Fundraising and Endowment Building at a Land Grant University During the Critical Period, 1910-1940: The Failure of State

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The

By

Benjamin A. Johnson

Graduate Program in Education: Policy and Leadership

The Ohio State University

2013

Dissertation Committee:

Professor Bruce Kimball, Advisor

Professor Bryan Warnick

Professor Ann Allen

Professor Robert Lawson

Graduate Faculty Representative: Professor James Lang

ii

Copyrighted by

Benjamin A. Johnson

2013

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to provide an understanding of the financial strategy and shortcomings of The Ohio State University (OSU) in the early 1900s. It focuses on key moments in educational philanthropy, particularly endowment building, at

OSU, with comparisons to the (U-M), and occasionally Harvard

University. Located in the center of the midwestern state of Ohio, OSU might be considered a quintessential public university, facing challenges comparable to other colleges and universities.

This dissertation draws on extensive original source material from OSU’s archives to show the dynamic interplay of university leaders in making key financial decisions. A variety of other primary and secondary sources from both OSU and U-M are also used. The chronological narrative presents the slow and halting journey of OSU toward private fundraising, endowment building, and the creation of the OSU

Development Fund. To provide background, discussions on the land grant movement and the founding of OSU are included, as well as a description of the Ohio economy in the early 1900s.

Key findings in this research are as follows. In the 1920s, Ohio State University was in a prime position to make great strides in fundraising and in building its

ii endowment. Ohio was a relatively wealthy state, and several other universities had previously and prominently demonstrated how to begin and conduct fundraising campaigns, including annual alumni campaigns at Harvard and Yale. OSU had merely to keep pace with its contemporaries, such as the University of Michigan, to reach prosperity. But despite the factors working in its favor, OSU actually fell rapidly behind in fundraising and endowment building during the period from 1920 to 1940.

Notwithstanding the difficult economic climate of the Great Depression, other universities forged ahead in fundraising through this period. OSU’s alumni leaders pushed heavily for progress in fundraising for over a decade before significant changes were made. It took the devastating state appropriations cuts by Governor Martin L.

Davey (Gov. 1935-1939) before OSU adopted fundraising as an important source of university income.

Indeed, the most influential factor in the university’s lack of fundraising and endowment building during the period from 1920 to 1940 was undoubtedly the unprogressive presidential leadership of both William Oxley Thompson (Pres. 1899-

1925) and George W. Rightmire (Acting Pres. 1925-1926; Pres. 1926-1938). Both of these presidents, while they had some positive influences on the university, did not embrace private fundraising until the end of their presidencies, which was far too late. A critical period for growing the endowment had passed, and OSU had lost its lead among its peers, never to regain first place. iiiiii

Acknowledgments

Researching and writing this dissertation has been an exhilarating process. I am deeply grateful for the help I received at The Ohio State University. There are many people who have provided support and assistance.

First, I am grateful to Professor Bruce Kimball, who has been an invaluable source of direction, information, and guidance throughout the entire dissertation process.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with him as a research associate, to have co-authored articles with him, and to have assisted in his classes as a teaching associate. I appreciate his dedication to superior teaching and scholarship, and I know I have learned much from his example.

I am very grateful for Professors Robert Lawson and Bryan Warnick for inviting me to Ohio State University. Bob and Bryan served as advisors to me, helping me to navigate the curriculum and learn valuable professional practices. Both Bryan and Bob opened up office and home and helped me improve as a student, scholar, and educator.

Professor Ann Allen has also been a strong source of support from the beginning and has offered critical insight into my projects that has significantly improved my work. My committee members’ insights and feedback significantly helped guide me through this dissertation.

iv

Other OSU faculty who served as unofficial advisors and offered important insight include: Harvey Graff, Phil Smith, Scott Sweetland, Jackie Blount, and Tatiana

Suspitsyna. Peers provided valuable advice and encouragement: Brian Janssen, Lauren

Hensley, Doug Gill, Brad Rowe, Travis Helm, Sang Hyun Kim, Danielle Terrance,

Stephanie Drotos, Sam Rocha, Melissa Newberry, Tom Falk, Mike Yough, among others. I would also like to thank my new department chair, Marinda Ashman, at Utah

Valley University for her support.

For assistance with the project I am grateful to The Ohio State University

Archives staff, particularly Bertha Ihnat, Tamar Chute, Lindy Smith, and Raimund

Goerler. At the University of Michigan, I need to thank , Margaret

Steneck, Margaret Leary, and the Bentley Historical Library staff, particularly William

Wallach, who helped me obtain an archival fellowship.

