Interview of Rosalind Cassidy

1. Transcript

1.1. TAPE NUMBER: ONE, SIDE ONE August 29, 1967

SCHIPPERS: This is the first in a series of interviews with Dr. Rosalind Cassidy at her home in Santa Monica—717, is it, Ninth Street, Santa Monica?

CASSIDY: Yes.

SCHIPPERS: Ninth Street, that's it. This is August 29th, 1967. On the basis of a talk we had last week, we agreed that a chronological narrative approach would probably best serve our purposes. I have asked you to emphasize the factors and experiences that have had an influence on your thought process and also to describe the relationships you have had within the various institutions in which you have worked and in the community at large. We are going to use as a base the biographical or career vitae which you have prepared and revised at different points in your career. And also we are keeping in mind the Ph.D. dissertation prepared by Dr. Stratton P. Caldwell, and we will work with your writings, trying to put across the circumstances and situations in which they were done. For the first interview we are going to start with the early years of your life and concentrate on the family background and some of the influences of those years. Now we can start.

CASSIDY: Let us begin, I was born in Quincy, Illinois, July 17, 1895. My parents were John Warren Cassidy, who was born in 1865 in Kankakee, Illinois. He lived until 1931. My mother, Margaret Ashbrook, was born in 1870 in Prairie Home, Illinois. She died in 1961 at the ripe age of ninety-one years. These parents of mine were both farm bred and had only a high school education. They were married in 1889; my mother was nineteen years old. They moved to Monroe City where their first daughter was born, Margaret, in 1890. Then they moved into Quincy, Illinois, and I was born there. I think I've lived in the most exciting moment of American history, as a matter of fact, because at the turn of the century, the whole country was "on the make" and these young people had great ambitions, great dreams. Everything was going to be very marvelous for them. And, it was so, in the sense of success in business. My father's business, after they were married, was that of a salesman for a nursery. Not a child's nursery, but a gardener's nursery. And being an Irishman and a natural born salesman, he was most successful in this business. When they moved to Quincy, he then was thinking of all kinds of promotional matters, and shortly after I was born they moved into a great house in the suburbs which I remember. It was a very marvelous part of my childhood.

SCHIPPERS: About how old was your father when he started on this very successful venture?

CASSIDY: Well, 1889, when they were married. His success moved from that point. He was given a gold watch as the best salesman of the year, and that kind of thing, in the nursery firm. And then in Quincy, he went into the commission business and, in due course, was a member of the New York Stock Exchange. And at one point I was told that he was worth a quarter of a million dollars, which, in those days [laughter], were real dollars. He had every intention of making it a whole million, I think.

SCHIPPERS: Did he have much formal education?

CASSIDY: No. Both of them just had a high school education. But something I admired very much in both of them was that they were self-educated, self-made, and in the later years, I made an estimate of their sophistication and their use of language. Their whole social competence was very great. I have often wondered what they would have been like had they gone on and had the opportunity of college education. Maybe not as interesting people; I don't know.

SCHIPPERS: Was there an emphasis on education in the home? Was there a good attitude toward it?

CASSIDY: Yes. My mother always had delusions of grandeur of the kind, I think, that were artificial concepts of nineteenth-century culture. And this was part of my sister's education. She was five years older than I and culture was my mother's objective in taking her to Europe for a year. It was for Margaret's education. I was just taken along, and it served a good education for me, too, because I wrote all my high school themes, practically, on what I had experienced in Europe at that time. So then she took off again with three women friends in 1901 for a trip to Europe. They were socially "mobile-upward" indeed. Since the money was there, we had this beautiful house and the first automobile in town was owned by my father. We had horses and carriages and ponies and all sorts of things of elegance that seemed to be important to these two farm kids [laughter] when they were "on the make." So I have a very distinct remembrance of the month or two that she was in Europe. We were left with a nurse whom we called Grandma Harris. She was an older woman and very kind and very good to us. Then there was the assassination of McKinley. I was a little girl, so I didn't really know what that meant, but now at age seventy-two, I remember this as a terribly emotional time. This was something very terrible. It is a sharp memory of childhood. It might have been also because my mother was away. I don't know. The house, our home, was set in a half acre of land. We had cows and chickens and horses for the carriage. And then the ponies for us children. My sister and I have always said that we had such a beautiful early childhood that all the rest of the things that came along [laughter] were not necessarily important in the sense of exciting beginnings of our young lives. The grounds, the gardens, were so beautiful. One whole side was a hedge of lilacs, white and purple lilacs. And another thing I remember particularly was an enormous evergreen tree under which there was a huge circular bed, half of lilies of the valley and half of violets, nearby an enormous bed of peonies and all kinds of things that grow in the Middle West. So that this house and the concept of the ways these two young people wanted to live was quite elegant. There was a glassed-in sunroom that had all sorts of tropical plants and things that were not supposed to be part of living in the Middle West. And the music room with a grand piano and gilded chairs and all that kind of thing.

SCHIPPERS: Did they entertain much?

CASSIDY: Oh, yes. They were then accepted I think because of their charm, and money, and the home and so on, into the upper part of the society there in this little dinky town of Quincy. They entertained a great deal and enjoyed it and my father thought he was a great connoisseur of wines. It was before the hard liquor days, [laughter] He made quite a point of that.

SCHIPPERS: How about the religious formation?

CASSIDY: My father was able to break from the Catholic Church of his father. I am second generation immigrant actually—my father's father came from Ireland. He is the only grandparent that I remember. My mother's stock was German and Dutch actually, from Pennsylvania originally and her grandparents immigrated out into and set up a frontier kind of life. But father had gotten away from the Catholic religion, I don't quite know how. He was not a religious man. He had great values for people, as I perceive it. But Mother joined the Presbyterian Church in Quincy because it was the most fashionable, and in due course my sister and I became Presbyterians. [laughter] But not very good ones, I am afraid, in the sense of it having any particular meaning for us. The drama in that house was, and this is why I said to you the other day that Main Street in Disneyland is the street of my childhood, I remember this, it was very dramatic when the house changed from gas to electricity and when the telephone was put in and when our Negro servants were scared of this device. It was one of those wall things that you have to turn. And the drama of the automobile. This first Stanley Steamer we had was really something. You had to steam it up and had to spend hours getting ready to drive it. It was built like a carriage actually, with straw baskets on the side and the door opened in the back and you had to have all of this paraphernalia to wear to even get into it because of no windshield and the dusty roads. Driving it was a big drama. My mother had a little electric that she drove at about twenty miles an hour. As we look at it now it is a dramatic kind of remembrance. And actually in terms of the times, my father used to tell the story that when he got his first car and several of the men in town got automobiles then they had no mechanics or no way to get servicing. So they decided to put up a garage because they knew this was the coming thing. My father used to tell with great glee in later years when we were obsessed with automobiles, that Mr. Bull, which is a kind of an interesting name for the bank president, when the men went to ask for a loan for a garage, refused it because it was "just a passing fad and nothing would come of it." They went ahead and set up a car service anyway, so that they could get the servicing they needed for their cars.

SCHIPPERS: Were you very self-conscious about this affluence? Were you aware of the... ?

CASSIDY: I don't think so actually. I just thought it was all great and that life was so pleasant and delightful and I loved the outdoors. The place was really very beautiful. In the spring the little crocus would come up on the front lawn, and I remember the fireflies in the evening when we'd sit out on the front terrace, and the whole thing—I didn't know that everybody didn't have this, [laughter] actually. At least this is my perception of it now. Having these horses and ponies and so on, later seemed to be the cause of my early asthma. Nobody knew anything about allergies in those days of course. Our doctor in Chicago thought it was caused by diet or climate. Chicago was a great big thing in the life of all the little townspeople around who had money enough to go there. They'd go to Chicago for the doctor and for clothes and Marshall Fields, the doll department, the theater. We stayed at the Palmer House, and this was all a very exciting thing for years. In later years when I would come from the Pacific Coast by train as I neared Chicago, I would get this kind of fluttering of the heart, the feeling that this is an exciting place, because it had had this meaning of a big trip and big lovely things when I was a little girl.

SCHIPPERS: Was your exposure to cultural events in Chicago great?

CASSIDY: I don't remember other than theater really. And riding in a hansom cab. [laughter] But the asthma factor, which was later identified as a reaction to horse hair, was the basis then of a great deal of mobility of the family. The idea was that climate had a good deal to do with it. And then this Dr. Senn in Chicago, who was a famous person for respiratory problems in that day, felt I should have a bone cauterized out of my nose. It was a very painful thing, but it didn't do anything for the asthma. So the main idea was that we should get away from the Illinois climate. In the winter we should go to Florida; in the summer we should go to Maine; we should go to Colorado, whatever. And so the mobility bit, which my mother absolutely adored, of going places and doing things, then, became a part of a kind of nomadic life that I lived. And I don't know what influence particularly this had on me but it was a fact. A deeply dramatic and climactic fact was the separation of my parents in 1905, and then moving from the great house in Quincy, we were in with friends, I think, as I remember this, in Quincy after the divorce. This was a part of this very daring attitude my mother had toward life because to be divorced in 1905 was not respectable at all. And yet she was so determined that she would do this "for her daughters" that it was done. In 1906 she decided that we should go to Europe for a year for Margaret's education. We went to every museum and every church and every everything [laughter] actually from Naples to Scandinavia. And again, as part of our time, when we were on the ship a day out of Naples, we received a Marconigram saying that Chicago, New York, and San Francisco had been wiped out by an earthquake. So of course everyone on the ship was either from one of the three places or had friends there, and you have never seen a more sad and agonized group of people. When I am trying to have my students, now, see the terribly exciting flow of events in my lifetime, and I speak of a Marconigram they don't even know what it is. [laughter] But being the first wireless, it was part of an experience which I really remember rather dramatically.

SCHIPPERS: Referring back to your life in Quincy, was much of your care relegated to employees?

CASSIDY: Well, we were taken care of by our nurses much of the time, and there were our governesses when we wintered in Miami, My mother and father had their clothes especially made to order and my father even had his shoes made to order. This was supposed to be the thing of the day, for the rich people. I always loved clothes. They were exciting. But the doll department at Marshall-Field's was pretty exciting too. I had a collection of dolls that were quite marvelous.

SCHIPPERS: But your attention with your mother when you spent time with her?

CASSIDY: After her divorce and my sister's marriage she became over ambitious and over possessive of me. When we were little. I think both of them were very tender and very sweet and I had a great devotion to my father. This separation was a very serious matter for both Margaret and me, but I think more so for me, because I looked like him and I was the baby and this was pretty horrible. I think all their friends thought that they would come together again. He came to New York to see us off when we went to Europe, and I don't know whether you know Schwartz' on Fifth Avenue, the great toy store, he took me there and bought me the first little toy bear, which had come from Germany, later called Teddy Bear and a great toy that has gone on and on. He then moved to Chicago and lived at the Palmer House and Margaret and I visited him every now and again; that was always both happy and painful. We kept our relationship throughout his life; I'll speak of this later in terms of going to Mills because he was the one who was effective in that.

SCHIPPERS: And how about your relationship with your sister?

CASSIDY: She didn't like me. [laughter] She was five years older and I was this revolting little baby and always messing into everything and telling things to her beaus which she didn't want told. She married at nineteen and became completely involved in her husband and her two sons. Her husband was a very possessive person who made her almost unable to do anything except keep the home and be tender to her children. I went on in to college teaching and into intellectual kinds of interests, so that until these later years we really never had any basis of personal discourse in a way. When we were together I have always tried to be nice and she tried to be nice [laughter], but in recent years we've really had a growing mutual understanding and enjoy being together. Her husband was an invalid with arthritis for fourteen years, a bed patient, and she took care of him until he died. I think she has been just magnificent in remaking her life and being outgoing and independent, because when you spend that long in the other direction, you know, it's difficult. She lives in Sacramento, in her own home, and is a volunteer in the Easter Seal Center there and is absolutely their mainstay. It's her life. Her oldest son, is there and both he and his wife are very close to her and very kind and have her for Sunday dinners and barbecues and all that kind of thing every Sunday. But she really wants to be quite independent and she usually stays a month with me now after Christmas when they all come down here, and we go to the museum and the theater and movies and things like that, and have a really happy time together. But as young children we were not companions at all.

SCHIPPERS: Did you do traveling about the United States before you left for Europe?

CASSIDY: No. We went directly to New York and to Europe. But when we came back it was in the fall and Mother wanted to get more culture for Margaret, and more excitement for herself, so we stayed in Washington, D.C. for that winter and Margaret went to a very fancy boarding school. She also, when we lived in Colorado, went to a fashionable boarding school in Denver, My mother had a great (I guess, [laughter] because we never discussed this) disregard for anything but private schools. So Margaret and I both had this governess bit which we had when we went to Florida, and as I told you the other day this was my downfall in terms of some of the basic learnings because these were "ladies" who had fallen upon hard times and had to be governesses, and didn't know very much about teaching children. Mother had actually selected them because the nineteenth-century concept of languages was just, you know, to be educated, not educated really, but to be socially right. So she'd get one that could teach us German one time and teach us French the next [laughter] and we never really learned any of them very well. Our early education was really very sketchy. When we left Washington she moved to Colorado Springs with the thought that if I was in a climate where I didn't have asthma when I matured it might cure the whole thing. (It was really many years later, and I can't remember when, that the respiratory deal was identified as having to do with a direct allergy to horses, and happily I lived in a period when you could stay away from horses [laughter] quite easily).

SCHIPPERS: About your trip to Europe. You were there for a period of how long?

CASSIDY: We were to stay a whole year but Margaret was not feeling very well so we came back in September, so we were there from Spring to September, 1906. We went to Italy and then a cruise took us to Istanbul and then to Athens, and back into Germany and France. We came home from France.

SCHIPPERS: Did it have any lasting influence or impression on you that you think is of significance for later?

CASSIDY: Well, I suppose, yes. I think I was in such a shock in Italy at the pre-Mussolini dirt and filth and the reformed beggars, and I think also I had a revulsion toward the Catholic Church because here were these magnificent buildings and all these jewels and treasures on the altars, and then these poor, desolate creatures kneeling there in such poverty. And also, I suppose there must have been an emphasis on having bottled water and washing your hands—I'm sure that was part of the admonition to the children. (Mussolini, whatever else he did, really did clean up the water system, and the health system, in Italy). We came across my diary and my little niece, who went to Israel with me, was reading it when we were packing. She was simply convulsed over the comments that this child (I) had made in relation to my European experiences. I didn't have the energy [laughter] to look at them, but there they were. The other one that they always were teasing me about, the Constantinople of that day was also filthy and had all those veiled women and I, at that stage of sophistication, couldn't quite understand why the gentle men would have more [laughter] than five wives. The harem idea didn't come through, but it left a kind of lasting impression. I was remembering all this when I was in Istanbul just a month or so ago, as my early thoughts about Constantinople.

SCHIPPERS: Then this was perhaps your first real experience with wide social contrasts.

CASSIDY: Quite. I think actually the shock in Italy of the impoverished, now that you've asked the question, was because I had never seen poor people. I certainly had never seen people as destitute as those who were on the streets and in the churches, and I kept asking why do they have all this wealth in the churches when these people are in such impoverished conditions? And I think maybe that dirt was part of my interest in physical education and health—I don't know, who knows? I think there were other reasons that I'll tell you about in due course. But those are two of the special points that I remember. Then in Colorado Springs, which is 1908, I went to a very swish little private school, San Luis School, which was on the corner of the Colorado College campus. It was run by very progressive people for that day. They had sloyd, which was manual training, imported from Norway, They had a very special teacher who had a dancing class for boys and girls, and I remember getting all dressed up and going to the dancing school and winning a prize. [laughter] It doesn't seem possible now, being such a light and fancy dancer. This was social dancing. My mother and my sister joined "the upper crust" and rode with hounds, only here the foxes were coyotes, and did a great deal of horseback riding, but happily I didn't get involved in that; and also I was then not having asthma in that climate. I had a great direction in those days for being an actress. I suppose every girl goes through that at some time or another. But I thought that would be the end of it all.

SCHIPPERS: Was this as a result of your exposure to theater?

CASSIDY: I don't have any idea. I just thought it was so glamorous and so exciting, and I would like to do it. I don't even remember being in any plays in this little school. In 1910 we moved to Oakland, and I can't seem to remember why we did that. And there I went to a little school called the Horton School. It was founded by a New England school mistress, Sara Horton, who was a marvelous person. Her great excitement was over Latin, and of course everybody had to take it in those days. It was required. I was told I would hate it, it would be terrible, but I loved it. And I loved her and really did very well with it. They used to tease me because she would meet me on the front steps and say, "Ah, my dear little Latin pupil." That was supposed to be a great joke to my classmates and my sister. This was the school where the inadequacies of my early preparation really got taken care of. This was a very traumatic deal for me and for my mother; I think, because I had absolutely no background at all in arithmetic. The teacher in charge of my classroom was, and it's awful I can't remember her full name because she really saved my life, was Miss Jones. She was a New Englander too and was quite disturbed because evidently I was really adequate in other subjects; she offered to work with me after school every night, if I wanted, and I did want to do it because I was very upset and I really, as I look at it now, thought I wasn't very bright. And to be failing continually and not knowing what was going on in a subject really is pretty devastating. So she worked with me day after day on the basic stuff, and we were able to make the grade on arithmetic and restore my self-image as a fairly adequate person. Then I went on with algebra and geometry and got A's and was successful. But I often think of this terrible experience. And yet this was purely the early training that fell out because the governesses didn't know enough. I think a monument should be put up to Miss Jones [laughter] for her saving me from this awful sense of failure.

SCHIPPERS: What other sorts of thing were you taking at that time?

CASSIDY: Well, Latin and English and history and geography. I don't think science. I don't remember, [laughter] I think it was just the traditional liberal arts kind of thing. One of the girls in the school (oh, this was a very social school) and I became very dear friends, and the partying was done with her group and some of the boys were in the same school. She had a coming-out party in those years, and I was part of that. And then later when I was up North I came down as maid of honor at her wedding. Later we were with a yachting crowd who had small cruisers out at the yacht harbor at San Francisco when I was at Mills. This became a whole social thing that continued after I came back to California from up North. It was [laughter] a pretty "fancy" period actually. At this point my sister at age nineteen married James Sheridan Marr. This was a very great romance—he had some emotional deprivations in his family and we certainly had in ours. So these two just built their lives together in this most exclusive way. He had a farm out of Tacoma and had majored in Forestry. And so my sister, who had all the fancy education and all the travel and all the trimmings, went out on this farm. She had never done any house work in her whole life really, never cooked or anything like that. In fact, the servants we had didn't let us in the kitchen, so we didn't even get a chance to play with food cooking. She went on this farm where they even had to pump the water into the sink and adored it and did all kinds of things that she had never heard of, you know, and prospered and had her little first son the first year. When she became pregnant we moved up to Tacoma so that Mother could be there and be helpful. So this became the Stadium High School years in Washington. I was permitted for the first time to go to a public school. The uncle of Margaret's husband was Alfred Hathaway, and in due course this acquaintance with my mother eventuated in their marriage. This, I think was upsetting to me. I had then gotten myself involved with a whole social group there in the high school and there were a great many who would go to the beach and live there in the summer on the sound. It's a beautiful place, as you know, in the summertime. We had canoeing and swimming and all kinds of things and many parties. So in due course I became deeply attached to one of the young men and we were engaged. And this killed my mama, because Margaret had escaped at nineteen [laughter] and she was set for me to live out the family ambitions and go to college. This Alfred Hathaway was a promoter. The money that Father had settled on Mother looked very tempting. She had confidence in him and after she married him more and more of the thousands of dollars went over for his land development schemes. I went to the University of Washington and we moved over to Seattle into this very fancy house near the University in Ravenna Glenn. My mother had given me a Chalmers car for my graduation from high school. [laughter] As a matter of fact, the most marvelous moment of my whole life, where I knew everything, was on top of the world, I had it by the tail, was when I graduated from high school. That was it. And nothing since can compare with it. I had everything, I knew everything. It was great. That was the biggest moment. Nothing ever came up to it. So I majored in home economics because I was going to get married. When we were living in Tacoma, we had a very fussy cook who would not let me into the kitchen. I was taking a home economics course in high school, which was so primitive as you think of it now, when they had to have an apartment and all modern equipment there. We had a tiny little gas plate and we made everything in tiny amounts. So we came out with tiny little muffins and tiny little cookies. And I loved it and I was dying to cook, but this cook we had would not have any traffic with this child. She would cook up our Sunday noon dinner and take the rest of the day off. So my mother said, "Now, if you and your beau want to have some other couples in, and if you get the Sunday supper, you can play in that kitchen from noon on." So I took my little recipes [laughter] and another couple and my friend and I would cook, horse around in this kitchen the whole afternoon putting on the evening meal. And so I got my cooking experience in the sense of real meals. I loved it; I thought a home economics major would mean I could have more cooking experience, but the first course you take is sewing. And the first thing you would make would be a perfectly plain cover to go over a hanger, so you couldn't go wrong. But it went on into corset covers (which you wouldn't know anything about now), and drawers and all kinds of seams and fittings and then plaquets. I was not doing well with my home economics. So the head of the department said at the middle of the year, "You're not doing very well and maybe you should transfer into some other major." There was a rather skinny little Wellesley College graduate there in physical education. Her name was Catherine Eastman, and I was in her class, I can't figure now what this was—l don't think it was just an activity class because I think there was theory with it, or maybe I talked with her a great deal. There was developing in this country the burgeoning playground movement. She could talk about this is such glowing terms that I thought, well I'll give up sewing and transfer into physical education. So I did that and was enjoying it very much. This is really how I got into the field of physical education. She had a very great influence on my life. At the end of my second year—no, in the middle of the second year—Mr. Hathaway removed himself from our life with most of my mother's money, and so life changed considerably and there was a great deal of weeping, but this fantastic mother of mine pulled herself together and said she was going to work. [laughter] What could she do? We moved out of this very fancy house and sold the automobile and we (I don't think she really knew what financial situation we were actually in) moved into a little upstairs apartment over a store in the university district. She insisted that I keep on going to college and she would go out and work. So with no experience, she got a job at Frederick and Nelson's in the baby department and sold more baby clothes [laughter] than any of the older clerks. I went on to college very much broken-hearted and upset. My father was simply furious about all of this and wrote saying that if I would go away to college, any place I wanted to go, he would send me. So I thought of Wellesley. Mother was willing for me to do this; I enrolled at Wellesley, was accepted and sent bedding and books and things like that on, and then we went from Tacoma down to California. My sister was living in San Jose and Mother was going to get herself established in that area. This was in 1916, and I got a telegram then from the Wellesley Recorder's office saying that a polio epidemic had broken out, that the college was quarantined, they were not accepting anybody until this was over, that there was no knowing when it would be over and maybe I should do something else. So we started on a search. There was no physical education major then at Berkeley. Where could I find preparation for playground work? I went to Mr. Glenn, then head of the Recreation Department in Oakland, and asked if he knew any place where there was a possibility of training. He said he thought maybe at Santa Barbara, so we got on a train and went to Santa Barbara, which was then a teacher's college, you know, not quite a university really, and found that there was nothing there, that they were big in home economics but that was all. But in this process of trying to find out if there was any training available in playground work, which I really didn't know anything about [laughter] but sounded good, I found that a new person had just come to Mills College by the name of Elizabeth Reem Stoner. She came from Pittsburgh where the public playgrounds had been established. So we traveled out to Mills College and talked with the dean, who later became a very stern figure in my life, Hettie Belle Ege, Dean Ege, and to Miss Stoner. She had just arrived and she was about so high with snowy-white hair and was absolutely the most self-assured human being I have ever known. She was out there to succeed, and so she was not about to lose a major student. So before I knew it I was enrolled at Mills. I phoned my father and we talked about this, and he said, "Oh, just go there for a half-year or one year and then go on to Wellesley." So the expectation I had when I went to Mills was that I would only stay there until I could get back into Wellesley. My classmate there, we were the only two physical education majors in the class was Hilda Clute, who was later Mrs. Alfred Kozman with whom I have done a great deal of writing. So the two of us stalwart girls were Miss Stoner's "handmaidens." We waited on her hand and foot and she demanded everything, There was nothing that she did not know, or if she didn't she made it up. She had worked in England with Cecil Sharp and the country dancing, She had worked with Dalcroze, a thing called natural dancing which you did in a Greek costume, you know, with a little cord around the middle. She, I think, probably made up or read out of a book. We had field hockey and basketball. This was a great deal for girls in those days, and then we had crew on Lake Merritt. You know, these great big old lumbering boats. I was on the 1918 crew. Then, there was a whole deal in here that I had been aware of, of the whole suffrage movement which had been in progress, because women got the franchise in 1920 but this had all been boiling along the way with Carrie Chapman Catt and that whole group of militant ladies. And I had been very aware of this. The whole big fuss in the country at that time was about competition for women. Teams were coached by men because most women teachers were not prepared. The men coaches were accused of being evil or bad, but really they just didn't know any better. They wanted to win, and they put these girl basketball teams on before the boys played as a kind of come-on, and the girls according to our standards didn't wear proper clothes and they really exploited their health and it was a pretty bad situation. To combat this, Play Days for Women were organized. Stanford, Berkeley and Mills had a Triangle Play Day. They were considered good because no one knew who won. So you take a team sport and you put a Stanford girl, a Mills girl, a Berkeley girl, who never played together, and you just had a great big riot going on, whether it was basketball or hockey or whatever, or a swimming team. But it was so that nobody would know who's the best. Then the ladies got some more sense and had what they called a sports day, where you took your own teams who had played together and had excellent kinds of skills in relating to each other. But you took enough teams so that you never could figure out which college really won the day. These were mainly social events. There was always a meeting and food and that kind of thing with the girls' activities. This competition thread then relating to the exploitation of women has really run through my whole life experience and has come full circle now, with a change even in national standards, the concept that every human being in our society—sounds a little odd at this moment—should come to his fullest development. So if you have a girl who is really gifted in sport, you have no right to keep her from a high level of experience in skill. And that means the competitive experience. So this happened at Mills, and was part of a whole ongoing theme. The World War I was on and I spent a great deal of time dancing my feet off in the USO clubs for soldiers. Also—and this was another great change in my life direction—it always seems I come up to a stone wall and have to go one way or the other. Miss Stoner had a program authorized by Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C., on what was then called a Reconstruction Aid. It's what physical therapy is now, only it wasn't that fancy, but that was the idea, I think I had always been interested in corrective, so I took this course. They brought amputee cases from the Veteran's Hospital which was near Mills, and we set up a whole therapy room. I qualified in the number of training hours and had my little certificate from Walter Reed. We in our family had not ever had any men in the wars, so I really wanted to go overseas and I made an application to go into that program. Finally I got word—this was before I graduated—that I was too young to be accepted at that time. My mother, who was throwing fits over my plan—she was not going to have me go to Europe—was very pleased when I was turned down. So after that Miss Stoner recommended to President Reinhardt that I be given a contract as her assistant at Mills. So having had my war service shattered, I signed a contract to teach at Mills. Pat Caldwell discovered that my first salary was $1,000. I thought it was a tremendous amount of money and I was very excited. The first money I had really earned. Oh, it wasn't the first money I had really earned because after our financial [laughter] difficulty in Seattle I had worked in the bakery at Christmastime at the Bon Marché, a big Seattle department store. And then I continued to work on Saturdays. It was really a pretty interesting experience, wrapping up large loaves of French bread, [laughter] rolls and cakes. So I had done that work, but not anything else.

SCHIPPERS: Did you start this teaching before you received your B.S.?

CASSIDY: No. This was after I graduated, the September after I graduated.

SCHIPPERS: I wondered about this physical education thing you got involved in there. It sounds, as you said, progressive. Were you aware that it was?

CASSIDY: The physical therapy thing?

SCHIPPERS: No, the whole curriculum for your program there at Mills.

CASSIDY: Yes, I think really it was, because Miss Stoner was just so full of all kinds of ideas. She put on a Kermess, as she called it; she composed the whole thing with dances together in this program. She had, as I say the Dalcroze, the English country dancing, and she had us going around doing demonstrations of this, the English Sword Dance and all that kind of thing. And natural dancing, and of course we were also teaching gymnastics in those days. We were taught that, we weren't teaching.

CASSIDY: Did she have a unifying theme or philosophy for this that seems important to you?

CASSIDY: I don't think so. I have this probably very skewed image of this little white-haired person who was just making everything. She was going to have the best program in the country and she was on the go. She got angry with Dr. Reinhardt one day. She had on little white tennis slippers and a red jacket over her white gym suit, you know, the one-piece bloomer suits in those days. She said, "Oh! I'm just going down to deal with her! You know the axiom that the squeaky lock always gets the oil." And so [laughter] she went down and squeaked considerably. She took everything with a very aggressive manner and had great ambitions to make this program very good.

SCHIPPERS: Was this sort of an eclectic approach?

CASSIDY: No, I think that the idea was that you had anatomy, physiology; you had to understand the human body and how it operated. She didn't teach those, of course. The major program at Mills, which was really a teaching major as she saw it, was set in the liberal arts base, so you really had the Mills requirements of liberal arts, and then her specialization, and then you got a lot of skills training. She put an enormous amount of emphasis on correctives. She used then something which was very progressive in our field called the silhouette picture in the physical examination. The girls had a photograph taken and then you had a conference with them as to what their postural problems were; I think not too many places were doing that.

SCHIPPERS: How about some of the other instruction there, as far as its being impressionable on you?

CASSIDY: In other subjects?

SCHIPPERS: Yes.

CASSIDY: Well, I had really kind of a yen for science, because at the University of Washington I had taken an anatomy course where we had done dissection with pre-med students. I still have my notebook. It is quite something. We had a good literature course and I was keeping on with French. I had done five years of French, two in high school and three in college, and then of course dropped it just when I learned to read and enjoy it. [laughter] One of the courses which I had to take, as required in those days, was Bible. The woman who taught it was (I can't remember her name now) a very gushy kind of human being and she was always asking you if you had a prayer life. I was always saying, "No!" [laughter] I don't really remember any of the other experiences in classes

SCHIPPERS: Were you pretty zeroed in then on the physical education courses?

CASSIDY: Yes. Oh, I must tell you this. As you've probably seen from my biographical sheet, I was director of a playground in Oakland because I was going into playground work. Well, after I really was a director on a playground I decided this was not for me. So I changed then completely from the idea of playground work to school physical education. I had every intention of having a high school position, but I got offered the Mills job so of course I took that.

SCHIPPERS: You've mentioned this playground movement and your interest in playgrounds a little earlier. Was this the primary reason why you got interested in physical education then?

CASSIDY: Yes. Because Catherine Eastman had told me about the beginning of this big movement in the United States.

SCHIPPERS: Why was that attractive to you?

CASSIDY: I think maybe because I thought she was attractive. I don't know. I think there are data to show that people go into some work because they have had a teacher who influenced them, this may be it. But also it was to get out of Home Economics. [laughter] Miss Eastman built it up as such a new, exciting thing happening in our country, for the leisure good of people, you see. There must be some thread that ties all the way through because then there's my camping and group-work interests. All the other kinds of things I have related to are part of a bigger picture than just a school program of physical education.

SCHIPPERS: Was it because of the experiences you had when you first went up to Seattle, or had there been an emphasis on outdoor activities?

CASSIDY: Well, yes. In that part of the country, in the long beautiful green summers, the canoeing and the swimming and all that kind of thing, beach parties, clam digging, boating, out-of-doors living, all this was very, very important to me socially. They didn't have any physical education in Stadium High School. The course I didn't like was chemistry. I had real problems with that. Didn't like it at all, but anatomy and physiology I really enjoyed very much.

SCHIPPERS: And then you mentioned the natural dancing, which was just coming in, of course, How did you feel about that and the folk dancing?

CASSIDY: We had both and we also had some ballet. Because I was a great follower of Isadora Duncan, the fact that ballet says there isn't anybody, there isn't any weight, seemed false. The truth of that big bare foot going down on the ground was so right. Structure and function, as someone says, really relate to the reality of moving. I really don't enjoy ballet. I never liked it. I was in New York when Mary Wigman came over with her big bare feet bouncing down that New York stage.

SCHIPPERS: This was later?

CASSIDY: Yes, much later. A great shock to people then to see the natural kind of expression of the human body.

SCHIPPERS: In retrospect, then, there was about the dancing you had at Mills something that was very impressionable.

CASSIDY: Yes. And I think the folk dancing was very interesting too. I enjoyed that.

SCHIPPERS: In retrospect would you say that there was something that started to congeal in your mind as an attitude toward physical education in those years?

CASSIDY: I think actually all of the Mills experience helped me refocus. I was really a very upset young person when I went to Mills College because my whole life had been torn up, I had been separated from the young man I planned to marry, we had lost money, and I was really very disturbed. The whole supporting atmosphere of Mills, and the fact that Dr. Reinhardt was the new president and gave so much to the students, influenced me. Miss Stoner, although she worked us to death and imposed on our private time, still was so dynamic and so demanding and made it so exciting that I liked it all very much and decided to stay at Mills and complete the Major program.

SCHIPPERS: Now, you've mentioned Dr. Reinhardt. During that period did she have personal contact with the students?

CASSIDY: Oh, yes. She was a very tall, stately woman, marvelous looking, and with this great voice. She had done her dissertation on Dante at Yale and at Oxford. She married the physician who set up the first Student Health Service at UC Berkeley, Dr. George Frederick Reinhardt. Eight years after they were married, he cut through his glove in an operation, got an infection and died very suddenly. She had taught elocution and literature at the University of Idaho before she married. In 1916, she was invited to be the president of Mills, and so she came there with her two little boys—Paul was about four and Fred, who is now the ambassador to Italy, was about six. When she came to Mills the college was really in a very bad way, as far as leadership and finances were concerned. Wearing a great navy blue cape with a red lining, she would stride down the campus holding the hand of each of these little boys; she was certainly an impressive figure. [laughter] She made that college into a top, first-rate academic institution and got funds for tremendous expansion of buildings and faculty. When I was, much later, head of the Department of Physical Education, we became close personal friends. She had a summer house just near mine up at Lake Tahoe.

1.2. TAPE NUMBER: ONE, SIDE TWO September 4, 1967

SCHIPPERS: Last time Dr. Cassidy was kind enough to set out some materials that she has collected, and one of the items that should have been referred to was The Quincy Daily Herald for Friday evening, March 16, 1906, in which there is a cartoon and a brief description of her father and her father's activities. [tape off] There is also a scrapbook of pictures and running narrative on Dr. Cassidy's mother, which was prepared by whom?

CASSIDY: Ruth Collison Ross, who was a Mills student and a long-time friend of our family. Her mother and my mother were friends. It was done in the P. E. O. Chapter J. C. here in Westwood.

SCHIPPERS: And this will be going to the nephew, Ralph?

CASSIDY: No. James A Marr.

SCHIPPERS: I see. And he resides in Sacramento?

CASSIDY: Yes. [tape off]

SCHIPPERS: At the end of the last session you had just mentioned Dr, Reinhardt and I had asked a question about the degree of personal contact she had with the students.

CASSIDY: The college was quite small and really struggling when she came there, and actually in her years there, she was the college. It was hers. She met with the student officers and had a great deal of contact with students. Every year, possibly every semester, and this continued on during the time I taught there, she had a session called Family Affairs. She would bring up the matter of apple cores being thrown on the eucalyptus walks and things like that. It had matters of discipline involved but it was very charmingly done and very motherly in a certain sense, and persuasively in relation to student life. She had strong personal relationship with the graduates. She traveled a great deal and really built the alumnae association in her contacts over the country with the graduates.

SCHIPPERS: All right. Now we can pick up where you began teaching.

CASSIDY: I graduated in 1918 and signed my little contract to go back and teach at Mills. Miss Stoner and I were the only two members of the department. I started as an instructor in physical education. In this session I think I have been trying to see two aspects which were part of those years. One was leaving in 1923 to go to Columbia to get my master's degree, at Mrs. Reinhardt's urging. And the other was, and I can't remember how I started, a course in organized camping. It was a counselor's training course which I organized and gave, and which was the reason for some of the things I did in relation to camping when I was in the East. I'll hold that for a moment, because I did go in the summer of 1919 to Columbia for summer school, and then the summer of 1921 and 1922 I was employed as a recreation leader for children at the Wawona Hotel, which is above Yosemite Valley. I put on the pageants and after-dinner games for the children and birthday parties for the kids who had their birthdays during the time they were at the hotel. The owner of the hotel was a friend of ours and that was why I was employed there. It was a very beautiful place, and it was rather a fun kind of thing to do. I worked rather hard, I thought. [laughter] I think now we're at 1923. I had become very much interested, through this course I was giving, in the materials on the summer camp movement in the United States, and I had known about Luther Gulick and his work in New York City. Then their Wahelo camps were at that time the most outstanding private camps in the country. So I wrote to Mrs. Gulick—Luther Gulick was then dead, and she was directing the camps. I asked if she would like to use a counselor, and I was given such a position for that summer preceding my study at Columbia. So I set out for Lake Sebago in Maine and had a very exciting summer experience in her camp. As you probably know the Gulicks started the Camp Fire Program for girls in this country. They had great dedication to the out-of-doors and to primitive living, and their camps, unlike many of the private camps in the East, were not places where you learned sports but where you really lived close to nature, learned Indian lore, crafts, swimming and water activities. They had the most marvelous number of war canoes. The annual war canoe trip for overnight camping was really something, as was the once-a-year regatta. There were sailboats and horseback riding, and the other thing that Mrs. Gulick felt city children needed to experience (I think I have gotten really from my contact with her), was the feeling that if we are going to be saved at all we will be saved by being close to nature. She had a feeling that the city children who had never planted a seed and seen it grow into flower or fruit should really have an opportunity at farm activities. So she maintained a farm in relation to the camp, year around, which was a pretty expensive enterprise, I imagine. The planting had to be done by the farmer and his family earlier. One of the camper's special activity was to go and work in the vegetable areas and to see the fruit and the tomatoes, beans and other vegetables actually mature and then be served on the table. She had a very strong feeling about this being important for children. One of my very good friends, the Director of the California Youth Authority, Heman Stark, has built in to the Youth Authority structure this same idea in the sense that the rehabilitation of the young offender is better done in relation to camp and farm activities and being close to nature, since most of these kids have never been off the city streets. The authority has really maintained this as a rehabilitation theory, so possibly there's something in it. The riding, the swimming, the canoeing, sailing, the gardening, crafts, modern dance and dramatics were all part of the program. This camp has gone on for years and now the campers are great-grandchildren of the first campers. It is now directed by her son Halsey Gulick and his wife. The first part of the summer I was a counselor there and had this indoctrination into the close-to-nature sort of thing that I believe should be a summer camp program, not just sports and athletic competition. At the latter part of the summer I attended the camp run by the physical education department at Teachers College, Columbia University, called Camp Saneo. It was near Boston. This was a real skills camp in hockey and basketball and other sports because they didn't have any outdoor space in New York City to give their major students the sports skills. It was there that I met Helen Frost for the first time. She was the author of the early clog and tap dance books. She and Hazel Cubberly were directing this camp. My friendship with Hazel Cubberly resulted later on, in our establishing a six weeks summer Field Hockey and Sports Camp at Mills College, so this all ties into one great big circle actually. We started the Sports Camp in 1926 after she had joined the UCLA faculty, and continued it until 1933. We called it Camp Serano. We had the idea that the tired schoolteacher really needed a short session in a natural setting where they could wear activity clothes and really play at the camp activities with the campfire at night and that kind of thing. We had all that facilities at Mills and they lived very comfortably. We actually ran it in the sense of its being a very informal camping kind of thing. Well, so much for that particular package having to do with activities in camping. The year 1923-24 at Columbia was I think maybe one of the most important years of my life actually, because it was there that I took a course with Dr. Thomas Denison Wood, who was an M.D. and chairman of the Physical Education Department. He was very tall, courtly, nineteenth-century type man with beautiful manners and impeccable grooming. He was a dedicated and creative person and actually started the whole Child Health Movement in this country. I took a course with him in the Principles of Physical Education, I think it was called. As usual you have to do a term paper. In that department at this time there was a great furor going on about something called Natural Gymnastics. It is a very funny term now really, but it was antithetical to formal gymnastics and it made a break with the response-to-command kind of concept of activity. At this time at Teachers College there was a foment of new ideas going on with John Dewey, William Heard Kilpatrick and that whole group of faculty. They were all very good personal friends; they ate lunch together and talked all the time. They had summer homes together and this thing was just exploding really in that center. It was the beginning, really, of the project method and the other manifestations that you think of as related to Progressive Education. Students were aware of this excitement I kept trying to ask, what is this "natural program," "natural gymnastics," and the only thing written on it was in the Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education , which I think was 1910 in an article by Dr. Wood. To digress a bit, when I was doing the oral history interview with Earle Zigler at the University of Illinois he centered it around, who first thought up this natural program? Was it Clark W. Hetherington or Thomas Denison Wood? [laughter] And I maintained that it was Wood because Hetherington had been a student of his at Stanford. But as with many great ideas, they come into minds at separate spots or through inter-influence at about the same time. Wood really in the 1910 publication expounded on this idea about a physical education for American children. This was the question being asked by all the educators there at Columbia: "How shall we educate children in the United States for democratic citizenship?" In the classroom as well as in physical education then it was response-to-command and passive, pouring in of knowledge, parroting back what was in the textbook. There was this foment of thinking and talking, resulting in problem-centered education. So back to my term paper; I got the 1910 yearbook, read the article and wrote my little paper, and as I told before, being born in 1895 I was a very conforming human being, really, with no confidence in my own thinking. I never had been encouraged to think, as a matter of fact, and I did what my mama told me and what my teachers told me and that was It. So I wrote my little paper. Later Dr. Wood came in with the papers and said, "Miss Cassidy, I would like to see you in my office after class." Well, here I am trembling and being frightened and thinking that the paper was probably awful. I was really quite upset, as a matter of fact, to be summoned to his office. I went and he said, "I am very interested in your paper and why you wrote it," and chatted along in this fashion. So I told him and he said, "Would you be interested in writing a book with me?" Well, I [laughter] didn't have a fainting spell. However, it was almost that serious. After I recovered a bit, I said, "Yes! I suppose so." Or, "You know, I don't know enough in any case." He then gave me a lot of materials, and before I left at the end of the year with my little master's degree in hand, we had made the table of contents and the planning for what this was to be. His motivation, I found as I worked with him in developing the materials, really was to make his statement of his thinking—and get it in print. He felt that Dr. Jesse Feiring Williams who was the young, very belligerent, anti-formal professor on his staff at that time, who just died a year ago, would get the credit. Williams was a tremendous platform speaker. He was debating on every platform in the country against the formalists, and I think Wood felt that Williams was really getting the credit for the original thinking, and the same thing was so, I think, yet not as intense, with Clark Hetherington. He was then of an age where he found it very difficult to write anything on his own. He was collaborating with several people on various projects. So I think he found my interest of value to him, and he thought I had the ability, I presume, so he invited me to write this book with him. Well, being young and innocent, I had never written a book, and I felt, as we developed the table of contents, that he would write certain chapters and I would write certain chapters. Well, it didn't quite turn out that way, as a matter of fact. [laughter] I was filled with the ideas in the courses I had taken at Columbia that year, with the new thinking in psychology and the scientific method, the project method, the new concepts of learning, the turning from the old faculty psychology to the gestalt psychology. And so I was full of theories indeed. The Child Health Movement was just getting organized in New York, and Wood had a great deal to do with that. He offered me the directorship, which was later taken by Ethel Perrin. He hoped I would stay on in New York so that work on the book could start at once. But I was dedicated to Mills, so at the end of my year which was 1923, '24, I returned to California. Now something had happened before I left. I was very active in the Mills College Alumnae Association, and had been elected the president for the year '24-25. This was another reason for not staying in New York. In New York I was living in Butler Hall which is right up on Morningside Drive across from Teachers College. The head of the Physical Education Department at Barnard College was also living there, and so we cooked up the idea of taking a trip to visit the women's colleges in the East in the fall. We went to Bennington, Wellesley, Smith, Vassar and Mt. Holyoke. We were looking at department programs, and I was also then talking with alumnae secretaries and getting ideas about organization and programs. But I must say one other thing about working with Dr. Wood. He really freed me to have confidence in my own thinking and to really question and not just take everything as [laughter] final and in authoritarian fashion. This seems to me one of the most precious things that can happen to a person who has had no encouragement in independent thinking in their whole education. And so I look back on that relationship as being tremendously central in my whole future life. Well, I got back to Mills.

SCHIPPERS: May I interrupt with some questions about the book? [The New Physical Education published by MacMillan in 1937].

CASSIDY: Yes. Have you read it yet? [laughter]

SCHIPPERS: Were the ideas that are contained in it drawn in any way from his lecture series?

