6

Apprenticeship in Academic
Administration

Iwas appointed dean of the Indiana University School of Business Administration in a meeting of the Board of Trustees on May 18, 1935. Previously, Assistant Dean James R. Hawkinson of Northwestern’s business school had been offered the position at $5,250. Although there is no record of his response, he apparently refused the offer. I was appointed at a salary of $5,000, a rather handsome figure compared to the offer made to him as he had greater experience and standing in the field. I like to think that the amount of my offer reflected a rather favorable opinion of me by the president and the Board of Trustees, which was responsible for the cooperation I subsequently received from them during my term as dean.

My predecessor, William A. Rawles, class of 1884 and a member of the university faculty for forty-one years, was a remarkable man with a traditional and austere training in history and economics. Had his graduate work been in applied fields, say, at Wharton, he would have been less effective in defending Indiana University’s School of Commerce and Finance—as the business school was originally named—against the attacks of those members of the university faculty who thought that vocational or applied courses did not belong in a university. The orthodoxy of his background and the breadth of his previous experience in a variety of administrative and organizational capacities in the university made him the ideal man to serve as the first dean of the School of Commerce and Finance. I had studied corporation finance with him. He was an excellent teacher, sound, thorough, and demanding.

A reading of the minutes of the business school faculty meeting from 1925 to 1935 reveals a graphic picture of the evolution of the business school from its earliest days to the time when I became its dean. Although the enrollment had grown, the faculty remained quite small, necessitating for all a heavy load of teaching and committee work. Meeting after meeting, report after report, this dedicated band painstakingly and thoughtfully tackled the everyday problems of their developing school. Carefully they considered problems of curriculum, of student personnel, of admission standards, and of relationships to the other divisions of the university. But overshadowing all these was the ever-present shortage of financial support. This problem was so grave that they finally found it necessary to recommend a mandatory professional fee of $7.50 per semester for each student in the business school. From the funds yielded by this fee in the fall semester of 1926, such purchases were made as a Monroe calculator, three Burroughs calculators, three Burroughs portable adding machines, five Underwood typewriters, pencil sharpeners, bookcases, and a phonograph for the typewriting department. In addition, a sum of $219 was distributed among individual faculty members for clerical assistance, having papers graded, and miscellaneous other needs. The allotments ranged from 5o¢ for Fred Chew and $6.40 for Tom Luck to a high of $35.25 for Jesse McAtee. Dean Rawles received $33. These figures graphically illustrate how poorly the school was financed. One gets the impression of a mighty effort made by a valiant few to develop the School of Commerce and Finance during that ten-year period.

In the year 1932–33 the faculty successfully proposed a significant reorganization of the school, important changes were made in the curriculum, and, as if to mark a new era, the School of Commerce and Finance was renamed the School of Business Administration. (In 1938 the name was shortened to the School of Business, which I use hereafter.) Of the curricular changes the most revolutionary was the elimination of foreign languages as a prerequisite for graduation, but in addition the science requirement was moved to the freshman year and students were permitted to take more courses in the social sciences.

From all appearances the alterations were well received by the students. In my judgment the elimination of the foreign-language requirement increased the drawing power of the business school. The educational wisdom of such a step is debatable, but it is a fact that many students headed for careers in business hated the foreign-language requirement of the College of Arts and Sciences and jumped at the chance to avoid it by enrolling in the School of Business. There were other reasons for the increase in enrollment that were perhaps even more important. The country was beginning to emerge from the Great Depression, and it was apparent both that our economic system would survive and that the business field would offer an excellent opportunity for graduates. Moreover, the Indiana University School of Business, along with other pioneering business schools such as Wharton and Illinois, began to win from businessmen a growing appreciation of the value of specialized training for those who were to make their careers in business. There may have been other reasons, but at least these influences had an important bearing on the surge of enrollment. As I shall relate, during my administration we made additional innovations that also proved to be popular with the students.

