalist and a lifelong fan of Japanese culture, accepted the gift with great delight: “That was a fine present to your Alma Mater,” and promised that the statue would be “on view forever to all students.”[12]

President Hamilton Holt with the Japanese statue of Ninomiya Sontoku in 1946.

For the next several decades, Ninomiya proudly stood in a specially designed marble niche outside the president’s office in the Warren Building, and members of the college community admired the bronze statue without raising any questions or concerns, until 1983, when a student asked why Rollins would display prominently the spoils of war in its administration building. After some archival research, correspondence, and further inquiries by Rollins personnel in Okinawa, the Ryukyu America Historical Research Society finally became aware of the artifact and requested its return to Japan. When the story was reported in The New York Times, the cultural tug-of-war quickly grew into an international incident that generated wide news coverage and significant controversy.[13]

Initially Rollins Board of Trustees refused the repatriation, citing the following reasons: Rollins had the proper documentation that proved the provenance of the statue; there was a commitment by President Holt to the donor that the statue would be on permanent display at the College; and finally, the bronze was a symbol of  Japanese cultural imperialism, not native Okinawan residents and their culture.[14] However, Rollins’ refusal generated quite media storms that brought passionate responses from people with varied perspectives on the issue. Letters and phone calls began pouring in, and Rollins students, faculty members, and alumni also joined in the heated debate on the ethical dilemma faced by the College. In the end, it was another Rollins graduate, Rust Deming ’64, then Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, who helped persuade the College that returning the statue would serve as a symbolic gesture of friendship to an important American ally and trading partner.[15]

In the fall of 1994, Rollins Board of Trustees reversed its decision and voted that “in a spirit of friendship and reconciliation, Rollins College shall return the Ninomiya statue in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the end of World War II.”[16] In March 1995, members of the Rollins community held a ceremony to bid sayonara to Ninomiya;[17] and on May 24, 1996, with the endorsement of the American Consulate General and the Okinawan Prefectural Government, a replica was presented to the College by the Ryukyu America Historical Research Society, while the bronze original was placed at Okinawa Shogaku Gakuen, a private secondary school in Okinawa.[18] Furthermore, an agreement of cooperation was reached between Rollins and the Japanese school system, in which both institutions “agree to create and nurture a cultural and educational exchange program to enhance international goodwill and provide avenues for overall personal and professional development for their respective students and faculty.”[19] Since then, Rollins has sent graduates to teach English in Japan while accepting students from the Okinawa school system.

On May 24, 1996, President Rita Bornstein and Mr. Masajiro Nashiro, Chairman & Principal of Okinawa Shogaku School System, signed an agreement of cooperation in front of the Ninomiya statue.

 On Armistice Day, November 11, 1938, Hamilton Holt, a passionate international peace advocate, erected a striking Peace Monument in front of Lyman Hall, but the structure was later destroyed by an unknown act of vandalism during the height of World War II.[20] In the summer of 1997, at the invitation of the Chairman of Shogaku Gakuen, President Rita Bornstein visited Okinawa and was delighted to see Ninomiya Kinjiro on display at the school. While in Japan, she also assisted in the dedication of a new peace monument at the Shogaku School, which took its inspiration from the original Peace Monument installed at Rollins by Holt decades beforehand.[21] The Shogaku School peace monument and the bronze Ninomiya statue have both since served as lasting symbols of friendship between Rollins College and the Japanese people. These ties will undoubtedly continue to flourish in the 21sth century, as Rollins delivers on its promise to “educate students for global citizenship and responsible leadership,” in the same spirit of internationalism and collaboration that Hamilton Holt fostered all those years ago.

President Bornstein shook hands with Mr. Shizuo Kishaba, President of the Ryukyu-America Historical Research Society, in front of the Peace in Friendship Monument at Okinawa School in Naha, Japan, which was inspired by the original Peace Monument at Rollins with exact plaque and dedicated on June 24, 1997.

~ by Wenxian Zhang, Head of Archives & Special Collections

The author is grateful for the reviews and recommendations made by Prof. Rachel Walton and Mrs. Darla Moore.

[1] Rollins Photographic Collection, Archives and Special Collections, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida.

[2] Jack Lane, “The Holt Era: Building a Liberal Arts College,” Rollins College: A Pictorial History (Winter Park, FL: Rollins College, 1980), 52.

[3] Julian Chambliss, “Hamilton Holt (1872-1951): Eighth President of Rollins College,” Golden Personalities, 2009, http://lib.rollins.edu/olin/oldsite/archives/golden/Holt.htm.