CASSIDY: No. No, not really. I was just looking at it. I haven't had it in my hands since I did the oral history session at the University of Illinois, and before that I hadn't looked at it for years. The first chapter quotes from his article in the ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education and it says "the senior author in the..." and then almost the whole first chapter is the ninth yearbook material. There are chapters on the basic foundations of the new psychology and the concepts of democracy which are basic to the "natural" method. I think I did most of those, but as we were writing this I found out we would confer and then, well, I'll get back to the date when we actually started working. I got involved when I went back to Mills and so I didn't have time for two years to work with him. He and his wife went to Estes Park every summer, so it was agreed that my mother and I would go to Boulder so I would be near a library. He would come down once a week and correct my materials, and so the ideas really are his. We would have long talks about the content of chapters and then I would be left the job of writing the material. Pat Caldwell asked me, "What part was yours and what was his?" And I told him, "Well, really, it's his book, because he had all the ideas and I just took them and worked with them."

SCHIPPERS: But you say that at the same time you had been influenced by other people at Columbia.

CASSIDY: Oh, very definitely.

SCHIPPERS: With which ones did you study? Did you study with Kilpatrick?

CASSIDY: Yes. And Goodwin Watson and Thorndike. Not John Dewey. I saw him around and had met him at an occasion, but I didn't study with him. He was really just doing very high-level graduate courses.

SCHIPPERS: What was your reaction to Kilpatrick?

CASSIDY: Well, I thought he was simply marvelous and so did everybody else, and he did too of course. [laughter] You know, he floated in with his aura of this beautiful white hair and this soft little accent and, the word was given and all of us fell under the spell. His lectures were given in huge sections and then you met with a graduate assistant in further discussion sections. I was enchanted with the whole thing. I just thought it was terribly exciting. As a matter of fact I liked gymnastics very much and had taught it, the Swedish Skarstrom kind. But I think the excitement and the pushing for new ideas that you felt there was very stimulating, and it related I suppose to my concern about my country and democratic life. But the ideas were new. I had not dealt with them at all, really, until I was there.

SCHIPPERS: How many courses did you take with Kilpatrick?

CASSIDY: Just the one, his philosophy course,

SCHIPPERS: And then with Thorndike?

CASSIDY: Just one, that I remember.

SCHIPPERS: Then the bulk of it was still in physical education.

CASSIDY: Well I had another course with Goodwin Watson that was very interesting and a dance course with Gertrude Colby, who was the natural dance person. I had one with Jesse Williams.

SCHIPPERS: What was your reaction to Colby?

CASSIDY: Oh, I felt she was marvelous. [laughter] I thought she was quite remarkable.

SCHIPPERS: Did this influence your later thinking about...

CASSIDY: Dance?

SCHIPPERS: The natural movement, yes.

CASSIDY: Oh, I think so really, because as I told you the other day, I had very bad feelings about ballet denying the rightness of the human being moving as it is made. I had a course with Harold Rugg whom I really adored, and got to know very well through the Progressive Education movement. The whole democratic way of valuing people and having them move and express as they are structured I think was part of feelings I got from Miss Colby. Harold Rugg had a very dramatic way of saying things; I always tried to use his style. Some of my friends think it gets too fancy, but I am always sure nobody is going to hear anything so I like to get a little dramatic in [laughter] my communication. I think it was Rugg who introduced me to Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan, whose influence shows in my next book, New Directions, where I quote "form follows function," [laughter] which is part again of the natural expression of the human structure.

SCHIPPERS: Another basic question: What decided you on going to Teachers College, Columbia University?

CASSIDY: Well, President Reinhardt, as I said before encouraged her faculty to go ahead and get advanced degrees. It was she who really made it seem so important for me to work on my masters. I picked out Columbia University because it was New York City for one thing [laughter] and at that time it was being known as the center for new ideas in physical education. Under the leadership of Jay B. Nash, the Department of Physical Education at New York University was just then becoming a very strong center, and the two were really pretty competitive. Jay B. Nash, a very good friend of mine. He was head of the Recreation Department in Oakland. He and President Reinhardt were very good friends, and when he was offered almost at the same time a position at New York University as head of the department and a faculty position at Teachers College, he came out and talked with both of us very seriously about this decision. I think this must have been after I had been there for my master's. He finally decided he would rather be directing a program, so he took the New York University position and really brought it to very great distinction, while he was chairman. In 1936, Jay Nash, his wife and his daughter Janet were going to conduct a trip into Scandinavia and Russia before the Olympic games which were to be held in Germany. I joined them, and we had a wonderful trip. Jay Nash and I had a long-term personal friendship. He belonged to the American Academy of Physical Education and various other professional organizations that I belonged to, so we had opportunities to work and think together from time to time.

SCHIPPERS: When did you take this trip?

CASSIDY: This was '36 that I did the trip.

SCHIPPERS: Yes. The fall of 1919 at Columbia?

CASSIDY: No. I went to summer session there in 1919. But the whole year I took off for my master degree was '23-'24, and this was when the plan was made to write the book with Dr. Wood. But I got back to Mills and got into all kinds of complications, personal and otherwise, and so our plan to do the book immediately was put on the shelf. It wasn't until 1925 that I went to Boulder and we started our enterprise. I hired a stenographer to do my typing since I don't type, and worked in the way I just described with Dr. Wood on our book. The final title was The New Physical Education—A Program of Naturalized Activities for Education Toward Citizenship. We finished it by the end of the summer, which I thought was kind of phenomenal. Dr. Wood said that he didn't really care about anybody in physical education seeing it, but he wanted John Dewey to look at it and comment on it. He had published other things with MacMillan so he planned to give the manuscript to them for publishing. So in due course John Dewey evidently approved it, according to what Wood said, and thought it was sound in terms of relating our program to the thinking that was going on in general education. So it went to MacMillan and was published. Now writing this book was different from any I've done since, because of working with Dr. Wood in this fashion. But I was relieved the pain of proofreading. He did all of that [laughter] and so I innocently went into the next one without realizing how hideous it is to do galley proof and page proof. By the time a book finally is published you don't ever want to see the thing, you know. [laughter] You just can't bear it. So evidently I am masochistic because I keep on writing books [laughter] and have gone through all those agonies. Actually the first writing, organizing the ideas and trying to communicate them, gives great excitement. I couldn't do it if I wasn't terribly interested. But then that's where men have it all over women; you know, their wives do all the proofreading, [laughter] go to the library and get all of the stuff for them. I don't have a wife. It's very hard. But I think the drudgery of producing a volume kind of takes the glow off the first bright excitement that you have.

SCHIPPERS: You worked at it all summer then?

CASSIDY: Yes. Then by the end of the summer it was completed, it actually has twenty-nine chapters. They are very short. The first part is the foundation, then the present status of the natural movement, the immediate problems, the philosophy of modern physical education, the contribution of modern psychology to the natural movement, the contribution of biology, physiology and sociology, and contributions of modern educational theory and practice. Then it goes in to the rest of the chapters all related to the abilities, content, and method of a naturalized program. I was interested in this statement in the introduction, a statement that we are still trying to deliver on today: "The naturalized method in this program is definite; the procedure grows out of the problems and situations which arise in each class and a group of children, and is different in each case, depending on interest, initiative and originality of the children in each particular class, as well as on the intelligent and wise leadership of the teacher. However, every effort has been made to include all possible suggested materials of practical use to the teacher."I am still saying, you know, that programs have to be individualized and I hadn't remembered that it had been said there. Some time ago, joking with Pat Caldwell, I said I got a few ideas in the beginning and I have just been saying them over and over, only fancier every time. This concept of a democratic philosophy in relation to dealing with human beings is so important that it is part of all my writing. I was reinforced during my study in Germany after I saw what the Nazi program was doing to youth. I was just completely revolted and upset by it.

SCHIPPERS: In collecting the material for this book, you worked at the University of Colorado's library?

CASSIDY: Yes. That was why we picked Boulder, because it was near enough for Dr. Wood to come down and because I could get my source materials there.

SCHIPPERS: I'm still a little confused about the chronology. You went to Teachers College...

CASSIDY: One summer, 1919.

SCHIPPERS: One summer, and then you went back again.

CASSIDY: For a whole year.

SCHIPPERS: Yes, in '23.

CASSIDY: And then it was '25 that we went to Boulder and started, and the book was then published in '27.

SCHIPPERS: What were the reactions to the book?

CASSIDY: We had very good reviews as I remember them. It evidently was used a great deal. I really got a bit embarrassed that it sold for so long. When Dr. Wood died he consigned all of his royalties to me, and I kept getting these little dribbles for years, and felt upset because it seemed to me that book was so outdated. I was looking again at it this morning; I thought the reason it sold so well was that it had long lists of child characteristics with the growth, the knowledge, and skills and habits and attitudes. But in another section it had the nature needs of the child, objectives and aims, and consistent activities, and I think teachers just loved these little charts, you know, because, then they can see what to offer in the program. But I felt that it was too set in another period of time, when other materials were out, to really be useful. I don't know why I should be upset at getting royalties, but [laughter] I thought it shouldn't be selling for such a long period of time. But of course it's been out of print now for some time.

SCHIPPERS: None the less it's quite a celebrated book.

CASSIDY: Well, it was a first, you see, in discussing a new kind of program; and another thing I wanted to call to your attention, because of UCLA, it discusses places where the programs are in operation. At Horace Mann School there was a Miss Ruth Atkinson teaching physical education. She in due course went to UCLA and she also brought Hazel Cubberly out to UCLA. Here, in discussing where the program is in operation, it says: "The universities and colleges have made their first contribution through natural dancing, but are gradually developing more complete programs. The work at the Southern Branch of the University of California in Los Angeles, organized by Professor Colby and carried on by Miss Ruth Atkinson, is interpreting a naturalized program successfully, as are many other institutions of this rank."So here is the tie to UCLA way back there. [laughter] It's just kind of interesting. The year I returned from this master's degree was a chaotic kind of year at Mills. The dean of students, Dean Hettie Belle Ege, a very nineteenth-century lady and a very severe disciplinarian, was near retirement and had gotten in real conflict with the students. It also was a time of very bad behavior related to prohibition and all sorts of problems of one kind or another. It was also a year before Miss Stoner retired. Dr. Reinhardt was getting all these student problems in her office and it was a little fatiguing. So she wrote and asked me if, when I returned, I would be Assistant to the President, and really take over. It was literally bypassing Dean Ege, but it was taking off of the President's office the heat of behavior problems. So I accepted, and this gave me another year of very close contact with Dr. Reinhardt. It was the next year that the two retired and both the dean's office and the head of the department of physical education was open. So this was when I made my choice to not be a lady dean. I really felt I just didn't want to be constantly dealing with drinking problems and behavior problems and all this kind of thing. I've always had very positive relationships with students, and, I didn't even know enough to be a dean, as a matter of fact. [laughter] But I chose to stay with my own professional field. And somewhat the same kind of decision came when I decided to come to UCLA because I had become (this was a term Dr. Reinhardt thought up for her heads of schools) Convener of the School of Education and Community Services. I was thus not teaching physical education. When John Bovard and Clarence Dykstra and Martha Deane asked me to come down to develop the graduate program in physical education at UCLA I had this grave decision to make, either of going back into my own profession or staying in a general administrative post. It seemed to me that developing this graduate program was a very important thing in the preparation of teachers, and so I gave up being head of the School of Education and Community Services to come to UCLA as professor of Physical Education to concentrate in the field that I really had preparation in and had developed and published professional materials. UCLA had to have someone for this task who was known and had published in the professional field. So that's how I made that switch, from being a semi-dean to physical education, then from a school of education administrator back to physical education. I was made an assistant professor at Mills some place along the line here. That's when I was given the assistant professorship, and then in 1927 I was given the full professorship. Now the camping movement had a very important whole slice of my life and interest. When I was in the East that year I attended the Eastern Section of the National Camping Association's meeting, and met people who were leaders in the field. I was convinced that we should have a Pacific Section. The eastern group was made up of predominantly private camp people, whereas the people doing camping in the West were mainly organization camp people, or city recreation department people running summer camps. When I returned I called a meeting of the camp directors I knew in the library in the Mills College physical education building. That was in '25—no, I guess it was that fall. We discussed this whole thing and decided that we would form an organization and ask to be one of the sections of the national. So the next meeting (and that was why I was reading my article "What Was Happening in the West" to remind myself of our organizational meeting), the next year we had our first really formal meeting as an association in San Francisco. We had in the meantime been given the status of the Pacific Section of the National Camping Association. My relationship with the Group-Work people was a very strong on-going relationship for me, and still is, as a matter of fact. That's how I got related to the California Youth Authority; the Girl Scouts; and I was on the National Camp Fire board at one time. In 1929 I set up a counselor placement bureau. My interest was in counselor training really, and volunteered to do a counselor placement service. I was getting requests from young people who wanted to be camp counselors, and sending this through to the various camp people. In 1930, '31 and also in '33-35 I was a president of the Pacific Section. I don't know why [laughter] I deserved it twice, but that's what the record tells. And I was a member of the National Camping Association's committee on camp leadership. I was also a national vice president In '33-34. So I was an organization man [laughter] besides my teaching. I got an idea that I wanted to get a camp site for the Mills students, for weekends and holidays. To find a site with water in California is not easy. So we—Dr. Reinhardt, another teacher, Irene Williamson, and I—went with the forest service people through the Hearst land down by King City with the President's Packard and chaffeur. We went hither and yon to all these open spots in California where there was a possibility of getting a site. I don't remember now how we got in touch with a Mr. D. W. Griffith of Nevada City, who owned property on a little made lake out from Nevada City, called Lake Vera. But in any case we did, and he offered to give us a parcel of land on the lake. This was in 1925. Then one of the trustees, Clarence Wetmore, who was always giving nice things to my department—I never got any myself [laughter]—gave us the lodge. He was one of the first graduates of the University of California at Berkeley and really quite a marvelous man. He gave $10,000 to set up our lodge. When we first got the property we did weekends there with sleeping bags and tents so that the students could have a real outdoor kind of experience, before we built the lodge. We had a contest for the naming of it, and it was called Gold Hollow. Actually the name is an eastern name, because out West, Whiskey Gulch and Dead Man's Gap and things like that are more part of the gold country. [laughter] This is gold country as you saw from that design of Vernon DeMars for the counselor handbook and for the stationery. It is really pretty romantic country. We made a big thing out of the weekend trips to camp. About two years after we had the property we began to design the lodge, and I had the idea that we would have a girls' camp there and use it as a counselor training center, like practice teaching in teacher education. And so we designed the lodge with this very huge living room and great fireplace and the kitchen area, pretty large, and then a dressing room, toilet, shower area and a storeroom lined with wire against the rats. Everybody at Mills got in on this, the Residence management people who helped with plans for needed equipment—how many beds, how many mattresses, etc. We also had cots there for the students to use out under the trees. Of course, California is so marvelous because you don't have to have a roof over you. And it kept this as a contracting unit during the year for the Mills students and an expanding unit for the campers during the summer. Let's see, when did this happen—1928 to '32 we held Gold Hollow camp for girls, a private camp, in which we did the counselor training. A young woman who got her master's at Mills, Verrel Weber, was the director. The Gold Hollow Counselor Handbook which was developed was part of her thesis, and it was used rather widely. Then the Depression had come upon us and we felt at point that we were competing with private camps and that we really should cease the summer operation so we closed the camp for girls in 1932, actually. But the property was kept until '36 or '37 when I was in New York; then the treasurer of the board of trustees wrote and asked if they could sell the property and buy ski property up at the Donner summit. I thought it was very sweet of him to ask me since I had gotten Gold Hollow for Mills, as a matter of fact, And of course I said yes. Then they didn't do that; but in due course Mr. Zellerbach, when he went off to Italy as ambassador, gave his ski lodge, which is at Sugar Bowl, to the college. The Department of Physical Education runs the ski trips on the weekends up there and have really a marvelous place, which was much more functional for the current Interests of the Mills students than the Gold Hollow situation because it did not have skiing and it wasn't a coed situation. In 1926 to 1933 the summer session called the Mills College Field Hockey and Sports Camp came into life. And that, as I showed you the bulletin on it, had a course I taught in camp counseling and camp craft. We built tipis, did outdoor cooking, nature craft and evening campfires. This was also because Hazel Cubberly had come out to UCLA. She and I had become friends at the Teachers College camp. She had written a book on field hockey and was the authority in the country on this game, which was then just really taking on in the West. It was her idea that we do a camp at Mills because she had run the eastern camp with Helen Frost. So Mrs. Reinhardt, always excited about anything that was developing, approved it and we made a contract with the college to use one of the halls and the hilltop for the campfires as well as the fields and the gymnasium. We gathered a staff and got out bulletins, and we ran this program very successfully until 1933. Then I continued as Director of the Summer Session but we went into another pattern of the Maison Francaise, the Casa Pan American and the other kinds of offerings that were quite different. We kept activities going, but this was then a Mills College summer session on a fine arts kind of level. These sessions were very stimulating to plan and exciting to participate in. We called the Mills Sports Camp, Camp Serano. We stressed Indian lore; we built a tree house and a tipi. I am a great expert in outdoor cooking, you know, frying eggs on hot rocks and things like that. I don't know how I survived it, now that I come to think of it, but I [laughter] had a great deal of fun with it. And actually the women who came had a very refreshing and fun kind of time going to summer school, as against the kind of drudgery that you can experience in a formal kind of session, and a lot of friendships were formed that have lasted over the years in relation to this kind of playing at camping.

SCHIPPERS: I noticed in one of the pamphlets or brochures on the camp the age range was fourteen to twenty.

CASSIDY: That was at Gold Hollow.

SCHIPPERS: Gold Hollow. So the age range here at this campus was...

CASSIDY: These were teachers coming back for summer skills and college credit, and the age range [laughter] was pretty great, too. Archery was just becoming very important. Edith Hyde, on the UCLA staff until she retired just last year, was one of my teachers for archery, and she was one of the big authorities on archery in the country. And then Hazel Cubberly was the big hockey gal, and of course we had swimming and riding. They made up songs, we had dramatics, and it was really a very informal play kind of experience for tired school teachers. The vacations that I had after my summer sessions in this period were more varied. In '26, I went to Italy with a friend of mine, with whom I had had an apartment in New York, who was a landscape architect. We went with a group from the Boston school of landscape architecture, to study Italian villa gardens. I was the only nonarchitect member of the group. That was when I first visited Assisi, where I always go back. I just made my pilgrimage there this last trip to pay respects to St. Francis. And then in '27, my mother and I did the inland passage cruise to Alaska after summer school, and for three summers we went to Hawaii for our holiday. So that accounts for me up to 1930, actually. The thing that I was able to do with the Gold Hollow counselor training program and the course at Mills, was to get approval by the National Association which allowed me to give a National Camp Counselor Certificate, so it really went through some kind of formal structuring and approval.

SCHIPPERS: How much do you feel you were an innovator in the field of camping during these years?

CASSIDY: In my article, "What Is Happening in the West," Mary Gross at the University of Washington was doing an in-camp training of major students, which I reported, and we were doing this Field Hockey and Sports Camp for experienced teachers. In California, the physical education women have continued a summer program like this at San Luis Obispo, but we were really the only people doing this kind of thing at that time. Hilda Kozman and I were special consultants at the San Luis Obispo session one year. It has continued and been very successful. It is a much larger operation than we had. I don't think there was anything very innovative about my counseling course [laughter] actually, except I had a lot of fun doing it. Gold Hollow was really an Innovation. Some of the camps, for instance, Ruth Brown's camp called Four Winds, off Seattle on Orcas Island kind of plays at counselor training. She wanted me to come up there and do the formal kind of counselor training with a whole group that would come in just for that, but I never had time or energy to do this. But I think the idea of running a girls' camp and having actual students there, getting training as counselors, was pretty innovative, and I don't know any place where it has been done in the pattern we structured. I think they take some junior counselors and kind of think they're training them, but they don't go through the real content that is important, I mean that we thought was important, in a much more formalized way. I don't think it's caught on as a great thing that should be done; it's too much trouble, I think. [laughter]

SCHIPPERS: In the materials you've laid out on the table you have a little book with collections of pictures and sculpture.

CASSIDY: I think it was in this period when I was first at Mills, the head of the Art Department, Roy Partridge, and his wife, Imogene Cunningham, who was a very famous photographer (I have one of her photographs of a magnolia blossom in my bedroom), were very good friends of ours. I kept telling Roy that I wanted to be a sculptor and he said, "Well, if you want to, you would be one. Why don't you do something about it?" And so I did. I got myself all the paraphernalia and made myself a putty figure, but it never turned out to be anything startling that could be cast. But I do have a great collection of slides of movement, of statues, and of pictures. I suppose this is all related to caring about the moving individual, and the expressive kind of thing. But it was an interest that never came to any productive hobby other than collecting the pictures and being interested in form.

SCHIPPERS: And also on the fly leaf of Caldwell's dissertation, your bound copy with a picture, the inscription under it about your feeling for design and form. You thought this significant, and apparently this is part of the way you have moved, in this direction.

CASSIDY: Well, I suppose so. I don't know. I care about pattern and structure. The communication of materials, for instance, what this sheet looks like, what it would look like if it was mimeographed, what it would look like if it was printed, and that's why I have cared so very much about the way the publishers have designed and presented the book materials that I have written, because I think you can really communicate if it is structured clearly. I'm reading McLuhan right now. [laughter] Have you seen the one on the massage?

SCHIPPERS: Not yet.

CASSIDY: Well, you must see it, because (I can't remember the name of the Italian designer who has done the photographic stuff) you've had a massage by the time you get through the book. [laughter] It's really fantastic.

SCHIPPERS: Well, as you say, this carries it up to 1930. This would be perhaps a good place to stop for today.

1.3. TAPE NUMBER: TWO, SIDE ONE September 12, 1967

CASSIDY: Last time we closed with the discussion of the completion of the little venture called Mills College Field Hockey and Sports Camp in 1933, and that summer school program that enlarged to include the arts and politics, languages and so on. A very much richer summer session. This again was envisioned by Dr. Reinhardt who always favored the arts very strongly. I wanted to tie one more item into the Field Hockey and Sports Camp, which we discussed last time, because it persists down into the UCLA days. I had become very much interested in a book by William H. Burton, who was head of the School of Education at Harvard. It was entitled, The Guidance of Learning Activities. I invited Dr. Burton to come to Mills during the Sports Camp sessions to do a number of lectures, although I had not met him. He came and I discovered that he was a perfectly delightful human being with a tremendous sense of humor. We enjoyed him very much, beside learning a good deal. When I, later, in 1949, was at UCLA we were discussing the possibility of a summer session workshop. Martha Deane and I concocted the: idea, because she also had been very much interested in Burton's book, of bringing him to be the main consultant for this workshop. And so he was invited and came. Another person who has had a long thread through my professional life, a personal friend as well, was Laurentine Collins, who was the director of School Community Relations in the city of Detroit, and extremely skilled in working with groups. She was secured as the director of this session, with Burton as the main consultant, and we had ourselves quite a session. It was really group process in physical education that we were talking about. We were, in the department, then, very much concerned with the whole matter of increased skill in group process. Because of this, and with the workshop stimulus, the faculty who were part of this summer group decided to undertake a project of writing a book on this subject. Another person who also is a long thread in my life, my classmate at Mills, Hilda Clute Kozman, was a member of this workshop staff and took on the editorial job of setting up the structure with us and seeing the thing through to completion, so that this workshop then resulted in a book called Group Process in Physical Education. It is in the Harper's series in health, physical education and recreation, and was published in 1951. After Burton's retirement, he and his wife came out to Oregon, and we continued our correspondence from time to time. In 1958, he wrote to me saying that he was now the editor for the paperback series for Appleton-Century-Crofts, and asked if I would do a book on elementary physical education. I had always been dying to do a paperback but never could get the publishers to agree. The reason I don't know. They always claimed it cost [laughter] just as much to do paper as hard cover. In any case I had to write to him and say that I didn't know very much about elementary physical education, but that I had developed a course while I was at UCLA in the counseling area, and that I would like to do [such a book. So it was that Counseling in the Physical Education Program was published as a paperback in 1959, edited by William Burton.] So much for this thread of relationship with William Burton. It started back in 1933 and continued until his death. And was a very important, interesting professional relationship. Now back twenty years to continue from our closing of the Sports Camp and the beginning of a very much enriched general summer session. I was director in 1934 and 1935 of the whole Mills College summer session, and also chairman of a modern dance and sports program. And for those two years I brought Hanya Holm from New York to be the main person for the summer session in dance. Hanya had been one of Mary Wigman's teachers in Dresden. Another one of Wigman's teachers was Tina Flade, whom I brought to be a regular staff member later on. Hanya, I think, is one of the most complete human beings I have ever known. The dancers never get old; she has this perfectly round face, perfectly round eyes, bright blue, blond hair which she pulls straight back to emphasize this little round face. All this with her tiny little body gives a tremendously dynamic quality to her whole character. She had come to New York and set up the Wigman School of the Dance there. The first summer she was with me she was getting very upset at news from New York. Some of her ex-students to whom she had given dance lessons for nothing were picketing the studio as a protest to Hitler. She read some of this to me one day and I said, "Doesn't this really terrify you?" But Hanya said, "No. I cannot be afraid of anything after what I have gone through in my life." She really has this kind of character and courage. As a dance teacher, in contrast to Graham and Doris Humphrey, who simply use their students as tools actually and whatever happened to their muscles, bones or anything else didn't make any difference. Hanya really works with her students as people in her teaching. Each of these two summers, she prepared a concert with her students. She would set a pattern and then she would say, "How does that go? Can you see a better way to do this?" She would really involve them in the creative process in making the dance. It struck me as very important, and I took a class with her that summer, it doesn't seem possible now, does it? I loved her dearly and thought she was magnificent as a teacher. She had this lovely little accent. Once she said, "Now you take this on the rebounce," to get her students jumping up and down. Well, I have kept this friendship over a long period of time with Hanya and we strengthened it again when the Bennington School of the Dance was at Mills. I see her whenever I go to New York and am really very devoted to her and think of her as a remarkable human being.

SCHIPPERS: Are you going to tell me how you came to know her first?

CASSIDY: Well, I knew that she was in New York and that she was an extremely important modern dance person, and so I just invited her to come to Mills and teach in the summer. I did the same thing with Tina Flade.

SCHIPPERS: You mean you didn't know her until...

CASSIDY: I didn't know her until she came, I only knew her by reputation. And actually to jump ahead, having had both Hanya and Tina on my faculty when I did the three months in 1936 in Europe, I went to see Mary Wigman in Dresden and I'll tell you about that in the context of that time because it was really a very interesting, a very kind of moving thing, under Mr. Hitler's regime. Tina joined my department faculty in 1929. She was the most startling person in appearance that you can imagine. She had this tiny little slender body, long blonde hair to the shoulders, and huge brown eyes which she would suddenly open as an exclamation point. She was a beautiful dancer and a very gifted teacher. Now one of the problems in promoting modern dance is you have to have special accompaniment. Living in Palo Alto was Henry Cowell one of the gifted students in the Stanford study, if you remember, who had worked with Schoenberg, and was enormously creative, almost naive and innocent in the sense of not living in this world as it is at all. But a very sweet and very exciting person to know. So Henry, who was always practically on the edge of starvation as most of the dance and modern music people are, took on the accompaniment at Mills for Tina, and we formed a very strong friendship. He fell into very sad times and was sent to San Quentin, and Tina and I once a month went there to see him. I had lived a rather sheltered life up to that time, and this experience of seeing the people, the women, waiting to see their men in San Quentin and the hunger to talk—Henry was an enormous talker, the words would just flow out, and here we should sit with this wire screen between us and we dying, of course, over the whole situation. But anyway, we had this chance to somehow sustain him while he was in this place.

SCHIPPERS: I understand that he introduced a musical activity at the prison.

CASSIDY: I didn't know that.

SCHIPPERS: Yes, Of course, that was during one of the toughest times at San Quentin. This was in, what, '35, '36 or something like that. Just before it blew wide open.

CASSIDY: He autographed one of his compositions for me and I gave it to the UCLA dance group with pictures that were taken during the Bennington School of Dance, as part of their history of dance materials. Another time we had a special conversation with Henry was when Harold Rugg came out for a school administrators meeting in San Francisco. Laurentine Collins was also here, and he was then trying to be very knowledgeable about modern music. He wanted to see Henry and asked me if I would drive him out there. So he and Laurentine and I went over and had again one of these terribly exciting and heart-squeezing kinds of conferences with Henry. As you know Henry was released from prison to marry a very wealthy woman, who was really interested in folk dancing. He was completely rehabilitated and led a very productive life actually until his death. But he was really quite a person, and I think it was through Henry that I got in touch with John Cage, who also was starving (it was the Depression). He became accompanist for us at Mills. He is another gentle wide-eyed child in a sense. I was interested in seeing him a couple of years ago when he and Merce Cunningham did their concert at UCLA. Merce has gotten heavier and looks his age, John still looks like this wide-eyed boy. [laughter] He's untouched by the years indeed. When he came to Mills to accompany for dance I got him a position as a recreation leader in a boys' club in San Francisco. I thought I was being helpful because he really needed enough to live on. But after he had been was exposed to the boys once, he simply was appalled [laughter] at what the job required. I think it frightened him to death. But he did carry on with it. He was back with us during the Bennington School of Dance and afterward accompanied for Marian Van Tuyl. We have kept in touch over the years too, I think it was through John that I got to know Lou Harrison, who was also a young musician, in San Francisco, hard up, and had worked with Cage and with Cowell and Schoenberg. And so Lou was an accompanist for our dance for awhile.

SCHIPPERS: It fell to you, then, to do the procurements so to speak.

CASSIDY: Yes. [laughter] I'll make a long speech in due course about the contribution of physical education women to the development of modern dance, because I think those of us who—I don't think this, I know this—those of us who have a feeling about the whole expressive person turned from ballet, as I said the other day, as an absolute denial of the reality of the body and felt that the modern dance movement was so much more the real person communicating than any of the other forms of dance. It was Margaret H'Doubler at Wisconsin who did the very first creative dance in education. She always taught with a skeleton in the studio to really give the feeling of what. the human body could do. And it was the little brave physical education women having this view about modern dance, who really promoted and provided a stage in the gymnasium for Graham, Humphrey, Weidman and that early group, because this was not popular at the beginning. Ballet, not modern dance, could get a theater. When Mary Wigman gave her first New York performance, I was in the audience and people were simply appalled at this great big bare foot coming down with emphasis, and they really didn't like it very much. But the physical education ladies did like it and they did give support. Alma Hawkins, now chairman of the Dance Department at UCLA, was for many years a physical education teacher. She actually was not a dancer. She was a skilled teacher and an extremely astute administrator and has built the dance major at UCLA into the most outstanding program in the whole country. Well, the summer sessions then went on, but running all through here, I was looking at the biographical data on my writings, has been this enormous concern with the out-of-doors, with camping, with group work. These interests stemmed from this course that I taught at Mills in camp counseling. Prom it came relationships with the group-work people because the whole camping group on the coast, I think I said this earlier, came from youth organizations rather than private camps, which were in short supply on this coast, whereas the eastern picture was quite different. It was in this period that I did this Camp Counselor Handbook with Homer Bemiss. It was published by The Pacific Camping Association, in 1935. We edited it, having different people do the chapters. It was a very good-looking volume, set up under our publication director at Mills, who really put out well-designed materials and took a great pride in it, as did Dr. Reinhardt. In the spring of 1935, and this takes Clark Hetherington for a little comment here, I went to Stanford Saturday mornings for a seminar, given by N. P. Neilson who had been Director of Physical Education for the State of California, and then had gone on to Stanford. Dr. Thomas E. Storey, who was the head of the department there, had brought Clark Hetherington to Stanford, hoping to get some of his philosophy in print, because he never would release any of his materials. He had a Messiah complex. Whatever he made was always going to be better; he was always revising. The plan was for Neils to come there, take one of Hetherington's courses, then he would give the course the next semester, writing up the materials for publication. So he was getting some of the leading people in the Bay Area to come and take one of the courses, and I said I'd be happy to come and take the course with Neils but not with Mr. Hetherington, because way back in the summer of 1918, right after I graduated from college, I went to Berkeley for the summer school and sat in a course with Hetherington, and was so bored I could hardly stand it. He really was the most boring lecturer. His ideas were very interesting, but you just could hardly endure the session. Some of the stories about Hetherington I also got from Jay B. Hash who made this same effort. After Stanford, he came to New York University. Nash then tried to get him to produce materials. Jay told me that actually they had had a contract with MacMillan, I think it was, for some of Hetherington's materials. He said he had to actually steal the manuscript The School Program of Physical Education from Hetherington in order to avoid a law suit with MacMillan, because Hetherington was not about to give it up. And so the only publication this man, who was supposed to be the great thinker of all time, ever produced was this little dinky School Program of Physical Education. The preservation of his thoughts actually came through Jay B. Nash and the publications that came out from New York University under Nash's name. Hetherington also practically ruined Neilson's life, because there was an agreement that, in this Stanford setting, Hetherington would give the word, Neils would take all the notes and rework them for publication. Neilson is a great big slow-speaking Scandinavian, with very plodding kinds of characteristics. So he took on all these notes, then he rewrote them ready for publication, and Hetherington would not release them. Neils came into my office at Mills one day and practically wept over the fact that all these thousands of words had gone down on paper and that now he was not being permitted to have them published. Actually after Hetherington died, his wife would not release the material. It has never been released. It is a really sad tale, when you would think of the kind of contribution he could have made. I am getting into a kind of a very personal matter now, though this isn't all very personal. [laughter] I had a very shattering personal experience, shall I say—we won't go into it—and asked for a leave in 1935 from Mills, to kind of, you know, rebuild from scratch. So Dr. Reinhardt permitted me this leave and I went to New York and decided to sit in on some of the courses at Teachers College and did so. One of the most exciting ones that I had was with Dr. [Isaac L.] Kandel in comparative education. I had also planned, for this year of absence, to be in New York for the winter and in the spring to join Nash and his wife and daughter and two other people who were going to travel into Scandinavia and Russia and then stay over for the Summer Olympic games in Germany. In this course with Kandel, he persuaded me to take units under the International Institute and to then do a study in Europe. In New York and at that time the whole American Youth Hostel program was booming and we were considering a circle tour area down through Santa Cruz and the redwoods in California. So I thought I would do a comparative study of youth hostels in England and Germany. Kandel was the director of it. Unless I had some focus, you know, I just wouldn't have the nerve to go and ask to see this, this, and this. I got permission through the English Youth Hostel Association for touring, studying and interviewing in England, and from Baldur von Schirach in Germany, who was Hitler's youth leader. The contrast of how I was treated in the two places I shall go into later. It's kind of interesting. In fact the whole real Germany under Hitler was a nightmare. Now my dear Aurelia Reinhardt was busy again at this time. Lawrence K. Frank had gone to the coast and was visiting with her. He was very much interested in women's education. So she told him that he should see me and that my study was going to be something special she thought, and that I should have a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship. He was then head of the Rockefeller Foundation fellowship grants, but was leaving shortly to go to the Macy Foundation. Anyway when he got back to New York, he called me and we had dinner together and discussed my plans. He was a most fascinating person and really, of all the individuals I have ever known, Larry had a view of all the disciplines and could talk very easily in any of them. At the moment, I was interested in this Century Twenty-One study that I showed you the other day that Larry was very active in getting all these various people together and setting up the structure for the interchange of ideas and the prediction of what is going to happen. Well, anyway, he talked to me about the fellowship and introduced me to Robert J. Havighurst, who was going to take his place in the Rockefeller Foundation. So I put off leaving for Europe, thinking, you know, maybe this will be an excuse to stay away from home another year, because I hadn't quite gotten my life refocused. Bob Havighurst wanted me to do a study in junior high school physical education, and I said, "No, I really don't want to do that. I want to work at the college level." So I went off to Europe and he said, "We will think about it and talk later." I left in March to go to England and was in London at the English-speaking Union and moved out from there to do my studies of the various hostels. A British woman whom I met through the English-speaking Union, Elizabeth Barkely, with her little car, and I went from top to bottom and really saw all the kinds of patterns of youth travel. There was an early spring happily in England and everybody was rushing out to the countryside. It was really very beautiful with the little lambs in the fields and the wild flowers. It's a lovely time to be there. So it was actually about the middle of April when the Nashes arrived in London and I had finished. I had set my schedule there. We went on then into Scandinavia, and from Helsinki to Leningrad and our journey in Russia went straight across really the line of the war, to Yalta, and then out through the Black Sea to Odessa, and I on into Munich. And there—this again is Dr. Reinhardt—a German friend of hers was in New York and she had suggested that she help me plan for my time in Germany. This woman was a fanatic person. As you look back, you know, her attitudes as to what was happening are very different from what you are aware of when you are going into an experience. So she was fanatical in her wanting to set up and plan my time there and what I should see and she would go with me. I couldn't speak German so it was very helpful. In any case we met in Munich and we proceeded on our visit. What I spoke of as the contrast between Germany and England was shown in complete freedom and complete entree to the various people that I needed to talk to in England. Not so in Germany at all. I was handed from one district leader to another and shown what I was to be shown, and had no freedom really to go on my own. The picture of the youth leaders, it was terrifying in a way. The most beautiful young people I had ever seen and so mad, so hysterically mad, and when I say "hysterically" I speak accurately, They were indoctrinating these kids in such a fashion, in such a mad way. I've always felt that the generation of kids that belonged to the Hitler Youth could never escape from this. Now they are the present teachers and parents. I think they just cannot recognize their guilt—first of all they were adolescents and they were built up to be wonder children, and then were defeated in the war, and then the hideousness of the butcher camps came out. So I think that they can't really accept this; you know, the indoctrination was so great. In the Rhineland I was met by a Paul Conrad, a beautiful young man, who spoke English quite well. He had a driver and a car and we proceeded to see various hostels in his area. While we would be driving from place to place he would play his little accordion and sing folk songs. He was a perfectly enchanting young man. And so we ended up in the little town of Bacharach on the Rhine River. He wanted us to stay in the town so we could have wine at dinner, which we did. We went to see the hostel, which was called the hostel of Stahleck. Now the Rhineland is so beautiful, as you know, and this medieval castle really represented everything that would appeal to anybody, but to children this was just a fantastic thing—a drawbridge, everything. He of course wore the uniform of the youth corps. We went in and there was a group of Hitler maidens with their leader being indoctrinated into the "right" philosophy. This great dining hall of Stahleck was an enormous room with an enormous table and high-back chairs, a picture of Hitler at one end, the swastika at the other. Conrad was to address these children. So this sweet, lovely guy whom we had been enjoying journeying with, then became absolutely maniacal. The German language made it worse. He made the gestures, he did the whole bit, you know, and I just couldn't stand it. It was really so frightening. Actually after I was in both Russia and in Germany I had the feeling I had been seeing a stage play, that this wasn't real. No, it couldn't be. And the work-groups marching with the shovels and singing, this whole pattern of perversion of youth was just too hideous. So anyway, I came home with all my little materials and I went to summer school then at Teachers College and had this marvelous course with Gardner Murphy, and another one with Carolyn Zachry. In the meantime I had decided I would take the fellowship. When the Foundation gave fellowships they always attached the student to one of the studies that were going on, so I was to be attached to Carolyn Zachry's Study of the Adolescent. This was a Progressive Education study and was financed by Rockefeller money. Havighurst was very close to this and really related to and continually met with this group. I had decided that it would look so respectable If I decided to get a doctor's degree, and it would give me another year to refocus my life. I never thought I needed it particularly. Just get some better-looking clothes, [laughter] So I then quite definitely made my plan to use these sundry units that I had been accumulating and make my plan for the doctorate. My co-sponsors were Jesse F. Williams in Physical Education and [Nickolaus L.] Engelhart in the School of Education. It was to be a study relating to the whole changing role of women. It really was a curriculum study to show what those changes would mean for the college program in physical education. Actually through the Zachry committee everybody of note in psychology, sociology and education met with the committee one time or another. It was really, well, it was kind of overwhelming as a matter of fact, but it was very exciting. And as I look back, the kind of threads that came from that experience were very pervasive. I think I told you, probably not on tape, but some years back I received a questionnaire from the Rockefeller Foundation asking what age were you when you got your grant, what did you do, what have you done since, and I came to realize that so much ferment and so much excitement and, well, a part of this was the whole progressive business anyway, had come out of what happened to me in the process of working with Zachry and the people who were in the study. Of course, Larry Frank and Robert Havighurst were central in this. I was trying to pick up some of the names of people I thought were particularly exciting. I wanted to add that before I left Germany I went to Dresden to see Mary Wigman in her studio. So I'll jump back a minute. I had written to her, she knew I was coming, she knew that I had had both Hanya and Tina at Mills, and of course she speaks English beautifully and is a magnificent person, and so she and I had tea and then she took me out to the big stadium, the Olympic Stadium, to see the rehearsal of the opening dance which she was rehearsing for the opening of the Olympic Games. We were alone sane of that time; at that point she told me that there was great resentment in the United States against Wigman because she stayed there under Hitler's regime and worked in Kraft der Freude program and did these performances for Volk, She spoke of that too. She said that it had been a very marvelous affirmation for her art because these people who had to come to these performances for kultur, you know, understood and approved and applauded her dance presentations. She said she had always performed for very sophisticated groups, and so doing this kind of barnstorming around with people who had to come and who had no sophistication at all really meant a great deal to her. She also told me these were very troubled times and that there were two guards in the studio at all times to watch what she was doing. They were very frightening to her, but she stood with it. And part of that surveillance I think was related to her preparing this great big tremendous opening performance for the Olympic Games. Well, so much for Germany. Now I want to cut that off and continue on with my New York experience. No, I won't because I want to tie Wigman back and forward now to UCLA again. On her eightieth birthday her students gave her a handsome gift of monies to come to the United States for a visit and in due course she was in Los Angeles. Ruth St. Denis gave a great soiree in her studio. Alma Hawkins and I were invited. Any number of students who had been with Wigman from our area were there too and lots of other people. So we arrived and Ruth St. Denis, who still had great beauty in her countenance, was in a long, black, dirty costume, and kind of a yellow stole, bare feet, and this beautiful snow white hair pulled straight back and large blue eyes. With a kind of madness she took hold of both of us and she insisted that we look at her scrapbooks and she kept talking about herself, it was really not ludicrous but sad. One of the young men who knew Alma, after Wigman came and she clutched on to Wigman, said, "Miss Ruth really wants to be immortal. It just obsesses her all the time, and she pushes it on everybody in this fashion." When Wigman came she looked ageless, had a lovely tweed suit on and nice hairdo, no gray hairs at all, and has a tremendous frame, you know, this big; big tall strong woman. Ruth St. Denis grabbed her and gave a speech that the two of them had really originated all of modern dance, she living in the United States, Wigman in Germany. Then she had a tape recorder and forced Mary literally into this interview. A young girl on our faculty who had been a year with Wigman in Germany was in tears. "Oh," she said, "she can't do this to Mary. This is so terrible." And it was really quite terrible. But Wigman just went through it without any agony at all, and the rest of us were the ones who felt pained at the performance. Now, finally I have ended Germany and go on to New York. I had some courses with Ruth Strang, with L. Thomas Hopkins, with Ralph Spence, Harold Rugg, Florence Stratemeyer and Goodwin Watson, and these were all pretty interesting experiences, That was during my work at Teachers College. At that time New College, with Tom [R. Thomas] Alexander as director, was being very experimental. Mary Jo[sephine] Shelly was on his faculty then and later went to Bennington. She organized the School of Dance there. This is where that comes back to what we did later at Mills. Havighurst was really the director of my study and very much Interested in it. He decided that I should go in the spring of 1937 on a trip to see what he thought were some of the innovations in physical education and to also get some of the materials at the Merrill Palmer School in Detroit. So this was when I made the arrangement with the then director of physical education in Detroit, Laurentine Collins. I had known about her for a long time, but I had never met her. She is a great show-off and pretty dramatic herself, and so she had planned for my going to see these youngsters in various schools with very gifted teachers. Actually it was Detroit where some of the very newest kind of thinking in our field, which we haven't yet delivered on, really, was in operation. So we had this charming and delightful time and Marge Bell, Dr. Margaret Bell from the University of Michigan, came in for a dinner party—it was social and educational as well. Havighurst wanted me to go to the Merrill Palmer School to get some of the case studies they had done on women. The president, Pauline Park Wilson, was very gracious and allowed me to read these for a whole weekend. I was practically in tears because of the happening to many of these young women who had given the data in relation to broken homes and tragedies in their lives. He wanted me to go to Ohio State University High School, where Charlie Cowell and Lou La Brant and the study, Were We Guinea Pigs, was going on, and see all the excitement in that experimental school. This was the first time I had met Cowell. He was in our Progressive Education workshop the next summer Laurentine, Charlie and I were the directors of the physical education part of that workshop. This was all maneuvered by Dr. Havighurst. I don't know whether I should tell you about my psychological examinations for the doctorate. I, being born in the Gay Nineties, had never taken a psychological test in my life. And I was terrified. I said to Engelhart, "How do you get ready for this?" And he said, "Well, you really can't except if you had chosen your parents." I said that [laughter] I didn't have much to do with that, so anyway I was really scared to death and I got very upset about it because I thought now here I am, I have been relatively successful in my professional life, I have been encouraged and given all kinds of assistance from people with whom I've worked. Now if I find out I'm really not very bright, it will be devastating, and why do I do this to myself? [laughter] It sounds pretty silly, but anyway it was a very traumatic bit. So I went through this six-hour thing, three hours in the morning and three in the afternoon. A card to give you the results was mailed to you. I was living at Butler Hall and every time I came in I was afraid to look in the mailbox for fear that thing would be there. [laughter] Well, it isn't funny! It was very sad. Well anyway, I passed. But I often think, you know, why do you do something like that to yourself? What would have happened if I had found that I couldn't pass this test? What would it do to my whole sense of self-value and adequacy. I had all the proof that I was able to succeed in the things I had tried. But this other thing if I really hadn't got it would have I think, well, it would have been as bad as when I was struggling with arithmetic in the early high school days. So I was embarked upon this great degree, and Dr. Jesse Williams was, as I said, with Engelhart the director. I think I want to comment for a bit on Jesse Williams. I knew the family very well. Grace, his oldest daughter, had gone to Mills and was president of the student body in her senior year. I knew him in the profession and his wife and family in a personal way too. Margaret, the younger daughter, was married when I was in New York and I was invited to her beautiful wedding in the garden of their Westchester home. He was an M. D., but had never practiced and had gone on with the development of physical education. He was a great fighter, also a great "ham." And he loved to debate the Natural vs. Formal Physical Education, which was the big fire blazing at that time. He had an enormous ego and great ability to speak and to write. I think he made the first and very important literate literature in physical education. Yet his social philosophy was about as reactionary as you could get. He was what I call a "black Republican." [laughter] In any case, I always felt some antagonism toward him in the sense that he talked all these beautiful things, but his own personal life really didn't represent them. And that was why I felt so much more admiration and love for Jay B. Nash who had the beautiful ideas and liberal commitments. He didn't express them nearly as well as Williams, but he actually lived them and represented someone whom I could admire very much. Well, I went through this great year...

