4 The Centers Weather a Crisis: The Fifties

The anticipation and hope with which the American people greeted the new decade was tempered by the ever increasing tension with the Soviet Union. The harmony among the Allies which had been instrumental in securing a victory over Japan and Germany had been quickly replaced with suspicion and recrimination. In 1947 the United States Congress had approved the Truman Doctrine, a pledge that the U.S. would assist any nation to resist a communist coup. In late June 1950, the North Koreans attacked South Korea, whose government quickly issued an urgent plea for aid. Within hours President Harry S. Truman had committed America soldiers to the fight to contain communism. The Korean War and the continuing confrontation with the U.S.S.R. inevitably influenced the entire decade.

The fifties were years of vigorous growth in Wisconsin. While the population grew fifteen percent during the decade, the number of school age children ballooned by forty-two percent. The baby boomers clearly were on their way through the state’s educational system. The state budget, continuing its steady growth, increased ninety-eight percent during the ten years. At the close of the decade the state employed about 28,000–an increase of 10,500. Surprisingly, taxes and inflation remained stable. State revenues claimed roughly ten percent of total personal income, while the rate of inflation hovered between one and two points per year.^[1]

Wisconsin’s educational systems claimed a hefty portion of the increases in spending and employment. The amount expended for education (department of public instruction, university, and state colleges) increased two-and-one-half times and greatly exceeded the overall rise in the budget. A significant portion of the sizable increase in federal aid ($46 million in 1950, $109 million in 1959) was also earmarked for education. In addition, the University alone added nearly 5,000 members to its faculty and staff, which accounted for almost half of the new state employees.^[2]

Wisconsin’s 1950 gubernatorial contest concluded in the midst of the turmoil caused by the Korean War. Candidates Walter J. Kohler, Jr., Republican and Carl Thompson, former Progressive turned Democrat, campaigned vigorously about the need to limit state spending. Kohler, who easily won the first of three consecutive terms, immediately outlined his fiscally conservative ideas. In his inaugural message, in January 1951, he entreated all state agencies not to request an increase in their 1951-1953 budgets.

Upon hearing this unwelcome news, all departments of the University commenced a budget review. The major problem for Wilbur (Bill) Hanley, who was responsible for the out-state Centers’ budget, was trying to predict enrollment. In a series of memoranda written in September and October of 1951, Hanley explained the problems and the options. In his original proposal, he had assumed an enrollment of 1,100 per year, but the Korean conflict now compelled him to evaluate that estimate. If eighteen year old males would not be drafted and if ROTC would be offered at the Centers, then enrollment would decline perhaps twenty-five percent, to 825 students. But if the draft included the freshmen and if there would be no ROTC programs, then the Centers’ registrations could plummet by half.

Hanley pointed out that steps had already been taken to reduce the number of instructors to the absolute minimum. Further cuts in the teaching staff, Hanley warned, would require either excessive classroom hours for each teacher or a reduction in the course offerings. Hanley refused to recommend either of these options. An increased teaching load for the traveling faculty would, he believed, adversely affect the quality of instruction; and a reduction in the course offerings would push too many students into the remaining sections and might compel some to enroll in unneeded courses just to maintain their full-time student status.^[3]

Meanwhile the University enlisted legislators to defend the original proposal as necessary and reasonable. The nine Centers played an important role in this political effort. Scattered across the state and having direct contact with thousands of students and their parents, the Extension Centers helped line up votes. These efforts proved highly successful and the University ultimately received a slightly larger appropriation.

Fortunately, the actual enrollment during the biennium exceeded Hanley’s estimates. The out-state Centers enrolled 906 scholars in the fall of 1951 and made a significant gain, to 976, in September 1952. None the less, the Fond du Lac campus was closed at the end of the 1951-52 academic year because its steadily declining enrollment had caused the cost per student to soar.^[4] Extension officials believed that students from the Fond du Lac area could enroll at the nearby Menasha Center, where they would be able to select courses from a broader curriculum. Fond du Lac remained without a public collegiate institution until Oshkosh State University finally opened a branch campus there in 1968.