[4] Warren F. Kuehl, “A Bibliography of the Writings of Hamilton Holt,” Rollins College Bulletin 54:3, September 1959, http://archives.rollins.edu/cdm/ref/collection/holt/id/316.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “Hamilton Holt Says Japan Seeks Peace with World,” New York Times, December 31, 1911.

[7] “Kerr, Rollins Alumnus, Speaks in Japan,” Rollins Sandspur, Oct. 2, 1935, 10. http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/ref/collection/CFM/id/69948.

[8] “Register of the George H. Kerr Papers,” Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University, 2003. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt558013kc/admin/#bioghist-1.7.3.

[9] Hamilton Holt, Walk of Fame: A Path of Many Memories (Winter Park, FL: Rollins College, 1939).

[10] Hamilton Holt, Walk of Fame: List of Names through Oct. 1948, 05C, Walk of Fame, Archives and Special Collections, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida.

[11] Tadasu Yoshimoto, A Peasant Sage of Japan: The Life and Work of Sontoku Ninomiya (New York: Longmans Green & Co., 1912), viii.

[12] Correspondence with Clinton C. Nichols 1946-47, Rita Bornstein Presidential Records, Rollins College Archives, Winter Park, Florida.

[13] William H. Honan, “Okinawa Seeks Return of Statue,” New York Times, October 24, 1994, http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/24/arts/okinawa-seeks-return-of-statue.html; “College Is Returning Statue to Okinawa,” New York Times, November 4, 1994, https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/05/arts/college-is-returning-statue-to-okinawa.html.

[14] Ibid.

[15]Rita Bornstein, “How a College Got Embroiled in an International Incident Over a World War II Trophy,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 8, 1998.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Christopher Smith, “Rollins Wishes Statue Farewell,” Sandspur, March 9, 1995, http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/ref/collection/CFM/id/166763.

[18] William H. Honan, “New Twist in Cultural Saga,” New York Times, May 27, 1996, https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/27/us/new-twist-in-cultural-saga.html.

[19] Japanese Statue, Trip and Exchange Program, Rita Bornstein Presidential Records, Rollins College Archives, Winter Park, Florida.

[20] “Holt’s Peace Monument,” Rollins Digital Collections, 1938, http://archives.rollins.edu/cdm/ref/collection/holt/id/15.

[21] Lorrie Kyle Ramey, “A Rollins Perspective: Setting the Course,” Rollins Magazine, Fall 2010, https://www.rollins.edu/magazine/archive/fall2010/stories/historical5.html.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mother Strong

Hattie M. Strong (1864-1950)

“Hattie Strong had no idea how her life would turn out . . . but what a ride she took.” This statement from the website of the Hattie M. Strong Foundation introduces visitors to the eventful life of a philanthropist once known as “Mother Strong” at Rollins. From the early 1930s until her death in 1950, she was a great friend to the college, visiting often and donating funds for scholarships and many other purposes. Strong Hall and Corrin Hall are among her many gifts to Rollins.

The college’s commemorative booklet, “Strong Hall:  A Living Memorial,” describes Mrs. Strong’s early years, a time when she exhibited the courage and determination she would show all her life. She was thirteen years old when her father “lost his wealth in the crash of 1877,” and the family moved to the Michigan frontier. Her father found it hard to adapt to this environment, however, and after his death the family moved to Connecticut, where Hattie helped support the family by giving piano lessons.

The Strong Hall commemorative booklet, 1939

In 1888, she married Lester B. Lockwood and moved to Tacoma, Washington. However, her marriage did not last, and in 1897, Hattie was on her own with few financial resources and a five-year-old child to support. Instead of returning to her family, she decided to make a complete break with the past. The Klondike Gold Rush offered an opportunity for a fresh start, so she and her son, Corrin, headed to Alaska, where Hattie and a friend planned to establish a hospital/hotel for miners.

The women purchased lumber and other supplies for their new business, and boarded a ship for Skagway. Near there they suddenly found themselves in a life-or-death situation when a blizzard struck, and the ship was lost. The dramatic story of the shipwreck is told in the book Argonaut, a 1933 novel based on Mrs. Strong’s early life:  “The noise was indescribable! The howling of the wind, the crash of the waves! It was frightful . . . She could hear Captain Ellman issuing frantic orders, though what could there be left to do now but pray for daylight and an improbable rescue,” it reads. Rescue came the following day, when a tugboat managed to reach the ship through the winds. Its crew caught survivors (including Hattie’s little boy) as they jumped from the ship’s deck, and took them to shore.