SCHIPPERS: There are others that you mentioned there. How about Watson?

CASSIDY: Well, we had kind of a struggle. He asked me If I had ever read Karl Marx and I said no, And so from then on out he was saying, "You don't know anything about life. You've never seen poor people. Don't talk to me." [laughter] But I also admired him very much and thought he was really a marvelous teacher. And Gardner Murphy, the picture on the jacket of Human Potentialities shows him now a kind of filled-out and a kind of college-professor-looking guy. But in those days he was about as skinny as you are and taller and always had his hair all rumpled up, with his tie over here, really he was the absolute epitome of the absent-minded professor. He would come into the class and begin going through his pockets for his notes, you'd think, "Oh well, he hasn't got his notes." [laughter] As though he really needed it. And he'd keep searching and looking kind of confused, and then he'd pick out a bunch of little papers two or three inches, little tiny notes, and then he would lecture like nothing you've ever heard. He was just tremendous. I have always been so glad that I had a course with him because it was very exciting and stimulating and fitted in to all the things that I have continued to do. Ruth Strang also has done everything, written in every field practically, but negates herself as a human being in my perception of her. She would come into the classroom always wearing a gray dress and gray stockings and Mary Jane flat shoes. Her face was gray, her hair was gray, her eyes were gray, [laughter] Completely negative in every aspect of expression. But then she could teach like mad. She was really very, very effective in her teaching. But she was not exactly a glamour girl at all, I always think that people in their whole expressive self are saying something. I was always curious; I didn't ever know her well enough to find out what she really was saying, but it was pretty gray. In the study, beside Larry and Bob Havighurst and Carolyn Zachry, who herself was quite amazing, was Frederick L. Redefer, then head of the Progressive Education Association. He was in this whole thing; he also was at the Mills workshop the next year. Jessie Rhulman, who is now at UCLA, was working with Zachry on this study and that is where I first got to know her. Wilma Lloyd, G. T. Thayer, who was the chairman of their second area education committee, Progressive Education Association, a very interesting man. Bruno Klopfer came through the study, Fritz Redl, George Sheviakoff, who is now at Berkeley, Margaret Mead, this is where I first got to know her, Laurentine Collins, Eduard C. Lindeman, Hilda Taba, Ralph W. Tyler are some of them. They had the money and the know-how to call in for consultation and for criticism of some of the studies, anybody they wanted, and so it was in a sense another one of these experiences that I described at Mills where the president had me in on everything that was happening. Meeting all the people that came into this study, really meeting the professional people concerned about social change, particularly for the adolescent was a great experience. Ruth Benedict was another one of the consultants. She would come for lunch at the restaurant in Butler Hall quite often. She was a beautiful looking person, very tall, white hair, very dramatic. W. Carson Ryan from the University of North Carolina and Bill [William D.] Perry were there, that was a relationship that led me later to teach at Chapel Hill in the summer for Carson Ryan. Bob Havighurst decided that we would have summer workshop and it would be on the West Coast at Mills College. This was the one that Cowell, Laurentine Collins and I were leaders for the physical education group. It was for the whole progressive education program, so people were there from the arts and other areas. It was housed in one of the residence halls at Mills and Bob was himself there as well as Fred Redefer. The director was Lois Meek Stoltz who had been at Teachers College and had recently married Dr. Herbert R. Stoltz, who was director of physical education in California. We had a large group of physical education people, including my ex-Mills classmate Hilda Kozman. It was decided that the next summer they would have a session at Reed College, and so Laurentine and Hilda went to Reed that next summer, I was still running the Mills summer school, and finished up the writing on the materials that we worked on during the !38 workshop. This eventually was published in 1940 by the Progressive Education Association. It was called Physical Education in the Secondary School. Now actually it was during the fall of '38 I guess that Mary Jo Shelly wrote to me and said, "You know, we're the great center for dance in the East, you're the great center for dance in the West, and we would like to have a Bennington dance summer in the West," As I think I said to you the other day, the real motive for that was that they were not getting enough students from the West. I looked in their 1939 announcement in which they have all of the members of the 1938 group listed to find that there were actually only three from California out of 160 people, two from Colorado and one from Utah. Mary Jo was actually then at Bennington, with the title, Administrative Officer for the Arts Division of Bennington. And I was director of the Mills College summer session so that was why she got in touch with me. I thought, this would be just too beautiful for words, and Dr. Reinhardt, of course, always out in front with new ideas, approved it. The trustees approved it. And they came. I was running the Mills summer session; there were art, music and other offerings, and we had an arrangement that if the student wanted to take some of the music or some of the art in the Mill summer session there could be an interchange of courses. I was responsible only for the machinery of the Bennington school. So I had the fun of being with these people and enjoying them and seeing that they were housed properly and that everything went well because Mary Jo Shelly was the administrative director, with Martha Hill as program director. These two had the program job and the job of keeping everybody happy, which was something with all the "leading ladies and gentlemen" there. Martha Graham, Hanya Holm, Doris Humphrey, Charles Weidman, Louis Horst, Arch Lauterer, Norman Lloyd, Bessie Schoenberg, Francheska Boas, Louise Kloepper, José Limon, Katherine Manning, Esther Williamson, and other accompanists, Carleen Lawrence, Lionel Novak, each one of the leading people brought members of their group. Their names are in this Bennington announcement of 1939. I had before that brought Marian Van Tuyl from Chicago after Tina Flade married and left, and she brought with her some of her dance group, namely Eleanor Lauer who is now head of the dance program at Mills. They were part of the participants in this session. The next summer we had "The Young Dancers." Bonnie Bird and Jose were then young, Merce Cunningham and John Cage. We had agreed, Mary Jo and I, that we would have a cooperative kind of planning; after they decided what they wanted, we would make our plan for Mills. But in any case "The Young Dancers," so called, were at Mills the next summer after Bennington. Then the following year, Marian Van Tuyl headed up a program with John Cage and Eleanor Lauer; so we went from a very big production to really a less elaborate sort of thing. In any case this was a very exciting summer; I can't remember how many students we had, but it was a huge group. The Bennington session at Mills was very successful financially and artistically, and as we were just looking at The Dance Observer materials the programs were put on by the younger members, not by the grandees. And of course the courses were all the way from the Arch Lauterer's designs for stage and dance and the accompanying and composing which Louis Horst took as his job. The dance courses were given by the leading artists and their assistants. They had one course called Major Course in Dance, which was open to all students. It gave the students a chance to work in the four main technique groups and get a feeling for the brand of dance of each artist. In those days, I don't think they do this anymore, they I always had given a course in Dance in Education. The following summer Ruth Murray did that for us. Martha Hill used to give that course at Bennington for teachers of dance. And here were all the little physical education girlies coming to get information about how they should carry out their high school or college teaching of dance. The main group of people who came were physical education women, and men. The men mainly were performers, whereas the girls were mainly teachers of physical education. The report on all this is in the '39-40 Dance Observers. The one that I wrote "So Bennington Went West," was October 1939, and then there was one in February 1940, on the Mills summer session. I think this has come full circle in a way because I showed you this Mills Quarterly with Graham's picture on the front. That's February 1967, when they gave her an honorary degree, and this was the little note about it. On November 11, Mills awarded an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree to Martha Graham. Lucy Sterne Hall overflowed with the students, faculty and staff members who gathered to pay their respects to the woman who revolutionized modern dance. Miss Graham's ties with Mills go back to 1939 when she came with the Bennington School of the Dance to Mills for the summer session. When she last visited the Bay Area in 1950, she came to present two special performances at Mills. Two of Miss Graham's students have headed the Mills dance department, Eleanor Lauer, present department head, and Marian Van Tuyl. As she accepted the degree, Miss Graham said, "Mills holds a very special place in my heart. We came here at the time of war before most of you were born, rather as refugees and you made us welcome. You are fortunate to have a college which recognizes dance as an integral part of the program of mankind." So much for the full circle.

SCHIPPERS: Yes. Well, that was quite a constellation of personalities.

CASSIDY: Yes, it was.

SCHIPPERS: How would you assess their interaction while they were there?

CASSIDY: Jo Shelly is a highly intelligent and highly able person. But she has always felt she possessed all these people, and she was very tender with them, I think she and Martha Hill both had understandings of their temperaments and their needs and she protected them, They had a special faculty dining room; so they didn't have to eat with the students. She had established through the years of Bennington a very close relationship with them and they felt, I think, enormously indebted to her for her promotional skill. Because Bennington drew so many people, large audiences were made for them, which I think really was responsible for Graham then being able, and Humphrey-Weidman to a less extent, to get real theater concerts going rather than on the stages of gymnasiums, Martha and Jo really kind of shepherded these people and took care of them, so that everything went right for them,

SCHIPPERS: Did they seem to profit by the experience out here?

CASSIDY: Yes. It made a real difference in the number of western people attending, I don't know the exact numbers. When the Dance Session left Bennington College for Connecticut College for Women, Martha Hill went to Juilliard. When there was the question, "Where does the Bennington School of the Dance go," our new Vice Chancellor for Educational Programs, Rosemary Park, wrote to me and said, "You've had the Bennington School of Dance at Mills and how did it go? We are considering having it at Connecticut College. Was it suitable and did it go well and what were the problems and should we do this?" So I wrote back and said that it had been a very exciting, very interesting session. It was reorganized there and has continued as a very strong summer session in this women's college in New England.

SCHIPPERS: How would you assess the Importance to the larger community of the...

CASSIDY: Bay Area, do you mean?

SCHIPPERS: West Coast or...

CASSIDY: Well, it was given a great deal of publicity, the preponderance of these attending were Westerners, and it was the thing to do in those days anyway. I think it really achieved what Mary Jo had in mind and it certainly achieved what I had in mind. It was a great thing to have these famous people at Mills and to really give modern dance a great push.

SCHIPPERS: Bid it encourage any of the other schools or universities to follow the trend?

CASSIDY: Martha Beane had already built a whole modern dance program here, at UCLA. She had work with Colby at Teachers College. She put on performances in Hollywood Bowl and had done all these things, which you have already taped, for her career. UCLA was thought of then as a leader in modern dance; UC, Berkeley, had some emphasis. The University of Washington had a person who has just now departed who was emphasizing modern dance up there. Martha actually came to the Bennington School of Dance when it was at Mills.

SCHIPPERS: This I didn't know. Now as far as the control over the course content, Mills had none.

CASSIDY: No.

SCHIPPERS: Strictly administrated by the school then.

CASSIDY: By Jo Shelly, And it was actually just patterned after what they had been doing in the six years previously.

SCHIPPERS: Was the community around the school brought into it in any important way?

CASSIDY: Well, I think only in the sense of the performances and the publicity in the papers and that kind of thing.

SCHIPPERS: And I also wanted to back up and ask a little bit about your experience at Columbia when you were getting your Ph.D.

CASSIDY: Well, that was an Ed.D.

SCHIPPERS: Ed.D. I'm sorry, I should be careful of that distinction.

CASSIDY: When I accepted the Rockefeller fellowship I thought that what I did for that study and what I was going to do for my dissertation study would be one am the same thing, but I came to with a shock, to find that they were really two pieces of writing, making it a little more strenuous than I planned. Before I left with my little Ed.D. in hand I had a contract with A.S. Barnes for the book which eventuated in New Directions in Physical Education.

1.4. TAPE NUMBER: TWO, SIDE TWO September 19, 1967

CASSIDY: I wanted to go back and speak of some of the things we were dwelling on last time. The youth Hostel study was reported in an article entitled "Youth Hostels in England and Germany" in The Nation's Schools, May 1937. Another article which tied into my hopes for the development of youth journeys in our country was entitled "Youth Journeys and the Social Sciences" and was printed in an issue of Recreation, April 1938. I also had forgotten to mention a tie back to the Progressive Education Association in the United States. When I was in England I visited with the people connected with the New Education Fellowship, which was the progressive group in England and visited Dartington Hall, which was more progressive than anything I have ever seen. I spoke with some of the faculty there and had a very interesting time. I also had forgotten to tell you that when I was having my oral examination for my doctorate, Dr. Reinhardt appeared in New York. She and I were invited to dinner with the Jesse Williams family for that evening, and that added another moment of terror, thinking now if I don't pass this, this would be the right moment to have my president in town. But actually the examination was held and it was all very pleasant and interesting. Dr. Williams had said the thing to do was to get two of the members of one's committee fighting with each other. [laughter] So the examination was over, they excused me and I went back to my apartment and sat kind of numb. The telephone rang. It was Dr. Williams, who said, "Well, Dr. Cassidy, congratulations." I said, "Oh, thank you," [in a high meek voice] He chatted on about it and that was it. So then sort of as though a cloud had lifted, I went out of my apartment, which was at Butler Hall, and walked across the Columbia campus to have lunch at a little Schraft's place down on Riverside Drive. And suddenly I discovered that spring had come to New York. I had actually not seen anything around me until that moment, and here were the most beautiful little fresh buds and leaves. It was so beautiful I couldn't stand it, and I thought of the way that an emotional happening can really just blot out everything that's happening around you. This was quite an illustration. We went to the dinner and had a delightful time, and again driving out to Westchester, where they: lived, the dogwood was in bloom and spring was bursting out all over. It was quite beautiful and then I was in a mood to enjoy it. You spoke of wanting to talk a little bit more about my book, New Directions, which was part of the Rockefeller Foundation study. The title, New Directions in Physical Education for the Adolescent Girl—A Guide for Teachers in Cooperative Curriculum Revision, I think points up two very long interests. The changing role of women in our country and how they should be educated, and this whole matter of curriculum development. I was seeing this again as related to the concept of individual differences and the necessity to really do a guidance kind of job in teaching, so that the individual understands where he is, what his potentials are, and how he is going to undertake to do something about it. And I suppose, I told you I like this book best of any I have written. I think it was because, well, very much like the book with Dr. Wood. This just was so filled with new and exciting ideas coming to me through the Columbia experience and through the Zachry Committee on the Adolescent, new awarenesses, new perceptions and new ideas, that it was just an exploding kind of thing. I don't know where I had been in the meantime. I had not been really involved in this kind of research and thinking. The individual guidance and individual making of program suggested in this book then carries threads down to the syllabus that I was showing you which we developed each year for freshmen at Mills. It was used as a program guide in the counseling conference. We had a four-year requirement at Mills, so each year the student made a self-assessment and replanned. We had a senior year plan which I think now is not well termed. It excused the student in her senior year from the regular class requirement if she could present her own plans. Senior Exemption it was called—it should have been Senior Privilege—the student would bring into the conference with me her plan for what she would do to keep up an activity program in her senior year. It might be tennis on the weekend, it might be daily swimming, it might be whatever. In this conference we would have her declaration of purpose quite formally made and then she would be granted the Senior Exemption. But she had to make a plan and present it and discuss it before the exemption was granted. We didn't run around checking on the girls; we took it that if they had gotten anything in the program up to that time, that that was the only guarantee that they would continue and we thought this was a very good way to make the point of continuing after they graduated and really get used to self-responsibility while they were in their senior year. I think it worked very well as a matter of fact because there was this awareness of what they were going to do and what they really wanted to do and there were enormous facilities for the riding, swimming, tennis. The weekend at Mills, with all the boys around, was really quite a delightful thing, because the pool and the clubhouse were all open for the entertainment of guests. It was very well carried through. The thread again from the syllabus we used at Mills I think also resulted in My book Counseling Girls in a Changing Society, which came later. I know it was a direct affirmation again of these concepts. I have to laugh at the changing society way back in 1947. We have had a constantly changing society ever since. Then the paperback that I did under the editorship of Dr. Burton, which we spoke about before, Counseling in the Physical Education Program. That was 1959. And also the same idea was in Physical Education in the Secondary School, which was 1940. And then the book called Methods in Physical Education, which I did with Dr. Kozman and C. 0. Jackson of the University of Illinois. It was first published in 1947; now the fourth edition has just come out, in 1967. It a tremendous emphasis on the counseling, making program, a re-evaluating, the responsibility of the individual for knowing and doing rather than having something done to him. The Theory in Physical Education, which Camille Brown and I did in 1963 has this same concept and also has a whole emphasis on curriculum development as a cooperative process. I think again this ties back to The New Physical Education in that the perceptions which I got so strongly then related to how to develop citizens for a democratic society. Not by response to command but by a responsible action. The individual within his cultural setting. I think that idea and Margaret Mead's materials about which I spoke before, fitted again into the changing society and the role of women, which was very much part of the adolescent study, and has been a persistent kind of interest which led me then to do the study in Israel, which we'll talk about later on. But I see these, now that you are taping my life, these are all really connected and the joke that I thought was very funny when I was talking to Pat Caldwell in relation to his study of my philosophy was that I had just gotten one or two ideas way, way back and just said them over and over, only fancier each time. He didn't think that was very funny because it's probably true. [laughter] New Directions has a tremendously broad arrangement of bibliography, which I was interested in. I think I thought I ought to have this in this kind of book as resource material for people working with curriculum. It is organized into a hundred or more pages under the headings of present-day America and the adolescent, girls and women, the nature of the individual and environment, health and physical education, curriculum planning, interests and attitudes in physical education as a basis of curriculum planning, secondary school curriculum, college curriculum, diagnosis and adjustment, and the new teacher, I am sure this is organized under these headings to show all the erudition that came from my doctoral work at Teachers College.

SCHIPPERS: And you were thoroughly familiar with the items in there

CASSIDY: In relation to the Zachry committee we were really examining a great deal of material. There also is in the appendix some case materials that came out of the Zachry group, or now I'm not sure whether some of the Merrill Palmer material is in there because I did get case materials when I was working there. Well, I think unless you have other questions, that's my thinking about the New Directions, which as I say is my favorite book. I really think I did that more new thinking in/book than I have since on any of the volumes. I've tried to do a deeper and a more up-to-date kind of thing in subsequent volumes, but this was just the whole burst of new ideas that were terribly exciting and stimulating.

SCHIPPERS: I wanted to ask what your impressions of Columbia were on your second time there as compared to the first.

CASSIDY: Well, my work with Dr. Wood and the innovation in the natural program was really I think the high point of that master's degree year. But this year was filled with tremendous stimulation, with Goodwin Watson and [Edward] Thorndike and the people I mentioned before plus the excitement of the people who were working with the adolescent study. In the early time there was this great group of faculty saying, "How shall we change education in this country so that we will have responsible citizens rather than response-to-command people?" And this was continuing actually, but it wasn't at fever pitch. It was really more centered around understanding the gestalt psychology and the new concepts of learning, I think, than the earlier moment, as I remember it. It's a long time ago. I did want to speak about the man that took the manuscript for this before I left New York. The A.S. Barnes and Company was headed by John Barnes Pratt, who was again a very courtly, stately, lovely looking man, very tall and very handsome, a shock of white hair, and a very social person. He made it his business to go to every physical education convention, to dance with all the ladies and give a big dinner for all his authors, and he made such good friendships in the profession that anybody who had a manuscript went to John right away with it. He was the first publisher who took physical education materials, and thus he really built our professional literature. For years, I had a standing order with A. S. Barnes for anything that came out. Later one discriminated a little bit more. But it was he who really cared about the people and knew them. He took Helen Frost's first, The Clog Dance Book, and any number of those early materials were published by him. After his death, his son, John Lowell Pratt, went on for a short time with the profession, but he looked down on physical education and was not the same kind of person his father was and in due course the company folded. He went into some kind of a sport paperback publishing business. But it was old John Barnes Pratt who really made the literature in our field. I remember him with a great deal of personal friendship and also a great respect for what he did for physical education. He put some of the mental in it. I took another look at The Dance Observer articles for 1939 and 1910, particularly my own article, "So Bennington Went West," that was in the August-September 1939 issue. It renewed my memory of how the things started. I evidently, through Marian Van Tuyl's suggestion, (she came in 1938 to Mills ) and with Dr. Reinhardt's always encouraging anything new and exciting, that we sent an invitation to Mary Jo Shelly s who was the administrative director of the Bennington School of the Dance. In 1937 we did this, and then we had two years of pretty intensive planning to actually make it happen. It was a very big enterprise. We had 170 students, and as I said before, Mary Jo was interested in it because they were getting so few people from the Far West and they wanted to have national attendance; so I thought the figures in that article were kind of interesting, that we had 170 there; were from California, which is the largest number from any one state that they ever had; from Washington; 6 from Oregon; and others were from Colorado, Utah and Idaho. So they really accomplished the western emphasis that they wanted. Actually there were more high school teachers coming to this session, according to Mary Jo, than had come to any of the other six years of Bennington. You asked me what influence it had. I think that, actually, it fed back into the high school programs. The concert of that year was done by the young dancers, who were assisting the great ones, José Limon, Ethel Butler, Louise Kloepper and Katherine Manning were the four who did the concert that year. Another thing that happened that I had forgotten about which was very exciting, Ralph Jester, who was a friend of Mary Jo's with American Pictures, Incorporated, asked if he could come up and do a film, and for four days we went through nothing but filming. Ralph Jester was very interesting and a delightful person. He did a film called Young America Dances. It was a beautiful film. I don't have any idea where it is now, but It did circulate around. And again to answer the question of what influence this session had, I think that the film then spread additional interest as it was shown in various places, The people who were in it—Graham, Humphrey and Weidman—the whole group participated as well as the large student group. The picture in the next summer session catalogue showed our big grass hockey field with these hundred or so dancers. He got some really very beautiful effects of the group and individual movement. The 1940 summer session was continued then with Marian Van Tuyl, who had come to Mills in 1938 and had brought from the University of Chicago ten of her dancers to make up an on-going dance group. They did a good deal of traveling and a good many concerts, and I think this again spread modern dance ideas. These are all, of course, don e in gymnasiums because of physical education people's interests. Dr. Reinhardt asked Marian Van Tuyl, who is a very cultivated person in the sense of knowing the whole area of the arts, to set up an Integrated Arts course at Mills. This was done in the fall of 1939 and was related to the museums and theater and concerts in San Francisco. It was very popular and I think made a very great contribution to the whole arts interest at Mills. The year following Bennington was called the Young Dancers Year and Louise Kloepper, Marian Van Tuyl and José Limon were the three main ones, with musicians John Cage, Lou Harrison and Esther Williamson. That year two of the concerts were by the young group, and then we brought Lester Horton and his group up from Los Angeles. We also had another concert by May O'Donnell and one by John Cage. Then going on at the same time was the Chicago School of Design with Maholy Nagy and his group, and Douglas Campbell, Donald MacLean, who is Max MacLean's brother, and Elsie M. Smithies from Chicago. She was dean later at Occidental here in California. The Pro Arte group was on the campus, and the Institute of International Relations was going great guns, as well as the Maison Francaise. That is where I first met Gardner L. Miller, who is at UCLA as you know in the French Department. It was a, well, all the summer sessions were just a three-ring circus as a matter of fact, and very exciting.

SCHIPPERS: How much contact did you have with the younger dancers?

CASSIDY: Oh, a great deal actually. I spent a great deal of time with the dance people because I was terribly interested in it.

SCHIPPERS: Had you known Lester Horton before?

CASSIDY: Ho. I had not known him (he is dead now, you know), but I suppose I must have heard of him. I know Marian Van Tuyl probably was the one who was instrumental in thinking we should have him for a concert. I did not know him well, but Jose I've known for years and John Cage, and Louise Kloepper I again saw on this trip I took last November to the Middle West. She is at the University of Wisconsin.

SCHIPPERS: How did the contact with the Bennington School and the dance in general influence you in your thinking about Physical Education?

CASSIDY: Well, don't know that I related it to physical education as such. I was looking again in New Directions and I also showed you some of the materials. I have been terribly interested in the human body and how it communicates, and I suppose that's why modern dance has seemed so exciting to me. It was in The New Physical Education, the whole concept of the wholeness of the individual and the interaction of individual and environment has made me, even way back in 1927 J get into a feud with the terminology because it seems to me that as we communicate with inaccurate terms we becloud our own thinking and certainly those of other people. When Douglas Campbell was on the and Mrs. Coolidge were with the head of our Music Department, Luther B. Marchant and his wife, she told Dr. Reinhardt that the Milhauds had escaped the Nazis and had gone to London, and that she would be willing to give the money to bring them to Mills if they would come. They were immediately cabled and invited and came clear across to the "wild west." In the meantime, Mrs. Coolidge had been very generous in helping to build a beautiful music building at Mills. The arrangement was made, after the war, for them to spend one year at Mills and one year in Paris, and that has continued. They are the most charming and unaffected human beings and terribly Interested in young people. Milhaud and Marian Van Tuyl worked together. He did many of the compositions for dance there for a period of time. In the 1941 session we had the Budapest Quartet and in art, Fernand Léger, Owen Lattimore of Pacific Affairs and Samuel Guy Inman for the Hispanic American culture sessions. Mad house indeed, and Marion Van Tuyl was heading up the dance with John Cage and Eleanor Lauer whom she brought with her from Chicago. Eleanor is now the chairman of the Dance Department at Mills. Dr. Lynn Townsend White had come in 1943 as the president after Dr. Reinhardt retired. After I left to come to UCLA in 1941, he then did something about which I was very troubled and am troubled about its happening over the country. He separated the dance department from physical campus with this neuro-psychiatric session, he was going into semantics in a great way, and I suppose again you clutch onto the things that you want to hear. I sat in on those lectures realizing acutely the lack of accurate terminology makes barriers and beclouds your own thinking. So that's been a loud tune I have played to express great dissatisfaction with the term "physical education." When you say "physical" you've done a divisive thing, and when you say "education" you tack something on. You don't say "English education" or "history education." So the body of knowledge has to be clarified so that you can communicate. The other thing in university life, even now you know the physical and mental are thought of as quite separate. Sputnik again set off this mental bit with the competition with Russia, and there had been a whole wave of taking out physical education because we have to have time for the mental. And so we are caught with terms that make everything up here great, but the rest from the brow down is of no worth. I feel sure that until we can get accurate terminology, we just aren't thinking accurately and giving whole new direction for our own field. When you think of what we know about moving, expressing, experiencing, as a wholeness kind of thing, if we could ever talk in those terms I don't think that educators would think of taking physical education, whatever that Is, out of a program for the development of children and youth. Now to deal with the summer sessions. In the 1939 general session at Mills, the Progressive Education Association carried on another workshop. They had one in 1938 in which I was part of the faculty. This was on the needs of girls and women in present-day society, with implications for their education. Lawrence K. Frank and Constance Warren, were a part of that faculty. And the Institute of International Relations that year was headed up by Dean Rusk, who was history professor at Mills at the time. There were twelve concerts by the Budapest String Quartet. The next summer we had the Pro Arte. In 1941 we really had an exciting session. I was showing you the bulletin. We had André Maurois at the Maison Francaise. His wife was with him, they were perfectly delightful and charming people, really very social and enjoyed being with others than just the Maison Francaise group. We had Darius Milhaud and his wife Madeline. Madeline was in the Maison Francaise, and he of course with music. They have for years now spent one year at Mills, alternating with one year in Paris. Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge—does that name mean anything to you? She was a tremendously wealthy woman, New England, and a great patron of the arts. She commissioned Martha Graham to do a dance at one time. President Reinhardt became acquainted with her and elicited her interest in the whole music development at Mills. I was reading in the book George Hedly wrote on Dr. Reinhardt that when she education and made Eleanor Lauer the chairman. It seems to me if we are talking about human movement, from the toddling baby to the art form, you don't take dance out of it. But in departments where they are running big athletics and where there is not a supporting kind of climate for the art form, then I presume dance people are happier when they are with the fine arts group. It ends up I think quite often in. being an emphasis on performance rather than the whole range of expressive movement that has to do with dance and with communication. So we have come full circle with dance taken out of physical education, and very unhappily too the whole atmosphere at Mills was such that the department dwindled. The girls didn't want to major in physical education. So, and I can't remember the year this happened, they gave up the major and continued only to give the activity classes for the general student. I was very glad I had moved in the meantime to an institution where the Department of Physical Education was going full tilt developing new ideas and representing whole cutting-edge of thought in the field. In the fall of 1939, I was given the very fancy title of Convener of the School of Education and Community Services. Dr. Reinhardt thought up the term for all of the heads of schools, and so it was that I continued only one course in physical education and spent my time building this new school. This was war time in 1942, so this school program put tremendous emphasis on women prepared to serve the community, the whole community. We had a community design on the cover of the school bulletin. The Mills faculty, I think, felt happy about this school's organization because they could put many of the departments that weren't quite respectable into this School of Education and Community Services. It did have responsibility for all the credential programs; it had the department of Child Development which had a children's school; a nursery school really; a family council; the Home Economics Department with a home management house. This department had a major in Institution Administration where the girls got their training in relation to the residence hall food management. We had a pre-professional Social Work training sequence, and the Physical Education and Recreation major; Occupational Therapy; Physical Therapy, and Child Guidance Clinic. There was at this time a tremendous amount of emphasis on war services of various kinds within the community. As I said before, there has been a thread all the way along in relation to groupwork and camping with the youth agencies and group-work professionals with whom I worked. Going into this other structure I think made a very much greater emphasis in my activities related to the community. That plus the war. One of the things that happened along in here, 1940, I was a member of the steering committee at Mills for the Cooperative Study of General Education, and that is where I got to know. Ralph Tyler and some of the other exciting committee members working with the institutions in this study. They always planned to come to California during the winter, so that they could enjoy a nicer climate and they spent a good deal of time at Mills, Tyler particularly, because he was directing the study. That also is where I got to work a good deal with Dean Rusk because he was chairman of the Mills group. We had a very exciting time in the various aspects of the study as it proceeded. In March, 1940 I was invited to be a staff member of a Health Education Workshop at the University of Texas. I became a great expert in health all of a sudden, [laughter] An article I wrote for the Journal of Health and Physical Education, "The Concept of Integration As It Functions in Health Education," was a part of that. Then came December 7, 1941, with Pearl Harbor, and all of our activities changed immediately, I was thinking of the involvement everyone had in our community and over the country in that war, as against the awful moment that we are in now, where you don't feel related to the Vietnam struggle, and no involvement in activities related to really helping our country instead of destroying it. In the 1941-42-43 period, I wrote about thirteen war- related articles related to women and the war and war service published in various magazines. Even up to, May, in The Journal of Educational Sociology, "Careers for Women in the Post-war World" appeared so that my writing and thinking was related now to women and careers much more than to Physical Education. In October, 1942, I was called to Washington to work on one of the Victory Corps bulletins. Dorothy LaSalle, who has now retired from Wayne University in Detroit, was put in charge of the one on physical education. We worked through a rather intensive session in the, United States Office of Education War-time Commission, and developed one of the series in the Victory Corps Bulletins. I came back from that experience feeling that I really wanted to do something that would be more effective than what had been possible in the short time we were in Washington. So with my ex-classmate, Hilda Clute, who had married Alfred Kozman, we decided we would write a book on fitness for girls. We wrote to John Barnes Pratt, the publisher of my New Directions, asking him If he would be Interested, he said yes and gave us a contract; so we proceeded. It was a little grim, I must say, because I was teaching at Mills all day and would go in about four o'clock to Hilda's home. We would start working and have dinner together and work through the evening trying to get this thing written. And so it was that we came out with Pratt's title which he wanted, Physical Fitness for Girls, with a subtitle, Contributions of War-Peace Programs in Secondary Schools, we also made an accompanying workbook for the students, which I think tied to the workbook which I had been using with the students at Mills. It was a large laboratory-size paperback and had some very cute illustrations to Interest high school girls in really keeping a self-directed kind of program going. The workbook, either was not pushed very hard or was not popular, while the other book was fairly popular. I was always rather sad about it because I thought it was a very good idea. The University of Illinois uses in their required freshman course, for both men and women, a regular manual that the students buy and use as an advising kind of thing. On this University of Texas tour, I had become acquainted with the famous sociologist, Eduard Lindeman. He was another very exciting human being who just came through directly to you. Clarence Dykstra had the same quality. He just swept away I any barriers to communication and related directly to the person. Lindeman was like this, so in a rather brief time together I felt as though I had always known him and I admired him very much. It was he who as a sociologist had the idea of the WPA Recreation Program. I think the materials written then are better than anything that has been written since. His idea of the WPA, putting people to work in improving community experiences instead of putting them on the bread line during the Depression, you know, seemed to me a marvelous kind of concept for our country. I wrote to Lindeman and asked him if he would write the introduction for this book, which he did. So I have two famous sociologists: Margaret Mead for the counseling book and Eduard Lindeman for this little book. Charles Hendry wrote the introduction for Group Experience the Democratic Way, which was written in this period with Dr. Bernice Baxter who was then a coordinator of curriculum in the Oakland schools. It has a good deal of the flavor of the war activities and community block operations in it. Group Experience was published by Harpers in 1943. I was very much involved in wartime community work and the Oakland Council of Social Agencies, The most interesting thing happened to me during that time. In 1942-44, I was a member of the first-aid disaster squad of Firehouse No. 16 of the American Red Cross and Oakland Defense Council. We went to Firehouse No. 16, which was near Mills, for our training. This was a most varied group of people, a butcher, police officer, teacher, housewife—a real neighborhood cross section. They were absolutely marvelous. We worked like dogs on the techniques being taught us. Firehouse No. 16 in my neighborhood and here were people I had never seen before. I lived near Mills and I went back and forth to the college to Oakland or to San Francisco. I was not at that point related to folk who were my neighbors. A good deal of neighborliness came through this war activity, I must say. The idea was that we would be trained in first-aid and various kinds of remedial measures, then come the disaster we were to be taken to the point of difficulty to give aid and comfort. We never had to do this, but we did a lot of training. Also related to this was the area where I lived near the college. It was called the Arroyo Viejo area, we set up at Arroyo Viejo a community council. I worked with Ruth Gillard, who was in the Sociology Department at Mills. She and I were co-chairmen of the fact-finding committee for the council. Recently I found our fact-finding report; it ties now to the very last thing I published the Listen Everybody for the California Youth Authority. This was a project with poverty young people themselves, studying community needs and taking non-violent action to solve their own problems, which I think is an enormously exciting idea. This Arroyo Viejo had the idea that the people in the community would Identify problems and do something about them. It was the adults saying, "Let's look at what is going on here; let's get the facts and let us get action." It was doing things for young people. We did some work with youth councils, but it was mainly an adult operation.

SCHIPPERS: Who was the instigator of the idea?

CASSIDY: I can't remember now how it started. It might have been the Council of Social Agencies, or it might have come out of community neighborhood groups during the war. That was how I got tied up with California Youth Authority and Roy Votaw, with whom I have worked a great deal. He is head of the preventive section of the Youth Authority. It was a very ongoing and worthwhile community action.

SCHIPPERS: Do you recall that they used any of the other community councils in the state as a model for their activities?

CASSIDY: No, I don't really. I was looking at the membership of our council. It was made up of church people, businessmen school people, police, and recreation people. This tied me in to community action and I think, as I said before, it was because I was then in the School of Education and Community Services. In April, I was elected an alumna member of Phi Beta Kappa, which for a physical education person is supposed to be quite something. The college did not have a Phi Beta Kappa chapter when I was in college. The national allows an institution, after it gets the charter, to go back in the years and elect the ones who qualify. Bo I made the most of it. At UCLA in 1950-51 I was elected a counselor in that chapter. In 1951-52 I was chairman of the committee to report on the scholarship fund, in 1954-55 I was a board member southern council, and also vice president of the UCLA chapter, and I always showed up at all the meetings. Ben W. Miller and I are the two in the department who are Phi Beta Kappas and we never miss a meeting, just to prove that physical education can make it, but it was fun. Majl Ewing was the president of the chapter when I first belonged to it and I got to know Carmelita and Majl quite well. She was very active in the Girl, Scouts so we had that bond in common. They were I think most interesting people. In 1943 summer session, I was on the University of Wisconsin workshop staff. Martha Deane, Hilda Kozman, Laurentine Collins and I made up the faculty of that group. It was terribly hot, but we had a very good session I think.

SCHIPPERS: This was the first time you'd worked with Miss Deane?

CASSIDY: Ho, I had known her for years in the physical education profession. We had been longtime good friends. In conventions, we'd share—Hilda and Martha and Laurentine and I—a suite together. Her great character was shown on this trip because she was traveling in a black wool outfit and her luggage was lost. We were in this boiling-hot sorority house, right under the roof, and she wore this one dress the whole time she was there. I think she would have died, but she was full of zest and excitement even with that having happened to her. In 1944 I was invited by Carson Ryan to come to the University of North Carolina to do a summer workshop. As I got into Washington D. C. on my way, the armies of the United States of America were landing in Normandy. This was a terribly dramatic moment. Hilda Kozman had traveled back with me. She was going on to New York. We were just getting wisps of information about the invasion. Somebody told us, if we'd go to a moving picture theatre, the whole thing would be broadcast from there. So we sat in a nice cool theatre during most of that day, until we had to take our trains out to our final destination, to see what was happening in this great world struggle. Well, this is the point where I was saying it gets awfully personal. My mother had bought a piece of property at Lake Tahoe in 1931 when we were up there staying at the Brockway Hotel. She was very romantic. She really bought a great big mass of granite with a cave in it. I berated her when I came home from swimming to find that this had happened. In any case, we built the first little house there and then have built onto it from time to time and have the happiest and most beautiful times in it. The little youngsters in our family have holidayed there with us. It's at the north end of the lake and looks out at the snowy mountains and the bright, bright blue lake. And that mass of granite really protects it from the outer world. It's one of the beautiful things that happened in my life. I have written a number of books there because the unbroken three-months vacation gives you a chance to really do that kind of thing. Hilda and I wrote our first methods book there. She and her husband came into considerable monies through the oil business, and so she lived very elegantly. She had a housekeeper, whom she brought up to Tahoe when we were working together. So we didn't have any housekeeping or cooking problems. We got up at a certain time and wrote and had coffee and so on, keeping to a regular schedule. We finished the book really during that summer. I was there in 1944 doing a great deal of swimming and sunbathing and discovered what I thought was a bruise on my left breast, which later turned out to be a cancer. In August of that year I had the cancer operation. As I said to you before, it seems awfully personal to discuss one's ailments. But it really was a very important time for me, as I lay in the hospital looking at the pearly gates, I said, "Now what do you want to do with your life if you live?" Cancer is a very strange thing because you are indentured to your surgeon for years. Any pain you ever have, you're sure that this is it again, and for a person who never felt anything was ever going to happen to me or ever would be ill really, this was quite a shock. So I made peace with a number of issues in my life at that time. As I said before I think I would not have gone to UCLA if I hadn't really had to stop in my tracks and say, "if you are going to live now, what is the most important thing that you care to do?" When life is threatened, it becomes awfully precious then. So I lived and am here. That was 1944 and now that matter is all settled. In 1944, I was on the Oakland mayor's committee on post-war planning and I was in all sorts of things in the community. In March of 1945 the Federal Security Agency set up a Women's Commission, Laurentine Collins was asked to be director of a workshop related to women's problems, and she asked me to come on as a consultant. Larry Frank again was in this, Margaret Mead and Ruth Strang. I am trying to think of the name of the woman doctor who headed up the Health Department in New York City. Well, anyway, there were lots of very interesting people including Mrs. Roosevelt, who worked with this whole session. It helped me in my coming back into more active life after my little hospital séance. In 1946 I was chairman of the Professional Committee of the Oakland Council of Social Agencies to formulate social planning objectives and groupwork for the City of Oakland. The other day I looked at the list of committees and jobs that I had held in that period, to find that they had to do really with social group-work, with civil defense, war activities, and I had continued to keep my national and California state relationships with Health, Physical Education and Recreation. I was on the NEA Educational Policies Commission, and then another group, the Western and National Association of Physical Education for College Women. These have been my very strong interests.

SCHIPPERS: Before you get too far, I wonder if you could expand a little bit on the Mead-Strang-Roosevelt committee and tell me a little bit more about how you worked and about the content.

CASSIDY: Well, actually there were some of the women from the Armed Services, too. We had certain presentations and then we had small discussion groups making recommendations. I looked to see it I could find a copy of that material and I can't. I don't know what ever really happened to it. It was to bring in up-to-date information about women and women's activities and that sort of thing. I think I even made a speech, as I remember. But it was a pretty electric kind of thing, Mrs. Roosevelt made a speech and then she invited Laurentine to come to the White House to tea with her. I was not invited. I met her once when the United Nations was at Flushing Meadows. Laurentine Collins and I met in New York and went out there for some sessions and were admitted to the delegates' dining room. Mrs. Roosevelt was there with a woman from India having lunch, and when we went out, Laurentine stopped and spoke with her and introduced me and chatted a bit. I thought she was really a marvelous person. And again the kind of person who comes directly through without any roundaboutness. I admired her very much.

SCHIPPERS: Did you work closely with Miss Mead or the others?