As events turned out, the 1951 budget struggle had been very mild, compared to what transpired in 1953. Governor Kohler had been keenly disappointed that the state agencies and the legislature had ignored his plea to support a no-increase budget. He was particularly upset that both the University and the State Colleges had succeeded in winning modest increases. The competition between these two systems for an ever larger share of the state’s money, Kohler believed, made it very difficult for the state to hold down its spending. So, early in 1953, the recently reelected Governor proposed sharp reductions in the next biennium for several state agencies. For example, the University of Wisconsin would have to reduce its spending by two million dollars. When the Board of Regents examined the situation, it concluded that since the Centers (excluding Milwaukee) had a higher cost per student than the main campus, they should bear about twenty-five percent of the recommended reduction. Within days, Adolfson announced that such a sum could only be raised by closing five Centers (Kenosha, Manitowoc, Marinette, Menasha, Sheboygan), and scaling down the programs at the four remaining locations. These severe economies would save the state’s taxpayers about $550,000.^[5]

These dire figures quickly prompted the University to marshall its political forces. Actually, the Center communities did not need prompting and letters of protest soon appeared in the legislators’ mailboxes. The Assembly members from each Center’s district received a visit from Adolfson and top University administrators, as did state Senators who represented an Extension Center community. Late in March the Assembly passed Kohler’s budget, but at the same time it unanimously enacted Resolution 41-A which stated the legislature’s desire that all eight Centers continue to offer at least a freshman program. In short, the Regents would have to find the money somewhere other than in the Centers, unless they were willing to incur the wrath of the Assembly.

The Senate delayed a vote on 41-A until its Education Committee could hear testimony from President Fred, Director Adolfson, and other university administrators about the impact of the Governor’s budget. President Fred reported that no definite plans had been made to close five, or even one, of the Centers. But he also stressed that the budget, as it now stood, meant that the University would need to make deep cuts. He told the Senators that if a minimum of $273,000 would be restored to the appropriation, then he would be able to comply with the intent of 41-A.

In his statement, Adolfson admitted that the Centers did cost more to operate in terms of direct costs. But he hastened to explain that other factors helped to offset the apparent red ink. He noted that the Centers’ indirect costs were lower because the communities paid for the utilities, janitorial salaries, and maintenance. Adolfson also stressed anew the Centers’ vital role in carrying out the Wisconsin idea–the promise that when a citizen could not come to the University, the University would come to him.^[6] The University’s budget experts explained that the Centers’ operations were so intertwined that none could be shut down without adversely affecting the programs of the others.^[7] After hearing this testimony, the Senate concurred with Assembly Resolution 41-A. In the end, almost all of the Governor’s suggested reductions in the University’s appropriation were restored and the need to close any out-state Center disappeared. During the remainder of the 1950s, Wisconsin’s budget picture gradually improved and there were no more intense struggles such as this one.

However, Governor Kohler did not give up his effort to end the costly competition between the University and the State Colleges. In January 1955, fresh from yet another reelection victory, Kohler proposed a merger of the University of Wisconsin and the State Teachers Colleges. In addition, he requested that a new four-year institution be created in Milwaukee by combining that city’s Center and State Teachers College.

The Governor did not anticipate that the proposed mergers would save money immediately, rather he stressed that improved coordination and less competition between the two higher education systems would allow the state to better serve its students. For example, he noted that the State Colleges had empty classrooms and dormitory rooms, while Madison had been at near capacity for several years. Because all of the students in the merged system would receive a University of Wisconsin degree, Kohler expected that more of them would attend a State College and thus distribute the enrollment more evenly.^[8]

The Governor sought approval for his proposal by personally lobbying the boards of regents and by a well-orchestrated publicity campaign designed to bring public pressure to bear on them. Kohler met in a closed two-hour session with the Regents of the State Colleges on February 10, 1955. They immediately supported his plan by an 8 to 2 vote.^[9] On the contrary, the University Regents, without waiting for the Governor’s visit, ratified a subcommittee’s recommendation against a merger. The UW Board did leave the door open for reorganization someday, provided it would be achieved slowly and “not abruptly in a single all-inclusive step.^[10]

The focus of attention over Kohler’s bold suggestion quickly shifted to the legislature, where Senate bill 279S had been introduced. This measure would abolish both boards of regents and replace them with a single, fifteen member board. It also provided for the creation of a new, four-year university in Milwaukee.

