sustaining the institution

15 May 1970 At its meeting, the board adopted as college policy the principles outlined in the speech delivered by PRESIDENT DONALD L. HELFFERICH on 15 January 1970, "The Philosophic Temperament at Ursinus College." Helfferich delivered the speech at a gala dinner at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. The dinner celebrated the centennial of the college. Helfferich sought through this speech to establish a conservative tilt to the development of the college as he prepared to leave office later in 1970. (Reports of Officers, 1969-1970, p. 3)

The speech broke into two distinct parts. The first part came from Helfferich's stock of trenchant phrases designed to capture the imagination of audiences over the years. It sought to put the moment into historical context by reviewing the changes that had occurred in higher education since 1951. In that year, the Newcomen Society had honored Ursinus at a luncheon on the campus, just as it was honoring the college at the 1970 centennial dinner.

The second part, he announced, was a position statement on the philosophy of Ursinus College. Up front, he gave a ringing affirmation to liberal education and unfettered academic freedom:

"Like all liberal arts institutions of any distinction, Ursinus holds that

a professor of a discipline has the freedom to profess his knowledge

without hindrance."

Ursinus advocated "no closed ideological system." Any answers about "God, man, nature and society" were open to honest scrutiny and free discussion.

With that assurance to the faculty that the freedom of professional practice was secure, Helfferich went on in the rest of his speech to explain how the college, nonetheless, had a philosophical orientation. He resolved the apparent contradiction by drawing a distinction between the institution’s method of academic pursuit and the content of its institutionalized life in society. The method of academic inquiry at the heart of professional practice was, as he said, value-free. The content of Ursinus’s life as an institution, however, was not value-free.

"As a discrete social and legal entity, [the college] makes decisions

about courses to be included in the curriculum, about the size and

shape of the physical plant, about the extent of community

involvement, about student rules, about candidates for faculty

positions, about students seeking admission, and about those

seeking release. Taken together, these decisions express an

institutional point of view. This point of view, essentially

philosophical, is the product of the attitudes and ideas of those

governing and operating the college--about the nature of

man; the aims of educating men endowed with that nature; the

ways of regulating human affairs in general and in an academic

setting."

Since an institutional point of view was inescapable, a responsible college necessarily had to choose its particular orientation. Ursinus, he said, was historically "conservative." He then gave a new rationale for the college’s "philosophic" conservatism.

He made it clear at the start that Ursinus did not stand against change ("change is everywhere"). Rather, Ursinus looked to a conservative rationale to help it "manage change."

This conservative rationale emerged from a particular outlook on the nature of humankind and on the social structures best suited for such a nature. This outlook was receiving attention through the writings of scholars such as Clinton Rossiter and Peter Viereck. Guided by such writers, Helfferich reached back to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France for antecedents. He declared against "simplistic rational formulas" for solving human problems, against "pat theories for change or emotional calls to new revolutionary vistas," against "the doctrine of natural goodness." Following Burke’s lead, he said the Ursinus temperament relied on custom and experience as a test and favored restraints on human passions.

Helfferich then declared that Ursinus should preserve a conservative orientation because of the contrary path of "permissiveness" taken by many similar colleges. He said it would be good for the public to have a conservative alternative when choosing a college. It would be good for Ursinus to offer it, because it was in the spirit of "its own best traditions." He accepted that this would make Ursinus unattractive to some students and their families but maintained that others would come precisely because of the conservative tilt.

Toward the end of his speech, Helfferich again endorsed "academic quality" and denied that conservatism equated with dullness. Most significant from the standpoint of the history of Ursinus’s parochial purpose was his return to the business of shaping good behavior:

"[We] see [Ursinus] as a reasonably decorous place, where basic

good manners are valued because they tend to be civilizing (we hold

civility to be one of the hardest and highest-valued goals). We do not

see it as an irrelevant haven for the sons and daughters of people

who cannot accept the complexities of contemporary life; we see it

as a full partner, along with institutions of a liberal persuasion, in

showing young people how to approach those complexities, we from

a conservative posture, they from a liberal."

Befitting his reputation as a master fund-raiser, Helfferich concluded with a statement of belief that such a college would attract adequate financial resources to allow it to do its work.

When the board adopted this speech as a statement in principle of the college’s position in May 1970, it created an overriding criterion in the search for Helfferich’s successor as president. Anyone chosen would have to be able to work within this broad guideline.

15 September 1970 The college submitted a response to its REGIONAL ACCREDITING ASSOCIATION on issues of faculty work loads. The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools reaffirmed the accreditation of Ursinus on 29 April 1968 following a team visit (11-14 February 1968) chaired by C. WILLIAM HUNTLEY of Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Despite its endorsement of Ursinus, the Huntley team voiced concerns about faculty work loads and in particular the heavy involvement of faculty members in administration. Middle States asked that the college submit a response to this concern. The response amounted to a fairly comprehensive report on the progress of the college since the team visited two and a half years before.

On the particular concern, the college avoided detailed statistics covering faculty work loads. It noted that the full-time teaching staff increased by the appointment of ten members since the team visit and that two part-timers advanced to full-time. The college reported that the number of full-time administrators without teaching assignments had increased and that the teaching assignments of some administrators had decreased. It asserted, however, that it would continue the practice, criticized by Middle States, of using teaching faculty members as administrators. With an endorsement from MILLARD E. GLADFELTER, former president of Temple University and the board’s best-known academician, the report said the practice contributed to the uniqueness and strength of Ursinus.

The rest of the report gave a bullish account of progress at Ursinus in the intervening thirty months. It showed this in new buildings and renovations, enrichment of the curriculum, controlled growth in the Evening School, increases in faculty salaries (average salary, including fringes and other extras, for a full professor in 1969-70: $15,809), annual off-campus conferences of faculty for reflection and planning, ad hoc increases in faculty travel allowances, doubling of the forum budget, acquisition of video-tape and closed-circuit television, the creation of an advisory promotion and tenure committee (a Middle States recommendation), restructuring of the administration with the appointment of two vice presidents, hiring of a security service, addition of five younger board members and the transfer of three to emeritus status, and the successful completion of the first full-scale fund-raising campaign since the 1920s.

The final paragraphs of the report captured the combination of enthusiastic optimism and thinly disguised defensiveness that characterized the voice of the college as it passed its hundredth birthday and readied itself for a change in the presidency:

"The number of cultural events on campus has increased two-fold [a deliberate centennial-year enhancement]. Intellectual independence of both students and faculty is manifesting itself by a wider interest in guided independent study. Remuneration of faculty has been improved at a greater rate than is average for the institutions of the area whose figures are available to us. Careful thought and planning have been given to providing an orderly transition from President to President. [William S. Pettit would be elected president ten days after this report.]

"Inequities in load assignments have been adjusted. The Academic Council has been changed in structure so as to be representative of all the faculty ranks, and meetings are now held at stated intervals rather than when called.

"We are extremely pleased with the recent progress that Ursinus College has made on all fronts and we are proud to report it. We believe that we are in a far better position than ever before to meet the challenging days ahead. It would give us great pleasure indeed to have members of the team who visited us in February of 1968 to return to the campus to see what has taken place in less than three years."

5 March 1971 The BOARD OF DIRECTORS received a request from faculty members to put two faculty representatives on the board. The faculty had acted just two days before on a resolution offered by the Ursinus chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Its action included direction to the secretary of the faculty to forward the resolution to the secretary of the board. When he advanced the request to the board without his endorsement, President Pettit called the request a manifestation of "the participation explosion." The board referred the matter to its nominating committee for review after several members spoke against it. They argued, among other things, that the board should hold in confidence any financial information on faculty members and that the presence of a faculty member would undermine the president's role as faculty representative to the board. The nominating committee at the next board meeting (14 May 1971) recommended against the faculty request.

Some board members may have thought that the request was an isolated show of dissatisfaction with the governance of the college by a few faculty members. The refusal of the board to act, however, did not lay the matter to rest among faculty. When the faculty’s "letter of concerns" appeared on 17 October 1975, faculty representation on the board surfaced as one of the demands. Even after the board again rebuffed the recommendation, some faculty members kept the hope alive for years. The exclusion of faculty from the board symbolized for them an injustice, especially to those faculty who also were alumni of the college. They argued that the prohibition against board service disenfranchised alumni who happened to be faculty members.

13 May 1971 RHEA DURYEA JOHNSON, '08, the first woman ever to serve on the board, died. She served from 1926 to 1969 and was a founder of the Ursinus Women's Club. Duryea Hall perpetuates her family name on campus. Her father was the inventor of an early automobile. A printed card in the college archives shows the silhouette of a young girl riding a sled behind a primitive-looking motor vehicle. In the accompanying poem, we learn that this is Rhea on a merry ride, courtesy of her inventor-father. Mrs. Johnson made a hobby of collecting salt and pepper sets through much of her life. She gave her collection to the college late in her life. The college sold it at auction years later, but the inventory still exists in the archive of the college.

3 January 1972 MABEL PEW MYRIN, board member and generous benefactor, died. She was the daughter of the founder of Sun Oil Company, Joseph Pew. Her brother, J. Howard Pew, dominated the business and the family's philanthropy for many years. Each one of the Pew children--J. Howard, Mabel, and Miss Ethel--pursued their particular charitable interests. Ursinus was one of the entities fortunate to come into Mrs. Myrin's orbit. Her support, with gifts from her own fortune and those she obtained from the Glenmede Trust Company, the family's charitable foundation, facilitated many improvements at the college during the Helfferich administration. Her support culminated in the library built in memory of her late husband, Alarik. President Pettit eulogized her at the 3 March 1972 meeting of the board of directors.

3 March 1972 MABEL PEW MYRIN, who died 3 January 1972, was eulogized by President Pettit at the board meeting. As the founder, with her husband Alarik Myrin, of the nearby Kimberton Farm School, based on the educational philosophy of Rudolph Steiner (the Waldorf method), she demonstrated an abiding interest in the education of young people. President Helfferich over many years had cultivated a relationship with Mrs. Myrin. He built it on her wide-ranging interest in education at both the basic and the collegiate levels.

After Pettit became president in 1970, he augmented Helfferich's continued attention to her in his role of chancellor. For some years, Professor John Heilemann taught at Kimberton. Reid Watson, '51, and other alumni taught there. These Ursinus connections enriched the relationship with Mrs. Myrin as well as with the school. Mrs. Myrin joined the Ursinus board in 1964. Helfferich conferred an honorary degree on her at commencement in 1970. He good-humoredly accentuated her independence and adventurousness by recounting her prowess behind the bars of a motorcycle.

In remembering Mrs. Myrin, Pettit at the board meeting told a touching story of her final acts for Ursinus. Pettit had written asking her if she would endorse his notion of recommending to the board that it name the new health and physical education facility in honor of DONALD L. HELFFERICH. In his enterprising way, Pettit also asked whether she would want to "help with a substantial tribute" to help pay for the facility. Mrs. Myrin's response, her last to Ursinus, was characteristically generous in more senses than one: "Naming the new building for Dr. Helfferich seems to me like a very brilliant idea....[He] has done so much for the College over so many years that he deserves all the recognition we can give him. I have asked to have $100,000 in Sun stock sent to you for the gym and swimming pool which you should receive within a few days."

3 March 1972 The board of directors elected ALEXANDER LEWIS, '38, as a new member. He was a research chemist with a doctorate from the University of Illinois, a former student of President Pettit. He had a long career in the oil industry. At the time of his election, he was senior vice president of Gulf Oil Corporation in Pittsburgh. As such, he was responsible for corporate philanthropy. He made sure that Ursinus received support from the corporate foundation. Gulf established a loan fund for students in need.

Lewis was not the only fellow chemist that Pettit recruited for the board. He soon also invited RALPH CONNOR to serve. Connor, also a Ph.D. in chemistry, had taught chemistry at the college level and then, like Lewis, became an industrial chemist. He was vice president and chairman of the executive committee at Rohm & Haas Corporation in Philadelphia when he joined the Ursinus board. ROBERT B. ANDERSON, of Sun Corporation, who also came aboard in 1972, (see 12 May 1972 below) as an engineer in a petrochemical company, augmented the perspective brought by Connor and Lewis.

Pettit doubtless felt compatible with such new board members. He could turn to them comfortably for guidance and support. They shared a common language as scientists. More important at the time, Pettit could take reassurance from them that the hard center of American life was holding firm while social, economic, and educational troubles mounted in the aftermath of the revolutionary 1960s. Their hard-headed sense of reality, conservative social and political orientation, and upright leadership roles reinforced the stance Pettit felt he had to take to keep Ursinus stable in the face of the troubles. A "chemistry" among these and other board members sustained Pettit.