Prior to 1933 the business school had admitted only juniors and seniors, but, beginning with the fall term of 1933, it also accepted freshmen and sophomores. For the next two years pre-business students, formerly counted in the enrollment of the College of Arts and Sciences, were included in the enrollment of the School of Business even though they were still taking Arts and Sciences courses. The change made a significant difference in the business school’s enrollment figures but did not increase its teaching load proportionately. To illustrate, the enrollment for 1932–33 was 267; after the change in admission policy, the enrollment jumped to 583 in 1933–34 and to 723 in 1934–35. By the first year of my deanship, 1935-36, when the four-year curriculum had its real start, the student count in the business school was 879; the figures mounted to 1,304 and 1,595 in the two succeeding years. Of course, the increases from the year 1935 on were in students to be taught wholly within the business school and did constitute a huge additional teaching load for the business faculty.

I wish I could recall precisely the events of my first few days in the office of the dean, but, unfortunately, without a diary or a journal it is impossible to do so. Colleagues from that period confirm what seems to me to be apparent, that the first few days and weeks were devoted to doing what anyone would do in a similar situation, namely, consulting with colleagues on the business school faculty, discussing with them their views of the school’s strengths and weaknesses and what was most needed for further advance, and generally trying to arrive at a consensus on what to do next. We also began a comparison of our offerings, degree programs, and enrollment with those of the other leading schools of business. As a result of these early discussions, at the first formal meeting of the faculty of the business school I asked each of the members to submit a plan for the next five years. These plans were then to be integrated into a master plan for the future.

For many years, the number of faculty had remained at ten with the occasional addition of a part-time member, a very small faculty indeed to cover the specialties that were required for the degree. It was apparent to me that we had to break through the barrier of a fixed number and increase the faculty size to prepare for anticipated enlarging enrollments. We had some success in doing so. During my period as dean, the number of faculty grew to twenty-eight full-time and five part-time members. An expansion of this size was possible only because of the backing of the university president and trustees.

The faculty of the School of Business when I became dean was dedicated, effective, and energetic. We functioned from the very beginning as a cooperative team, and faculty meetings were organized to assure the participation of every member. Ten standing committees were appointed and charged with responsibility for each of the important areas of the work of the business school: curriculum, library, laboratories and mechanical equipment, faculty promotions, graduate study, a proposed Purdue-Indiana cooperative course in agriculture and business, contacts with the business community, contacts with alumni, contacts with commercial teachers for the expansion of the summer-school program, and personnel and placement (with the Department of Economics).

Throughout those beginning days and months Clare Barker, a senior member of the faculty, was especially helpful. He had been among those who had strongly urged my appointment as dean. Then he became my mentor, friend, and active collaborator in all the early adjustments. Because of his own fine training, his popularity with students, his prestige among the other members of the faculty, and the quality of his ideas for improvement and modernization of the business school, his tutelage was extremely valuable.

During the first year the faculty met more than once a month on an average. The committees also met regularly to formulate their recommendations for each faculty meeting. By early January, 1936, the curriculum committee had proposed a revision of the curriculum and the addition of new professional courses leading to several new degree specialties. These recommendations were adopted in time to offer some of the new courses for the spring semester and, as was the case with the changes in 1931–33, they received favorable reaction from students. Moreover, the business community also reacted favorably.

During 1935–36 members of the faculty made long trips, visiting high schools throughout the state to counsel with high school seniors interested in entering business and to explain the Indiana University offerings. I soon discovered that the university offices in the spring and summer were always closed on Saturday afternoons and sometimes all day Saturday. Many parents of prospective students visited the university on weekends, only to find all the offices closed and no source of official information on hand. In those days there was no summer program for orientation of new students such as the university now has. To fill the need for a source of reliable information on the weekends, I adopted the custom of keeping my own office open on Saturday afternoon and nearly all day Sunday—at least from after church through the afternoon. An astonishing number of prospective students and their parents would somehow find the open door to my office and come in for a chat. Naturally, many of these youngsters in the course of the conversation became interested in the School of Business and decided to enter it at the beginning of the next term.¹

Another matter to which we addressed ourselves that year was the form of recognition we should plan for Dean Rawles’ long service. Since we were eager to strengthen the business library, it occurred to us to launch a fund drive for expanding the library collection, which we would then house in a special room to be named for him. With the sudden death of William Rawles in the spring, the recognition became a memorial that eventually took the form of the beautiful Rawles Room adjacent to the library of the Business and Economics Building, renamed Woodburn Hall, which now houses the Department of Political Science.

