THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA THE COLLECTION OF NORTH CAROLINIANA C378 UB1 This book must not be taken from the Library building. 'MWh*-"-^ REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA January 23, 1963 \< Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil http://www.archive.org/details/reportofspecialcOOuniv REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WITH APPENDED STATEMENTS BY THOMAS J. PEARSALL Chairman of the Committee AND WILLIAM FRIDAY President of the University FOREWORD On July 23, 1962, Governor Terry Sanford appointed eleven members of the Board of Trustees to a Special Committee and requested them to study proposals for the establishment of additional campuses of the University of North Carolina and other matters relating to the future of the University. What follows is the text of the report of the Special Committee as submitted to the Board of Trustees on January 25, 1963, and unanimously approved by them. Governor Sanford presided over the meeting. Mr. Thomas J. Pearsall, Chairman of the Special Committee, presented the Committee's report. A supplemental state- ment to the Trustees by Mr. Pearsall, and a statement by President William Friday are printed here along with the report. SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Victor S. Bryant Mrs. Mebane H. Burgwyn Lenox G. Cooper Percy Ferebee George Watts Hill William C Medford H. L. Riddle, Jr. Roy Rowe Walter L. Smith John W. Umstead, Jr. Thomas J. Pearsall, Chairman REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA p ■ ^he pace of change in human relationships has enormously | accelerated in recent years. Prior to the first World War the m. attention of the citizens of this country was focused upon the major problems of developing a continent and meeting the complex economic and social problems arising from a vigorous and expanding population. The first World War forced Americans to consider the relationship of this continent to the older civilizations in other parts of the world. The second World War brought many new problems, not the least of which was the enormous expansion of the influence of science and technology upon human affairs. This in turn placed many new and difficult problems upon our system of public edu- cation. The patterns of the past no longer met the demands of the present. The need for a educated citizenry became compelling, for a state and a nation that failed to understand the forces that were shaping the future could not maintain itself in the fiercely competi- tive struggle for the minds of men. Coupled with the impact of science and technology and the vast new power that new knowledge had placed in the hands of mankind was the rapid expansion of our population. This imposed additional problems upon our system of education. Not only must education differ in kind from that of the past, but it must be extended to reach a much larger proportion of our total population. Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School North Carolina was not isolated from these great changes. It became clear that the state must carefully re-examine the opportuni- ties it was providing for the education of its citizens, particularly at the highest levels, if it was to keep pace with progress. To accom- plish this end, the Governor, on September 15, 1961, appointed a committee of 26 distinguished citizens, including representatives of the colleges and universities and those responsible for the elementary and secondary schools, to make recommendations that would im- prove the effectiveness of our system of higher education. This commission made an exhaustive study of the state's system of higher education and published a report which includes many recommenda- tions that profoundly affect the responsibilities of the University of North Carolina. In the course of its work the Commission studied critically all the state-supported institutions of college and university rank and the relationships that exist between them. It made a comprehensive analysis of the growth and distribution of the population of the state to determine the areas where demands for post high school education might be anticipated. It was their purpose to prepare a plan for a well-coordinated system of higher education that would be efficient, flexible, and soundly related to the needs of the state. Their analysis of the distribution of the population of the state led the Commission to recommend the establishment of a system of comprehensive community colleges. These institutions would pro- vide education paralleling the first two years of college and university work, together with vocational and adult education responsive to the needs of the communities in which they would be established. Initia- tive for the development of community colleges would be a respon- sibility of the communities, and the land, buildings, and 15 percent of operating costs would be provided by the communities. The state and federal government would bear the remaining costs of main- tenance and operation. This system of community colleges would supply educational opportunities for young men and women in the regions adjacent to their location. They are not to be resident colleges and, consequently, education may be provided at relatively lower expense to the students. The community college program proposed by the Commission has, in our judgment, such importance for the future of higher education in North Carolina that we pledge our support of the legislation that will authorize the establishment of these colleges. The Commission recommended that the existing community colleges in Charlotte, Wilmington, and Asheville be expanded to four-year, state-supported colleges — also non-resident — in order to meet the needs for a more comprehensive education required in these centers of population. As they faced the prospect of developing four-year colleges, the cities of Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington requested affiliation with the University of North Carolina and petitions were filed with the Board of Trustees of the University asking that the University take over the community colleges in these cities and expand them as new campuses of the University. The Commission also recommended that the responsibilities of the University be defined so that its place in the state system of higher education would be clearly stated and understood. The questions raised by these petitions and the other recom- mendations of the Carlyle Commission led the trustees of the Uni- versity to request that a special committee of trustees of the Univer- sity be appointed by the Governor to study the wisdom of expanding the University to include the proposed new campuses and to consider the steps the University should take to meet the new responsibilities imposed by the recommendations of the Carlyle Commission. The Work of the Special Committee of the Board of Trustees On July 23, 1962, Governor Sanford appointed eleven mem- bers of the Board of Trustees to a Special Committee and requested them to study proposals which had been advanced for the establish- ment of additional campuses of the University in the state. The Governor also directed the committee to study other questions per- taining to the future of the University, and he referred expressly to the improvement of the educational facilities of the three existing campuses. The appointment of the committee of trustees came just at the time when the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School was completing its study and announcing its recom- mendations. It was evident that in carrying out its study the Special Committee should pay careful attention to the broad objectives underlying these recommendations and project the future of the University as a part of the total system of higher education which the recommendations envisioned. The fact that members of the Uni- versity administration and the Board of Trustees had taken an active part in the work of the Governor's Commission was a great advantage in accomplishing this purpose. Also, it was incumbent upon