Now the University leaders had a specific focus for their anti-merger arguments. Appearing before a joint hearing of the Assembly and Senate Education Committees, several UW Regents and President Fred vigorously voiced opposition to 279S. Even a Senate amendment that created two “sub-boards” of seven members to operate the two systems separately did not gain their approval.

When the Senate bill reached the Assembly, Speaker Mark Catlin (Republican, Appleton) deserted Kohler’s team and proposed his own plan. Catlin’s draft called for an eleven member “coordinating agency,” whose membership would consist of five members from each of the two boards of regents and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. This coordinating committee would be empowered to create policy in three major areas–educational programs (curriculum), facilities, and budget. The coordinating committee’s authority would take precedence over any power previously granted to the boards of regents, but those boards would be retained to operate their respective systems. Later, the Assembly added four more members, so that there would be five individuals who could break deadlocks between the two sets of institutional representatives.

While the University considered Catlin’s plan a great improvement, it still maintained its opposition. However, Charles Gelatt, President of the UW Board, realized the danger of maintaining a negative posture too long. So he and William McIntyre, his counterpart from the State College Regents, hammered out a compromise in a series of secret caucuses with key legislators. Most significantly, their proposal softened the coordinating committee’s power to override the separate boards, except in the budget area. The major purposes of the new Coordinating Committee for Higher Education would be to prevent duplication of degree programs and, of course, to present one budget to the legislature for both systems. The Gelatt/McIntyre compromise even won Governor Kohler’s support and it sailed through the legislature, attracting just one negative vote.

The only item in Kohler’s original proposal that won approval was the merger in Milwaukee. The law specified that the University of Wisconsin would have control over the new institution and that it should begin operations in September 1956. The administrators and faculty of the Center and the State College spent a very hectic year working out the details of the merger, but they met the deadline.

Although the Extension Centers had not been prominently mentioned in the debate over merger, they were destined to have a prominent role in meeting the needs of the swelling tide of students. The establishment of additional centers seemed an attractive option because they would provide greater access to higher education and the host communities would underwrite a portion of the operating expenses. The competition among cities to be chosen to host a Center was keen. Cities realized that a Center offered an economic advantage by keeping students’ money in the community and provided an important asset for attracting new industry. Of course, not every community that desired a two-year campus could support one. Politics also greatly influenced this competition. Both the University of Wisconsin and the State Colleges worked hard to win control over new Centers by lobbying the CCHE and state legislators.

The Coordinating Committee for Higher Education (CCHE) had the responsibility to determine how many two-year campuses the state needed and whether some should be established as junior colleges, which would offer both college-credit and vocational non-credit courses. The CCHE naturally inherited past discussions and resolutions concerning the existing two-year post-secondary institutions–the Extension Centers, the vocational schools, and the county teachers colleges. The junior college issue remained lively despite the definite tilt of the Fowlkes/Ahrnsbrak study against creating them in Wisconsin. In 1950, Governor Oscar Rennebohm’s administration had engaged the American Council of Education to restudy the question. the councils’ report urged Wisconsin to follow California’s pattern, where the junior college movement was most prominent and successful. The Council believed the establishment of junior colleges would fill “one of the conspicuous gaps in the state’s school program.”^[11] Governor Rennebohm’s decision not to seek another term in 1950 no doubt explains why there had been no follow-up to these recommendations.

In 1953, in the midst of the budget battle-royal over the state’s higher education finances, Assemblymen Willis J. Hutnik (Rusk County) and Clarence Gilley (Oneida County) informally lobbied for the establishment of at least one junior college in northern Wisconsin. Specifically, they urged consideration be given to Ladysmith, Phillips, and Rhinelander as possible sites. Hutnik and Gilley stressed that northern Wisconsin had always been slighted in the allocation of higher educational funds and institutions and that it was time to correct this inequity. Their recommendation had the support of State Superintendent George Watson, who noted that none of these communities had a vocational school. After testing the political waters, however, the two Assemblymen decided not to make a formal proposal.^[12]