CASSIDY: Yes. I had worked with Margaret Mead at that meeting, and then later when I was president of the American Academy [of Physical Education]. I can't quite remember that date, but I'll pick it up when I get around to that, because I want to talk a little bit about the Academy and the people there. The meeting was in Detroit and I had asked Margaret Mead to be the R. Tait McKenzie lecture speaker. Laurentine had known her quite well, and I had known her also from the Zachry committee. She was with that group quite a bit. And, of course, as I said way, way back, her Coming of Age in Samoa was a great event in my life. So I asked her to come and be the speaker. She came into the Hotel Cadillac, and we took her to lunch at the City Club. Then Laurentine had arranged to have her interviewed for the Free Press. And there I saw the most remarkable demonstration of intelligence I have ever seen. We sat on one side of this glass room where the reporter with a tape recorder set across the table from Dr. Mead. This reporter asked a series of questions and Margaret Mead just talked them off in paragraphs as though she had the whole thing written out. It was really the most amazing performance of thinking and communicating skill I have ever seen. I am sure people, when they heard it on the radio, which it was to go on, must have thought it was all a prepared deal. But it was just coming right out of her brain. She made a very good presentation at the Academy meeting, and then I think we had dinner together. I can't remember. But this was a kind of fun social and professional thing. I always go to hear her speak when she's out in this part of the country. I think she's quite remarkable. Ralph Beals doesn't, and many of the anthropologists don't think too well of her because she dramatizes things, you know. I had a student in one of my classes at UCLA who was taking a course with Ralph Beals and a counseling course with me. She saw that Margaret Mead had written the introduction to my counseling book, and she said, "Well, Ralph Beals doesn't really think that she's a good anthropologist." And I said, "Well, that's all right. But I think that each person now has really to appraise the source of information in this day and age, with so much propaganda. So why don't you go to the library and look up the cultures in which Margaret Mead has made her studies, her publications, her present job, and then look up Ralph Beals' and do the same for him. Then make some kind of judgment now as to whether he is speaking accurately." We didn't discuss this again. [laughter] Well, she is quite a character, I must say, and you really never know what she's going to do. She did a terribly thing at Mills one time. Dr. White was then president. She did an absolutely marvelous thing with the students. She just sat over in the Student Union and chatted with them. She put everything in such a dramatic structure, you know, saying why should women have these little webs of silk on their legs, and this is the first generation that ever had to have baby sitters and it's a whole new profession. The girls were just enchanted and asked some very interesting questions. President Lynn White gave a dinner for her, and I was invited. His father was a minister and a very flowery kind of speaker, a marvelous man but prone to making long and elaborate speeches. So in the middle of this dinner he lifted his wine glass and made this long effusion to Margaret Mead. She just sat and looked at him. [laughter] Not a word. It just fell with a plunk. He had expected her to respond. She is a free soul Indeed and I even thought when I was asking her to do this speech for the Academy, she may or may not do well. We were never quite sure what was going to happen. But it's never dull, I assure you that. In 1947, I was reading proof on Counseling Girls in a Changing Society, published by McGraw-Hill. I was also the director of the California Youth Authority's 1947 workshop, which was held at Mills. It was called California Youth 1947 and was quite an operation. That was the period in which I became much better acquainted with Roy Votaw. However, I was also reading proof on the methods book which I wrote with Kozman and Jackson. I was also tearing up my life at Mills and going to UCLA, so that I remember that period with a good deal of pain because I'm a great collector. I had been at Mills for thirty years, so to move my chattels and myself into this wild blue southern yonder was quite something. That is probably why I don't remember the methods book with any great love. It is the bestselling book I have ever put out, but I always think of it as one I like least, and I think it was the pain of working with it when I had all this other involvement. Now I'd like to just get myself to UCLA and then stop for this time. I had an invitation from Clarence Dykstra and John Bovard and Martha Deane to come to UCLA and to help them set up their graduate program in the department. John Bovard was just retiring, and Carl Young was coming in that year as chairman of the Department of Physical Education. They had to have somebody to get past the appointment committees with enough publications and recognitions. I think I was older than they were looking for, I mean the appointment committee. But Martha Deane was a very dear friend of Clarence Dykstra, and I think she told him that I really was the one to do it. He had made the money available, and the position was a full professorship. I had been a professor so long it would never have entered my mind that there could be anything else. And so this invitation came, Dyke was always laughing a little bit about it because there was an agreement with the University of California and the private institutions that if you were going to rob any of them you would notify the president in advance and really ask his permission. Stanford and Mills and Pomona and Occidental were really having a time, and they had come to this agreement. Well, Dykstra didn't do this, and then I went to Lynn White to discuss what he saw. ahead for the School of Education and Community Services, he was simply livid and really raised quite a row about it. Dykstra eventually thought it was pretty funny, but didn't really care, I don't think; He made quite a number of jokes about it. I was sorry that it happened that way, because I adore Mills of course. This was a very profound change in my life; I liked my little job at Mills very much and I adored all the things that happened there actually; always a very interesting spot, and delightful young people. It is one of the institutions where it is very respectable to be informed and to be interested in politics, the arts and community affairs. The kids are really quite enchanting. I think it is a very democratic place also. You are respected there for what you can do and not the kind of clothes you wear, in spite of the fact that it has a rather high tuition. In considering the UCLA invitation, I set about as quickly as I could to really find out what was envisioned at Mills in relation to what I was interested in. I talked to Lynn White about this, and he said, well he really hadn't thought about it and he really didn't know. And I said that it made a great deal of difference to me with whom I was working. Was he going to stay there? And he said that he didn't know that either. When we talked, he was very flip about the whole thing; so I went away from our meeting really feeling kind of upset. Then I drove with Hilda Kozman, whose husband had just died, in her very elegant Mark IV Continental, up to Seattle to a convention of the AAPER. We discussed this back and forth all the way, because she and I had been long, long, long friends. She also was a Mills graduate. Martha Deane and Carl Young were up at the Seattle meeting, so I had the opportunity to talk with both of them very seriously. When I got the letter from Provost Dykstra asking me to come to UCLA, I said to my aging mother, "How would you like to live in Los Angeles?" She said, "Oh, I've always wanted to live down there..." This came as a great surprise because we had always thought the Bay Area was the only place to live.

1.5. TAPE NUMBER: THREE, SIDE ONE September 26, 1967

SCHIPPERS: When I came in, I said that I felt perhaps we would be remiss if there weren't more mention of Dean Rusk in light of his stature, and I asked you to comment a little more on him than you. have in just your brief references to him.

CASSIDY: Well, as a colleague he was chairman of the History Department at Mills and he and I worked together on a committee dealing with the General Education Study which was carried on at Mills, so that I had a great deal of opportunity to see his method of working and his intelligence and his orderly planning. I really wanted him for the next president of Mills College, but he had then gone to the Rockefeller Foundation. While he was at Mills one of his students, Virginia Foisie, whose brother is Jack Foisie of the [San Francisco] Chronicle and later the Los Angeles Times, was a student in his history class and they fell in love. Since it was not quite proper to be dating one's student, they actually met in some of the faculty houses and were very reserved about the courting period. But he did marry her when she graduated. While he was still at Mills, their oldest boy, their first child was born, and that young man since has married a girl from Chile who was an exchange student when they lived at Scarsdale when Rusk was president of the Rockefeller Foundation. He graduated then from Berkeley. In fact both of them, the son and his wife, finished their degrees at the University of California at Berkeley. I don't really know what he's doing now. Virginia, Bean's wife, is a very bright and a completely self-aware person. She has never, you know, worn mini-skirts or done the hairdo styles or any of that following of fashion extremes. She yanks her hair straight back as she did in college, and she's kept it that way. A mutual friend of ours, who was a Mills student and is now in Washington, D. C., came up to my place at Tahoe two years ago, was talking about how Ginny had really done such a marvelous job as a diplomat's wife there in Washington. She is completely natural, completely unaffected, comes right straight through to people. She attends all those events for wives of the foreign delegates in Washington and has made very real strong friends, I think in this sense, as this friend of mine was saying, she has helped Dean very much in the ways she relates to foreign delegates. When I was planning on this journey to Israel, I wrote to Dean Rusk and said, "I suppose now you wish you were back at the Rockefeller Foundation, " [laughter] since he was at that point on a very hot seat in Washington in the Kennedy administration. I told him about the study I wanted to make and asked him if he could advise me on any foundations that might be particularly interested in studies in Israel, because money was a problem. He replied with a three-page letter, which was very generous, giving me some very good advice. The main one was run, do not walk, to the consul general for Israel in Los Angeles and see if he will approve the study and they really would want you to do it. And this I did. This was Mordecai Shalev, who is now in Ghana. He was a very charming and gracious person and seemed very pleased with the study, I think mainly because he was very impressed with Franklin Murphy and UCLA. He said that he would get the sponsorship for the study from the Ministry of Education and Culture of Israel, which he did. This then opened up all the possibilities that were really quite marvelous for me, when I did this study.

SCHIPPERS: In your contact with Husk at Mills, was there a lot of exchange between you and he and other members of the faculty?

CASSIDY: Yes, we worked together on this committee carrying out the General Education Study, and then he became Dean of Faculty. He is a very quiet, soft-spoken person. He has, I think, really a regard for other people in an enormously democratic way, and the faculty responded to his leadership with great enthusiasm and felt that he had great foresight and skill in planning. Schippers; What were some of the ideas, would you say, that characterized him at the time?

CASSIDY: I think that he was, this was when Ralph W. Tyler was visiting for the General Education Committee, very much interested in a broad, liberal kind of education which was certainly a key point in the Mills program. He believed very much in student participation. He had students on this committee; he worked with students just as ably as he did with faculty. He was interested in having Mills be right on the forefront in a progressive kind of program for education of women. I don't feel I can offhand identify any other directions particularly.

SCHIPPERS: I see. [tape off] Previously I asked you if there were any specific incidents that you recall regarding him, and you mentioned the Ralph Bunche one and Rusk's attitude toward Kennedy and then the Cuban crisis.

CASSIDY: Well, I was told that he was the person, and being from Georgia I think this is kind of interesting, who broke down the color barrier in the Congress dining room by marching directly in with Ralph Bunche and allowing no question of it. That of course has persisted. Then, that he was enormously admiring of Kennedy and his brilliance and his leadership and his ideas. When the Cuba crisis was being discussed, he just was distraught over the possibility of Kennedy taking very serious blame for it, and he said, "They just can't do this to him." But it's typical I think of his great integrity. He also has a commitment which I think he showed in the Mills setting and which he has shown in his policy in the State Department, of keeping communications open at all costs, that you can't negotiate unless you really keep the dialogue going. I don't think he's a particularly good public speaker, but he is a person in whom I would have great faith. I think he is very well Informed and he actually served in the Pacific theater during the war and has a real interest in the Far East. He evidenced that at Mills actually, and I think possibly his interest in the Pacific area was part of Lynn T. White's going on and President Charles Rothwell with Pacific area studies, at Mills. There is a strong emphasis on that. I have the impression that it was really started by Husk's interest in what was happening in that other part of the world.

SCHIPPERS: Very good. [tape off] To resume with the narrative, we got you up to Seattle last time and this was on your way to UCLA.

CASSIDY: I went to Seattle to a national convention and drove up with my ex-classmate from Mills with whom I had done a great deal of work, Hilda Clute, now Mrs. Kozman. We talked this whole matter over, right and left, columns and all that sort of thing, because this was a very grave decision for me to make. And then at the convention Martha Deane was there and Carl H. Young, who was just coming in as chairman of the department. He had been teaching at San Diego State, so I had long conferences with both of these people to see what the job was and what was possible. Division head. Ever since Fred[erick] Cozens' day, we had had one department supposedly, but there were the two divisions and there was a divided budget and really a divided administration, the men's building for men and the women's building for women. Really they were quite separate in the sense of philosophy and program, and even of understanding each other. In any case I had a long discussion with Bovard and the job that he described was that I would be appointed full professor and that I would have the obligation to work with the faculty in developing the Master's Program, particularly the Comprehensive Plan II, which they had never had. Also, I could develop any new courses I wanted to, which was exciting. I had done as much fact-finding as I could. I think I told you before that I had talked with Dr. White about what he envisioned for the School of Education and Community Services at Mills only to find he was not even thinking about it in any developmental sense. This was an important fact for me to consider in making a decision to leave Mills. So then because at this period, when I was really looking at how to use my life and wanting to invest what was left, if any, in the most important way that I could, I wasn't fooling around anymore. [laughter] I decided to go to UCLA. I felt that at UCLA I would have a chance to work with both men and women students in the higher level of graduate work in the preparation of teachers. It seems to me, if the world when I returned I went down to the campus to do some more thinking about it and talking with John Bovard and Provost Clarence Dykstra, and I remember, Martha has always called me Rosy, which seems kind of charming, that little nickname. She had discussed this appointment with Dykstra. They were very good friends and Martha had a very close friendship with Lillian Dykstra as a matter of fact. It was she I am sure who persuaded him to see that there was a budget for a full professorship and that this be the focus for going on with the development of a graduate program. So as we went up to his office and Hansena Frederickson, whom I later knew quite well, announced that we were there, he threw open the door of his Inner office and said, "Well, hello, Rosy," [laughter] which took me a little off my feet. But after I got to know him, I felt it was very typical. We discussed the whole matter. I had a conference with Paul Dodd and I don't remember what capacity that was, perhaps he was in charge of the whole instructional program at the time. I can't remember. I know he was Dean of Letters and Science. And I don't remember whether I saw Dean [David] Jackey, whether he was then Dean of the Applied Arts College, because both Martha and Bovard had been dean at one time or another. Then of course I had conferences with the people in the department. I had never met Norman Duncan before, he was then the division head for Men's Physical Education. And Martha was for the Women's is going to be saved, the teachers have to do it. I would certainly have a great many more students than I would have had at Mills. So I decided I would then accept the appointment if I could pass the committee systems. You know what that is. And so I wrote both Provost Dykstra and Dr, Bovard, and to Martha Deane and Carl Young, of course. So then my papers went through the committee system. Norman Duncan later told me that I was probably too old for the job at the time [laughter], but that they knew they had to have somebody who had contributed to the literature in the field and had national standing in the profession, and so I was approved. At the time I didn't have any idea about this committee system, but later I had been through a great many of them and found out how complicated the process is. I think the faculty had wrested this appointing and promoting power from President Sproul, as a very precious kind of procedure where the faculty in their own right would have the last say on appointments and promotions. Five people are appointed by the chancellor's office, I think it's the chancellor's office, but maybe it's the Senate. In any case it's a committee of five, with one person from the department involved. Maybe it's the Committee on Committees that does it. I think that is it actually. So as I said, Norman Duncan was on my committee, which I think was a little strange since he was a supervisor and this was the appointment of a full professor. In those days there were very few women on the faculty, and there was no faculty club at the time, so that the Senate meetings and appointment committees, or whatever committees you were on, were the places where you really got around to knowing other faculty members. I am torn over the procedure because, although they say there are the four qualifications, which is service to the university, public service, publication and research, and good teaching, which is very hard to evaluate, the committees I served on at this time seemed to be only Interested in research and publication. In the instructions you receive from the Senate all four are to be considered, but that they do not have to rate equally. In these recent years the committees have considered creative production very strongly as the whole swing at UCLA has gone so heavily toward the arts. But at the time I came down from Mills unless you had a doctor's degree and had published you weren't anything. The thing I found also in this system which was very upsetting was that I was continually making a minority report. These committees often exhibited great prejudice and much of this was against physical education. In some cases when it would be an appointment in say, English or history, the candidate would fly through with very little evidence, whereas if it was a physical education appointment, one would find real prejudice and demands to examine the materials, with a great to-do going on. Those committees usually had to meet and meet and meet. Two or three of the people we recommended were lost because they were not approved for promotion due to very strong prejudice against physical education and the feeling that it did not have any worth. Although Fred Cozens, John Bovard and Martha Deane had really central support in positions on the campus in the early days, they were thought of very highly and both Bovard and Martha Deane had served as dean temporarily in Applied Arts before Dean Jackey came. Well, then I was appointed and accepted the appointment. It was this hectic summer of 1947 when I was putting on a work-shop for the California Youth Authority, and then having to sort the materials of thirty years at Mills and get packed up and moved was an extremely harrowing affair, Until I moved I never had thrown anything away. It's quite terrible—I was not sure whether much of the material belonged to Mills or me. I thought we were one and the same thing, so that with some of the books and things of that kind I had to be very ethical to the point of what would stay and what would go. The housing situation in Los Angeles was very grim at that time, and since I happened to be possessed by a little wire-haired fox terrier, who was then about sixteen years old, Martha had promised to get me a place to live. Well, children and dogs are not particularly welcome in apartments and since Martha was busy with summer school Jessie Rhulman, a very good friend of Martha's, took on the job of finding me a placeman apartment. There was then one being built here in Santa Monica on Twelfth Street that was supposed to be ready by September, where they would include the dog in the lease. So we packed ourselves up and came down in the heat of the summer, actually in August, to get settled. Some of my devoted students and friends at Mills were here on the Department of Physical Education faculty, Margaret Duncan Greene and Jean Swenson. So when I shipped my forty cases of books, they unpacked them and had them all organized beautifully in my office. I had really the very nicest office in the building and everybody was being very tender with me. So that was the one place where I felt that I was kind of organized because, although the lease had given the September 1st date, the building was not completed. The builder then put us up at a motel called The Red Apple, which was on Wilshire in Santa Monica, and there we spent a month, which was extremely grim. However, the life on the campus was very, very fine and very interesting, I want to talk about the Dykstras a bit, because I got to know them quite well. Because they were fond of Martha, they took me in as a friend, and both of them were completely without any kind of artificiality. They came straight through to people, and as I said, my greeting by Dykstra or my first visit was an example of, you know, you were just there. They had this very charming place at Laguna where Martha and I were entertained a number of times. Many people called Dykstra "Dyke", but his wife Lillian called him "Papa" which was very amusing. She was a perfectly charming person. She was on the University Religious Conference, and she had me appointed to their board of directors mainly because they were working with a camp and I had had quite a lot of camp experience. So I had that contact for a couple of years, and then I suggested that Norman Miller take it over because he was a very able person for this task. I had known Norman Miller for a long, long time. He had been very much in love with one of my Mills College major students, Jane Hex. They met at Columbia University. So when I came down here I felt that I knew the two ex-students of mine, Jean Swenson and Margaret Greene, very well, and Norman Miller, and of course I had known Martha for ages, and John Bovard. Carl Young I had only met at Seattle. Actually they had tried very hard to get, when Bovard retired, Dr. Delbert Oberteuffer from Ohio State University. He was one of the brilliant men in the profession and very charming, delightful. He had come out to UCLA to be interviewed. President Sproul had come down to meet him and had put him up at the Bel-Air Hotel in great style. They did all the persuading I guess that they could do, but he returned to Ohio State and decided to stay there and it was at that point Carl Young was appointed, I was always sorry that Del didn't come because he had been a longtime friend of mine and very active in the profession. Carl did not have the same kind of energy and forward look in any sense. He was very much, as we were all actually, directed by Martha's vision and view, and he had to kind of stand between the then, as I perceived it, almost reactionary point of view of the Departments men faculty, with real antagonisms to this flight into the new world that Martha was leading with her women's staff. At that time there were some very bright and very interesting women who were creative and wanting to see a program that would be very functional, called "The Core Program." This almost became a bad word in the sense of the feelings felt by the men. I had never met Norman Duncan until the visit to UCLA before I actually was appointed. There had been some kind of reception; I guess I had spoken to the major women students, and Martha had asked Norman to come over. Then we had some refreshments and I was standing chatting with him. I made my remark that I had been making for how many years, that I felt the name physical education was so unsound and so absolutely semantically wrong, and I said, "Now at the moment the only thing I can think of calling it is The Art and Science of Human Movement." He said, "Oh, for Christ's sake!" [laughter] I have always been so enchanted with that because he was so vehement at that point and thinking this was just crazy. Yet in another ten years he was using all this terminology and being completely with the ideas about human movement that we were talking about in the department. So it seemed to me if Norm could change in his view through our working together, because at that time he really thought such ideas were completely ridiculous. My appointment was announced to me by Paul Dodd, who called when Provost Dykstra was away from the campus. The committee had made a positive recommendation. So he called me to say that I had been appointed and made all kinds of nice remarks. I seem to be rambling a bit because I want to say what my impressions were in relation to Dr. Dykstra and the Senate. I had always thought that the local chancellor, then provost as he was called, would be like the president of UCLA, but my shock was very great when I found Dykstra sitting with his back to his faculty and either President Sproul or the president of the Senate presiding. The struggle that has gone on, which really happened with Clark Kerr, for greater autonomy for the campuses. But in President Sproul's day everything then was run from Berkeley. If you wanted to get anything through the Senate at UCLA, all you had to do was to say Berkeley was against it. Having moved from the Southern Branch to the present campus and becoming the University of California at Los Angeles, there had been this increasing effort to have autonomy and to be able to make our own decisions and hot have President Sproul and so-called Berkeley run everything. Dr. Dykstra a number of times was very upset in his private conversations when we would be at their home at a party or some event, at President Sproul having overruled something that he had proposed. Dykstra very seldom made remarks at the Senate meetings. How, Franklin Murphy is right there at every meeting and really takes a very active part in these meetings, and a very effective part too. Another thing, that was part of that early period, also was kind of a shock, relates to the tea for the new faculty members given at the Dykstras' home. The invitation indicated that the tea was given by President and Mrs. Sproul, and the Dykstras in their own home were only in the receiving line. It was Sproul's operation from beginning to end, and I don't know whether I said this before, but if you wanted to get anything passed in the Senate, all you had to do was to say, "Well, they do it at Berkeley," and then we would vote just the other way, because [laughter] it was a real feeling that we were not going to do anything like Berkeley if we could help it. The oldies, the power people at UCLA, were not going to be run by Berkeley. I was interested in the controversy in relation to President Kerr, the president's home, holding that it should not be on the Berkeley campus but in the middle of the state or even in San Francisco, to avoid the feeling that everything is run from Berkeley. This didn't happen. In fact President Kerr stayed in his own home there in Berkeley, and the campus president's home was used as a kind of a guest house. Now whether President Hitch will live there now I don't have any idea. I was glad in a way I could see Sproul in action because I thought he was a fantastic person, and very dynamic and had, like Dr. Reinhardt, this absolute fetish about knowing everybody by name, and remembering names. When any person would start to make a remark in the Senate, he would point at him and call his name. And I say "he" because very few women had Senate standing or were too timid to speak. I attended two Davis conferences and was on working committees for those. To see President Sproul in action in this All-University Conference was pretty interesting. I thought, he was an enormously able man and that he felt he had made and really owned the University of California. It was his and he was not going to have anything except this central power. This was my impression of him. Another anecdote about Dr. Dykstra was when he complained to Martha about the statements of our department in the catalogue, so she said, "Well, cone for lunch and we'll discuss it." This was during the summer workshop on guidance of which Laurentine Collins was director, Martha asked Laurentine and me to come. Dyke came. We had this pleasant lunch; he played the piano and was perfectly charming. And then he got to the business of the catalogue. He pulled a catalogue out of his pocket and then he said "This is just trash." And so he read it and it was really pretty funny because it was awful, an all catalogues are. He read it with all the gestures and all the intonations to make it absolutely gibberish. He just loved putting on this performance and had a great time. Another thing about Dyke: Mrs. Harvey Mudd was one of the commissioners on the Girl Scouts board here in Los Angeles. She and the director called upon me in my office to ask if I would be the chairman of their camp committee. To digress a bit, I had just arrived, was still living in a motel and one of the things I discovered was that my job at Mills must have been a very big one because I had to resign from so many organizations when I left, it made me a little embarrassed that I had gotten myself so busy in so many activities. So I said, "Now, I won't do this because I'm going down there a great scholar and not an administrator." This was really my purpose, I wanted to develop new courses and to teach and to forget any administrative tasks forever and ever. When Mrs. Mudd asked me to be chairman of the Los Angeles Girl Scouts' Camp Committee, I said, "Well, this is so kind of you and terribly interesting." They had two camps then. It was a great big voluntary job then. I was so overwhelmed at even getting downtown in Los Angeles that I thought, when I came here I would just take the bus. Well, I took it once [laughter]; that was the end of ever going down to the center of the city in a bus. So thinking quickly, I said, "Well, I have just come here and I am trying to get organized, and I will have to ask my department chairman if I could take on something extra." You know, kind of stuttering around. Well, Mrs. Mudd was not used to being turned down and she was pretty firm about this and so she requested that I think this over. So what did she do but get on the telephone to Dr. Dykstra. Later the phone rang and Dyke says, "Rosy? What's this with Mildred Mudd?" (they were on a first-name basis. ) Then I told him the whole thing and he said, "While you're working for me you can't do that, and I'll just tell her." I thought this was so interesting that she would then go to the chancellor, or the provost, to get him to put pressure on me and say I had to do this. Of course, I was delighted that he was saying that I didn't have to. So this again was a very interesting little phone call. The death of Dykstra was a terrible blow to me, personally. I just couldn't bear it. I had really enjoyed this relationship with the Dykstras in much the same way I've enjoyed the friendship of the president of Mills, and was in on a lot of things that I wouldn't normally have been in as a newcoming campus person. It was because Martha Deane and the Dykstras were such good friends. It was through Martha that I got to know Mayfair and Ralph Freud and Joe [Joseph] Kaplan who was very fond of her. He was chairman of the UCLA's Athletic Committee, so we got to see him quite a bit. Also Paul Sheats and his wife. It was not through any of my ability for making friends and influencing people that I had the entree to so many faculty people, but it was really through Martha. She is a great publicity gal, you know, so she had spread the word that this famous [laughter] creature was coming to UCLA. It was through her, I am sure, that the Women's Faculty Club members all were very gracious and put me to work right away for them. At Dykstra's death, there was a memorial service for him at which Dean McHenry spoke, so touchingly. He had been a student of Dykstra and really loved him. Rafer Johnson, the student body president at the time, made a very touching, heartrending speech, both of them. It was really a marvelous memorial service. So with Dykstra's death there came into view something that I had never seen in its intensity, a struggle for power that was raw and you could just actually see the people clambering up the ladder to take possession of the leadership. It was really frightening. There was a period, after his death, where the group of deans really carried the burden of the campus. And we felt that the power that Paul Dodd was seeking was a very ominous one for our department because he had tried again and again to get the requirement rescinded and any number of other issues where Martha had really beaten him at his own game. He set up a committee to look into the department and its program and to make recommendations. Flaud Wooton, as chairman, was one of our greatest supporters and gave a positive report. Every time a positive sustaining report would come in, Paul would immediately appoint another committee in relation to the requirement and his efforts to get rid of it. We felt that with his power now this was frightening. I want to talk a little bit about the department and the way it operated. I have spoken of the two divisions, but with the development of a graduate program it meant that we really needed to work together and have some understanding of what we were about. So Martha, with her very charming home and where she loved to have people, suggested that the ones who were going to be related to the graduate program meet every Tuesday night at her home, which we did. I became chairman of the study committee for the Comprehensive Examination Plan. I had developed a Comprehensive Plan at Mills for the master's degree, so we were operating in somewhat that same way. We came to somewhat closer understanding actually, but the thing that we were then permitted to do, which later was too expensive to continue, was a co-teaching arrangement. In the courses that I had developed, one was called Changing Perspectives which was a kind of a history-philosophy approach.. Carl Young, Martha and I taught it together when we first gave it, and later Ruth Abernathy and I worked on it together. Then a new course which I developed was called Foundations of the Curriculum and out of that course came my book Curriculum Development in Physical Education, that publication with Del Oberteuffer for editor in the Harper series. When it was revised, it became Theory in Physical Education with Camille Brown. This became a completely different book because we had moved into a completely different thought about the content of the field and our body of knowledge. Counseling in the Physical Education Program was a new course which I developed. That eventuated in a book which I mentioned when I was talking about William H. Burton. It looked like "Just give a course and make a book out of it." John Benke, one of the editors of Saunders, a very good friend, came into my office one day and said, "Why don't you do a book on curriculum, showing parallel ways of developing curriculum with the best secondary methods being used in other fields." I said, "Well, that's what I think I am doing in this course." And I set out to prove a point in collecting materials from all over the country that would show process in our field? it wasn't easy and it took quite a bit of time but that was how that came about. Then with Donald T. Handy I taught a course which was already established to which we gave a certain new focus. It was called The Secondary School Program. Donald and I really had a very good time teaching together. He is perfectly charming and delightful with students, and I had quite a shock when I first did this course because I had been teaching these lovely little brushed and washed girls at Mills you know. I had not taught men except occasionally at summer school at North Carolina and Wisconsin. When I walked into this seminar room and here were these great big... you know, they looked like bartenders and football boys. [laughter] I thought, "Oh, what if I don't make it; it's going to be terrible." And I don't know that I could have succeeded without Donald's team backing, because he was very close to the men students and they were very fond of him. But we had quite a grand, time in that class and at the end it was very funny, because I had not had this happen before, they gave a party and brought in food and gave each of us a gift. John Joseph, who is out at Santa Monica City College now, this great big lovely looking young man, his mother had tatted some lace around a handkerchief for me and one boy's wife had painted a tiger on a tie for Donald Handy because he was always making a joke about Donald T. Handy, T. stands for "tiger." So these presents were given, and the food, [laughter] and I thought it was really quite charming and quite a new experience. All the experiences that first year were very stimulating because we had the GI Bill boys, and I have never had better students in my life. They were so eager to make up for what they had lost. They made such a demand upon you. It was very stimulating and they were marvelous students and very hungry to get all they could and not waste any time about it. So our coordinate teaching, which had to be discontinued eventually, was very helpful in those first years.

SCHIPPERS: On that subject, I am not entirely clear really who originated the idea for the co-teaching arrangement?

CASSIDY: Well, I think Martha did really. It really grew out of those Tuesday night meetings where we felt we ought to work together more closely and know the differences in we the men's and women's points of view as we were developing these new courses. Also we wanted to show our students how one can disagree agreeably with ideas in our discussions. This had not been done before.

SCHIPPERS: How did the rest of the faculty in the department feel about it? Bo you know?

CASSIDY: I think they felt this was a good idea. Actually Carl Young did not have the leadership ability of a Martha Deane; so we had an advisory committee meeting with him every Monday. It was made up of Norm Duncan and Martha, Carl Young, and they asked me to be on it because of my part in the graduate program. So every Monday we would plod over to Carl's office and discuss policy. The both of us being kind of dominant, the two ladies, I have a feeling we rather ran the business. Carl was new and wanted to be helped actually in terms of direction. The thing I found very difficult in working with him was he never made any preparation for a meeting. So we began doing it ourselves so that we wouldn't be sitting there all morning long and just going around in circles. As I look back on it now, I think there was domination of the two ladies because we were both fairly well organized; we didn't want to sit there all day and we really wanted things to happen. There was real antagonism between Norman Duncan and Martha Deane, which made some difficulties. He felt that everything was run "over there," meaning the Women's Building. He was running everything over in the Men's Building on an Army structure. In fact, even when he had a meeting, we had separate men and women's staff meetings, as well as coordinate ones, he would go into the Army room over in the Men's Building and conduct his meetings from the little stage there. While Martha, of course, would get everybody around in a circle and we all really would lead instead, of leaders and followers as a planning group. These really were very difficult times in the sense of trying to work together. Talking about the courses that I had, I worked with Martha in the Senior Core Program. This program, which was described in the Group Process Book, was again built on the idea that there should be a central core at each levels—freshman, sophomore, junior and senior—for the major women. And as I said, there was real resentment toward this by the men because they saw a piecemeal add-a-course kind of development for the major. The chart for the Core is in the Group Process book. In each year progressively there is emphasis on movement toward being a healthy social civilized person, understanding the body and movement, understanding the demands and relationships of teaching and acquiring tools and materials. We really worked at this to make social person understandings. Emphasis in the first year, in the Core work, then was not only on developing self but on self-orientation in relation to the demands of teaching physical education; in the second year, emphasis on human relationships, community structure and process. We were then on this tremendous emphasis on group process. A lot of people are very insecure with this concept. If you have to have a dominant leadership and control things, you know it scares you to death when you open it up and you don't know what's going to happen. Free people to participate and it's pretty scary. Martha had chosen her staff as people who really could be creative as; all get out; they were very exciting people to work with. On the men's side, the Core almost became a bad word. Emphasis on children and youth within the school structure and process was the junior year. The students went out and really looked at kids in action, got a feeling for this sort of thing and did some assisting. This was a four-year program before California went into the fifth year for a secondary credential. We had really conflicting thoughts about this because we felt that a four-year program for girls who are more mature and wanted to get going was dragging them out too much, so that when the fifth year came into the law in the State Department of Education, we were not very happy about that. But now we have gone completely over into having body of knowledge courses and sustaining a large allied field concentration without any concern particularly for how you teach it until the fifth year. This gives a depth within your field; then you develop the teaching related to it. This is very controversial too, and a lot of people think we are crazy and really don't like that. Yet it fits into our institution and our state plan and is very much better than the old plan. The senior year, with the emphasis on teaching children and youth through physical education activities, is where they did their student teaching. Teaching now is done in the graduate year. So those were the courses and the people with whom I worked in relation to them. I was having a great deal of learning in the process of seeing all this exciting new thing happening, with the people working in the Core and also with our new courses. In fact I guess all the years here have been enormously stimulating except the bad years that we had, because with Martha, the most creative thinking, the most courageous kind of going out into the "bright blue yonder" into the people who were working with her. Still on the topic of co-work, in 1949 and 1950, we undertook to do staff work together with Hilda Kozman as editor, to develop the Group Process book as a staff effort. We had millions of meetings on this because we were really developing content. I think it was a very good thing for us to have to whip this out together. And we were communicating a little bit more. I was also on a Junior College Relations Committee for the department. Because the junior colleges were always. mad at the University because they supposedly have to coordinate their lower division with UCLA. That was where I met and worked a good deal with B. Lamar Johnson, of whom I am very fond, and Max and Marian MacLean. Max and Marian were very good friends of Martha's, so I was drawn into parties and various off-campus things as well. Both of those men were on Physical Education Department graduate master's degree committees. So I got to know them in that situation. The direction of the master's degree had to be through the School of Education, so we had a coordinate chairmanship. We often worked together in that fashion and I became very fond of both of these people. I think again because Martha was on the Committee on Committees is why I got put on many University committees. It was also because there were very few women qualified for it on the faculty at that time. When I first came, I kept feeling, in working with some of the women on the Faculty Club, a kind of questioning about my having a full professorship. And so I said to Martha, "What does that mean?" She said, "Well, you are the second woman to have a full professorship on this campus." They were not promoting the ladies at that time and there was even a hope, so Archine Fetty of the Art Department, reported that we wouldn't have any. She was on the committee for the Faculty Club and so was Paul Dodd. She said, "Of course, Paul is hoping that we won't need Faculty Club space because he hopes there will be no women on the campus anyway." She was very funny about this, but it probably was true. But it ended up that we got our room and it is bigger than the one that the wives' group has. The first year I was at UCLA, I am sure it was because Martha was on the Committee, I was put on the Curriculum on Social Welfare; Ralph L. Beals was the chairman. As you know the initiation of a new curriculum has to go through all sorts of committee work. Our task was also to find a person to head it up. So we met quite constantly, and I got to have a very great respect for Ralph Beals. I thought he was a fine person in the way he ran the committee. One of the funnier anecdotes, I think, about this committee, since we examined biographical materials for every head of university welfare departments or schools in the whole country, was that wherever a woman was concerned, and they would be my age or older, and then as though I wasn't there, they would have this big discussion, "Well, she is too old, to do anything!" [laughter] We had Fritz Redl come out and gave him a luncheon down in the Village then because the [Faculty Center] club wasn't built. With him, I renewed our old acquaintance from the Zachry Committee days. Finally Don[ald S.] Howard was considered, interviewed and chosen as head. I got to know him and his family quite well, and I thought a great deal of him. Also I worked with him on some of the social welfare meetings in Sacramento, where both of us had committee work responsibilities, I thought he was a very fine and interesting human being. I don't know how good an administrator he was, but he was the' initiating the whole new program at UCLA. I was on the Dormitories Committee in the second year when they were planning the residence halls. Jessie Rhulman was chairman and Paul C. Hannum was on that committee. I had known Jessie quite well anyway, because of her friendship with Martha. I was put on a Student Welfare Committee, where I got to know Dean [Milton E.] Hahn. I was elected chairman of the committee in 1951, but that year the Senate did away with it, so I didn't have to carry out that assignment. The School of Education had a Committee on Certificates of Completion whose task was to pass on the people who were going to get their elementary or secondary credentials. That was where I got to know the School of Education people. John A. Hockett had been at Mills before he came down to UCLA, and I had known John there. So we picked up that friendship. Jesse A. Bond and his wife, and the Hocketts, and I went up to Yosemite together several times for the California Council on Teacher Education, to which I belonged because of my position at Mills. They continued me on the committee several years after I went to UCLA. So we had kind of a social time together, and Jesse Bond was always telling the corniest jokes you ever heard. [laughter] Just impossible, so the trip up and down from Yosemite had a great deal of merriment and rejection of Jesse's so-called jokes. Lloyd Morrisett and I worked on committees. I thought very well of him. I knew Dean [Howard E.] Wilson a little bit, not well, and I think he was a very able and brilliant man. I think he had great difficulties in working with the School of Education staff. There seemed to be continual conflict there. Clarence Fielstra I also knew quite well.

1.6. TAPE NUMBER: THREE, SIDE TWO October 3, 1967

CASSIDY: When we closed our discussion last time, I was just about to talk about the very rich experiences I had with the faculty in the School of Education. Edwin Lee was Dean of the School of Education and chairman of the Committee on Certificates of Completion, having to do with the granting of the State of California teaching credential. I worked with him a great deal as a member of that committee. His wife, Edna Lee, was a graduate of Mills College and he had been in Berkeley and in San Francisco in educational posts. I had known them for a long time, both professionally and socially, and Ed and Edna Lee were very much a part of my experiences at UCLA. Flaud Wooton was another person who had very strong supporting feeling for physical education, particularly as chairman of a committee to evaluate the Physical Education Department. In the kind, of vendetta that Paul Dodd carried on against the department, Flaud was quite often working with our faculty so I got to know him quite well and I regarded him very highly. So it was also with Max MacLean and his wife Marian, I knew both of them quite well, both professionally and socially, also Paul and Helen Sheats. All this again through the friendship they had for Martha Deane. I think I said before the only place you got to really. see faculty in those days was in the Senate or on a committee. This changed with the Faculty Club opening so that you had a social setting in which you could see your colleagues. I would like to talk now about the Women's Faculty Club, and relationships there, because this was the place where you got to at least know the women of the faculty. They were most cordial to me and as a new member. In the second year I was made a member of the program committee, that was in 19218/49.Then in 1949/50, I was elected, to the board of directors, in 1950/51, I was vice-president and in 1951/52 president of the club. I was very active with the people who were really making policy for the club. During my intensive work with them we were trying to structure professional meetings and some social meetings. We were emphasizing a group of faculty women who were the teaching staff as against the social group made up of the wives of faculty members. Those I came to know quite well through this relationship were: "Scotty, " Flora Scott, the great botanist (I think it is lovely that her name is Flora); May Seagoe; Lulu Wolf (later Hassenplug) of the School of Nursing; Ruth Abernathy in our department; Ada Nisbet in English; Lily Bess Campbell, who I thought was a very marvelous person; Gertrude Huberty; and Olive Stone in Social Welfare. Again through Martha's astuteness in relation to University matters and the fact that a great deal of the Senate manipulation went on out of session, she organized a little group of women; it was Scotty, May Seagoe, Lulu Wolf, Ruth Abernathy, Ada Nisbet and myself. We met twice a month at her home for dinner, brought in all the lowdown we knew was going on and really developed strategy in relation to Senate action. And of course with Martha's departure from the University, that group fell apart, with actually almost antagonisms developing toward me because I tried to hold departmental matters together, working with the chairman, Ben Miller, and keeping some integrity within our own setting. Then our little meetings ceased. Now relationships are friendly at Faculty Club meetings but the real on-going together kind of planning for University welfare was discontinued. Meridian and Gordon Ball were people with whom I had a good deal to do. Gordon and I were quite often the minority report members on various committees, because we saw eye to eye. And now that there is a retired group, Meridian is the secretary for that, I see her quite often. Gladys Graham, who was Gladys Coryell, head of the Education Library, was a good friend, of mine, also Page Ackerman and Louise Darling. I was on many faculty promotion and review committees. In these committees I often found very real prejudice against physical education. If a physical education person was to be appointed or promoted, someone would often require that their publications be read and appraised and this was done in a very different way from the consideration of a person in English or history, because of a real prejudice against the physical versus the mental. I was often very upset by that kind of procedure. The School of Nursing Building Needs Committee was an interesting one, where I saw a good deal of Lulu Hassenplug. I was counselor for Phi Beta Kappa, where I got to know [William] Melnitz, Majl Ewing and Carl Epling. In 1950 and '51 I served on the Undergraduate Scholarship Committee and was very much interested in the number of scholarships available. Often many of them were not awarded, primarily because they had to be given to a Caucasian or a Methodist living in Glendale or something like that. The University really tries to avoid this specific designation because it is very hard to award such grants. I was on the Educational Policies Committee in 1951/52, and as I was saying before, being the only woman on the committee, with the chairman being a little anti-female made it sometimes a little embarrassing. When we had to go to Scripps at La Jolla to talk to Roger Revelle about some change in courses he was proposing I became an embarrassment to the chairman in his having to make arrangements for a woman. However, the visit was very exciting, both as a work session and as a social session. The Revelles had a very handsome buffet supper in their home, which was all so elegant. I said afterwards, "How did they do this?" And one of the members said, "Well, Roger married a Scripps, that's how they do it." [Laughter] I was interested in this also because my nephew Jack (whose name is John Cassidy Marr), who is now assistant director of U. S. Fisheries, had carried on a research study with Roger Revelle at La Jolla, so I knew some of the names of the people there.

SCHIPPERS: Was the establishment of professional schools an issue on this committee at this time?

CASSIDY: There was quite a to-do about the Law School with strong feelings about that, as I remember, There were very strong feelings in the whole faculty as I perceived it, fearing that money would go to the Medical School instead of the Humanities. I am not sure that I am accurate about this, but I think then there was established a separate budget for medicine so that it didn't get mixed up with the liberal studies. Schippers': Well how about some of the lesser schools? Like Nursing and Social Welfare which were all coming up during this period?

CASSIDY: I don't think that this was an issue at all. The issue on Nursing, which came up later in another setting, was a resentment towards the policy that Dykstra and Lulu had set up to make educated nurses, liberally educated nurses against the bedpan type. There was feeling that this was not helpful to the doctors, that they would rather have the other kind. The liberally educated supervisor type nurse was really central to Dykstra's interest in bringing Lulu here. because she came from Vanderbilt University, where this same concept had been developed. In some of our discussions, I found him so excited about bringing her here and he thought this approach so important. The resentments toward Lulu I am speaking about came up in relation to a five-year review of Lulu. Some of the medical people on the committee were very much against her policy. This was one of the committees where Gordon Ball and I, who remembered why she was brought here, why the school was established, the whole policy for it, wrote the minority report on it, giving her very strong support for the kind of training she was giving.

SCHIPPERS: Now was your introduction to the Nursing School problems by way of the Faculty Women's Committee?

CASSIDY: No, the thing I have just been discussing was on a review committee for Lulu.

SCHIPPERS: This particular thing, but your other association with building.

CASSIDY: Oh, the School of Nursing Building Needs. It was just one of those committees where you know what sort of things would be recommended, for a building, space and so on.

SCHIPPERS: On the subject of the professional school issue, what were your feelings about it and what were some of the important people's feelings about it?

CASSIDY: Well, I don't know if I can sharpen that up. I felt that we should have a multi-purpose kind of program, as the function that the professional schools serve is important for a great University. The other issue I remember as one of conflict came from the Humanities and centered in the fact that certain areas were getting tremendous research grants, with English and history not quite in that category. It all comes again to resources and money and support from university administration for the people who can get federal or state monies. There was a fear that the support for the liberal studies would diminish as against the great big grants coming through for science.

SCHIPPERS: Do you think that it was reasonable?

CASSIDY: Possibly. I don't think under Chancellor Murphy this would be so, but before he knew we went through such an unstable period after Dykstra's death when the administration was first with deans, then a temporary provost and then Chancellor Allen, who Carl Epling said if he had tried to wreck the University he couldn't have done any better because he never could make decisions. This was a really very unstable period. I think the faculty mirrored concern because they didn't really know what the focus was or what would be supported .

SCHIPPERS: Now at the same;; time you were also on a committee for the reorganization of the Senate. And wasn't it true that the feeling on the campus was that there should be greater autonomy for the individual campuses?

CASSIDY: Yes. When I came to UCLA I thought that Dykstra as the chancellor, would preside at Senate meetings, but discovered that it was really President Sproul who presided and even was host at the tea given for the faculty. But that struggle to be free of Berkeley, to have autonomy, I perceived from the very beginning. Actually with Clark Kerr's presidency I understood, again from Carl Epling, that Murphy had only agreed to come to UCLA if there would be greater autonomy for this campus. He worked very hard for this. After the Free Speech Movement, with Savio at Berkeley, Chancellor Murphy was to make a speech for the Women's Faculty Club, the wives' group. He had of course agreed months before to make this speech, and called it "The State of the University." He said when he opened his speech, "If I had known what was going to happen, I wouldn't have chosen this particular topic." In this speech he emphasized at great length the need for autonomy and said that he should have taken stronger action toward it. I think now with Clark Kerr's dismissal and a new president this will actually be an agreed upon policy to let the various campuses develop their own special design and focus am take some of the parental supervision away from the Regents which I am sure they like. This has continued right straight through; I perceived it when I first came, this not wanting to be under the control of Berkeley.

SCHIPPERS: Apparently Allen rather resisted the idea of autonomy though.

CASSIDY: Well I don't know. I never felt that he did anything really. He was a very delightful person to sit by at dinner and chat with, but administratively, [he was] evidently completely inadequate. You could practically see the struggle for power that came at Dykstra's death. I think mainly my feeling was that the maneuvering for power really was more obvious with Paul Dodd, but you could practically feel it all through the campus. Chancellor Allen, as a person really without great administrative ability, was a very good tool for those people who wanted to run the campus and they took full advantage of it. I think he possibly liked this, since it took some of the burden off of him.

SCHIPPERS: Yes, there was this statewide conference, now were you at the Davis conference?

CASSIDY: I attended two of these conferences. The first one I went to, in 1952 I think, I worked on a committee in planning for it and then went to the conference (and again women were very scarce at these meetings). Clark Kerr had just become president and Allen had just come into his chancellorship, at UCLA. I sat at lunch with them, heard them speak at the meeting and got some feeling for their personalities and their abilities. I thought Kerr was absolutely charming. I had the opportunity to talk during lunch with him and I was very much impressed with him. Are those conferences continuing?

SCHIPPERS: Yes, they still do, but I think the enthusiasm for them has fallen off. Did you think they were effective?

CASSIDY: I thought they were, I enjoyed them. I thought the preparation for them, the discussion of reports in the meetings and coming out with recommendations were valuable. It seemed to me this effort to bring the faculty of a great university together for interchange was very important. I was very much impressed with both of them,

SCHIPPERS: Do you think any of the ideas were ever effectively put into action?

CASSIDY: Well, I don't really know. The one on the students' needs had some very good resolutions and I believe action was taken on them at UCLA. Maybe this would have come anyway, but it appeared that they were given attention and something was done about it.

SCHIPPERS: One other thing, you made a remark to me one time about Chancellor Murphy's remark that the University has a direct umbilical cord to the people of California. Now at about the time you came to the campus there was also a strong feeling about its being a "Harvard of the West." I wish you would detail that a little.

CASSIDY: Well, in this fluid, unstable period I think Paul Dodd had a very strong feeling that all the things that are not at Harvard should be gotten rid of at UCLA. He succeeded with Mrs. Emerson's help to get rid of Home Economics and he continually attacked Physical Education. When Murphy came, the AAUP asked him to speak at one of its meetings. This was during that period when all the so-called non-academic majors were being attacked, and the "Harvard of the West" was continually the term being bandied about. Murphy in his AAUP speech said, "UCLA is not the 'Harvard of the West, ' it is a great multi-purpose university." I was delighted to hear him say this. Ben Miller told me, in talking with Chancellor Murphy, he found out that Murphy favored keeping the Home Economics major and would have fought for it if he had come before it was discontinued. There was a group that wanted UCLA to be the "Harvard of the West," whatever that means [laughter]. This was why I thought Paul Dodd must have been very, very hungry to take the presidency of San Francisco State because he loathed the state colleges and looked down on them. Actually I was told by faculty members there that his operation was to divide departments in order to get rid of professional programs. This made me very sad because Paul Leonard as president of San Francisco State College had built one of the strongest programs to prepare secondary school teachers in the whole state, it was outstanding in both program and faculty. I couldn't bear to see the teacher education function, which seems to me the appropriate function for the state college, really upset. One of the things in the Educational Policy Committee, that I am now reminded of, was a big hassle about the master's degree being given by the state colleges, followed by pressure for granting the doctorate. This continuous pressure from the state colleges resulted in the master's degree being given to them, and now this kind of ridiculous arrangement of permitting a state college to grant a doctorate in cooperation with some faculty of UC Berkeley or UCLA. In fact, I believe this can be done at all university campuses. I read recently that a cooperative doctorate in chemistry had been given, but it really means that the university is going to retain the right to control the PhD degree. I am sure this irritates the state college faculty. In a state where education is such a big enterprise it seems to me that the state colleges should be able to carry that function; however, the university guards this function.

SCHIPPERS: And within the system itself there was great reluctance from Berkeley to let go of the control of this for the Southern Campus, and also difficulty in even getting a graduate program in the Department of Physical Education.

CASSIDY: Well, we don't have a PhD yet; all the good people go over to USC and get it there, which kills us. We will continue trying.

SCHIPPERS: But on this issue of professional schools you were very supportive of the idea.

CASSIDY: I would be, yes.

SCHIPPERS: And of course this obviously is completely in line with your other thinking about educational purpose and about the function of the campus.

CASSIDY: Well, I think I never saw it as a competitive thing, you know, the either-or. It seems to me that a great university has this whole job to do and that it shouldn't be done at the expense of either the liberal studies or the professional schools. I liked the idea of the Nursing School making liberally prepared women who could then supervise the menial scrub-up jobs. This made very much more sense to me than just turning out the old-fashioned, type of nurse. Maybe it was because I liked Dyke so much.

SCHIPPERS: Now another important committee you were on.

CASSIDY: One more word about the School of Nursing. Lulu was very anxious to turn out nurses who were really trained in the sense of community and the social process, so she put in a requirement in sociology and brought a sociologist on to. her faculty. She felt that the nurse trained at UCLA should see the whole person within a whole setting rather than just somebody with, let's say, pneumonia. This makes a great deal of sense to me.

SCHIPPERS: In the connection with the Committee on Dormitories [and Living Accommodations], do I also understand there was the problem of the Regents feeling that they should not have to provide housing. Now what was your stand and activity in that direction?

CASSIDY: Well I suppose because I see a wholeness of living and learning through being from Mills where you have a whole setting, and often I talked with Carol Scothorn about the climate on the campus (she had gotten her master's at Mills). She is in the Dance Department, a very brilliant young woman, a very good choreographer. We would sit and chat in our little faculty lounge about the whole atmosphere of learning when you are living in the setting such as Mills as against the transient bit of coming miles to campus, sitting in class, and then leaving. So I have a very strong feeling about what the residence halls at UCLA would provide for students, that is, living within a total environment, having t he whole learning, thinking, discussing, relating as a whole part of it makes for a much richer experience than just the transient kind of experience.

SCHIPPERS: Who spearheaded this idea?

CASSIDY: Oh, I don't really know. I think Jessie Rhulman had very strong feelings about it. I don't know if Dean Hahn did or not.

SCHIPPERS: Did you have much to do with the actual establishment ?

CASSIDY: Well, yes, we did a great deal of the planning. Paul Hannum was on that committee and was most helpful. We discussed what kind of beds there should be and foam mattresses and all kinds of detail. At the time I was on it, there was not the coed idea. I was terribly interested in knowing if that would work. I have been entertained in the halls several times, and I feel that the whole boy-and-girl kind of social setting there seems to be very good and evidently works. There were sort of ribald jokes about it in the beginning about locked doors and rope ladders between floors, but I have, from where I sit, heard no complaints about making it work. In fact I was told that the whole demeanor of the boys, putting on their jackets and really pulling themselves together—and girls, too, I guess—for the dining and social periods brought out a whole other level of social niceness that is not found when they are in separate halls.

SCHIPPERS: Who were some of the antagonists to the idea?

CASSIDY: Well, I can't remember, actually because the committee was all for it, and probably was chosen for that reason. There was nothing but support as I remember the committee action, feeling this would be a very good thing. I suppose the antagonism was from the people who objected to cost, Regents possibly. I can't even remember when the first dormitory went up, do you?

SCHIPPERS: It has not been very many years.

CASSIDY: No, it has not. I thought it was interesting that the site chosen was this highest hill of the campus so when they went up these eight stories it looked like the New York skyline. I also was very upset that they did not use the roofs for a play area because they could have had tennis and badminton courts there. Since the campus has shrunk so with the buildings taking up the flat play space, they could have used the roof tops especially since there really isn't much play space around the dormitories. So now that they have put in the Recreation Center which is simply so beautiful you can't stand it, have you been there?

SCHIPPERS: Oh, yes.

CASSIDY: Isn't it beautiful? That is a very lovely area, but when you think of the number of students and all that flat roof space that could, have been used for play areas, volley ball, tennis, whatever. No place to go but up. Schippers; Let us return to what we were developing.

CASSIDY: Some of these committees. Yes, I was on a Counseling Center Committee, I can't remember much about that except Mrs. Jewett and Dr. [A. Garth] Sorenson I got to know through that. Because of that Gulick award, I was in the Southern Campus yearbook with a faculty achievement award, that was in 1950, from the College of Applied Arts. One of the reasons I thought the UCLA Physical Education Department was so marvelous was that it was in the College of Applied Arts because this whole expressive area of movement relates very strongly to the creative art side. When dance was taken away and the Applied Arts College was cancelled out, I felt that this was a very bad thing for our department, depriving it of a relationship with the whole arts area. Martha had told me, and it has always surprised me, because at Mills the arts are just very special, that coming from the old campus the arts had been mainly teacher training centered, so they were not very respectable. So to kind of brush under the rug things that were not really academic they set up this College of Applied Arts and put all the things that were not quite up to academic level in there. So here was Art, Music, Physical Education and whatever else I can't remember. But to me this was quite marvelous because you had your alliance then with the arts areas. Then as we became more sophisticated in the arts and with Chancellor Murphy's Interest came the School of Fine Arts performance (pretty much performance) centered. Then the Applied Arts didn't apply anymore. Dean Jackey fought very hard and was very upset about the move towards doing away with Applied Arts since he wanted the college to be called Fine and Applied Arts. And that didn't take. It amused me in a sort of wry sense that if you look in the Drama Department there is an awful lot of applied there in the workshop for production, in cinema and other specializations. But it didn't get approval and then the dance went over into the Fine Arts, This seemed to me a very unhappy thing to happen, for our particular institution because there is this whole idea of movement in one piece as I see it, so to take your so-called creative expressive part out is ridiculous. We are using exactly the same terminology, and we are in the same building too as a matter of fact, still have to use the same dressing rooms and all that. I think it was part also of Melnitz's interest in building his little empire. I had a feeling that if dance went into the Fine Arts College that they would be very much performance centered rather than having the whole range of preparation. So I got off onto Applied Arts from the Davis conference we have talked about. In 1952, Ben Miller became chairman of the Physical Education Department. Clark Kerr had set up a five-year review by the tenure faculty for all chairmen. Our group did not support Carl Young for another term and so Ben Miller was appointed. He had happen' to him what happened to me) he had come to be a scholarly professor. Dean Jackey had the tenure faculty meet with him and give their report; and recommendation as to who should be asked to be chairman, and we unanimously supported Ben. Some of' the ladies were suggested, but all withdrew feeling actually that it was important in this setting to have a man chairman. The only two persons who could have been chosen were Ruth Abernathy or Martha Deane. But he was supported and with great reluctance, I think, he took the position. Unhappily, Carl Young was enormously bitter about this and said, "the women" had done this to him. So instead of moving himself out of administration with great dignity, he made a tremendous howl about this all over the state, and felt very injured. This upset me terribly because it seemed to me that if administration was the only thing that he could do, and he looked down on the areas of his competence as a teacher, this was a very sad thing. It made a very difficult rift in our whole departmental structure. He moved along eventually to be consoled and retired happily but then it was a sad thing and was very hard on Ben Miller. He was made chairman in 1952, and just as he came into his chairmanship (he had only been with us I think a year), the very sad happening in relation to Martha Deane came up. He did not know her well. He was a line and staff man; he was told that this was none of the department's business and so he did not act in relation to the situation. It was then that we had, after Martha left the departments a women's coordinating committee made up of Edith Hyde, Orsie Thomson and me. Anyway we worked with Ben through that very difficult period of trying to know where we were and what we were doing. Then it was that we were organized on the campus for disaster. I felt one of my best committees was when I was Security Captain in the department for the [Building] Disaster Committee. I couldn't take it seriously; it seemed to me so utterly ridiculous because if we were going to be bombed I was going to sit quietly in my office and let my books fall down on top of me. I couldn't bear to march into the dressing room, which was a so-called safety area. In due course I consoled myself with this thought: that if we had a flood or a fire, which we can very well have in California at any moment, that in our building as a disaster center, of people under stress, since we are equipped with all sorts of medical, first-aid, blankets and things like that. We couldn't even hear the sirens in the beginning down in our building. When they would go off, we would get all the kids out from the classrooms, march them into the women's dressing room, which I thought had an air-conditioning system. The girls never take showers anyway, so it always smells very nice and it is very clean and sweet. The students would just get up in this kind of lackadaisical way, march into this room, sit down on the floor, read or talk, and when the alert was over, they would get up and go back to their classrooms, I think maybe you will remember that when they had a nationwide drill, Eisenhower went into his cave or whatever it is. Stafford Warren as the chairman of the UCLA program called a campus-wide meeting at which he presided. He said that he had made every effort to get the hospitals in this area to set up a field center out at Malibu, so that come the attack, they could take medical materials, nurses and staff to get them away from the contamination because they then figured where the contamination area would be. But nobody would cooperate, so as far as I know it was never done. So when the question period came, I asked the question, "In the women's dressing room, which is air-conditioned, what happens if the electricity goes off? Is this going to be the Black Hole of Calcutta? Are they going to suck in the contaminated air?" One of the engineers in the room said, "Well, it isn't air-conditioned; it's just an air circulation system." I said, "Well, then it would pull the contaminated air in." He said, "Yes." [laughter] A delightful thought! But I still have my disaster card; it's very, very important. It is beautiful, like a passport picture! Every Friday at ten o'clock you know the sirens go off, so if we are going to be bombed it ought to be at ten o'clock on Fridays. In the department I was chairman of the Curriculum Coordinating Committee, which coordinated programs in Health, Education, Physical Education, Recreation, Dance and the Elementary program. We really needed coordination of planning and focus, so this was quite a powerful committee and led into further work we did on our body of knowledge. I thought I would pull this thread down to where we are now, for under the rule of the deans after Dyke's death (and this was not to punish Physical Education), all of the departments were asked to state their discipline and then show how their courses related to it. This was 1952-53 that this was going on; we met right around the clock, with the men and women really moving together because we worked very well together and very hard, Ben Miller was chairman, Raymond Snyder was on this committee, Norman Duncan, Camille Brown, Carl Young, Larry [Laurence] Morehouse, Don Handy, Ruth Abernathy and Alma Hawkins. We met almost every day with a focus on "What is our body of knowledge?" We had agreed that we are concerned with human movement. I got my two-cents' worth in again, going clear back to 1927, with Wood and Cassidy saying that physical education is not accurate terminology, and we ought to do something about it. We finally made our statement on the whole movement structure and Ben Miller went to the Committee of Deans who were reviewing these matters. He gave them the materials and said that we were very unhappy about the name because it did not describe what we were talking about. In fact it often sets up very great barriers with the mind-body dichotomy. One of the men from the Medical School jumped up, said, "My God, this is the first time I have ever understood what Physical Education is all about." When Ben left that meeting he was instructed to seek an accurate name for our discipline. I like to tell this to people who wonder what we are up to because this was a feed back and forth at UCLA. We had to do this. This interacting thing between what was happening in the University and what we were thinking, and the people who were in our department, who were very gifted people, came to this really strenuous workout of thinking and declaring. I think actually Ben Miller of all of the men in physical education in this country is most thoroughly grounded in the human movement discipline. Don Handy is becoming so in the new kind of thinking about the field, and is very, very vocal and very able to express it. In one of these meetings after we were told to do something about our terminology as the art and science of human movement, Larry Morehouse came up with the suggestion that we should call our field kinesiology. Ology is the study of, [as in] sociology and physiology. Movement is kinesis; so kinesiology would be the term we should use. I resisted this because the way we have taught kinesiology has been a very sterile, physics lever business not a human being, feeling and expressing the whole person. However, I have come around now all the way into feeling that this is an accurate term and that we would do well to use it nationally. There is resistance in the national association for changing from the name physical education because the association is a big strong vested deal. There is a national committee on Body of Knowledge in the national association and there is also a national committee on Curriculum Structure. The national set up a foundation two years ago to receive money to do studies like the National Science Foundation has done for the new math and the new science® "So H think there is a move in this country to get accurate terminology and there are articles in the Journal [of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation] emphasizing this concept of movement. Well, to pull this thread down to right now, and then we won't get at it again, is that I think what happened here was that the Fisher Bill went through in California making a fifth year for the secondary credential mandatory and making a major in an academic subject a requirement for an administrator's credential. Now many of the men in the field that have gone into administration are physical education men; so this was a great blow and also it was demeaning physical education as being non-academic. The genius in our department in the replanning of our program has been Camille Brown as chairman of the department's Curriculum Committee, She worked out a structure of knowledge for human movement which is incorporated in our book, Theory in Physical Education. She is an absolutely tireless worker with individuals and will go and sit for hours working with each member of the department in thinking about course content. So we then moved into this concept of teacher preparation as being depth in one's own field, rather than a lot of dinky methods courses which we really have pretty much in departments all over the country, such as methods of tennis, methods of football. Our new curriculum, which was accepted by the Course Committee, is in kinesiological terms, with the whole undergraduate major a depth study in the areas of human movement. The teacher education part then is in the fifth year with student teaching and the education courses. Another very strong part of this program is the allied field concentration because we think at UCLA we should really be looking toward preparation of people for graduate work in research. We have three allied fields in which a strong concentration can be made: psychology, sociology and physiology. We ought to have the arts also as the fourth, but we haven't been able to do that because of dance being separate. I think people always think of us more tied to physiology than the expressive areas. The strategy in setting up the areas of concentration was really quite marvelous because a member of our department who had one of these areas as a specialty worked with another department, like psychology, to find out the courses that should be part of this allied structure. These were chosen so that they would be prerequisites to graduate courses, so if the student wanted to come back to do a graduate doctorate or master's with more psychology he would be prepared to take any of the graduate courses rather than going back to pick up some of the undergraduate courses. In the process of doing this, we got these departments giving full support and really standing up and being very enthusiastic about physical education, which they have not necessarily been in the past, Ben told me that this was really one of the marvelous parts of our plan where we were able to interpret our program. So it has become a very strong thing at UCLA for us. The next thing that happened was rather phenomenal. In the Fisher Bill structure there was the provision that any curriculum group could come before the State Board of Education and present their materials and be declared academic or not. So at this point, 1962, Don Handy became chairman. This was at Ben's request; he had been ten years under the wheel of administration. So the tenured faculty recommended Don Handy for chairman, Now he is a very socially outgoing guy and he has a very good wife who also gives very good parties and knows all the faculty wives and they really get around on the martini route. A great deal of faculty business is done that way. Donald has really strong friends within the faculty and is a charming and delightful person. One of his friends, Dean [Franklin] Rolfe, and Dean [Harlan] Lewis particularly, of Letters and Science have been most supporting to our department. I don't think I said that when Applied Arts was done away with we went into Letters and Science. So at this point in our new program Dean Lewis offered to go with Donald Handy to Sacramento to present our program to the State Board of Education. I thought that was rather world-shaking when a dean would make the effort to give that kind of support, and I think it must have impressed the State Board of Education considerably. They took our very fancy sounding courses to Sacramento and I am going to tell you some of them in a minute. First of all they had been approved at the University with no comment at all. I sat with my fingers crossed, thinking they would probably fall on the floor laughing at our proposal, but you know, they took it all very seriously and the State Board of Education also took it seriously. So we were declared "academic," along with the program at UC Berkeley. We are the only two physical education major programs in the state that have made the grade at this particular time. At UCLA the courses are designed to cover the body of knowledge of human movement. The first one is General Kinesiology; then Analysis of Expressive Movement, Assessment of Human Movement Skill; Kinesiotherapy; Conditioning for Maximal Performance; Movement Strategy and Team Play; Human Movement Development; Perceptual Motor Education; Sports in American Life; History of Physical Education in the United States; Kinesiometrics, which used to be Tests and Measurements (isn't that a nice fancy name?); Special Studies in Kinesiology and then the sequence in the chosen allied field. So that is the undergraduate covering of the body of knowledge of human movement as it is seen at UCLA. Going on the quarter system also made it possible for us, after our initial step, to then rethink our plan and put it in tighter packages and work with the faculty. The thing that Camille did was to look at our tenure faculty and their competencies and then to work with each one so that each was able to cover the area in which he is most able. The young men of the faculty are very research oriented and have been for that reason actually able to stay at UCLA. Don has been very successful in providing a human performance laboratory for each one of these young men in which; they are able to carry on their research. Dean Lewis was so impressed with Jack [Bryant J.] Cratty's lab and what he is doing that he even got a computer put in the building for all of us to use. I think our program is a going concern and it is at a level appropriate for the function of the state university; it would not be right for a state college. I might say one other thing. There is a proficiency competency in activity skills where each student is required to meet through the general college activity programs. It is the individual student's own responsibility to perfect his own skills through a sports clinic. We don't take responsibility for the skills in the sense of demanding courses in football and other activities. And that's a fairly sophisticated idea. Some think, "Well, UCLA is not making people who can really teach physical education." We think we are in the sense that the student is responsible for skills attainment as well as depth of knowledge about human performance. So that is. the story of where we came from Dykstra's death to the present moment. Oh, one other thing, with this new program we were then prepared to have a drop-off in the number of students because this is a very different kind of program from any in the whole country. When this first course in kinesiology opened up last year (Camille is teaching it; it's the 110 AB), there were sixty-two students in it. Now, this year she has eighty-two students. So I think we are not having the dropout in major students we had expected, which is quite encouraging. In the first course in kinesiology the men and women are together. The content really is movement analysis and their enthusiasm and excitement about it was quite marvelous. I went over there and watched it every now and again just to get a personal lift out of it. They were trying out various kinds of movement possibilities and with some of them quite awkward, girls and boys together, but no sense of embarrassment or concern. They were just working intently on the ideas they were developing. And of course the other thing is (l got this feeling of contrast this summer when I was teaching at Long Beach State) the caliber of student we get at UCLA is really quite special. They are very bright and very put together, and I think are going to take leadership positions as against the large output coming from the state colleges, where there is really a pretty thin program. We are considered very revolutionary, which I like.

SCHIPPERS: Well it seems that UCLA got the whip hand over Berkeley in this case. Do you have any cooperation from the faculty up there?

CASSIDY: Yes. Carl Nordly, who was chairman until last year, worked with Ben and Don. Oh, my, I can't think of the man now. Hold it a minute, my seventy-two year old mind! Yes. The chairman now is [Deobold] Van Dalen; he and Don Handy work together. Franklin Henry is the very respectable research man up there. They do have the discipline of human movement idea.

SCHIPPERS: And they are in quite agreement with the UCLA program?

CASSIDY: Yes. It may end up that Berkeley and UCLA will be the only, two physical education departments in the University, since there has been an attack on the Santa Barbara program and the dean there is very non-supporting.

1.7. TAPE NUMBER: FOUR, SIDES ONE, TWO October 27, 1967

SCHIPPERS: Dr. Cassidy has just returned from a jaunt up north and I asked if because of the break in our Interviewing she could at this point supply some of her impressions of her activities and particularly with the meeting of some of the hippies in the area.

CASSIDY: I drove up to Asilomar with one of the men from the California Youth Authority's Probation Office to attend, as a consultant, the Governor's Council of Youth, which was meeting jointly with the Governor's Advisory Council of Children and Youth. That's an adult group with representation on it from the Council of Youth. They hold one joint meeting a year. I have met with these young people for several years now and have been very much interested in their concern in the last three meetings to get the most accurate information they can about the effects on young people of marijuana, LSD, and the amphetamines. The Mexican-American youth on the council have been very resentful about the felony charge for marijuana use. They feel it is no more deleterious than alcohol and that the law should be changed in relation to it since they see it as part of their own religious tradition. The person who was at the meeting this year with whom I was very much impressed was this young Dr. David Smith, who has set up a voluntary, free clinic at Haight-Ashbury. I sat with him at dinner and again at breakfast the next day, and we were on a final program together. He brought with him a new film on LSD which is shocking, to say the least, but is professionally produced and is really a marvelous film to deal with the facts of the case. He was an advisor for the film production. His contention is that since marijuana was a first concern, it had the felony charge put upon it and that since LSD is much more destructive, along with the amphetamines, the legal penalties should just be reversed. He is young, dresses near the hippie style quite purposefully, has hair not too long but down on the back of the neck, wears a turtleneck sweater, a rather rumpled tweed jacket, corduroy trousers, black socks and sandals. He is completely direct and the young people responded to him with numerous, very pointed questions, which from my viewpoint indicated that they had had contact with persuasion toward the use of some of these drugs. The first film that was shown was one made some time ago. In it the discussion of the effects of the drug are done by white-coated physician-type people. The young people said that this was for laughs, that nobody paid any attention to it; they just thought, it was ridiculous.

SCHIPPERS: Who did this film?

CASSIDY: I don't remember.

SCHIPPERS: You don't know the producer?

CASSIDY: I'm trying to think; they were both done under high school auspices. I can find out, but I can't recall it now. Dr. Smith said in making the second film they had realized that the kids thought that they were being put on and they just were not paying any attention. So in this second one, to keep the white-coated doctor figures out, they have all the discussions done by the LSD molecule. Whenever there is to be any talk about the effects, the molecule is shown presenting these facts. It is very ingeniously done. It is really a horrifying film in that it also shows the convulsions of the "bad trip," with the young people being taken to the hospital. We had quite a lot of discussion there about the films and what was happening. As I told you a moment ago, Dr, Smith says that the plight of the parents is so ghastly. He spoke of one family in the Middle West whose little fourteen-year-old girl ran away. They were undone and desperately trying to find where this child was. Come the opening of school the child suddenly appears at home, has nothing to say about where she has been or what she has done. The parents are reluctant to try to push her for some information for fear this will again result in a further alienation. There is a voluntary group in San Francisco called the Switchboard, where parents may 'phone in from any part of the country and get help in locating their youngsters. There are any number of organizations through the churches and other community organizations trying to deal with the runaways. The Governor's Council on Children and Youth has a committee headed by Mr. Hertzog who lives in Los Angeles. He was not there at the meeting, but I did see the minutes of the meeting where he gave his report. He describes, or rather a speech is given to his committee by a Dr. Luke in which he describes the circle of young people related to the hippie movement; The hard core that are really committed and not putting this on or just temporarily running away is central, and then around this are these circles of even the criminal type and the little, very young runaways and those who are just having a gay time for the summer. He has about eight categories of young people, some of them having no feeling for the real commitment of protest but are just there merely to run away literally to punish their parents. Now to put this in the sequence, when I went to the north I had wanted to get more information, more insight into what was happening with these kids, what they are trying to say. Hilda Kozman, with whom I stayed, and a Mills alumna and her husband, Leone and Al Evans, and I went to Berkeley to Telegraph Avenue where the hippies gather and then later to San Francisco to Haight-Ashbury. Al was saying that they were leaving now because of the weather and some of the groups were going to center in San Diego. I said that I had heard of some of them getting property someplace and having communal farms, somewhat ideally like the kibbutz movement in Israel. Al said, "Well I don't think that is really going to happen, because part of their need is to punish the older generation and stay around dressing and behaving in a way that is really very punishing to middle-class Americans who have other concepts and values." Although they made this great gesture at Haight-Ashbury of burying the beads and bangles and cutting the hair, there are still a great many people in that area as you drive through. We were going to park and walk around, but there was no possibility of parking in that area because there was a continual procession of cars. We could see everything because we had to go so slowly. The young people I thought were also looking at us, and being slightly nauseated, sometimes amused. The other thing that I in general felt, and the people I was with also felt this, was that if these young people are supposed to be so happy and so full of exuberance and satisfaction why they don't really look it. There is an almost glassy-eyed passivity—I was interested in the movement manifestation—and no animated conversation. I did ask Dr. Smith if there was a contrasting movement expression for those who smoke marijuana as against those who are taking LSD? And my perception of what he said was that marijuana is a very friendly, expanding kind of business, where you really do talk and relate, a social kind of bit, while the LSD has a much more—I was going to say hypnotic, I'm not sure this is the right term—wilder stimulus of action and that particularly if it is a bad trip it is actually convulsive. Of the kids we saw, no one was walking rapidly, there was very little talking, we didn't see anybody laughing at either place. In San Francisco many of them were sitting on the sidewalk leaning against the buildings, some of them had packages of newspaper with French fries in them, which also brought out the fact Dr. Smith said that malnourishment is a very great problem there. I also had the feeling that the living conditions contributed to their being dirty. In a society, particularly in my profession where soap and water are so important you know, required showers that sort of thing, actually in the situations where there are seven or eight sleeping on the floor of one room the possibility of bathing or washing hair is pretty limited. And it took me back to the early days when we were trying to be more understanding of Negro culture, that this idea of the Negro smelling bad was literally due to the fact that they didn't have in many cases any soap and water or washing facilities. I had the feeling that this probably is the case with many of these youngsters. I collected some of the materials; I am still studying this whole matter. I was then in Oakland with my Mills friends and went to too many parties I'm afraid before the big day of the Inaugural at Mills. I am glad to find that Mills still puts some things on in a very swish fashion. There was an alumnae lecture which started the Wednesday Inaugural Day, and a performing group gave a concert the night before, which was very beautiful. All of the delegates who were there as invited guests received tickets for the luncheon and tickets for the concert program. There were folders for each person when he arrived with the places marked where you were to stand in line for the procession. It was beautifully organized. The morning session was a lecture arranged by the alumnae, on the "Invasion of Privacy," given by Dr. Bernard L. Diamond, professor of Law and Criminology at UC Berkeley. Students had a holiday that day and many of them attended this lecture. The luncheon for alumnae was in Alumnae Hall and for the delegates and invited guests in the old-fashioned Mills Hall. In between times I was taken on a tour of the new buildings, which are very beautiful. I went over to the library to see the Rosalind Cassidy Alumnae Collection. It was given to Mills in my name when my ex-students gave me a retirement party on the campus. It is displayed in a very nice case, with the name of the famous woman to whom it pays honor engraved on a plaque above the case. The fund is used to collect the writings of the graduates of Mills. There is quite a considerable collection at the moment. I had a little chat with two of the librarians whom I had worked with, when the major was given up at Mills in arranging for UCLA to buy the physical education collection. Since Mills started as a seminary way back in the 1870s, it had some of these old, old beautiful hygiene books for girls such as the Dio[clesian] Lewis books. When I came down to UCLA I could hardly leave them there, I just felt like they belonged to me. I made a journey to Mills to review what. was there at the time Don Handy was very much interested in buying this collection. And in due course our UCLA Library did buy "the oldies" Indeed and all of the modern stuff that they had, with the exception of some of the health and hygiene materials which Miss Nogues wanted to keep for the classes then being taught. So we now have that considerable collect ion. The other historical collection I wanted so badly—I can't bear to even think of it now—was the Wellesley College Physical Education Collection. It was even more complete with materials of the German, [Ludwig] Jahn, the Swedish, [William] Skarstrom and the Danish, Niels Bukh. They had given this collection, in a moment of great emotion, to the Women's College of the University of North Carolina in the name of Mary Channing Coleman, a Wellesley graduate, who had been head of the Women's College Physical Education Department and who had recently died. On one of my sabbaticals, when I was working on bibliographical materials for two History of Physical Education courses, I went to the Library of Congress to work through their materials and then went down to the Women's College of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. This was a delightful visit with parties and quarters in the campus Alumnae House. This collection was in the basement of the library, unused and covered with dust; it had not been touched, A doctorate is not given there. Greensboro is quite off the main path, and I just couldn't bear to have this resource so unavailable. I felt it either should be in the Library of Congress or in New York or preferably at UCLA. Librarian Powell, Ben Miller, Don Handy and I all made a tremendous effort to buy that collection, but the minute we said we wanted to buy it, they felt they needed to keep it. In order to study the collection, I was given a smock and a dustcloth and went down into the basement to go over these materials. There were many of them with leather bindings, all crumbling off. Many of them were in Swedish and German, actually the original materials. I felt very upset at its being so neglected; it had not been used at all since it. was given to them. The master's degree is given there, but none of the students at that time were making historical studies. I spoke to the master's [degree candidates] (Lenore Ulrich had them in a seminar), but found little interest, and so I suspect these books haven't been used since. I had a traumatic moment, because at a dinner party while there, I said, "Oh, I just would like to walk off with some of these materials." The next day I was searching through the card file and discovered something I wanted to see very much wasn't there, so I thought I had better call the librarian and make a note of this because I had said I would love to walk off with some of the materials and didn't wish to be caught red-handed. We were not successful in buying that collection and it is still there in this out-of-the-way spot. Now for the Mills Inaugural of the new president. The procession was very impressive; I saw Dean McHenry there representing his lovely college. Franklin Murphy had sent Rosemary Park to represent UCLA and I thought for a women's college inaugural this was. quite proper. was invited to march in the procession because I have an honorary degree from Mills—Doctor of Humane Letters. They had a Mills faculty host or hostess for each delegate. Elinor Raas Heller, UC Regent, whom I have known since she was a student at Mills, was there and we remarked about her good works in relation to the Regents' action. Dr. Robert J. Wert, the third president of Mills College chosen from Stanford. [J. E.] Wallace Sterling was the speaker of the day. The first speaker was the student body president, who did a perfectly charming and delightful greeting for the new president. And then a representative, a historian by the way, spoke for the Mills faculty; Chancellor Heyns made the speech for the neighboring university, UC at Berkeley. He was very charming and wryly amusing in saying that he had been asked before to do a Founder's Day lecture at Mills, but he was feeling that they were really taking rather wild steps in having him again under the present circumstances, referring to all the disturbances at Berkeley. He gave a delightful greeting to the new president. Then the chairman of the Board of Trustees swore in the new president. Wallace Sterling then made the speech of the day, saying rather charming little things about the sirens luring the boys across the Bay Bridge from Stanford. Then the new president himself, Robert Joseph Wert, made his speech noting the long and very interesting tradition of Mills in women's education from the seminary days on, which pleased the graduates. He then spoke of the challenge of the new day and how grave the problems of private institutions really are, especially those having a focus on liberal studies. Dr, Wert is tall and handsome and very articulate and comes from extremely good experience in his work at Stanford. Lynn White, who Mills took from Stanford after Dr. Reinhardt's presidency ended, was not there. Dr. [Charles E.] Rothwell, the retiring president, also from Stanford, was of course there. It was very hot, but it was also very interesting. The reception was held on the athletic field, which had a whole beautiful new green turf. A canopy arrangement was set up under which the president and his charming wife, the president of the Board of Trustees and his wife (who is also a Mills girl), received a very long line of delegates and representatives. A sumptuous punch and coffee table was also there with a beautiful arrangement of grapes and chrysanthemums for the fall, which hadn't quite come. After that I went with some of the alumnae to a dinner party and the next day took myself back to Los Angeles, pretty tired out, particularly because of the heat. In the meantime, between the seminar and going to Mills, I was in Sacramento with my family, that is a little wearing too, and also because we had ninety-degrees heat all the time. Well so much for journeys.

SCHIPPERS: I would like to ask you what the hippie movement means to you.

CASSIDY: At the moment, I will hold this open until I am better Informed. I think the hard core, really serious kids have just had it with the hypocrisy, the violence, the kind of values we seem to be expressing in our society. They have s aid the only way they can do anything about it is to just withdraw, and love each other and express a nonviolent kind of peaceful, tender relationship with human beings. Does that make sense to you?

SCHIPPERS: Well, I certainly think it is a marvelous philosophy. I just wondered if indeed they do it?

CASSIDY: I don't know really. The thing that confuses me, having been born in 1895, [is that] I was brought up with the idea, really a value, that if you identify something that is wrong, then you try to do something about it in a very positive, constructive, active way rather than going off to dreamland, saying, "Stop the world I want to get off." This confuses me. Also I am deeply concerned about the drug use by today's youth. At one of the Council of Youth conferences at Asilomar, creativity was stressed. The person who had set up the conference had brought some beautiful exhibits of young people's creative works, charming. One evening a youth band played the current music with all electrical instruments; the noise for my ancient ears was excruciating'. I felt like dogs must feel when they begin to howl from the pain of certain kinds of noises. They called it the sound and light show. Do you know about these shows?

SCHIPPERS: Yes.

CASSIDY: The kids had also made slides that they threw on to a backdrop, combining flashing lights, color and this noise. I said to Dr. David Smith, who was there as a consultant on drugs, "Could you possibly tell me why this intense noise and what does it do? Why does it have to be like this?" He said, "Because they have to dull, just simply blot out every bit of thought and have just this sensory experience in its extreme form." The young people danced, so-called, to this din. I said to one of the girls, "Tell me about the intensity of this sound." She said, "Well at first it was very hard on me, I had to get used to it." Oh, heavens', [laughter] But I have to spend some more time finding out what young people are saying. In the beginning—one of the articles I read said—everybody shut their eyes and hoped it would go away. But it has not gone away; it has increased. It is behavior of upper- and middle-class Caucasian kids, not a poverty thing. It seems to me to take on an element of punishing the parents, the noncommunication and the attire, the whole bent is a punishment I think, at least to the adults I talked with. The couple with whom I went to San Francisco told me that their oldest boy got all tied up with the hippies through playing with a band. He now smokes marijuana and they know it. They are concerned but they are really quite calm about the whole thing. He won't even stay in the room when they start their cocktail hour, he can't stand alcohol, he wouldn't touch it under pain of death. They are tender about their plight and his. His mother is president of the alumnae group. When she made a little speech at the Inaugural, she told me, "You know I looked up in the audience and there was Al, brushed, combed, clean shirt on, there to hear his mother speak." She was so touched she could hardly believe it. Another long-time friend of mine has a young high school s on who with his whole group is on marijuana. She is dean of one of the junior colleges, so this is extremely serious for both her and the boy in terms of possible arrest and charges that will stay on this kid's record all his life. He also plays the guitar and has long hair. I don't know whether this is to punish his mother, but she also is being quite calm about it. The parents' plight really concerns me. I've been schooled in the concept of behavior being symptomatic of need, of one's saying something with his behavior. This behavior is so different from the accepted a question came to my mind about how the Dance Department separated from the Physical Education Department, and why.

CASSIDY: I can't remember the date of this. I think I told you that Ben Miller became chairman in 1952. Martha Deane had brought Alma Hawkins to our department as a dance educator. She is not a choreographer, she is not a dancer, she really is a teacher and a very, very, very able administrator and she is very ambitious. As we talked about the article in the Saturday Review about UCLA Dance, her ambitions have now been achieved since it was cited as the outstanding dance department in the country. Forces within the University were moving with Franklin Murphy's interest in the arts to build productions and exhibits. The arts were tremendously supported, administratively. I don't think Alma initiated this, I think Melnitz did as the new Dean of the College of Fine Arts, but the forces were such that Dance was really being thought of as being a separate department in the Fine Arts. I found myself very resentful about this move in our situation because we were the one faculty in the country talking about all the manifestations of human movement, from the toddling baby to the art form. You can't really separate this dance, and Alma was very much torn over this. I don't think she initiated the break, but I don't think she could have under the circumstances resisted this, because it was a prestige thing. It offered a separate administrative possibility for her and as the department chairman of dance she has been in the chancellor's meetings behavior, the clothing, lack of cleanliness, bare feet, long hair; so to go back to your question, I am trying to find out what they really are saying and what all this really means to them. A part of the film for which Dr. Smith was adviser shows a young girl being urged to come in a car with other young people who are smoking marijuana. She joins them reluctantly but can't resist because the whole group is doing it. One of the Youth Council girls, in her discussion of it with Dr. Smith, said that she thought this happened a great deal of the time. Kids want to be in their own peer group and do what everybody is doing even though they are scared to death; this is done because everybody else is doing it, in this case, this isn't to punish your parents but because all the kids are doing it, so I will do it too; I really think that has forever been so with youth, I think drinking for girls as I saw it at Mills in the early Prohibition days was all part of the wanting to do what everybody else was doing. Any number of girls would tell me they were just scared to death of the first drink because they didn't know what it would do to them. But, boy, they were going to act as though they had been heavy drinkers forever because this was the thing to do. So much for that long tale.

SCHIPPERS: So perhaps it's an old cog in new clothing. We might possibly get back to it later when you have had more time to think about it. I think your comments are very interesting, Now resuming with the end of the last interview, at Arrowhead and all sorts of opportunities that wouldn't have happened otherwise, But in our setting, separate from athletics and all the other things that are not congenial to the arts, we were talking about the whole moving, expressive person, so to take the dance out seemed to me to do a very great harm to the total concept. It is rather amusing, and ironically so, to look at Alma's book on the dance. It uses exactly the same language we are using in describing the art and science of human movement in physical education. She talked with me quite seriously about this, and knew it was a big issue. Melnitz had talked to her. I said, "My dear Alma, I have a feeling you are going to be dragged into performance because it's 'the show thing" and your whole desire to develop dance teachers," which she was primarily interested in, "is not going to be looked upon with favor." Carol Scothorn, who is a performance person and a choreographer and very, very able, I think, and Pia Gilbert, they all really felt that going into Fine Arts was very important for the development of dance at UCLA. I don't think any of them were actively maneuvering to bring this about; however, Ben Miller, who has always thought of keeping everything—Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance as part of Physical Education, was completely hysterical when he found out about the plan for a Dance Department. He was not informed along the way. It was really a fait accompli when word came to him. He and Alma had been very, very good friends, but when this happened he called her over to his office and she came away weeping. She was so upset at his blaming her for the whole thing and saying that she had been actively undercutting the department. She was deeply upset by this and it has taken a long time for all of us to relate well to each other again. The other disturbing part of this was that the Dance, now became a separate department, had to stay in the same building, same dressing rooms, same teaching rooms, the same suite of office s. There was even an argument about using department pencils and stationery. There were bad kinds of punishing things; and the transition was very hard on everybody. It was very hard on me because I had conflicting feelings on the whole matter. Alma was made acting chairman of the Dance Department, so I talked with her at some length about what this meant, and asked, "is Melnitz really playing straight on this with you?" I think she was acting chairman for about three years. In the meantime Me In its brought—this sounds very gossipy—to the campus Agnes de Mille for an honorary degree. I had been begging Alma to bring her to the campus and to get her dance library given to UCLA, because she graduated from UCLA. She adored Lily Bess Campbell and felt very warmly towards UCLA. Mills had given her an honorary degree long before that, but Alma didn't happen to personally admire Agnes de Mille, so she never took any steps in that direction. So all of a sudden it is announced that Agnes de Mille is to have an honorary degree from UCLA, and Alma had not even been told about it, nor was she invited to the luncheon for De Mille, which was pretty upsetting. Donald Handy, who gets around the martini route, had the word that Melnitz was really trying to get a famous name person to head up the department and that they were going to bypass Alma, who felt some of this same concern. I know she went to the ceremony and I think she did get invited finally to the luncheon, but De Mille did not relate herself to Alma or to seeing any of the UCLA Dance program or anything like that. If she was invited to take the chairmanship she refused it, as we now know. The next fall Alma was made chairman in good faith. Actually this was a very important step, choosing a person who is such a tremendous promoter, because she has built this big enterprise. She is at it all the time, day and night. Recently she got a grant from the Federal Arts Act to do two workshops followed by a publication, with Marian Van Tuyl doing the editing in San Francisco in relation to the Dance magazine. Bill Terry's article in the Saturday Review on California really puts the UCLA Dance Department in a national framework, which is very important. Alma has all these students, or rather the Dance faculty has, and they don't have enough room really for the numbers; so there is "bad blood" constantly between Don Handy, the chairman of the Physical Education Department, controlling the two buildings. However, now with this move to take out PE 1 classes for the general college student for economy's sake, the only place that these are offered is through Norm Miller's cultural and recreation program. So now Norm Miller and Alma are having a big contest over space, it really is serious. I think she has been promised a building; I am not sure, She has, as you know, [R.] Buckminster Fuller's daughter in the Dance Department, in charge of dance films. Alma spoke to me about hoping to get Papa to build a geodesic dome building for dance, which might really happen in that anything Alma goes after she usually gets. I know that Dance has prospered as a separate department. I also know it was a blow to the one department in the country using terminology and thinking in terms of human movement. Happily she and I have kept our friendship, even with some strains here and there. But I think that she has made a perfectly marvelous achievement, which I don't think she could have achieved without Dance being a separate department, and she has not been forced into performance. Actually Alma herself has changed so greatly. I sat in a meeting some years ago, where Carol Scothorn and she were having a really head-on collision over wearing leotards. Alma thought they should have these stiff little skirts they wear for dance. This was even taken to the department chairman Ben Miller and our department executive committee. Carol said "But it's so much better when you are doing all this working on the floor to have covering on your legs just for protection." Alma said "No." Well now the building is filled with leotard ladies without skirts and gentlemen with leotards, and we have come a long way. Another important thing is that Alma has brought John Martin into the Dance Department, He is doing a marvelous job, especially on dance history and in developing a plan for a Dance Repertory Theater which he would head up. He is not young and what the continuity would be I don't know, but he would be able to do this sort of thing with real distinction. Juana Laban was brought in with a doctorate from Yale in Theater Arts to make graduate work in Dance respectable. Of course Pia Gilbert has always been a composer with national recognition. And now they have included something which Alma previously wouldn't even touch, which is ballet. She held exclusively for modern dance for a long time. Now she has moved on to ethnic dance, in relation to the Music Department's Interests and she herself has made a specialization with a young psychiatrist in the Medical School in Dance Therapy, concentrating on that in these later years.

SCHIPPERS: Now resuming again with the chronology that you had prepared,

CASSIDY: We had been talking I think about, before I went off into the whole development of new thinking in the department, the Davis conferences and some of the committees and people with whom I have been concerned. The dismissal of Martha Deane came in 1952; Ben was just then the new chairman and we operated for the period when this was unsettled as a Women's Coordinating Committee. Edith Hyde, Orsie Thomson and I were meeting with the chairman and Norm Duncan. There had. been an effort on the part of Ben to have me be the Coordinator of Women's Staff, but I refused to do this as long as the Martha Deane matter was not settled. In the department I was chairman of the Curriculum Coordinating Committee because we were then working in Physical Education, Health Education and Dance units and really needed coordinating. Then we also had a Discipline Committee in which we were trying to be clearer about what our body of knowledge actually was. In 1952/53 I was on the Reorganization of the Senate Committee and got to know Carl Epling quite well. And, as I think I may have said before, he told me when Raymond Allen left, that if Allen had tried to break up the University he couldn't have done a better job because he got everybody working against everybody else and it was a big mess at that point. I had come down here, you will remember, to work with the Comprehensive Examination Plan and the graduate program in general. I was taking the lead with the Comprehensive Examination students. We had a quite elaborate concept of their self-evaluation and what route they needed to take, because we were thinking then that these people were practitioners in the field; they weren't necessarily research people. We felt that this graduate year should help them be more complete, well-informed, socially adequate teachers working with young people. So we geared the program to a great deal of self-examination as to what their social aesthetic needs were and how these could be met. I was on the study committee for the Tenth All-University Faculty Conference in 1954-55. Here it was that you got to know other faculty, and since women being very few, you were usually the only woman on such a committee. In February 1954 I took a sabbatical leave. It was then that Hilda Kozman and I set up a study to visit high schools in California. We tried to obtain from the State Department of Education a list of high schools with outstanding programs. Well, we couldn't get such a list. Then we decided to try to Identify outstanding teachers we know, or they know, and then go to those schools. Actually we thought we had identified the best schools or the best teachers; so we went from San Diego to Sacramento, and we went to large schools, rural schools and in between, cities and small towns. Our search was to find out what the people in the field thought was the counseling function of the physical education teacher. I did all the teachers and it was quite a job. We planned an interview with the principal, with the vice-principal, the dean of girls, with the physician and the school nurse, with the man in physical education, and of course the head of the girls' physical education program. We were very well-received except in one place. Being known in the field, the people in physical education responded very cordially and many of them just poured out all their troubles to me. It really got to be quite funny because they needed to talk about what their needs were and we were there to listen. The one place we were not well-received was where a young woman, in one of the middle areas of the state, was afraid of us. She kept thinking we knew all the answers and we were going to be critical of her. She was holding out like nothing we ever saw, and it confused us. We didn't know quite what to do about it. She was not about to tell us anything; she was guarding herself so carefully. The materials we gleaned from this study were used in the workshop which we had been asked to do for the Women's Secondary School Physical Education Workshop at Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo. Our daily core topic was "Guidance in Physical Education. '1 We had student quarters, and meals in the main dining room. This summer workshop has gone on now and developed over the years into having the men's workshop at the same time, which allows some coed kinds of things in class method and activities. It has been a very successful program for a long period of time. I had developed a course at UCLA in Counseling in the Physical Education Program, so with that material and the workshop material I then did my little paperback with Bill Burton which we spoke about before. We, Hilda and I, had already done a book when I was in the School of Education Community Service at Mills on Counseling Girls in a Changing Society. So we were concentrating on the counseling role of the physical education teacher. We. also were concerned with the changing' role of women in our country. We felt that in physical education, where the teachers, have a very informal relationship with their students, they often are told more and sought after more for advice than the counseling people themselves, And our contention was that they need a very much better preparation in this field than they are usually given. It was in the fall of 1954 that Martha's case was completed. She was reinstated with all the back pay, which had been cut off automatically when she was dismissed, and was given early retirement status. So it was at that time that Ben Miller called me over and said now will you be Coordinator of Women's Staff and Facilities, which was a terrible blow to me because I had really come to UCLA to be the scholar and not to be in administration and not to be messing around with what I always said was counting the towels as one's main job. And so I said "yes" and then went back to my office and cried because I was so upset over this kind of assignment. In the women's staff meeting, where they were also asking me to do this, I said I would do it if they would take on all the committees that I didn't want to do. So Edie Hyde did the towels and the equipment and the ordering and all that awful stuff that I just can't bear to even think about, and they were enormously supporting and did all the dirty jobs for me. But I think I did well for all of us in relation to our chairman, Ben Miller, in our conferences and in our policy. I was a member of the Representative Assembly in 1956/57 of the UCLA Academic Senate, Earlier though than that was the loyalty oath controversy, which was so upsetting to the faculty; Dykstra was very involved in this. Actually the faculty got so emotional and so undone about it that nobody could get any work done. Senate meetings were just almost hysterical, and it was very interesting to see the group dynamics, the movement on the part of the Regents, then the faculty. So this thing went back and forth until everybody was just head-on so that it couldn't be solved. John Caughey was one of the big leaders of the opposition to the oath, and it was he who really was sacrificed. We all donated money, but it was he who led the main attack.

SCHIPPERS: There were many others that were going out at the same time?

CASSIDY: Oh, yes. Well, I just remembered him particularly.

SCHIPPERS: What was your stand on it?

CASSIDY: I was completely upset about the whole thing. I thought it was an impossible kind of demand, and I thought the verdict—do you remember the wording of the court case?—was just magnificently written. I had never seen a faculty just so absolutely together; '. in their whole view and Dykstra was completely with his faculty. The other highly intense emotional problem of the faculty brought on general hysterics was parking fees. Scotty told in Senate that she couldn't find a place to park so she was not going to pay the fee. She held that it should be a fringe benefit, Carl Epling would get up and make speeches in the Senate, so this whole thing made you feel that there was no real academic problem we were facing, just parking. Of course the fee was put on, and everybody simmered down to bear it. But while it was being debated, I think it had already been settled in spite of great protest and great resistance to it. The issue, debated at great length, was that the people who worked there should be given free parking and reserved parking space.

SCHIPPERS: Back again to this disclaimer oath situation, do you see any other pressures involved there besides the obvious McCarthyist influence, was there also something perhaps between the Regents' Academic Senate structural struggles ?

CASSIDY: I think the main group of Regents were feeling almost punitive about this. They wanted to be assured that the faculty could be controlled through this oath, at least certainly the most outspoken ones. I have a feeling it's the same kind of attitude of punishing Berkeley for its students' misbehavior that is evident in some of the Regents' action now. But it is a group really wanting to control and be assured of controls of the underlings, is that fair? Probably not. But we had very, very emotionally weighted kind of feelings and we had. meetings and meetings and meetings. It wasn't just the monthly Senate, we met regularly and sent messages to the Regents and asked to go in and meet with them, but everything just ended in chaos, really. Finally a number of faculty left UCLA in protest, got good jobs at the University of Chicago, and elsewhere. It was a very upsetting period. I didn't get in on this last séance in the Senate over the attack on the Astronomy professor by the athlete. Maybe that was just as emotionally charged as these others.

SCHIPPERS: In general then, what might you say about the conduct of the Senate? Would you assess them as being... ?

CASSIDY: Well, I thought they had very committed beliefs and were together, which they aren't on most issues, and that they did everything that they could to meet with the Regents and convey a point of view and to really control the situation, but every time it was reported back it just seemed like everything was head-on, and maneuvered into a situation. It was like the Vietnam War—we had nothing, you know, and you can't solve it, but.

SCHIPPERS: How do you feel about the place of the Academic Senate in the academic community as a whole?

CASSIDY: When I came to UCLA, as I think I told you, I really didn't know anything about this policy which I think Sproul had really started, to give power to the faculty to make their own decisions. This was evidenced in the Senate, in the presiding officer and the committee system, wherein the faculty really had power to say who can be promoted and appointed. I was led to believe that this was a terribly important, precious thing that the Senate member would protect at all lengths. I know that Dykstra completely supported this. I am sure that this tradition continues in the belief that this is important. I don't think this has diminished, I don't know. But the old hands were the ones who then schooled me in the importance of this responsible control of course materials, educational policy and who should really be able to teach in the University.

SCHIPPERS: In your experience were they true to this trust?

CASSIDY: I don't know how quite to answer that. I would have very strong conflicting feelings about the promotion committees. As I think I told you, because you would find real prejudice there, Actually during the period of the Paul Dodd regime, where we were going to be the "Harvard of the West," only one criterion would prevail in appointment and promotion, it was research and publication. The other three never really got considered. I remember Angus Taylor getting up in Senate meetings and almost sobbing, he was so emotional about the committee acting on the appointment of a man he wanted to bring from the University of Chicago. They had piddled around so long and not taken action that he could not get this man. He was very upset and challenging the whole committee system. [Side Two begins here]

SCHIPPERS: You were saying about Angus and his fear, and the criteria being lopsided in consideration of promotion.

CASSIDY: You asked the question about whether these committees are responsible in using this power and I was questioning whether fairness and objectivity always prevailed in the committee system. For five people to have this enormous power to make a decision on who can't get promoted or who can be appointed is a serious matter. I know of a case in our department where one person came up three times for promotion, with tremendous evidence of productivity, but due to one prejudiced individual who continued on the committee, she was not approved until the third time [when that committee member was not put on the committee at the request of our department chairman.] Faculty behavior at many of the Senate meetings is pretty ridiculous. When I was teaching at Santa Barbara I thought one of the meetings really would make such a good parody because members get up and argue at length over matters of little importance. At one meeting the main argument was to make certain courses pass or fail; go, the students could take out-of-their-field courses that they are anxious to get, without jeopardizing their standing, which seemed to me a very good idea. Then also at UCLA, great prejudice against the junior colleges was evidenced in the early days with the claim that they weren't doing a good job. This was in the context of a proposal to limit the University's function to upper division and graduate courses. So any number of the boys would get up and say, "Oh, no, nobody can teach the beginning courses like we can." And so of course we kept the whole mass of offering, rather than delegating some of the jobs to others. Then also the tremendous opposition to the state colleges granting the doctorates, another great issue in which I think prejudice was. often shown in the arguments. But on a big issue, like the loyalty oath, it seemed to me that they were really magnificent. /

SCHIPPERS: Do you feel it is an unwieldy body?

CASSIDY: Well, the representative assembly I think functions; that came in just because of size. Actually nobody attending, or at least a lot of people not attending, results in very small Senate meetings sometimes not being able to get a quorum. Then the reorganization of the Senate was going on; it's like people redoing the constitution actually. The Representative Assembly form was accepted with the Town Meeting providing for the larger group. I haven't attended a meeting for some time so I don't know what it looks like now. I get these big fat minutes. I lived in an apartment house when I first came to Los Angeles where Dr. [Jan] Popper lived, and I got to know him and' his wife well. Then I saw him also protesting matters in the Senate. I have the feeling that there is tremendous belief in the faculty power through the Senate, that it was very precious and important to keep it, and to deal with it responsibly. Certainly.

SCHIPPERS: Did you endorse it though?

CASSIDY: The Senate power?

SCHIPPERS: Right.

CASSIDY: Oh, yes. I have been indoctrinated on this.

SCHIPPERS: You really buy it.

CASSIDY: Well, at Mills there was no such power. The president had the power to make all the decisions on who should be employed. There wasn't even a general standard salary, you know; if she wasn't going to give you any more salary she would promote you. Then there was no retirement system because she was always going to build some more buildings and didn't want to recommend to the trustees that they put that amount of money out for prepaid retirement. There was a group of the faculty, a very liberal group, who just hated her, who were very critical and were very upset a good deal of the time. I think I was too young and too naive to get mad a good deal of the time over the issues which they felt were important, I didn't know enough about the procedures at the University of Washington; I was there just a short time as a visiting lecturer. But at Adams State College where I taught, I saw things that I didn't know could ever happen at a college. The president absolutely controlled everything and would even threaten people whom he thought needed threatening and was completely arbitrary about everything. I had never been in a little college town before. It is very revealing. He was very much for big athletics, so he would hire these players to come with athletic scholarships. I thought this really had stopped, but not at all; these boys were there on athletic scholarships and they were literally told that they would get passing grades. So they would just sit and defy you if you gave them a poor grade. This was really very shocking to me to find this kind of wheels within wheels over which faculty had no control. One of the young women who had graduated from UCLA was teaching there. She is a pretty radical young woman anyway, who was really going to do these boys in, because they wouldn't lift a finger to read a book or anything else. The president called her in and told her they were to get passing grades. Well, she left. In fact, the year I was there, twenty-five of the faculty left in protest, and the students climbed to the clock tower and painted it red and a few little things like that. I had never known this kind of authority in administration, so flagrant and where the faculty didn't have anything to say about anything, and I don't like it very much.

1.8. TAPE NUMBER: FIVE, SIDE ONE October 31, 1967

SCHIPPERS: Today we are going to start with an explanation of some of the committees that were not associated with UCLA Correct?

CASSIDY: Yes. I think one of the threads that came down from the interest in camping and group work and was then reinforced was the work that I did with the Girl Scouts. I was on their national board. Of course I never did any of the work with the kids—that would be hard work—I just sat on various boards. I was on the Girl Scout board in Oakland and then on the regional board and in due course I was elected to the national board. I found these women very interesting people and the whole program I think is one of the best group work programs in this country. I have the feeling that because of its international character it is extremely significant. This was borne out in my experience in Israel. When I first went on the Oakland board and had to buy the uniform I was quite upset, because I am not very strong on uniforms. The Big Tree Region is my region; my regional director Vaal Stark, with her headquarters in Palo Alto, a longtime, very good friend of mine, and I protested this uniform bit to her, I thought the ladies just liked to dress up and be different. She convinced me that this was not so. Because at one of the first meetings that I went to, the ladles all appeared in their little green uniforms—I included—and I realized that a good deal of the judgment that women make, of who is who and why, is related to clothing. And here was Mrs. Harvey Mudd, rolling in the millions, in her little green uniform, and here was I, lower middle-class income, in my little green uniform. Really it got all the mink coats out of the picture, with the result that people were judged on what they were saying, what they were doing and I came to feel that this was a very good thing in an organization where there are all levels of economic background; so I wore my little green uniform without feeling too badly about it, All the women that I worked with were, I thought, very interesting and very able. And I got the feeling also that I was not about to go along with any organization that didn't have an international character, because this tie around the world of Girl Guides and Boy Scouts seemed to me quite significant. When I was in England in 1936, the national board director informed the Girl Guides commissioner in London that I was there, and I was entertained at a luncheon in her home. She and her husband, who was a retired Naval officer, liked Americans very much, which was nice. We communicated just as though we had always known each other because we did share this common interest. And then when I was in Israel, being an international member, the information went to a Mrs. Rappoport, who was the international commissioner there. The program in Israel is for both Boy and Girl Scouts, it is coed (everything is coed in Israel). And so I was entertained by her. Well, as a matter of fact when I arrived, there was a bouquet of roses in my apartment with a very nice note from Mrs. Rappoport. Later Jackie and I were entertained at luncheon down on the lovely Mediterranean shore in Tel Aviv and taken to her home. Her husband is one of the modern architects in Tel Aviv and has done some very interesting buildings, which are extremely functional and modern. Their head trainer, Morris Zilka, was there and he asked if I had been in any of the Arab villages. I said only to drive through them, only to be appalled at the state they were In. He said that there was to be an event in one of them up in the Galilee Highlands, and that if we wanted to go, he would take us there. (Now I am taking the threads clear down now from Girl Scouting to the recent experience when I was in Israel. ) Early one evening Zilka called for us (Zilka and/his assistant and Jackie and I were on this tour), and we drove from Tel Aviv to Haifa and then up to the Druse village of P'quinn, where we had lunch with Yousef Ali, who is the head of the village Scout program. He had been an officer in the British Army and spoke English very well. Then we went to another village higher up called Beit Gan for the Scout program which was headed, up by the schoolmaster of the town, who was very fat and very perspiring. As we left the car Morris said, "Just follow me." So we went down the line of these men in their Arab costumes, shaking hands. They were sort of pulling back and we were sort of grasping hands and going down the line of the village dignitaries and doing just as we thought we were supposed to do. We learned afterwards that the whole village had been polluted by the men having to shake a woman's hand. They probably had to have a cleansing process after we left, and of course we were the only women at the program. The Arab ladies were all peeking out of windows to see what was going on. The Boy Scouts came in and gave the oath and promise and carried out the same kinds of activities that you would see in any American Boy Scout program. And then some very droopy little Girl Scouts came and sang in Arabic, which I won't burden you with, it's too terrible a sound. And they had very long skirts and very droopy costumes. And I said to our guide, "They look so droopy." And he said, "Don't be critical. It is marvelous that they are letting the girls do this at all." So the two American women and the little Girl Scouts were the only females in this whole ceremony. I felt that there was then this likeness in ideas and program around the world, and it seemed to me to be very significant. Well, so much for the Girl Scouts and that quite interesting experience.

SCHIPPERS: What were some of the problems that were facing the control of the group?

CASSIDY: You mean, the national board. Well they were then doing something that I thought was quite marvelous and doing it very skillfully, that is they were having an outside person come in and review the whole program in their awards system. They kept everybody informed as this went along, step by step, so that when the recommendation was made that they give up what would be like the Eagle Scout bit in the Boy Scouts, everybody was perfectly willing to do this. For the old guard to give up something that seemed very special I thought it was rather remarkably done. Mrs. Majl Ewing was on the board here and on the national board at the time I was and Mrs. Harvey Mudd and Mrs. Georgiana Sibley Hardy, who, as you know, is now president of the Board of Education here in Los Angeles. She was not Mrs. Hardy at that time. She is a most interesting and delightful person. I also was on the national committee of Camp Fire Girls for their personnel and training program; so I think those threads all come down from my early interest in group work and in camping. I don't know whether I told you this about Mrs. Mudd when I was talking about Provost Dykstra. Mrs. Mudd came out to ask me if I would be on the Los Angeles Girl Scout Board, and I think I told that anecdote when he called up and said that she had put the pressure on him. In 1948/49 I was part of the national program in physical education to review the undergraduate major program and the graduate program. The first one was called the Jackson's Mill conference because it was' held in that state park in West Virginia. And this ties another thread back to New Directions. I had a very good friend who was a person I had worked with in the Saunders Company, John Benke. He had been instrumental in getting us to write the first Methods in Physical Education book. So he had arrived in the office—when the bookmen come and visit you and you see what's cooking—at the time I had just received word from Lowell Pratt of the A. S. Barnes Company, the son of John Barnes Pratt, that New Directions was now out of print and that they didn't care to do anything further with it. If I wanted to buy the plates I could do so, otherwise they would be destroyed, So I felt as though my child was being murdered and was really very upset about it, because as I told you, I like this book better than anything I have written and thought it was a really pretty good book. Benke arrived just about this time and I poured out my tale to him and he thought this was terrible and said, "You know, I think that Obie (that's Delbert Oberteuffer at Ohio State) would really like to have it in the Harper series. Why don't you get in touch with him?" And I said, "Well, I'm on my way to Jackson's Mill," and in due course forgot about it. But he wired Obie and Obie wired me to ask me to stop off at Columbus on my way to Jackson's Mill, which I then did. I have known Obie and his wife for a long time; they are very gay and delightful people. So the two days I was there we had parties, parties, parties, and we never talked about the book at all until we were on the way to the airport. And that, by the way in 1948, was the first time I was ever on an airplane and now I will never get on to a train again for any purpose at all! In any case, he said, "Now, Rosalind, I want this book as a curriculum development book, but I want it for boys and girls because New Directions was specifically set within the changing role of women in our country." I said, "Well, Obie, that would be very difficult, you know I don't see how I could do it." He said, "Well, wherever it says 'girls, ' just say, 'and boys. '" [laughter] I didn't think that was going to work. In any case, when I got back from this conference, which was a very harrowing one, as a matter of fact—and I must tell you something about what happened there —here is the contract for the book. I put it down under all the correspondence at the bottom of the pile, feeling that I can't face that right now. So in due course I went off to Lake Tahoe for the summer, where I got a letter from Harpers asking what happened to the contract, I thought I had mailed it, but I think I probably took it out and put it in the trash can instead of in the mailbox. It was a psychological avoiding. Well, anyway, another one was sent and I signed and returned it. And then actually this comes down the line, too, because it of course had to be another book; I kept thinking I could take this, this, this, which wasn't even possible. So the new book then became the curriculum development book. And that then became as a revision, Theory in Physical Education, with Camille Brown. We also thought in this case we could fix up spots, but this became then a completely new book, because rethinking the body of knowledge of physical education made it another book. So these three books are related just as revisions, but they are really redos completely.

SCHIPPERS: What did happen to the plates?

CASSIDY: They were destroyed. I was not about to buy the plates. I had the book in hand, I could redo it, but I felt very sad about the fact that that book then seemed not to be of any worth to a publisher at that point. At Jackson's Mill, Harry Scott, who was from the Teachers College, Columbia University faculty, was the head of the Physical Education group. The Health Education people came with their stuff practically all written; they were in complete agreement, and so did the Recreation people. But not the little Physical Education people; they were head-on in philosophy. I had seen Harry Scott at various Academy meetings, where he and Obie and Dave [David K. J Brace were kind of buddies and were making fun of [Charles] McCloy and being very bad. But I had never seen Harry at a work session. He really was quite remarkable the way he could make these people deliver material; we worked around the clock. There wasn't enough power in our group actually to do what we needed to do. Now I look at the published volumes of our findings put out by the national association in a kind of agony, because I can tell who actually wrote which sentence, from the strife that went on. One of the women who is very well known in the field of physical education is Ruth Glassow. Her field, is the physics kind of kinesiology, not the human being doing anything but just the muscles and bones. She and I have been at odds for a long time in the way we see the field and human beings in motion; so at one point when we were working together she turned and looked me in the eye and said, "Rosalind, I think you have done the greatest harm to the profession." This was really quite a blow and I said, "Ruth, I don't know what you mean." And she said, "Well, you have gotten people so mixed up in that they are not thinking properly about the whole kinesiological structure of skeleton, muscular system and so forth." And I said, "Well, I think you overrate my power in the profession in the sense of having any influence at all. But I cannot possibly think of physical education other than the moving, feeling, experiencing whole person. The muscles and bones fine, but this is within the framework of a human being." And I have never forgotten this blow. Well, in any case the report came out as Undergraduate Professional Preparation in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Report of the National Conference. I was vice-chairman of the planning committee for the national conference in 1949/50, at Pere Marquette, on Graduate Study in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Report of the National Conference. These two reports I think really had a great deal of importance in the professional preparation because it was the effort on the part of the national association to get a consensus of leaders in the field on what this preparation should be. It was used really as an evaluative tool by some of the state departments of education when they evaluated various institutions. Well, so much for that, In 1951, the first yearbook of the national association was authorized, with the title: Developing Democratic Human Relations in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and Hilda Kozman was asked to be the editor. I worked on the planning committee with her and did one the chapters and found it an interesting undertaking. It dealt with this whole theme of how do we behave in a democratic society and how is education linked to that I think in a field where we have had so much response-to-command, the planning committee was thinking that we needed this kind of emphasis very badly. To go back to the Pere Marquette conference, this was where the McCloy-Cassidy, Oberteuffer-McCloy clan really came into conflict, McCloy was not at the undergraduate conference, but he was at Pere Marquette. Ruth Abernathy, who had just come to UCLA, went with me and was my roommate at this conference. It was in February. Snow was on the ground; it was cold and the houses and buildings are so overheated that I was always flinging open the windows in our bedroom and she was always closing them. The McCloy group really almost broke up the conference in what some of us thought was a very underhanded move to reject the materials that had been developed at the last moment. The last meeting was very charged with emotion and bad feeling. But in any case, the report did come out and we all more or less survived it. Carl Nordly was on the "good guys" side, you know, and he was chairman of the department at Berkeley until just recently. He was almost in tears at the last meeting because he felt that the whole thing had been undercut in terms of the kind of conflict that had been going on. But that really has been a long term kind of conflict of the test and measurement—you know, muscle, bone, leverage people—and the human beings people. A student once asked me if this was an East-West conflict of ideas and I said that I didn't really think so in that sense, because there were people at Teachers College, New York University, Oberteuffer at Ohio State, and people in the West where we were together in our thinking, as against the McCloy group, Glassow and those people who only see the muscles and bones, not moving human beings. Schippers? Was there any of the size of the institution?

CASSIDY: I don't really think so, and I don't want to be unfair in relation to Mr. McCloy. He was really an ugly little man and little in every sense, but he had great power there at the University of Iowa in the test and measurement period, and it really was the center. There was practically nothing in the graduate program on the West Coast; Teachers College, New York University, and University of Iowa really were the big places, and the New York and Iowa groups were at odds in their thinking. I think Jesse Williams' long period of chairmanship at Teachers College (he was an M. D. he in his training) and was seeing a whole person in movement as against McCloy who was just really seeing parts. And this came out so strongly in this meeting, it was hard to live through. In this period there were two translations that I gave to the UCLA Library along with a copy of all my books. One was the first edition of the methods book by Kozman, Cassidy and which, [C. O.] Jackson translated into Spanish. Then the State Department asked if they could make a translation into Japanese of a journal article I had done, April 1950, Journal of Healthy Physical Education and Recreation, "Contributions of Physical Education to Democratic Citizenship." I sort of hated to give this one little thing up; it was in a paper booklet, and where they couldn't translate a word into Japanese, they just printed it you know upside down in a straight lines. It really is very funny to see it.

SCHIPPERS: Perhaps you could say something about the international influence of this physical education movement.

CASSIDY: Well, actually I think we in our country have been very much influenced by the Movement Education in England, which really was of a long-term standing and has done marvelous work with young children. Liselott Diem in Germany had been doing the exploration, problem-solving kind of thing. I was very interested in Israel because the conflict there, as now in physical education, is between the Scandinavian trained supervisors in the various districts and this one woman, Judith Binnetter, who has to do with the training of the kibbutzim teachers. She is a German and actually has the whole Movement Education kind of idea. There have been a number of international workshops where our people have gone to England where Ruth Foster has headed up that program. This program has been more effective with young children and with the girls' program than with secondary school boys, who are very much more Interested in sports and body conditioning.

SCHIPPERS: Would you say, though, that the United States leads in this area?

CASSIDY: Well, I think it is much more sophisticated at this point in the structure of knowledge kind of thinking, the discipline, the body of knowledge, while the other centers have not really dealt with that as much as they have with activities. The book by Liselott Diem, Who Can?, through the interest of Arthur Steinhaus of George Williams College, was translated into English. But that is the only English material coming from the German program. I think we in t he U. S. are at the moment really moving in a national sense to develop the body of knowledge materials more fully and to get general agreement, which I think is going to be difficult. I don't know whether I spoke of it before, but there was a Design Conference called to set up a national research project like the new math, new science; a foundation has been set up to receive grants of money, and there is a National Curriculum Committee Study going now. Camille Brown is on that, with Ann Jewett at the University of Wisconsin as director of this study. I think I have to think this, because I want it to be so, that there is a very strong move to really develop our body of knowledge in a very much more academic way than has been done in any other country. Camille is now doing an article for a magazine called Quest, which is the only more high-brow magazine in our profession. It takes a whole theme and develops the materials around that theme in a given Issue. She has been asked to do an article on our structure of knowledge. This issue is on The Nature of a Discipline. When I was teaching at Santa Barbara and again at Long Beach State this summer, I went back through the journal articles for the last two years, to find that in every single one of them there is some contribution in relation to human movement. One of the speeches that was given at the Dallas conference, called "The Movement Movement," discusses this as being a direction for the field. I am sure this has not been the emphasis as such for any other country I know of in the international sense. I was wanting to pick up the theme of my community work because when I left Mills I resigned from dozens of committees and hoped that I wouldn't again get too involved because I came to Los Angeles to be a great scholar. But I guess the old habit persisted because in 1948 I was involved as a consultant in that first governor's conference on youth welfare. And in that relationship and then again down the years I have worked with the California Youth Authority. I did a workshop in 1947 for them before I left Mills. Karl Holton, the first director of that program, was a longtime friend and I think is quite a remarkable person and Heman G. Stark who followed him is now retiring as of February. And I don't know who Mr. Reagan is going to put in that position. The person who is head of the preventive area, Roy Votaw, I worked with him for a long time and that comes down to the conferences we spoke about last time. And back to the Listen Everybody, which is the publication I did for them before I went to Europe. In 1950/51 I was a member of the Los Angeles Welfare Council on their research committee. And I don't see how I did it now, going clear downtown now for their meetings. In 1951/52 I was on the Metropolitan Los Angeles Recreation and Youth Services Council, making a master plan for recreation for Los Angeles in that committee, and we also worked on criteria for community sports programs. I had known George Hjelte for a long time, and Bill ['William] Frederickson [Jr.] and Henry Waltz were the people on those committees I have known and worked, with. In 1952/53 I was on the Los Angeles Conference on Human Relations. I was a member of their Executive Committee. And then later in 1953/54 I was on the West Los Angeles Area Welfare Planning Council, which was part of the whole city Welfare Council. I worked with the physical education people in Los Angeles, both city and county, and came to know Larry Houston quite well, and then in the county, [Dr. C. C.] Trillingham and Carol Clarke were the county people with whom I worked doing a workshop for them at Arrowhead at one point. Frances Chapman who is the director for the girls' program in Los Angeles happens to be a major student of mine from Mills, So I have known her for a long time. She was a major in physical education when I was there. So I had gotten back then into, all these sundry relationships to the community that I thought were important and obviously enjoyed them or I wouldn't have done them. The committee related to Mills was the American Association of University Women's Committee on Higher Education. That committee was called originally the Standards and Recognitions Committee and the chairman was Ann Hawkes, the Dean of Students at Mills, a longtime friend of mine. She left that committee to become the president of AAUW, When she was chairman of that committee, I was appointed to the Pacific area chairmanship as a member of the committee. They met twice a year in November and in March in Washington, D. C. So for eight long years I was trudging back and forth to Washington on this committee. The members were all women, full professors, with earned doctorates and represented the women's leadership in academic matters. It was a sort of man bites dog to have a person in physical education on such a committee, but I enjoyed it very much since we were concerned with criteria in the education of women. At that time, institutions applying for recognition so that their graduates could be members of AAUW in their communities were quite numerous. I never did so much work for a voluntary committee in my life. But I learned a great deal about college and university processes. Firsts you worked over the paper materials sent in for application; then you scheduled a visit, and you visited outside of your own area so that you could keep nice relationships in the area. This was a very tough job. I visited in Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Oregon. And then I did three of the state colleges in New York State when I was on sabbatical leave, and Mundelein College in Chicago. I had asked them not to assign me to a Catholic institution, because I was afraid I would not be objective. But I found my Mundelein visit perfectly delightful; it is a most interesting and very academically fine institution. In this visiting, I am going to contrast it with the visiting I did for the State Board of Education on the accreditation committees. In the AAUW you go as a lone visitor, you meet with the president first, and then tell him what your questions are in relation to the materials you [lave been studying, then you set a schedule for a two-day visit. You are concerned with the liberal studies program, with the status of the dean of women, the housing, the physical education program, being non-exploitive, the welfare of the women students, with the welfare of the women faculty. At the end of this you meet again with the president, tell him what you are going to report This eye-to-eye confrontation is really a tough deal as contrasted with the State Board of Education Evaluative Committees, where you go with a team of say ten people. You have just one assignment, you work together before you start and then you come back as the conference goes on. The library, criteria for salaries and so on are divided up; so you don't have to carry that whole thing. But anyway these were long years of very interesting visits to various parts of the country. As I was saying, it was a tough time for college presidents and for our group who were trying to get a fair shake for women faculty because women prepared for college teaching are in very short supply. We would say to a president, "We are concerned that you have so few women full professors or none." You would find a different salary scale for men and for women. For some reason they think that an unmarried woman doesn't have as much need for money as a man with a family, making a point that most of the unmarried ladies are supporting their aged parents. But it really meant that if a college was to have a fair share of women faculty, the presidents really had to work at it.

SCHIPPERS: How many institutions did you visit?

CASSIDY: Well, I had San Diego State and USC, Long Beach State; Chapman College I visited twice. Is this on the State Department question?

SCHIPPERS: I was referring to the previous.

CASSIDY: Occidental and LA State were the ones for the State Department of Education. For AAUW, over those eight years, each member had about three she was supposed to visit every year before each of these meetings, so it would be about six a year—do three for November and three for March. I visited three state colleges in New York which were really going to be called state universities, and our chairman wanted them visited by the same person. Since I was on sabbatical and was going to be in the East anyway, I did the three at the same time and found it a very interesting experience.

SCHIPPERS: In what way did that stand out?

CASSIDY: Well, they were in this transition period of trying to build a library and faculty to take on this graduate status. I just had an offer before I went to Europe from the dean at... I can't remember now which one, asking if I would come and spend a semester there and help them redo their curriculum in physical education. One of the colleges I visited was Adams State College at Alamosa, Colorado. The president and I got on well and he then later invited me to come, and I taught there for a semester really because of the contact that we had during the AAUW visit. [tape recorder turned off]

SCHIPPERS: While the tape was off I was just asking about your personal observations, whether you found great differences between sections of the country or whether you found any really large problems?

CASSIDY: Well, the great universities of the country had been approved for a long time, so I was seeing smaller institutions. The place that I think we were terribly concerned about was the differences in the salary schedule. Often [there was] no printed salary schedule so that the president just dealt with each person you know in order to get them and keep them. Nobody knew what was to be expected. In the status of women, I think I was saying this off the tape, some of them, like Adams State, were terribly dominated by athletics. And so the women's facilities for physical education was almost nothing. The women were there kind of as a second best, but to win all those basketball and football games was terribly important. And then actually their emphasis on the liberal studies was pretty meager. The status of the dean of women and the kind of person was also of a great concern to us. The AAUW criteria had to do with believing that this was one of the top administrative persons in the institution and that she should be academically able and personally able to represent to both men and women, with some training in counseling and guidance area. This varies enormously in the institutions I visited. I recognize the fact that when you say to the president, you know thus and so, he says, "Where can I get somebody who is qualified?" And to answer that the AAUW has published a roster of women with doctoral degrees. Many of the small institutions do not have a dean of women with a doctorate, whether that mates them more able to be a good dean of women is probably a question. The other thing that AAUW is concerned about is that if there is a dean of students, a man, then the dean of women is kind of an underling to that Individual and would have to go through that person to the president. They make a big point of wanting to have direct access of the woman leader to the president.

SCHIPPERS: Would you say then that the conditions varied according to the size of the institution?

CASSIDY: I think that would be fair, yes.

SCHIPPERS: Which one would logically expect.

CASSIDY: I keep thinking that some of the bigger institutions ought to be reevaluated to see if they now meet the criteria. There was a conflict in the period in which I was working with this committee with the national accreditation people; they kept saying we were getting into accrediting. Well, this was not the fact actually. Our job was to approve the institution for membership in AAUW so that their graduates could then join with these little women in their communities. And in the smaller communities—well, when I say smaller, not Los Angeles but for instance Portland, Oregon—the AAUW ladies are a tremendous power in the community. They do all kinds of sponsoring of lectures, have regular monthly meetings and the whole program goes on. For the young married woman who goes to Portland, it is very important that your college belongs so that you have the right to join this group. It's almost you know like Junior League.

SCHIPPERS: How do you think the institutions look upon the AAUW?

CASSIDY: I was making a talk on the Standards Committee for our Women's Faculty Club at one time and Dr. Marion Dakin said, "Why do we want to belong?" It's like getting a rating from the national universities group; it's a status kind of thing to list in the catalog that you are approved by AAUW, and the colleges seek this as something that seems very important to them. The AAUW publishes a journal for which I have written a couple of articles. It takes up national problems at its conventions and takes a stand on various issues. It is a lot like the League of Women Voters, and is a pretty powerful organization.

SCHIPPERS: Is it in any way a self-promoting group in the sense that it realizes its power?

CASSIDY: Yes. The Standards Committee was just a real pressure deal to say to the president that these are the things that will have to be done if you are to be recommended. And, as I said, it's a tough assignment to sit in the president's office and tell him this; "These are the points that I am going to make to the committee, and I don't know what they will do, but I am going to recommend that you be approved when these points are made." And this did happen, but to me, [that when] some of the members would bring in a recommendation for approval, the committee would vote against it, or to postpone recommendation until certain things could be done and to send another visitor at another time. But it was really a pressure type thing and when Ann Hawkes was chairman, (she is a very handsome, very emphatic person and very authoritarian as a matter of fact) I had to clean up after some of her visits, because the presidents were made mad by her saying, "This has to be done," and the way she did it. So it was used as a real pressure kind of thing. The chairman of the committee after Ann, and with whom I worked the longest, was Dr. Eunice Roberts from Indiana University. She was dean of women's educational programs there, a perfectly charming and delightful person and a very much more tactful person than Ann Hawkes was.

SCHIPPERS: How did the men view this?,

CASSIDY: Well, Lynn White was always kind of laughing as he does, wryly, "imagine, the American Association of University Women, you can't imagine an American Association of University Men, can you?" [laughter] Did you read in Life, that Vassar is going to join up with Yale. That was one of the issues at the Mills inaugural, by the way, should we have a men's college. I think AAUW was really a very powerful institution for women's rights in the early days of trying to get the vote and trying to have women know enough to really take their places in the community and enter the various professions I don't think it is really as functional now as it was in an earlier time. But it has a large membership. It is a going concern, and it is international actually. Hawkes was Invited to do a world tour for the State Department; she met with groups all around the world, also Mills groups as a matter of fact, and was very much impressed with the whole character of the international picture. Eleanor Dolan is the person I worked with. She is the advisor for higher education on their national staff, and she really guided this committee on all of its various steps. As a matter of fact, I think this committee doesn't exist anymore; I believe they have decided to take the recommendations of the national accrediting group. It was a very expensive committee because there were ten or twelve members and we were paid our expenses twice a year to come to the meetings and all of our travel expenses because we would not take any money from the institution for these visits. It was all financed by the national budget, causing a good deal of contention. But as a person who had been at Mills as a student and as a teacher and terribly Interested in women's education, and then being at UCLA where we were only interested in coed education, I found these trips very interesting, very delightful. While we were in Washington D.C., we would meet at the AAUW headquarters, going there in the morning, having lunch and dinner and meet for the evening to do a very intensive job.

SCHIPPERS: I would like, if we can, to also go back a little bit more on your activities with the Youth Authority, You mentioned Karl Holton, knowing him well, I wondered if you would elaborate a little bit on him as a person first.

CASSIDY: Well, he is not a very good speaker, and he is a rather quiet, composed, colorless kind of person to just look at. But it was he who really headed up the whole initiation of this plan which, as I understand it, was recommended as a structure by the national law group. It had both the dealing with the young offenders and their incarceration as well as the preventive wing that Roy C. Votaw heads up. There is the plan to bring the youngsters into a center when they are first turned over to Youth Authority for study, psychiatric help, everything, to see how deep their problem is and then to set up camps for rehabilitation with varying degrees of therapy, so that the hard-core offender would not be put with the kids who have just had their first offense. And so in this study period they would decide which camp the youngster should go to. Karl Holton had very strong feelings about the fact that the rehabilitation process can best be done in a close-to-nature situation where the youth can plant seeds, see food grow, really work with animals, and have experiences, which he said, that kids who had never been off the city streets really needed. This appealed to me very much, because I told you before that if anybody is going to make the world good it is going to be through camping, the out-of-doors and closeness to nature. He felt very strongly about this and said one of his greatest problems was that they keep wanting to overcrowd these camps and that he was deliberately keeping them small so that they could not overcrowd them and have too many youngsters. He felt that would hamper the whole work. Mrs. Rollin Brown, who was national president of the PTA, was very active here in California and has been a longtime friend of mine and we were on a committee for the Youth Authority. I can't remember what the committee was, but we would meet up in Santa Barbara, and Heman or Karl would drive us up. This was after Karl had come to Los Angeles, had left Youth Authority to be a probation officer in Los Angeles. On these drives we would have long talks about his work.

SCHIPPERS: You mean prior to the time of this?

CASSIDY: Yes. So on the road, we'd have these long conversations on politics and youth and all that sort of thing, I think the person I know best of course and worked with is Hoy Votaw, who was trained in social welfare and was: a probation officer in Hawaii before he came to California. His daughter went to Mills—but after I left—but we've done a lot of work together for workshops and then this adult adviser job that I have had for a few years with the California Council of Youth.

SCHIPPERS: And just what were they asking specifically of you in the way of a contribution?

CASSIDY: Well at the two governor's conferences on youth I was asked to be a group leader and you go up a day ahead and take a little training session and get oriented as to what is to be done. The first one called was under Governor Warren's leadership with plans to have [equal participation] by both adults and young people. They felt it was very important to have a training session so that these great leaders would really know how to make the group sessions go. I found that the kids really operated more skillfully than the adults. In my group there was always one school principal who kept shaking his finger and say, "Well, it should be done this way." And everybody would look kind of upset. A young man and a young woman acted as co-chairmen of the conference and made perfectly stunning speeches, both introducing the conference and then finally summarizing. I worked with the two conferences. Then I put on the workshop at Mills in 1947 for them. You saw the program of that. I mean I did the machinery which used the Mills setting as a very pleasant place for the meeting. Then I was called to work with this OEO project for disadvantaged youth and to do the write-up of this whole program in California. For that I visited every one of the projects to be written up in depth, had the material from the others, and spent quite a bit of time at the San Francisco and the office here, in L.A. In February and again in June of this year and as of just now, I have acted as a consultant for the California Council of Youth and once before at the joint meeting at Yosemite. So don't know whether I am going to continue in that or not. I do it whenever I am invited because I find it very, very interesting.

SCHIPPERS: Basically what are you telling them?

CASSIDY: I am not telling them anything actually. You think that's a consultant's job?

SCHIPPERS: No, not necessarily, but what is your main emphasis in the consulting?

CASSIDY: Well, they have their program and you sit in with some of the committees in which you are most interested. The one that I have been sitting with is doing pre-planning for the 1970 White House Conference and making suggestions on what youth really wants, I have been very concerned with the kind of thinking they are doing. If they turn to you and ask for something, fine, but otherwise you just reinforce and learn from the kids.

SCHIPPERS: Would you say then that the trend has been more in involvement of the youth themselves?

CASSIDY: Oh, yes, very. Actually the one that was held in California, the first one where there was half youth and half adults, was the pattern used for the first White House Conference, where they had half young people and half adults. They have continued this, both in California and on the national level. Heman Stark at the opening meeting of the 1958 youth-adult conference said that this is the best educated generation of young people that we have ever had in this country, and the most maligned, that the ninety-five percent of the really with-it kids are blamed for the fringe and the dissident youngsters. Those at this conference really were magnificent.

1.9. TAPE NUMBER: FIVE, SIDE TWO November 7, 1967

SCHIPPERS: I had asked you to think about the increasing involvement of young people in Youth Authority activities. You had just given me a kind of an overview how this has reflected the larger philosophy of the Youth Authority and how this has progressed in the recent years.

CASSIDY: I have been saying that when I first really was relating to the Youth Authority and then at the first Governor's Conference on Children and Youth, the method was that we would have part young people and part adults to really carry through this conference together. Heman Stark in his opening speech said that this, was the best-educated generation of young people in our country, and the most, mature, and that we could no longer afford to hold them away from citizenship participation. I had the feeling that it was really the philosophy and the commitment of the Youth Authority to involve young people continually and this has happened as I have worked with them. Actually at that conference I was so struck with the maturity and the ability of the young people. They behaved much better in these conference groups than the adults and showed great skill and great understanding. The opening and closing speeches of the chairman and the vice-chairman were perfectly stunning kinds of commitments of youth for their own responsible Action. Since then the Youth Authority has set up this council of youth and only as of last year their working papers have been completed. But they have been meeting over a period of time, both as a youth group three times a year, and the fourth time they meet with the Governor's Advisory Council on Children and Youth, which is the adult group. These joint meetings are usually at Yosemite or at Asilomar. The young people come in a day ahead to have. their particular business taken care of. The adults come for Friday dinner and the evening and Saturday through Sunday lunch for the joint meeting. I have a feeling that both. groups profit tremendously by this joint enterprise.

SCHIPPERS: But you said also that there is recognition that there are some areas in which the youngsters....

CASSIDY: After this governor's conference, the first one (Don Howard and I had worked on that together), we came away with the feeling and made this recommendation: that there are certain things that the adults can do better alone, or that the young people can do better alone, but there are many areas in which joint partnership action, not the adults, telling the kids what to do, is very profitable for both groups. The other commitment I have spoken about before is shown in the getting of OEO funds for this project with disadvantaged young people where they worked as teams for reinforcement under community agency leadership, identifying their own neighborhood community problems, and then were able to identify ways in which they could get action on these without violent confrontation. I think the outcome of this training plan was magnificent and I am really very sad that it wasn't continued. This story is told in a publication, as you know, Listen Everybody, which I had the privilege of writing. It has been distributed over the country with the hope that other groups will see that this is an extremely important way to increase self-esteem on the part of disadvantaged kids, or any youngster as far as that is concerned, and to help them see how they can get action along with adults for community improvement. To me this has terribly important meaning right at this moment in the sense of the kind of disturbances we have in this country. I think the Youth Authority has been continually active in reinforcing these young people and helping them. One evidence is the effort of Roy Votaw to get money from the Rosenberg Foundation to help increase the network of youth councils over the state. This started with his realization that California has a unique immigration problem. There is tremendous mobility of people coming into the state and within the state itself, so that there are many communities where there are kids who do not know anybody and have no roots, who don't know how to get acquainted. Actually the larger proportions of these youngsters are minority youngsters. Hence the importance of the Newcomer Youth Project which Dr. [Marjorie] Latchaw and I wrote up as a research design for the Youth Authority several years ago, which we hoped would be financed under Mental Health money, because we think the rootless child in the community is really an emotionally disturbed and sick child. It was not financed and yet the newcomer idea is still working its way through the Youth Authority's program. The Rosenberg money was given to pay two of their most mature and active youths, in fact a young man and young woman, to work with youth councils in the state to help them particularly Identify the newcomer problem as one of the things they might be most effective in working with. I think this grant will be continued. Another problem of California is size, so the Council of Youth is now organized into three regions: a southern, central and a northern group, with chairmen for each group. So the work goes on with more effectiveness through these regional efforts than If it just waited for the general state action. I have a feeling that this is completely set within the California Youth Authority philosophy. At the White House conference I heard this discussed at the last council and some of the members were saying it would be so much better really If instead of being centered in Washington there could be regional meetings with the leadership moving from east, to middle, to west so that the thing could reach more people in terms of attendance. Some of my friends who were at that conference in Washington said that it was just so colossal that it bogged down at points just by sheer size. So this might be done. Television could even be involved to bring speakers. But I know there is a real commitment, and I'm sure it will continue to involve young people, using more skill to the way they are able to participate.

SCHIPPERS: Speaking of involvement, I'm sure I may have asked you this before, but doesn't it seem to you at this stage that you were almost destined to become involved in some way with this kind of work?

CASSIDY: I?

SCHIPPERS: Yes, with your background.

CASSIDY: Well, I think I am terribly lucky to have been; you know, tapped for this kind of work. Actually my acquaintance with Roy Votaw. and with the Youth Authority people went way back when I was convener of the School of Education Community Services, working with that community council in East Oakland. Roy often talks about the Arroyo Viejo Council because he was impressed with what we were doing as adults and youth in planning for that area, so I suppose it does all relate as a thread right straight through.

SCHIPPERS: To your Girl Scout, camping interest and that?

CASSIDY: I suppose so. I think it's all related. But I think now in my dotage and retirement it is really very exciting for me to be invited to do these things. Mr. Votaw has just now been in Washington on another project design related to an OEO financed job. He has asked to name Ralph Tyler and me as consultants. So if it goes through, I shall be very delighted to continue to work with the new project. I noted on the letter from Roy Votaw that my name now is on the stationery as youth adviser for the youth council. I knew that that was the category in which I am invited, but I didn't know that my name is on the stationery until I got this last letter. I really am quite emotional about my conviction of the values coming out of the Listen Everybody project, because I was so impressed with what these kids who just came from nothing could really do. And it seems to me that this growth in self-esteem is so terribly important that those who think they aren't worth anything are the ones who are going to burn and pillage, and that if we're going to solve some of our problems with the hate and destruction group, this is the way to do it and to do it early and to do it for real. You know, not this kind of a gooey sentimental thing but real, absolute experiences for these kids. [tape recorder turned off] Well, I had been talking for some time about other organizations and conferences and so on than those related primarily to the University. One of the meetings that I thought was very significant came during the 1950/51 period when we were in the Korean War. The Office of Education called a National Conference on Mobilization in Washington, D. C., March 1951. There was a physical education section in this mobilization of education conference, and I was invited to attend. It eventuated in a report for our profession. The thing I was impressed with at this meeting was that I went kind of digging in my heels about the hysteria we get when war comes. We sort of fool around about any kind of conditioning until you want to make people able to stand the Army routine. Many of the physical education programs had gone into obstacle courses and all sorts of pre-military training stuff that seemed to me ridiculous. I was happy to find that the military men who attended that meeting were advising the physical education people that they would like very much to have us continue the full sports activity program for young people, rather than take on this obstacle course military training. They said, "We will do this when we get the boys/1 the main contribution the physical education program could make would be to really instill the hungers and the skills where the kids were just dying to swim or to play basketball, tennis, or whatever, because these young kids would be in the far reaches of the world and in strange cities and places. They felt that If they had these kinds of hungers rather than obstacle course skills that this would be very much more sustaining for them in a play and recreative sense than the kind of stuff that was being done. You know you're always happy when somebody agrees with your point of view. There were lots of other things said at that meeting, but that stayed with me and to me was a significant message from the military. This same period of 1950, 1951, was the period when I was president of the American Academy of Physical Education. You will remember that I was elected to that in 1938 in Atlanta, Georgia. That first meeting was very exciting; I was young and innocent in those days, and I had been going to national conferences, being a great conference person, but this was different. I think I told you that Dr. Reinhardt's philosophy was that I would be sent once a year to a national meeting and that I'd do a lot of Mills business on the side. So if you turn up at enough national meetings, you get elected to this, that, and the other in due course of time. I had the feeling because R. Tait McKenzie was president of the Academy and was one of the very distinguished people who. really organized it in the first place that this was the group that could be very stimulating to be with and different from the big national meetings. R. Tait McKenzie was a M.D., a sculptor, an international kind of person with beautiful manners. He was really nineteenth century in his idea of what was charming and delightful. He always gave a sherry party, which was his personal hospitality before the dinner. The Academy meeting was really just a dinner meeting in those days. Putting on a dinner dress and going to this thing I was a bit frightened. Not knowing people who were there except by name was an experience. At that particular meeting Elizabeth Burchnell, who had, just returned from Europe with films of folk dance materials which. later appeared in her folk dance book, talked and showed the films. This was then the high point of my young professional experience, being with a small group of people who were really committed to the cutting edge of the profession. This was the idea that Tait McKenzie had, and I am sorry that it changed considerably later, for his leadership was very distinguished. He was the sort of person rather like Dr. Wood—everybody behaved better when he was around—and people in our profession are not known for behaving too well. When I was president, the meeting was held in Detroit. I had invited Margaret Mead to give the R. Tait McKenzie Lecture. I think I spoke earlier about her competence in this interview and the delightful time we had with her. After Tait McKenzie's death, the vice-president, Mabel Lee of the University of Nebraska, carried the meeting, the Academy through one meeting. She was very pretty and very fluffy and very Wellesley and still continues to be pretty and fluffy. And then unhappily the presidency came to Charles McCloy of the University of Iowa. I have said unhappy things about him before; he was what Ruth Abernathy calls a "mean little man. 1' But in contrast to Tait McKenzie, McCloy may have been a scholar in the test and measurement area, but as a human being he was very uncouth. He was so uncouth in many ways in this particular group that Jesse Feiring Williams resigned from the Academy in protest to McCloy's behavior, and in fact he felt McCloy had really changed the whole focus of the Academy. It was then that the meetings had become presentations of papers, with heated arguments, Peter Karpovich was one of the more controversial persons. Fred Cozens, who had been at UCLA, as you know, as Chairman of the department, was president before me and we had gotten together to talk about the state of the Academy and the conflicts. Actually there was a great deal of conflict in the whole profession relating to the philosophy, with the Harry Scott, Oberteuffer, Cassidy, Dave Brace group on one side and the McCloys on the other, Fred and I decided we would stop this kind of business, and we would set up a structure that I was then privileged to initiate at my meeting. We decided to bring in new findings from the fields of psychology, sociology and physiology, and then focus the discussion on what these findings now meant for directions in our field, and this we did at our particular meeting in Detroit. We also decided that we had money enough to then, publish the proceedings, so it was with my meeting in Detroit that we began the publication of Academy proceedings. That died off several years ago, but I note by the material that I just received that they are going to support the publication of the proceedings again under Donna Mae Miller who is a new member from the University of Arizona. At the Detroit meeting I had the program findings from psychology presented by Martha Deane, from sociology by Fred Cozens, and from physiology I can't remember [who], but anyway the basic stuff was presented. Discussion was rather lively and interesting. We thought it was a good plan and constructive, so that pattern did persist for some time. I haven't been at a meeting for some time. I am now on an emeriti committee to see what the functions of the retired members might be. Craig Davis, who is now retired from USC and is over at San Fernando State teaching a philosophy course, is the chairman of this committee. Any number of state and national committees then come into this period from 1947 to 1952. One of them I think is rather interesting to talk a little bit about was when I was chairman of the college section of the American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. There are two groups having to do with college physical education (the men and women have separate groups of course): the National Association for Physical Education of College Women; and the men's group, the College Physical Education Association. I sent letters to all of those members asking them to confer with the young people in their major group to find what they considered the urgent needs of these young people at this particular time and what they would recommend for the physical education program, both for the major and for the activity program. We got some pretty interesting results. Then I tried, because I was starry-eyed at that time about the group process, a face-to-face encounter with a group of two hundred people at the meeting, a buzz-group kind of organization. I was helped by a young UCLA graduate student from Antioch College who was quite skillful in helping me plan this meeting. We divided the whole room, quickly turning chairs around into buzz groups, and proceeded to have them then discuss the materials that had been sent in. The results were written up in a rather playful way by this young man and actually appear in a chapter in Curriculum Development in Physical Education. I was scared to death because I didn't know if it was going to work, but it did and I thought some very interesting things came out of it. As I looked at this material the other day I was interested that the headings seemed to be exactly the same as the problems we have right now.; "Me and Mobilization" is one of them and "Family and Dating" and "Socializing and Education." So the intensity perhaps changes but the headings remain the same. I can't go through all the kinds of jobs I carried out for state and local and national professional associations. I think that in the state the people I might like to speak about were the state directors. When I first came to Mills, the State Director of Physical Education for California was Jay B. Nash, whom I then had as a longtime friend, arid as I told you I had a journey through Russia with Hash and his family. As state director he actually taught teachers the Hetherington tests; he had too because Hetherington couldn't quite communicate, and so Nash went around the state and taught the teachers how to use the decathlon materials. I have given my copies of the old decathlon charts to the University. Following Dr. Nash came Dr. Herbert Stoltz, an M.D., a marvelous guy really, he had sailed with Jack London on the Snark, had a very adventurous youth and then married a very dear friend of mine, Lois Hayden Meek, who was professor at Columbia University. She was the director of that progressive Education Workshop at Mills in 1948 and Herbert was there at the time. He was, later, Director of Physical Education for the City of Oakland. They have remained, he and Lois, longtime friends of mine, remarkable people. Following Herbert Stoltz was N. P. Neilson, who just retired from the University of Utah. It was he, I think I related earlier, who worshipped Hetherington and who was to be the great carryer-on of his materials, yet it didn't work out. A great big, tall Swede, with a great commitment, a prodigious ability to carry work and a very nice person. With him as assistant director was Winifred Van Hagen. She was the kind of longtime carry-over, like Hansena [Frederickson]. Her tenure went through several of these state directors. She had responsibilities for physical education programs for girls. She and Neilson wrote one of the best books in elementary physical education. The present director, Carson Conrad, I do not know as well as I knew these other people. He has been very much enchanted with the whole national fitness program, has done a great deal with it and thinks that it is important for us in the profession to latch on to this because it has federal money and federal support. I don't happen to particularly share this enthusiasm because I think a great deal of the program that is creative and has meaning for kids has been put aside for the rather specific kind of testing stuff in this program. I don't want to discredit the conditioning and fitness as such, but I know many elementary directors are very upset over having so much of the testing going on as against a very much more creative, adventurous, exciting experience for younger children. The person who is now in charge of the girls' and women's program is Genevie Dexter, The honors that have come along in this period since you are having me do this sequentially. I think I spoke of having been elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1944 as an alumna member. Mills did not have that organization when I was in college; however, the Institution has the right to name members from earlier classes who qualify. Mills conferred upon me the degree of Doctor of Humane Letters in 1950 and I think I told, you the circumstances of that. Had I stayed, I don't think they would have given it to me. I like to jokingly say they valued me because I left. At UCLA in 1950 I was given the Faculty Achievement Award in our College of Applied Arts in Southern Campus yearbook; Dean Jackey I think was responsible for that. In 1956, I was awarded the Luther Halsey Gulick Medal at the Chicago national meeting of AAHPER. In 1966 the highest award of the American Academy of Physical Education, called the Clark W. Hetherington Award, was conferred upon me. I'm not sure, but for the record I should put in the circumstances of this because it's kind of amusing. And I feel a little silly about awards anyway, having been on a number of committees and knowing what goes on. I had been told privately that I was to be given this since, as a retired member of the Academy, you don't receive any of the voting materials. I hadn't seen my name on the list, but one; of my friends told me this was to happen. However, time went on (I was at Santa Barbara at the time, teaching there that spring semester) and I didn't hear anything about it and I thought that this was one of those affairs where they finally vetoed the thing after all. So when the Academy meeting started, I got this long-distance call from Eleanor Metheny and Ruth Abernathy, who were absolutely hysterical; they had had their Executive Committee meeting of the Academy that morning, only to discover that the chairman of these awards had not notified anybody of the fact that they were receiving them. They asked if I could possibly get on an airplane and be there for the banquet that night. And I said, "No." I didn't say I was never terribly admiring of Clark Hetherington anyway. In any case, they were very upset about this, that this was all a terrible mistake and could I possibly come and have it awarded to me when they gave the Tait McKenzie Lecture, which we do give from the Academy every year. And I said, stalling valiantly, "Well I would ask the chairman of my department if I could be released for that time, that I had a number of commitments, and I didn't know."— having absolutely no intention of going at all. So without conferring with my chairman, I then sent a wire to Eleanor (it was then St. Patrick's Day and I thought that was a good day to send it), saying; "Please do not make anything of this. I can't come. I appreciate the award and best wishes for a good meeting. Happy St. Patrick's Day." So that was that. Then that night, after the banquet, Leonard Larson, who was the president, phoned me and chatted along and was sorry that it had come off this way and I was very nice about the whole thing. If it had been the only award I had ever had, I would probably have felt awful, but as a matter of fact I thought it was quite funny and was amused and hoped that they would not make a mess of it. But evidently they did, because then I got several telegrams and from people who were upset. And then the absolute punch line of the whole thing was when I received the document, sent from Leonard's office at the University of Michigan, there was eighteen cents postage due, which I thought quite charming and delightful. Well, so much for those interesting little items. In this period there was quite a lot of productivity. In 1962, Camille Brown and I did a book which was finally called Theory in Physical Education—A Guide to Program Change. Two years before that I had been asked to do a revision of my curriculum book Curriculum Development in Physical Education. I felt so much had happened in the thinking about the nature of our discipline that I would like to have her—since she and I are the two curriculum people in the department—work with me on it. We thought we could whip it up as a revision relatively speedily. But that is not the way Dr. Brown works. So we spent several summers at Lake Tahoe and struggled, realizing that we were really making a whole new book. We thought our title was particularly sage because A Guide to Program Change had a two-way stretch to it. We thought it meant a change in the concept of field, as well as the process of change in program development. In March 1963 I went to Europe and Israel and got back to find that the thing still hadn't gone to the publisher. We had a moment of extreme tension at that point and that was why we dedicated the book to our two mothers, who were both great characters—Camilus O'Brien Brown and Margaret Ashbrook Cassidy—and in the Introduction we had a word about Shirley Churchfield, Camille's sister, "who got the show on the road," which meant that she came in to type for us just at the point when we were about to strike each other. But anyway it finally got published. And there it is. In 1967 the fourth edition of the methods book I did with Hilda Kozman and C.O. Jackson came out. It was ready in 1965 under the contract with the William C. Brown Company, but they saw fit to hold it for a two-year period. It is done in a laboratory manual size, which we thought was particularly good because we had work-sheets and that sort of thing in it. It may or may not be useful; I don't know. One thing interesting about this task is that the third edition was only seven years old when we completed this one. Again I thought that we could just update the bibliography and one thing and another, and it would be a kind of a tidy job, but both a discouraging fact and also a very exciting fact was that we had to practically redo the book. I think it is exciting because in a seven-year period for;: the field to change so much is encouraging to me because at my advanced age I change to take place! In 1967, Listen Everybody. was published just before I went off to Europe. In 1962 I had done two yearbook chapters for the American Association of Health and Physical Education and Recreation. Then in 1967 I got a call from Jack Shaw, in Washington, asking if I would do a chapter for the American Association of School Administrators. They feel that so much change is taking place in subject matter fields that they were asking various national associations, the new math and that kind of thing, to write chapters for a curriculum guide book, which they would publish for their membership, on emerging trends in the field. Would I do this and get it ready by December 15? This was then November 1, and I said, "I don't see quite how I can; I am on a job for the Youth Authority and I am going to Europe in February. How could you do this to me?" And yet I think it has to be done and of course with the great ego that I have it seemed to me that I was the one person in the world who should write about it, being fearful of other points of view. So I said, "If Camille will help me I will do it because it is really important." The school administrators are the boys who really can change programs, and we both care a great deal about change taking place. So she agreed that we would do it. I had to do two trips to San Francisco on this Youth Authority task. So with one thing and another, we divided up what should be done. She did this central part on the body of knowledge, which was very well done, and I did what she likes to call "the garbage." We followed their outline. It got off and I have not yet seen the publication. I am working now with Dr. Latchaw (this now being 1967/68), on materials that she wants to publish in relation to her course called Changing Perspectives in the Profession; so that keeps me busy. I think we put into the picture that I retired in July 1962. Now before that, I spent every Tuesday afternoon for almost one semester, instead of Tuesday morning, with a tape recorder and a member of our faculty, Dr. Stratton Caldwell (he was not a doctor then), revealing my life and times for his doctoral dissertation which he completed at USC under a joint committee made up of faculty from Philosophy, History, and Physical Education. As part of this historical research, he went to Mills and got all sorts of data, went through every bit of my files and took photostats of everything. His whole garage he tells me is filled with Cassidy materials. In any case, he did get this doctorate, I am happy to say; the title of the dissertation is: Conceptions of Physical Education in Twentieth Century America: Rosalind Cassidy. The retirement from UCLA. Well, my mother died in October 1961, and I was to retire the next July. So I think I told you about my Mills experiences, both with my mother and Dr. Reinhardt; you always keep face for the public, and "no moaning at the bar" and all that. I had seen so many retirements that I could hardly bear with people acting I thought very badly, so I was determined to sail forth with all sails set. I don't like retiring; I am a doer and I like to continue to do. I suppose part of that feeling is the ego sense of wanting to be useful and needed. So, since I did not have home responsibility, I decided to now deliver on something that I had been talking about for a long time—I would make a study, if I could finance it, in a sociological framework of the relationship between belief and action. You have lovely ideas and then you haven't brains enough or energy enough to deliver on them, effectively. So I looked at the world; it seemed to me that there were the new nations of Africa, but I couldn't possibly, in my lifetime, understand them enough to even think about making a study there, but there was Israel, a fifteen-year-old new state. Ever since my journey into Hitler's Germany and the subsequent events, I have been very touched by the effort of the Jews to have a homeland. So I thought now in fifteen years of the new state I could get the history in English, because I could hardly manage Hebrew, and I could get in English the objectives for their educational programs, and then if I could get the entree to Israel I would then go and look at programs and make my own judgment about the relationship of what they said they wanted to do and then what they did in order to achieve those goals. I then wrote to a number of foundations. As I think I said before in talking about my ft lend ship with the Husks, I wrote to Dean Husk and said, "Don't you wish you were back at the Rockefeller Foundation? Are there any foundations particularly interested in Israel, especially in the children? Please advise me." And he did at some length. His main advice was to go to the Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles. I think I am repeating myself, but this Mordecai Shalev was very much interested and did obtain sponsorship for my study from the Israeli Ministry of Education and Culture. And so it was that I set this thing up and proceeded to do my studying for the next several months to get the historical-cultural framework materials ready before I went off to actually do this Job. It is interesting when you decide to do a thing how many people come into focus who are then available and anxious to help you. I had an enormous amount of help from many people. In the summer of 1962 when I was at Lake Tahoe with my lovely family, this young Jacqueline Ann Marr, my great niece, who is a great planner of great things in one way or another, and I don't know how this all came about, but it was decided that she should go with me. So we added Chicago, New York and a month in Europe to our journey since she had never been east of St. Louis. I think I have spoken about the fact that she added enormously to the pictorial event, and the whole trip was pretty interesting. We went from Chicago to New York to London to Home to Athens to a seven-day cruise of the Greek Islands and then Israel, back to Paris and then home. The people in Israel were most marvelous to me. Baruch Bagg, head of the Wingate Institute in Tel Aviv, which is the one physical education teacher education center in Israel, and Reuben Dafni, then head of the Division of Sports and Physical Education in the Ministry of Education and Culture, were the people who really sponsored my study, assigning Jehoshoua Alouf as my mentor to set up the Interviews and programs to be seen so that we went from top to bottom and across this tiny little country. It was possible to have all my conferences in English with the exception of two where I had to have an interpreter. Everybody speaks English and five or so languages or more in addition. I could not have been treated with greater hospitality and warmth. It was all very exciting and stimulating. On Independence Bay of that year we went to Haifa for the big parade and military show—these young kids, the girls marching and the men. I met the major who is in charge of the women's army and saw some of their program. We were guests at some of the kibbutzim, particularly where the folk dance people have created the choreography for Israeli dance, Gurit Kadman and Revka Sturman. It was there that we were asking questions about the kibbutz life and the raising of children separate from the family. unit, something people question continually. I was thinking that the women in our country who are always looking for babysitters really don't have that problem in the kibbutz. They have trained babysitters who are there all the time caring for the children while the mothers are working. In one of the kibbutzim, Ein Harod, Revka's home, (her husband, who was the veterinarian for the kibbutz, who is now dead), they play with the family from four o'clock on, have dinner with them and come and say, "Now we must go home." Which is a kind of a shock to people who are used to having the children in the home. In the kibbutzim we visited, the provision for children was so marvelous; their playgrounds are just fantastic, with beautiful and original pieces of apparatus made by the men of the kibbutz. A visitor gets this general feeling of tremendous love and care for the children and of course to the threat of extinction under Hitler. The save-the-children program, called Youth Alyiah, and the children's villages where the orphans were brought after their purge are part of this need. At the entrance to the children's quarters in every kibbutz there is an air-raid shelter; and all are trained in self-defense. The women's army interested me very much in the sense that these girls are very trim, very much with it, know just what they are about and look marvelous. One of the majors told me that Jewish girls are often very sheltered and that to have them away from home, the army training, to find that they can get along and take care of themselves is a very important thing, and I would think this was so in the sense of just observing them. We made some very close friends in this two months' time, which is interesting because I don't do that anymore really. I don't have time to relate well to the close friends I have already made. So when this fantastic war of June 1967 came on, and I heard Abba Eban's speech in the Security Council, I was so excited and thrilled that I sat down and wrote twenty air-mail letters to my friends there to say I hoped they were safe and that I was so proud of their bravery and success. Jackie expects to go back to Israel; I don't think I'm going to make it. In my study, I found, and I suppose I should have known this, the physical education supervisors for the various districts all had the Scandinavian brand of physical education gymnastics training. So one finds these beautiful objectives for the development of youth in the school program in this beleaguered little country and then what is suggested as a means of reaching these goals is Scandinavian gymnastics, because this is what they know and what they actually believe will accomplish the objective. Sport is all under the labor unions. Folk dance is very popular; it is choreographed from scratch with Yemenite music and mostly work themes and is an intense part of the kibbutzim program. The program, which seemed to me to be nearest to the reality of the needs of the people who live with a ring of enemies around them, was the Nahal and is now being stressed in the new situation with extended borders. It is a program of military training given in the kibbutz on the border, where half of the training is agricultural and half of it is military. These border kibbutzim really make a human ring of protection and have been established ever since the new state was founded. There is a program of pre-military training in the secondary school, which of course doesn't reach all children because this level of education, due to cost, is not yet compulsory. It is called gadna. It stresses skills in a pre-military kind of border fighting, obstacle-race kind of training for both girls and boys. These two programs seem to me to be nearer to the reality of need and objective for Israel than any of the other programs I observed. Another very interesting program I found there, I think I have spoken of this before, was the program of Judith Binnetter who is the head of the physical education teacher training for the kibbutzim. She is a German immigrant (her father was a rabbi in Germany), and her program centers in the concept of human movement, much like the German, English and now USA emphasis. She is always in conflict with the Scandinavian gymnast group, but she is really quite a person and exciting for us to visit her program and exchange ideas with her. So much I guess for Israel. I suppose I should have spoken of the retirement parties before I got off discussing my Israel. journey. I was determined to go out with flags flying, as you know. I had this already settled with Ben Miller when he told me what the committee was planning. They had set up something I appreciated very much; they had a morning seminar, entitled "New Ways of Looking at Physical Education" and those of us who had been working on the new program made little speeches. Faculty from all over the campus were invited; the dean was there and it was really very effective. Following this; a huge luncheon with about three hundred people. They were making it very gay, because I had said to Ben Miller, "Please don't make this a funeral." And he said, "Don't worry, it won't be." The theme was "Sending Cassidy into Space." On the stage behind the head tables were large mock-ups of Rosy's Rocket and Cassidy's Capsule. There were silly speeches, with gifts I was to take on the journey. Norm Miller presided and was feeling no pain at the time—Carl Young said the punch was liquid fuel. They read very funny telegrams; It was all quite amusing and then they gave me this magnificent gift which was my ticket to Israel. Then the women of the faculty gave me a Sunday brunch with a very funny program. And finally in September when I came back from Lake Tahoe, my ex-students from the Mills days gave a retirement party at Reinhardt House on the campus. They had pictures of my early activities of various kinds on a bulletin board in the patio of Reinhardt House, where everybody was falling on their face laughing at these pictures of what was once a youthful active person. The gift they set up is something I like very much, and I spoke of visiting this when I was at Mills just now. It is a fund for the collection of alumnae publications, called the Rosalind Cassidy Alumnae Publications Collection. So that is that. I don't know whether I should say anything else about the Israel journey. I did an article called, "Children of Israel" for the Mills College Quarterly of February 1964, and another article—but this is not on Israel—in Quest for 1965 called "The Cultural Definition of Physical Education," which relates to this same obsession that I have about the cultural framework. While in Israel I did slides quite religiously; I have never taken snapshots as a matter of fact, but I got a foolproof camera and proceeded. So I came home with some very good slides, which are used in two lectures, one called "Children of Israel," for the non-physical education people, and one called "Physical Education in Israel," Now the one hundred or more slides are put on the shelf because Israel is so very different now. I have kept very closely in touch. I take the Israel Digest, which is in English, and of course emotionally I am very tied to the struggle of this brave nation and interestingly enough to the people there. Another point about Israel. We had a student in our department at UCLA called Tiva Barnia who said, "Oh, you are going to Israel, you must meet my parents." I said "I would love to," and she gave me their name. It was Burstein; so I asked, "How is this, Tiva?" And she said, "Well, the Sabras (children born in Israel) have' the right when they enter the Army to take an Israeli name, and so I am Tiva Barnia." And I said, "Well, this interests me because the family name is so important in our society." And she said, "Not with us, we reject the German names." go Burstein is the family name kept by her parents because they have to, but not young Tiva. She is now married, to a young lawyer in Beverly Hills, has a seven-month baby, and they had just returned from a visit to Israel. The baby she said spent some of his time in a shelter, but they returned safe and sound. I was invited before I went to Israel to take the Walker-Ames visiting professorship at the University of Washington, and this I did in October 1963. This was sort of man-bites-dog because it was given to the Physical Education Department, since very distinguished people have held this honor in the past. This department had the privilege once before and named Margaret H'Doubler, University of Wisconsin, in Dance; so I felt very honored and had an exciting and delightful time. The faculty all live on the shores of the lakes, having boats, live quite differently from our mundane life here. I had some very interesting students and really enjoyed it. After Washington, from January to June of 1964, I was at Adams State College in Colorado. I think I have spoken of my visit there; I was invited by the president to come and help with curriculum development in the Physical Education Department and to teach some courses. I had a bit of a shock comparing those students with my students at UCLA because they were not as able, very nice kids as a matter of fact, but I had to work much harder to stimulate them, than I am used to. In March of that year while I was at Adams State, I was consultant for the Colorado Woman's College in Denver at which time l attended a delightful party with President alumnae Rothwell and his wife, given by the Mills/of Colorado in Denver while he was visiting there. In May of that year I went to the University of Illinois to lecture on Israel in their lecture series and then on to Washington B. C. to attend the Conference of the National Association where I presented two papers. In June and July, I was teaching at the UCLA summer session. In April 1965, I was at the University of Arizona to give the dedication speech at the opening of their new Women's Physical Education Building. That eventuated in this article which I showed you from the Arizona Journal of Physical Education. And again that June and July, I taught at UCLA summer session, all this to show you that I have been keeping busy. In October and November of 1965, Camille Brown, Peggy Iden, who was a doctoral candidate at UCLA, and I went to visit the Big Ten. Peggy was looking for specific materials for her dissertation. The reason these particular institutions were chosen was that her director in the School of Education, Dr. [Louise] Tyler, said that she must have criteria for selecting the institutions; so she then decided that she would look through the literature from 1957 on—books, publications, what have you—to see who was doing the talking, the spoken representatives of the field as she termed them.

1.10. TAPE NUMBER: SIX, SIDE ONE December 5, 1967

CASSIDY: My notes show that we are beginning today with the autumn of 1965 and a journey that was made to some of the Middle West universities. This started with the need of a young doctoral student in our department, who is a junior assistant, to really define the concepts of the field in terms of the context of major programs in the major universities. She was working with Dr. Tyler in the School of Education, The question came up, now which institution should she select? And it was decided that she should review the literature, the research quarterlies and the journal publications, books, from 1957 on, to see, not the quality of the contributions, but who was talking—the spoken representative of the field. And after identifying the ones who "talk" the most, then there was the task of finding out where they were now teaching, to make her visits to these particular places. In the meantime Dr. Camille Brown and I concocted the idea that we weren't interested particularly in what she was going to do, but we thought it would be very interesting to go along and talk with the faculty of these various institutions to find out what new terminology and what innovations in the teacher preparation program was under way. I was particularly interested in trying to find through change in university teacher education programs a mirror for innovation in the high school programs and in identifying schools where we might see some new programs, because I really want something to happen in high school programs before I depart this life. Peggy started on her spoken representative search to find, interestingly enough, what I think Clark Kerr calls the "continental tilt," not a single one of the Eastern institutions were represented in the first twelve where the talkers were found. She identifies six in the Middle West, and four in the West: University of Oregon, University of Washington, University of California and USC. The University of California with its several campuses took first place as one campus. So it was that we decided to proceed in Dr. Brown's Oldsmobile for this grand tour. I took on the job, since I was unemployed at the time, of corresponding with the institutions, telling them what we wanted, giving them approximate dates, seeing if they would like to have us come. The response was very kind indeed. In many places, they wrote back and said "Will you speak to the major students," so we had to pay back for our visit with numerous presentations, which we were really glad to do. We made our first stop at Greeley, one of the teachers colleges in Colorado, to see Dr. Jerry Barham, not because he was in the Big Ten list but because he had an article in the journal with some new terminology and some new ideas on the structure of the field. He is a pretty interesting person; we had a pleasant time there, a very stimulating visit with him, and this satisfied some of Camille and my needs while not necessarily a part of Peggy 's interviewing, We went then to the University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, Northwestern, and we did a tour at New Trier High School in Evanston, where Iris Bolton is chairman of physical education—a person whom I have known for years;. This high school years ago had one of the most outstanding programs in general and in physical education in the country. Then, the University of Illinois, Ohio State, University of Indiana, Michigan State, University of Michigan, Wayne State and then the Detroit Public Schools, visiting a number of the schools where the supervisor of physical education is Delia Hussey, who is a very longtime friend of ours. We not only visited some of the schools, saw programs and met teachers, but we had to then give a program for a large teachers meeting, as we did in any number of these places, either formally to a major club meeting or major student groups. At Iowa the club president had asked me to speak to the club and to show my slides on Israel; so it was either in terms of our thinking about physical education or my Israeli material. These, of course, were all planned ahead. We found something that interested me very much in that the college women in physical education who have always been the aggressive, creative non-traditionals were not taking the leadership now; actually the men faculty were the ones with new ideas. They hold an important role in the university, such as deans of Colleges of Health, Physical Education. I mean the men administrators at this moment of time seem to be the most progressive and the most active in searching for a definition of the discipline and accurate terminology. The men administrators meet every December in this Middle West area. Their meetings were on the body of knowledge—what is it, what is our discipline? Now what is the motive? I think with many of these top administrators, it was status within the university to say we really aren't just "perspiration and peristalsis," as Williams calls it, we really have a body of knowledge and it really is a discipline. It was the men who were active, and the women who have really been outstanding in the formative years really seem kind of worn out, not with it. I suppose I shouldn't put this in the record because one of the things we promised each other when we started this journey was that we wouldn't carry little tits of gossip from one institution to another, although it is kind of fun to do that. But we were really respecting the great generosity people extended us in talking about what they were doing in their program. Another thing general for the field that is changing at these institutions is the great resistance of the women to one department of men and women's, because as a woman chairman you lose; status on the campus, and yet this seems to be administratively, budget-wise, and certainly in terms of human relationships, to me, a very much better structure for the administration of our programs. You don't have a women's department and a men's department of English. Actually I think it is only because they had to have separate dressing rooms that this ever came about in the first place. The philosophy has been so different, and now it's shifting in another way toward the men taking a very strong leadership in innovation and searching for a structure of the field. In only one place, which I shall not name, did we find anything but the most gracious, I mean not only entertainment and luncheons and dinners and generous time for conferences, but only in one place did we find a group of women teachers who were really very antagonistic to us and really seemed very threatened by t he things we were talking about. Peggy, who is young and tender, was very upset and I, who am old and not tender, was pretty shocked by this behavior because I am used to being treated very well indeed. We had given "our all" at the invitation of the chairman to speak with these teachers but came away feeling quite upset that first, even if they didn't like what we were saying, they could have been more gracious and really polite, which they were not, and secondly, that there should be such resistance to even considering ideas which seemed different from their own. Otherwise the whole journey was quite delightful and very interesting. I left Detroit with Camille and Peggy; they dropped me off at O'Hare [Airport] in Chicago because I needed to get home, while they were going to stop in New Mexico at a ranch where Peggy has worked and has very dear friends. On their way out of St. Louis there was an accident, a collision—thank goodness no one was hurt—but the car was badly damaged; so Peggy flew home while Camille stayed in St. Louis until the car was repaired. My feelings were not hurt because they were so glad I was not there because I probably would have been in the hospital. I always sat in the back seat without a seat belt and would probably have been thrown (Camille was driving) across Peggy and into the windshield. Peggy said, "You know, the whole journey stopped right then." The rest of it wasn't part of the trip at all. But it was interesting and delightful; we picked up a lot of information as we went along, arid we saw lots of very interesting young students.

SCHIPPERS: You mentioned the "continental tilt." Do you have an explanation for that?

CASSIDY: Kerr is the first one I heard use the term in the sense of the political power, the intellectual activity and so on, being in this westerly direction. In our profession everything has been oriented toward the East for so long a time in the great institutions, like Columbia, New York University, Springfield College, that to find not one of these having a rating in the first twelve seemed to me we were moving toward power in thinking and speech in our field toward the Middle West and the Pacific Coast. Actually the University of California had fifty percent more representations than in the whole group, which isn't quite fair again because of the number of campuses involved. Yet I think the criteria for being appointed on the faculty of UC and staying probably is part of the fact that this group is really doing the most talking, the thinking and the publication. That probably is all that I can think of now relating to our journey. The one thing we didn't find were clues on high school programs. Mary Ann Trekell at the University of Illinois pointed out some of the newer programs in high school. I sent for all of the material because we didn't have time to visit them. It wasn't wildly exciting, but it was at least the few clues I could get. Schools that she named were all schools in which the Trump plan, with flexible scheduling, team leaders, etc., was going on in the whole school, so that physical education had to adjust. It didn't appear to me that they were leaders in making innovations; maybe they can't, I don't know. I understand that at Stanford there is some activity with experimental schools; I probably ought to go and visit some of those and see what's happening because physical education people are in this study. But I haven't had the energy to do that yet. I did my oral history interview with Dr. Zeigler at the University of Illinois, as I told you. It was really a lot of fun to see old professional friends and to see what you find when you go to a campus in contrast to meeting your buddies at conventions. When you visit a campus you see the whole framework of relationships, how the buildings are placed, who gets the best office and how the men and women are miles apart, even in buildings—to say nothing of philosophy—you get a whole other view of who they are and what they are up to. I didn't find too much innovation in the college programs we visited, some TV teaching in some of these institutions where the master teacher comes on the film, then the teaching assistant or the junior assistant is doing the actual supervision of the activities in the gymnasium. This we saw only with the girls' programs. This was at Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan State. At the University of Illinois and Iowa they have workbooks and a very good instructional program for the required freshmen, sophomores' physical education courses, with real substantive content, as well as understanding of oneself in movement, along with learning how to play tennis. But none of this, although part of the major students' experience seems to carry over into their teaching at high school level, this I have trouble understanding. Well, so much for that journey. In the fall of 1966 in the spring term, after that journey into the Middle West, I taught at UC, Santa Barbara in two courses for Dr. Jean Hodgkins, who was on sabbatical leave. It is the most beautiful campus, with so many social kinds of things going on, a tremendous cultural schedule, the weekly bulletin just overwhelms you. You could be going to lectures or theater, music, art events every hour of the day. The Physical Education is beautiful and spacious; men and women faculty are in the same building, in one program with a man chairman of the department. They had done something very strange there I thought, and that was to take the activities which are not required out of the Physical Education Department to make a department of skills courses called Physical Activities. The man who is chairman holds supervisor rank; he doesn't even have the right to be a voting member of the Senate. My perception of the reason for all this was that the dean (they blamed UCLA for getting rid of Kite), Dean [Donald] Cressey, the Dean of Letters and Sciences, had—as interpreted by their faculty and as I perceived it—started punishing physical education. They were having then a struggle with Cressey in getting him to accept their plan for the structure of their major program, which they then wanted to present to the State Board of Education for approval for so-called academic status. He had turned them down about three times. While I was there, again one of these very unhappy ways of dealing with human beings occurred. The head of the dance program, a graduate of the Physical Education program at UC, Santa Barbara, really oriented towards performance, was called into Cressey's office with the drama faculty, and then and there the decision made over the head of everybody in Physical Education, the chairman and everybody else, that there should be a Dance Department, making very tense and unhappy feelings, because it had seemed to be maneuvered from the outside with no discussion of policy with those concerned. Actually this young woman, I presume, couldn't have resisted it, didn!t want to, as a matter of fact—much like the UCLA situation. They still are housed in the Physical Education Building even as a separate department, causing all the problems I described earlier in our situation here, except I think this was a little more ruthless and more immediate in its decision than in our particular situation. I understand now that Dean Cressey is no longer the dean, and what has happened there I don't know, but they had very rough going along with the feeling that maybe the department would not continue, which is not exactly conducive to calm and productivity on the part of the faculty. In any case, not too much of this was happening when I was there and I enjoyed it very much and thought it was a very exciting and I beautiful campus. While in Santa Barbara I was given the Hetherington Award by the American Academy. I came back from that spring semester's teaching and got myself off to Lake Tahoe to recover. [laughter] In September 1966, on until I went to Europe, in March 1967, I was acting as a staff writer for the California Youth Authority, we spoke of that before. The thing eventuated in the publication of Listen Everybody which I finished the end of January. It was published by, the time I got back from Europe. In October of that year I was invited to go to the University of South Florida at Tampa—don't ever go to Tampa if you can help it! I was urged, as a matter of fact, by several long-distance telephone calls to teach there, a semester and work with them on a revision of their program. I didn't feel that I could do that, and so finally it was agreed that I would come for several days of conference. The young chairman there, Jack Stovall, who is a very fine young person, has enormous support from the School of Education in which the department is located, and was being urged to do something very different, very new. The other young man on their faculty had done elementary teaching; so both are more flexible than the athletic coach-type of person. The one woman faculty member, Margaret Crickenberger, who had been there sometime. and really running the program, was the one who had taken on t he responsibility of bringing me there. In any case, I went down to Tampa. I am not a very good house guest when I am working, but I discovered that I was to be in her home, which was a beautiful home on the edge of a river. But the air conditioning had gone out, and it was about the hottest, wettest time I have ever had. I had agreed to give a talk for the major students and then we, Moska Mastoon and I, were to work with the faculty on program ideas. Mastoon is from Rutgers University, an Israeli, married in this country, was with the Hagana underground during the British occupation, is a fantastic character, very creative and had published a book Teaching Physical Education: From Command to Discovery. He has worked with [Jerome S.] Bruner and is very much impressed with a method of teaching where the learner isn't dominated and told everything he is to do. We moved then after he arrived out to the Gulf of Mexico to a Statler Hilton Hotel, which also had very bad air conditioning, was very humid and had large black bugs running across the bathroom floor. We worked very hard as a matter of fact and when I say hard, I say hard for me because this is not the kind of weather in which I prosper, but it was interesting and we did agree on some new directions. They have now moved on to do quite a bit of innovation in their program, which Margaret reports to me now and then. So even at $100-a-day fee I felt this was too much. When I got home and opened my suitcase, everything was mildewed. [laughter] It was really lovely. I kept thinking, "What if I had told them I would go there to teach for a semester?" In February and May, I then did conferences at Asilomar with the Council on Youth, on which I find myself listed as an adult advisor. About November 15, Jack Shaw, one of the officers of the National Association, called me from Washington D. C. to know if I would do a chapter on emerging trends in physical education for the American Association of School Administrators' proposed curriculum guidebook. Here it was November 15, with a December 15 deadline. So I said, "I don't see how I can at the moment. I am working on a job for the Youth Authority. I am leaving for Europe in March, but maybe if Camille will help me we can do it." I felt it was very important for us to do it; this is the ego part of knowing that she and I know all the answers, of course—and I hope the laughs get on the tape. [Laughter] I told him I would ask her and phone back. Camille agreed that we really had to do it, because the school administrators are so really powerful a force in program change, and we were anxious to have our point of view presented. So in between going to San Francisco and back, and visiting all these projects, we proceeded to develop the materials of emerging trends in the field and included new directions in all subject fields. And they had a regular outline which they followed. I don't quite know how, but by December 15, special delivery, we got it off from UCLA. And now the book has just arrived one year later less ten days, as I showed you the publication, I think it is very good looking. The title is Curriculum Handbook for School Administrators, 1967; our chapter is Chapter X. All chapters, including ours stress concept learning, and I have a feeling that ours will be read and given consideration as a relatively new way of approaching the field. The jobs finished I had committed myself to, I went off on March 18 to Paris, joined Marya, Dr. Marya Welch, and her mother in Paris, where we took a little Volvo and drove down through the chateau country over the Pyrenees to Madrid for Easter, stopping at Lourdes on the way and Fatima. They are devout Catholics—at least Marya's mother is—so they joked about this being a religious tour of Europe, having the name of Cassidy I should be but am not. In any case it was a very marvelous time to see Spain, where I had not traveled before. We went to the Valley of the Fallen and on to Avila, which is my favorite town of all towns, and on then to Lisbon and to the coast of Portugal, the Mediterranean coast. We left the car and flew to Majorca and back, and then on to Nice and into Florence, and between Florence and Rome I made my pilgrimage to Assisi to speak to the Little Saint. And, unhappily, since [the time] I. was there with Anita Bucknell, doing that tour of the Italian gardens, it has become tremendously commercial. It made me kind of sad; yet it is still a very beautiful hill town. We went on to Perugia, which is another one of the exciting old hill towns, on our way into Rome. It was there on a Friday, before we were due to fly into Athens for our cruise 6f the Greek islands leaving the following Monday, that the Greek revolution took place. We did not know whether we were going to go or not. Through a major student of mine who has married into the diplomatic corps with whom we were having dinner, we were able to get word that Athens was safe and the cruise would sail. At first there was no communication. except through the military; however, through our friend's connection with the TWA head in Home, we found that the ship was going to sail and we could go in safely; so we went into the revolution on a Monday, going, directly from the airport to the Piraeus and onto our ship. Our seven-day journey of the islands included Istanbul, where I had been as a little girl, way, way back; it is just exactly the same as far as I can make out. Back then to Athens where I planned to stay on for a few days, but I was depressed by the massing of soldiers and tanks. No public meetings were permitted, with tanks and rows of soldiers in every open space. This was just too much for me. I couldn't bear it. I had planned to go from Athens to Frankfurt if I could make connections with my great nephew Jimmy, who was there on army duty. So I telephoned and made our arrangements. I flew into Frankfurt; he had a three-day pass, and we had a very fine time. One of the times we were in a restaurant someone said to him, "Ask your mother...." And I said, "Your mother would kill me." [laughter] It should have been, "Ask your grandmother." I flew then to New York for two days of friends and the Lincoln Center, Repertory Theater and the Whitney Museum, then on to Detroit to see Laurentine Collins who was so ill at Tahoe the previous summer, then home to get ready for my teaching at Long Beach State summer school—one course, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, at 1: 00 to 3: 15. I had agreed to do this before I left, without really thinking about the freeway and its hazards, and at my advanced age it was very difficult. Well anyway I survived it—I don't quite know how—I had some very interesting students, delightful staff people to work with and the campus is just beautiful. Now, the great blow, just as I was getting ready to get some summer clothes and get my materials ready for teaching, I had word that the woman who owns the simply darling house in which I was living in Brentwood for eight years wanted it back; so after crying for two days, I pulled myself together and found this little place, which I like very much as a matter of fact. I went to dinner at my old home Sunday night. She has had it all redone, and I think it is a tribute to both of us, we ended very good friends. She is Mrs. Malbone Graham; her name was Gladys Coryell in the Education Library at UCLA before her marriage. She has been here to see my little new house and I have seen the renovated house where I had lived for so long. Really I am very glad I moved because it made me face up to getting rid of a lot of things, and straightening up a lot of matters I am always putting off, because having had a big study there, I didn't have to sort them out. I wanted to say on this Europe trip, you know I told you I had never taken snapshots in my life until I went to Israel and then I had to do it because I needed the slides, and I used them, I don't know in how many lectures on Israel. So I took my little camera to Europe with me, thinking, well I just should have a camera—even if it pains me. When I got into Spain and saw human beings used as beasts of burden and saw the tremendous difficulties of navigating the little cobblestone streets and narrow ways, the going to the middle town well for water, the women washing their clothing in the streams, I decided I would take pictures, using this wonderful title: "The Geographical, Cultural and Economic Determinants of Human Movement in Contemporary Spain and Portugal." These were not easy to get because you can't stop a woman who has a bundle of firewood on her head and say, "Stop, I want to get your picture," but I got some interesting ones. I think you pushed me once before to what came next after Long Beach in October. I went to the Council on Youth in Asilomar and to the Mills Inaugural which we have discussed. Now a thread from my capping days comes back, in that Edgar [P.] Kaiser, who headed up the Mills fund to match Ford monies, called me and asked if I would be a trustee for a camp foundation. This camp, Four Winds, is on Orcas Island off the coast of Seattle, owned and run for many long years by this very good friend of mine, Ruth Brown, now feeling too old to continue directing it, so proposing to turn it over to a foundation. So I said, "Well, yes, I would love to do that if it would not cost me any money." And he said that all costs would be borne by the foundation. And I said, "Well you will remember, dear Mr. Kaiser, that I taught at Mills for thirty years with no pre-paid retirement until my last two years. So I am not wanting to get financially involved." Anyway I am now a trustee for the Four Winds Camp Foundation. It is to have a meeting in the near future and might be kind of interesting. The fall activities have been these interviews with you in Oral History and working with Dr. Latchaw, who teaches a philosophy course in our department, who is wanting to develop materials to use with that course and has asked me to help her with it. We have just finished a chapter on Pragmatism and one on Existentialism which are really world shaking and have been keeping me busy. In the spring I am going to Colorado, back to my old stamping grounds at Alamoso, at the invitation of the Rocky Mountain young women who belong to an association called Athletic and Recreation Federation of College Women. The Adams State College students are the hostesses for this spring meeting, and they have invited me to come back to be their banquet speaker. Then I am going on to the University of Colorado at Boulder to speak to the major stu-dents, so those are my plans for the spring. Have you any further questions?

SCHIPPERS: Well, there was that one thing that you brought up earlier today and that was the story of how you got funds to go to Israel.

CASSIDY: Well, It is kind of a tender tale I think.

SCHIPPERS: Well, shall we put it in and call this part "sealed"?

CASSIDY: Oh, no, no. [laughter] It's not that tender. After my mother died and I was looking at my retirement and wanting this to be an ongoing positive kind of thing, I decided that I would try to do a study in Israel, the matter of funds had to be considered. So I had written as I think I told you to Dean Rusk and he made suggestions about foundations and how to proceed. Then there was in Quincy, Illinois, this Mrs. Moorman, whose maiden name was Fabiola Cassidy. She had established a foundation which Bob Havighurst from the University of Chicago had helped set up and worked in Quincy on some really very good materials developed in the Quincy schools. I had known about this, so I wrote to her, asking if the Moorman Foundation was interested in children in other countries and told her what I wanted to do. Now the reason I even knew about her was that my parents (she is about my sister's age), learned of the death of her father who was not related to us. The mother, this little girl, and two older boys were left destitute. They were going to be evicted from their home and were in very serious straits. My father heard about it and went to their aid; paid the grocery bills, the rent, and took care of this little family and kept them together, and eventually got the boys jobs. My mother provided Fabiola with some of my sister's clothes and sometimes took her on journeys with us. An ex-UCLA colleague Leah Tucker, had a friend who was in Arizona with Mrs. Moorman as her secretary. She came to see her son off for the Pacific and while visiting Leah happened to mention Fabiola Cassidy Moorman. Since Leah was a very good friend of my mother's, she asked if Fabiola was related to us, discovered the relationship and later when Fabiola was in Los Angeles, there was a great reunion. Then on three or four 'subsequent occasions when she was in Los Angeles, she came to see us. The reply to my letter asking about the foundation said, "It is a very small foundation. We do not give to individuals, only to institutions and programs." It was a very cold note, but then there was a PS: "If money is a problem I will be glad to personally give $3,000." So I called up Leah and said, "This is pretty interesting. You have just earned $3,000 for me." She said, "Tell her to send it." So then I wrote to her and said this is very kind and thank you very much and that I would accept it if I didn't hear from other sources; however, by return air mail I received a very tender letter sending the $3,000, saying that she had come to realize recently in going through her mother's papers how much our family had done for her and for her parents, that she would like very much to have them know about this. She was able to do this because she married a very wealthy: man there in Quincy who had then gone to his reward. So I accepted it gladly and stopped any further search for funds because with my E Bonds I could finance my journey without having to be obligated to a foundation for a report of my study. Then the sequel to this, which I may have mentioned, was that she came to the University of Illinois when I was on their lecture series there, flew in there in the company plane, which impressed my colleagues very much. She and I stayed at the Alumni House on the campus, had a personal visit and talked tenderly about our parents; it was all very nice. I think that not only did it do something very nice for me, but I am sure that it had real meaning for her and l was delighted that she came to the University at' Illinois to hear my Israel talk and see the slides. I had already sent her a copy of my report, of course, but I felt happy that she could be there and know I appreciated what she had done for me. That is the end of this story. [tape recorder turned off]

SCHIPPERS: We were just discussing the formation, the development of the Faculty Women's Club. And I have been asked to ask you specifically to detail a little bit more on it than you have in the interviews.

CASSIDY: Well, when I came to UCLA in 1947, it was a going concern, a very small, closed group of status people, and administrative people were excluded. An invitation one year was mistakenly sent to Hansena Frederickson; then somebody had to tell her she was not eligible, which of course really makes friends and influences people (this was before my day). The club was started by Flora Scott, "Scotty." It was to be a group of intellectual, academically status women on the campus, and there weren't too many in those days. As I told you, Paul Dodd. hoped there weren't ever going to be many, as reported to me by some of our members who worked with him on plans for the Faculty Center. My confusion, as I became a part of that group and moved on to be president, was this membership thing; we had meetings and meetings and meetings, and finally with much pain, we allowed the librarians to be members. But the administrative people have never been granted membership. The main purpose of the club, as I understood it at the time and still do is—it was very much more militant in those early days—to show the men that there were really bright women on campus who could take a stand and had intellectual interests. There was within this a feeling that we needed to show a completely different kind of intellectual focus from the larger group of Faculty Wives, which was thought of as purely social. So our programs consisted of presentations by our own members with one social tea at the end of the year where we honored the retired and retiring members. It was really the closed feminist inner group, as I saw it, wanting to have a voice in University affairs. Yet I suppose, as far as the campus response, no one cared very much, or possibly were irritated by it. The faculty wives group, the larger group to which I also belonged, because faculty could be members of that, got marvelous publicity in the newspapers. I had been brought up at Mills in terms of communicating what one is doing, so when I was president I felt that we should have regular news releases to the Los Angeles Times. We had some very good programs. Once we even had Paul Dodd speak, but at one point, when I had released a news item on one of our programs, one of the wives group—I can't even remember who it was now—called us to protest our overstepping and confusing people about which group was which. In any case the women of the faculty are not really oriented for organization while I believe most people in physical education are. I had set up a well-organized structure for the meetings and the keeping of historical records with a procedure book to be handed on to each new president, because when I started, you couldn't really find out what had gone on before or what had been planned. I had the feeling that the program kind of went up and down according to who could remember when to have a meeting, and often the announcements didn't get out in time to get it on your calendar. Now the women in the larger group, with funds and a huge membership, have printed programs, a long list of sections with announced dates and meeting places. But there never was any competition until the Faculty Club building plans were in progress. I think I spoke of some of the hysteria: who was going to get the biggest room, would it be the larger group or the smaller group, and now we are in another revolution in that the Faculty Club probably should be rethought in terms of function;: the quiet room—that nobody is ever quiet in—could be a room/for catering parties; space could be much more open to both men and women. I think we are moving from the Scotty concept of the women and men are separate groups to really seeing this as a fellowship kind of center. Maybe when we get the liquor lockers in, that will help the whole matter. [laughter] In this last meeting, about which I was telling, Rosemary Park was greeted by the women faculty, a huge group and excellent presentation. The only anti-male aggressive speech at that meeting, which was very funny, was made by Lulu Hassenplug because, as head of the School of Nursing, she has always had a fight on with the medical men. I was at the planning meeting at President Camille Brown's home when the board members were talking about these presentations. One of the women said, "Well, should we just tell her what women of the faculty are doing or what departments are doing?" The decision was that this would be a time to tell her what was happening that was terribly vital in programs and of course in what women are involved.

SCHIPPERS: How about the group rapport? Did they get on well?

CASSIDY: I think the old-time members have been very good friends and have been very much for trying to make the club function with some very distinguished programs. What they do now at their spring meeting, instead of honoring the retirees, is to have the women doctoral students on campus, a very fancy tea at the club and to award a grant of money for the highest scholarship. I felt our last meeting, had the biggest group we have ever had in attendance (120); maybe it was because of Rosemary Park or maybe it is because it was very well-publicized. There were so many very young women; it was the best we have had in a long time. They looked like student assistants. There has been a core of really caring people who have kept the thing going, and, goodness knows, the library group have been one of the great mainstays, lending dignity and focus to our programs.

SCHIPPERS: As a sort of a finish to this, although I'm sure it is clear in the content of the interview, there are many things that you would hope for in the future. What right now comes to mind in the way of possible future developments in your field?

CASSIDY: Well, I think I highlighted these along the line when I was talking about the development of the department. I kept reaching, you know, for a clarification and understanding of our field as really related to the manifestations and meanings of human movement, and proper terminology. I think as long as we use the term "physical education" we are unwise, and defeated because it blurs meanings; it has to be rethought semantically and seen in a broader context. That is why I was talking about the men in the Middle West and their interest in clarifying our field of knowledge, which I have tried to do working with Canaille clear back with writing our theory book, the structure of our field, concept learning, the Research Foundation money working possibly a well-financed study, like the new math, the new science studies funded by the science foundation. There has to be a commitment in our field to find out what on earth we are talking about, what meaning there are in human expression, how this becomes manifest from the little child on up in the sense of living more fully and more expressively. I get very discouraged with the vested interests; and the people who are scared to death of any change or any new terminology, but as I have tried to show as we went along, I think that there are all kinds of evidence now that much is happening. I am sorry to say I don't think too much of it came from people in our field who wanted a whole new horizon, but from Sputnik on, there has been this pressure to know what we are going to have in the school program, and why, and take physical education out because we need time for mental activities. So here we are running scared, asking—"what is our body of knowledge and how can we interpret it?" I am sure that with the speed of change up to century twenty-one and the whole need to know how man is going to live well and expressively and really come to his own potential, that we have to answer these questions. If we don't some other field is going to be developed that talks about and knows about and deals with the meaning of movement to the expressive human being, I really think the leadership has come and is coming from UCLA, and I care very much about this. Everybody is kind of mad at us at the moment because change and new ideas are threatening. There are jealousies in the profession over who is going to get credit for new ideas. Camille Brown, who I think is one of the really creative thinkers in our profession, is very stark in the way she develops materials, almost in outline form; so it is sometimes hard for people to move with her. But I think she has done more than anyone to develop structure and meaning for a new physical education. We should have everyone proposing all the ideas possible, because there just aren't enough brains to go around. Why, then we can pool everything and at least look at what we have. Well, the reason I started on this was that she was asked to do an article for the next issue of Quest on "The Structure of Knowledge," and I am so pleased because this will then let the people who read beyond just the journal and the thinking people in the field really to get exposed to her ideas, whether they like them or not. The other thing is that she is on the National Curriculum Committee, which is going to use her structure. So I think this is all to the good. There are signs that the kinesiology people may pull off and become another association; there would be the researchers and the straight movement specialists. Then the practitioners in the schools would be left as the physical educators. I think that would be too bad, but it may very well happen.

1.11. TAPE NUMBER: SIX, SIDE TWO December 12, 1967

This tape recording of this interview with Dr. Rosalind Cassidy being made on December 12, 1967, may be used only for purposes of preparing a final typed manuscript before 1970. All those involved in processing the manuscript are bound to silence regarding the Information to be given in this interview during the lifetime of all persons mentioned in this interview. This tape recording and the corresponding manuscript are to remain sealed to all others during the lifetime of all persons mentioned in it. At the time the restrictions just described are no longer in effect the use of the content of this interview will be governed by the legal contract pertaining to all of the other tapes and corresponding manuscripts that comprise the recollections Dr. Cassidy has given in her Interviews with Donald Schippers of the UCLA Oral History Program in the year 1967.

SCHIPPERS: With that said, we can proceed.

CASSIDY: Well, as you know I find this very difficult because it is a record of a most unhappy period in the University. I have to relate it to my perceptions of what happened, and since I had rather close contact with these happenings, I think it is relatively accurate. As you know I came to the University in 1947 from Mills College. I knew the Dykstras very well and enjoyed them, and had the most exciting and interesting five years in which we were building and working for a one-department philosophy for the men and women faculty members. At Dykstra's death, the administration of the University was taken over by four deans: Paul Dodd, Stafford Warren, Gustave Arlt, and Vern Knudsen. Then a further change came in relation to the Department of Physical Education with the appointment of Dr. Ben Miller as the new chairman following Carl Young, that was July 1, 1952. The administrative committee of the department at that time consisted of Dr. Miller, Martha Deane, who was chairman of the Women's Division, and Norman Duncan, who was chairman of the Men's Division In the fall of 1952 (this was almost immediately after Ben Miller's appointment as chairman), Martha Deane and a friend who shared her home with her, Ruth Pulton, were called to the administrative office separately by Stafford Warren, and were accused of being homosexuals and were asked to leave the campus at once. The interrogation and the accusation were evidently so fantastic that Martha Deane left the campus so immediately that she even left the jacket she was wearing that day on the back of her office chair. Now I have never been able to find out why she really consented to be dismissed from the campus in this fashion, but I presume the session was so frightening and so difficult that this explains her action. This being dismissed from the campus in this fashion was another part of what I call the "gestapo period at UCLA," in that without judgment, without trial, without any kind a recourse, both salaries were cut off immediately, leasing both of these women really almost helpless in terms of any further steps to be taken because neither one of them had reserve funds. In any case this was one of the factors that seems so illegal and so cruel really in relation to the situation. Martha, who has great courage and was able to face this thing, refused to resign and chose to fight the situation. Ruth Fulton, who is a younger woman and with a Ph.D. from the University of Iowa, who I think never quite enjoyed the UCLA departmental assignments, chose to resign and to remove herself from the situation. A very talented young woman, she now is in the insurance business. The departmental organization then was a very serious matter. Ben Miller was summoned to Paul Dodd's office. Dodd was the administrator then assigned, as I understand it, to proceed with this case. He told Ben Miller that this case was very serious, that it was completely out of the hands of the department, that he was to have nothing to do with it, nor were any of the faculty members in that department. It was all to be administratively handled. Ben accepted this edict, maybe it was the fact that Ben Miller did not know her well except, as you know, a person at professional meetings and Norm Duncan was not admiring of her at all I think, because she had at times been extremely direct with him in terms of his educational philosophy. Martha had worked very closely with the women of the department in the development of her very exciting creative concept of professional preparation. So that when the rest of us were summoned to be told that the two young women had been dismissed from the campus, we were not told why. But we were told that we were to have absolutely nothing to do with this case, that we were not to discuss it with anybody, and the rules were laid down by the fact that this was out of the hands of people concerned in the department and that the administration was handling it. The women faculty of this department, who were a pretty spirited group of people and rather strong minded in action, felt as though the men withdrew into their building and slammed the doors and that the rest of us were in our little building feeling really rejected and terribly upset. It was an extremely ugly and unhappy time. Orsie Thomson, Edie Hyde and I were asked to serve as coordinating committee for the women's program. The men's and women's major programs were quite separate at this time. And so it was that the three of us met with Ben Miller and Norman Duncan every Monday morning for the decisions to be made about the department, this became daily a very frightening kind of thing. In due course the students would say where is Miss Deane? Where is Dr. Pulton? And then people on the outside, the supervising teachers, student teachers were asking the same question. As this whole under level kind of ugly business was going on, we were not permitted to deal directly with our students, so when we'd say "we don't know," they thought we were lying. In any case when this happened, Ben Miller asked me, since I supposedly was the oldest and most secure of the group, if I would be the chairman of the Women's Division. I said, no, that I didn't feel I could possibly do this until the matter was settled in relation to Martha, but that I would be willing to serve on an administrative committee with other members. And so actually for a three year period, we operated in this kind of nebulous fashion. The thing that happened then—I'm trying to get this straight in terms of the steps taken—Dr. Miller had a meeting with the women of the department at our request, after this had gone on some time and we felt our whole position was untenable. He told us again that we were not to have anything to do with this matter. We asked for this meeting with Dr. Miller and told him that we would like to send a letter to the administrative deans stating our view of Miss Deane's competencies. He acquiesced, being very emotional about this and left the room practically in tears. We composed the letter giving our support to Martha and her administrative abilities and sent it off. In the meantime, when the two young women were dismissed and left the campus, they were obviously frightened and upset, Martha called upon old-time friends of hers, the Macantees who live in San Marino. Mrs. Macantee was a schoolmate of hers in Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania and her husband is a very able lawyer. He advised them to come Immediately to his place in San Marino, occupy their guest-house and not talk to anybody until he could work with them and he could see what had to be straightened out with the University—what the charges were and what evidence. So for a time, these two people dropped out of the picture entirely as to anybody knowing where they were or what was happening. One of Martha Deane's very best friends, Jessie Rhulman, who was then Dean of Women in the University and professor of psychology in the College of Letters and Science, with Paul Dodd as dean, was very much jeopardized by the steps which she took, which was to be a kind of go-between for some of us to know what on earth was happening. As I have told you in previous tapes, the group of women who had power in the University met with Martha once a month; we all met together and tried to see what was happening and what our role should be. This group gradually got some information about Martha—Scotty and Lulu Hassenplug, May Seagoe and others of that group—and they were deeply concerned. It was Jessie who took on to herself the job of letting some of us know what the situation was and getting funds to help Martha live. So this rather small group of people contributed $100 or so. a month for a period of three years to help her live and get legal aid and to put up this fight which she was determined to do. In the meantime then, we would have occasional meetings at Jessie Rhulman's house with the person on the campus who came immediately to her support, Mack Jones of the English Department. He and his family were very devoted to Martha and he offered to be her sponsor and aid her in any way he could. And so it was that: Mack Jones and the Macantees and some of the rest of us would meet at Jessie's house with Martha and be briefed on what had happened. I suppose I felt some... well, we. all felt in great jeopardy as a matter of fact because the thing was so underground and so threatening, and I had a feeling that I was in a sense, in going to these meetings, being disloyal to Ben Miller. And yet I felt I had to do this—needed to do it—in my loyalty to the women of the department who were really in great jeopardy and who were very troubled and upset. The rumor bit was something you could not believe; so in a rather grim way, we would meet in the ladies' lounge, give the latest rumors, and also identify who was spreading them around and what their motives probably were. But the feelings of fear and of having no way to find out what was happening in relation to the University was impossible to believe in such a great university system. It seemed apparent that President Sproul was related to this, in that he was permitting it to drag along, and permitting the cutting off of salary before any final judgment was made which seemed a real attrition bit. If you want to make someone helpless, that's a good way to do it. In any case we did meet and I felt that I needed to be there in order to express my loyalty and support to the women in the department who were as I have said very troubled. Ruth Abernathy was sure that her phone had been tapped. That may have been her imagination, I don't know, but this was the kind of fear that was part of this situation, which was just like fighting a foggy mist—we couldn't see where we were or find out where we were, After I had endured this as long as I could and found out that the campus police had been sent out... well, let me say this another way. The need to actually get evidence against Martha was evidently apparent because she was going to fight this and what they had was—and I'll speak of that in a minute—an anonymous report from disgruntled neighbors. This report fell into the hands of Paul Dodd who Martha was quite convinced wanted really to harm her for reasons that were longstanding in relation to her opposing his policies in the University. This was her perception of why he needed to push this and why he volunteered to head the thing up and take it on as his particular job. At one point we discovered that two campus police officers had been sent to one of the high schools to ask to speak to a Miss Shirley Anderson, an alumna of the department and formerly president of the women's alumnae club. She is a very unstable kind of jittery person, so that to be summoned from her classroom gym clothes to the principal's office to meet two policemen from the campus was so dreadful and so. shattering to this woman that she became a psychological case and had to withdraw from her teaching for two or three years—and is still slightly balmy, I might say. The department women felt that in a great crisis among close relationships within a family we should be able to stand with our students and give them support and help and see this thing through, but we were all told nothing and that we were to keep our mouths shut. This was just dreadful. There came a feeling that the students were distrustful of us, thought that we were not telling them truth, so they just stopped asking. But the teachers out in the boondocks kept asking, because as with some, of the men in the department, Martha had frightened a great many of the women in physical education because change is frightening. She had great courage and great direction toward new ideas so some of the very reactionary ladies really were so frightened of Group Process they could hardly stand it, you know, so this was a big moment as the gossip got around. Many were just feeling so good about whispering about this, that and the other. I don't know whether I want to bring this up, but I shall. When I did the workshop at San Luis Obispo there was a mean little woman by the name of Deane, who was the salesperson for the Broderick Company gymnasium clothing. She would go carrying gossip from department to department and she adored it. At the workshop she came up to me and said, "Oh, Dr. Cassidy, I want to ask about Martha Deane. You know we have the same name and I'm so fond of her, and I heard that she's in the women's prison at Tehachapi." I said, "Well, that's very interesting, where did you hear this?" She said, "A policeman, a friend of a friend of mine, said that he had arrested her and taken her there." And I said, "Well, this simply isn't true." And she said, "Well, she disappeared for a while didn't she?" [laughter] I don't know how I can laugh at this state, but anyway, this was the kind of evil. that you know you just couldn't bear. Well, in any case, after the word came out about the police going to the high school and it turned out actually as I heard it that this was the wrong girl, they were after somebody else for information. So poor Shirley Anderson was under psychiatric treatment for two or three years. Only because of the very tender treatment of the Los Angeles schools was she reinstated. When I heard about this high school business I had had it. And I decided that if evidence was being collected against Martha Deane that I felt an obligation to give evidence for her; so I told Ben Miller that I would like to talk to Dr. Allen who had in the meantime become chancellor. Anyway, Paul Dodd was still in charge of this case. And I guess I told at the beginning I asked Martha why Stafford Warren was the one to interview Martha and Ruth when they were called up there. She said, "Because he was a doctor and the charge was something he would understand." Anyway I said to Ben Miller, "I want to go and talk to Chancellor Allen, I would like to have you know that I am going to do this," and he looked very pained and said, "Well, if you have to do this, then..." I said, "I just want you to know that I am going to ask for this conference." Ben and I lost a great many friends in the women faculty because I stood with the department at this point and really tried to work with Ben Miller. I didn't see that there was anything else that I could do. He is a completely line and staff guy; he came from Indiana; he always did what the next guy above said. I feel he had absolutely no possibility due to the way he was then structured, to really stand up to this whole problem and I don't know who—Warren or Dodd or Knudsen—but anyway he didn't. He took the orders and didn't question them at all. Only two men in the department, Norm Miller and Duane Robinson, who is sociologically trained, really protested this and felt that there ought to have been department action. I don't know why this whole thing didn't hit the headlines of the papers because it was kept in such a mess. It was really dreadful. And this went on three years. I called Hansena and asked for a meeting with Chancellor Allen which she set for the next day at ten o'clock. Shortly the phone rang again and it was Hansena, she said, "Rosalind, is this about the Martha Deane matter?" And I said, "Yes, it is." She said, "Chancellor Allen isn't dealing with this at all. It is Paul Dodd. He has just received this letter from the women faculty and now do you really want to see him?" And I said, "Yes I do. And I'm sorry, I can't see Chancellor Allen." She said, "Well, he's not having anything to do with this. It's Paul Dodd's deal." So I made the appointment with Paul Dodd and went to his office. We were on a first-name basis and this was all very smiling and sweet. He had that very ingratiating manner that is quite sickening to me. So I said, "Paul, I understand that the administration is seeking evidence against Martha Deane and in that case I would like to give evidence for her." And he said in the most serious, severe tone, "Do you know what the charges are?" And I said, "No, and I don't care to know. And I really want to make these points. You know that I was sitting very prettily at Mills College and you were the one who Informed me about the fact that I had been approved by the faculty committee at UCLA, that John Bovard was the one who asked me down here, that he and Dykstra I'm sure would not have taken me, or you either, out of my nice, secure, lovely eucalyptus-pathed campus to come down here if there was anything wrong in the department, and that's point one. Since I have been here Martha was chosen as the campus speaker for the Sproul dinner at Berkeley to represent the UCLA campus faculty. She, without a doctorate, was made a full professor with all the investigation that goes with that. She has been and is very active in the League of Women Voters and those girls are no fools you know. She is a real community worker and she has been given recognition by the American Academy of Physical Education...." and so on. I can't even remember the list now, but it was about ten or twelve items that were I thought very convincing. I said, "I don't really see why if she is to be dismissed from the University these points shouldn't be taken into consideration as evidence for her." Well, at this point I have tried to forget this because I was so terrified I have never had anybody try to intimidate me, but Paul Dodd rose up to his full height and told me that I was not to open my mouth, I was not to have anything to do with this case, that these were very serious charges, and on and on. I have tried to forget it because it was as near to intimidation as I had ever come. Well I didn't cry. I was still able to get out of that office, but I was really very shaken because I have been very tenderly treated in my lifetime and I really have never ever had anybody try to intimidate me and to try to threaten me or tell me what I could or couldn't do. So I staggered back to my office and within ten minutes the phone rang. Ben Miller said, "Paul Dodd wants. a meeting with you, Norm Duncan and me, this afternoon," and I said, "Well, at four 6'clock I have a seminar and won't be available, can you make it another time?" We made it for the next morning. The three of us went up there and I decided I would do my act over again for the two gentlemen to hear because I hadn't had a chance to say anything to either one of them in the same way. So we marched into his conference room I guess it was and Paul said, "We are here to discuss the Martha Deane case." I immediately said, "Paul, I want to say over again what I said to you yesterday." So I went through my points again, for Ben and Norm to hear. Then Paul did this same glary-eyed, telling that this was not anybody's business individually or departmentally, it was administratively centered and none of you are to do anything. And then we left. So Norm on the way down said, "Well you know Martha was always having a lot of girl students at her house." I said, "Norm, if you want to make any criticism of Martha in the time I've been here, you can make it in terms of her not paying enough attention to the students because she is so busy doing so many other things. I have been at her house constantly because she loves to entertain and there have never been students there except at a tea or some formal big deal." So here was Norman Duncan's attitude. She really did not get support of any kind from the men in the department, including John Bovard, which absolutely broke her heart. Paul Dodd went down to La Jolla to interview Bovard, who was then semi-senile and retired, and he in effect—this came out at one of the meetings at Jessie Rhulman's—said that he had never approved of Ruth Fulton as a younger woman sharing a home with Martha and actually left Paul feeling that there was an unsound relationship there. This of course simply broke Martha's heart because she loved him dearly and supported him in every way; so here was another heartbreak in the whole thing. Now how it started, as far as I could make out, was due to a longtime antagonism of Paul Dodd to Martha Deane. This was part of the whole general picture. He had tried regularly to do away with the requirement of physical education; every time it came up she would rally all of her very strong buddies on the campus and it would be defeated. Yet no sooner would it be approved for continuance than he would start this all over again. Actually as I saw Paul Dodd when I first came to the campus, he was very handsome, very effective I thought, and yet as the years went on, it seemed to me he showed so much avarice in his countenance and so much stress in his ambition for position, I know that he very much wanted to be chancellor at UCLA, as well as UC Santa Barbara. My friends at Santa Barbara say they wouldn't have had him as a present. When no UC position was offered him, he went off to do a study in Turkey, as you know, and came back as president of San Francisco State College. We all laughed very loudly because he hated the state colleges and looked down on them and thought nothing mattered but the liberal arts. In fact that "Harvard of the West" bit really started with Paul Dodd's philosophy of what UCLA should be. I think this man's whole character became involved in this came really as revenge. As we tried to find out how the whole thing started, why this sudden action against a woman who. had tremendous position on the campus, it was told in one of the meetings at Jessie Rhulman's house'. that—well, Martha had said this too—the neighbors next door to her had built a swimming pool, put a big pump right under their dining room window and they had protested it, this became a real feud. It sounds impossible. This is another kind of frightening thing. So this man wrote an anonymous letter to the University accusing them of immorality. Occasionally when some staff parties were held there, he would send a policeman to the door saying there was too much noise. Well this is just ridiculous, and so harassment really took place in relation to this pump noise, which seems too trivial and so silly in breaking a human life. The letter came into the hands of Paul Dodd as I understood it, and he thought that this was now his moment. The accusation was that these terrible sex parties took place, the ladies ran around naked and I don't know what else was part of this perfectly horrible kind of accusation. And so I think really on the basis of this one deal, there was also some talk about the divorced husband of one of the women in the department whom I had as my first doctoral major when I came down, writing some kind of a letter to Dr. Dykstra, in jealousy, because his wife was a dance person and spent a great deal of time in dance programs and performances directed by Martha. But in any case it all started from someone who had, as I perceived it, feelings of destruction and revenge towards someone who had flaunted them at various points. And using this pretty flimsy stuff without really verifying it, the dismissal followed with the stopping of the salary and scaring and threatening the women. And I think a lesser soul would just have not been able to deal with it. In fact I know this. And then intimidating everyone else in relation to any kind of action. The other attrition bit of this was that the case could not go to the Privilege and Tenure Committee of the UCLA Senate until an accusation was written and they wouldn't write an accusation because they didn't have the evidence. In any case it was finally after two years, with these monies that we were able to collect for Martha, that a trial lawyer was employed, Birger Tinglof. President Sproul early in this bit, who was on a first-name basis with Martha, asked her to come up to Berkeley, his wife met her at the airport. They went to the president's house and he begged her to resign and get all this ugly business off the books. And she just told him she would not do it. Then at another point, considerably later he phoned her at her home and said, "I want to talk to you and I don't want anyone there," Martha told me this. Jessie Rhulman was there, so she left by the back door and Sproul came in the front door and he again begged her to resign, and she said she was not about to do it. Finally Paul Dodd signed this accusation against Martha Deane. Ralph Beals was chairman of the Privilege and Tenure Committee and they held three months of hearings, I wish that you would tape Beals and Max MacLean because they went through this much more in detail than I. I thought this was a very good committee, very competent, hearing everybody up and down the line. In due course this committee gave Chancellor Allen the recommendation that Martha was ready, willing and able and should be reinstated at once with all back pay. At these tapings Mack Jones was with Martha each time any evidence was given and Paul Dodd had to be there as the accuser. And I was called up to do my evidence. When I made my almost tearful plea in terms of the department situation—the students because it was so dreadful, the rumors and the ugliness and the fact that real harm is being done everybody—the tape didn't work. [laughter] So Ralph Beals called me and said "Rosalind, could you come up?" [laughter] I was practically in tears having to do it a second time. Anyway it got taped. Allen asked Martha, Mack Jones and Paul Dodd to come in after he had received the Privilege and Tenure's recommendation. I was told that at this meeting he said that he did not feel this was a competent committee. This is what blew up the whole campus, because actually before this, I don't think too many people on the campus knew, only close friends like the Ed Lees and other people who were helping with money all this time. Allen told Martha and Mack that he had carried on his own investigation privately, he had privileged testimony, he would not take the recommendation of Privilege and Tenure and that she was dismissed, charged with administrative Inefficiency. At this point Martha was about to take the whole matter into court. A longtime friend of her family from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, offered $10,000 to fight the case. This was the hardest period I think Martha had in the whole time, because up to then she had been fighting and the adrenalin had been high and she was, by God, going to make them reinstate her, but then when Macantee, Tinglof, and Max MacLean and everybody related to it said, "Don't fight that kind of a charge by the state university. You never can win it. You had better just forget it, take your back salary and your retirement." Tinglof. was then negotiating with Sproul, and finally through his skill she was given an early retirement as of 1954 all the back salary. The other thing they had to fight, which was so petty you can't even stand it, was that in the meantime the retirement rate had gone up and they wanted to retire her at the old rate, which would have been like $400 a month. Tinglof did not get the new rate but retirement and all back pay. Her retirement was then printed in the University Bulletin. She survived all this unbroken, how I, don't quite know. Then she gave a party for all the people who had been contributing. She had checks ready to pay back all the money and it was all kind of tearful. But here was this fantastic person, so creative and such a marvelous teacher and so treasured by her friends, that everybody concerned with this felt involved in this murky, dreadful feeling of fear and resentment. Allen had already messed up as much as he could at the University; he was told by some of the older-men in the Senate that if he had tried to mess up everything be couldn't have done a better job in his six years as chancellor. Now when he said that the Privilege and Tenure Committee wasn't any good, wasn't really competent, then the floodgates burst. Older faculty members were very resentful and very angry at Allen and at Dodd. I don't know just how much of the rumor stuff got around, but in due course Martha had the courage to return to her life with Ruth Pulton and they now have a beautiful house up on the Tiger Tail which they mostly built by hand themselves. Ruth is quite a carpenter. She is in the insurance business and very successful. Martha is a leading light in the League of Women Voters, and leads I think a very productive life. But I think it's a very wasted one in the sense of the more full contribution she could make. When this was settled in 1954 Ben Miller called me in and asked me if I would take on this lovely. title, Coordinator of Women's Staff and Facilities. He had been working in these years to make one department and not have the two divisions. It was then that I said yes; he put his arm around me and kissed me and I walked across the campus crying, because I really didn't want to do it. It was just messing up everything that I had come down here to do. Now a very nice happening, the alumnae of the departmental major club were very disturbed and very upset over this whole matter so when it was finally settled, they gave one of their great big spring luncheons with Martha as the honored guest. She and Ben sat at the head table, and speeches were made and it was really a very tender occasion. During the time I acted as coordinator and sat on the department executive committee with Ben, he was then dealing with Paul Dodd on budget, and finding him really not dependable. Every time he would come back red-faced and feeling furious finding that Paul Dodd had lied to him. I would say, "Well, you know he can't possibly tell the truth." I took great pleasure in that. At that luncheon Ben Miller said to Ruth Abernathy, "If I had known then what I know now about Paul Dodd, my actions related to Martha would have been very different." Anyway it is helpful to know that he had a whole revelation about the man's dealings, that Ben has changed enormously and has become much more able to deal with department problems directly rather than being told what you can or can't do.

SCHIPPERS: What about her good friends the Dykstras and the Freuds. Were they in any way... ?

CASSIDY: Well, Dyke had died you see. And I don't think this would have ever happened. But Lillian Dykstra was then in the East and she was terribly upset, and I don't know that Ralph and Mayfair [Freud] rallied too much. I'm not sure of that. And Joe Kaplan was another great love affair. He just thought she was marvelous and I think he kind of took care of his own well-being at that moment. The Freuds may have contributed to the money fund. Jessie really maneuvered and arranged for the fund. Her career could have been surely jeopardized if Paul knew what she was doing. [tape recorder turned off.]

SCHIPPERS: We've just been discussing this a little bit more. And I thought that for the sake of the record you might repeat some of the things you said to me just now, even though they are obviously contained here in what's been said, but they have just been said a little bit more emphatically. One was about the fact that Allen in effect dismissed her without Martha really knowing the charges.

CASSIDY: He said that he had carried on private investigations, that it was privileged information and this was the basis of her dismissal. So that when she and Mack Jones left that office, they did not know why she was being dismissed. Martha and Mack did not know why she was being dismissed. It was privileged information which he had gotten on his own. He did not tell her what it was. And this seemed pretty outrageous.

SCHIPPERS: Now the other point was that in your presentation of a defense, in effect you were saying that she could not have reached this stature without being... the way you put it was that if she had gained this stature and so forth, she could not possibly have been an evil and Immoral person.

CASSIDY: Well, way back at the old campus she had all this group of friends. These were not way-out people at all; this was the cross section of the leaders within the University and on the new campus she had, you know, all the range, from Theater Arts to Ed Lee, back and forth. Tremendous support and belief in her and in her abilities. And this was over a long period of time. And I had known her for a long period of time; it just seemed to me that she could not have had this recognition from as broad a spectrum of kinds of people within the University and the community without being a valid good human being. And certainly not evil or immoral and subject to dismissal.

SCHIPPERS: This might be a point to ask, how you feel about the degree to which any institution has a right to start to invade someone's private life after a certain point.

CASSIDY: Well it seems to me that if you are functioning effectively in relation to the job you have and if you do not do anything that affronts the community, like drunkenness or what not, that your hope is your home and your life is your life and it should be respected.

SCHIPPERS: In this case it certainly wasn't. Do you think that it really. did slip into the area of what we would call "just plain character assassination?"

CASSIDY: Oh, I think so. And I think that the whole three years of trying to get enough evidence of some kind or other to bring any kind of pressure on Martha, this could have been written or unwritten, she could have been confronted with valid evidence if they had gotten it, but this evidently wasn't possible.

SCHIPPERS: You also made a comment the other day. You called this the "gestapo period." And you were also linking it with the kind of McCarthy atmosphere that was pervasive in a lot of other respects. Do you see any meaningful connection to this?

CASSIDY: Well, I think you, as an historian, saw some of it. We were caught at that period in a very shifting moment of time in the University, of tremendous ambitions, of ruthlessness. There was within this "we want to do away with her and hush the whole thing up" from Sproul on down, using whatever methods were necessary. This seemed to be very much a part of action in our society; it was pre-civil rights fomentation, invasion of privacy, (there weren't any wiretapping laws at the time), but citizen resentment of this kind of thing, with the question what right did the individual have?

SCHIPPERS: And as you pointed out it also was this period when the campus started to become a big campus.

CASSIDY: That's right. Tremendous, administrative problems of all kinds, with divided administrative functions among four deans, then Knudsen as provost and finally a very weak chancellor for six years, and it was really just shifting sands. You could almost see the moving of ambitions for positions of power after Dykstra's death. The campus was really a sylvan dell before that I thought, or possibly I was too new to know much about what was going on.

SCHIPPERS: One wonders, just as speculation, whether anything like that could now occur, in the campus being so large, whether any personalities of the magnitude of Deane and some of the others would ever butt heads like that again.

CASSIDY: I don't know. I don't know.

SCHIPPERS: So much of the development from Vermont, and the first few years out at Westwood, was dependent almost entirely on the creative personalities that made it go. Now it has become perhaps more and more systematized.

CASSIDY: But I had such strong feelings about Chancellor Murphy's relation to faculty. He is at every Senate meeting, this didn't happen before. He was quick to interpret to the faculty happenings when Kerr was dismissed; he was very eager to help the faculty to know just exactly what had happened, and I would think that Privilege and Tenure has grown in its strength rather than weakened.

SCHIPPERS: Do you think that this incident was something that helped Privilege and Tenure to be more jealous of their powers and rights?

CASSIDY: Oh, I had the feeling ever since I came to UCLA that this was the committee. In fact it came to me as a great shock to really feel the power of the faculty in their own affairs, as I have said in other tapes, the committees that appoint and promote. When I inquired about this, Martha said this was Sproul's policy that they had won this power to decide so. many of these, issues. I don't know really at this moment how the Senate functions, but in the time I was related to it, faculty powers were a very jealously guarded kind of thing. As we said the loyalty oath was a time when there was great conflict and upset in the feelings of faculty people. I don't know what would happen now, it's awfully big. Did you see Rosemary Park's speech at the Women of the Year program in the paper today?

SCHIPPERS: No, I didn't.

CASSIDY: It is very good and it makes me feel that good things like this will happen now. She has I think an extremely broad view of student rights for participation in their university. "In the Sandpile," I think was the title of it. When I heard her the other night and then when I read this the other day, I had the feeling that there is a very strong power for wise action. I don't know how much power she actually has in terms of a jealous individual wanting to harm someone. Which is my interpretation of what happened in Martha's case. And I suppose with this also was Martha's feeling about Arlt's defection in relation to her was very tragic because she and he were very deep friends. And this was very hurtful. Now Staff Warren's wife was a very good friend of Martha's and she had pushed well for her. The Paul Dodds were something else again. But Arlt was a very sad thing for her.

SCHIPPERS: Of course, I keep trying to generalize in some way, and you keep pointing out the personal and personality aspects of it. But I think you have indicated that there was also kind of a power struggle here as far as the women versus the men.

CASSIDY: Yes, there was.

SCHIPPERS: And that this became in some ways the cause célèbre.

CASSIDY: Well, I think this was part of the deal. But I think there was a real character change in this man and his hunger for power. I think everybody was scared to death around it, were willing to let Dodd carry the case and he was willing to do it. I don't know whether I put on mother tape the story we heard about his son graduating from high school. The boy was president of tire student body;, he and three boys were going to the library one night but they went to a movie instead. So to punish him, Paul would not let him go to the senior dance, he would not let him speak at the graduation. He punished this boy aid everybody else Included because of what would seem to many of us a minor infraction. There just seemed to be within this man this kind of punishing attitude, whether it was on family or people he was afraid of or hated, I don't know.

SCHIPPERS: So then it really was more of a deadlock of personalities then.

CASSIDY: Well, he carried this for three years. I saw him in the taping session where he had to sit through every one of the hearings. This may be colored too by what all these people around this case have said, but I had the feeling that all over the campus and then at Santa Barbara there was the feeling that Paul Dodd better be left out. Then he went to San Francisco State when he got back from this job in Turkey and I felt sure he would attack physical education there. The head of the department there Ann Patterson was in Haifa when I was in Israel, We had dinner together. I said, "Paul won't let your department alone, I bet you won't have one when you return from your sabbatical." There was a special feeling against physical education we all thought. He also had a special feeling against anything that seemed to be vocational. I think I said before that a committee of very strong personalities at San Francisco State met regularly to find out what he was up to and to try to stop him. I was told—this is the rumor route again—that he really resigned there, retired there by request because they had just had it. Whether that is so or not I don't know. I tend to think so, because I have such very strong feelings about what kind of harm he could do to another human being.

SCHIPPERS: Well, of course I worked with Miss Deane and you know how I feel about her and I think it just was the assassination of a great creative impulse, and that's the thing.

CASSIDY: I don't think she could have survived this and be as vibrant and active and healthy today if she hadn't great courage, and as I said before, she is a Christian Scientist. One time (I used to go over and have coffee with her every week or so), she said, "I really am so troubled now because I find I am filled with hate and I can't afford this." In her feelings toward the people who were harming her. She was reading her Science and Health. She never was a church-going one, but it was the goodness of whatever the Scientists are for that kept her going. When you don't hate, you don't fear, you don't have any of these ugly emotions to give you gastric ulcers. But I really think of all the people I know, Martha was the one person who could have survived three years of such terrible punishment. The support of Macantee and his wife and Tinglof and Mack Jones as I saw them at these meetings we had. from time to time. These are not stupid people. I don't think Tinglof! would have taken the case on if he thought he didn't have a way to put the pressure on to get support and clearance for her.

SCHIPPERS: I'm glad that the rest of our taping sessions have been on a happier note.

CASSIDY: I have been glad to accept this one, which I find very painful. I wanted to set the record straight as I perceived it and lived through it.

A TEI Project