the Special Committee to assist the Board of Trustees to speak in its own right for the University and formulate a sound plan of action ac- cording to its own appraisal of future needs of the state and the future interest of the University. The committee members realized from the outset that they confronted a task of great significance for the University. Not since the Act of Consolidation had there been such a compelling combina- tion of forces for change in institutional arrangements for higher education. The action taken a generation ago contemplated the development in North Carolina of one eminent state university by combining three existing state institutions under one board of trustees and one president — all dedicated to one transcendent educational purpose and sustained by one body of popular support. That was in the depths of an economic depression. Now in a time of economic growth and prosperity new reasons proclaim the urgency of new vision. We felt that nothing less than a new assessment of the University mission and a positive assertion of the best means of advancing its purposes would answer the Governor's assignment. Given a charge of such importance for the future of the state, the committee undertook to acquaint itself with the basic concept and purpose of universities. And particularly it re-examined the foundations of the fruitful partnership between the state and the state university in North Carolina. In all of this, the committee felt that it could be guided by no surer standard than maximum service consistent with preserving the traditional excellence of the University of North Carolina. 8 In reviewing its responsibilities, the Special Committee decided that it should meet with the administrative officers and the trustees of the community colleges at Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington to assess at first hand the need for the kind of education that only a university can provide and to study the programs and facilities of these institutions. These visits were made and an opportunity was afforded the administrative officers and trustees of the three com- munity colleges to explain their needs and their reasons for request- ing that they become units of the University. Members of the Special Committee also visited the University of California to study the way in which that university had met the problems of providing for a rapidly expanding population. California has had a highly successful system of community colleges for many years and the committee sought the opportunity to study the effective- ness of this program and the relationships existing between the com- munity colleges and the University. The officers of the University of California gave generously of their time and members of the Special Committee profited from the frank and informative discussions. The committee also sought the advice and counsel of repre- sentatives of the faculties of the three units of the University of North Carolina. In these discussions the desirability of enlarging the University to include additional campuses at Charlotte, Wilming- ton, and Asheville was explored thoroughly along with other matters affecting the future welfare of the University. Prominent among the latter were the desirability of adapting the names of the three units of the University to reflect their status as units of a single multi- campus state university, and their responsibilities for offering pro- grams at the graduate level. The desirability of utilizing more fully the resources of the three existing campuses by making all three fully co-educational was also explored; also the wisdom of broadening the academic offerings on the Raleigh campus to include degree programs in the liberal arts. THE IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSITIES Universities are unique agencies of our culture. They are com- munities of scholars drawn together by a common desire to enrich their understanding of man and the environment in which he lives and by their interest in the education and training of rising genera- tions. A distinctive mark of universities is the freedom which faculty members enjoy to study whatever seems important to them without regard for any immediate practical benefits which may result from their efforts. They are centers of ideas where competent and exper- ienced scholars may devote their lives to the study of the unknown and, through the understanding thus achieved, contribute to the happiness and well-being of all mankind. Society protects the univer- sity in this freedom because it believes that an agency devoted to unfettered search for truth serves the best interest of society. The three basic responsibilities of a university — instruction, re- search, and the preservation of knowledge — are inseparably asso- ciated in the pattern of academic life. The research studies of the faculty and the advanced students strongly influence instructional programs, and the accomplishments of those who labored in earlier days, available for restudy in university libraries, serve as a source of inspiration to teachers and research workers alike. The spirit of intellectual adventure permeates the air of the campus and its in- fluence is reflected in the creative work of those who live for a time in such an atmosphere. The State University The institution which is the immediate object of our concern is the state university. This peculiarly American institution is an ex- pression of academic traditions which have come down, essentially unchanged, from the Middle Ages combined with a deliberate or- ganization and application of intellectual resources to the well-being of the democratic state. Like all ideas and institutions that were carried from Europe, the university was shaped by the conditions in the New World. The 10 colonial colleges of America did not reproduce the same setting of legal and scholastic authority of colleges and universities of the Old World. At the time of the Revolution there was no state-supported college in America. All were private, and all but one were sectarian. They were founded by small communities. They did not preserve the European isolation of the college from the community. They de- veloped in accordance with distinctively American needs and uses. Lay boards of control helped marshal the available resources and made the college a part of the organic community. The university as it developed in this country was further in- fluenced by ideas which were dominant in the early national period of American life. No idea was affirmed more insistently by the Founding Fathers than that general education was essential to democratic representative government. Several of the revolutionary state constitutions, including that of North Carolina, made provision for state universities. Washington asserted that democratic govern- ment was feasible only so far as the people were enlightened. Frank- lin, whose philosophy shaped the character and institutions of Ameri- can life as much as any man's, permanently influenced American education toward the practical, the utilitarian and the common-sense. Madison long championed the unrealized goal of a national univer- sity. Thomas Jefferson's lifetime of public service culminated in the founding of one of the historic state universities of America. No institution is more typically American than the state university; and the premier state university of America is the University of North Carolina. William Richardson Davie reflected the aims of the Founding Fathers when he wrote into the Plan of Studies for the University the words of the French Convention, "As in every free government the law emanates from the people, it is necessary that the people should receive an education to enable them to direct the laws. . . ." The constant search for knowledge and understanding which characterizes universities shapes the life of the state; its influence reaches into every crevice of society and charts the course that deter- mines the future of our culture. Public universities in particular have, 11 therefore, a peculiar responsibility for the power