3 March 1972 The board of directors approved the sale of a parcel of property of more than 50 acres owned by the PENNSYLVANIA FOLKLIFE SOCIETY on Route 30, east of Lancaster. The founder of the Society, professor Shoemaker of Franklin & Marshall College, originally intended the property to be a center for the preservation and celebration of Pennsylvania Dutch culture. The barn and house of the old farm still stood. In Shoemaker's vision, it would house a museum. Ursinus gained ownership of the Pennsylvania Folklife Society--including the property--in 1969 in a bankruptcy proceeding. Attorney for the Society, Mark Eaby, planned to continue operating the folk festival of the Society at Kutztown under an operating agreement with the new owner, Ursinus. By 1972, it became evident that the Route 30 property would not fit into the operating plans. Both Eaby and the college abandoned the original idea of creating a cultural center there. The Pennsylvania Folklife Society was a separate 501(c)3 charitable, non-profit corporation, wholly owned by the college. Ownership of the property moved to the books of the college, which then put it up for sale. The sale approved on this date was for $800,000 over a period of eight years. The buyer had problems that brought the property back into college ownership. The college finally sold it for $700,000 years later, with Eaby acting as sales agent.

12 May 1972 ROBERT B. ANDERSON, Director of Systems and Computers at Sun Oil Company, a member of the extended Pew family, joined the board of directors to represent the interest of the Glenmede Trust Company. Mrs. Myrin, before she died in January 1972, had designated Mr. Anderson for this role. He later became president of Sun Gas and moved to Dallas, Texas. His daughter, Kit, attended the college. He served on the board until 1992. Throughout his administration, Pettit maintained a strong relationship with Glenmede. He was a contemporary at the University of Pennsylvania of Allyn Bell, who became the chief administrator for the Pew family charities. Anderson's presence on the Ursinus board helped assure Pettit of a hearing when he requested funds.

10 May 1974 The BOARD OF DIRECTORS disapproved a request for FACULTY AND STUDENT REPRESENTATION on the board. The board had received a request on 5 March 1971 for faculty representation from faculty members; after committee review, it had denied that request at its next board meeting. This new request came not from faculty but from the student government leadership. It sought one seat each with vote for one faculty member and one student. If there was collaboration on this request between students and faculty members, it does not show up in the record.

5 June 1975 Faculty elected three colleagues to a committee to review the FACULTY HANDBOOK, consult with the administration, and recommend changes. The ad hoc committee was made up of Gayle Byerly of English, Ronald E. Hess of chemistry, and Eugene H. Miller of political science. This action by the whole faculty came as a vote on a recommendation from the academic council.

The action in creating the committee moved the initiative for handbook change from the hands of the administration to those of the faculty. This unprecedented shift in authority attracted little formal notice at the time.

The faculty ad hoc committee rewrote many provisions in the document and changed the tone of the document to reflect greater self-governance by the faculty. Some of the recommendations laid the groundwork for expanding resources for professional development of faculty members. The faculty approved revisions recommended by the ad hoc committee at a special 13 February 1976 meeting. It then referred the changes to the board of directors, with the president acting as go-between.

On 14 May 1976, on recommendation of its government and instruction committee, the board of directors accepted many of the revisions ("enrichments and supplements"). It reserved approval on a number of items that would have revised college governance further than the board wanted to go.

The board's approval of the new handbook, even with the reservations, moved the college a significant step toward a more collegial culture. It drew new boundaries around the management authority of the president and administration. The board did not agree, however, to a grievance procedure that would take complaints beyond the level of its government and instruction committee. It also resisted references to AAUP policies and disagreed with some specific provisions surrounding tenure, sabbaticals, and outside employment.

17 October 1975 President Pettit and board members received a LETTER OF CONCERNS about governance and finances, dated 7 October 1975, signed by 37 members of the faculty.

The faculty letter pointed to a set of issues and called for immediate remedial action. The particular issues: (1) "...drastic and imaginative action must be taken to improve basic faculty salaries if Ursinus College is to maintain its academic excellence." (2) The Century II Program "has not fulfilled one of its goals--namely, the improvement of faculty salaries." (3) Faculty should "participate in decisions as to the allocation of financial resources, according to AAUP guidelines." (4) A grievance committee should be formed. (5) Faculty should sit on the board. (6) The expertise of faculty should be utilized in making administrative decisions.

By plan or coincidence, the letter came to Pettit's desk on the same day he had scheduled a special faculty meeting. He planned to announce the method of allocating and distributing special salary adjustments, provisionally approved the previous spring. The supplements by grade would range from $100 to $400; full professors would get the least and instructors the most. By the time he delivered the news about salary supplements at the meeting, the faculty knew that the letter of concerns was on his desk.

The letter initiated a series of responses to the faculty by Pettit and the board. At the regular faculty meeting on 5 November 1975, the president formally acknowledged the letter and promised a substantive response by the next faculty meeting on 3 December 1975. In his promised statement he reminded the faculty he had already acted to improve salaries. He announced the creation of a new three-member faculty advisory committee on college priorities. A faculty member would now join the investment committee. Faculty members were to form ad hoc advisory councils on admissions and fund-raising. A faculty-elected "committee of five" received an invitation to meet with an ad hoc committee of the board to work with faculty and students. When they met on 17 February 1976, there was quick agreement on the need for sustained improvement of salaries whenever the finances of the college permitted, but not on much else.

While processing the faculty letter of concerns, the president and board were also processing petitions from the Ursinus Student Government Association and an ad hoc group of students. Students wanted to revise the rules on student rights, with a focus on dormitory visitation. They also wanted to establish direct lines of communication with the board.

The same ad hoc board committee met with a student delegation on 23 February 1976, with little agreement on the issues. PAUL I. GUEST, '38, chairman of the board committee, took that occasion, according to the Weekly (26 Feb 1976), to reassert the conservative philosophic temper of the college. Guest told the students that Ursinus was responsible "for the education of the student’s total life--academically, socially and morally." He and other board members "stressed that any relaxation of present policies...would be inconsistent with the philosophical foundation of Ursinus College. In particular, Mr. Guest emphasized that the forces of alcohol and extra-curricular sexual activity are detrimental to the family unit; consequently Ursinus has a responsibility to prevent such abuses." Guest reportedly encouraged the students to join with the board in upholding its standards of behavior "so as to perpetuate the college as a ‘force for good.’" The board’s adoption in principle of D. L. Helfferich’s 1970 speech on the philosophic temper of Ursinus continued to exert its influence.

The start of a search for a new president to succeed Pettit eclipsed the board committee’s discussions with faculty and students. At the 5 March 1976 board meeting, he announced his wish to retire from office by 1 November 1976. The board committee to work with faculty and students submitted a final report at the end of the 1975-76 academic year. It was a diplomatic gesture that reaffirmed the board's concern about the need for better salaries and reached out to faculty in good will. At the same time it gave its support to the president's plan for involving faculty in governance and pointed hopefully to the board's intention to mount another fund-raising campaign.

29 October 1975 A representative of the American Association of University Professors spoke on campus about the unionization of faculty. The appearance of Professor James D. Stasheff of Temple University on the heels of the "letter of concerns" aroused concern among administrators and board members that unionization was a goal of the "committee of five." Faculty members had been talking about unionization while meeting over coffee in the basement of the newly renovated Bomberger Hall. Morning gatherings were well attended by faculty from Pfahler Hall as well as Bomberger. Stasheff’s report that unionization had improved relationships at Temple might have fueled the desire of some Ursinus faculty to unionize. However, no call for a collective bargaining vote ever surfaced.

14 November 1975 MARILYN L. STEINBRIGHT attended the first board meeting in her long tenure as a member. Her late father, Harold Steinbright, had been first vice president of the Ursinus board. A graduate of Drexel Institute of Technology, he came to the Ursinus board through his membership in the Evangelical & Reformed Church. President Pettit persuaded Marilyn that serving on the Ursinus board would be a way of honoring the memory of her father. The inheritance she and her mother received from Mr. Steinbright became in the mid-1960s the ARCADIA FOUNDATION, whose assets over the years grew to more $40 million. Marilyn's new membership on the college board set the stage for a long and generous record of giving, which would add up to millions of dollars by the 1990s.

14 May 1976 The board, on recommendation of its government and instruction committee, accepted many of the revisions ("enrichments and supplements") to the FACULTY HANDBOOK proposed by the faculty. It reserved approval on a number of items that would have revised college governance further than the board wanted to go.

On 13 February 1976, the faculty had met in special session to act on recommendations made by its ad hoc committee to revise the faculty handbook, subject to the approval of the board. The faculty committee had rewritten many provisions and changed the tone of the document to reflect greater self-governance by the faculty. It came into being on 5 June 1975, when the faculty elected three colleagues to review the handbook, consult with the administration, and recommend changes. The action in creating the committee moved the initiative for revising the handbook. It had been largely the responsibility of the administration. Now the faculty assumed new ownership of the process.

The board's approval of the new handbook, even with the reservations, moved the college a significant step toward a more collegial culture. It drew new boundaries around the management authority of the president and administration. The board did not agree, however, to a grievance procedure that would have taken complaints beyond the level of its own government and instruction committee. It also resisted references to AAUP policies and disagreed with some specific provisions surrounding tenure, sabbaticals, and outside employment.

14 May 1976 JOHN C. SHETLER and L. G. LEE THOMAS joined the board of directors. Shetler was the conference minister of the Pennsylvania Southeast Conference of the United Church of Christ. The conference rented its offices from the college at 620 Main Street, the former home of Paul Levengood, '35. Shetler actively served the college until he accepted an offer to be a life member of the board in 1996. He was especially helpful to presidents and the board in relating the college's historical origins and relationships to the contemporary operation of the college. He had a practicing theologian's understanding of the first Ursinus president's success and failure in establishing a religious position within the German Reformed church. He helped keep the college's church connections meaningful in a time of change. Compulsory chapel and other traditional forms of church-related college education were disappearing. Many similar colleges, such as Franklin & Marshall College, were distancing themselves from their traditional church ties. With Shetler's counsel, Ursinus continued to take meaning from its church origins while modifying programs in response to current needs. President Pettit consistently put UCC figures front and center in the formal life of the college.

Thomas was a classic of the American entrepreneurial type from the earlier part of the century. He had been president of a family company that manufactured pumps. With origins in the Midwest, he had moved to Philadelphia' s Main Line, where he became acquainted socially with Donald L. Helfferich. Though already retired, he was an intellectually curious investor and energetic trustee. He regularly brought advice on fund-raising and investments. He suggested new candidates for board membership and identified potential financial supporters. He and his wife contributed generously to the college, and she continued to be a friend of the college after his death. Ursinus dedicated the renovated life science building in memory of Thomas and his family in1991.

(2) The Administration

25 September 1970 The board elected WILLIAM S. PETTIT as the new president at a special meeting, effective 1 November 1970.

Pettit joined the Ursinus faculty in 1933 as an instructor in chemistry. He became assistant professor in 1938 and professor in 1944. He was assistant registrar from 1948 to 1952 and dean of admissions from 1952 to 1954, when he became dean of the college. In 1969, President Helfferich added the title of vice president for academic affairs to his title of academic dean. He taught organic chemistry throughout his career before becoming president. He established himself as one of the legendary teachers who performed in the large lecture room of Pfahler Hall. ("Some loved his course, some hated it, but all remembered the terror of his unannounced tests," a graduate remembered many years after taking the course.) Pettit was a native of Burlington, New Jersey, where he was born 19 March 1909. He was graduated from Burlington High School and earned the bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry at the University of Pennsylvania. He received the honorary degree of doctor of science (Sc.D) from Ursinus in 1969. He was a member of Alpha Chi Omega, the national chemistry society; Society of Sigma Xi; American Chemical Society. He was past president of the Norristown Chemists Club. He was active in associations of collegiate registrars, admissions officers, deans, and advisors of men. Pettit was active in charitable and civic affairs in Montgomery County and was a member of St. James Protestant Episcopal Church, Evansburg, PA. He was married to Marion Burgstresser and father of a daughter, Isabelle.

The other items on the agenda of that unusual meeting, together with Pettit's election, point to some of the matters that would dominate his six years in office, from 1 November 1970 to 1 November 1976:

(a) The board approved a STUDENT "BILL OF RIGHTS", which drew lines of freedom and limitation on student political activities. Its official title was URSINUS COLLEGE STUDENT FREEDOMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Students reacted to the final document with reserve, and USGA leaders were looking to other agendas by then. Students almost instantly forgot the statement, probably because they perceived that it made little difference in their life on campus. Given the expert legal professionals on the board of directors, bargaining over documents such as this usually saw students failing to gain their objectives in full. The administration and board usually sought to conserve the status quo. They would buy time, watch student leadership grow tired and move on, and then close on issues with little fanfare and with little substantively changed in the policies of the college.

