Oral History Interview
with
Dr. Dorothy Johnson

Norfolk, Virginia
September 29, 1980
by Vicky Sanderlin, Old Dominion University

Listen to Interview

Sanderlin: You have been involved in the Faculty Caucus and University Senate for a number of years, how have these changed over the years?

Johnson: To start with, there was a faculty senate. When [James] Bugg became president, he encouraged the creation of a university senate, of which a faculty caucus would be a part. There was a reorganization and the Faculty Caucus was developed. After President [Alfred] Rollins came here, the faculty rebelled against certain restraints, and certain results of the University Senate and lack of results and withdrew from the University Senate, and set up the Faculty Caucus again, I mean the Faculty Senate again.

Sanderlin: You have served under three presidents of Old Dominion: Lewis W. Webb, Jr., James L. Bugg, Jr., and Alfred B. Rollins, Jr. What has impressed you the most about each of these men as university administrators?.

Johnson: What impressed me about Lewis Webb were the good relations he was able to develop with the local community. Also, in the earlier years of the institution when it was small, and the faculty was small, he was able to develop very good personal relationships with the different faculty members. There was a very strong loyalty on the part of these faculty members toward him. By the time I arrived on the scene, the institution was increasing rapidly and was in a time of transition where this personal way of running a university was no longer adequate. Newer faculty members did not get this personal relationship with Webb. I came at a time when there was a little bit of that personal relationship left. For example, at the end of my first year here, he called me in for a conference. It was a very enjoyable conference and one that was very good for morale. But, I don't think he was able to carry this on when there were so many new faculty members every year. This personal touch was lost. Something more in the way of regularized machinery in the university was needed. This was when the AAUP came along with the effort for a faculty senate. It was very hard for Webb to recognize the need for a faculty senate. I think it hurt him because he was having a hard time realizing that his personal ways were no longer adequate for the institution. This seemed like

2

a personal blow to him and it certainly wasn't meant that way. I was on the committee that worked to get the administration to accept the idea of a faculty senate. We had to work through the provost, who was favorable to the idea. Finally, Webb agreed that if the faculty voted on the issue and the vote was strongly in favor of a faculty senate, then he would concede. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of a faculty senate.

With James L. Bugg, Bugg came to the institution at a very difficult time because it was to be changed from a college to a university. This meant changes in standards of hiring, tenure, promotions, and judgments for salary increases, as well as defining more sharply the goals of the university. It was a time also when we needed to get greatly increased appropriations from the legislature in order to increase the library and to do other things essential to make this into a university in something other than name. The faculty was divided on the policies that Bugg followed. Many faculty felt that he should not have moved as quickly as he did. Many felt that the people who turned down other jobs to come here should be judged for tenure under the regulations that applied at the time when they were hired. Instead, new regulations were immediately clamped down. This seemed to be a great unfairness to many people. There were other faculty members who went along with Bugg's ideas and cooperated with him on them. There were faculty members also who felt that far too much stress was being placed upon research and publication, without any adjustment in faculty load. There are only so many hours in the day and there just were not enough hours to be excellent in teaching, excellent in research, and excellent in service. All of these three were emphasized. It created some real problems to push ahead with thses ideas. There were faculty members who felt that what Bugg was asking for was change, but these changes were not necessarily improvements. Faculty are not necessarily better because they do research and publication. There wasn't a correlation between teaching and research. It was a hard time! With Rollins, it's not as easy to speak about him because his term of service isn't closed. It's still in process. I suppose that so far, what stands out with him are the improved relationships with the legislature. He really fights hard and has some skill with the legislature.

Sanderlin: In 1975-76, as a member of the faculty serving as a representative to the Board of Visitors and on the Presidential Search Committee, what qualities did you look for in the person who would serve as President of Old Dominion University?

Johnson: I looked for someone who was a scholar in his own right, so he could represent to the university the things that he demanded of the university. I looked for somebody who would be skilled with the legislature because very obviously this was a great problem for the university. Appropriations have always been inadequate, and they're still inadequate -- I think there is some headway being made there. I looked for a person who would-be good with community relationships; one who would show understanding of the

3

students and faculty; one who would believe in AAUP principles of faculty and student rights; somebody who could lead by inspiration. Those were the most important qualities, as I recall, that I looked for. The Search Committee developed a whole list of qualities. We knew that we were asking for more than you could find in any one man; but we tried to get the best combination that we could.

Sanderlin: What reasons did the Board of Visitors give for rejecting a Faculty Grievance Plan in 1977? How does the Faculty Grievance Committee function today?

Johnson: The Board of Visitors contended that the earlier grievance plan was too complex, and it was complex. I was away on leave of absence at the time that this happened, so I got this as secondhand information. But from talkking with those who were on hand at the time I judge, well they say this specifically was the reason given, but we believed also because the plan would allow the Grievance Committee too much of a voice. We allowed too many circumstances to be grievable.

Sanderlin: How does the Faculty Grievance Committee function today?

Johnson: It's a little difficult to give you any crystallized pattern because the present faculty grievance committee is still in its initial stages of functioning. For a long time, what we were doing was developing procedures under the plan and then waiting for the faculty senate, the president, and the Board of Visitors to approve those procedures. And so it's only this spring actually, I think afgter school is out, when the grievance committee is functioning with grievances, but what happens is that the faculty member has talked with hsi chairman and with his superior and the dean and if he doesn't find satisfaction, then he comes to the grievance committee. The Committee is divided into two panels, and one one of these panels, then, will hear a case after the committee as a whole has decided that a case is grievable, and after informal procedures of solving the problem have been tried. But there's not a ...... crystallized way of doing things yet, excepting we've got the prescribed procedures.