It was logical that we should give the matter of building the book collection of the School of Business an urgent priority. The collection of specialized material that was then available was quite meager, and during my first year as dean the library appropriation was quickly exhausted. We made a special appeal to President Bryan, who promised to try to put into the next budget a sufficient allocation to enable us to acquire long-needed books and others required by the new curriculum. I urged that, since this was to be a special appropriation and not a recurring item, and in view of President Bryan’s great interest in our need, we should be bold in forming the list of essential books that would constitute the basis of our urgent request for library funds. Thus encouraged, the members of the business faculty built a strong case for the request. They also took note of a number of deficiencies in library operations. One can sense how pressing the library problem was from the fact that the faculty urged the library committee to visit the librarian and to ask for something to be done to shorten the length of time that library materials were kept in the bindery because of the great need for every single available copy.

During the first year we also increased our summer offerings. This move enabled us not only to make employment more attractive to the faculty, but also, and of greater consequence, to interest high school teachers of business subjects in taking courses. The attraction of those teachers helped to accelerate the growth of our graduate program and ensured that we had recruiters in Indiana high schools for the business school. In this effort we had the active cooperation of Dean H. L. Smith, who was director of the university summer session and who was ambitious to build its program.² The members of the business faculty readily accepted this opportunity and, in order to provide the maximum number of courses with limited funds, cooperated by agreeing to have the equivalent of four full-time salaries divided among a number of them, each teaching part-time. All in all the first year was a happy and productive one. On September 29, 1936, at the business school’s opening faculty meeting for the second year, I spoke briefly of the past year and asked Professor Alva Prickett as senior member of the faculty in point of service to bring greetings to the new faculty members from their incumbent colleagues. He reviewed the different stages in the development of the school: its establishment as a separate school on the campus in 1921, at which time the business program consisted of a two-year course in the school superimposed upon two underclass years in the College of Arts and Sciences; the reorganization of the business school in 1933 on a four-year basis; and the expansion made in 1935–36 when a number of concentration groups of study were added and definite plans were formulated to develop courses for graduate study. Pointing out that the freshman and sophomore enrollment had grown by 50 percent over the preceding year and that the faculty had increased by more than 60 percent, Professor Prickett welcomed the new members to the growing and dynamic School of Business at Indiana University.

This preoccupation with enlarging the enrollment was not motivated by desire to achieve size per se. At about this time the university budgets began to be influenced by enrollment. Additional enrollment meant the likelihood of additional support. With increased funds we were able to add faculty members, each with a specialty not previously represented in the business school. Happily, at about the time we were enabled to increase the faculty, a new and large crop of Ph.D.’s and comparable degree holders became available as a result of greatly increased graduate enrollments in business schools. They brought with them the backgrounds and abilities needed to develop and maturate the school’s specialized fields. Furthermore, the business school’s position within the university was strengthened by the increased enrollment. Historically each of the professional schools, with the exception of law, medicine, and dentistry, was spun off from the College of Arts and Sciences. As is the case in families, the youngsters were not taken seriously until they had achieved considerable size and strength, and indeed the courses in the School of Commerce and Finance in the beginning were few and their content thin. Later, even though the curriculum had become more academically respectable, the rapid increase in enrollment brought some quality-control problems. A great amount of time and thought was devoted to setting standards to be followed in the elimination of students who failed to make satisfactory progress from one semester to another. Every effort to have the faculty participate fully in the decision-making process resulted in the release of the creative energies of these excellent men with a beneficial effect on the morale of the business school. Ours was a happy working relationship, soon bringing about a sense of forward movement and cooperative achievement.