I am most grateful for the steady support, love, and assurance offered by my wife,

Taralyn. Wes and Marian, my scholarly parents (with Columbia and Stanford Ph.D.s), planted and nurtured the idea of getting a Ph.D. and have been phenomenal mentors throughout the whole process. I am also indebted to my family and friends for their continued support and encouragement.

v

Vita

2004 ...... B.A. History, Brigham Young University

2007 ...... M.A. History, Brigham Young University

2010 ...... M.A. Education, The Ohio State University

Publications

Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles:

“The Inception of the Meaning and Significance of Endowment in American Higher Education, 1890-1930,” Bruce A. Kimball and Benjamin A. Johnson, Teachers College Record 114, no. 10 (2012): http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16669

“Nurturing Independent Learning in the Undergraduate Student in History: A Faculty- Student Mentoring Experience,” Benjamin A. Johnson and Donald J. Harreld, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 20, no. 3 (August 2012): 361- 378.

“The Beginning of ‘Free Money’ Ideology in American Universities: Charles W. Eliot at Harvard, 1869-1909,” Bruce A. Kimball and Benjamin A. Johnson, History of Education Quarterly 52, no. 2 (May 2012): 222-250.

“The Ethics of Corporatization: Competing Visions for University Leadership,” Benjamin A. Johnson, Philosophical Studies in Education 41 (2010): 95-105.

vi

“Sustaining Higher Learning: Endowment Building and Financing Higher Education,” Benjamin A. Johnson, Comparative & International Higher Education 2, no. 2 (2010): 33-36.

“Tragedy and the Meaning of School Shootings,” Bryan R. Warnick, Benjamin A. Johnson, and Samuel Rocha, Educational Theory 60, no. 3 (June 2010): 371-390.

Book Reviews: American Higher Education Transformed, 1940-2005: Documenting the National Discourse by Wilson Smith and Thomas Bender, Journal of Higher Education 82, no. 1 (January/February 2011): 114-117. (Benjamin A. Johnson and Bruce A. Kimball)

After the Harkness Gift: A History of Phillips Exeter Academy Since 1930 by Julia Heskel and Davis Dyer, History of Education Quarterly 50, no. 4 (November 2010): 562- 564. (Benjamin A. Johnson)

The Standardization of American Schooling: Linking Secondary and Higher Education, 1870-1910 by Marc A. VanOverbeke, Education Review (8 May 2010): http://edrev.asu.edu/reviews/rev915.pdf. (Benjamin A. Johnson)

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education: Policy and Leadership

Keywords: Higher Education, History of Education, Philosophy of Education, Public Universities, American History, American Studies, Leadership, Policy Studies, Economics, Fundraising, Endowments, and Private Giving.

vii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Vita ...... vi

Publications ...... vi

Fields of Study ...... vii

Table of Contents ...... viii

List of Tables...... xi

List of Figures ...... xiii

Introduction ...... 1

Challenge and Response ...... 6

A Pivotal Period in Endowment Building ...... 7

Institutional Context ...... 14

Questions and Central Theses...... 23

viii

Chapter One: Financial Strategy, Wealthy Ohio and its Millionaires, The Land Grant

Movement and the Failure of the State of Ohio to Support its State University, 1860-1930

...... 31

Financial Strategy for Harvard University: The Wealthiest American University ...... 32

Philanthropic and Educational Climate at the Turn of the Century ...... 38

Wealthy Ohio with Many Millionaires ...... 48

Founding of The Ohio State University as a Land-Grant Institution...... 58

Chapter Two: The Thompson Years--Reliance on the State and Failure to Pursue Private

Gifts, 1900-1925 ...... 69

Thompson’s Relationship with the State, 1904-1913 ...... 75

The University During the First World War, 1917-1918 ...... 89

Carnegie’s Condemning Reports: Three State Supported Institutions ...... 100

Public v. Private Universities ...... 106

Ohio Stadium--OSU’s First major Fundraising Effort ...... 114

Funds for Graduate Research ...... 120

Governors, Merchants, and Professors: Finances, Politics, and Leadership Style ...... 124

Chapter Three: Dawn of the Rightmire Years, 1925-1929 ...... 144

ix

Chapter Four: Rightmire, the University, and the Depression, 1930-1934 ...... 208

Chapter Five: Problems with Governor Martin L. Davey, 1935-1937 ...... 282

Chapter Six: The Creation of The Ohio State University Development Fund, 1937-1938

...... 368

Chapter Seven: The Post-Rightmire Era, 1939-1940 ...... 401

Conclusion ...... 422

Epilogue ...... 428

Preface to Appendices A and B...... 441

Appendix A: Pres. George W. Rightmire’s Correspondence about the Depression ...... 442