Nevertheless, Hutnik stubbornly stuck to his theme. Four years later, in May 1957, he introduced a resolution to set up a special legislative study committee to investigate the “possibilities of a state-directed junior college program in Wisconsin.” the Green Bay Press-Gazette, which obviously supported Hutnik’s objective, argued that the CCHE should conduct the study, since it had been created for just such a purpose. The editorial stressed that the state’s “peculiarly formless system” of two-year post-secondary education cried out for more coordination.^[13]

In response, the CCHE set up an Extension Working Group in the summer of 1957 and gave it the task of determining whether Wisconsin should adopt the California model. When State Supervisor of Vocational Schools C. L. Greiber was asked his opinion, he emphatically rejected the idea. Too often, he said, when liberal arts courses and vocational programs were both offered, the liberal arts soon dominated the institution. In addition, Greiber contended that the presence of both an Extension Center and a vocational school in eight Wisconsin communities “did an excellent job of providing comprehensive community college services…,” and negated the need for junior colleges.^[14]

The Extension Working Group’s report, “The Junior College,” was issued in December 1957. It cited both the advantages and disadvantages of developing junior colleges in Wisconsin. The advantages included lower cost to the students, the provision of programs unique to the community’s needs, and the easing of overcrowding in the freshman and sophomore years of Madison. The major disadvantage was that, frequently, junior colleges became little more than “advanced high schools.” Consequently, they did not attract either the best students or the abler teachers. In addition, the report warned that many smaller communities might not have sufficient enrollment or adequate finances to support a junior college, even though the local citizenry might strongly favor the establishment of one.^[15] In closing, the Working Group recommended strongly against the creation of a junior college system in Wisconsin.

The very next month, the CCHE accepted this recommendation. Although this action seemed to settle the junior college question with finality, the issue proved persistent and it periodically resurfaced. Consequently, the CCHE reiterated its position in January 1959 when it overwhelmingly adopted a resolution that said research into the state’s higher education needs would proceed on the assumption that “[Wisconisin would] choose coordination and the development of existing institutions in solving its junior college problem rather than the establishment of new institutions.^[16] The officials of the University (including the Extension Division), the State Colleges, and the vocational schools had worked together to maintain a strong position against junior colleges, which they saw as potentially damaging to their interests. Since the University and the State colleges each had five regents on the fifteen member CCHE, they easily made their views the official position of the Coordinating Council.^[17]

While the state’s higher education systems underwent change, the Extension Division made important decisions about the local administration of the Centers. Just three–Green Bay, Marinette, and Wausau–had full time directors. At the other five, Extension field representatives handled the administrative details. But as enrollments escalated and interaction with the community increased, they found it increasingly difficult to cope with the workload. Consequently, in the mid-fifties, the Regents approved Adolfson’s recommendation that the field representatives be relieved of these tasks and that at least a part-time director be appointed for each Center. These positions usually went to outstanding faculty members who continued to teach several sections each year. By the late fifties these local administrators had won the right to meet monthly with Adolfson and Hanley to discuss common concerns.^[18]

Early in 1956 Adolfson, prodded by the faculty of the Kenosha and Racine Centers, began a campaign to improve faculty salaries. In a letter to the assistant to the President, he pointed out that the faculty at these two Centers could, with very few exceptions, earn more if they taught in the local high schools. The disparity with high school teachers ranged from a low of about $300.00 per year to over $1,000.00.^[19] Later that year Adolfson asked Hanley to provide him with some arguments and a plan to use in the salary negotiations with “big administration” in the President’s office. Part of the strategy that eventually evolved stressed not only the adverse comparison with the high schools, but also the much greater demands placed upon instructors in the centers, as compared to faculty in Madison. For instance, an Extension Center instructor often represented an entire academic department and thus had to assume work that could be shared or avoided in Madison. In addition, the community expected the faculty member to give public lectures, attend social gatherings, and participate in civic affairs. Despite the planning, the evidence, and the negotiations, Adolfson was unable to win any real improvement in faculty salaries. State officials contended they could just not afford more than token increases.^[20]

Fall Semester Enrollment UW Centers

The students of the fifties were not much different from those of the late forties. Many enrollees were the first persons in their families to attend college. A significant number chose to begin their college education at a Center such as those provided in Madison, the students did not feel cheated. In fact, on a percentage basis, more Center students were involved in campus activities than those on the parent campus. Many students apparently made up for any lack of social functions by maintaining contact with high school friends and church groups.^[21]