(b) It also received reports from Millard Gladfelter and Paul I. Guest, '38, on conversations with students about their expectations for changes in student life policy.

(c) It learned of the signing of a contract for the construction of a new health and physical education facility with Wm. C. Ehret Contractors; groundbreaking was to take place the following day. The building cost was $3, 449, 307.

(d) The board received a glowing report on fund-raising from Paul I. Guest, '38, chairman of the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive. Guest said the campaign had reached its goal of $2.9 million. He also reported on the borrowing of $4.4 million in capital funds for facility improvement from the Pennsylvania Higher Education Facilities Authority and the successful application for a federal interest subsidy grant to help pay for the loan. Of the combined gifts and loan funds thus obtained, Guest said to his fellow board members: "[They] should be adequate to accommodate all reasonable need for physical facilities at Ursinus College for at least the next ten years. You are justified in claiming credit for lifting Ursinus College to the plateau it now occupies."

(e) William F. Heefner, '42, chairman of the board's newly created ad hoc academic development committee, reported on his discussions with faculty members and his scheduled discussions with student leaders. These discussions were laying the groundwork for the next development initiative that would span most of Pettit's administration, the CENTURY II PROGRAM. Faculty criticisms of the program five years later would become a significant problem.

22 October 1970 A senior faculty member, soon to retire, printed a letter critical of the presidential selection process. DONALD G. BAKER, professor of classical languages, sent a letter to the Weekly. He referred to what he thought was "the callous indifference to student and faculty opinion in the selection of a new president." Baker thus lived up to his reputation as an outspoken critic on the faculty. Formally, the board had brought a faculty committee in for consultation. The members were ROGER P. STAIGER, '43, of chemistry, GEOFFREY DOLMAN of English and Admissions, and CALVIN D. YOST, JR., '30, of English and the library. The committee had written a set of criteria for a new president. Although they did not apply in all cases to Pettit, the faculty group in the end endorsed his selection. They added the proviso that the board should continue looking for a younger person. Despite this faculty participation, Baker’s forthright if awkward public statement probably caught the quiet sentiments of some other colleagues.

Students who were unhappy with the selection process or the outcome understood that they had potential allies among the faculty. They knew too that student attitudes toward the faculty would not permit the kind of student-faculty entente that they saw forming on university campuses and at some colleges.

One of the more perceptive student observers was "the kitchen cynic," JANE SIEGEL, '72. Her acerbic and literate commentary on the campus scene helped disturb the peace but also at times threw some light on the way things were. In her 29 October 1970 column, Siegel told students of the untapped energy of the faculty in the struggle for change. "The faculty represents the largest untapped source of unappreciated support on this campus," she wrote. "In many ways the faculty’s situation looks grimmer than ours....We, the students, have a student leader to complain to. They, the faculty, have an administrator as their leader. With things that hairy, paranoia becomes violently contagious....So, an operative union of students and faculty is logical if students would ever care to reorder certain priorities. They [faculty] don’t want to decide our curfews any more than we want to name and number their courses....A mutual admiration society seems to be in order." Cynic Siegel, however, did not think Ursinus students could narrow the gap between themselves and their classroom mentors in the interest of institutional change: "Say the word ‘faculty’ to most students and they’d just as soon walk into a wall as enlist their help."

The underlying attitude of those faculty who shared Baker’s viewpoint remained muted for the time being. As the Pettit administration evolved and their concerns grew, it gradually gained voice, until in 1975 it surfaced as a formal protest lodged with the board of directors.

31 October 1970 In his final report to the board, PRESIDENT DONALD L. HELFFERICH expressed his sense of what he had gone through as a president and also what he proposed doing when he left office.

"Ideas and plans did not work," he said, reflecting on the past dozen years, "unless I worked. The things we want to happen we must make happen, because all odds are against timely miracles." When one assessed the accomplishments of his administration, particularly in terms of physical plant improvement, it seemed that he indeed had worked a miracle. Moreover, the momentum of his efforts at campus building would carry on into the next administration. Those familiar with his high profile on campus had a hard time imagining him in a different position in the future. However, his report tried to reassure them--and perhaps himself--that he could play a different role as a new person stepped into the president's chair. He wrote a self-deprecating little verse as follows:

And so to retreat--perchance to dream;

I'm still running little errands for the faculty and dean.

In that same report, Helfferich said that he moved comfortably out of office--"to the cryptic bench marked Chancellor"--because the president's chair was being filled "by the best man available to successfully complete the second step of the Ten-Year Development Program." WILLIAM S. PETTIT succeeded Helfferich on 1 November 1970.

13 November 1970 At its fall meeting, the BOARD OF DIRECTORS elected President Pettit a member of the board. Paul Guest gave him a gold centennial medallion and told him that the board elected him unanimously, "evidence that the Board was in back of him."

The board also formally approved the election of RICHARD G. BOZORTH as academic dean to replace newly elected President Pettit and of JAMES P. CRAFT, JR, as assistant dean in place of Bozorth.

THEODORE R. SCHWALM, president of the board, commented on the outgoing president and the new president: "I wish to pay tribute to Dr. Helfferich....I also wish to pay tribute to Dr. Pettit because he is falling into a position that is very difficult because of the illustrious leadership we had before." Schwalm captured a tension in his double-edged compliment that remained throughout Pettit's administration, during which Helfferich played the unique role of chancellor. Mutual respect between these veteran comrades in college administration and their overriding loyalty to the aims of the institution converted the tension into a positive force for the good of the institution.

For instance, when faculty criticism of Pettit surfaced, Helfferich sought a hearing at a luncheon meeting of the Pariahs, a group of mostly veteran faculty. His mission was to lubricate the communication line between faculty and president. Helfferich drew upon old relationships and respect for his position to improve the climate.

(According to a Pariah member, when Helfferich's first visit or two appeared to be helpful, he asked if he could hold regular membership in the group. The secret vote did not lead to a positive outcome. The Pariahs came into being when Helfferich, as president, banned faculty from meeting in the back room of the college kitchen, then managed by chief steward Joe Lynch. Cast out by their leader, they found other places to chat. Helfferich might have guessed that founding members of the Pariahs would have seen a certain contradiction if he were to become one of them.)

15 November 1970 WILLIAM S. PETTIT symbolically assumed the presidency at the FOUNDERS' DAY convocation. In his inaugural address, Pettit acknowledged the duress under which college presidents were serving in that year of continuing unrest on campuses. He took forthright vows to do his best and to continue being the person the campus knew well from his long years of service, longer than any faculty member save one.

"'The devil one knows is better than the devil he doesn't know,'" Pettit said to the faculty, quoting his grandfather. "I hope that this humble aphorism gives you comfort....Even if it were my wish I could have no secrets from you. Although I regret the validity of the charge, you can consider me to be predictable, even in my unpredictability. We do know how to adjust to each other. Even those of you who have forever eschewed chemistry are pretty good at writing equations for a reaction with me. Both bane and blessing accompany this familial state in which we find ourselves. I have long been one of you and I hope that our future will be marked with continued cooperation, confidence, understanding, and good will. I want it that way."

5 March 1971 The BOARD OF DIRECTORS established an emergency management plan in case President Pettit became incapacitated. The board authorized chancellor Helfferich and vice president Richter to carry on the duties of the president in his stead. Fortunately, owing to Pettit's strong constitution, the college never had to activate this plan.

1 November 1972 (approximate) President Pettit's fall message to alumni emphasized that the college was newly poised to "develop wisdom" in students. He pointed to the comprehensiveness of physical plant additions and improvements as a backdrop for the task of the 1970s. He observed "changing student attitudes" (the waning of the anger of the late 1960s). He defined the role of faculty in this promising setting to be more ambitious than that of providing the fundamentals of undergraduate learning. They had a "larger charge" to help students develop "goodness and maturity" while they conveyed those fundamentals.

This may have sounded like an old theme at a college founded on Christian principles. It rang a timely note, however, as the president sought to identify distinctiveness for Ursinus in the uncertain conditions of the emerging decade. While most faculty might embrace the goal, the means to achieving it would become more problematic. Faculty would become increasingly concerned about their economic welfare. Students, although less angry than those of recent years, would carry forward the push of the late 1960s for greater control of their social life and even their academic life.

Pettit expanded on the theme of morals and ethics in a subsequent publication that fall: "The private, independent college must increasingly assume some of the basic responsibilities that earlier were associated with the home, the church and the school. As these institutions...abandon the roles that we have come to expect of them, of moral preceptor, of instructor in patriotic tradition and exemplar of well-bred demeanor, those of who believe in the Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the love of country and the importance of courteous and civil behavior must discover new and acceptable means of stating our beliefs and setting an example in a way convincing to those who come under our charge for instruction."

In issuing this presidential call, Pettit would have been mindful of the board's adoption of a policy statement on the conservative philosophic temper of Ursinus. Helfferich had delivered it at the centennial dinner in January 1970, and the board adopted it as policy in May 1970. It functioned as a prologue for the new administration. It was sometimes hard for some newer faculty to understand the position of the college on student social rules. In such a statement as this, Pettit offered them an explanation. The themes of "well-bred demeanor" and "courteous and civil behavior" connected a high-minded conservative vision of liberal education with the nitty-gritty issues of student life in the dorms.

1 February 1973 President Pettit asked alumni to help ward off a "DEPRESSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION." His memo in the Ursinus magazine pointed to his pervasive concern about the external conditions in higher education and the economy. He differentiated Ursinus from colleges that were suffering from the hard times. Then he urged alumni to help the college avoid mediocrity, which would lead Ursinus to "the downward slide to extinction." He highlighted the importance of alumni help in recruiting exceptional young people for the college. They would be the keys to remaining above average as an institution.

2 October 1973 EUGENE H. MILLER, '33, of political science announced to faculty colleagues that the new FACULTY LOUNGE in renovated Bomberger Hall was for one and all. The new lounge in the basement became a common meeting ground for a number of faculty whose offices were in Bomberger and elsewhere. A contingent from Pfahler Hall would trek across campus between classes for a friendly coffee break with Miller and others now reinstalled in their renovated old haunt. It was here that their shared discontent over salaries and governance strengthened a bond. Here they girded their resolve to act and later showed around the draft of the 17 October 1975 "letter of concerns" addressed to the board of directors.

30 August 1975 President Pettit hinted at the personal discomfort caused by growing PUBLIC PRESSURE on his decision-making responsibilities. Writing in the Ursinus Bulletin, he said, "Sometimes a President in self-pity envisions himself a pawn, as in a game of chess where of any sixteen pieces he is of lowest rank. Someone is always telling him where to go or what to do." Always disposed to stand tough, he added, "But seldom does he go and infrequently does he do as told." He went on to praise the faculty's role in achieving the mission of the college. Leaders of the faculty by this time, however, were already preparing to write a "letter of concerns" about the flow of events at the college.

5 March 1976 President Pettit announced to the board his intention to retire from office by November 1976. He alluded to his approaching birthday, the normal faculty retirement age. He said that he wanted to end his full-time duties at approximately that age and permit a younger person to bring new ideas and new vitality to the position. Pettit's announcement followed his report on the considerable progress he and faculty were making toward goals he laid out in December. They had been responses to the faculty letter of concerns of 17 October 1975. At the meeting were a faculty member and a student guest, attending in the spirit of greater involvement in governance discussions. Pettit reported on the appointment of economics professor HARRY SYMONS to the campus investment committee and on the formation of a faculty advisory priorities committee. Three persons had been elected--JOHN D. PILGRIM of economics, GEORGE STOREY of English, and BLANCHE B. SCHULTZ, '41, of mathematics. Pettit spoke of advocating a hefty tuition increase to improve the income stream on which improved faculty salaries depended. After months of intense give-and-take on governance and salary issues among faculty, board, and administration, his report, capped by his retirement announcement, pointed to a kind of closure, or, at least, to an orderly process of transition.

During his six years at the helm, Pettit guided the fortunes of the college through a vexing period. There were no models to follow as the economy went into double-digit inflation. He drew upon the best wisdom he could find to weather the problems. His unquestioning commitment to the board’s "conservative" policy demonstrated his own commitment to principle, although it made him less flexible when compelled to deal with student and faculty pressures. The pressures of the external environment brought to him not only inflation but also a new competitiveness in the student marketplace as the nation's youth moved beyond the anger of the late 1960s. The faculty, invigorated by new blood, and aroused by the economic dilemma, reached out for a new role in governance. Pettit designed a response to concerns that allowed him, the board, and the faculty to preserve stability and authority while acknowledging the seriousness of the problems. Meanwhile, he expanded the fund-raising potential of the college and completed the ambitious campus master plan begun in the previous administration. With a lifetime of teaching and administering at Ursinus behind him, he spoke for the institution with intimacy and devotion to its mission. He timed his announcement to depart office in order to give maximum advantage to a successor and to reinforce the stability and continuity of the college in a difficult time. One activist faculty member said, "I may have disagreed with him, but I never doubted that he put the interest of the college above everything else in whatever he did as president."