they possess. They must be responsive to the needs of society; yet they must ever be wary of conforming to the patterns of thought that pervade their sources of support. To accept a subservient relationship to the culture of which they are a part would be to deny the freedom of thought that makes them invaluable and to betray their reason for being. Universities must stand apart, secure in the freedom they enjoy to seek the truth wherever it may lead and to serve as analyst and critic of the contemporary scene; yet they must be conscious always of their mission to train the men and women who will deal with the practical problems of today and tomorrow. The best hope for meeting suc- cessfully the problems of modern life lies in increasing the influence of those who are trained in our universities. The educational history of America has been marked by the steady adaptation of universities to the requirements of society. There has been a progressive tendency toward broadening the scope and extending the reach of teaching, research, and myriad services to government, business, and individuals. To classical studies have been added the scientific and patently vocational. Courses in the liberal arts have been joined by courses in agriculture, engineering, and business. Undergraduate colleges have been enveloped by graduate and professional colleges of medicine, law, education, journalism, social work, librarianship, and many more. The state university is but one of many threads in the history of American higher education. Later in inception but not less significant was the Land Grant movement in education instituted by Con- gressional enactment of the Morrill Act in 1862. In the train of this action what is now North Carolina State College was founded as the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts in 1887 with the declared objective of teaching: "the branches of learning relating to agricultural and mechanical arts and such other classical and scientific studies as the board of trustees may elect to have taught, and to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life." 12 Again there is no more inspiring chapter in public higher edu- cation than that which was written by the founders of the state nor- mal schools and notably that one in Greensboro founded by Charles Duncan Mclver in 1896 and now known by the name of the Wom- an's College of the University of North Carolina. The objects of the institution (reads the charter) shall be to teach young white women all branches of knowledge recognized as essen- tial to a liberal education, such as will familiarize them with the world's best thought and achievement and prepare them for intelli- gent and useful citizenship; to make special provision for training in the science and art of teaching, school management, and school supervision; to provide women with such training in the arts, sciences, and industries as may be conducive to their self-support and community usefulness. . . . It is a signal fact and a singular fortune that thirty-one years ago the leaders of our state had the vision and the courage to join these three fruitful traditions and the separate institutions which each had fostered into one state university. As we look back upon it now in the light of what has happened to structural patterns of higher edu- cation in other states and in the light of growth and the manifest benefits to the institutions and to the state, it seems inevitable that they should have been joined together thereby increasing the power of each by the benefits of mutual aid and enrichment. The Need for Change in University Programs The last two decades have been years of unparalleled growth in American public institutions of higher learning. In this period many states have struggled against the difficulties of uncontrolled duplication and unplanned coordination of institutions. The struggle has been frustrating and wasteful. North Carolina, on the other hand, has conducted the struggle not without normal frustration, to be sure, but on the more ordered and productive plan of ongoing internal administration. And more important, it has established a sound basis in experience and readiness to face the inevitable changes that lie ahead. 13 Modern society in America has become more and more depend- ent upon trained minds, and the demands it makes upon its people are such that those without education find themselves less and less able to occupy a satisfying place in our culture. The pressures for more and for better educational opportunities continue to grow at a geometric rate until today it is clear that the systems of education that have served well in the past are inadequate to meet the needs of our people. Our population is growing rapidly so that existing col- leges and universities are unable to cope with the numbers of youths who are asking for admission. High school enrollments in North Carolina increased by 18,000 students a year ago. Last fall the increase was more than 20,000. This rate of increase is expected to continue for the next five to seven years. College enrollments in this state have also increased dramatically. In 1940 there were 32,000 students enrolled in our institutions of college and university rank; in 1950 the number had grown to 45,000; and by I960 there were 68,000 such students. Last year college and university enrollments had reached 75,000. A fifty percent increase has occurred during the last six years. The enrollment study made by Dr. C. Horace Hamilton for the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School indi- cates that at least 93,300 college and university students will be seeking admission to the institutions of higher education in this state in 1965. By the end of this decade we may expect a minimum of 109,700 applicants for admission. Private colleges and universities in the state have planned expan- sion sufficient to accommodate 11,250 additional students. This means that the public institutions must be prepared to accept about 60 percent of the student increase expected in 1970. Some 30,000 more students will then be seeking educational opportunities beyond the secondary school level. Changes in our system of higher education are urgently needed to meet the demands that lie immediately ahead. Although the edu- cation provided in the public schools and in colleges and universities 14 has steadily improved, it must be raised to new levels if we are to have the educated citizenry that is essential to maintain our place in a modern world. The problems of education which the pace of con- temporary life places before us are grave indeed and their implica- tions for the happiness and well-being of our people, and even for our survival as a nation, are such as to command our best efforts. The situation which confronts us requires immediate attention, for time does not wait, and to falter in meeting our responsibilities is to jeopardize our future. RECOMMENDATIONS The Special Committee of the Board of Trustees have agreed upon a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the Uni- versity and foster larger service in the future. These recommendations are interrelated and each is dependent upon the others. Therefore, they are submitted as a program. That is, the force of each recom- mendation is conditioned upon acceptance of the others. 