The accounts we have of this event do not mention the name of the ship, but the details fit the story of The Canada, which was shipwrecked near Skagway in February 1898.

The remains of The Canada in Nakhu Bay, circa 1900 (Photo:  Courtesy of Alaska State Library, Curtis Shattuck Photo Collection, ASL-P511-04)

None of the ship’s cargo could be saved, so Hattie lost nearly everything she owned. Hattie’s friend warned her that Skagway was not a good place for a mother with a small child, as its housing consisted mostly of tents (while temperatures could fall to -20°) and the city was full of “dance halls, saloons, and millions of dogs.” But Hattie decided to “get up and sally forth” in this gold rush town. She stayed on with her young son in Alaska, finding work as a nurse and holding various other jobs.

Skagway, Alaska, in May 1898 (Photo:  Hegg, Eric A., 1867-1948 (Library University Washington) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

As the Strong Hall booklet put it, “Hattie’s life in Alaska was anything but a bed of roses.” After three years, “somewhat broken in health,” she and her son returned to Tacoma, where Hattie found work supervising a men’s club. Either in Tacoma, or while in Southern California trying to regain her health (sources vary), she met Henry Alvah Strong, the president and co-founder of the Eastman Kodak Company. According to the booklet, “Mr. Strong was a widower, twenty-five years her senior, but what has age to do with love!” Hattie’s life once again changed dramatically after their marriage in 1905. She now had a husband she loved and a father for her son. She had also become a wealthy woman.

The highly successful Eastman Kodak company sold a variety of cameras and photographic supplies. This ad was published in The Independent on March 5, 1917.

Mr. Strong was already known for his charitable giving, and for the rest of her life, Hattie was a generous philanthropist. After her husband’s death in 1919, she found “her chief and indeed only happiness in helping others.” She not only gave to colleges and universities in the United States, but supported many international causes as well, establishing a hospital for wounded veterans in France, funding a President’s Residence at Peking University, and building a girls’ dormitory at the Suehn Industrial Mission in Liberia. The Hattie M. Strong Foundation, incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1928, has helped thousands of students obtain a college education.

Mrs. Strong had already met President Hamilton Holt when she first came to Rollins in 1930, according to an account given by the college’s treasurer, Ervin T. Brown, who noted that she stayed on campus during her visit (as she would always prefer to do), becoming the first woman to stay in Rollins Hall. Mr. Brown wrote that on this visit, two students borrowed a roadster (an open car) to take Mrs. Strong on a picnic. “A very heavy downpour” ended up soaking everyone, but true to form, it “did not dampen Mrs. Strong’s enthusiasm in the slightest. She entered into the adventure with as much spirit as the girls.” He continued, “Following this visit Mrs. Strong returned to Rollins a number of times and became so familiar with its ideals that she has often humorously remarked:  ‘If anything happens to President Holt, I could assume the lecture platform and tell the world about Rollins because I know his story from memory.'”

Mr. Brown also wrote of his surprise when he spoke to Mrs. Strong after she received the Rollins Decoration of Honor in 1939. As he remembered, she told him, “When the Trustees offered me this Decoration of Honor which I prize so highly, you know there was never any promise, implied or otherwise, that I would ever do anything significant for Rollins. . . The surest way for me NOT to give to a cause is to be asked. No one at Rollins has ever asked me for anything,–so what is your greatest need?”

Mrs. Strong, wearing the Rollins Decoration of Honor, next to President Hamilton Holt, February 1939

The college very much needed a new women’s dormitory at that time, and Strong Hall was dedicated in 1939. Mrs. Strong was unable to attend the dedication ceremony, but in a message to the students, she wrote of the symbolism of the building’s name and expressed her hope that the young women who lived there would be “STRONG for everything which makes for Happy, Healthful, and Efficient Womanhood.” She also expressed her wish for them to “go forth to face life and its problems, better prepared for lives of useful service for having lived here,” signing herself, “Mother Strong.”

An early image of Strong Hall, circa 1940

From 1950 to 1968, Strong Hall was the site of Shakespeareana, open-air performances led by Professor Nina Dean

Mrs. Strong also gave the college a second women’s residence, Corrin Hall (named for her son, L. Corrin Strong ’46H, who served as a Rollins trustee for many years). This time she was able to attend the groundbreaking, where she stated, “I decided to give Corrin Hall to Rollins because civilization rests on the shoulders of you young people, who should be educated for the great responsibilities of today.”

Mrs. Strong (wearing a white hat) at the groundbreaking for Corrin Hall, 1947. President Holt is pictured holding a shovel, and Ervin T. Brown is second from the right.