There was a remarkable esprit de corps among our students as well, engendered no doubt by the feeling that they were in a developing and growing field, and in part, too, by the maintenance of a close faculty-student relationship and the high priority the faculty gave to good teaching. Good teaching is not only the best builder of internal morale in an institution, but also the most effective public-relations medium. I assured the freshmen in my welcome to them in September, 1935: “My door will always be open to you for the discussion of any of your problems. I am sure that I may say the same for each of the other members of our faculty. Come to us frequently. We wish to know each of you personally, and to share with you your experiences and problems.” I could make that offer because the members of the faculty were truly dedicated teachers. I should like to think that the Junior Chamber of Commerce, later named the Collegiate Chamber of Commerce, was also effective in enlisting the students’ cooperation and drawing from them helpful suggestions and discussions. To this day when I meet alumni of that era they invariably express their enthusiasm for their experience and frequently quote something they heard in a class of mine or of some other member of the business faculty.

The desperate financial condition of the business school forced us from the very beginning to think about ways to increase our support. The entire business faculty began to consider how we might better present our need to the university administration and to the state. Previously I had been—on either an informal or a formal basis, I do not know which—associated with the prestigious Committee for the Promotion of University Interests, which made an extensive and persuasive presentation to the citizens of Indiana in support of the university budget request. Dr. Burton D. Myers, the committee chairman, sought ideas wherever he could find them and apparently found me responsive to some of his questions. The university was seeking restoration from the depression-induced cuts of 1932–33 as well as increases needed for future progress. Its financial problems were nearly overwhelming during the dreadful years of the Great Depression, and because of my Myers Committee experience I was able to help the members of the business school faculty realize that we must aid the university effort to secure money by making our case as graphic as possible. To that end we attempted to stimulate our relationship with the business community. We instituted a number of research projects to obtain useful data for them, and we invited business leaders to speak to our classes and to participate in an advisory way in our discussions of curriculum and services needed by the state.

Another way in which we attempted to relate the school to the business community was through the establishment of the Investment Research Bureau to offer to the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions a mechanism for analysis of the bond portfolios of the state-chartered banks. Even with all the corrective measures that had been taken at the time of the bank reopenings, many of the bond portfolios remained in a distressed and chaotic state. The plain fact of the matter was that there was insufficient expertise in the typical bank to handle the bond account, even though at that time the bond investments constituted a substantial portion of the bank’s investments. A brilliant young D.C.S. by the name of Harry Sauvain, who had studied finance at New York University and in close contact with Wall Street, was recruited to be the director of the bureau. He was joined by a bright Ph.D. recruit from Wisconsin, Nathan Silverstein, and by Dwight Cragun, who had had considerable practical experience in the New York investment community.

The staff also included Leo Dowling, later to be an Indiana University administrator, as a part-time executive secretary.

The typical bank examiner, although competent in the mechanism of examination, had little specialized expertise to enable him to make professional comments on bond portfolios. Therefore, the Investment Research Bureau filled a great need. As banks were examined their bond portfolios were forwarded to the bureau. Our staff analyzed and evaluated the list of securities in each case, adding constructive comments about the policy that should govern the portfolio of the bank. These reports were sent to the Department of Financial Institutions and through the department to the banks. Naturally a close working relationship developed between the state chartered banks and the finance department of the School of Business; soon it was thought desirable by the Indiana State Bankers Association to hold annual conferences or short courses for the bank staffs on our campus, and the practice continued for many years. Thus the Investment Research Bureau performed a remarkable professional and public service.

Much of my time had to be spent in a persistent search for promising young men for the business faculty, with the advice and cooperation of the existing faculty. We were unable to offer high enough salaries to attract established scholars, but we believed that we could find talented young men who had the potential both to be excellent teachers and to be productive in research and writing. The search for talent I considered my most important job, to be undertaken with as much skill and as extensively as could be managed. I requested senior colleagues in other schools of business to nominate promising candidates for our positions. Our own faculty’s contacts in other graduate schools were fully utilized. Once we had in hand the vitae of candidates, the members of the faculty and I tried to select those whose records were the most promising, and I undertook to visit them on their own campuses. I was sometimes accompanied by faculty colleagues and, on occasion, a colleague who had business on a prospect’s campus would undertake the first interview. But for the most part I dedicated the time and energy necessary to make a personal visit to the candidates. This seemed to me then, as it does now, one of the best ways to interview potential faculty members. By seeing something of the institution in which a candidate had worked, I could gain some knowledge of the standards and styles of which that person had been a part and could evaluate better the candidate’s statement of his ambitions. Too, it was possible to judge him comparatively in relation to his colleagues. Frequently on such visits other good candidates came to my attention and so enlarged my list.