1. Definition of University Purpose The Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School has recommended a new statutory definition of the purpose of the University. We concur in this proposal and recommend that it be enacted by the General Assembly. The proposed definition is as follows: The University shall provide instruction in the liberal arts, fine arts, and sciences, and in the learned professions, including teaching, these being defined as those professions which rest upon advanced knowledge in the liberal arts and sciences; and it shall be the pri- mary state-supported agency for research in the liberal arts and sciences, pure and applied. The University shall provide instruction in the branches of learning relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, and to other scientific and classical studies. The University shall be the only institution in the State system of higher education authorized to award the doctor's degree. There are, to be sure, existing definitions, historic definitions asserting the aims of three separate North Carolina institutions 15 which have become the University of North Carolina. The charters and successive statutes reveal the traditions of the state university, the land grant college, and the state normal school in their pro- gressive development into one paramount state university. By act of the General Assembly of 1931, the University of North Carolina, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, and the North Carolina College for Women were "consolidated and merged" into The University of North Carolina. But a statutory definition of the new entity is lacking, and to that extent the realization of actual consolidation has been hampered by a persistent ambiguity of purpose. The time has come to have a clear and straightforward statutory declaration of university purpose and one which reflects the essential unity of the university organi- zation. With the projected development of all state institutions of higher education, the needed broadening of programs within the University and the proposed establishment of new institutions, it has become necessary to have a basic guide for differentiating between the functions of the University and other state colleges. Thus the recommended definition would reiterate university responsibility along with the other colleges for undergraduate instruction in the liberal arts and the sciences. It would recognize that the University is the principal institution for education in the professions. The University would be the primary state institution for academic re- search and the only one authorized to award the doctor's degree. The definition is the point of reference for other recommenda- tions looking toward enlargement and improvement of University service. Its enactment into law by the General Assembly is regarded by this committee as constituting a condition precedent to the actual implementation of other changes recommended in this report. 2. Coeducation on all Campuses The Woman's College of the University has, as its name sug- gests, largely restricted its programs to young women. At times in 16 the past, men have been accepted as students, particulatly at the graduate level, and at the present time men are admitted as graduate students. No dormitory facilities have ever been provided for men; so the men who have attended this campus of the University have done so as commuters. Although there has been a branch of the University in Greens- boro since 1931, there is no university program open to men in the Greensboro area at the undergraduate level at this time. The popu- lation of the region in and immediately surrounding the city of Greensboro has reached such dimensions that the wisdom of re- stricting university programs in this branch of the University to women must be re-examined. To hold to such a restriction would be to fail to use educational facilities that are already in being at the same time that we are striving to secure additional facilities. Uni- versity education is being denied many young men in this populous area of the state because of their inability to afford the cost of at- tending the University at Chapel Hill or State College in Raleigh. The definition proposed for the University and the change in name proposed for the Woman's College emphasize our respon- sibility for enlarged and improved programs on the Greensboro campus. It is difficult to conceive of a full-fledged university pro- gram at that institution which would be restricted to women, for such restrictions are intrinsically inconsistent with the concept of a modern university. Opening the campus of the University at Greens- boro to men will greatly strengthen that institution's opportunities to obtain faculty members of distinction and so to develop research and creative work to the levels expected of a university. Although no dormitory facilities have been provided for men on the campus at Greensboro and none is being planned for the immediate future, we recognize that it may become desirable to provide such facilities when the full utilization of the resources of that institution warrant this action. For much the same reasons it is considered advisable to open the institutions at Raleigh and Chapel Hill more widely to women and 17 to commuting students. The first step in broadening educational opportunities should be the greater utilization of existing institutions. The University at Chapel Hill does not now admit women to the freshman and sophomore classes generally. This limitation imposes hardships for certain programs, particularly the fine arts and in music. They are unduly restrictive in other programs and are inconsistent with the full utilization of the educational resources of the Univer- sity to meet the needs of the people of the state. We recommend, therefore, that the campuses of the three units of the University be authorized to admit men and women at all levels. 3. Broader Undergraduate Education The recommendation of the Governor's Commission on Edu- cation Beyond the High School that existing community colleges at Charlotte, Wilmington, and Asheville be expanded to four-year, non- resident colleges has been mentioned earlier in this report. The Board of Trustees of the University strongly endorses this recommendation and commends the full support of the University to the development of these institutions to maximum usefulness. The resources of a university must be such as to provide those who seek an education with some understanding of the richness of man's intellectual achievements. It is not enough to train young men and women in the arts and skills of a profession; it is not enough to produce highly trained specialists in narrow disciplines. A university education must combine the training that is essential for the scientist, the lawyer, the engineer, the medical doctor with some appreciation of the traditions of the past, with some acquaint- ance with literature and the fine arts, and with some understanding of the ideas which have made the world what it is today. A university cannot be a university and discharge its responsibilites as an educa- tional institution unless it offers students an education of sufficient breadth to insure their participation in society as independent, well- informed, thoughtful citizens. 18 It is important and necessary, therefore, that the University of North Carolina take steps to insure that each of its campuses provides a breadth of educational experience consistent with the standards of the University. For these reasons we recommend that a degree program in the liberal arts be authorized at the Raleigh campus. Curricula in the liberal arts already exist at Chapel Hill and Greens- boro. 4. A Plan for Future Expansion of the University A university has responsibilities that differ in several ways from those that are characteristic of a college. Prominent among these is the emphasis given in a university to research on the part of the faculty and to the training of graduate students. Because of the wide scope of university programs and the importance attached to research, their faculties are made up of scholars and scientists in many dis- ciplines. The existence of high levels of competence in many dif- ferent fields is a source of strength to each discipline and it provides opportunities for educational programs that are not possible in the more restricted offerings of a college. North Carolina is a vigorous and growing state. Its expanding economy is developing centers of population in areas remote from the sites of its University campuses. The citizens of these regions feel keenly the need for the rich and varied educational programs that the University provides and which, because of distance, are denied to many of them. As these needs continue to grow, the University must be prepared to meet its responsibilities to these people by enlarging its resources even to the point of establishing new cam- puses when careful study warrants such action. The aim of the report of the Governor's Commission on Edu- cation Beyond the High School is to bring about in the state a well- coordinated system of higher education. This requires a clearly deli- neated differentiation of function between the different kinds of institutions of higher education and a definition of the responsibilities of the University. 