Sanderlin: In the capacity of organizer and advisor for the Women's Studies Program, what have been the successful endeavors of this program?

Johnson: I am an organizer, not the organizer because Carolyn Rhodes is the prime person in getting the Women's Studies Program going. We did get a grant from the National Endowment of Humanities to launch the program. It is a success. We have a speakers' program going that attracts good audiences. I think our presence on campus, like the presence of the Faculty Women's Caucus, makes the campus itself more aware of women and the need to recognize women equally with men. We still have problems, of course. One of our big problems is trying to get people to incorporate women into their regular classes. We haven't found a way to do this yet because there is a problem of getting them to do this voluntarily. You can't interfere with academic freedom.

Sanderlin: Do you think Women's Studies is a fad?

Johnson: No - but maybe there is a question of how you define a fad. As long as women are not adequately treated in regular courses, then there will be a demand for Women's Studies courses. Even after they are more adequately treated in regular courses, I think there will still be room for the program. For example, a course in women's history will give a better understanding of the whole complex of women's history. Women are more conscious of themselves now and not so ready just to find their identity through courses that almost entirely consider men.

4

Sanderlin: Could you give your views on the Honor System as it has developed and operated through the years?

Johnson: I'm in favor of the Honor System. I've taught under the old system, where you proctor every exam carefully and the students have to put their books up in the front of the room before they write. I don't think there's any more cheating going on under the Honor System than under the highly proctored system. I think some students find it challenging to find a way to cheat when they are proctored. I would much rather appeal: to the good in students. I have gone through spells when I have thought it would be futile to appeal to the Honor Court because they interpret evidence so very leniently that it's impossible to prove anything. I had what I thought was a very clear case of cheating during my second year here. I took it to my department chairman and showed it to him. He said that it certainly looked like evidence, but when they get up before the Honor Court, they'll say they studied together, used the same terminology, and came up with the same mistakes. He also said that I wouldn't get anywhere with the Honor Court and it wasn't worth my time and effort.

Sanderlin: Could you discuss your philosophy of education?

Johnson: Basically, my philosophy of education is a liberal arts philosophy. I believe that everyone should have a well- rounded education. I think the person who has just a narrow, vocational education has limited his outlook on life, his opportunities for enjoyment of leisure time, his appreciation of what people have done before him, and his contributions as a citizen of the United States.

Sanderlin: How have students changed over the years?

Johnson: There are cycles. The students we have in the university right now are in some ways more like the students when I came here than the students we had ten years ago. There, are differences also from the student body when I came here, so it's not just a blueprint. There are differences because children of Navy people were much more evident among the student body and consequently lent a cosmopolitan not because they had been around. Another conspicuous change was having blacks in the student body. Students came in then under an open admissions policy, so we had more students who were lower down in the their high school graduating classes than we would today. At the same time, I think the students then were better readers than they are now. We've had to change textbooks to suit the abilities of students along this line. I think the students today also expect much more entertainment along with their education than they did when I came here. I think that, as a whole, students are more serious about their work now than they were ten years ago. Then, they were upset about the Vietnam War, so they were hot always so interested in their studies. We had students who were here just to avoid the draft. They could affect the whole tone of a class.

5

Sanderlin: You have demonstrated considerable interest in your younger colleagues in the Department of History. Could you share with me your view on the senior professor's relationship to his junior colleague?

Johnson: First of all, I think the senior/tenured professor has a responsibility to see that the untenured faculty members are treated fairly. The untenured faculty member is at a disadvantage in trying to fight for his rights when they are infringed upon. This leads also to a willingness upon the part of tenured faculty to accept certain critical positions on committees or in organizations where what they have to do can expose them to controversy or create difficulties with superiors. A tenured person has protection, an untenured person doesn't. For example, I recall, in a case of the Faculty Women's Caucus, when one woman was told very squarely that she should not continue her activities in the Faculty Women's Caucus. After that, we considered it to be very important for the officers in the organization to be tenured people.

Sanderlin: Do you believe professors should be compelled to retire at age 65?

Johnson: No - definitely not. I think that after 65, there should be annual contracts. But, just because a person is 65, [it] does not mean that he/she is senile. I recall a professor on my college campus who was around 80 and taught Greek. I didn't take Greek, but my roommate did. He was a very vial person. People who took Greek from him felt inspired to learn and they really enjoyed their contacts with him. I've been elsewhere where there have been older professors. I think that the institution is depriving itself of very good services by just arbitrarily saying that people should resign at age 65. I think students are missing very valuable experiences. Our society worships youth and it's an unbalanced attitude. People of all ages have worth. I don't think it's a good example at all for a university to be setting, to say that a person must arbitrarily resign at 65 when that person is still a very vital and alive individual with much to give the academic world. As a student myself, I found that, generally speaking but not always, older faculty members were more understanding and more mellowed. I generally liked them better, but not always. It was an individual matter, of course.

Sanderlin: What has given you the most satisfaction and the most frustration in your career teaching at Old Dominion University?

Johnson: I think the greatest frustrations and the greatest satisfactions both come with teaching. When you have prepared hard and think that you have got a lecture developed that should really take with the class and then it doesn't, this is terribly frustrating. On the other hand, when things really do take with the class, then that's a great satisfaction.

6

Sanderlin: What are your plans for the future?

Johnson: I'll stay on here and teach history. I expect to possibly develop a new course now and then. I will try to get off to the press a book that I have been working on for a long time. When I retire, I'm not exactly sure whether I'll stay here or move to the west coast. But, I have lots of plans for what I want to do when I retire!

Sanderlin: Thank you, Dr. Johnson.