Appendix B: Washington Gladden and Tainted Money ...... 457

Bibliography ...... 462

x

List of Tables

Table 1. Endowment Values (in USD) of Harvard University, University of Michigan, and The Ohio State University, 2008-2012...... 3

Table 2. Endowment Values (in USD) and Increases from 1915 to 1939 at The Ohio

State University, University of Michigan, and Harvard University ...... 9

Table 3. Endowment Values (in USD) at Leading Ohio Universities, 1875-1939 ...... 10

Table 4. Alumni Gifts to State-Supported Universities in the Western Conference, from the Beginning to 1931...... 11

Table 5. Student Enrollment, Degrees, and Approximate Graduation Rate at The Ohio

State University, 1900-1940...... 15

Table 6. Student Enrollment at University of Michigan, Ohio State University, and Ohio

University, 1900-1940...... 17

Table 7. Components of The Ohio State University’s Income for Selected Years from

1900-1940...... 20

Table 8. State Derived Income (in USD) for Select Universities in 1900 and 1920...... 22

Table 9. Leading Endowments (in USD) of Colleges and Universities, 1900-1939 ...... 35

Table 10. Highest Ranked Endowment (in USD) Public Universities, 1920 and 1930 ... 36

Table 11. Total Income and Per Capita Endowment (in USD) Income for the States of

Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio for the Year 1929...... 56 xi

Table 12. Total Income and Per Capita Income for the States of Massachusetts,

Michigan, and Ohio for the year 1940...... 56

Table 13. Endowment Values (In USD) for The Ohio State University, University of

Michigan, and Oberlin College, 1875-1939 ...... 70

Table 14. Endowment Value (in USD) of Privately Controlled Institutions in Ohio, 1930

...... 112

Table 15. Income Amount from OSU Students, from the State of Ohio, and from

Endowment and Gifts, 1929-1933 ...... 206

Table 16. The Ohio State University Student Enrollment, 1929 to 1934 ...... 252

Table 17. Alumni Gifts to State-Supported Universities in the Western Conference. ... 339

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1. OSU Football Program for October 26, 1918...... 92

Figure 2. Ohio State University Monthly 13, no. 3 (December 1921): final page...... 118

Figure 3. Contributions by Alumni to Five State Universities (University of Michigan,

University of Wisconsin, University of Illinois, , and The Ohio

State University) to 1938 ...... 373

Figure 4. Advertisements, The Ohio State University Development Fund, [c. 1939] ... 404

Figure 5. An Advertisement for the OSU Development Fund...... 417

xiii

Introduction

Every viable academic institution requires substantial income to operate. During periods of economic stress institutions ask tough questions that demand clear distinctions between institutional needs and wants. In particular, educational administrators may assess the income sources (amount and type) and expenditures for the purpose of increasing income and reducing institutional inefficiencies. The recent climate of economic turbulence underscores the need for this type of assessment. In particular, endowment emerges as a significant force that academic institutions grapple with in light of economic concerns. Why and how to build endowments are questions asked by both public and private universities. A look at both the current economic climate and an earlier period of financial challenge during the 1920s and 1930s provides insight into the significance of an endowment as a potentially important income source for colleges and universities. The discussion that follows primarily focuses on The Ohio State University

(OSU) in the early 1900s, since OSU might be considered a quintessential public university, facing challenges comparable to other colleges and universities.

Maintaining a stream of income ensures the viability of the college or university.

State universities, such as Ohio State University, may draw on a variety of income sources to stay in the black. These income sources may stem from students (e.g. tuition), 1 government, associated operations such as hospitals, athletics, gifts, or endowment income. The search for new income may draw in donations from alumni, parents, students, corporations, foundations, non-associated donors, and other fundraising entities.1 Financing higher education can be simple or complex, largely depending on context, and who makes the financial decisions may dramatically impact the direction of a college or university. Policies and programs that adequately address competing interests between collective and individual forces create economically vibrant climates. A tuition driven institution may see other income as less important. Nonetheless, the varied financial building blocks of colleges and universities should not be underestimated.

Reliance on particular sources of income, such as endowments, may serve a significant function in building or weakening an academic institution.