19 The requests of the trustees of Charlotte College, Wilmington College, and Asheville-Biltmore College that these institutions be- come units of the University of North Carolina have been given thoughtful and sympathetic consideration. After careful study we recommend that the statutes be amended to authorize the Board of Trustees of the University to establish additional units of the Uni- versity subject to applicable statutory procedures and the following conditions: ( 1 ) That the need for the development of a new unit be established by a thorough study of the area in which it is proposed to locate the new campus; such study to be made under the direction of the Board of Trustees. ( 2 ) That additional funds be made available for the establishment of the new campus to insure that the quality of the instructional and research program of the existing units of the University be maintained at the highest possible level. ( 3 ) That standards and criteria prescribed by the Board of Trustees shall prevail at any new campus in the same manner that they apply at the existing campuses of the University. The Committee recommends the foregoing as a sound and stable procedure whereby new units of the University may be established in other areas of the state. It is our judgment that a need for educa- tional programs of the kind that only a university can provide will exist in areas where rapid increases in population have occurred. Industrial development creates a demand and a need for graduate and specialized education. Subject to legislative authorization we recommend that the Uni- versity undertake a comprehensive study of the need for the establish- ment of new units of the University and report its recommendations to the Board of Trustees. 5. One Name for the University In 1931 the legislature united the University of North Carolina, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, and the North Carolina College for Women into a single institu- tion: The University of North Carolina. This union was not accom- 20 plished without difficulties, for each of the institutions felt deeply the loss of its independence. Major changes in academic programs were made in the interest of economy and the more efficient use of available funds. Whole curricula were transferred from one institu- tion to another to avoid duplicating programs of instruction in pro- fessional fields and to concentrate the full resources of the state behind specific programs. Graduate work was centralized in a single graduate school and many other steps were taken to strengthen and enrich both teaching and research. In recognition of the traditions associated with each of the three campuses, each institution was given a name that reflected both its former as well as its new status as a unit of a single university. Thus at Raleigh, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering became the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North Carolina. This unwieldy title quickly became North Carolina State College in the minds of faculty members, students, and the general public; so its new status as a component part of a single university was not identified in its popular name. The North Carolina College for Women became the Woman's College of the University, a title which recognized both its distinctive character as an institution for women and its newly- acquired status as a branch of the University. The Chapel Hill campus retained its former title since its position as a university was not changed by the new legislative act.* In spite of disappointments and deep concern on the part of numbers of faculty members and others, the passage of time has demonstrated the wisdom of the changes that were made and re- warded the courage of those responsible for carrying through the necessary reorganization. Under the new centralized administration, * State College was founded in 1887 as the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. In 1917 the name was changed to the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering. The present name (North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North Carolina) was adopted in 1931. The Woman's College was founded in 1891 as the Normal and Industrial School. In 1897 the name was changed to the State Normal and Industrial College. In 1919 the name was again changed to the North Carolina College for Women. Since 1931 the name has been the Woman's College of the University of North Carolina. 21 great progress has been made. Each unit of the University has flourished, salaries have improved, physical facilities have been enlarged beyond what was thought possible, and reputations for scholarly work have been enhanced. The union of the three separate institutions has brought added strength to them all. While important progress has been made under a central ad- ministration, the fact that each unit of the University has had a separate and distinctive name has hindered the full development of a spirit of unity and common purpose on the three campuses. The institution at Raleigh has reached a stage of development where it is no longer appropriate to refer to it as a college. It has now become a university. It is also inappropriate to continue to call the institution at Greensboro a college in view of plans to advance the general program to university scope and status. To retain the name Woman's College while acting to admit men would be anomalous. These facts indicate to us the desirability of changing the names of the three institutions comprising the University of North Carolina so as to identify them as component units of a single university. We have, therefore, devoted much time and thought to the nomen- clature problem. In our study we have welcomed the advice and criticism of students, faculty, alumnae and alumni, trustees, and many others. We have studied the nomenclature used in other state-sup- ported universities having several campuses or branches. From these deliberations has emerged a nomenclature for the University and its three campuses that removes the objections to the titles now in use and identifies clearly each institution as a component unit of a single university. We recommend that the title now used to designate the single university with its three campuses, "The University of North Caro- lina," be retained; that the institution at Chapel Hill be given the name, "The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill"; that the institution at Raleigh be known as, "North Carolina State, The University of North Carolina at Raleigh"; and that the unit at Greensboro be given the title, "The University of North Carolina at Greensboro." 