Most of the Centers had a strong intramural sports program and the students’ fees also supported the inter-Center competition in basketball, golf, and tennis. Athletes who met the participation requirements in these sports received an Extension Center “W.” The non-athletic Centers-wide activities included an annual student leadership conference, speech tournament, and a music workshop. An art exhibition had been attempted in 1950, but was dropped due to low participation. It was revived, however, in the mid-fifties when the administration agreed to provide $250.00 to help defray the participants’ expenses.^[22]

Each Center was free to establish as many activities as it could support. For example, the Kenosha Center in 1955,with an enrollment of 250, held a homecoming celebration during and following a basketball game. The Kenosha student council also sponsored a formal dance at Christmas and in the spring. Both of these were scheduled during breaks in classes so that alumni would be home and could attend. Sixteen teams competed in the popular bowling league. And Kenosha, like most Centers, had a student newspaper.^[23]

Some facets of student (and faculty) behavior have not changed with time–for instance, the urge to stretch a scheduled break by a couple of days. In December 1955 Adolfson returned from an Administrative Committee meeting where this practice had been discussed intensely. The high rate of absenteeism on the day before and the day after vacations on the Madison campus had come to public attention and some embarrassing questions had been raised. The conversation indicated that some professors allegedly allowed, if not encouraged, their students to cut class on these days so that they, too, could take the day off. Adolfson asked Bill Hanley about the situation in the Centers, so he could have a ready answer if the question arose. Hanley replied that the Centers did not share this problem with Madison, largely because their students were already at home. He observed that absences increased a bit before the Christmas holiday because more students were employed by local merchants to handle the shopping rush, but cutting a class here and there seemed more common than skipping an entire day. The local directors, faculty and counselors had indicated that they had the situation under control. Hanley added, however, that, “One phenomena peculiar to the Centers in the northern part of the state is the absentee rate during deer hunting season. No amount of reasoning, persuasion, or coercion has any effect upon the confirmed deer hunter. He just isn’t there!”^[24]

In April 1959 the Board of Regents, upon the recommendation of the University faculty, approved a resolution authorizing the Extension Centers to grant Associate in Arts and Associate in Science certificates. To qualify a student had to earn at least 60 credits and 120 grade points in courses which normally were required for a bachelors degree.^[25] This authorization validated the quality of the Centers’ academic program and recognized that more and more students were remaining in their communities for their sophomore year. The sophomore retention rate had gradually risen during the decade, from about 10% in 1950 to 22.9% in 1959-60.^[26]

The steady rise in enrollment and the addition of more and more sophomore courses underscored the inadequacy of the facilities at many of the Centers. Especially critical was the shortage of suitable laboratory space for chemistry and physics classes. In the thirties and forties, when the Extension Centers had been strictly freshman operations, geography had been the sole science course because its lab requirements could easily be met; and the students could postpone taking other science courses until they transferred. In the fifties, however, many more students were choosing professional programs that required chemistry and/or physics during their first two years. Even when the building that Extension used contained a laboratory, it often did not meet the standards for a college-level set of experiments.

Because of the unique relationship between the University, the Centers, and the host communities, it took a great deal of coordination to address building and equipment needs. The city or the county (or both) had to provide the suitable space and the University had to agree to equip the facility. In the tight fiscal circumstances of the fifties, such an effort almost always involved a long struggle.

For example, the Marathon County board began early in 1955 to discuss a new building to replace the old County Normal building and the other “temporary” structures being used by the Center in Wausau. But the Board members wanted assurances that if they made the decision to proceed, the state and University would be firmly committed to equipping, staffing, and operating the facility for many years. The Marathon County supervisors were encouraged by the fact that the 1955 legislature had enacted two significant provisions that bolstered their plans. First, the statute which created the CCHE also contained the important stipulation that, “No educational program for which the legislature shall have made an appropriation existing at any institution of higher education shall be abandoned except with legislative approval.”^[27] Second, the legislators had amended an existing statute to allow counties to acquire land, appropriate money, and maintain Extension Centers “if their operation has been approved by the board of regents.”^[28] In November of 1955, the Board of Regents passed a resolution that pledged support for “. . . the continued operation of the Extension Center in Wausau under existing policies in an additional building to be provided by Marathon County, . . . .”^[29] With these assurances in hand, the county supervisors worked tirelessly for two years to win approval for a bond issue to finance construction. Another three years passed before the building was completed. When it opened in January 1960, Marathon County had the first new Center building in the state and it had blazed the way for other counties and cities to follow.