Mrs. Strong (seated) with members of the Order of the Libra, an honorary society to which she was elected in 1940. Behind her, wearing a white dress, is Rollins trustee Frances Knowles Warren ’35H, donor of the Knowles Memorial Chapel.

Mrs. Strong visited and corresponded regularly with the college until her death in 1950. The following year, Corrin Strong sent the college a scrapbook his mother had kept about Rollins. This is now held in the Olin Library’s Rollins Collection.

Pages from Mrs. Strong’s scrapbook

In 1954, LIFE magazine wrote that Henry Strong had helped George Eastman start the Eastman Kodak Company because “he admired the young man’s guts.” He may have been drawn to the same quality in Hattie–a courageous, independent, and generous woman who was aptly named “Mother Strong.”

Strong Hall in 2017. The building was renovated in 2014 and has provided a home for Rollins students for almost 80 years. (Photo by Scott Cook.)

~ by D. Moore, Archival Specialist

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Linking Academic Freedom and Shared Governance: The Rollins College Inquiry, 1933

                                                               Jack C. Lane                                                             Alexander W. Weddell Professor Emeritus of American History and College Historian (Photo:  David Noe)

The Archives is happy to share this guest blog post from Dr. Jack Lane ’06H, who taught history at Rollins for more than thirty years. Dr. Lane’s latest book is Rollins College Centennial History:  A Story of Perseverance, 1885-1985.

When I arrived at Rollins College in 1963, I found in place a democratic governance system where the entire community shared academic decision making. After researching the history of the college, I learned shared governance was the result of a long and contentious process. Today, mounting pressures from multiple sources have led to serious criticism of the system of shared academic governance. Many argue a corporate model is better suited to meet future challenges. More businesslike methods, it is argued, are necessary so that academic institutions can be more “flexible” and “nimble.”

If not now, then sooner or later the Rollins College community will be forced to face the issue of what kind of governance best meets these emerging challenges. In the meantime, it would reward the community to ponder a moment in its history when a crisis first forced the college to come to grips with the meaning and extent of a shared governance system. Comprehending this moment allows the community to reflect instructively on how and why a previous generation prepared the way for the college’s present system of shared governance and why knowledge of that effort is important today.  —Jack C. Lane

From the founding of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1915, its officers have understood that fulfillment of principle of academic freedom depended on faculty participation in institutional governance. Although the association did not determine the parameters of faculty participation in governance until 1966, throughout the AAUP’s early years  it worked to lay the groundwork for the principle of shared governance. Because most of the association’s time and funds were spent investigating individual cases of freedom of speech abuses, the officers were on the lookout for violations that would allow the association to highlight its goal of academic shared governance.

One such opportunity materialized in April 1933 when the office received a letter from President Frank Aydelotte of Swarthmore College stating that his son-in-law, Professor John Rice, Rollins College Winter Park, Florida, had been abruptly fired without prior notice. At Rice’s request and with the approval of the college president, the association decided to send representatives to conduct an inquiry into the issues involving the dismissal. As evidence of how significant the AAUP regarded this case at a small college in provincial Winter Park, it dispatched its most prestigious officer, Arthur Lovejoy, to head the investigation. Lovejoy of Johns Hopkins University, a distinguished philosopher/scholar and a founder of the AAUP, was a determined proponent of establishing a link between academic freedom and faculty participation in college governance.

Arthur Lovejoy (Photo:  Courtesy of the Ferdinand Hamburger Archives, Sheridan Libraries, Johns Hopkins University)

Small colleges such as Rollins presented the AAUP with a major obstacle: most boards of trustees and presidents at these colleges were guided by a governing system that had changed little since the early 19th century and therefore they were resistant to the concept of shared governance. Authority and responsibility for most college policy rested solely in the hands of trustees who then delegated that authority to the president. Although college teaching was proclaimed a calling rather than a job, in terms of college governance, most administrations treated the faculty as employees. The idea of employer/employee college relations expanded after the turn of the century when businessmen began to replace church leaders on the boards of trustees. Afterwards, a management, autocratic style of governance emerged that further consolidated authority in the hands of the boards and the presidents. Any inference from an outside organization such as the AAUP was viewed in the same light as a labor union intrusion.