22 CONCLUSION The University is on the threshold of great opportunities and enlarged responsibilities. The trustee committee was asked to study ways and means by which the University could meet its growing obligations and best serve the state and the nation. With this pur- pose we have recommended a comprehensive program for assuring the future strength and resourcefulness of the University and for immediately broadening curricular offerings and admissions policies to utilize our resources as completely as possible. Our recommenda- tions are based on the concept of a single university sufficiently flexible in its administration and in its programs to respond to the needs which are now apparent in different regions of the state and sufficiently sound to meet problems in university education that will arise in the future. The University was established more than a century and a half ago by people of the state to provide the educational opportunities that were then recognized as essential for democratic government and for economic and cultural progress. The loftiness of the ideal immediately called forth the interest and the devoted labor of the leading citizens of the state. This belief in the importance and worthi- ness of the University has continued, and to be a trustee of the Uni- versity has, not without reason, been regarded as a high call to public duty and one of commensurate responsibility. The benefits which have accrued to our people because of the excellence of the University and the courage of its leaders extend to every sector of its cultural, political, and economic life. For example, the Institute of Government at Chapel Hill has been a major factor in improving the effectiveness of city and county administration; the work of the School of Agriculture at State College in developing effective control of plant diseases and insect pests has enormously increased the productivity of our food and fiber crops; the teacher- training programs at all three units of the University have enriched the lives of tens of thousands of school children through the im- provement of teaching; the professional training of doctors, lawyers, 23 scientists, engineers, architects, musicians, artists and research scholars has added greatly to the physical and cultural welfare of our people. The research investigations of scientists have increased man's understanding of the natural world and laid the foundation for ap- plication of this basic knowledge that will contribute to the economic resources of the state and nation. Because of its contributions to the happiness and well-being of the citizens of the state and because of the pride they have in the intellectual distinction of the University, the institution has enjoyed genuine public confidence and generous support in successive sessions of the General Assembly. This productive partnership between the state and the Univer- sity is a distinctive theme of North Carolina history. The results in terms of gathered wealth and culture and the progressive temper of our public life are assets to be treasured. Its perpetuation through the progress of our institutions is the continuing object of our trustee- ship. On these foundations we propose to build so that the University of North Carolina may continue to advance its standing among the universities of this country and do its full share to assist in the task of enlarging man's understanding of himself and of the world of which he is a part. Respectfully submitted, Victor S. Bryant William C. Medford Mrs. Mebane H. Burgwyn H. L. Riddle, Jr. Lenox G. Cooper Roy Rowe Percy Ferebee Walter L. Smith George Watts Hill John W. Umstead, Jr. THOMAS J. Pearsall, Chairman January 25, 1963 24 Supplemental Statement By Thomas J. Pearsall The report I have just presented to you is the result of seven months' study during which time the committee met eight to ten times, visited Charlotte, Wilmington, and Asheville-Biltmore Com- munity Colleges and the University of California. We sought, re- ceived, and used the advice and counsel of faculty members, students, and alumni groups of all three branches of the University, and we have given full consideration to their views in arriving at our con- clusions when they would not run counter to principles underlying our study. We have respected the limitations of our commission and have proceeded upon the theory that we were acting as a committee for the trustees to gather facts and make recommendations directly to you. In the spirit of this approach, the committee has taken great pains to keep you fully informed at each step of our study and to involve you wherever possible. We asked that you be called to a special meeting in this Hall in November, 1962, in order that we might fully inform you of the scope and progress of our study. I presented to you at that meeting a sixteen-page progress report and President Friday discussed with you at length the five main areas in which we were working and their meaning and implications for the future of the University. In addition to this information each trustee was invited to one or more district trustee and alumni meet- ings held throughout the entire state, where you were briefed by the President or one of the Chancellors on the program we were study- ing. The President has met with representative groups of the faculties and student bodies of all three branches of the University and dis- cussed with them in detail the program which we have presented to you today. The work of our committee has been thoroughly reported by the press and other news media during the entire period of our study. So we feel that we have done everything possible to inform 25 you fully on the important matters to be considered today and that you are in a position to make intelligent and final decisions in re- spect thereto. I have no doubt that you are aware that there has been much discussion about the name of State College. You have heard our recommendations on this question, but I know that you will be in- terested in and are entitled to a brief statement of the origin of this question and how we arrived at our final recommendation. The question of the new name for State College evolved as a perfectly normal and logical development in the growth of State College from a college to a university. In 1931 the Act of Consoli- dation gave State College the name of "The North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering of the University of North Carolina." Under consolidation the college grew in size, service, disciplines and status to the point where it has become now a univer- sity in every sense except one, which we propose to correct today by giving authority to grant the liberal arts degree. The Administra- tion, the faculties at all three branches, and our committee recognized that fact early and set about the task of finding a name which would properly identify the college as a university and at the same time identify it as a part of the University of North Carolina, which it is as a matter of law and fact. The committee soon found that in order to identify State College as part of the Consolidated University and to meet the desires of the faculty, alumni and students of State College, a name would have to be conceived which did three things: ( 1 ) identify State College as a part of the University system ( 2 ) remove the word "college" from the name and (3) have the words "university" and "North Carolina State" in the name. This was not an easy task. In an effort to preserve unity in the University family and to find a solution as nearly satisfactory to all parties as possible, without sacrificing principles, the committee kept this question under consideration for several weeks. Two weeks ago today the President requested Chancellor Caldwell of State College to meet with the alumni, faculty and student groups of State College 26 in an effort to discover whether a satisfactory name could be agreed upon which would meet the requirements mentioned above. Chan- cellor Caldwell accordingly conferred with these groups collectively and individually and we were happy that he was able to report to our Committee last Friday that the members of the Board of Directors of the North Carolina State College Alumni Association, the Board Chairman, and the President of the Alumni Association voted unan- imously for a resolution on January 17, stating that they would "accept willingly" either of the three options. The committee con- sidered the three names suggested and found that the name we have recommended, "North Carolina State, The University of North Caro- lina at Raleigh," more nearly met the requirements mentioned and, therefore, we recommend that name to you. We now believe this question has been resolved and that we can proceed in unity. This Committee has felt from the beginning that this period in the life of the University presents a singular challenge and op- portunity for the University to make perhaps its greatest contribution to the state and the region. This report reaches you at the very moment that the state is studying