Over the past six years, questions on the significance of endowments have buzzed through colleges and universities across the nation. Molly Corbett Broad, President of the

American Council on Education, claimed in 2008 that endowments were essential, but that people frequently misunderstand the sources of revenue in higher education.2 Many universities, including Harvard and Stanford, had hiring freezes and even lay offs. Some pointed the finger of blame at endowments, claiming they fluctuate uncontrollably and are demonstrably unreliable.3

1 Ronald. G. Ehrenberg and Christopher L. Smith, “The Sources and Uses of Annual Giving at Selective Private Research Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges,” Economics of Education Review 22 (2003):223-235. 2 Molly C. Broad, “Endowments are Both Vital and Misunderstood,” Chronicle of Higher Education 55, no. 13 (21 Nov. 2008): A32. 3 Goldie Blumenstyk, “Market Collapse Weighs Heavily on College Endowments,” Chronicle of Higher Education 55 (6 Feb. 2009): Available online at http://www.chronicle.com 2

While an institution’s large endowment provides prestige and some financial security, the income from an endowment may fall dramatically in subsequent years after a difficult economic episode. From 2008 to 2009, in one fiscal year, the endowment value of OSU dropped 20 percent from $2.1 billion to $1.7 billion.4 In that same year other public and private universities suffered similarly. For example, Harvard University’s mammoth $36.6 billion endowment dropped approximately 30 percent to $25.6 billion.

Institution Endowment Endowment Endowment Endowment Endowment Value-2008 Value-2009 Value-2010 Value-2011 Value-2012 Billion USD Billion USD Billion USD Billion USD Billion USD

Harvard $36.6 $25.7 $27.6 $31.7 $30.4 University

University $7.6 $6.0 $6.6 $7.8 $7.7 of Michigan

Ohio State $2.1 $1.7 $1.9 $2.1 $2.4 University

Table 1. Endowment Values (in USD) of Harvard University, University of Michigan, and The Ohio State University, 2008-2012.5

4 National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), “Total Market Values of Endowments and Endowment Rates of Return,” (Washington, D.C., 2000): Available online at http://www.nacubo.org/ 5 Annual endowment statistics from the Chronicle of Higher Education and National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), “U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2012 Endowment Market Value and Percentage Change in Endowment Market Value from FY 2011 to FY 2012,” Available online at: http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2012NCSEPublicTablesEndowmentMarketValuesFinalJanuar y232013.pdf 3

While Harvard likely possessed a large enough endowment to support a leaner version of itself for the next 20 years,6 the question remains: how much effort should a public university, such as OSU, place on endowment building? Would this drop in endowment value be reason enough for an institution like OSU to steer away from an endowment-building focus and develop stronger funding ties from the state? OSU’s

2013-2014 budget income compared “state support” from Ohio with tuition and student fees; of the combined income of these two sources, state support provides only 28 percent of the cost compared to 72 percent in tuition and student fees.7 The budget outlines the

“State appropriations” from Ohio to contribute below 10 percent of OSU’s total income from all sources.8 One might question the role of “State” in Ohio State University’s name, considering the fact that most of the funding comes from non-state sources. But there are significant benefits that come with the relationship between state and university.

At OSU these include regular appropriations, authorized by the government of the state of Ohio. Whether to focus efforts on convincing the state to increase funding or to focus efforts on convincing private donors to provide gifts remains an important question.

6 Derek Thompson, “How Harvard University Almost Destroyed Itself,” The Atlantic (28 May 2009): Available online at http://www.theatlantic.com 7 On the OSU Columbus campus, state support (including State Share of Instruction, Success Challenge, and Research Incentive) compared to tuition and student fees had steadily increased from 33% in 1987 to 72% in 2014. Put another way, state support had progressively dropped from 67% in 1987 down to 28% in 2014. OSU’s Office in Business and Finance charted this trend and called it a “historic low.” See The Ohio State University, Office of Business and Finance, “Budget Plan Fiscal 2014,” http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/cfb/docs/2013-14%20Total%20Operating%20Budget.pdf, p. 23 and http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/cfb/docs/cfb-2007.pdf, p. 6. 8 The 2013-2014 OSU budget, anticipated a “Total Income” of $5.25 billion, including $503 million from “State Appropriations,” or 9.6% of OSU’s total income. Other components comprising OSU’s total income included $454 million from “Other government,” $962 million from “Student Fees,” $307 million from “Auxilaries (residence halls, athletics, etc.),” $2.44 billion from the “Health System,” and $579 million from “Other Income.” The Ohio State University, “Statistical Summary,” http://www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php. 4

Within gift giving, certain factors should be taken into consideration when assessing whether to expend resources into developing an endowment. Endowments are built in three ways: through contributions (gifts and bequests), investment returns, and invested surpluses from an institution’s operating budget. While one might think how funds are invested is most important to the development of an endowment, securing significant or regular gifts may be just as or more significant in the long-term building of an endowment.9