No administration held more staunchly to this corporate view of small college governance than the board of trustees and the president of Rollins College. Hamilton Holt’s prior experiences as owner and editor of an influential magazine predisposed him to a business-like governing style. In his ten years as president, he had developed a strong personal attachment to the institution. Appointed president in 1926, he almost singlehandedly saved the college from academic and financial demise, gave it a new identity, increased the size of the student body and built a new physical plant. He alone was responsible for the gathering of a talented group of faculty. A nationally known and influential figure, he accepted the presidency of the little college because he wanted to experiment with pedagogical ideas he had accumulated over the years as editor of The Independent. Within weeks of his appointment and without participation of the faculty, he introduced a new system of teaching he called the “Two-Hour Conference Plan.”  Drawing on his experience as an editorial office apprentice, Holt’s plan stressed mutual cooperation and interaction between professor and students where the professors would serve as facilitators rather than lecturers. He then used his publicity talents to advertise Rollins nationally as on the cutting edge of national collegiate educational reform. From that point, he viewed his leadership in academic matters as a major part of his role as president.

This photo of President Hamilton Holt hosting students at his home appeared in a college publication called An Experiment That Has Proved Itself (1939), captioned as “an example of the spirit of Rollins.”

A photo of a math class in 1939, illustrating the way students and professors worked  together under the college’s Conference Plan.

In 1931, Holt persuaded John Dewey, the guru of progressive education theory, to head a five-day conference comprised of major leaders in non-traditional education. Principles of progressive liberal education from the meetings were integrated into a new Rollins curriculum called “Individualization in Education.” Afterward, Rollins was regarded as one of the leading innovative colleges in the nation. Given his dominant role in these academic innovations, not surprisingly Holt had assumed a strong proprietary attitude toward an institution in which he had invested so much effort. He had completely internalized an oft quoted catchphrase, “Rollins is Holt and Holt is Rollins.” He was universally praised and extolled as “Mr. Rollins College.” Any faculty disagreement with college policy would be considered an act of personal disloyalty.

John Dewey and the Report of the 1931 Curriculum Conference (Photo of John Dewey by Underwood & Underwood [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

For the first few years Holt managed to steer a harmonious ship but by 1933 all was not well in the Rollins vessel. When Lovejoy and a colleague arrived in Winter Park, they found the Rollins campus in turmoil. Holt’s abrupt dismissal of John Rice was the culmination of a growing disagreement between the faculty and the president over the prerogatives of faculty in those areas affecting academic affairs. Assuming the academic reforms embraced a more democratic community, the faculty steadily began asserting its role in academic policy. Trouble began when the Curriculum Committee proposed to abolish or to severely restrict the Greek system as disruptive of academic life and incompatible with the academic progressive reforms sweeping the campus. Holt bristled at and then rejected the attempt to dismantle a social system he himself had helped establish.

A few weeks later the faculty challenged the president’s authority in other areas.  “The Curriculum Committee and as individuals,” protested the administration’s practice of holding chapel convocations that extended beyond the 10:30 class period. A “convocation of doubtful value,” the committee charged, “disrupted and in fact led some faculty to disband classes.” Additionally, the committee chided the administration for permitting students to miss classes to listen to tennis professional Bill Tilden, whose sole purpose was “to advertise an exhibition of tennis professionals.” Holt, taken aback by the sharp and condemning tone of these protests, admitted the administration’s mistake in infringing on class time but added a pointed retort: “The slur of your phrase concerning tennis professionals implies a motive on the part of the administration that I am sure on reflection you will wish to withdraw.”

A more serious confrontation followed. The curriculum committee proposed abolishing the two-hour classes and the eight-hour day, arguing that the schedule was “incompatible with the new Rollins plans.” If the new curriculum was based on achievement rather than time and if it was designed to “enable the individual to develop in his own way and along the lines of his own interests as fast as his ability will admit,” then, the committee argued, the college needed class periods elastic enough to “permit more hours in class, less hours in class or no hours in class.” Holt vehemently rejected not only the attempt to abolish his treasured “Two-Hour Plan” but also to faculty entitlement to make such a change. Efforts to make basic alterations in the curriculum without his approval, he declared, in effect usurped his authority. Holt warned that if the curriculum revisions passed either he would resign or a certain group of faculty would have to go. “If there is as much as fifty percent disagreement between me and any member of the faculty on fundamental matters,’ he warned, “either he or I should go.” Following Holt’s warning, a majority of the faculty voted to table indefinitely the Curriculum Committee’s resolution.

President Holt (front row, center) and Rollins faculty members in 1932. Prof. Rice is standing behind the President.

For the Rollins community these were uncharted waters. Were these faculty efforts simply a logical extension of the academic reform that foretold a democratic community and therefore a way of making a transition from a traditional to a participatory governance system? Or was this faculty assertiveness a kind of revolt against authority and therefore a challenge to Holt’s presidential leadership? Holt’s response to these questions came on February 23, 1933 when he fired Professor John Rice, leader of what the president called the “rebel faction.”