and planning its future system of higher education. A major purpose of our recommendations is to carry out the substance and the spirit of the report of the Governor's Commission on Education Beyond the High School as it affects the University. We bring this report to you within two weeks of the convening of the General Assembly of this state to which the Governor will present an ambitious and forward-looking program for higher edu- cation in North Carolina, perhaps the most important program he will propose in the second half of his administration. It comes at a time when the financial condition of this state permits it to make substantial appropriations and provisions for higher education. At this same juncture the state finds itself enmeshed in an agricultural revolution. Mechanization is moving large segments of our population from farm to city. Our state is experiencing specta- cular industrial expansion with resultant economic and social strains 27 and adjustments. This period also finds North Carolina experiencing an explosion in college-age population, with 20,000 more high school students in 1962 than in the preceding year and with a minimum of 110,000 young men and women seeking admission to our colleges and universities in 1970. While we can find encouragement in the growth and progress we have recently made in North Carolina, we cannot forget that this report comes to you also at a time when a large segment of our people are still disadvantaged economically, educationally, and socially. North Carolina must be lifted from its 46th place in per capita income; from its 49th place among the States in hourly wage rates; from its low position where an alarmingly high percentage of its young men are rejected from military service because of physical or mental deficiencies, and from its next-to-the-bottom position in the percentage of college-age population receiving post high school education. This is the stage upon which our University finds itself at this moment, and these are the challenges and opportunities which this moment in the history of our state and nation presents to us as trustees. We offer to you in our report a program by which the University of North Carolina and you as its trustees can meet that challenge and accept that opportunity. We heartily recommend this program and hope that you will accept it in the tradition of the leadership, vision, and dedication to service to the people of this state which has characterized this University from its inception. 28 Statement By President William Friday I am conscious of a rising sense of the importance of this occa- sion. A special meeting of the Board of Trustees has been contem- plated for several months. During these months the work of many hands, and heads, and hearts has been directed toward this hour. I have had the sense this morning also that this meeting is the culmi- nating event not of the work of several months but of years; not the result merely of the work of one commission or one trustee com- mittee, but a logical development of generations of effort by faculties, alumni, citizens, and successive boards of trustees. I have been thinking this morning about the meetings of this Board of Trustees, some that I have witnessed and some that I know only from history. Some have been characterized by quiet and routine transaction of business. Others have been marked by the vigorous debate and controversy which are properly associated with university life. But one always senses a great resource of popular leadership and latent strength when this body assembles. In the largeness of our membership we also feel a sound and secure identity with the richness and variety of the state which gives life to our enterprise, and draws life from it. Yours is the oldest trusteeship of any state university in America. The naming of trustees was the very first action contained in the charter. By this act the future of the University was entrusted to their hands. A university more than any other institution assumes a future. Virtually everything that it does presupposes a future. Thus greatness in a particular university requires not only that it understand and serve the needs of the times, but also that it wisely anticipate and courageously plan for the needs of the future. The line of develop- ment of our own University for these 175 years has been the line of trustee projection of the university mission beyond current prob- lems into the life of future generations. 29 It is in this concept of trusteeship that the program which has been presented today is advanced. And it is in this mood of apprecia- tion for the University's historic importance in the progress of our commonwealth that I undertake to say a few words about it. I will not burden you with a repetition of the elements of that program or a reiteration of the reasons underlying every one of the recommenda- tions. The chairman of the Special Trustee Committee has done that with admirable clarity and force. However, speaking as one who has been called, for a time, to administrative responsibility in our ongoing University tradition, I wish to express my enthusiastic and unqualified endorsement of the recommended program and my wholehearted appreciation to the trustees and to other University associates who have worked so devotedly to bring it forward. I said I felt a rising sense of the importance of this occasion. I say this because I believe that destiny has called upon us to make a decision which will have the utmost significance for the future of the University and the state. These are auspicious times in the affairs of peoples and of nations. They are revolutionary times in science and technology. It follows, perforce, that they are times of necessary growth and qualitative change in institutions of higher education. The question which we confront today is simply this: How will North Carolina meet these conditions? What response, in particular, does the University of North Carolina make to the threat and the challenge of multi- dimensional change? There is no state in our union that has not felt strong currents forcing accommodation of institutional arrangements in higher edu- cation. Some have floundered in trial and error and moved from one improvisation to another with consequent impairment of stand- ards, reputation, and accomplishment. Others have wisely combined flexibility and necessary growth with sound guarantees of quality and academic excellence. It is our desire and our aim to be one of these latter; and the aim is favored by the happy fact that thirty-one years ago our trustees looked ahead, wisely and boldly, and projected 30 into an undisclosed future what now has become our sound founda- tion and time-tested formula for yet another bold and confident advance. When the General Assembly and some of the trustees, acting under the strong leadership of Governor O. Max Gardner, sought to eSect the consolidation of three separate but kindred state institu- tions, they acted in circumstances far different from those prevailing today. Strict economy in all state activities was imperative. The main threat to standards then was not uncontrolled expansion but debil- itating retrenchment. The problem was to husband resources and protect vital institutions by a formula that would conserve the uni- versity idea in the crisis and give promise of greater fulfillment in the future. Although conditions were different they were actuated by the same perdurable aim, namely: a university of excellence and distinction for the State of North Carolina. The words of Governor Gardner, spoken in an address of March 2, 1931, express the high purpose that he held and the deep con- fidence that he felt in the ultimate benefits to be derived. I believe that this General Assembly will make a definite and permanent contribution to the progress and life of North Carolina in its general efforts to adjust our government to the problems of the period in which we live, but I declare to you in my judgment that the consolidation of these three great institutions under one central control will mean more for the