(The questions were
compiled by Dr. James R. Sweeney, University Archivist at Old Dominion
University, and mailed to Dr. Spencer in Athens, Georgia.)
Question 1: First,
would you be kind enough to elaborate upon your background - your educational
preparation and scholarly interests?
Spencer: My educational
preparation before going to what was then the College of William and
Mary, Norfolk Division - VPI, included a bachelor of social science
degree from Georgetown University, awarded cum laude in 1947, and a
master of arts in history in 1949, the Ph.D. in history in 1955, both
from the University of Pennsylvania. I had taught for six years at Salem
College - 1950 to 1956 - as one of two history department faculty members.
I was the Europeanist, and I taught courses ranging from classical civilization
and western civilization to advanced courses in Medieval history, the
Renaissance and Reformation, Europe 1789 to 1870, and Europe since 1870.
The six years I had spent at Salem College were an education in themselves,
not only because of the courses I taught but also because of several
of the faculty members there with whom I had a tremendous intellectual
exchange throughout the whole six years. My undergraduate degree had
been a double major in history and in philosophy, and the exchange with
Dr. H. Michael Lewis, professor of language at Salem, broadened my interest
in philosophy and thus deepened my knowledge of and appreciation of
history. My scholarly interests prior to going to William and Mary had
been very scant. Having completed my Ph.D. degree, I concentrated on
teaching and actually became interested in research and writing only
after arriving in Norfolk.
2
Question 2: Could
you give me some information on your career previous to your coming
to Norfolk?
Spencer: I've already
partially answered this in my answer to question #1. My career consisted
of being a graduate assistant at Georgetown University, 1947-48, to
the professor of philosophy there. My duties consisted primarily of
grading examinations. At the University of Pennsylvania I was a graduate
teaching assistant, 1950-51--I'm sorry, 1949-50, to Professor Lynn M.
Case, who was also my major professor at Pennsylvania. He was particularly
good because he came into our discussion sessions and listened and participated
and later critiqued our sessions with us. It was from him that I learned
a great deal about creating student rapport and presenting material,
asking questions, leading discussions, in such a way as to maximize
the amount of student interest.
Question 3: Why
did you choose to come to the Norfolk Division of William and Mary?
Spencer: I chose
to go to Norfolk Division of William and Mary primarily to broaden my
career. The six years at Salem College had been completely intriguing,
six years in which I had written my doctoral dissertation, had made
close friends, and had developed what I think was a good technique of
teaching. However, Salem College was a private women's college, extremely
expensive, catering to the daughters of wealthy--wealthy businessmen
and professional people. It was a women's college, therefore not coeducational.
It was almost an ivory tower in itself in the midst of the city of Winston-Salem.
By 1956, I had come to realize that if I were to advance in the profession
I would need to have a more diversified experience. The Norfolk Division
of William and Mary was about as opposite from that of Salem as any
institution could be. It was an urban institution without dormitories,
had a very low admission standard, it offered classes from early morning
till late night. It was in my opinion at that time, and I still think
this is true, a very good example of the type of educational institution
that would best serve 20th century America in the last half of that
century, namely, an urban institution offering an opportunity to higher
education to almost anyone who might choose to enter. I decided therefore
to go to the Norfolk Division of William and Mary in 1956 precisely
because I wanted an educational--a professional experience opposite
to the one which I had already received at Salem College. I left Salem
College on the best of terms with the administration and with my colleagues
and with the students, and I've never regretted the six years I spent
at Salem, nor have I regretted the eleven years I spent at what was
at the time I arrived Norfolk Division of William and Mary.
3
Question 4: Could
you give me your initial impressions of the school, the faculty
and the student body?
Spencer: The initial
impression I had of Norfolk Division of William and Mary was mixed.
First of all, the grounds and the buildings seemed to me to be highly
inadequate, almost, almost pathetic. The only new building was what
is now the, well, I guess the biology building now, the building between
the old administration and the old Larchmont School building. The Larchmont
School building, where history was taught, was highly inadequate for
the--for the job that the state, that the college expected of the faculty.
But this very impression of the physical plant had as its corollary
a very high impression of the faculty, because I saw the faculty as
a group of people dedicated to teaching, dedicated to teaching the kind
of student they received, and doing the job despite their facilities,
not because of them. I was--I was very impressed with the faculty. Stanley
Pliska, who employed me -- at the time he was chairman of the history
department -- was a very practical, pragmatic and extremely friendly
and cooperative individual. Lewis Webb, who was then what they called,
I believe, the director of the college, did not impress me as being
of... of the finish that I would expect of a college president, and
yet he was friendly, he was encouraging, he was candid in every respect.