Prof. John Andrew Rice, from the 1931 Tomokan yearbook

Shortly after arrival in May 1933, Lovejoy discovered what the AAUP office had suspected: that traditional academic freedom in terms of tolerating social and political views of faculty members was not an issue at Rollins College. President Holt gave virtually unlimited scope to faculty in this realm and often provided support and protection to professors whatever their political views. Lovejoy admitted Rice’s behavior was disruptive but he believed that was not the main reason for dismissal. Holt fired him, Lovejoy concluded, because of Rice’s leadership in faculty demands for participation in college academic policy. Rollins faculty, it seemed, were allowed to enjoy academic freedom in all aspects of college life except in college governance.

Thus, to Lovejoy, Holt’s imperious governing style was a prime example of why faculty participation in academic governance needed to be linked to the principle of academic freedom. Holt exemplified, Lovejoy wrote, the unwillingness of college presidents to accept the “prerogative of faculty members to exercise professional responsibilities in educational matters” and to have the freedom from repercussions when expressing their views on academic college policy. As Lovejoy’s inquiry revealed, several faculty members had made a similar argument. They explained that their opposition to the president’s firing of Rice came not from admiration for the iconoclastic professor, but from the peremptory method the president employed in firing Rice. As Professor Ralph Lounsbury, a former Holt classmate at Yale, explained: ”I have gone and shall doubtless continue to go upon the supposition that loyalty does not call for mere subserviency or for clothing an honest expression of opinion. College professors who are willing to surrender lightly the thing which is very fundamental to their profession–namely their professional integrity–are not apt to be of any value to the college.” One trustee made the same plea. She begged Holt to elect a faculty committee to consider the discipline and even dismissal of Rice. Wasn’t such an effort simply an extension of “your own liberal policies?” she asked Holt.

Prof. Ralph Lounsbury, who was not re-appointed to the Rollins faculty for the 1933-1934 academic year

All these pleas fell on deaf ears because Holt and the trustees refused to abandon the traditional practice of sole and complete authority over all college affairs, including academic policy; they interpreted the Rice case as a power struggle between the president and a group of rebellious faculty. They advised Holt to stand firm in his authority, or else he would lose complete control of the college governance. They demanded Holt to “go at this Rice matter firmly, decisively, and without hesitation” and counseled Holt “to clean the decks just as quickly as possible of all disloyalty and of all disintegrating influences personal or otherwise that have surrounded this Rice probe.” The president needed no encouragement. Holt had candidly disclosed his attitude toward governance in a letter to the Southern Association of Colleges: “It is fundamental of [the] employee’s duty that he should yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders or instructions of the employer.” More to the point, when asked why he would not sanction a faculty committee to review Rice’s behavior, Holt replied, “When you fire a cook you don’t go out and get a committee of neighbors to tell you what to do.” In Holt’s mind, cooks and professors were on the same level when it came to the presidential authority.

After ten days of hearings, Lovejoy and his colleague had failed to bring Holt around to the AAUP’s concept of share governance. Later, while considering his report on the investigation, Lovejoy learned that the eleven professors considered part of the John Rice “rebellion” had been either fired or forced to resign. This purge of faculty members for simply opposing administration policy reinforced Lovejoy’s earlier conclusions. In a 14-page account, Lovejoy admitted Rice had “disturbed the harmony of the community,” but went on to criticize the professor’s firing as a blatant violation of the principle of due process. He especially condemned the dismissal of eleven faculty members who had been fired “because of their expression in faculty gatherings and in conversation with President Holt . . . of disagreement with certain views of the president on college policy . . . and their intention of continuing to advocate for AAUP principles on academic freedom.” The autocratic behavior of the Rollins administration, Lovejoy noted, proved even more egregious because it flagrantly contradicted “the spirit of cooperation in an educational experiment ostensibly characteristic of the College.” The AAUP published Lovejoy’s report in its December 1933 Bulletin and placed Rollins on its censured list.

Holt responded aggressively. He published and distributed to all “sister” colleges a 27-page pamphlet where he characterized the AAUP report as biased, prejudiced and replete with errors. “The experiences of Rollins College,” the response begins, should be a concern of “all Colleges and Universities of the country” because that episode showed how an investigation could disrupt the “amicable relations which should exist between College and professors.” Most of the report re-litigated the Rice dismissal. However, the thrust of the response questioned the AAUP’s legitimacy to impose its view of shared governance on any institution of higher learning. According to Holt, the AAUP had no legitimate power “to interfere with the government of the college as the college may deem fit for its own interests.” Nor did it have the authority to “punish by publication a college that does not adopt forms of government advocated by the Association.” Thus, he warned, the association and its methods were a serious threat to all college administrations.