Building needs remained urgent at many other Centers. In both Racine and Kenosha the current facilities were bulging, even the evening classes could barely be accommodated. The old Vocational School in Kenosha had absolutely no science labs or faculty office space. The Centers administration tried to convince the two cities to cooperate to construct a new building somewhere in the ten miles that separated them. Such a joint venture made great sense because the two Centers shared virtually their entire faculty and because students from one city often travelled to the other to take a particular course. These urgings, however, were not heeded. By early 1960 the city of Kenosha, in cooperation with Kenosha County, had broken ground for a new building, while the city of Racine was in the process of hiring an architect to design an addition to the McMynn School, which housed its Center.^[30]

The situation in Menasha was the worst. The Center had shared space for many years with the high school, but the baby boomers had gradually swelled the secondary school enrollment to the point that Extension classes were pushed out. Finding new quarters proved almost impossible. Classes ended up being held in two rooms in a remodeled clinic and in one room in the Menasha Vocational School. At the clinic the front door opened directly into a classroom and the only access to the second room was through the first. Students quickly learned to be on time, unless they wanted to suffer the knowing glances of their classmates and the frown of the instructor. The clinic was not without its structural advantages, however. One of the back doors opened toward a pub only a few steps away, where many a quick one was quaffed by students between classes.^[31]

The solution to Menasha’s space needs required skilled diplomacy. The Winnebago County Board of Supervisors felt strongly that Outagamie County should provide one half the construction costs because so many of its citizens attended the Menasha Center. Outagamie’s leaders, however, made a counterproposal. They suggested that they turn over their County Normal School in Kaukauna for use as a Center. Several Extension officials inspected this building and reported that very extensive, expensive remodeling would be necessary to make it suitable for college classes. As the two county boards wrestled with the knotty problem, the Appleton newspaper worried that the Fox Valley, with a population of over 100,000, would lose its two-year campus. The paper urged the supervisors to reach a compromise. In the end, they did exactly that. In the early 1960’s the students and faculty moved into a new Fox Valley Center building in Menasha. The new name was deliberately chosen to emphasize the broad community support it had received.^[32]

The library situation in the extension Centers had slowly improved since the 1930s when the History Department visitors had been appalled by its inadequacies. In 1949, Roger E. Schwenn was hired to coordinate all of the library activities of the Division, including the provision of library services to the Centers. Extension’s central library in Madison still loaned out books semester by semester to those Centers that did not have their own collection. By 1956 four campuses–Green Bay, Kenosha, Racine, and Wausau–had established their own holdings, although even these were regularly augmented by volumes borrowed from the central library. None of the Centers had a professional librarian to manage and enlarge their collections. Consequently each Center depended upon faculty or administrators to supervise the library, but these volunteers could not give much technical assistance to the users. This was a problem the central administration pledged to address each time the budget hearings were held, but more urgent items seemed always to push funds for qualified librarians down on the list of priorities.^[33]

By the end of this decade the Centers seemed poised to move with assurance into the sixties. Although pared down in number to just eight out-state Centers, they seemed quite solidly entrenched in the state’s educational establishment. The CCHE had clearly placed itself behind maintaining separate systems of two-year schools–Centers and vocational schools–rather than following a nationwide trend to combine liberal arts and vocational programs in a single institution. The state government had lent important support by empowering counties and/or cities to borrow money specifically for the construction and maintenance of Center facilities. And the Board of Regents gave a powerful endorsement in a June 1959 statement which said, in part, “The University is proud of its eight freshman-sophomore extension centers. Valuable now, these centers are certain to be even more important in the future. In the years of mounting enrollments immediately ahead, the centers will handle a larger percentage of the students in the University System.”^[34]