He told me what the college was, he told me what the college should
become, what his hopes and ambitions for the college were, and I must
say they have largely been fulfilled. Stan Pliska was much the same
way. E. Vernon Peele, who at that time was assistant director and is
just this year retiring as dean of the college of letters and sciences--of
letters--of arts and letters, was also candid. They both told me what
they hoped the college to be. They told me that it was an opportunity
in which there would be an expanding situation, so faculty should get
rapid promotion. This came true. All in all, from Webb to Peele to Pliska
I found candor, enthusiasm, all of which -- I decided it would be a
good thing to be a part of. And so, I accepted an offer from Norfolk
Division and went there. The student body impressed me as so very, very
different from that of Salem. The Salem girls were all pretty and cute
and well dressed. They had the money for the beauty parlor, for the
cosmetics, for the clothes. The young men and women at Norfolk Division
had--most of them did not have these things. They were coming to college,
many of them, I discovered shortly after I arrived, coming to college
despite their families, perhaps, not because of them. Most of them were
the first members of their family, going back into their parents' generations,
to attend college. And I found this exciting. I was not impressed badly
with the
4
student body. I realized
that they perhaps would not have the same academic potential -- I should
say academic preparation -- that the ones at Salem had, and I took this
into account in my association with them. I was never disappointed with
the student body at Old Dominion, and since then I must say that as
I have experienced student bodies in other schools in this country and
even in other institutions in Europe, I find the student body at Old
Dominion today to be very similar in dress and in the style of life,
in attitudes toward the academic world, to be very much similar. There
were always at Old Dominion, even when it was Norfolk Division of William
and Mary, those few outstandingly excellent students. There were always
those few, may be more than a few, who really couldn't make a grade,
make the go of it, in college, and there was always the great "bread
and butter" masses of students who filled up the classes and made it
possible for us on the faculty to work very diligently with those few
excellent students, many of whom are today university professors themselves.
Question 5: Did
you find the school ready in all respects except perhaps funding to become
a baccalaureate institution?
Spencer: I can't
say that I was particularly aware of or conscious of the readiness of
the institution to become a baccalaureate institution. I did not want
to be associated with a two-year college, and I know that I had been
told by all three of the administrators, Webb and Peele and Pliska,
that my first year there would be the first year of granting bachelor's
degrees in history. I was extremely disappointed when this did not become
a reality. I had a long talk with Stan Pliska in which I indicated a
desire to leave the institution. And in his very forthright way, Stan
responded that, if that was the way I felt, there was nothing he could
do to keep me there. He thought that in another year, he was sure that
in another year the baccalaureate would be offered by the history department
and that if I stayed on I would be part of the team that would be pioneering
this. I think perhaps out of respect and friendship for Stan I decided
to stay, and certainly what he said came true. The following year --
that would be the spring of '58 -- we graduated our first history majors.
When I arrived in the fall of '56, the institution was already granting
bachelor's degrees in business and in education. There was already therefore
a need for advanced history courses, and it was not a question of adding
a great deal of expense to create a bachelor of arts degree in history,
which was done, then, during the school year of '57 and '58. I think
the history
5
department was ready.
We had enough faculty for the advanced students in order to offer a
fairly decent selection of advanced courses, and certainly as the numbers
of students increased, the faculty increased, and I suspect that those
first few years of the advanced level work were some of the happiest
years that Stan and Bill Whitehurst and very soon Bill Schellings and
I experienced. We had a good group of students, we worked well together,
and I think we did a very good job with them.
Question 6: Specifically
which courses did you teach and which did you enjoy most?
Spencer: When I first
went there, this is question number 6, I taught the western civilization
courses. I must say I've always enjoyed teaching that course, and I
still teach it today. I had some difficulty because of the--at that
time there was a double--a double calendar for the college. All but
the engineering students took their courses on the normal semester basis,
but the engineering students took theirs on a quarter basis. And we
had to teach that "western civ" course simultaneously on these
two different bases. It was, to say the least, confusing, to wake up
one morning and realize that all of a sudden the quarter was over for
the engineering students and you still had several weeks to go for the
non-engineering students. But we managed to do it. I also introduced
the first advanced course in European history, Europe Since 1870, a
course which I had been teaching at Salem College and for which I was
therefore prepared to teach. I had my lecture notes, I knew how to allot
time for the different topics, it was a very decent course, and we moved
along with it. Gradually we introduced other courses, based to a large
extent upon my experience at Salem. We introduced a course, Europe 1789
to 1870, and later on I taught a course on the diplomatic history of
Europe since 1815. When I first went there, though, it was Europe since
1870, and then Europe, 1790-1870, which I taught in alternate years.
Later on, as the department grew with students and with faculty, I added
a course on the History of England since 1485 as well as the European
Diplomatic since 1815. I enjoyed teaching all of these courses. The
students, after all, make a course good or bad, it seems to me. I suppose
year in and year out the course I enjoyed teaching at Old Dominion more
than any other one course was the History of England since 1485. I've
always enjoyed the history of England, and though I don't teach that
material here at the University of Georgia, I always had good students
-- we were furnished students by the English department, history majors
took the course -- and many
6
of the teachers
who are now teaching in the Norfolk area went through that course in
the History of England since 1485.
Question 7: Were
the library resources in history adequate for the needs of advanced
undergraduates during your four years here? Was there any significant
improvement over these years?