Board president THEODORE R. SCHWALM commended Pettit's service: "The Board is deeply grateful for the leadership President Pettit gave to Ursinus during one of the most difficult eras in American higher education. The quality of the educational process improved and the financial position of the college remained secure under the direction of President Pettit."

In his final months as president, Pettit played an instrumental role in preparing the college for the orderly turnover of leadership. His quiet counsel to the person who succeeded him during and after the search process met with gratitude.

Pettit's parting reflections on his 44 years at Ursinus underscored the theme of continuity. "Continuity at Ursinus is a phenomenon. I realize this when the passage of time almost overwhelms me. In my early years on this campus I talked and dined many times with a member of the first graduating class of 1873. I was employed by the man who was the college's second dean in its history and married by the third one and ultimately became the sixth one. I guess that these facts are important only to me, but it does show how one life can span the history of an institution."

Pettit at the close of his presidency expressed an emotional attachment to the institution where he spent his entire professional career. He noted his affinity for the Ursinus values of hard work, serious study, and thrift. He spoke of the steady progress of the college since his entry on the scene in 1933 and predicted for it a glowing future.

11 March 1976 Students expressed the desire to have an official part in the SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NEW PRESIDENT. ROBERT SIMON, ‘77, articulated the widely felt view in a letter to the editor (Weekly, 11 March 1976). Simon had been the lead signatory on the student petition letter of 8 November 1975. As a high-achieving chemistry major, he had close ties with his departmental mentors, two of whom were among the faculty leaders who drafted the 17 October 1975 faculty letter of concerns. This student viewpoint reinforced the faculty view that a representative body should search for President Pettit’s successor.

Simon based his argument on economics. Students paid tuition and had the right to a voice. He also said that the college had a need to nurture institutional trust and goodwill. The board of directors appointed two students to the advisory committee to search for the new president. One of them, LAWRENCE DALAKER, '78, presented the final recommendation of the committee to the board when it met in special session on 22 May 1976 to make a decision.

17 March 1976 The faculty elected a three-person committee to prepare a set of SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT. Elected were Blanche Schultz, '41, Ronald Hess, and John Pilgrim. At the 7 April 1976 faculty meeting, the committee presented for approval a set of six criteria. They referred to "a commitment to the values and purposes of a private liberal education in a changing social and academic environment"; an ability to represent the college with the various constituencies "and act as a mediator of differences between these groups"; an ability to represent the college externally; "superior administrative ability"; "teaching or administrative experience at a college or university." To this set, Richard Fletcher, speaking for the AAUP, presented a motion to assure that "the best possible person be found to fill the position." He therefore proposed that, if the right person were not found by 1 November 1976, "the time for search be extended and if necessary an interim or acting president be chosen" who would not be a candidate for the position. At the same faculty meeting on 7 April, President Pettit invited faculty to elect a colleague to serve on an advisory committee to the board's presidential selection committee. They chose Gayle Byerly of English. The board later appointed Evan S. Snyder, '44, of physics as the second faculty member.

Finally at the 7 April meeting, President Pettit invited faculty members to answer two questions: (1) Are you yourself interested in becoming a candidate for president? (2) Among present faculty members, who is best qualified and would be your first choice for the office? Answers went to the board president in sealed envelopes.

22 May 1976 At a special meeting, the board of directors elected RICHARD P. RICHTER to succeed President Pettit on 1 November 1976. Richter served under Pettit as vice president for administrative affairs. The meeting took place in the president's dining room of Wismer Hall. Pettit had advised Richter to be on call nearby. An advisory committee with student, faculty, and alumni representatives reported their recommendation to the board members, who then voted. The decision remained an open secret until board president THEODORE R. SCHWALM announced it at commencement on 30 May 1976.

Pettit was out of town for a portion of the summer after the announcement. During that time, Richter was free to develop his plans for a new administration. Pettit was a gentle adviser when he felt advice would help and a discreet observer of transition plans at all times. Pettit and Richter continued working together as they had during the entire six years. This led to a smooth ending and a well-anticipated beginning for the old and the new administrations.

20 September 1976 President Pettit wrote his final memo to alumni in the September Bulletin before leaving office. He expressed gratitude for the chance to serve and for the support given by so many in the community. He gave a generous endorsement to the incoming president and urged alumni to give him their support. An excerpt: "If I were handed a block of time and a bundle of blue books of the type that for so long ruled my life, I could write the names of 5,000 to 10,000 loyal and friendly supporters of the College who have been, are, and will be the College itself…. Open up the flood gates of your good will, rededicate your zeal, volunteer your support and as long as you live be a functioning part of the vital Ursinus mechanism. I know that your reward will then exceed your effort. Do what you can to gain [the new president's] gratitude as you have gained mine."

19 November 1976 President Pettit made his final annual report to the board of directors. He forthrightly took credit for the successes of his six-year tenure. He specified the most important financial markers for the board. The annual Loyalty Fund kept growing each year, setting an all-time high of $209,000 in 1975-76. Total gifts and grants since 1970 totaled $6.3 million. The federal government’s interest subsidy for the gymnasium brought a long-term value of $2.3 million to the college. The endowment funds grew by $2.5 million to $9 million. Total college assets increased by $ 12.2 million to $31.5 million.

In departing, Pettit was witty, gracious, and generous. His equanimity in the teeth of the complaints voiced in the preceding year by faculty and students set a confident and determined tone as he handed over authority to a new president.

B. Finances

(1) Finance and Budget

31 October 1970 The board of directors increased TUITION AND FEES for the 1971-72 academic year. Tuition went up from $1800 to $1900 for a 5.5% increase. Room and board fees went up from $1000 to $1050 for a 5% increase.

As the national economy heated up in the following years and cost of living skyrocketed, the college maintained its relatively modest charges from year to year. Never during the 1970-76 period did it come near the double-digit increases it saw in the cost of materials and supplies, especially energy. In one year, energy costs went up 70% in spite of economies in operational procedures and a campaign to change behavior. The chart below shows the increases by year through most of the period. The addition of a fee for the College Union in 1972-73 went entirely toward paying the new cost of operating the Union building.

The gap between increases for tuition and fees and for the cost of materials and supplies was significant through the period. Faculty and staff grew unhappy over the shrinkage in the purchasing power of their salaries. Meanwhile, market forces in this period began to affect total enrollment and therefore total income from tuition and fees. Added personnel and activities beefed up the recruiting process and that produced a satisfactory number of new students each year. However, students dropping out caused the total enrollment to be uncertain. This added to budgeting problems. College funds for student financial aid were handed out on a need-only basis; the strategy that developed years later for targeting the "discount" in accordance with institutional priorities had not yet emerged.

YEAR TUITION ROOM & BOARD ACTIVITIES UNION TOTAL

1970-71 1800 1000 20 0 2820

1971-72 1900 1050 20 0 2970

1972-73 2050 1100 20 3170

1973-74 2150 1100 20 25 3295

1974-75 2250 1150 20 25 3445

3 March 1971 The faculty recommended that the board of directors approve increases in FACULTY REIMBURSEMENT for professional meetings. The recommendation came through an ad hoc committee investigating reimbursement practices at other colleges. It urged the college to eliminate restrictions on payments to non-tenured members. It also recommended that amounts of reimbursement increase until they were equal to those paid at selected sister institutions. Finally, it recommended increases over time to keep pace with inflation.

When the faculty voted to send this recommendation directly to the board, President Pettit, presiding over the meeting, warned that immediate implementation might not be possible. Though unremarked upon at the time, sending a faculty action directly to the board of directors constituted a significant shift in procedure. When the faculty sent a "letter of concerns" to the board on 17 October 1975, one of the board responses reaffirmed the president’s function as the sole conduit between the faculty and the board. On the issue at hand, Pettit put a policy statement before the board on faculty benefits that was "not an attempt to curb activities but to limit unnecessary ones."

19 May 1971 The faculty elected a committee to study FACULTY SALARY structure and policies for increments. The proposal originated with the Ursinus chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The faculty referred the matter to the standing committee on promotion and tenure, augmented by three others elected by the faculty. (Faculty minutes, 19 May 1971)

The committee reported its findings to the faculty at the 1 December 1971 meeting. F. DONALD ZUCKER, speaking for the committee, made the following observations: (1) Salaries of full professors should be raised to make them competitive with those at similar institutions. (2) Recent increments lagged behind cost-of-living increases. (3) Faculty members who went on leave received no increases and fell behind others in rank. (4) Performance evaluations would be useful to the dean and president in deciding on annual increments. (Faculty minutes, 1 December 1971)

From a faculty point of view, keeping up a study of salaries served to remind the administration and board of the deficiencies in salaries. Faculty feared that the administration was being lax in finding solutions to the vexing problems of the cost-of-living explosion. A year later the faculty’s recommendations for salary improvement went before the board, with no effects that satisfied faculty.

12 November 1971 President Pettit reported to the board on worsening FINANCIAL CONDITIONS in Pennsylvania's colleges and universities. A survey for The Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) by the consultant, McKinsey & Co., showed that the vast majority of institutions were becoming financially more vulnerable. Pettit was able to give good news for Ursinus: a three-percent federal interest subsidy for the physical education building under construction (to become Helfferich Hall) had recently been secured. He went on, however, to express his concern about the external conditions in higher education. Public disillusionment with colleges in the wake of disruption and violence, cutbacks in government assistance, the likely inroads on private-college enrollment by the new community colleges, weakening demand in admissions, a "grim" placement market for graduates--in these developments Pettit saw rough sailing for Ursinus and sister colleges. However, he was optimistic about Ursinus's chances of remaining among those institutions strong enough to weather the financial conditions emerging in the new decade.

12 November 1971 The college INVESTED $500,000 of its permanent funds in The Common Fund, a mutual fund supported by the Ford Foundation. Half was committed at the May board meeting and half at the meeting on 12 November. The Ford Foundation started the no-load fund as a service to American colleges and universities. Ursinus’s investment management was in the hands of a small campus investment committee, led by chancellor D. L. Helfferich. The movement of a half million dollars to external management was a first step toward professionalizing the college’s investment practices. It anticipated the time when Helfferich would no longer be on the scene and the time when the endowment would be larger. The timing of this entry into the Common Fund was unfortunate. The financial distress of the nation was just in the offing and adversely affected the college's investment in the Common Fund. The fault lay in the environment, however, more than in the management practices of the Common Fund.

7 February 1972 President Pettit urged department heads to budget for 1972-73 with economy in mind, owing to added debt service for new buildings and increasing inflation. He cautioned that he would not approve expenditures in the course of the operating year if they had been unanticipated in the approved budget. He stressed that department heads should make their budget by reviewing departmental policies and objectives.

The tightness of funds would continue to mount during the 1970-1976 period. In April 1972, the board budget committee approved the budget with the following understanding: "…because present adverse trends in income and expense are expected to continue, the president will prepare the faculty for the possibility of a moratorium on capital expenditures for next year's budget." The tightness of funds also kept a tight cap on salary increases. In the next couple of years, this became for the faculty a sharper and sharper bone of contention with the administration and board.

3 May 1972 President Pettit told faculty of constraints needed to assure the FINANCIAL SOLVENCY of the college. He anticipated cutbacks in 1972-73 in the number of student self-help workers. He also was forecasting a moratorium on expenditures for faculty travel and for capital equipment. He hoped that the administration could "avoid cutting or freezing faculty salaries." The latter message ran against the grain of faculty sentiments about the rising cost of living.

12 May 1972 FRINGE BENEFITS for faculty and other full-time employees expanded when the college added a total disability insurance program through Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association. Participation was mandatory, with the college paying 50% and the employee 50%.

12 May 1972 Communication from faculty to the board called for SALARY IMPROVEMENTS to meet the rising cost of living. It was based on a resolution at the 5 April 1972 faculty meeting, offered by the loosely organized faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The faculty group recommended that salary increments be "sufficient to meet immediately the increased cost of living"and that "faculty salaries be raised as soon as possible to correspond to Category IIB-2 on the national AAUP salary scale."

President Pettit willingly conveyed the message from faculty to board. At the April meeting, however, he had felt obliged to caution the faculty about the financial realities of the college. In light of the faculty’s criticism of Pettit’s financial priorities later in his administration, his statement to the faculty bears noting, as recorded in the faculty minutes of 5 April 1972: "The president expressed his sympathy with the resolution and his endorsement of the objective stated in part 2 [to raise salaries to correspond to category IIB-2 on the AAUP salary scale]. But he said he would not favor committing the college to a policy on which it could not deliver, namely, basing salary increments on the cost of living. He explained the precarious situation of private higher education today and the special financial problems of Ursinus, which stem from the indebtedness incurred in the building of the new gymnasium, the necessity for remodeling Bomberger Hall, and the plans for a student union."