An important byproduct of those visits was that I became acquainted with more persons in the field and learned more about the institutions with which we were in competition. Whenever I began to feel self-satisfied either as dean or later as president with what we were accomplishing at Indiana University, all I needed to do was visit some other first-rate institution. Such visits never failed to suggest to me many things that were being done better elsewhere and to stimulate new ideas, new initiatives, new thoughts as to what we should be doing.

Our expectations in assembling a strong young faculty were handsomely realized in the years 1935–37 as we were able to recruit an extraordinarily promising group of young men. With the passage of time a few left the university, but most of them made their careers here, becoming leaders in building the great national distinction of the Indiana University School of Business. It was during these years that Lyle Dieterle, Harry Sauvain, Nathan Silverstein, Stanley Pressler, and Edward Edwards joined the faculty; Arthur Weimer, Robert Walden, and John Mee came soon after. These new men began immediately to make a major contribution to teaching and to research. Looking back on that period, I am still astonished by the cooperative and generous way in which they were received by the older members of the faculty and were initiated into the work of the business school.

In addition to the other innovations, we began a persistent effort to join with other schools of business in support of federal legislation for funding bureaus of business research that would offer research and service support to owners of small businesses, just as the federally funded agricultural experiment stations provided research and service support to farmers.

At the faculty meeting of February 8, 1937, I reported thus on certain legislative matters:

1. Good progress is being made on the project to secure federal aid for bureaus of business research in state universities. Senator Sheppard of Texas has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate. At the request of Dean R. A. Stevenson of the Minnesota School of Business Administration, arrangements have been made for former Governor McNutt, President Lindley of the University of Kansas, and Dean Stevenson to have a conference with President Roosevelt whose interest, it is thought, has been engaged. Several state delegations have been approached. While the bill may not be passed during the present session of Congress, much has been accomplished toward arousing an interest in such a bill. The bill makes provision for bureaus of business research in state universities to have the same contact with the U.S. Department of Commerce as the university agricultural experiment stations have now with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

2. Another interesting development is the proposed bill to create in Indiana a division of government research in the Legislative Bureau. The bill is drawn up so that, in the main, investigations will be carried on by the departments of social sciences of the state schools. This proposal is to be presented in the near future to Governor Townsend.

3. The George-Deen bill is another legislative matter which is of special interest to the School of Business. Professor Lewis of the School of Education, Professor Barker, and I have given considerable time to seeing that Indiana University offers its services and that its services are used in the working out of this vocational act. Conferences have been held with the Governor of Indiana and with experts in Indiana and in Washington, D.C. From the present prospect our facilities and resources will be used in carrying out the provisions of this act.

I was a member of the national committee of the Deans of the Schools of Business supporting this legislation (items 1 and 2, above) and afterward, as president of Indiana University, continued my interest in the effort. Arthur Weimer, after his appointment as dean of the business school, also devoted much time and energy for several years to the promotion of this legislation. The schools of agriculture and the agricultural experiment stations of the land-grant colleges fought the measure vigorously in an effort to maintain their exclusive role as the channel through which federal funds for higher education flowed. Unfortunately we failed in our efforts; thus the land-grant colleges won the first battle. In the long run they lost the war since federal funds are now appropriated for many purposes through many channels. However, a special relationship for bureaus of business research with a federal agency has never been established. Had we won that first battle, it not only would have strengthened our business school but also would have greatly aided in the development of business research and business in the state of Indiana.

A matter that occupied a great deal of our time arose from the recurring ambition of Purdue University in the field of education for business. We early believed that the needs of Hoosier students could best be met through coordination and cooperation of the two schools, thus avoiding costly duplication of effort. Our difficulties in persuading Purdue officials to this view were chronicled in the minutes of our faculty meetings, of which the following excerpts tell much of the story:

December 9, 1935: Dean Wells reported for the Purdue Indiana proposed cooperative course in Agriculture and Business. His report was in the nature of a letter that had been received from Purdue University indicating that that school was contemplating the establishment of a Business course, rather than the cooperative course that was thought to be in process of being formed by Indiana University and Purdue University. The comments which followed indicated that the Indiana University School of Business Administration should be responsible for administering business education to the students of the state of Indiana.