Spencer: The library
resources were highly inadequate for any kind of advanced undergraduate
course when I first arrived in 1956. They had a few--a few good secondary
works. It was mostly filled with old textbooks. But when the new library
was built with a program of very selective ordering on the part of the
history faculty, working with extremely insignificant funds, we did
manage to develop a library in which the courses we were offering--the
students taking the advanced courses we were offering were able to get
some good outside reading. Research facilities -- no, they were never
good there. Published documents we had very, very few of. We tried to
get some, but, after all, an undergraduate library must first of all
be, be stocked with good secondary works. We were able to use interlibrary
loan, and the term papers that were written were largely written on
interlibrary loan books. This was true throughout most of my eleven
years there. There was a significant improvement over these years, an
improvement that resulted, I think, not from any generosity on the part
of the state for library acquisitions, but primarily from the very selective
and very intelligent ordering on the part of the faculty. Each person
had the responsibility of ordering the books in his field, American
or European, early or recent, according to what he was teaching. But
still the budget was so limited that the orders submitted by each individual
faculty member had to be called -- he had to list them in priority.
We were never able to order everything every faculty member wanted.
I'm amazed, when I stop to think back over those years, at what really
basically significant basic holdings we were able to acquire in the
various fields in which we ordered--in which we offered advanced undergraduate
work.
Question 8: Would
you care to comment on the physical facilities? Did you believe
that the Social Studies Building would soon be replaced by a more
modern structure?
Spencer: I've already
said something about physical facilities in my answer to question--question
#4. As far as the Social Studies Building, that is, the old World War
II temporary barracks building, yes, I thought it would be replaced
by a more modern structure. Whether I thought it would be replaced soon
or sooner or later
7
is a relative matter.
Four or five years is perhaps not too long to think of in terms of a
new building. Ten years is a bit long. I had hoped that it would be
replaced sooner than it was, but certainly the building that the history
department is housed in today at Old Dominion justifies the long wait.
My chief concern about the old Social Studies Building was the fire
hazard involved in it. I frequently would go out in the hall -- frequently,
two, three, four times a year -- go out into the hall to put out a fire
that had been started by someone throwing a lighted cigarette butt in
a waste can. The building was made from old pine two-by-fours that had
dried out. I once went up into the attic of the building and thought
to myself, "If I even breathe hard, why, this building will just
suddenly burst out into flame." That was the problem I lived with
mostly, the fear of fire, not so much when it was filled with students
-- that, of course -- but a fear that over the weekend or during the
night some electrical shortage or some other incident might start a
fire. I remember every time I went out of town I'd always drive by the
campus on my way to my home just to be sure the old Social Studies Building
hadn't burned down in my absence. Fortunately, it never did.
Question 9: Could
you describe your primary research interests in the years you spent in
Norfolk?
Spencer: My primary
research interests in the years I spent at Norfolk had to do with the
book which eventually I published after I came here on France in the
American Civil War, the diplomacy between France--between Paris and
Washington during the American Civil War years. And this interest was
stimulated by Professor Case, who came by Norfolk one night, one time
on a trip from Florida back to Philadelphia, and asked me if I would
collaborate with him in a work on the diplomacy between France and the
United States during the Civil War. It was for that purpose that I went
to France in 1958 to do research.
Question 10: I would
like some information on the American Philosophical Society grant you
received in 1958 for study in France in connection with your interest
in Franco-American relations during the Civil War.
Spencer: I received
the American Philosophical Society grant in 1958, the first grant I'd
ever received, a total of $700, to go to France in order to do research
in the French Archives on the question of Franco-American relations
during the Civil War. Certainly, one reason I received the grant was
that Professor Lynn Case wrote a very strong recommendation for me,
and
8
another reason I
received it is that the American Philosophical Society is a great place
to get small grants. Almost anybody applying can get a grant if he's
willing to accept a small one. The $700 took me to France. I arrived
in early June, l958, shortly after the May, 1958, change of government
when DeGaulle had first come into power. I was impressed by the armed
squadron of soldiers marching about, I was impressed by having to pass
through a guard of submachine gun armed soldiers as I went into the
public buildings to do research. But in two months I did do the research.
I worked two months in Paris and one month in London, and I did do the
research during that period of time which provided the basis of the
material that would--that came out in the book known as The United
States and France: Civil War Diplomacy, published finally in 1970.
Question 11: How
did the sociability of the faculty compare with that of other colleges
at which you had taught? Also, was there an interest in each other's research
activities?
Spencer: The sociability
of the faculty the whole time I was in Norfolk was very, very good,
much better than anything I have experienced since leaving what is now
Old Dominion University. From the very beginning there was an air of
friendship, of cooperation, and certainly there was an interest in each
other's research activities. I must say there wasn't a widespread amount
of research activity going on. It was primarily a teaching institution.
This is true when you realize that the teaching load was fifteen semester
hours and that most of us also taught three hours in the evening division
for additional money. Sometimes, I'm surprised how well I got along
teaching eighteen semester hours a week. So there wasn't a great deal
of research activity in the early years. As the '60's came along, why,
and we added faculty, then there were those who were interested in research
and publication. Ralph DeBedts was one of the first in the department
to publish a book. Others of us began to publish articles, and there
was interest in what each other did. We congratulated each other, we
actually had parties to to celebrate such events. Yes, the sociability,
the congeniality, the real and sincere interest in others' work was
very, very good, very great during my eleven years there.