Neither the board nor the administration disagreed with the faculty’s expressed goal to improve salaries. The board had given its general endorsement to improvement in the form of CENTURY II program goals. Faced with the need to present a manageable budget, the administration allotted increased expenditures for salaries in very modest portions, the best it felt it could do. President Pettit continually tried to temper his support for increased salaries with realistic words to the faculty against undue optimism. These cautionary words in the ears of many faculty members came to sound as if Pettit opposed the goal of improving salaries. In time, they came to think that his agreement with them in principle had little practical significance in light of the budgetary limits he felt he had to draw.

17 November 1972 President Pettit publicly reported that the 1971-72 FISCAL YEAR ending June 30 showed a "miniscule deficit." His report to the board advanced this information as a sign of effective fiscal management, since the college had avoided a budgeted operating deficit of significant magnitude by adroit control of expenses. In fact, the college easily could have eliminated the deficit showing on the books with a sharp accounting pencil. However, the administration judged that a nominal deficit would reflect both the reality of the fiscal climate and the prudence of management. While it did both, it also provided some foundations with an excuse for eliminating Ursinus from their list of eligible grantees. This unintended side effect on fund-raising took some years to live down. Charitable foundations and individual donors increasingly were wary of bailing out colleges with financial woes.

6 December 1972 Faculty members asked whether the CENTURY II program would be adequate to improve FACULTY SALARIES. The query came in response to President Pettit’s comments on the general financial condition of the college at the monthly faculty meeting. He had said that the tight money situation would preclude a rise in faculty salaries at the rate of recent years: "The curve must level out," he is reported to have said. H. CONRAD MEYER, speaking for the AAUP group, said, "We are...faced with a serious administrative problem in obtaining and holding a faculty that can provide the superior education that justifies the continued existence of Ursinus. The Century II program was designed in part to alleviate this problem. The faculty asks to be advised: (1) when income from this program will be made available for the stated purpose. (2) Whether the program requires review or revision if it is to be adequate for the stated purpose."

Both Pettit and vice president Richter reacted to the faculty query. Pettit said Century II would not in itself be adequate. Fund drives "henceforth need to be a permanent and continuous activity of the college." Richter, who was the administrator responsible for executing Century II, said that Century II goals originally "were based on the assumption that the college would move quickly toward an enrollment of 1250--an assumption that has not been realizable. Hence, larger amounts than were anticipated have had to be applied to the operating budget." (Faculty minutes, 6 December 1972)

While such explanations rested on fact and made sense to the administrators and the board, they did little to lessen the discontent of hard-pressed faculty members. The faculty continued to look for more money rather than plausible explanations for not receiving it. Their unsatisfied salary expectations reflected a more general concern about the state of the college as the 1970-1976 period advanced.

13 June 1973 The national Cost of Living Council declared a 60-day price freeze to deal with the inflationary economy. It included college tuition, room and board fees in the freeze. However, the freeze ended in August and did not prevent Ursinus from increasing its charges. The freeze dramatized the DIFFICULT FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT in which the college had to operate.

16 November 1973 President Pettit called for a "supreme effort" to improve FACULTY SALARIES. He declared to the board that faculty were among those most punished by the inflationary economy. He announced a "requirement" for the year ahead--"a supreme effort to move in the direction of restoring the purchasing power that our faculty members have lost during the recent year or two and additionally to support a substantial number of merit increases in salary. To this end we must direct our careful and thoughtful attention."

Pettit's clarity about this need is unmistakable. Yet, he chose words carefully to avoid painting the board and the administration into a corner. The difficult financial environment did not abate in the year ahead, despite small advances made in meeting the goals for faculty support in the CENTURY II program. The president's words did not tell sufficiently on the ears of faculty, and the budget did not yield sufficient room for meaningful salary increases. This led to growing unhappiness in the faculty. It fed a feeling that the board should receive a message directly from the faculty itself. It would take two years for this feeling to result in action.

15 November 1974 The board approved a special SALARY SUPPLEMENT because of the effects of high inflation on purchasing power of faculty and staff. Each full-time employee of the college received $200, half on 30 November 1974 and half on 31 January 1975. Each part-time employee received $100. Some faculty and staff appreciated the good intentions behind this gesture by the board. For others it was too little too late. Moreover, the form of the benefit seemed to some to be patronizing. It thus did little to soften hard feelings that were growing. There was a sense among some that the college was better off financially than it was revealing. They felt that the college could and should pay more to faculty right away.

25 April 1975 President Pettit announced a special BUDGET addition for faculty salary increases in 1975-76 at a special faculty gathering. He told faculty he asked the budget committee to insert a separate but provisional item of $50,000 for salary increases. The decision to go ahead with the increases or not would be made in November. It would depend on the enrollment outcome, which heavily determined the amount of operating income. The faculty's 17 October 1975 letter of concerns jumped the gun on Pettit's announced timetable for salary decisions. The college did pay supplements in the course of the 1975-76 academic year.

Pettit called the informational 25 April meeting with faculty following approval of the 1975-76 budget by the board budget committee. In addition to his report on the possible salary supplement, he told the faculty that the budget exceeded $5 million for the first time. He said that the board was budgeting a deficit and that the college had to "make the supreme effort" to pay newly advanced energy costs resulting from the inflationary economy.

The president referred to the downward trend in total enrollment. He asked faculty to help reverse it by identifying new students and encouraging students not to transfer elsewhere. "Student recruitment isn't in your job description, but it does represent your bread and butter," he said. He ended by trying to give some encouragement without making an out-and-out promise of the salary increment at that moment: "I recognize that you may gain faint consolation from uncertainty. I do want you to know that your situation is sympathetically understood and that there is a will to do something about it."

1 May 1975 A student columnist criticized the college’s emphasis on HOLDING DOWN OPERATING EXPENDITURES. Senior MARILYN HARSCH, '75, the Weekly’s "obtuse observer," thought that "in this age of consumerism" the emphasis on remaining inexpensive was coming to make the college look "just plain cheap." She pinpointed part-time positions in public relations, the alumni office, the placement office, and maintenance. They should be staffed full-time to make a better outcome, she argued. She also thought the college should target financial aid to strengthen sports teams instead of distributing it even-handedly based on need only. (Her notion of targeting was ahead of its time. Ursinus turned toward "preferential packaging" in the eighties, but, under Division III NCAA rules, athletes could not be among those targeted.)

16 May 1975 The board approved a 1975-76 OPERATING BUDGET showing a half-million dollar deficit. The physical plant director estimated a 70% increase in energy costs for the new budget year and promised to keep looking for operating economies. He would look for help from a newly appointed energy advisory committee. It would work to encourage faculty, students, and staff to become more diligent in conserving energy. The tight budget was making it difficult to hire competent maintenance workers, compounding the effort to achieve savings in the plant operation. A small initial sum was set aside in a contingency fund for plant depreciation, an innovation in budgeting for the college prompted by the higher operating costs brought on by the expansion of the physical plant. Despite the tightness of the moment, this far-seeing approach added strength to the operation for the long-term. President Pettit plugged for better pay for faculty in his state of the college remarks ("The price of fiscal health is facing reality.") However, with a half-million dollar deficit, he could not see much room to be generous.

30 June 1975 The 1974-75 fiscal year closed with a small OPERATING DEFICIT of $7,000. Insignificant as to amount, the deficit symbolized the difficult operating conditions of the time. President Helfferich had focused steadily on restoring fiscal stability to the college through the fifties and sixties; a negative operating result, however small, seemed to some like a backward step--although a bit of bookkeeping manipulation could have erased it.

The college measured the damage of inflation to the operating budget by comparing energy costs. They tripled in a three-year period and threatened to jump from $160,000 to $250,000 in 1975-76. HOWARD E. SCHULTZE, director of physical plant, was agile in seeking mechanical and human interventions to contain these costs. A campus-wide energy conservation committee had some success in changing campus behavior. These measures had an effect on costs. Ursinus showed savings in energy costs that many colleges could not match. Nevertheless, these savings were small as a percentage of total expenditures.

8 January 1976 The Weekly editorialized in favor of a $400 TUITION INCREASE for 1976-77. At the time, many students, along with the Weekly, were upset over an administration-student clash over a party in Suite 200 of the New Men’s Dorm (Reimert Hall). They also knew that faculty, upset in their own right, were petitioning the board for changes in salary and governance. It was a timely moment for students to support the increase proposed by the administration.

The editorialist, RUTH L. von KUMMER, '76, understood--better than some faculty, perhaps--that CENTURY II gifts did not suffice to pay for the increased operating costs and salary improvements necessitated by double-digit inflation. She also saw the need to avoid an operating deficit. Students and their families, said von Kummer, needed to do their fair share to ensure the stability of their college. "In light of the recent social occurrences at Ursinus, some people may be even more hesitant to support the college. However, it seems hypocritical to damage our educational careers while we fight another struggle, which, to us, is equally significant. It would violate our belief that we have clear and responsible opinions. Instead, our support denotes our importance as a definite part of the college...." Student leaders always were asking the college to take them seriously as young adults. By showing "adult" support for the tuition increase, von Kummer was hoping that the administration would reciprocate by acknowledging the adulthood of students in their dormitory environment.

17 March 1976 President Pettit reported to the faculty that the priorities committee was drawing up a new forward-looking FACULTY SALARY scale. He made a report on the actual base pay and total compensation figures by rank. Pettit had created the committee, to which faculty elected three members, in response to the 17 October 1975 letter of concerns from the faculty. It created a legitimized venue where faculty could discuss salaries with the administration. Through most of the 1970-76 period, their representations to the president and board on salary needs took the form of floor resolutions from AAUP. Their actions had a confrontational overtone that made it difficult for the administration and faculty to work together on the issue. The changes in structure and process brought by Pettit in the aftermath of the letter of concerns now encouraged a common search for consensus. The priorities committee became an essential tool of administration-faculty cooperation in the next administration.

(2) Financial Development

30 June 1970 The ALL-URSINUS ANNIVERSAY DRIVE, chaired by Paul I. Guest, '38, successfully ended after three years (1967-1970) with $2.9 million in private funds raised. The drive supported the improvement and expansion of the physical plant. It specifically raised funds for Myrin Library, opened in October 1970, the life science building (later named Thomas Hall in honor of L.G. Lee Thomas, a board member, and his family), opened in September 1970, Helfferich Hall, the physical education facility (1972), and the College Union (1973), housed in the old Alumni Memorial Library building.

1 March 1971 (approximate) President Pettit announced receipt of a $50,000 gift from the RICHARD KING MELLON FOUNDATION in support of the health and physical education facility, then under construction. R. K. Mellon was one of several foundations from which the college received substantial support in the 1970-1976 period. Pew Memorial Trust provided the most generous support. In early 1972, for example, it gave $100,000 toward the gymnasium, Mabel Pew Myrin’s final deed for the college before her death. Other significant foundation supporters during the period were Haas Community Funds; the Techalloy Foundation, operated by new board member David Schmid; Surdna Foundation; Oxford Foundation, operated by John H. Ware 3rd, who joined the Ursinus board; Arcadia Foundation, operated by the Steinbright family (Marilyn Steinbright joined the board in 1975); Hearst Foundation (the Hearst family was a grateful client of board member Thomas J. Beddow, ‘36); Kresge Foundation; William T. Morris Foundation; Corson Foundation (Philip and later John E.F. Corson were board members); Gulf Oil Foundation (Alexander Lewis, ‘38, who joined the board, was president of the foundation).

5 March 1971 The board of directors formally adopted the CENTURY II PROGRAM for academic advancement. An ACADEMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE of the board, chaired by board member William F. Heefner, '42, led the program. This action completed a transition in fund-raising that began 6 March 1970, when the board created the academic development committee. Before that, the board had no standing committee for financial development.

Heefner was head of the law firm of Curtin & Heefner, Morrisville, Pa. Vice-chairman was Russell C. Ball, Jr., board member and chairman of the Philadelphia Gear Corporation, King of Prussia. Reporting for the committee at the 13 November 1970 board meeting, Ball had articulated the shift in focus intended by the new fund-raising program, then still gestating. Ball had said that "a new program was needed which would fit the quality and capacity of the new physical plant and to find the means to fund that program."

The program laid out the following goals: endowment for faculty development (salary increases, new recruitment, professional growth), $2.2 million; endowment for faculty research fund, $100,000; library acquisitions, $500,000; educational equipment and programs, $500,000; endowment for student financial aid, $2 million; continued capital financing, $1 million. $850,000 was credited toward these objectives from gifts raised during the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive. Net goal of the Program was $5,450,000. ("Second Phase of Ten-Year Development Plan Announced." Ursinus Magazine. Fall 1971, p. 7)

The board raised $1.8 million in pledges at the start of the campaign and then on 12 November 1971 resolved to go public.

The objectives of CENTURY II were reviewed a month before the board approval by the faculty. The academic council of the faculty approved them in principle at a 2 February 1971 meeting, and the whole faculty affirmed the report at a 10 February 1971 meeting. A public relations "case statement" accompanied the objectives. As the academic council reported, the document "offers some examples of the academic improvements Ursinus envisions if sufficient funds can be raised." The conditional tone is important in view of the fault found by the faculty when CENTURY II failed to meet specific goals. The board and administration in 1971 viewed these goals as hopes and dreams rather than as fixed commitments. When the faculty sent its letter of concerns about the shortfalls in 1975, they perceived hopes and dreams as fixed promises.

14 May 1971 WILLIAM F. HEEFNER, '42, chair of the board academic development committee, gave an analytical report on past fund-raising, the goals of the CENTURY II PROGRAM (which ran until 1975), and the institutional and larger context for fund-raising. In a board meeting, he painted a picture of a strong college seeking to become stronger in an unusual recessionary/inflationary economic climate. He emphasized that Century II was different from the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive in its focus on teaching and learning resources rather than on plant expansion.

He announced that the committee expected board members to lead the way with their giving. This was a more aggressive in-house approach than any taken in the past. Heefner was considerate but direct in his presentation to fellow board members. This style would carry him ultimately to the presidency of the board. Following are some excerpts from his remarks:

"Those who attended the dedication of the library on May 2 know to what ends a fund-raising program works. Dollars must be raised, to be sure, but they are mainly the instrumentality for making an institution move to new heights."

"We must sell the idea of growth in quality during a time of some adverse economic pressure on private philanthropy."

"Ursinus always has had the courage to be different. Dr. Helfferich and this Board had such courage in enunciating and adopting ‘The Philosophic Temperament of Ursinus College’ as our ongoing educational view. I am convinced that ‘Century II’ has a uniqueness that links it to that wise decision, and a soundness that is consistent with the philosophic temperament of Ursinus."

"We are not seeking to remake a college; we are seeking to make a fine college do even better what it already does very well."

The board on 12 November 1971, in response to Heefner’s recommendation, voted to take Century II to the public. Up to that point, the committee sought funds quietly from board members and other selected donors.

20 June 1972 (approximate) The URSINUS COLLEGE WOMEN’S CLUB extended its long support of the college with a gift in honor of LOIS (HOOK) BROWNBACK, ‘21. The gift was to furnish a room in the life science building, later named Thomas Hall. Brownback was the widow of HAROLD BROWNBACK, ‘15, legendary builder of the pre-medical program at Ursinus. He had died in 1951. She was the mainstay of the Women’s Club for many years.

The $10,000 gift was just one of several the club gave in this period. It gave an equal amount for furnishing the lounge in Helfferich Hall in honor of ANNA KNAUER HELFFERICH, ‘20. She was a friend and contemporary of Lois Brownback and the first lady of Ursinus during the presidency of her husband, Donald L. Helfferich. It gave $400 to Myrin Library for books on social studies and the humanities in honor of Elmina Brant, for many years secretary of the club.

This spate of gifts from the club capped a history of support for the college dating back to its founding in 1914. Ursinus admitted women students for the first time in 1881, only a dozen years after its founding. Long before the women’s liberation movement changed the conventional place of women in the life of the college, the club’s presence and selective gifts influenced the development of Ursinus. Its influence runs like a thread through the development of the athletic program for women, women’s dormitories, women’s scholarships, and other campus needs such as those in the science building and the gymnasium. Although the gifts were modest in size, they commanded the attention of the administration and board. They lent legitimacy to the voice of women in the evolution of the college.

The Women’s Club in 1916 hired and paid for an instructor of women’s athletics. It sustained the position for a decade before the college incorporated the position in its budget. It set up prizes for outstanding women athletes, thus setting an early course of excellence in athletic achievement for women.

In the 1920s, the club encouraged the college to put a woman on the board and faculty and to appoint a dean of women. RHEA DURYEA JOHNSON, ‘08, was the first woman on the board. Elected in 1926, she served until 1969 and died 13 May 1971. The college appointed ELIZABETH WHITE in 1924 as a member of the history department and dean of women. The club worked to obtain the eligibility of Ursinus alumnae for membership in the American Association of University Women (AAUW). These college appointments met prerequisites set up by AAUW. Starting in 1927, Ursinus women became eligible to join AAUW upon their graduation.

Over the years, the club gave small amounts for women’s dorm needs--chairs, curtains, carpeting. More significant, in 1930 it gave $3,700 for architect’s plans for a new dormitory. Despite this early show of support, a new women’s dormitory would not appear on the campus for another quarter of a century. In addition, the club raised $8,700 between 1937 and 1947 to pay for the purchase of what became Duryea Hall on Main Street. The building took its name from that of club founder and board member Rhea Duryea Johnson.

In its later years, before it disbanded in the 1980s, the club established an endowed scholarship fund in memory of its sparkplug of several decades, Lois (Hook) Brownback.

30 June 1972 THE CENTURY II PROGRAM, seeking a net $5,450,000 over five years (1970-75), raised $1,1998,075 in 1971-72. Total from July 1, 1970, in gifts and pledges was $2,757,500. Russell C. Ball, Jr., became corporations committee chairman, to raise $200,000 for modernizing Pfahler Hall of Science.

Ball, William Heefner, and other fund-raising leaders went on to raise the $5.45 million for Century II by 1975, but with bumps along the way. On 11 May 1973, Heefner reported $3.45 million raised. He told the board, however, that he did not know where the $2 million balance would come from. By 16 November 1973, he counted $3.65 million in the total raised but warned that "the curve of the giving has turned downward. If this continues, we will not reach the goal." Prospects became brighter by the time he made his board report on 15 March 1974. He said the total raised was now $4.76 million, owing largely to "a long-standing friend" who completed arrangements for a substantial gift. The record does not reveal the identity of the friend. On the strength of this success, Heefner began urging the board to go beyond the original goal because the abnormal rate of inflation made original goals less meaningful. He raised the issue more stridently at the 10 May 1974 board meeting because "we...would not have dared to project the runaway diminution in purchasing power of the early 70s even had we realized it." He also began talking about development needs beyond 1975. He did not dwell on the failure of the campaign to meet specific targets for faculty support. This failure would taint the success of the program when faculty specified it in their "letter of concerns" of 17 October 1975.

7 October 1972 Parents' Committee leaders welcomed fellow parents to the annual PARENTS' DAY. ROBERT SCARBOROUGH, New Jersey developer, and his wife, OLIVE, parents of KEVIN, '73, chaired a volunteer committee made up of fourteen other parent couples, continuing an activity that originated some years before. In his letter of invitation to all parents, President Pettit had stated the objective of the event: "I believe that your visit will help you understand the relationships the Ursinus student has with other students and with the faculty and administrative staff. You will see something of the life of your son or daughter and you may understand better the spirit and purpose of Ursinus College."

The committee members met with administrators of the college to air problems and to learn about policies affecting the students. The committee also conducted a "soft-sell" annual fund-raising solicitation by mail. Parents' Day over the years was a product of planning in several administrative offices, dean, dean of women, and development. With the worst days of student unrest in the past, the day in 1972 had a pleasant air. The Scarboroughs were knowledgeable about fraternity life and sports as well as academic life. Kevin was a member of Zeta Chi fraternity and an outstanding wrestler. Like parent leaders before and after them, they carried their volunteer responsibility easily and appeared to enjoy their ability to counsel the college on student affairs. As a public relations and fund-raising device, the Parents' Committee helped sustain the college not only with dollars but also with good will from the people who paid the bills.

The Scarboroughs yielded the leadership of the committee in the following year to Mr. and Mrs. LEONARD F. MARKEL. Markel was an attorney in Norristown, PA. Their daughter, LINDA, '74, was majoring in economics. Mr. Markel said to fellow parents at a meeting on 13 October 1973: "In our society, performance is a primary determinant of status, so we must educate the coming generation to the limits of their abilities. Ursinus should not hesitate to remain small, thus making a special contribution to American education."

Mr. and Mrs. FRANK RABOLD, parents of JUDITH, '76, followed the Markels as leaders of the parents' group. Rabold was purchasing agent for Bethlehem Steel Corporation in Bethlehem. Like Scarborough and Markel, he brought an external perspective to discussions about college policy with President Pettit. This complemented the views on policy that the administration received from members of the board of directors.

17 November 1972 WILLIAM F. HEEFNER, ‘42, spoke about the long-range context of the short-term CENTURY II program. At the fall meeting of the board, Heefner, chair of the academic development committee, encouraged members to give long-range gifts in the form of bequests and trusts. He himself over the years would follow that path in giving his financial support to the college. He said, "This is a lucrative area for the size of gifts Ursinus College will need in the years ahead to meet operating needs and to keep the college academically strong." Outright gifts were needed immediately, he emphasized; "yet Century II is but a step along the way in the broad development of this college."

Heefner was playing the role of educator to the Ursinus board in the lessons of philanthropy. He was one more in a line of individual board members willing to take a lead in fund-raising. The board as a whole, however, had not developed a sense of stewardship equal to that seen at more affluent liberal arts colleges. Nor had the administrative staff yet become professional enough to seek the maximum in new resources current and long-term. Heefner’s experience with charitable entities had given him an up-to-date perspective on longer-term philanthropic strategies. This long view was necessary to help instill in the Ursinus board an ongoing sense of responsibility for fund-raising, a willingness to "reach." In the period at hand, however, it probably made Heefner and his board colleagues--as well as the administration--more tolerant than faculty of the specific shortfalls of Century II. From Heefner’s point of view, any substantial progress made in raising funds through Century II was a gain in itself. Moreover, he believed that it would lay the groundwork for the next phase. Faculty members, seeing failures to reach targets for the academic program, lacked the longer-term insight into resource development enjoyed by Heefner and some (not all) of his board colleagues.

17 November 1972 The board created a new POOLED INCOME FUND to encourage charitable remainder gifts to the college. The provision followed the rules of the 1969 Tax Reform Act. This allowed donors to receive the maximum charitable deduction while reserving income from the gift for themselves for life. Although it took hold slowly, the fund in the course of years became a valuable tool in the fund-raising strategy of the college.

28 December 1972 The college received payment of a $100,000 grant from THE KRESGE FOUNDATION to support the renovation of the old library as the COLLEGE UNION. This arrived as the renovation project neared completion. The College Union opened its doors at the beginning of the spring 1973 semester.

1 February 1973 A warning went up from the administration that CENTURY II would bring less advancement than originally expected. An article in the Ursinus magazine by RICHARD P. RICHTER, vice president for administrative affairs, probably received less attention from the faculty than the administration might have hoped. Richter, echoing warnings expressed by the chair of the campaign and by President Pettit, said, "When we embarked on CENTURY II, we thought that $5.45 million would do more to advance the academic program than in fact it will. Continuing inflation and the new 'no-growth' conditions within higher education itself will diminish its effect somewhat. CENTURY II nonetheless is an important step along the broad road of improvement. It is taking Ursinus in the right direction."

While this was true enough, Richter might have added that CENTURY II was adopted and pursued by the board before sound fund-raising research had been done and before a strong campaign organization had been recruited from willing volunteers. On the positive side, it represented a forward-looking commitment by the board and administration. Their willingness to set up ambitious and comprehensive goals was a kind of affirmation. However naively entered into, CENTURY II indicated that Ursinus was self-confident enough to make big plans and strive to turn them into reality. This was an advance upon the safe parameters of the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive and very different from the cautious commitments made in previous administrations to goals other than bricks and mortar.

Richter grasped for a literary analogy to characterize CENTURY II: "Ernest Hemingway taught us to admire grace under pressure. A college conducting a development program in a period when expansionist trends have ceased is rather like one of Hemingway's bullfighters in the arena. Such a college must carry the project forward with confidence, even though the very act of demonstrating confidence involves risk."

11 May 1973 THE CENTURY II PROGRAM counted $3.45 million raised toward the $5.45 million goal. Program chair William F. Heefner, '42, told the board, "We do not know where the balance of $2 million will come from." At the next meeting on 16 November 1973, he again sounded a warning on the rate of gifts coming in: "The curve of the giving has turned downward. If this continues, we will not reach the goal." In spite of these warnings, the program did achieve its overall objective by 1975. However, donors designated a disproportionate amount for physical plant projects. That left a shortfall of funds designated for faculty salaries and support.

1 June 1973 Former student workers in the dining room and kitchen set up a SCHOLARSHIP FUND to honor veteran steward JOSEPH LYNCH. Leader of the campaign was DR. JAY A. KERN, '54, former headwaiter. Kern was one of scores of students who, since 1947, came under the "tough love" regimen of Lynch, a former prizefighter and roustabout. Lynch had the ability to communicate with the brightest students and faculty from the "other" perspective of a self-taught Irishman with the wit to survive in a dog-eat-dog world. What his management of the food service lacked in business-school sophistication he made up for in practical wisdom and canny psychology. Alumni such as Kern valued their lessons from Lynch long after they moved into their professional pursuits. Gifts to the scholarship fund expressed their appreciation as Lynch headed into the final period of his service.

11 June 1973 Ursinus received its annual distribution of funds from THE FOUNDATION FOR INDEPENDENT COLLEGES, INC., OF PENNSYLVANIA (FIC). Ursinus was among the private colleges that banded together in 1953 to solicit corporate gifts across the state. In its twentieth year of operation, FIC for the first time raised more than $1 million. Participating colleges shared the funds on a formula based on student enrollment. This year Ursinus received $15,771. Over the two decades, its total distribution was $254,751.

John Halliwell, FIC executive director, mobilized presidents and their development officers for several days of visits each year to corporate offices. Vice president Richter augmented President Pettit's effort in this collective activity. Calling on prospects together with partners from other colleges and with business volunteers, Ursinus participants informally swapped insights on higher education, a benefit over and above the dollars raised. FIC totals leveled off after hitting the $1 million mark owing to changing patterns in corporate giving. As the College built up its own fund-raising program among corporations and the need for larger gifts to unrestricted income mounted each year, the FIC yield became less consequential after this milestone year. Halliwell retired in the later 1980s. The Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania absorbed FIC in 1995.

15 November 1974 The CENTURY II program neared its general goal but was falling short of goals to enrich faculty and academic programs. WILLIAM F. HEEFNER, '42, told the board of directors that $5.1 million was pledged or paid. He gave a long report on the problem of allocating gifts to the subordinate campaign goals. Not enough was raised toward faculty development and student aid, he said. Unprecedented double-digit inflation eroded the purchasing power of the gifts raised. Heefner repeated his call to the board to look beyond 1975. He urged the board to take advantage of the momentum in giving built up by Century II. "Let us consider forming a small committee on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, to consider the background and the means to move forward properly and then come up with some positive recommendations to the board by the spring meeting on 7 March 1975." With this recommendation, Heefner finally succeeded in pushing the board toward the creation of a permanent development committee. This would be a prerequisite for later expanding the development staff and increasing the goals for voluntary support.

8 January 1975 President Pettit reported on successes and failures of the plan for raising financial resources at a meeting of the faculty. He said the college would surely attain the $5.45 million general goal of Century II. He warned that inflation had decreased the value of gifts. He also said that earmarking of gifts for goals other than faculty support would prevent the college from making hoped-for salary improvements. He capped this report by saying that he did not expect the college to achieve its stated goal of increasing enrollment to 1,200-1,250 total students. Instead of increasing, enrollment would be down to about 1,056.

30 June 1975 The five-year CENTURY II fund-raising program ended with $5,695,879 raised, more than the goal of $5.4 million announced in 1970. Campaign chairman WILLIAM F. HEEFNER, '42, writing in the September 1975 Ursinus Bulletin, asserted that Century II helped sustain quality at Ursinus amid the marked changes of the first half of the seventies--economic inflation, recession, and new public expectations of higher education. He described it as an exercise in institutional reaffirmation by alumni and other supporters of Ursinus. He acknowledged, however, as the president and others already had, that "because of inflation and other changes unforeseen when the goals of CENTURY II were set in the late 1960s, the program may not have done all that was originally hoped." (A fuller and franker acknowledgment of Century II's shortcomings came from vice president Richter in a written report to the board and faculty dated 10 October 1975.)

In expressing thanks to all for support of the program, Heefner struck a characteristic note of his long leadership as a board member. He emphasized the continuity of the college and its need for support beyond 1975. Additionally, he affirmed the importance of alumni support for the academic mission at the core of the college's life. He would set the example as time went on with his gifts to the music program. He had said to the board in his final Century II report on 16 May 1975, "I have learned once more that one gets more from Ursinus College and good institutions of like nature than one gives, whether that giving represents time, advice, or money." To his successor at the head of the college’s development program, THOMAS J. BEDDOW, '36, he gave a bit of counsel: "Remember that we and our constituency are conservative by nature, but perhaps less so than we say we are."

Heefner chaired a second capital campaign in the 1980s, PATTERNS FOR THE FUTURE. His own generous gifts and those from his mother led to the installation of the Heefner Memorial Organ in Bomberger Hall--a memorial to his late father--and the establishment of one of the first academic chairs to be endowed, the Heefner Chair of Music, occupied from its inception to this writing by JOHN H. FRENCH. Heefner became president of the board in 1990 and served until 1997. Seeing Heefer's personal commitment to the college, many donors new and old reaffirmed their belief in the integrity of the college's development plans. They followed his example in their generous giving through the 1980s and 1990s.

1 July 1975 THOMAS J. BEDDOW, '36, became new chair of the board DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE on completion of the CENTURY II program. Beddow assumed this role in place of WILLIAM F. HEEFNER, '42. Heefner had become chair of the committee--originally called the academic development committee--in 1970 and had led the five-year CENTURY II program. Beddow's mandate would extend from 1975 to 1980. He was a long-time alumni leader on the board, along with contemporaries such as Paul I. Guest, '38 (who chaired the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive in the late 1960s), and Thomas P. Glassmoyer, '36, a classmate and friend of Beddow.

Through the Century II program, the college established the need for continual fund-raising with board leadership. It now looked to Beddow to solidify the existence of the development committee and to keep giving by all constituencies from slipping back in the aftermath of CENTURY II and the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive. The emphasis was on "continuity."

Beddow and the development committee now headed all fund-raising activities. JOSEPH H. JONES, '47, an attorney, like Beddow, from the Pennsylvania coal region, was chairing the alumni Loyalty Fund. With staff assistance and other volunteers, Beddow coordinated fund-raising from parents and corporations and foundations as well as alumni. The committee gave new emphasis to giving clubs at $1,000 and up to raise the sights of regular donors. Along with vice president Richter, FRANK SMITH, director of development, gave Beddow staff support.

10 October 1975 The board and faculty received a staff assessment of the success and failure of the CENTURY II fund-raising program. If Century II exceeded its $5.4 million five-year general goal, why did faculty members severely criticize it? The assessment, signed by vice president Richter, showed the reason. Toward a goal set in 1970 of $1.6 million for new endowment funds to support professional faculty development, only $600,602 was raised. Toward a goal set in 1970 of $100,000 for faculty research funds, only $30,000 was raised. Toward a $281,760 goal set in 1970 for support of library operation, only $107,443 was raised. The administration tried to counterbalance these shortfalls by designating $278,401 for "faculty development (current expense)"--basically an allocation of gifts to the operating budget to support salaries and benefits.

At the same time, several needs that were unspecified in the campaign received significant portions of the campaign funds--capital construction unfinished at the start of Century II (mainly the new gymnasium) and the endowment to support maintenance.

Nearly a half million dollars of "life income plans" or deferred gifts was counted in the $5.6 million amount raised, unspecified as to end use. Had the college excluded this "planned giving" from the comprehensive total of all voluntary support in the Century II period (1970-75), the board and administration could not have announced that Century II had attained its goal.

Federal loan funds for student aid in the amount of $371,120 also were counted in the campaign total.

Richter explained that the college first identified the goals of Century II in the long-term planning process set up under President Helfferich in 1967. They were the second phase of a ten-year vision. The college attained the first phase through the All-Ursinus Anniversary Drive, completed in 1969. He pointed to the historical context to explain the failure of Century II to achieve all that it promised:

"In 1967,...Ursinus was riding the wave of growth and confidence that [characterized] higher education in the post-Sputnik era. For the decade ahead, it was reasonable to expect that the nation would continue to prosper, that colleges like Ursinus would continue to enjoy the great confidence and support of private philanthropy and of generous government programs, and that Ursinus in such an environment could order its own priorities as it had never before been able to do.

"In the three years from 1967 to 1970, Ursinus succeeded in raising capital gifts and in otherwise financing the building program that radically improved the campus. The building program was an essential first step that in many minds was long overdue.

"By 1970, however, the climate was changing. Widespread campus unrest was bringing the public to reappraise its heretofore unqualified support of higher education. At the same time, philanthropists, prodded by the mood of protest, began to give greater support to social and civil rights programs and became less committed to the general support of higher educational institutions.

"Despite the shift in philanthropic priorities, and despite ominous economic clouds on the horizon, the development program at Ursinus by 1970 had built up so much momentum that the decision was made to press on into the CENTURY II Program, phase two of our ten-year (1970-1975)....When the economic clouds finally burst, they brought unanticipated increases in operating costs and the end of the great era of growth and confidence in academia."

Richter spoke for the administration and board in claiming that Century II nonetheless was better to have happened than not. It gave momentum and established structure to fund-raising in a new way for Ursinus. It showed the board, alumni, and friends that "to remain strong, Ursinus must conduct a fund-raising program on a permanent basis, year after year after year. The unrealized hopes of 1967 need not be seen as failure; they can be seen as the agenda for the next step in the ongoing effort to attract voluntary support."

Richter's statement ended by defining "development" not as fund-raising alone but as the generation of total income through tuition from enrollment, supplemented by gifts. "Ursinus will flourish only if the basic academic enterprise that generates the student fees is successful. We must attract the necessary number of students, offer them the educational experience that will keep them on campus for four years, persuade them that the fees we charge are acceptable, and do all this in a spirit of dedication to the best in liberal education." He was echoing President Pettit's persistent calls to the faculty to do the best possible job of educating.

This Century II assessment attempted to rationalize admitted shortcomings while claiming credit for the lasting good effects of a sustained fund-raising effort. It did not dissuade faculty members from signing the 17 October 1975 "letter of concerns" that cited Century II reporting faults. For newer board members, it would not have been news that the college needed to sustain a permanent development program. The message, however, may have helped older members, unaccustomed to a forthright and systematic seeking of funds, to see a new day coming for Ursinus. Century II's most important success probably was not the funds raised but the reinforcement it gave to the board’s obligation to conduct never-ending fund-raising. Even as it came to an end, Pettit was announcing that THOMAS J. BEDDOW, '36, of the board would lead the now-established Development Committee in a new programmatic effort to raise voluntary support. It became the URSINUS 76/80 PROGRAM.

14 May 1976 The BOARD OF DIRECTORS resolved to mount a new fund-raising program for the 1976-1980 period. The recommendation came from THOMAS J. BEDDOW, ‘36, chair of the board DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, which the board now treated as a standing committee. Beddow identified a general goal of $4.4 million. The 1976-77 year would be a period for obtaining advance gifts. A public phase would follow. The lessons learned in Century II for good and ill presumably would inform the new program. The declaration of a new campaign sent a symbolic message to the Ursinus community that aggressive fund-raising was now a permanent feature of the college’s life. Modest in goal and style of execution, the URSINUS 76/80 campaign provided a successful foundation for the more ambitious campaigns of the 1980s and early 1990s.

C. Physical Plant

15 August 1970 The college engaged a two-man SECURITY FORCE for the first time to protect students and property. Before this, the security program consisted of the eyes and ears of the students and staff. Collegeville’s limited police force kept an interested but distant posture. Miley Detective Agency of West Point, PA, provided the contract service. The security officers were unarmed. They were to avoid scenes of student misbehavior unless serious bodily harm or property damage was likely to result. Their announced task was to "patrol the campus to protect against fire, intruders, traffic and parking problems and the malfunctioning of heating and other vital equipment." The start of a formal security program included the issuing of photo-identification cards to students.

These security innovations signaled that the social unrest of the Vietnam period had touched even small colleges in small towns out of the mainstream. Still perceived to be relatively safe from the dangers of the city, Ursinus was nevertheless more vulnerable to mischief and mischance than before, from both restive students and outsiders. The benign hand of deans in the administration of student order grew less assured in the wake of protests and disorders on campuses across the nation. Administrators at Ursinus shared a felt need with those on other campuses to take new safety measures.

Many students were suspicious of these additions to the culture of the small isolated campus. They smacked of control and prying. They stirred paranoid fears among students that the college would be spying on their youthful pursuits without warrant.

The security force and administration worked diligently to dispel such reactions. Students, always capable of a comic corrective, soon dubbed the officers "keystone cops" and enjoyed playing occasional pranks. Stealing and hiding the motorized tricycle used by the security officers to get around campus was the most dramatic student prank. There were infrequent moments of serious conflict when "Miley men" had to control crowds of students outside a dorm evacuated owing to a false fire alarm. However, the main body of students saw that the presence of security people was for their benefit and took little notice.

In time, it became evident that this bare beginning of a security program would be inadequate. Reinforcement and reorganization periodically took place through the years ahead.

5 March 1971 The board approved a contract to relocate ATHLETIC PLAYING FIELDS and surface the track in the wake of the construction of Helfferich Hall. The contract provided for a new baseball field, soccer field, refurbished tennis courts, and a parking lot.

2 May 1971 MYRIN LIBRARY was dedicated at an academic convocation featuring famed anthropologist LOREN EISELEY as keynote speaker. The library actually went into use in the fall of the 1970-71 academic year. An all-day all-campus "book walk" took place on 6 October 1970 with scores of faculty and students carrying stacks of books from the old to the new building, following a path behind Bomberger Hall. The fall issue of the Ursinus Magazine featured a cover photo of President Helfferich and President-elect Pettit. They were walking side by side, each toting a stack of books across campus to Myrin. It was a bully moment for them and the college.

13 July 1971 The board approved contracts for the renovation of PFAHLER HALL at a cost of $362,000. Gauker Fridy Associates did the architectural planning. William C. Ehret, Inc., was general contractor. Silas Bolef Company did the electrical work. Suburban Mechanical Contractors, Inc., did the mechanical work. These contracts were negotiated rather than competitively bid. All subcontracts were competitively bid. This approach accorded with a strongly held policy position in the board's buildings and grounds committee. It resulted in substantial savings.

21 September 1971 The administration informed students and faculty of the status of the PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM in view of the inflation crisis. RICHARD P. RICHTER, vice president for administrative affairs, said in a memo: "On August 15, when President Nixon declared that inflation had reached the crisis stage, we knew from our summer experience on the PFAHLER HALL and COLLEGE UNION projects whereof he spoke. Both renovation projects were to have commenced immediately after college closed in June. But when the contractors submitted their prices, they were 100% beyond the amounts budgeted and well beyond the estimates of the architects." The price squeeze delayed the scheduled June start of the Pfahler renovation. The project extended through the whole 1971-72 academic year. The building was used for classes while renovations took place. Students and faculty suffered through the inconveniences. Architects completely redrew the College Union plans. Owing to the delay, the scaled-down project did not reach completion until the end of 1972. The start of Bomberger Hall renovation was postponed from spring 1971 to spring 1972. The building was in full use during the 1971-72 academic year, contrary to original renovation plans. On the other hand, the money crunch did not delay work on Helfferich Hall construction, new playing fields, an all-weather track and a parking lot near the new men's dorm (Reimert Hall).

Despite the delays, the ambitious construction and renovation schedule went forward. It demonstrated the commitment of the Pettit administration to the continued upgrading of the campus facilities. Pettit and the board believed that the college had to complete the remaking of the physical plant, a program that president Helfferich conceived and began. It held the key to the college's competitive advantage in the years to come. The demand for current dollars to pay for plant improvements made it difficult to meet the priorities of the Century II program, which emphasized improvements in faculty salaries and professional development.

30 September 1971 (approximate) The installation of pipes for the start of BOROUGH SEWER SERVICE to the campus began. The college had installed a self-contained system years before at the instigation of Donald L. Helfferich, '21, while he was vice president. Helfferich had urged the borough to be partner with the college in the system, but the partnership did not materialize. As the new borough system came into service, there were hints of future town-gown controversy over the rates paid by the college. These hints became realities years later, during the next administration.

1 November 1971 (approximate) The college bought the farmhouse and adjacent property just west of Pfahler Hall owned by the Kelley family for about $12,000. Refurbished, it became OMWAKE HALL, named in honor of President George Leslie Omwake (1912-1936).

30 December 1971 The College's 33,000-VOLT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION began operating. The need for this separate substation signaled the growing technological environment in which the college operated. The cost of the project was about $70,000. The substation, with upgrades and purges of PCB’s, served the campus until the summer of 1997, when a more powerful substation went into service.

18 April 1972 The campus BLACKED OUT for nine hours starting at 1:30 pm when an electric transformer malfunctioned. The equipment that went into operation on 30 December 1971 proved to be defective. The contractor replaced the transformer and restored power by 10:30 pm. Campus reaction to the blackout was mellow. The temperature that spring day hit 80 degrees before the blackout. "Spring fever had already hit some of the students," the Weekly (27 April 1997) reported. "When the lights finally went on...fun-loving students raised a loud ‘boo,’ reluctant to return to their studies."

19 June 1972 The campus escaped major damage from HURRICANE AGNES, which inundated nearby Perkiomen Bridge Hotel. Three feet of water covered the restaurant floor familiar to Ursinus patrons for generations. Agnes caused $1.7 billion in damage and killed 127 people in a five-state area of the eastern US. The campus itself suffered only minor damages.

1 July 1972 (approximate) As HELFFERICH HALL neared completion in the summer of 1972, the so-called "NEW" GYM fell to the demolition crew. On its site the long entrance ramp to Helfferich Hall was built, one of the final touches on that project. The "New" Gym was a utilitarian frame structure acquired from military surplus of World War II and erected in 1947 next to the venerable Thompson-Gay Gym. It remained in operation during the 1971-72 academic year while construction of Helfferich Hall went forward.

The baseball field immediately behind the "New" Gym also fell victim to Helfferich Hall construction. It moved to its present site to the east of Helfferich Hall, next to Patterson Field. With the passing of the old baseball field, its chronic fault in center field entered legend. The outfield sloped away from the infield so sharply that the center fielder was unable to see a normal-sized batter at the plate. Infielders would signal the center fielder when a batter’s fly ball was about to appear in his vision over the horizon. Years of retelling have probably exaggerated this quaint sports legend.

1 August 1972 Restoration of BOMBERGER HALL began. The $600,000 project had an estimated completion date of June 1973. Inflationary construction estimates had delayed the start while engineers and contractors cut the project to reduce the cost. President Pettit gave his personal attention to the finer points of restoration of the original nineteenth-century wall colors and other features. Comfortably cushioned seating in the main chapel, however, replaced the old slatted wooden seats. Carpet covered the old wood floor. Two old classrooms behind the main chapel became a small meditation chapel and religious center. Men's and women's day studies in the basement received upgrades. The basement also became the site of a "ship room" for student recreation. Faculty offices were renovated.

Some $220,000 of the total cost came as gifts from the Pennsylvania Southeast Conference of the United Church of Christ. The conference ran a "chapel fund" campaign originally intended for a completely new building. When the funds raised proved to be less than adequate for the original goal, the church body agreed to apply the funds to the Bomberger restoration.

The building was out of service for the entire 1972-73 academic year. Faculty members with offices in Bomberger went to temporary locations elsewhere. That made the academic year 1972-73 an adventure in temporary inconvenience for the sake of long-term improvement.

10 August 1972 Work on the conversion of the old Alumni Memorial Library into the COLLEGE UNION began at an estimated cost of $400,000. The old reading rooms were kept architecturally intact and became large social lounges. The old open-stack area of the library became a snack shop. The basement became a recreational area. The old boardroom and other administrative spaces became venues for student organization meetings and a music listening room.

The administration had hoped to start the project as early as February 1972. When contractors' bids came in at $680,000, far more than expected, the project had gone back to the drawing boards for a scaled-down plan. A grant from the Kresge Foundation of $100,000 tipped the decision to start the project in the face of inflationary construction estimates. The newly renovated building opened in February 1973.

28 September 1972 DUTCH ELM DISEASE, decimating the campus population of trees, provoked talks on new ways of fighting the problem. Maintenance staff discussed a new process for controlling the disease by injecting repellent into the soil rather than by spraying. All efforts to save the stately elms of the greensward, however, came to little. In subsequent years, the Japanese Zelkova tree replaced most of the old elms along Freeland walkway and elsewhere on campus. They were efflorescent in shape like the elm but impervious to the disease. Zelkovas helped preserve the traditional sylvan look of the Ursinus campus.

21 October 1972 HELFFERICH HALL was dedicated 21 October 1972, in conjunction with HOMECOMING DAY. The ceremony also embraced traditional FOUNDERS' DAY for 1972. New tennis courts and parking lot were also finished. Helfferich Hall already had been the site of commencement in spring 1972 for the first time. (Every commencement henceforth took place there until 1992 when the ceremony moved outdoors to Patterson Field. A sudden rain shower half way through chased the class of '92, guests, and audience back to Helfferich Hall to complete the program. Seating had been set up, just in case.)

27 March 1973 The college rented athletic facilities to PERKIOMEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL to help the school district during its major construction program. This was consistent with the objective to achieve maximum efficiency in the UTILIZATION OF FACILITIES. HELFFERICH HALL became the venue for the PV High School commencement ceremonies on its opening and remained so to this writing a quarter of a century later.

24 June 1973 The PHILADELPHIA 76ERS professional basketball team "rookie camp" began on campus in a new rental arrangement. The star rookie to appear in Helfferich Hall was DOUG COLLINS out of Illinois State University, the #1 draft choice in the National Basketball Association. The rookie camp ended 28 June and the full training camp came to Ursinus for two weeks in September. The College landed the contract through EVERETT M. (ACE) BAILEY, veteran head of health and physical education, who was a friend of Gene Shue, the Sixers' head coach. The Sixers stayed in a portion of the New Men's Dormitory (Reimert Hall). This displaced a number of men students in the first days of the fall semester. Nelson M. Williams, business manager, said, "This is our first venture as hosts to a professional team. With the full and complete cooperation of the College staff, the student body and campus community, this could be the start of something big!" Pun intended or not, Williams's prediction did not prove true. Although the Sixers came back for some pre-season workouts in the next year or two, they did not stay in the dorm. The players complained that the synthetic surface in Helfferich Hall was hard on their knees and legs. The Sixers eventually went on to other pre-season arrangements elsewhere.

During the time of the Sixers' use of Ursinus facilities, the college gained valuable media attention. This contributed to the never-ending effort to enhance the name recognition of the college for its recruiting program. The contract of course improved the utilization of the plant and added miscellaneous revenues. However, problems with the facilities as well as the student schedule ended the arrangement.

At the level of trivia, Bailey alleged that Shue chose Ursinus for his training camp for personal reasons. A serious tennis player, Shue liked playing on the new courts at the college when he was not on the Helfferich Hall floor with his players.

18 November 1973 BOMBERGER MEMORIAL HALL, refurbished and restored, officially reopened at Founders' Day. Originally constructed in 1891 as a memorial to the first president of the college, the hall now was set for another term of service as "Learning's Temple." Walter Force Longacre, '14, gave it that name in an old poem:

Adapted from some old cathedral fine,

This clean facade lives pure in form and line--

The open countenance, alert, serene,

Of Learning's Temple, dignified and keen,

Poised with the strength of thought and charm of grace,

The modern look of a mediaeval face.

14 February 1974 The administration reported that the campus community was adjusting well to the enforced REDUCTIONS IN USAGE caused by the OIL CRISIS. The college had resolved in the fall semester to comply vigorously with President Nixon's request to save energy. Arab oil-producing nations created the crisis when they cut back exports to the US in retaliation for American support of Israel in the 1973 war. HOWARD SCHULTZE, director of physical plant, made a rigorous cutback in the heating plant operation. A campaign to change individual behavior of students and staff--turning off lights, shortening showers, closing windows--had a consciousness-raising effect. The college extended spring recess by half a day. This change relieved students of the need to travel on Sunday, when they would encounter gas stations closed for business. Guidelines for use of the college mini-bus for athletic and other events limited trips to 200 miles, the capacity of a single tank of fuel. Five or more persons had to travel together to justify use of the mini-bus. (Richter memo, 19 Feb 1974)

26 October 1974 The administration building, opened in 1970, was dedicated as CORSON HALL in honor of board member PHILIP L. CORSON and his wife, HELEN. President Pettit in the November Bulletin wrote: "A new name entered the vocabulary of the campus community with the naming of Corson Hall. The name Corson has been held in honor in Pennsylvania since Colonial days, and it has meant much to Ursinus since 1960 when Philip Langdon Corson, honorary '59, was elected to our Board. Always with Dr. Corson in his eventful career has been his wife, Helen Payson Corson, honorary '73, who has given him the encouragement that has made him a happy man, a true American and a generous citizen." Philip Corson was the head of the family lime and concrete business that operated from the early days of the nation in nearby Plymouth Meeting.

His adopted son, JOHN E. F. CORSON, who was a key member of the management team at the Corson plant, joined the Ursinus board after Philip's death. He became secretary and treasurer of the board and perpetuated the generous and vigorous service of the Corson family to the college.

BACK TO TOP, "SUSTAINING THE INSTITUTION"

BACK TO CONTENTS PAGE, PART ONE, A CHRONICLE OF SELECTED EVENTS