February 8, 1937: Dean Wells told of a joint Purdue-Indiana committee meeting which he attended in Indianapolis on January 23. Besides President Bryan and President Elliott, five other representatives from each school were at this meeting. Various administrative problems which have arisen between the two schools were discussed. It was agreed that the two schools should work in closer harmony, and that the mere circumstance of having the higher educational work of the state divided and given in two places one hundred miles apart should not be allowed to impair the efficiency or the prestige of either school. President Elliott has already cautioned the editors of the student paper of Purdue University against publishing disparaging remarks about Indiana University. He suggested at the meeting that something might be done to end the alumni feud or bitterness. All this indicates that there is a real and thoughtful attempt toward greater harmony and cooperation. The group of persons who attended the Indianapolis meeting was made a standing committee to meet from time to time, and sub-committees are to be appointed to consider points of difference and to report back to the larger committee. The members of the sub-committee which concerns the School of Business Administration the most are Dean Potter of the Schools of Engineering, Dean Freeman of the School of Agriculture, and Dean Wells. Deans Potter and Freeman are to visit Indiana University soon to confer with various faculty members. Dean Wells is to spend a day at Purdue University in the near future. After these preliminary steps are made, details will be worked out. At the present time there is a hopeful outlook.

March 9, 1937: The dean reported that he spent two very interesting days at Purdue University recently. Members of the Purdue faculty with whom Dean Wells met in conference were Dean Potter and Professor Knapp of the Schools of Engineering, Dean Matthews of the School of Home Economics, Dean Enders of the School of Science, Acting Dean Freeman of the School of Agriculture, and Professor Estey, head of the Department of History and Economics. Combinations of courses between the two universities were discussed. The combination most favored by the Purdue men was one in which the student might spend three years in the engineering school and one year in the business school for the Bachelor’s degree, or two years in the business school for the Master’s degree. There was some disposition on the part of the men in the School of Science for a four-year course (two years at Purdue and two years at Indiana) planned to get a combined curriculum in engineering or agriculture and in business. The men from the School of Agriculture were the most inflexible in the group. An interest was manifested by the Purdue group in the development of our graduate work, the feeling being that there would be a considerable number of the Purdue students interested if they could come to the School of Business Administration on a graduate level. The dean mentioned the money which Purdue is getting from industry to carry out projects, and made the suggestion that the School of Business should give some thought to research projects which might enable us to interest industry in this way. Mr. Wells left the Purdue campus with the understanding that each school would have a committee work on possible course combinations. He asked the Curriculum Committee to give this matter consideration.

Unfortunately the dream of a joint program was never realized but did represent one phase in the long effort to bring about voluntary coordination and cooperation between the two universities. During my presidency of Indiana University, the most successful step in this never-ending effort occurred when Indiana, Purdue, Ball State, and Indiana State universities agreed upon a formula for a joint budget request to the legislature (see chapter 10).

I was active in teaching during the two years of my deanship and did my share of the supervision of graduate students. At different times I taught courses in introduction to business, bank portfolios and management, business policy, and regulation of financial institutions. The introduction to business course, an innovation, provided an orientation for the students both to the university and to the business school. The business policy course served as a vehicle for bringing business leaders to the campus so that students could learn current business practice from them and the leaders could become familiar with the school.

My schedule of speaking engagements, which seemed heavy at the time, now appears a warm-up for what was to come. Naturally numerous requests resulted from my work with the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions and reflected my professional interest. The geographical scope and specific nature of these speeches can be gathered from the following list:

Atlanta, National Association of Supervisors of State Banks, “Standardization of Reports”

New Orleans, State Bank Division, American Bankers Association, “Management and the New Supervision”

Indianapolis, National Association of Cost Accountants, “Federal Financial Developments”

Cleveland, City Club of Cleveland (one of the oldest and most prestigious of the city-wide discussion clubs), “Sound Public Policy in Bank Supervision”