Question 12: Could
you describe the activities of the History Club which you sponsored in
1958?
9
Spencer: The activities
of the History Club, which I sponsored in 1958 and, I guess, for many
years after that -- the purpose of it, of course, was to create among
the students some interest in history, give them an opportunity outside
the formalities of the classroom to participate in some history program,
to enter into discussion, to see their faculty in atmospheres and in
surroundings other than in the formality of the history class. I think
the club was, by and large, quite successful. As I recall, one of the
most successful meetings we ever had was a meeting in which Bill Whitehurst
and I had a--had a debate. Bill had just returned from his graduate
work at West Virginia, and he was pretty much a follower of the isolationist
view of the 1930's and '40's, and we had a debate--he and I debated
the question of whether we should have entered World War II or not.
We each took the side that we thought would be most controversial. As
I recall, there were some 75 students who attended that meeting in one
student's home. From time to time we would have meetings of the History
Club which would attract more than 50 people. I tried to operate the
club as much as possible so that the student officers would be those
who would make decisions. I gave them direction, I gave them some sort
of incentive, I gave them some sort of notion about what should be done,
but by and large I tried to let the students run the club. Its success
varied from year to year, and later, when I became chairman of the department
and other department members took over the club sponsorship, the success
varied according to the sponsorship. I think faculty leadership, faculty
incentive, faculty direction is very necessary for a club of this sort.
But I do think that it served its purpose during the years I was there.
It gave those who were interested in history -- not just history majors,
but education--education majors with a concentration in social studies
or history and just anyone else who had taken a few history courses
and who had become interested in history could participate in the club
activities. Especially in a campus such as what is now Old Dominion
campus where it is without any real center of student activity for so
many years, where the students had no dormitories to center their lives
and activities about, the academic clubs -- not just the history, but
others -- served a very real purpose, and I think also increased the
academic interest of the students.
Question 13: Did
you believe that the oral examinations for seniors were beneficial
to them? Did any difficulties arise in administering these exams?
10
Spencer: Yes, I
think oral examinations for seniors were extremely beneficial to them
and to the faculty. In the first place, the seniors learned that they
had to look back with a broad view and try to develop a big understanding
of history and not just a coupon clipping of three credits here and
three credits there in order to graduate. And the faculty got a pretty
good feedback on exactly how effective the faculty might have been in
its teaching. There were no real difficulties in administering these
oral examinations as far as the department was concerned. After all,
each student would be examined by only three professors. I think that
most boards I ever sat on in any one graduating term would be maybe
five or six or seven. Faculty members--the faculty--the department was
large enough by then so that we could share these things. The difficulty
arose, however, from other departments at the college because we were
requiring these oral examinations, and I must say written ones, to which
the question doesn't pertain, when other departments--as part of the
degree requirements. And other departments were not doing that, really,
so that students began to select majors, unfortunately, in those departments
which were not giving any of these comprehensive graduating bachelor's
examinations. It was for that reason and for that reason only that we
gave it up. We were told to give it up. I think the faculty would have
been happy to go ahead with them.
Question 14: As
chairman of the History Department in the early 1960's what were some
of the major problems you faced? Was it difficult to attract and hold
good teachers because of the low salaries?
Spencer: As chairman
of the History Department in the early 1960's, this is question number
14, the major problems I faced were attracting and retaining good faculty
members. This was a problem primarily because the Budgetary permission
to add to the department always came out about half the number of those
requested. It was difficult to attract and to hold good teachers, but
we did it despite the low salaries. I think perhaps the major reason
we were able to do it was because of the good feeling existing within
the department among the members who were there. The problems, I think,
were minimized by the fact that the members of the department were friendly
with one another and towards me. I viewed the chair--the job of the
chairman primarily as one of representing the faculty to the administration,
not the administration to the faculty. I always fought for salaries
as high as I could get. I always fought for the principles of academic
freedom. I tried to administer the department so that each faculty member
11
would know that
he was very much wanted, that he was contributing positively to the
departmental effort, to the overall college achievement of its goals,
and, as far as I know, except for the last eighteen or so months that
I was there, there were very little difficulties along these lines.
We were able to attract and to hold good teachers despite the low salaries,
I think, not so much because of the situation of the times nationally
as because of the positive feeling of achievement and of growth and
of potentiality that the whole college represented, not just the history
department but the whole college.
Question 15: Was
there a high degree of camaraderie among the members of the History Department
in the early 1960's?
Spencer: We worked
together, we played tennis together, we played poker together, we fussed
about the administration together, we visited in one another's office,
we drank coffee with one another, we were interested in what each other
was doing in the classroom and wherever there was an interest in research,
in the research aspect of it. Mostly, I think, we were encouraging the
newer and younger members of the department to, for Gods sake, hurry
up and finish their dissertation and get that degree. I think the fact
is we enjoyed one another's company. We had fun together, and it was
perhaps one of the most enjoyable times that I've ever spent in my professional
career.
Question 16: Could
you characterize the relations between the department and the Webb administration?