Hamilton Holt’s pamphlet

Replies from other liberal arts colleges mostly agreeing with Holt poured into the president’s office. These supportive responses from liberal arts college presidents reflected a similar position taken by the Association of American Colleges. This recently formed organization of small college administrators issued communication critical of AAUP principles, contending that colleges were governed as “businesses where the president and trustees functioned as heads and directors like any other corporation.” There is no evidence two decades later the AAC had changed its position. Thus, as late as the mid-1930s, the AAUP’s objective of shared governance as a foundation for academic freedom and tenure seemed a distant dream.

Still, in the years immediately following the Rollins inquiry, the AAUP did make progress. After months of negotiation, the AAUP announced in October 1938 it had developed a revised statement on principles of academic freedom and tenure jointly with the American Council on Education, a major higher education consortium, and the former critic the  Association of American Colleges. For the first time, the AAUP made explicit the interconnection between shared governance and academic freedom. The revised statement required colleges that approved AAUP criterion for academic freedom and tenure to agree to a governing system of “shared responsibility among the different components of institutional government [with] specific areas of primary responsibility for governing boards, administrations, and faculties.”

Within a few months of this declaration, the AAUP executive secretary received a letter from President Hamilton Holt. “Having considered the proposed rules concerning Academic Freedom and Tenure set forth by the representatives of the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors in October, 1938,” Holt wrote, “I am happy to inform you that on December 2, at a meeting of the Board of Trustees the following resolution was adopted: “BE IT RESOLVED that we agree to the rules, principles and practices therein set forth and will accept the revised AAUP guidelines.” Holt had thus committed Rollins to a governing principle even more rigorous than the one he had vehemently rejected five years earlier. At its 1939 annual meeting, the AAUP issued the following statement: “On the recommendation of the Council, following careful consideration of the new principles recently adopted by the Board of Trustees at Rollins, it voted to remove the administration from the Association’s censured list.”

An announcement of the college’s removal from the AAUP’s censured list in The Sandspur, January 18, 1939

Thus, by 1938 the self-proclaimed progressive, liberal president seemed to be having second thoughts. What he had described five years earlier as an association directed by a “small body of willful men,” who had tried to impose its own views of governance on the college, was now an organization with which he was “in full agreement.” He wrote the AAUP executive secretary that there had always been little difference between the college administration and the association. It was, he said, probably “due to what Stuart Chase has called the tyranny of words.” Perhaps, but most likely the president’s obstinate resistance in 1933 to shared governance was much deeper than language differences. It would be interesting to know if Holt recalled a letter he had received from a Duke University professor shortly after Lovejoy’s report and Holt’s response appeared in print. The professor observed Holt deserved “the thanks of all interested in education for so clearly demonstrating the great value of the AAUP as an upholder of right standards in academic life.” If Holt remembered this letter (I suspect he never forgot it), the former editor surely would not have missed the suggested irony that his behavior in 1933 actually strengthened the association he made every effort to discredit.

It is not clear how many others echoed the Duke professor’s sentiment, but conceivably it is no coincidence that shortly after the Rollins case in 1933 the association began to find acceptance of its principles. By the end of the 20th century, the AAUP had achieved almost universal success in its efforts to establish shared governance in most colleges and universities in the nation. But there is no guarantee this situation will last. In the second decade of the 21st century, mounting pressures on liberal arts colleges from multiple directions have led to growing criticism of this system of governance. Critics claim it is too messy and unresponsive to change. Many argue that a corporate model is better suited to meet present challenges, “that more businesslike methods are necessary [so that institutions] can be more “flexible” and “nimble” in the face of disruptive changes. A recent communication from the AAUP president indicates the association was still “campaigning for the rights of faculty members to participate in faculty governance.” Thus, what many assumed was a settled system of academic governance is once again a debatable issue. Today more than ever we are learning an ancient lesson:  democratic systems can never feel completely secure. Likewise, colleges and universities can never take democratic participatory academic governance for granted.

A view of the Rollins campus, circa 1933

SOURCES CONSULTED

Gerber, Larry. 2014. The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance:  Professionalization and the Modern American University. Baltimore, MD:  Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hofstadter, Richard, and Walter Metzger. 1956. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York:  Columbia University Press.