future of North Carolina than any other and all other legislation with which we struggle. It makes possible ultimately the united support of North Carolina behind one great unified, co-ordinated, and intelligently directed educational enterprise. The program which Governor Gardner advocated was not ac- cepted by the Legislature without surmounting formidable objections and without rallying the concerted effort of citizens, trustees, faculties and alumni. Even then, but for the unexampled courage and re- sourcefulness of Frank Porter Graham, upon whom fell the task of shaping three hitherto separate and rival institutions into a larger conception of one threefold university, it is doubtful that Governor 31 Gardner's vision could have been realized. With the impulse of Gardner, the guidance of Graham and then Gray, and the powerful collaboration of Woollen, Carmichael, Brooks, Foust, House, Jack- son, and Harrelson, (not to mention present company and many others who are not here today) we have been brought to a favored place in the world of education and in the strength of our institu- tional resources and arrangements to push forward in another ad- vance for our University and our state. The Act of Consolidation coupled three institutions into one. It also established a plan for avoiding costly duplication. Instead of attempting to have two engineering schools we would concentrate our resources upon one. Instead of two business schools, there would be one. According to the plan of allocated functions, specialized pro- grams, especially graduate and professional programs, would be developed on only one of the three campuses. At the same time there would be constructive cooperation and interchange among faculties and institutions. A member of our Graduate Council has called this "the doctrine of complementary strengths." Thus, strength in design at Raleigh might complement strength in city and regional planning at Chapel Hill. Strength in food sciences at Raleigh might comple- ment strength in home economics at Greensboro. The thirty-one years since consolidation have been years of advancement for the threefold university. The growth and progress of the three, and the one, is too evident for me to belabor it here, and besides it is not the past but the future to which we direct our attention today. We face a new need and a new opportunity in a world that is largely transformed even in the short generation since 1931. We are not educating enough of our people. Despite our proud educa- tional achievements, North Carolina ranks distressfully low among the states in the proportion of its adult citizens who attended college and the proportion of college-age youths who go to college. In the face of this harsh fact we see a growing population, a burgeoning economy, and a future which is unlimited if we will but raise the 32 educational level of our people. The need today is not to avoid duplication, but to duplicate, to multiply our educational offerings at the level of general undergraduate training while observing pro- gressive enlargement of professional and graduate education within the University structure. We must call into play the structure and machinery established in thirty-one years of experience for a broaden- ing of University programs and services appropriate to demonstrated needs of the present and soundly estimated needs of the future. The program which has been put forward today is a logical stage in the progressive implementation of ideas implicit in consoli- dation. It draws the gathered resources of the threefold University into the ongoing effort to advance all education in North Carolina. It casts the line for future growth of the University within the con- cept of one state university. It provides for necessary expansion while at the same time preserving institutional integrity. By defining the University purpose, it protects against wasteful proliferation. By broadening admissions policies and undergraduate programs, it opens doors to many worthy and eligible students. By establishing a frame work for future expansion, it assures a continuing attention to new area needs for University education. By adopting a name which de- notes the oneness of the University, it assumes a stance of unity for the great work that lies ahead. I express my profound appreciation to William Aycock, John Caldwell, Otis Singletary, Donald Anderson, Fred Weaver, the faculty committee, and many others for their splendid cooperation and helpfulness in shaping this program. We are unanimous in our judgment that the best interests of the University and the State will be served when this program is fully implemented. Such is the occasion that Fortune presents to us today. The people of the state await your answer. As I see it, we either go for- ward on the buoyant impulse of a lofty program of larger service, or we say nay and rue the cost of forfeited opportunity. 33 BOARD OF TRUSTEES Governor Terry Sanford, Chairman (ex officio) ARCH T. ALLEN, Secretary MlSS BiLLlE CURTIS, Assistant Secretary Charles F. CARROLL, State Superintendent of Public Instruction (ex officio) Honorary Lifetime Members John Motley Morehead, Rye, New York William Rand Kenan, Lockport, New York Luther H. Hodges, Chapel Hill John W. Clark, Franklinville Class of April 1, 1963 Mrs. Oscar Barker, Durham IRWIN Belk, Mecklenburg Mitchell Britt, Duplin Mrs. John G. Burgwyn, Northampton S. N. Clark, Jr., Edgecombe T. J. Collier, Pamlico A. ROY Cox, Randolph Eugene Cross, McDowell Ben E. Fountain, Edgecombe 1 0. Max Gardner, Jr., Cleveland George Watts Hill, Durham John H. Kerr, Jr., Warren M. C. LASITTER, Greene 2 J. Spencer Love, Guilford D. L. McMlCHAEL, Rockingham Rudolph I. MlNTZ, New Hanover Thomas O. Moore, Forsyth Ashley M. Murphey, Pender Mrs. B. C. Parker, Stanly Mrs. C. W. Stanford, Orange Thomas Turner, Guilford John W. Umstead, Jr., Orange 3 Herman Weil, Wayne Sam L. WHITEHURST, Craven Macon M. Williams, Caldwell Class of April 1, 1965 Frances A. Buchanan, Henderson Jesse B. Caldwell, Gaston Lenox G. Cooper, New Hanover Marshall Y. Cooper, Vance W. LUNSFORD Crew, Halifax Wilbur H. Currie, Moore Calvin Graves, Forsyth Mrs. Albert H. Lathrop, Buncombe John Gilmer Mebane, Rutherford Larry I. Moore, Wilson Kemp B. Nixon, Lincoln Thomas J. Pearsall, Nash Clarence L. Pemberton, Caswell 1. Died November 10, 1961. 2. Died January 20, 1962. 3. Died October 21, 1961. 4. Died September 15, 1962. James L. Pittman, Halifax Mrs. L. Richardson Preyer, Guilford H. L. Riddle, Jr., Burke ROY Rowe, Pender John P. Stedman, Robeson C. Lacy Tate, Columbus 4 John C. TAYLOE, Beaufort H. P. Taylor, Anson W. Frank Taylor, Wayne F. E. Wallace, Lenoir Cameron S. Weeks, Edgecombe Mrs. George Wilson, Cumberland 34 Arch T. Allen, Wake Mrs. Ed M. Anderson, Ashe Ike Andrews, Chatham William C. Barfield, New Hanover MRS. J. W. COPELAND, Hertford Frank Hull Crowell, Lincoln Percy B. Ferebee, Cherokee Bowman Gray, Forsyth Herbert Hardy, Greene William B. Harrison, Nash J. Frank Huskins, Yancey Mack Jernigan, Harnett G. N. Noble, Jones Class of April 1, 1967 Ernest E. Parker, Jr., Brunswick Frank Parker, Buncombe Claude W. Rankin, Cumberland T. Henry Redding, Randolph 5 Mrs. Dillard Reynolds, Forsyth William P. Saunders, Moore Evander S. Simpson, Johnston Walter L. Smith, Mecklenburg Shahane R. Taylor, Guilford Thomas B. Upchurch, Jr., Hoke C. M. Vanstory, Jr., Guilford Hill Yarborough, Franklin Class of April 1, 1969 Wade Barber, Chatham Graham W. Bell, Cumberland Victor S. Bryant, Durham Henry A. Foscue, Guilford Luther Hamilton, Carteret W. C. Harris, Jr., Wake W. A. Johnson, Harnett Robert B. Jordan III, Montgomery MRS. J. B. KlTTRELL, Pitt J. Hanes LASSITER, Mecklenburg John Lassiter, Johnston John Van Lindley, Guilford R. Walker Martin, Davidson C. KNOX MASSEY, Durham Reid A. Maynard, Alamance William C. Medford, Haywood William G. Reed, Surry MRS. S. L. RODENBOUGH, Stokes A. ALEX SHUFORD, Catawba B. Atwood Skinner, Wilson L. H. Swindell, Beaufort Ben C. Trotter, Rockingham OSCAR C. VATZ, Cumberland J. Shelton Wicker, Lee Fred L. Wilson, Cabarrus 5. Died December 10, 1961. 35