Spencer: The relations
between the department and the Webb administration -- it's hard to characterize
them. I think that what many people at the time and since have failed
to realize is that Lewis Webb took much the same attitude towards his
superiors as I took as chairman of the department, that is, he was representing
his institution to his superiors. He was doing all he could to do what--to
get better salaries, better facilities, better library, and all the
rest. I believe that most of us in the history department realized this
in the early years. Up till about the mid-l960's certainly this was
very true. We knew we didn't have as much as other faculty members on
other campuses had, but we were willing to go ahead and work as hard
as we could because we thought Webb was working as hard as he could.
As far as the history department specifically is concerned, we always
felt that Webb was being candid with us, we felt that his efforts to
get higher salaries were real and sincere efforts. As a matter
12
of fact, he treated
the history department, I think, overall very, very well indeed. With
the exception of a couple of matters raised in questions below, there
were no real conflicts between us and the Webb administration that I
recall, nothing that stands out strongly in my mind, that specifically
related to the department as far as President Webb was concerned.
Question 17: By
1962, was there already a strong desire in the department of history to
move into graduate instruction? What held the department back?
Spencer: The question
refers to a desire on the part of the department of history to move
into graduate instruction by 1962. That particular date doesn't stand
out in my mind for any reason. Certainly that's not when we began to
give master's degrees. I don't--I can't recall specifically in 1962
any strong desire in the department of history to move into graduate
instruction. If there was anything that held the department back it
was the role that the college as a whole was given in the overall state
picture, and more specifically the library holdings. Even when we did
move into graduate instruction, we were extremely conscious of the inadequacy
of the library for graduate teaching. And I do know that later, when
we were pressured from the State Council on Higher Education to begin
a doctoral program in history, the history department unanimously opposed
it on the basis of the extremely poor library holdings. Along these
lines I think we ought to record for posterity's sake that, when we
did start the M.A. program, our protest against the very, very small
library holdings for graduate work and our protest against them having
no funds to grant scholarships to graduate students resulted in a grant
from the governor's fund of $40,000, $20,000 of which we used immediately
in one big order to purchase as much--as many public documents pertinent
to the work that those of us who would be on the graduate faculty felt
we would be conducting, and $20,000 for graduate assistantships in order
to attract some students. We, of course, assumed that this grant would
continue, especially the grant for the assistantships to students, and
so we were very, very shocked indeed the following year to discover
that we had zero dollars for graduate assistants, much less any additional
funds for library acquisitions. But again, this is the way the state
of Virginia operated with its institutions below the university level
-- do the job, but do it without the necessary equipment or funds. The
amazing thing is that at Old Dominion we seem to have done the job rather
well.
13
Question 18:
In 1962 the department had nine Ph.D.'s out of ten members. Wasn't
this extraordinary for a liberal arts department in
a recently established four year school? How do you explain this? Why
did the established professors in the Old Dominion department of history
stay when, it would seem, they could have moved on to better salaried
positions?
Spencer: In '62
the department had nine Ph.D.'s out of ten members. Yes, this was extraordinary
for a liberal arts department in a very recently established four year
school. The only way I can explain it is that Stan Pliska did a damn
good job of recruiting. Maybe he recruited people, such as myself, who
simply were sort of satisfied to stay there. But I think the main reason,
what was really behind the fact that so many of us stayed for so many
years, was the congeniality, the friendship that we found among ourselves
and with members of other departments. It was an exciting time because
it was an expanding time. We could add new courses; we could teach in
new fields; we could see the tangible results of our efforts. And I
think this more than anything else explains why so many established
professors stayed there. And those who have stayed since I left have
stayed because they've been, I think, fairly well rewarded. They've
been promoted, salaries have -- apparently, from what I understand --
have gone up, but, again, I think it's more than just the salaries,
just the promotions. I think there is still a very strong feeling of
comradeship, of mutually achieving a common goal. Certainly that was
strong in the early '60's up till the time I left, and I think that
it's something that was fairly unique at Old Dominion, something that
was very much worth staying and being a part of. Now, those who actually
left, I don't think it was a matter of better salaries that did it anyway;
it was a matter of better opportunity in their careers that did it.
Question 19: In
the late 1950's and early 1960's about what percentage of the
graduates in history went on to graduate education? Did they prove
to be good advertisements for the department?
Spencer: Well,
of course, we didn't start giving bachelor's degrees until about '58.
In that year we graduated two, one of whom received a Fullbright to
study in Germany. He went there, but he came back about six months later,
for some reason disillusioned, and never went on in history. Our 1959
and 1960 graduating classes were small. I really don't know what the
percentages would be, but of those who did go on to graduate school,
I know of only one who didn't actually receive the MA degree. I
14
think one reason
for the excellent showing is that all of us in the department wrote
very candid letters of recommendation. In those years that we were giving
graduate record examinations for--as part of the written for the bachelor
comprehensive, we seldom ever had anyone below the 65th percentile in
the history exam, and we always had several in the 90's, and for two
years in a row we had students, each of whom scored at the 99th percentile.
The point is, we were turning out good students. We had an excellent
undergraduate program before we started our MA degree. One of the reasons
was that Dr. William Schellings taught a course in methodology and historiography,
required of all history graduates. And he did a very excellent job there.
I had several students coming back to Old Dominion to visit after the
half year or full year in graduate school saying that when they went
there as first-year graduate students, whether it was Pennsylvania or
Virginia or North Carolina, they found themselves way ahead of the other
first-year graduate students who came from other colleges. And the point
is that those of ours who did go on to graduate school were good students,
they were well prepared, and they did prove indeed to be very good advertisements
for the Old Dominion history department.
Question 20: Could
you give your recollections of the late Dr. William J. Schellings?
Spencer: I could
spend both sides of this tape on this and still never get all the way
through. I still think of him very, very often with a great deal of
affection one moment and a great deal of antagonism the next moment.
And this perhaps characterizes the personal relationships between him
and me. He could be kind and gentle; he could be caustic and cutting.
He was always extremely--mentally extremely sharp, very articulate.
In his relations with the students in almost all cases he was excellent.
I know of no individual difficulties that he had with any student. He
had high standards which he set for himself. He had come through the
ranks, as you know, without ever having received a high school diploma,
went to college on the disability benefits of the World War II G.I.
Bill and graduated in three years from the University of Miami in Florida,
got his master's there, and then went on for his Ph.D. at the University
of Florida in Gainesville, taught at Troy State College in Alabama for
a few years before coming on to Old Dominion, an excellent teacher,
an inspiring teacher, one who emphasized historiography a great deal
-- readings, readings, readings -- who expected the student to read
and to draw his own conclusions and, if they weren't good conclusions,
if they weren't historically logical, if they weren't--if they didn't
reflect an understanding of inter-
15
relationship and
comparative approach to history, he could jump on the students, but
in such a way that they seemed to sort of respect him all the more for
it. His relations with me, as I say, were good and bad. He and I could
sit in my office and chat about departmental affairs, about where the
department was going, what kind of specialist we needed to add to the
department, where our greatest needs were, in the most congenial and
the most mutually respectful kind of an attitude, or he could jump all
over me for almost no reason at all for something that perhaps he failed
to do instead of me. I think the basic explanation of Bill Schellings
is the--are the wounds that he received in World War II. He lost his
right arm just below the elbow; his attachment that he used, his hook,
he was extremely adept with, but it constantly irritated the stub, and
the harness across his back wore a sore which never healed and which
he was very concerned would move into a cancerous condition. He had
one eye removed while he was with us. He was, as he told me one time,
never without pain, and I think in those moments when he was most caustic,
most critical, when he without good cause, in many cases, shouted and
called names, it was as much the result of these World War II wounds
and the continuing pain that he suffered all the way through. He was
respected by all of those in the profession who knew him. His professors
at Florida thought very highly of him. They always received him with
warmth. He had very high opinions of them, of those who were any good
at all, and he maintained those good contacts. I would say that as far
as our students showing well in graduate education, in graduate schools,
Schellings was as much the reason as any other one member of the department.
Question 21: Could
you recall the incident involving civil rights activist Carl Braden, a
representative of the Southern Conference Education Fund, who spoke at
a professor's home after the school denied him use of its facilities?
Spencer: He was
invited to come to the campus and speak, as I recall, by the history
club. President Webb was very concerned about it. The Southern Conference
Education Fund at that time was considered to be extreme leftist. The
cold war and the cold war attitudes were still very much a part of us.
Apparently President Webb received some static from members of the local
board of advisors, President's advisors, and he banned Braden's appearance
on campus. I immediately protested this as a violation of our academic
freedom. Webb accepted this protest in good spirit. He invited me to
his office about 3:00 on the
16
afternoon that Braden
was scheduled to speak. And he and Dean Peele and I and perhaps one
other person -- I'm not sure, maybe Professor John Tabb -- sat there
in the office for about two and a half hours -- I know it was almost
six when I left -- discussing the matter. And eventually President Webb
said, "Well, I'm waiting for a telephone call, and when I get it
I'll give you my answer." The telephone call, as it turned out,
was from the local F.B.I. representative, who told President Webb, according
to President Webb - I didn't hear the conversation, but as President
Webb related it to us -- Braden was a Commie. And as a result of that,
President Webb said, "He will not speak on this campus." Whereupon
I told him then that, well, he was going to speak at the home of a professor,
Assistant Professor Kenneth Wood, who at that time was our Latin American
specialist, who lived just down the street from the campus, and whose
home was perfectly accessible to the students, almost as convenient
as one of the buildings on campus. And Webb said, "That's fine.
As long as he doesn't speak on campus, I have no objection." I
said, "Well, I hope that you won't take this as any kind of particularly
personal thing on the part of the particular faculty member who's involved."
He said, "No, he has every right to do what he wants to do when
he wants to do it." And so Dr. Kenneth Wood did have Carl Braden
speak in his back yard. It was a nice sunny day, and there was quite
a large number of students there, much larger than it would have been
had President Webb not raised the issue at all; had Braden been allowed
to speak as scheduled in a campus building, in a campus room as scheduled,
the student attendance would have been much less, I'm sure. What impressed
me as much as anything else was what the students told me about Braden's
talk, that it was extremely boring, that they didn't find him particularly
exciting at all and that they felt that they had actually sort of wasted
their time in going there. Another thing that impressed me about this
whole episode was that, although Ken Wood left us shortly thereafter
to go out to the University of San Diego, again, very reluctantly and
not for more money particularly but because he'd have an opportunity
to work with another person there very close to his own specialty, although
Wood left rather soon, certainly Webb never, as far as I could tell,
used the Braden incident in any way to deny Wood any kind of raise or
any kind of teaching--reduction in teaching load or anything of this
sort. Webb was honest about this; as long as Braden wasn't on the campus
speaking in a campus building, Webb was quite satisfied to let him speak
in a faculty member's back yard, and he didn't hold this against the
faculty member at all.
17
In this respect,
I must say one or two other things about former President Webb and his
attitude -- which are not particularly--these remarks are not particularly
elicited by the questions. Number one, I think that President Webb took
the attitude towards his superiors, the same as I took as chairman of
the department. He represented the university, the faculty, to his superiors.
I know of one or two incidences, indeed, of one professor who is still
on the Old Dominion University faculty, not the history department,
who was branded in the local community as a Communist in the late '50's
and early '60's. At that time Chancellor Chandler called professor Webb--President
Webb and told him to fire this particular individual because he was
nothing but a Commie. And President Webb, who knew the individual, who
still knows him, refused to do so, and he actually put his own job on
the line in order to protect this particular faculty member. The faculty
member still, to this day, as far as I know, has no idea that this ever
occurred. There was one other occasion which wasn't quite so happy.
In the history department Assistant Professor Otto Olsen took leave
one year to live in the Washington area while his wife attended Gallaudet
College, receiving an advanced degree in the education of the deaf.
Otto was a man of the left. He was a specialist in the Civil War and
Reconstruction period. We felt very highly of him in the department,
and I arranged for the leave, administratively, that is, with no real
difficulty, and then when the contracts came out for the next year,
that is, while Otto was on leave -- the contracts came out in the spring
-- his provided for no increase in salary whatsoever. I had recommended
an increase despite the fact that he was on leave; it seemed to me that
it was an academic leave granted by the institution, and I saw no reason
for this to create any financial difficulty for Otto. And so I protested
this particular decision on the part of Webb. I had several interviews
with him directly in his office, and the result was that he compromised.
He gave Otto a very small raise. He did this only after I had said that
it was such an important issue to me that I felt that I would no longer
be able to continue as chairman of the department unless he recognized
my recommendation by giving Otto Olsen the raise I had recommended.
The compromise did not do me any good, as far as my own feeling was
concerned. By this time Otto had heard about the whole thing, that is,
that he was not to get a raise because, as I believe, the contract was
sent to him directly, and he received the first one with no raise in
it at the same time I knew about it, and he refused
18
the compromise,
and we lost him. Now, why did President Webb do this? I think that he
looked upon Wood--Otto Olsen as a troublemaker, and like most administrators
I've ever met anywhere he didn't like a troublemaker. And he used this
way of forcing Olsen to leave. As it turns out, Olsen has wound up,
of course, at the University of Northern Illinois where he's a full
professor and where he's developed a very fine reputation and he has
developed something of a national reputation. I think this was the only
occasion I know of in my whole tenure there at Old Dominion where the
administration forced anyone -- under my control, certainly, within
my purview of administrative responsibility -- forced anyone away from
the institution by such tactics as this. And this was something, again,
in which Lewis Webb was very candid about. He didn't want to have him
around, and this was the opportunity to get rid of him, and it happened,
unfortunately. I think, had I seen the contract before it ever went
out and had been able to get the compromise increase in salary, Otto
would have stayed with us, at least for awhile.
Question 22: You
spoke before the Daughters of the American Revolution at their George
Washington's birthday observance in 1965. Could you recall that experience?
Did you have any qualms about accepting an invitation from the DAR?
Spencer: No, I
had no qualms. The DAR was a perfectly respectable organization, a bit
to the far right. I spoke to leftist organizations; I spoke to rightist
organizations. I saw no reason not to be able to have -- to deny myself
the opportunity to deliver my message to any of these organizations.
I recall one particular thing about the experience. Stan Pliska had
spoken to the DAR and received a hundred dollar check -- or maybe it
was just twenty-five dollars. I spoke to them, and they gave me a cigarette
box. I've never spoken to a DAR unit since, but on the other hand I've
never been invited. As I remember I said something to them about the
impact of the French help during the American Revolution and the fact
that, without that French help militarily, we would never have been
able to win our independence from England. This perhaps didn't sit too
well with them. But I've never denied--I've never turned down any organization
because of its particular political views, nor have I ever been frightened
by any organization to say what I want to say on the particular occasion
with as much grace and complete candor as has been my standard all the
way through. Whether it was the DAR or whether it was the Lumbermen's
Association or whether it was the Kiwanis Club or whether it was the
local socialist group or whether it
19
was the SDS group
or whether it was a social fraternity -- no, this doesn't bother me.
I have never any qualms about speaking before any particular group.
Question 23: Could
you give your impressions of the first graduate students you taught in
ODC's new master of arts in history program?
Spencer: Well,
I had never really taught graduate students before. I was impressed
by the fact that we had a graduate program and that here I was actually
teaching some graduate students. We had all sorts, of course, some who
came just because they didn't have anything else to do -- middle-aged
women, mostly --some who were retired Navy, some who were still active
in the Navy, some who had just gotten their bachelor's degree, mostly
from Old Dominion. We had quite a variety of students, and I don't think
that I can generalize about my impression. There were those who were
very good and who have received their Ph.D.'s and who are teaching in
universities and colleges around the country. There were those who were
not so good and who didn't even finish our master's program. I think
that we had a very high standard. In my experience here at the University
of Georgia and in talking with other people at other universities that
give the Ph.D., I think that the master's program at Old Dominion is
much better than the master's program where the Ph.D.'s are granted,
and I suspect this is pretty normal. The faculty tends to devote itself
primarily to its highest degree recipients. We had a good course curriculum
and requirement at Old Dominion. We set high standards for research
and format. The methodology involved was well conceived and enforced,
and those who didn't live up to it simply didn't make the grade, so
that many of these first graduate students never completed the program,
which is well and good and as it should be. But as far as any general
impression, no, no general impression. They were all individuals, as
most students are.
Question 24: Could
you describe your relationship to the Norfolk Historical Society of which
you were chosen president in February 1967?
Spencer: My relationship
with the Norfolk Historical Society, of which I was chosen president
in February of 1967, was an interesting one. I was initially vice president,
and I think I was asked to serve in this capacity simply because I was
chairman of the history department at Old Dominion and they wanted my
quote "prestige of my name" unquote to put on the letterhead.
The Colonel
20
who started this,
a retired Army--Air Force Colonel whose name at the moment escapes me,
which can be found easily enough, had some very interesting ideas about
local history. Now local history is not my specialty. I have never really
been trained in it. I'm a French historian, a European diplomatic historian,
so American local history is not anything that I'm that well based on.
But I do know something about what history is, and I know that history
can have and serve various functions. And it seemed to me that his idea
about a Norfolk Historical Society made sense. He wanted it to be, first
of all, a kind of a centralization of various historical interest groups,
whether they be railway buffs or DAR or local house preservation groups
or anything of this sort -- it didn't make that much difference -- but
the Norfolk Historical Society would be that group which would bring
all these together and make some sort of coherency out of the various
divergent historical interests that then existed in the city and area
of Norfolk. Norfolk is itself a historic city. It seemed to me that
it was time to have a historical society to help preserve it. I've never
been one to think that history is something that only historians should
appreciate and know about and participate in. I've always enjoyed teaching
majors from other fields for that particular reason. It seemed to me
that if by lending my name to the Norfolk Historical Society I could
help get it started, get it off the ground; that would be as good a
use of the title "chairman of the history department of Old Dominion
College" as any use of that title could be. When I was asked to
become president, which would have made me--which did make me the second
president of the Society, I felt that this was an opportunity to further
the Society and to be able then to impose my own particular ideas about
what history is -- not impose, but at least to have a platform and a
forum from which I could more easily state those things. I regret that
I left before my tenure was up. I really didn't do much between February
and August of 1967 as president of the Norfolk Historical Society. It's
a position which I still list in my own biographical information, incidentally,
because I think it's important. Such historians as Rembert Patrick have
been very big in local history and actually have held position in National
Association of Local Historical Societies. I think this is an excellent
way to perpetuate the American past, the culture, and the history of
the past, and I think that professional historians, by taking a part
in such organizations, can direct this perpetuation along more professional
and scholarly lines than just a bunch of genealogical or interest groups,
though of course they have their role in any local organization, also.
21
Question 25: Why
did you leave Old Dominion College in 1967? What motivated you
to seek a position at another university? Are you pleased that
you made the decision you did?
Spencer: I left
Old Dominion in 1967, in order to accept an offer to teach at a state
university and to have time to write. My duties as department chairman
at ODU did not allow the block time which I needed for that purpose.
Actually, salary did not, in the long run, enter the picture because
ODU offered me an increase which was close to the University of Georgia
offer and which, with guaranteed summer school, would have exceeded
the nine-month salary from Georgia. The decisive factor in my decision
to leave Old Dominion was the University of Georgia offer of a 2/3 teaching
and a 1/3 research appointment.
I began to think
in terms of leaving Old Dominion in the summer of 1966 because my children
were approaching college age and I needed a higher income to pay for
their education. I requested the University of Pennsylvania Placement
Office to up-date my dossier for an administrative position. I was offered
one deanship which I declined and I was under active consideration for
two deanships and an academic vice-presidency when the teaching-research
offer was made by the University of Georgia. I might add that I in no
way had solicited the Georgia position.
Yes, I am pleased.
I do miss the friendships and congenial atmosphere I had experienced
at Old Dominion - but nothing remains the same and I suspect that would
have changed in time. I have not been disappointed with my position
at Georgia. I did, in fact, complete my share of a co-authored book
during my first year here - a book which received a national award and
which has been re-published in a paperback edition; I have received
three research leaves which have afforded me time and money to conduct
research in Europe. While I do not find my immediate colleagues in history
to be as stimulating as those at Old Dominion had been, I do find other
compensations. Besides, it doesn't pay to look backward!
|