Chicago, Midwest Conference on Banking Service, “Sound Public Policy in Chartering Banks”

Indianapolis, Indianapolis Bankers, “Banking Frontiers”

Chicago, Investment Analysts Club, “Governmental Regulation of Bank Investments”

Indianapolis, Indiana Bankers Association, “Report of the Research Committee”

Indianapolis, Indiana Academy of Social Sciences, “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation”

In other addresses my emphasis or focus was on education. To the Indiana State Teachers Association I spoke on the contribution to the public welfare of good education in business. A similar theme was the subject of a panel discussion, with professors Clare Barker and George Starr, before the Indianapolis Marketing Research Club. My welcome to the freshmen in the School of Business both in 1935 and in 1936 attempted to set out a philosophy of education for business that would assist in guiding them. I am amazed that freshmen tolerated such long speeches. I gave longer speeches in those days before learning the wisdom of the old maxim that no souls are saved after twenty minutes.

One of our coups during this period was securing the selection of a scholar in the field of business to launch the Patten Foundation Lectures. The Patten stipend, in combination with money we had in our budget for a junior faculty member specializing in insurance, enabled us to bring Alfred Manes, the famous German scholar in the field of international reinsurance, to the campus as visiting professor for a full year. He brought an international dimension and distinction to our faculty that otherwise would have been unaffordable. His lectures were important because they not only inaugurated, but also set the tone for, future series.

I well recall the first Patten Lecture. It was scheduled for the afternoon of February 28, 1937. At four o’clock a large, curious, and expectant audience had assembled in Alumni Hall. I was waiting for Alfred Manes at the nearby elevator stop in the original Union Building tower in order to accompany him to the platform and introduce him. When the elevator door opened and he stepped out, I was startled to see that he was in full dress—white tie, tails, white vest—and that his chest was emblazoned with his many decorations and medals. In that era in Europe such dress was proper on an occasion of this type and in fact was expected of a distinguished scholar. I had an uncomfortable feeling, however, that few in our audience would understand his ceremonial dress and that he might even be greeted with some laughter, producing an unfortunate though unforgettable beginning for the Patten Lectures. Moreover, I felt his style of dress would prejudice the faculty at large against him, and we in the business school had already decided that we wished to recommend him for a permanent appointment. Since Manes was a sensitive and nervous man, I hesitated for a moment before taking him into a corner, quietly explaining the American custom, and asking if he would be willing to change into an ordinary business suit. Much to my relief he understood, even though he was surprised and disappointed, and returned to his room. In less than ten minutes he was back, dressed immaculately in a conservative business suit, sans decorations. His lecture was impressive and well received, but I remember more vividly those moments preceding it.

Another innovation was the occasional joint meetings between the faculties of the School of Business and the Department of Economics because of the interests they had in common. The student body of the two faculties was largely one and the same. This cooperative move was possible because of the good relationship that existed between the economics chairman, J. E. Moffat, and me in contrast to the strained relationship that had existed between our predecessors, Professor Weatherly and Dean Rawles.

With the rapid increase of students we soon began to run out of space and had to use rooms in other buildings. Many suggestions were forthcoming about ways to use existing space more effectively, including those made in the faculty meeting of February 8, 1937, that classes start at 7:00 or 7:30 A.M., that the noon hour be scheduled for classes, that more use be made of the late afternoon hours, and that classes be held on Saturdays. Prior to that time the university had had enough space for most classes to be held from 8:oo to 12:00 in the morning, leaving the afternoons largely devoted to laboratory sections, group examinations, athletics, and other extra-curricular activities. There were no Saturday classes. This was, of course, a pleasant and efficient way to operate insofar as academic work was concerned, but it was not an efficient utilization of building space. The move to expand the hours of classroom use, which began in 1937 and which was rapidly accelerated by necessity in the 1960s, has now resulted in a wholly different way of campus life. Classes and laboratories are occupied steadily from 7:30 A.M. throughout the afternoon and well into the evening hours. Stemming from the shortage of space suffered by the university continuously since 1937, such a schedule inevitably produces innumerable conflicts with group activities.