Lane, Jack C. 2017. Rollins College Centennial History:  A Story of Perseverance, 1885-1985. Winter Park, FL:  Story Farm.

Reynolds, Katherine Chaddock. 1998. Visions and Vanities:  John Andrew Rice of Black Mountain College.  Baton Rouge, LA:  Louisiana State University Press.

Tiede, Hans-Joerg. 2015. University Reform:  The Founding of the American Association of University Professors. Baltimore, MD:  Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wilson, Daniel. 1980. Arthur O. Lovejoy and the Quest for Intelligibility. Chapel Hill, N.C.:  The University of North Carolina Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Life Is For Service”: The Words That Inspired Mister Rogers

The plaque that inspired Fred Rogers, displayed on a walkway near Strong Quad

This marble tablet is well known on the Rollins campus for its association with one of our most famous graduates, Fred Rogers ’51 ’74H (better known to most as television’s “Mister Rogers”). After seeing these words as a student, he carried a copy of them in his wallet for many years, until he received a framed version for his desk. We know that this inscription was meaningful to him, but how did it come to be here?

As sometimes happens, finding the answer required quite a bit of research, since there were no clues in our online finding aids (descriptive guides to archival collections). Finally, a review of a folder labeled “New Buildings” in President Hamilton Holt’s correspondence files provided an answer:  several letters and memos referring to the installation of two marble tablets, engraved with mottoes, given to the College by Robert J. Caldwell and installed in 1936.

The companion plaque, currently displayed at Gale Hall

Mr. Caldwell (1875-1951), known to Hamilton Holt as “R.J.,” was a New York banker and industrialist who founded the R.J. Caldwell Company and several other manufacturing concerns. He was, like President Holt, a supporter of the League of Nations and an advocate for world peace. The citation for his honorary degree, awarded at Holt’s inauguration in 1927, recognizes his “untiring efforts to arrive at just solutions of the problems that confront both capital and labor,” and his “humanitarian efforts to relieve human distress and to promote international understanding and good will.” It also describes him as “one of that constantly increasing group of American business men who have the vision to see that success is more than the accumulation of dollars and service the only sure road to happiness.”

Mr. Caldwell at Rollins in 1927 (seventh from the left). Author Rex Beach, who also received an honorary degree that year, is on the far left, and President Holt is second from the right.

Though we found no record of why Mr. Caldwell chose these mottoes, his correspondence with the College mentions the Scarborough School, then a private K-12 institution in Briarcliff Manor, NY. The school was founded in 1913 by Frank and Narcissa Vanderlip, both advocates of Montessori education. The mottoes “Manners Maketh Man” and “Life Is For Service” were displayed on engraved marble tablets over the entrances to the Scarborough School’s Beechwood Theater, which opened in 1917. The building was rededicated as The Julie Harris Theater in 1984, but the plaques remain in place and can still be seen today.

Mr. and Mrs. Vanderlip, pictured in the July 1919 issue of The American Review of Reviews (via Google Books, ). Mr. Vanderlip was a banker and a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Narcissa Vanderlip was a well-known suffragist who served as President of the New York Infirmary of Women and Children for many years.  

Marble plaque at what is now The Clear View School’s Julie Harris Theater in Briarcliff Manor, NY (Photo:  Courtesy of Priscilla A. White, The Clear View School)

We don’t know how the Scarborough School came to adopt these mottoes, but we have a clue about the origins of the plaques. In an online forum, an alumnus of the Class of 1948 reported that they had been given for the school’s new theater by one of Mrs. Vanderlip’s close friends:  Eleanor Roosevelt. Two of Mrs. Roosevelt’s grandchildren attended the school, and she herself lectured at the Beechwood Theater.

When Eleanor Roosevelt first came to Rollins in March 1936, our plaques had not yet been installed. She returned to the campus in 1956 to speak at the Annie Russell Theatre, but we have no record of her having seen them during her visit. She most likely could not have guessed the impact of these words on a young man who had graduated five years earlier.

The book The World According to Mr. Rogers includes this quote: “If only you could sense how important you are to the lives of those you meet; how important you can be to the people you may never even dream of.” Mrs. Roosevelt and Mr. Caldwell were both gone by 1968, when Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood was first broadcast on PBS. We can only imagine how pleased they would have been to know that the words “Life Is For Service” were taken to heart by a college student they never knew, who would go on to exemplify them throughout his life and for millions of television viewers.

Fred Rogers’ senior yearbook photo, from the 1951 Tomokan

~ by D. Moore, Archival Specialist

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment