Interview with Alex Kotch

Alex Kotch #63 (1976)

AK: . . . try to respond to anything I can remember and anything you want to know.

LS: Well, yeah. I'll just say to begin with this is an interview with Professor Alex Kotch of the Chemistry Department, largely concerning the TA strike of 1970 and the later negotiations of 1976. And it's being held on June, uh, July 1st, 1976. To begin with, Professor Kotch, would you tell me where you were born and brought up and something about your background?

AK: All right, well, I was born in Pennsylvania, near Wilkes Barre and went through school there and did work in a junior college in Wilkes Barre for my first two years, and then transferred to Penn State. I got my bachelor's and master's degrees in chemistry and then transferred again to University of 00:01:00Illinois in Urbana, where I got my Ph.D. in chemistry in 1950. I've subsequently had two years of post doctoral work, one as a Fulbright scholar in the Netherlands, '50-'51, then a second year at MIT. And then I went to work in industry DuPont for seven years. And I was interested in getting back into academic work at that time in '58-'59, but it was in the recession, and the number of jobs at that time wasn't very plentiful.

And so I wrote to my major professor, Professor [Marvlin?] the year of the opening of the National Science Foundation. It was sort of a quasi-academic position. I would be dealing with the [words unclear] evaluation of research proposals and administration research grants and dealing with the professors on the advisory panels and [words unclear] and visiting the universities and 00:02:00talking with the professors about the research. So had that program, I was program director for organic chemistry [words unclear] for six years and transferred briefly to the office of sailing water.

And then I came back to the foundation and was officially called the University Science Development Program, which most people know as the Centers of Excellence program where we were evaluating proposals from universities as a whole rather than from individual professors. And so we would go into the universities as site visit teams, and we would award grants on [word unclear] $5 million. And it was from that, when I was at that position that Wisconsin asked if I wanted to be, to come here as associate chairman of the department.

They needed somebody to carry a heavy administrative load and so I have an 00:03:00unusual appointment. I have a full professor as tenure, with a tenured full professorship even though I don't have an active research program by mutual agreement. But I do teach one semester a year, a large class, within chemistry. So I came here then in July, on July 1 of 1967 as professor and associate chairman of the department.

LS: This is quite this is an anniversary then, isn't it?

AK: Yes.

LS: I bet you hadn't thought of that.

AK: Nine years, yes, it is quite an anniversary. So it's also an unusual route into academia.

LS: Yes, I should say so.

AK: Industry to government to academia as a full professor is a most unusual route.

LS: Well, and it was more attractive to you to be in the academic world than --

AK: Well, I've had seven years of industry and eight years of government and I'm nine years a academia now. I would say without the active research program, you see I don't feel as, my main, just our administration, so I think the government 00:04:00actually provides the broader scope in terms of administrative responsibility.

LS: Are you still administering, do you mean, grants --

AK: No, no, here, I'm just, I'm associate chairman. I do a lot of administration as associate chairman of the department.

LS: But do you have particularly to do with money that comes in from the government for research projects and handling that?

AK: Well, I've handled the undergraduate research participation program and wrote proposals for that program when it used to obtain five grants totaling more than $100,000, and I advised the professors on some of the policies of the agencies to [words unclear] but I don't have any direct connection with the government, not at all.

LS: You must've worked closely, did you, with Mr. [Duremus?] then since that's his, he also handles or was for a while handling --

AK: Well, I have, I worked closely with Dean Duremus on the TAs as chairman of 00:05:00Graduate Admissions Committee in terms of getting approval for offer letters and approval for a number of offers and stipends, etc.

LS: Uh-huh. Well, were you familiar then with the position of the TAs in the Chemistry Department before the strike or the --

AK: Well, uh, let me say that in chemistry, it's been a tradition for decades, 20-30 years, to support all graduate students. There was sufficient money around both as teaching assistantships, research assistantships, and fellowships so that all graduate students were supported by half-time stipend, whether it was Illinois or Wisconsin or anywhere else so that I'd be hard pressed to name graduate students in chemistry who paid their own way.

LS: I see.

AK: And so from that --

LS: There weren't any, in fact.

AK: That's right, and today, now since 1967 through 1976, all the time I've been here, we don't take any graduate students unless we support them, we can support them. And they all have half-time stipends, which is more, we've had more half-time stipend for decades, which is more than the minimum guaranteed in the contract, which is one-third. So we've always been able to support all of our students, and we've treated them well, so they have no compelling reason to become affiliated with the union. It's ironic that this particular year one of our TAs is president of the TAA.

LS: Goodness. I didn't realize that.

AK: Yeah, Bob Ginsburg, but he's in the small minority and all of the stewards have been singularly unsuccessful in drumming up business in chemistry among the TAs to join the union and support it because we supported all of them if they 00:07:00made satisfactory progress as graduate students and satisfactory teaching.

LS: So have you always then been able to pick and choose from among people who wanted to go into graduate work in chemistry?

AK: Yes, you see, because of our ranking in top ten departments of chemistry in the country, these are the rankings by American Council on Education.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: For the last two, we've ranked for the ninth, in '66 we ranked number six, and the most recent one, in 1970, was number eight. For example, we take in 60 new graduate students a year now. It used to be a lot more in the late '60s. But for these 60 openings, we had 441 applications.

So we can afford to be choosy, and so we don't, if we get a lot of applications from foreign students who have good records in chemistry, but they don't know the language well enough to teach freshmen. And so we'd only admit them and get 00:08:00their own money if we can't support them as a TA, then we don't admit them. And so all of our students are supported. And then after the first year or two, the professor will support them as research assistants from his research grants.

LS: Now are they all made TAs when you take them in, or --

AK: This year, for example, of the 60 coming in, one has his own NSF fellowship, Alan [Schusterman?] from Cal Tech. And so we offer him just a small amount of teaching if he wishes to supplement his fellowship to the maximum extent permitted by NSF.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: The other one is one who was awarded a graduate school fellowship. So two of them have fellowships, plus a small amount of teaching if they wish. And all the others have teaching assistantships, that's right.

LS: Fifty-eight, then.

AK: Yes, and these have all half-time stipends.

LS: Yes, it's quite different then, isn't it?

AK: That's right. It's different than in the other departments. In the other departments, for example, will have their experienced people do the teaching, the third and four year, whereas, we have all of our beginning people do it, and then they go on to RAs. From pedagogical standpoint, I guess, it is better to put the more experienced people on, but we felt if, with the competitive situation in chemistry, if we didn't offer them appointments in the first year, they wouldn't come here.

LS: Yeah, and you couldn't, and you didn't want to just give them fellowships without --

AK: Well, we don't have that much money for fellowships, you see. The only thing is we get from the graduate school.

LS: I see.

AK: So most of the, always more than 95% of our beginning TAs will be, beginning graduate students will be supported as TAs. But all will be supported.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: In this particular year, we happen to have two from Venezuela with scholarships, so we started, with their own scholarships. So we don't have to support them, and so we don't have to worry about the language problem 00:10:00communicating and teaching. You see, they can be able to read it, but getting in front of a classroom is different to instruct.

LS: How big are the classes that the TAs run?

AK: We've had here fairly closely to the 19-class average.

LS: No, I'm talking, I mean to be talking about prior to 1970 before the contract.

AK: Oh, yeah, well, before the contract, we probably are operating the same as we are now because of they were fixed by the configuration of laboratory. IN other words, when the laboratory was built, we were designed to have 22 students per section in the laboratory. And in general analytical chemistry because it's more sophisticated, more complex, we have only 18 students per section. And organic, it also starts at 18 students per section because it's more hazardous 00:11:00with the inflammable solvents. So we don't want to assign too many students to one TA. So I would say from that standpoint also, we've been operating without any essentially what they gained in the contract.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: I guess the other thing that you probably have picked up or should pick up is that the TAA would probably never have become established as a viable union if the recommendations of the Mulvihill Committee were implemented. There was a study to --

LS: Well, I know that, and I've wondered what was going to happen to that report.

AK: Yes, that, the Mulvihill committee was written I think and filed in, it may have been '67. I know Mulvihill was chairman, and Shain, who was chairman of the Chemistry Department from '67 to '70 before he became --

LS: Is that Irving Shain?

AK: Yes, he was the one that hired me to come here. Well, the department hired me, but he was instrumental in spearheading the drive. And he was a member of that committee. And what had happened, if they had implemented those recommendations, in 1967-68, what happened is Chancellor Sewell became chancellor. And the first thing that he was greeted with was a Dow riot in October, and then in the middle of the year, there was a murder on campus, and there were faculty meetings with 1,800 people screaming at each other, and he resigned after 10 months. And so there was a period of gross instability there. And there was no opportunity to look at the implementing of the Mulvihill Committee.

LS: That was the reason, was it? I --

AK: That was, that was, uh, well, one of the -- the word apparently in other 00:13:00departments, there were genuine reasons for the TAs to want to unionize because there were abuses. There were professors hiring their students in preference to other students. They were making them work longer hours than they should've worked. They were working more hours than those in the physical sciences and the laboratories and getting, in fact, were getting less pay. Uh, and some of us, for example, on the committee would wonder ourselves why history was taking in 500 graduate students with 90 teaching assistantships, so the 410 people would be unsupported.

And so what they did, they tried to spread the 90 around some more and cut the half-time stipend down so that they would get quarter time or less, which was below the living wage. Well, so we wondered why they were taking in 500 students in the first place if they didn't have support for them or, and then 00:14:00subsequently didn't have jobs for them. So I think that was to become adjusted.

LS: Yeah, it was a big source of grievance.

AK: Well, that's one of the things, and then so apparently there were genuine abuses, which the Mulvihill Committee saw and recommended the change for these abuses. But the reason, I think, the straw that broke the camel's back that caused the union to get more than 50% of the TAs to support them was the Legislature threatening to remove, not remove, but to decrease the amount of out-of-state tuition that would be waived.

LS: Yeah, I do know about that.

AK: That was in February or March or April.

LS: Uh-huh, of '69.

AK: Of '69, and so --

LS: But why hadn't the campus acted on the Mulvihill Report?

AK: Well, because there was so much, this was the height of the student activist days, and Dow was coming to interview on campus, and I remember between July and 00:15:00September, I, my first office was in the old chemistry building. We occupied this building between the fall of '67 and February of '68. I moved over here then some time in that fall semester. But I can remember when I was still in the old Chemistry Building --

LS: Which is where?

AK: -- having a meeting with, with Security Chief Ralph Hanson, and others concerning the Dow riots because Dow was going to interview in chemistry as well as in business.

LS: Where was the old chemistry building?

AK: It was right across the street, where, which is not Pharmacy/Physics on University Avenue.

LS: Oh, I see, yes, yeah.

AK: Yeah, right across the street. And so chemistry was housed there. They moved into the six-story unit in 1962-63, and then this nine-story unit was occupied and interconnected with the six-story unit, and this was occupied '67-'68. But I 00:16:00remember, we had a meeting as to what plans should be made contingent to what the students might do. And so I guess they did block some interviews in the chemistry building, but the real confrontation was in the commerce building.

LS: Did they move the interviews over to the Commerce Building?

AK: I think they might have combined them. I can't recall now. I think we still had our schedule, but it may have been cancelled in chemistry. I don't really know, but they may have wanted to get them in a center place where they, perhaps, the security could be better.

LS: Yeah.

AK: But so that, there were too many distractions for getting down to the normal implementation of committee recommendations to occur.

LS: You, and you feel that this was a legitimate reason for not, for not having 00:17:00implemented the report, that is one could say if they had only done it, then a great deal of --

AK: If they had done it then, a great deal of it, there would be no reason for, you see, still today, nine, six years after the contract, our TAs in chemistry are still not voting to be affiliated with the TAA.

LS: Because they're satisfied?

AK: They're satisfied. They all have stipends, half-time stipends.

LS: Yeah.

AK: They say, I'm chairman of the Graduate Admissions Committee. Nobody gets admitted unless they get a financial support.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: And so when we've never exceeded, we felt we used common sense before we had specifications of class size and numbers of hours and so on.

LS: Yes. But in effect, the other departments couldn't do this because they didn't have that much money.

AK: They didn't have the source of research assistantship money from research 00:18:00grants. Subsequently, the National Science Foundation got the Social Sciences Division, but I don't think it matches the quantity of support available. So that's right. Then they had, and, moreover, they didn't have the need for the number, many of them didn't have the need for so many TAs as the laboratory sciences. You take a lecture room of 300, and you break them up into 22 for the lab, and you need a lot of TAs. So that, yes, I think that there were genuine uses, which were not, if they had been met under normal terms on campus, we may not have ever had a TAA.

LS: Then, but we go on and that was '67. There was still '68-'69 was a year.

AK: Yes, but, yes, but you see what happened --

LS: Of course, I know things were happening --

AK: -- that Sewell resigned after ten months. And then, if I recall correctly, Brian Kearl was acting chancellor for, I don't know whether it's just a few 00:19:00months or before Ed Young was appointed. Ed Young had come back from Maine in '67-'68. And so there was an interim period there where when we had an acting chancellor, if you will check on that --

LS: Uh-huh, so he couldn't do very much.

AK: Right, and so, and then when Young came in, it was his first year as chancellor in '68, I don't know exactly when. But I recall Brian Kearl being acting chancellor.

LS: Yeah.

AK: I don't know what amount of time.

LS: Now do you remember whether anybody was making a fuss about the, was saying in the background at faculty meetings, look, we ought to do something about the Mulvihill Report, or had everybody forgotten about it?

AK: I think you probably want to check with Mulvihill on that.

LS: Yeah, yes.

AK: He's still around, or is his associate dean in Spanish? I don't remember. I guess people might've been saying it in private conversations, but I don't remember them saying it, and there wasn't that much concern. But I think that, 00:20:00you see, the chancellor, I think overreacted. He was fearful of a strike in '69, and that's why he agreed to the structural agreement. And then the real, I guess here's where I'm going to make a statement that is my opinion.

When they actually did go on strike, you see, the structural agreement did not permit a strike, and you had a golden opportunity to dissolve the structural agreement because they violated it. And I recall being at the meeting where Phil Collin, president of the University Committee, chairman of the University Committee was pleading with him -- he got a golden opportunity to not recognize them now.

And it's my feeling in retrospect even though I served on the Council of Ten 00:21:00bargaining team to advise them, which, of course, was formally appointed by the chancellor, it's my feeling that the reason he didn't do it, and I heard this from other people such as Vice President Clodius, is that he didn't want to be labeled a union breaker by his friends in the industrial relations movement. In other words, his field is industrial relations.

And it's my feeling that anybody else who was chancellor from another discipline wouldn't give a hoot what the union thought about his action for the University, and this is a case where I feel that they shouldn't leave the running of the war to the generals. And similarly, you don't leave the collective bargaining with transient employees, such as TAs to an industrial relations chancellor.

LS: Well, that's an interesting viewpoint. I hadn't --

AK: Yes, in other words, a chemist up there or a historian wouldn't care what the union said about him because he's never been affiliated with the union people. But even though they're on different sides, they're sort of colleagues. And I feel that he missed the chance in not withdrawing support and recognition. See, there was no legal basis for him to recognize them in the first place.

LS: Yeah.

AK: It was not in the law. So he overstepped his bounds there, I feel. And then being in industrial relations, I feel that he didn't pull the rug out from then when he could have. And the other thing is, it's now 1976, six years later. This is not the greatest thing that came down the road, this bargaining for TAs. There's only one other university that I know. That's the University of Michigan. So it was not a trailblazing thing to do. And it's a mistake, clearly.

LS: Yes, it was expected that it would be, set a precedent, wasn't it?

AK: Yeah, there are only two in six years. You see there's much more reason to have collective bargaining for faculty or permanent people who have to live with their decisions. TAs are transient. In four or five years, they're gone. They can be irresponsible and leave. And so I feel the chancellor is being inconsistent in posing collective bargaining for faculty or [word unclear] employees was he, uh, was responsible for letting the TAs get organized in the first place.

LS: And you see the solution as should've been implementing the Mulvihill Report and come right away --

AK: Yes, yes, as a Monday morning quarterback, it's easy to say that. But see, I, I think they filed the report even before I got here. I got here in about '67, and I believe the report was filed in the spring of '67. But Shain was on it, and Mulvihill was chairman.

LS: Yeah.

AK: And Mulvihill was also on the, uh, if he wasn't on the bargaining team, certainly on the Council of Ten in 1969-70.

LS: There'd be two questions I'd have. Would the faculty have permitted Young to, at that point when the strike was about to take place, to say, I'm sorry, I'm not going to recognize the union any longer? Wouldn't there have been a big uproar in the faculty? Weren't there enough sympathizers --

AK: Oh, no, I would say, oh, there were sympathizers, yes. But I would say the, uh, the majority of the faculty would be for not recognizing the TAA.

LS: Was that --

AK: I would say there was more support in the languages and social sciences, but in the physical and natural sciences and engineering and agriculture, no sympathy for the TAA.

LS: And then, there would've been the problem that they, those departments didn't have a, have TAs to speak of, compared to the, to the math and --

AK: Well, they had TAs, but they didn't, graduate students who all didn't have appointments.

LS: Yeah, the think is, it wasn't, it wasn't something they were going to have to live with, uh, whereas, the math and languages and the English --

AK: Yeah, well, we felt that, uh, we had a good relationship with our TAs. They seemed to be satisfied. We were satisfied, and that the introduction of the union would introduce an adversarial relationship, which was bad because, you see, while they're also, the TAs are also graduate students, who work on an intimate basis with their major professors.

LS: Yeah. After being on the, on the bargaining, or watching some of the bargaining, do you think that the TAs would have -- how would they have reacted if suddenly the chancellor had said we're going to implement the Mulvihill Report now, so you don't need to strike? Do you think that would've solved everything, or would they have found some other issue?

AK: Well, I, I, well, of course, it's hard to say because in the activist days, you get the mob, the mob reaction, and support. But I think if they were implemented, that there wouldn't be any strong reason for them to want to unionize, even until Shabaz made that famous statement down in the Legislature that he, I think they may have had a prior vote, which wasn't successful. But it was only when the, after the Shabaz statement scared them that they got some, more than half the TAs on campus supporting them.

LS: Yeah, but, of course, that ceased to be an issue. That petered out, that, the Shabaz proposal, so --

AK: Yeah, because the, the, uh, out-of-state tuition was waived to resident tuition.

LS: Uh-huh. You were, I, we should go backwards a bit and, and discuss how you became a member of the committee, the Council of Ten.

AK: Yeah, I guess I can't recall precisely how I was appointed, but I guess they might've asked the department chairman, Shain, and since I was associated, since one of my duties as associate chairman was being chairman of the Graduate Admissions Committee, I was involved with the selection of the graduate students and the writing of the TA offer letters, and the other key element was, I think, they wanted, uh, a department there in which the TAs did not vote to have the TAA as their bargaining -- you see they tallied the votes on a campus-wide basis and then on a departmental basis.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: So on campus-wide basis, more than half the TAs on campus wanted the TAA as their bargaining agent, but in chemistry, it was two to one against.

LS: I'm surprised it was that high for, I confess. I thought it was --

AK: Yeah, at that time, yeah.

LS: There were quite a number then, who were supporting the --

AK: Yeah, it was something like 34 to 62 or something.

LS: How had they gotten, they had gotten the 34 then?

AK: I think it was something like that, yeah.

LS: Do you, were they doing this altruistically, saying, well, we're all right with the --

AK: I think they, there was pressure from their peer groups even though they had their half-time stipend, and they had their job.

LS: Did they have any grievances were you aware of? Was their any problem of how they were conduct, how they were to conduct their sections and --

AK: Well, I guess they probably feel that they don't have enough input into the educational planning process, but I'm just saying that there always seem to be good relationship between the chemistry professors and the chemistry TAs.

LS: Excuse me, I'm --

We'll just try this.

We were talking about the TAs. One possible source of dissatisfaction was not 00:29:00having enough role in the educational planning. Did you have meetings, did the department have meetings with the TAs at this point?

AK: Uh, their, not at that point. In 19, let's see, I guess in 1970, Shain became vice chancellor, and then John Willard became chairman of the Department of Chemistry, and he appointed a second associate chairman, John Harriman. And there was a graduate student committee, a faculty and graduate student committee, which met regularly between 1970-1972.

LS: This was after the strike.

AK: This was after, this was after the first--

LS: What about before?

AK: Before, I don't think there was any, no, there was no graduate student faculty committee. I guess it was called a graduate student - faculty conference committee. This was after the strike, after the contract.

LS: Hmm. But --

AK: But there was no formal interaction other than an informal one.

LS: So the, you watched as, as the TAs were being converted, some of them, and, but you didn't, you didn't talk to them as faculty group and TA group in the '69-'70 --

AK: I think that, I think that, uh, major professor would, of course, discuss the issues with his individual students. But there was no departmental action.

LS: Was there any, are you aware of any pressure put on TAs at, I guess, their joining the union?

AK: I would say we, as in any department of 40 or 45 faculty, you'll have the complete political spectrum of liberal and conservatives, and we have some very conservative members of our faculty. And I would say, yes, they probably exerted some pressure on their TAs and their graduate students not to join the union.

LS: Uh-huh. And, uh, were there any repercussions within --

AK: And, in fact, one of them, one of our professors was, was shocked at one of his students came to the faculty meeting at that time. You know, they were, they were invading faculty meetings, which before open secrets [word unclear] and all that stuff were private.

LS: It was quite a surprise, yeah.

AK: And so after the meeting, this professor talked to his student, he didn't think that's the proper thing for a graduate student to do.

LS: And what happened then?

AK: The student happened to be also interested in science for people or something like that, and he was not performing adequately in research, and even though he had his own NIH scholarship, it wasn't costing the professor anything, the professor felt in clear conscience, he couldn't, each year, he had to write to the NIH to see if he was doing satisfactory work. I mean, he said that he couldn't in clear conscience say that he is, so that he didn't get the fellowship. And he left the department and went to work in a different department.

LS: Who, can you name the professor?

AK: Yes.

LS: Who's that?

AK: You mean, the, the name of the professor in chemistry?

LS: Yeah.

AK: Well, again, this would, this would have to be sealed, uh. You see, I would prefer not to because --

LS: All right, well, what about the student?

AK: Well, that would identify the professor.

LS: Yeah, I suppose, yes.

AK: But he subsequently got his degree. He went to work with another professor in oncology. And, in fact, he may have gotten his degree in chemistry, but his research was done in another department.

LS: Was there, there must've been a bit of a fuss about this, I should think, among other TAA members. Was --

AK: No, no. I think the professor was on valid grounds that he was not performing adequately in research to hold an NIH fellowship.

LS: Oh.

AK: And the professor told him he didn't think he would be much help to him, and 00:33:00when he wanted to get a job, it would be to his advantage to work for another professor.

LS: But he was, this was the only one who lost his, his position here?

AK: Yeah, yeah, but it wasn't a teaching assistantship, you see. It was just a fellowship. But he's done research and not on teaching.

LS: But --

AK: But it was in, it presented this adversarial relationship between graduate student and faculty member.

LS: Was this the only one who came to the faculty meeting, or were there, was it a group?

AK: Oh, no, there was a group. There was a group, yeah. And then, of course, at the other end of the [word unclear] spectrum, we have ultra liberal professors, where the whole group would participate in the -- but it was interesting, the [word unclear] in the spring of '70, our shop steward, Jennings Cline was out there in the lobby with his picket sign parading around, and then when it came, at 1:20, when it came time to meet his class, he went to meet his class because he couldn't afford to be without pay to feed his wife and child. And I remember 00:34:00Shain was furious that he's, what kind of leader is he, hasn't had the courage of his convictions?

LS: Oh, I see, Shain felt he just should've stayed out if he was going to be out at all.

AK: Yeah, he was furious.

LS: That's very nice.

AK: But it didn't bother me. I was understanding him.

LS: Were there many like that?

AK: Well, they said the shop stewards in chemistry have been unsuccessful over the years in drumming up support in the department. So it's idealistic --

LS: Hmm, but I mean who struck, but who also met their classes.

AK: Yes. Now, for example, in this 1970, just this spring, we had 3 people who participated in the work stoppage on April 1 and April 2, 3 out of 120.

LS: Hmm.

AK: So that gives you an idea of the --

LS: It must've been difficult with such a small --

AK: The support, yeah, and so they didn't really have the support for the strike. A lot of the things that is interesting, of course, is that during the 00:35:00strike, well, you saw that article on the paper, where my statement that we will never yield on the educational planning and the-

Apparently during the strike, one of my colleagues in chemistry said he returned home from a trip, and at the airport, they were passing out information which had the names and phone numbers of the Council of Ten mem -- faculty members, and during the -- I don't know exactly what time, but my windows, living room window was smashed at home at night.

LS: Oh, it was? You were one of the ones.

AK: At 2:15 in the morning, yeah, and then the following day, we had threatening phone calls and sent over an ambulance at 11:00, a false alarm, and they came in, and we said we didn't call them. So it was obviously a hoax. And then I got a call about midnight saying, Dr. Kotch, did the ambulance get there, ha-ha-ha? And some, uh, funny voice on the other side said, the next time it's going to be 00:36:00a hearse, and so on and so forth. So we had the police come out, and I also, uh, had the phone company put on a, I asked them if they could trace these. No, they couldn't do that, but what they did do is put on a button, which exists on our phone to this day, where when we retire at night, we turn it so that there is no bell. And so people call in, they get a busy sign on just no sign, that nobody's responding. And we don't hear it ring. But we can still call out. And so if my wife wants to take a nap, she can turn the bell, and she won't hear the bell.

LS: That's a wonderful thought.

AK: But we had that put on because of these smashed window and ambulance coming over and threatening phone calls.

LS: Did you ever have any idea who was responsible?

AK: Well, obviously, people affiliated with the TAA. I don't know who personally broke the window, but, of course, at that time, in addition to Henry [Hassler?], 00:37:00there's a James Marketti, who is a real union-type person, and he's not afraid of violent tactics.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: So I'm sure he was an instigator of that type of activity because he was subsequently involved in that type of activity in another union.

LS: Uh-huh. Well, I do want to, you to talk about some of the people that you dealt with in the bargaining. I'm wondering if we covered the, the pre, before the strike, in the department, was there any dissention among faculty members in the department over, among the liberal and conservative, that is, did it go any further than your --

AK: Yeah, I would say our department was fairly, were quite overwhelmingly, it wasn't unanimous, but quite overwhelmingly in favor of a hard stand and not in 00:38:00favor of TAA. But there were, I would say, out of 45, maybe three or four faculty were more liberal. I remember one meeting where Shain, where we were discussing this matter, and he didn't take a vote or anything and said, well, he'll assume that this is our position, and we'll tell the administration and the chancellor this and got a letter from one of the younger faculty members, who was under 30 at the time, and he objected to that tactic because he wasn't in agreement with the departmental policy.

LS: Hmm.

AK: And then others, I guess, were openly sympathetic as were some of the faculty in the social sciences. But I would say we were close to engineering in 00:39:00terms of the conservative position and the TAA.

LS: Uh-huh. Well, you were appointed to be on the Council of Ten. How did you feel about that?

AK: Yes.

LS: Did you have any notion of how long it was going to last?

AK: No, I didn't, uh, I felt that, I guess, we wanted to have our input there, and they, I'm sure the administration wanted to have a strong, large department where the TAs were not in sympathy with the union.

LS: Right.

AK: And so I felt, of course, it was time consuming, and I had a lot of other things to do as associate chairman of the department in addition to teaching a large organic chemistry class. But I felt it was an important role to play, and to see that the university was preserved. And I would say that was a key issue. 00:40:00This boiled down to the educational planning on the strike. And it was when I made this strong statement, although, I was disappointed in some of the reactions of some of my colleagues as to shooting off my mouth and inflaming an already inflamed situation, and yet, I felt that that was a key issue.

I knew the faculty wasn't going to buy it under any circumstances, and they should be told in no uncertain terms. And indeed, when they did have the faculty meeting of the, meeting of the entire faculty, this issue of educational planning was, uh, by a, was voted on by a vote of four to one. And yet, I got, when I got home from the, The Capital Times article published Dr. Davies of biochemistry objected because I wasn't representing his opinion.

And I said, well, I was representing the faculty opinion as much as six members of a university faculty committee, university committee can represent 1,300 faculty. You represent it, and you try to get a consensus. And I said that I'm confident that's the consensus of the faculty, and it does in unanimity. And indeed, when it came down to the crunch, it was four to one to preserve the ultimate responsibility for educational planning in the faculty was permanent, whereas, the TAs are transient. They lacked the experience and the perspective.

LS: They --

AK: They should have input, but they should under no circumstances have any responsibility, otherwise, you don't have a university.

LS: You would've disagreed with Chancellor Young's offer, which they didn't accept, but which was --

AK: At one time, there was more offered on the table than --

LS: Yeah, than the faculty offered.

AK: Than the faculty would've agreed to, yes, that's right. And, in fact, I can 00:42:00remember. It was on Friday that I told Shain he better come to the meeting to, even though he wasn't a member there, he was, I said it was so crucial that they've given more on educational planning than it should.

LS: The, to the meeting --

AK: To the bargaining meeting.

LS: To the bargaining meeting.

AK: To be, that's right. And --

LS: And did he?

AK: Yes, he came to that meeting, and it turned out that I didn't realize at the time, of course, this was in '70. He, it was close to the announcement, and he was going to become vice chancellor. So it was an interesting situation telling him, my telling him that his boss was giving more than he should give.

LS: Yeah.

AK: And so I had an unusual situation, being on the faculty advising team, and yet, disagreeing basically with the chancellor's position.

LS: In the beginning, this wasn't, wasn't an issue because no strong position had been taken, is that right?

AK: That's right.

LS: You were still bargaining for the --

AK: That's right. We didn't know whether they'd get down to the issues like that.

LS: Yeah. I'm curious at the beginning, did you, did you look forward with interest to this just personally as a new kind of situation [words unclear] --

AK: Well, it was, let's see, uh, no, I had no experience in it, but when you're in administration, you have to be able to, not anticipate, but expect that the variety of different types of problems will come up. And you can have the best laid plans of 20 things to do on Monday morning, and you may get to Friday afternoon with not a one of them touched on that you'd planned on because of so many other crises that come up and different things.

LS: Yeah.

AK: So I felt that since I was assigned a task, I would do it, and I was 00:44:00conscientious about it. But --

LS: Did you enjoy --

AK: And when it was all over, I guess I felt I'd learned something, and it was an experience that I would never had otherwise, just happened to be in that place at that time.

LS: What I, was it, was it, did you hate going to the meetings, or did you enjoy it?

AK: No, it interesting. I guess it was interesting to see, uh, to see the attitudes of the TAs on the other side of the bargaining table. And, of course, Hassler and Marketti, were, uh, were rather insulting to some of the members of faculty.

LS: Yes, that's come up.

AK: And some of the, some of the people, and this never bothered me because I decided, could ignore it. And, of course, I felt my attitude of ignoring it would get them more furious.

LS: Hmm.

AK: You know, and that, but that never bothered me. But they were, they were, 00:45:00uh, rude. One of them would keep his feet on the table like that in bargaining, and they would tell Dean Deremus that he was incompetent and bureaucratic and all that sort of stuff.

LS: Hmm.

AK: Or anybody on the other side of the table, if you were over 30 years old, you were bad, bad guys.

LS: Did they address personal remarks to you?

AK: No, you see, again there, when I spoke from chemistry, they knew that they didn't have the support in chemistry, and what I said was correct.

LS: And you were sort of in the background anyway as --

AK: Yeah, in the background as an observer, that's right. And it would be on the average of one every four or five meetings or something like that because we had ten members.

LS: So you systematically rotated.

AK: Yes, but we got minutes of all meetings.

LS: Yeah.

AK: And we had caucuses and meetings of our own.

LS: I know you had your meetings on, what, Tuesday, wasn't it that you met?

AK: Something, well, that I can't remember, but though, we would meet together, and we knew what their positions would be. And anything proposed by either side, 00:46:00we would meet as a group and consider and accept or reject or revise.

LS: Now, do you, was it your impression at the meetings of the Council of Ten that you had to get the bargainers to back up fairly often. I gathered from Harlan Christiansen, I guess, that sometimes it was more difficult to persuade or to reach an agreement in the Council of Ten, not more difficult, but difficult.

AK: Well, yeah, I guess so. And when you get ten faculty members together, it's hard to get unanimity. But on the other side, of course, Neil Bucklew was there to get an agreement, a contract, just as Krinsky is here. And we always, of course, have to keep in the back of our minds we're there to represent the 00:47:00faculty and the university. Our prime purpose isn't to get a contract.

LS: Yeah.

AK: And so Krinsky was always willing to yield more than the faculty would want and similar 

LS: Knowing the brakes would be applied.

AK: Yeah, their job as industrial relations was to get both sides to agree so you don't have violence and get a contract, and agree, and get on with the job. But we got other values to look at for preserving the University and the relationships between the graduate students, TAs, and the professors.

LS: Did you, what did you think of Neil Bucklew? What kind of job --

AK: He, I think he was a, he was a good, uh, good negotiator. He was tough and strong, and he was glad that he, he just got his Ph. D. It was relatively new, and, uh, I thought he did very well under the circumstances. He, of course, 00:48:00didn't have the experience to reflect faculty opinion, so he would be frequently annoyed with the faculty members on the Council of Ten bargaining team and the bargaining, uh, team.

LS: Hmm. Did he come to the meetings of the Council of Ten?

AK: Yes, yes, uh, he attended those meetings, sure. And, uh, he, of course, my guess was might've been a contemporary or peer of Marketti. Marketti was in the same department. And Henry Haslet, of course, was a TA in math. But, yeah, I thought Neil Bucklew was very, did a good job. Again, of course, was representing more of the chancellor and interested in getting a contract, and we 00:49:00were interested in preserving the University.

LS: Harlan Christiansen said that there was a, that having worked on it for so long, there was a strong, so to speak, internal urge to get something actually there and accomplished and that --

AK: Yeah, oh, yeah, there were periods of frustration, where you go over paper and paper and paragraph and paragraph and comma and semicolon, and for months, there's nothing accomplished, nothing in concrete terms. And that's true. And then, of course [words unclear] there was a summary put out by both sides of the issues that was sent to all the faculty, and they made some unreasonable demands such as specifying the angle of the chair they should have and Kleenex and things like that, which they were subsequently embarrassed about. But, uh, it 00:50:00was an interesting experience, yes.

LS: Did they ever raise, uh, the issue of, I'll use the term peer review among the faculty as -- I know, I'm not sure that this showed up actually at the meetings. I've, you know what I'm talking about, whether faculty supervise each other in terms of quality of work and --

AK: It should, the TAs have the same thing, is that it?

LS: No, that they felt the faculty ought to do more of that among themselves.

AK: Well, of course, that's the way promotions are done, are made. There is peer review from assistant professor to associate professor. The associate professors and professors are the ones who make the decisions, of course, with the help of outside letters of recommendation.

LS: But once you get to be a professor, there's --

AK: Oh, yes, okay, once you get to be a full professor, all right, then that's 00:51:00true. There is no monitoring of a person's teaching, although, the, it's on a voluntary basis to have your students evaluate your teaching. It's, I guess, it's even voluntary for the assistant professors, but because of, it's required by the Physical Sciences Divisional Committee to have evidence of the man's teaching ability, it's virtually mandatory, for the assistant professor to have his students evaluate him.

LS: Oh, I see, but not, but not for the professor.

AK: No. No, it isn't even mandatory for the assistant professor, but then he's not going to help his tenure case.

LS: Yeah, yeah.

AK: And some divisions of the Chemistry Department do have subcommittees of professors who will, um, monitor their teaching. I can recall that, this is improved since I've been here, where one of the professors who didn't get 00:52:00tenure, one of his weak points was teaching. Well, he wasn't told until his sixth year that his teaching wasn't good. And so if a man's not doing teaching, he should be told the first year or second year, and so he could have an opportunity to improve it.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: But I think there, as I say, in general I'm opposed to the TAA and think it's a mistake that we ever had it, but some good things have come of it, namely that the evaluation of the TAs so that the bad ones can be spotted. I know one of our professors thought that the end of the world would come if he had to evaluate his TA and then give him a copy of his evaluation. I said, my God, you've been doing this all your career in giving him and exam, evaluating and giving it back to him. Why not give him an evaluation of the, uh, of his 00:53:00teaching so he can improve?

And so I think that's a good thing to do, have a periodic evaluation. You see, I had background in industry, government, and university, and one of the, I always say, I like to pick out the best things from each segment and combine all the best things and leave the bad things behind. And one of the good things at DuPont was that the first year of employment, you had to have an interview with your supervisor after 6 months and after 12 months where he, uh, he was required to have this interview, so that there was a two-way communication.

He could tell, he could tell you what you were doing right and what he liked and what he didn't like, and you could tell him what you didn't like and so on. And then thereafter, it was once a year, up until five years, and thereafter, at the request of either party. This I've never seen on a systematic basis in the 00:54:00federal government, and it's even done less in academia.

LS: And it certainly would be a good idea, wouldn't it?

AK: The university, it was a good idea, sit down and talk. How is a man going to improve if he doesn't know what he's doing wrong? So I think this periodic TA evaluation is a good thing.

LS: You hadn't been doing this prior to the --

AK: No.

LS: -- systematically, prior to the --

AK: That's right, so I think that's a good thing. I think that the making sure that nobody's overworked for the amount he's getting paid is a good thing.

LS: Your people probably weren't, is that right?

AK: That's right, that's right, they weren't.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: In other words, we see no change, and, as I say, we've had half-time stipends in 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, and today, they have one-third time minimum. So we've been ahead of the contract for decades.

LS: Yeah. What about educational planning, was anything like that, or any small modicum of it instituted after the, you say there isn't --

AK: After the first contract, they had this graduate student faculty conference committee, and they met regularly.

LS: Were you on this?

AK: No. John Harriman was chairman of that committee. He was the second associate chairman, when Professor Willard was chairman. And there was a move to have more graduate students on committees such as Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, Graduate Curriculum Committee. I don't know, can't recall now, whether they were voting members or non-voting members, and there were more open meetings up in our ninth floor lounge of these various committees. But as the, as the violence and the student activism subsided, these committees met less frequently, and they sort of died on the vine.

There was no longer a Graduate Student [word unclear] Conference Committee in 00:56:00the department. And I don't know whether it was, John Willard was chairman for two years, and then John Harriman was no longer associate chairman, and Doctor Krinsky. When Doc Krinsky became chairman, then we had only one associate chairman then. So it was just a two-year interval where there was, where there were efforts to increase mechanisms for student input into education planning. But there was also a second vote. I don't know exactly when. It must've been '72, '73, '74, where again the TAs in chemistry rejected the TAA as their official bargaining [word unclear].

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: And --

LS: I have heard from someone, I've forgotten who, that there was a threat, I 00:57:00guess it would be, from the Chemistry Department to the German Department, uh, I'm not quite sure. It was, it had to do with whether the German Department gave too much leeway to their TAs. Are you familiar, do you know what I'm talking about?

AK: Doesn't ring a bell at all, no. I don't see what we could, how it would've occurred.

LS: The idea was that the, that the, some departments would recommend that German no longer be required as a, as a, the language requirement be dropped.

AK: For the undergraduate requirement or the graduate requirement?

LS: For an under, well, let's see.

AK: You see at the graduate level, in the past, the graduate school established the, uh, foreign language requirements for Ph.D. candidates, and they used to use the ETS score, ETS, Educational Testing Service. And about four or five years ago, they gave this responsibility to the departments.

LS: I guess we got cut off there, yeah. Yes, would you go on?

AK: Yeah, well, when that occurred, some departments, like physics eliminated a foreign language requirement entirely. And, but chemistry still had two languages, at minimum competency a one language, and advanced competency. A year or two later, we switched to one language. When we did that, we insisted that it had to be done by exam, and it couldn't be done by coursework.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: And so, uh, in some disciplines, like organic chemistry, they need German because there's so much chemical literature in that field in German. Other 00:59:00disciplines, it's not as important. But there is a de-emphasis on languages, unfortunately, around the whole country and particularly at the undergraduate level. And I don't like to see this trend because I am interested in languages myself being fluent in Dutch, which I picked up on my Fulbright year in Holland, and I still speak it fluently every day of my life. And I think knowing the language is very, gives one a very broadening experience.

And the other thing is I feel that part of the deficiency in English that's prevalent in all college students now around the country is the de-emphasis on foreign languages because in order to learn a foreign language, you have to know your own language, and you learn English better by learning a foreign language. And so --

LS: Does this affect chemistry students, this deficiency in English, which is 01:00:00getting worse and worse?

AK: I, I would suspect it does.

LS: I mean, does it affect their work?

AK: Well, uh, I don't suppose it affects their work because on examinations, it's mainly working, solving the problems. It isn't too much essay. But I think it probably, the professor will notice it certainly when the student starts writing the thesis. But where it's going to affect the student also is when he gets out on the job, particularly in industry, which is where the bulk of the jobs are going to be in the future.

You've got to be able to communicate to tell what you've done. It's extremely important to be able to write well, write a good technical report in industry. And I remember several years ago, I'm also chairman of Foreign Language Exams Committee because of my interest in language. And we had a student, who had all 01:01:00of his requirements completed except the language, and he obviously wasn't interested in language.

He selected Italian as something which he might be able to pick up on his own, and he had to take it two or three times, but it was appalling to see his English. This was a, he already had a job at General Electric. But he couldn't write English. I told the major professor, he's not going to be successful because he can't communicate. He won't be able to tell them if, even if he does work for the Nobel Prize, he won't be able to tell them what he's done. And it was appalling to see the English.

So, yes, I think I see, if it's coming from the high schools for the insufficient training in the language. I know, with my own family, I had a son who, I felt, didn't know how to spell or couldn't write good letters. And he was 01:02:00at Madison Memorial High School. He subsequently went to, decided to go to Deerfield Academy for his junior and senior years, where they have small classes, and they read their papers, and they correct them.

And his spelling and his writing improved dramatically. Deerfield Academy is rather expensive, and I was, I was the son of a coal miner, and I learned my English and grammar from, in grade school and middle school and high school from extremely good teachers, and it didn't cost me what it cost me to send my son to Deerfield Academy to learn how to read and write and spell. And so I think they're going to have to be more major emphasis on getting down to the fundamentals of learning how to write and understand and communicate.

LS: Do you ever make any of your chemistry students take remedial English?

AK: No. See, we sort of pass the buck on that, and, well, I guess the English Departments pass the buck to other departments. And the Chemistry Department just passed the buck by saying, well, if they complete the requirements for the 01:03:00degree, they will have satisfied the English [word unclear] proficiency requirement. Because they couldn't have gotten their degree if they couldn't understand and communicate.

LS: Yeah.

AK: But that's, uh, that's covering up a lot of seams. So, no, we don't require remedial English. I think that, we don't admit that many foreign students, generally, if they do admit foreign students, they have high scores on the TOEFLs, the test of English as a foreign language. And usually the foreign students come in on their own fellowships of scholarships, or else, they'll have experience at an American institution before we take them.

LS: I was really thinking of some of the American students, whether your feeling about language, the importance of language was such that you would go to the extreme of making it first --

AK: Well, it apparently clear that there has been a decline in their proficiency in English, and use of the language, and writing clear expository English.

LS: Would you support a move in the University to reinstate freshman --

AK: Oh, yes, yes, it's going to be costly, but I think it may have to be done because why have an educational system if you don't have the fundamentals of communication? Yes --

LS: I guess I meant with the department.

AK: Well, we would support, I personally would support it. You know, there's a committee now, uh, Undergraduate Education and Learning here, so, and English is part of that. They tried to get some preliminary things going here this summer in chemistry for testing of English. But we weren't sympathetic with that because they wanted to do it in class time.

And we felt they were going to have a visiting professor, and he's not going, we feel we don't even want to ask him because he'd feel that he has to do it. And 01:05:00so then they'd say well, they're going to do it in the fall in the evenings and on Saturdays. I said, well, maybe that's a better alternative if you want to speak to the professor and have him on a voluntary basis ask the students who would like to participate in this after class.

LS: Uh-huh.

AK: So, yes, I'm in favor of improving the English, whereas, you know we discussed in the faculty senate, and they've had these committees, and they are going to, I guess, test students at the junior level now. Maybe it's freshman and also at the junior or senior level. So there will be a move afoot, but it's going to be costly, and whether or not we can accomplish that or not without the funds, and it's going to be, will be questionable. Somebody said it would cost $700,000 to do what they want to do.

LS: A year?

AK: Yeah.

LS: Do you want to say anything about that dramatic night when the chemistry, 01:06:00the trucks delivering, uh, what was it, nitrogen, liquid nitrogen --

AK: Well, that was, that wasn't at night. It was during the day. The TAs were out there, some of our chemistry TAs were out there, blocking the driveway. And the nitrogen truck, I remember, did pull up on University Avenue, and I remember one of our conservative faculty members screaming at Shain to make sure the truck goes through.

And, of course, Shain had kept his cool and told the truck to go away. Otherwise, it would have been a sure bloodbath. And, but that, that didn't last too long and didn't affect, affect in any major way, the continuing partnership programs in the department. Subsequently, the, I don't know exactly when this 01:07:00occurred, but they actually shot bullet holes through that nitrogen tank.

LS: In 1970?

AK: Yes, yes.

LS: Well, now, the account I have had it happening at night, and somebody had parked --

AK: Well, it's conceivable that the bullet holes were shot at night. But the nitrogen tank, you had some incident of that?

LS: Well, it's apparently, the administrator from the company that was sending the nitrogen took over the truck from the teamster because the teamster, do you know about this, that the teamster --

AK: Well, the Teamsters' Union was supporting the, um, supporting the TAA.

LS: Yeah, and the teamster had to get out, get out of the truck because he wouldn't cross the picket line.

AK: Right.

LS: And this man got into the truck and drove it into the driveway, I guess. Do you remember? Were you not there?

AK: No, I don't remember that. I don't remember that. I remember the one that 01:08:00occurred in late afternoon [words unclear] was coming and they blocked it. And Shain, when he saw the crowd of people there and that there would be confrontation, he started, told the truck driver to go back.

LS: And did you, do you remember saying anything yourself?

AK: No, no, no, I --

LS: Because you're quoted as having, I wonder if somebody got you mixed up with --

AK: No, I can't recall saying anything at the nitrogen tank --

LS: About TAs and --

AK: Well, the reporter came in to ask me to, as to whether, when they were successful in blocking the delivery of the nitrogen, and the reporter came in to see if this, how this was going to affect the, the research programs. And I told him I didn't think it would, not all of them use liquid nitrogen, not all the professors. So it's just going to that group, and they probably had some 01:09:00supplies around. But then we got on to, then he found out I was a member of the Council of Ten, and I was telling him, or he was telling us, just telling me, just talk with Henry Hassler and the Council of Ten. That was the big stumbling block.

And then I told him, well, I was a member of the Council of Ten, and I thought that Hassler and Marketti were the stumbling blocks, and they, they were pulling out from this educational planning mission. And I told them that we wouldn't, we wouldn't yield an inch on that. I said anything above zero is too much to yield.

And we'll never yield on educational planning because I'd rather keep this place closed until September before we'll yield on educational planning. This was in March. But I was prepared for the strike until the fall because if we yielded on that, there would be no university. And so that's what I was quoted on, but I don't recall saying anything at the nitrogen --

LS: Oh.

AK: We'd had a confrontation with Marketti, who invaded one of our departmental 01:10:00meetings, and --

LS: That's interesting. I didn't know that.

AK: And --

LS: With a group of chemistry TAs?

AK: Yeah, we were having a meeting, and then there were some TAs in there. And then we moved into executive session. We could have private meetings and TAs left, but Marketti was out there, and he came and banged on the door and wanted to come in, that we shouldn't have secret meetings. And I guess I went over with Shain at that time and talked to Marketti, and I guess I asked Shain if I should call Hanson, to evict Marketti.

And he distributed, I don't know if you came across it. There was a pink sheet which he distributed, which I found humorous the next day, uh, and which he wrote to the TAs in chemistry and distributed also to the faculty. And he said 01:11:00the only one that acted manly was department reactionary Alex Kotch, who wanted to call the cops to lock up my ass or something like that. And I just was a hilarious, and that's in that two-inch folder of material that he sent around.

LS: I've been about three-quarters through it. I don't --

AK: So ever since that, one of my colleagues said, well, if you're the department's reactionary, we don't have anything to worry about [Laughs.]. And, but Marketti, so you see, he knew me from the bargaining team, but he felt I was the only one that acted manly. So he respected a strong stand.

LS: Yeah.

AK: But I guess I had a little concern from my family when they were getting these certain calls. As a matter of fact, I had to go to a meeting in Chicago, the North Central Association, which I consulted and evaluated. This was an 01:12:00accrediting association. And so I was a little apprehensive then, leaving my family alone. I can't recall whether we had that button on the phone or not.

LS: The reason I asked that, some, oh, you were quoted by ATA as having shouted perhaps obscenities or calling the TAs trash at a confrontation out in back.

AK: No, I can't recall ever saying anything at a confrontation that I could [words unclear] or anywhere else.

LS: So it was probably somebody else.

AK: It must've been somebody else.

LS: You said somebody was shouting at Shain. Is that right?

AK: Somebody, one of our faculty members was shouting at Shain to order that truck through. And he was furious with Shain, and, uh, so I was glad that Shain ordered that because it would've been a guaranteed blood bath.

LS: And you weren't even there at this night affair, where somebody's --

AK: No.

LS: -- parked their car in front of the truck.

AK: I don't know anything about the night, that's why it was news to me when you mentioned it.

LS: Yeah. Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

AK: Yeah.

LS: Is there anything else you'd like to say about --

AK: No, not really, is just in retrospect, I may be too harsh on the chancellor, but, you see, there are only two in the country that have TAA units. And it wasn't something that was a blazing, pioneering thing that should be done, that's good for the country and the academia. Otherwise, there'd be 2,200 other institutions doing the same thing. And we have been able to live with it, although, we would've had some trouble here with this class size.

It's interesting in this current contract, the, we move backwards from the, from 01:14:00the TA's standpoint in that our class size, because in the original contract and the one as of May of '74, average class size was calculated per course. And now it's per department, which gives us much more flexibility. And it's also a classic case of being, not being able to see the forest because of the trees. I've been involved in this since '69-'70, and in '75-'76, and when they got this class size down, I used to say, well, we've been violating the contract in chemistry for the last five years because we start out our classes at 22 in general chemistry, and it may not get down to an average of 19.

It would probably be close to being 19 average on the department, but by course, and when I told Deremus this one time, he said, well, this is probably because all your TAs are supported and nobody complains about it. It turns out that there was in the contract a statement, and if the TAs do not have the TAA as their binding agent on a departmental basis, you are excluded from that class size provision.

LS: Oh. So you never needed to worry.

AK: That's, and just in this spring, I went through the calculation, and it turned out we had 19.7 in the fall semester. And so we were required $10,000 more. And Marvin Abel says he thinks there's something in the contract that says that, um, you don't have to do that, and apparently it is on page four. It says in those departments in which the TAA is not the exclusive binding agent, the department may establish class sizes other than those stated in the workloads article.

LS: So you've been, you've been better than you needed to be.

AK: Yeah, and then so we really moved to a more flexible position, even though they striked, had a strike. And, uh, so that was interesting that, but until our TAs affiliate we don't have to worry about the class size. It turns out that we're essentially close to average anyway, which is what we would be for if we ever had a TAA in terms of supporting the people, supporting the half-time stipends, treating them well.

LS: Yeah. I suppose the, I am interested. You say that you don't think there should be a union, and yet, do you --

AK: Not for transitory --

LS: -- think they would have instituted or implemented the Mulvihill Report, or do you think that --

AK: I think apparently, I do. I think the Mulvihill Report may be in that file I gave you, and I can't remember what their recommendations were, but I --

LS: Well, they were very good. But the question was would they have done it without the pressure from the union? I guess that's the --

AK: Well, you see, there was Robin Fleming went to Michigan, and Bill Sewell 01:17:00became chancellor, and he had Dow riots and a murder on campus and threw in the towel after ten months. And then we had an acting chancellor, Brian Kearl until Ed Young took over.

LS: Yeah, but later on, what says --

AK: Later on, I think it probably would have prevented the TAA.

LS: But if it had been, the question is would the faculty have gone into, done it --

AK: Well, I think some of these things, none of these things may have required money and financial resources. That would've had to come from the administration to implement some of these things.

LS: Yeah, so that the pressure was perhaps necessary from the union.

AK: Yeah. I think that's right, that, uh, you see, there may have been some, I guess it would not have been done spontaneously without somebody looking after it. But usually, you see, if you have a committee appointed, you like to look at 01:18:00the reports and implement them. But you had two, you had a chancellor for ten months, and you had an acting chancellor.

LS: Yeah.

AK: And that's what happened. It got lost in the shuffle then in '68 when Ed Young came in. He had other problems.

LS: But it was still around four years later if somebody had wanted to do it.

AK: Yes, yes. If you haven't talked to Mulvihill, he would certainly be a good one to talk to.