In the end the School of Business chose to move various segments of our work to several other buildings rather than to attempt to push the history, government, sociology, and economics departments out of the Business Building, since we hoped to maintain their goodwill. We felt that in the long run our strategy would dramatize the need for much more space than would be available even if we had the exclusive use of the Business Building. These needs were met eventually with the construction of a new building on Seventh Street, which provided not only adequate space but also the specialized features required for proper teaching of professional courses in business.

Unbeknown to me, the meeting of the School of Business faculty on June 9, 1937, was to be the last one over which I would preside.

It addressed itself to the routine business attendant upon the conclusion of an academic year such as the certification of degrees and the recommendation of honors for the graduates with laudable records. In addition, the faculty dealt with two very important matters designed to insure the quality of instruction in the business school. The Committee on Admissions, Scholarships, and Student Relations recommended in its report that there be a requirement of remedial work for students deficient in the use of the English language. A motion to that effect carried readily.

Another very important recommendation involved an innovative set of requirements for admission to the junior year in the School of Business. It was thought that the faculty could observe the students in their freshman and sophomore years and in the course of that time determine which students would be successful in their junior and senior years. Dean S. E. Stout of the College of Arts and Sciences and C. E. Emondson, Dean of Men, had given this recommendation of the committee hearty support, and Dean Stout went so far as to say that in taking such a step the School of Business would be setting a good example for the other schools on the campus. After general discussion and thus encouraged, the faculty voted to institute a rule governing selective admission to the junior year. There was no hint, of course, of my leaving as I myself had no inkling of it. The final entry in the minutes for that day recorded my taking note of the fact that this was the last meeting of the faculty for the school year 1936–37 and accordingly wishing everyone a pleasant summer.

Customarily, then as now, the Indiana University Board of Trustees met prior to Commencement for its most important meeting of the year. In March, 1937, President Bryan had informed the trustees that he wished to be relieved of the duties of the presidency at the early convenience of the board. They had assumed that they would have considerable time to seek a replacement since they expected him to serve at least until the first of January. But at their meeting on June 10, 1937, President Bryan informed the board that he would serve only to June 30 and some provision would have to be made for a successor by then. After their initial shock, the trustees went into a long executive session. None of this, of course, was known beyond the boardroom at that time.

In those years I lived during the summertime in Nashville in Brown County and drove back and forth to Bloomington each day. I had driven home on the Thursday before Commencement and had gone to bed before ten o’clock. In Brown County the electricity was turned off at ten. The telephone switchboard closed at nine o’clock and, generally, the place folded. At around midnight the telephone rang, and my first thought was “Who’s dead?” because Marie, who ran the switchboard, would accept a call after nine o’clock only for a very great emergency. I stumbled in the dark through a couple of rooms to the telephone, hitting my shins on furniture all along the way. The voice was that of Judge Ora Wildermuth, who was chairing the Board of Trustees meeting in the absence of the board president, George Ball. The Judge said, “The board has been in executive session all afternoon and evening. Dr. Bryan dropped a bombshell. He informed us that he was stepping down on July 1. We’ve been trying to decide what to do.” I thought it curious that he was seeking my advice, but then he said, “We finally decided we wish to make you acting president.”

I stuttered, “Why Judge, that’s, that—that’s a very strange, that’s a preposterous idea, it seems to me, because I am just a young dean and a new one at that. I think I might make a pretty good dean of the School of Business eventually, but I don’t think I know enough to be president. Far be it from me to tell you what to do, but you should take one of the other men.” I added, “The other deans have much more training and are much more experienced than I, and one of them could be tried out for the job.”

“Well,” he said, “to be perfectly frank with you, the reason we don’t want to take one of the other men is that we might want him for the president. We know we won’t be considering you. We can make you acting president without prejudicing the choice of any of the others.”

It was some moments before I could say, “Under those circumstances, if you will promise me that during this period you won’t consider me for the Presidency—I don’t want to get involved with that—I’ll do it. I’ll try to be a good soldier and do it, if you will get me back to my dean’s job as soon as possible.” He made those promises and then after some months broke them.

In retrospect, this move had a felicitous by-product as it eventually cleared the office of dean for Arthur Weimer, under whose inspired leadership the business school was able to bloom and develop into a truly golden era.