Endowments require substantial principal in order to generate any significant income. A $50,000 gift invested into an endowment at OSU (in the year 2013), for example, would expect to yield 8% to 9% interest in a year. Of this yield, half would be reinvested and 4% to 5% would become available for spending.10 While private research universities may relish large, prestigious endowments during prosperous economic periods, they may suffer when an economy turns for the worse. Endowment income can help an institution endure a trying economic storm, but if an institution has relied too heavily on endowments to support its operating expenses, it can lead to sudden financial strain. Though large institutional endowments often provide a college or university increased prestige, it also may have the effect of deterring donors from giving due to a perception of minimal need. Private research universities, however, may possess significant resources to quicken endowment building. These resources may include funding from robust alumni, community, ecclesiastic, foundation, or corporate networks

9 Lucie Lapovsky, “Critical Endowment Policy Issues,” New Directions For Higher Education 140 (2007): 102. 10 The Ohio State University Office of Donor Relations, “Endowment Opportunities,” Available online at http://www.osu.edu/giving/guide-to-giving/endowments/opportunities.html. 5 that provide a vital component of institutional income. One particular source of income is the baby boomer generation. Recently, baby boomers (those born in the decade after the

Second World War) have been retiring, but not en masse, as had been expected due to economic circumstances. The hope was that these baby boomers would leave great wealth to colleges and universities. How, when, and if the baby boomer generation will leave mega-gifts remains to be seen.

Challenge and Response

Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), British historian and philosopher, is noted for his ideas about the challenges faced by civilizations and the ways in which civilizations responded to their challenges.11 His “challenge and response” idea applies to universities as well. With the political, economic, and social challenges faced by universities in the early 1900s, the very survival of the institutions depended on their ability to respond successfully – and quickly.

Challenges faced by American universities were particular to the American context. This is described by Robert Lawson as follows,

“[T]he circumstances of American history have provided a set of conditions not replicated anywhere else. The ideas of political revolution, naturalism, realism and liberalism which provided the intellectual environment, and the industrial and scientific changes which provided the material environment bound the USA toward acceptance of change and progress, secular-national morality, social equality and political democracy. American educators were able to respond to

11 Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1934-1962), 12 Volumes. 6

those currents of Western thought and were supported by a people willing to accept the ideas growing out of this response.”12

Though American educators and universities responded, it is perhaps debatable whether universities became more adept at teaching and learning, or whether the “diffusion and extension of knowledge,” better fit into “the idea of a university,” as a result of actions taken by universities in the face of funding challenges.13 From a financial perspective,

Ohio State University, like many public universities in the early 1900s, faced the challenge of inadequate state funding. OSU’s responses to this challenge of inadequate funding was at first unsuccessful, and it took far too long for the university to respond to this problem adequately.

A Pivotal Period in Endowment Building

The period from 1920-1940 was particularly critical for endowment building at colleges and universities which experienced economic boom and disaster reflecting the contemporary economic situation.14 This was a time of innovation in fundraising, a key moment for acquiring and investing private donations. It was also a time when many individuals raised political and ethical questions about the nature of private donations.

12 Robert F. Lawson, “The American Project for Educational Reform in Central ,” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, vol. 24, issue 3 (1994), 250. 13 John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University (Dublin: J. Duffy, 1852), ix. 14 Mary C. McComb, Great Depression and the Middle Class: Experts, Collegiate Youth and Business Ideology, 1929-1941 (New York: Routledge, 2006); Richard Novak and David Leslie, “A Not So Distant Mirror: Great Depression Writings on the Governance and Finance of Public Higher Education,” in Roger L. Geiger, History of Higher Education Annual 20 (2000): 59-78. 7

It was during this period that Ohio State University’s endowment fell behind in comparison with other Ohio universities, such as the University of Cincinnati and Oberlin

College, and in comparison to other state universities in other states. Compared to the

University of Michigan, Ohio State’s endowment valued at $1,046,000 in 1920 increased

53.4% to $1,604,000 by 1939, while Michigan’s 1920 endowment value of $1,329,000 rose 980.2% to $14,356,000 by 1939.

Within Ohio, in 1920 Ohio State University’s endowment value of 1,046,000 was smaller than the University of Cincinnati’s that totaled 2,504,000.15 Both were public institutions by 1870.16 The University of Cincinnati merged in 1918 with Cincinnati

College (founded in 1819). The gain in the endowment value of the University of

Cincinnati in the years between 1915 and 1920, can at least partially be explained by

UC’s merger with Cincinnati College. But what would explain OSU’s lack of progress in comparison with the University of Cincinnati over the next two decades? From 1920 to

1936 (in the span of 16 years) Ohio State’s endowment value had only risen 11% to

$1,160,000 compared to the University of Cincinnati’s percentage rise of 265% that reached $9,146,000, both publicly controlled universities.17 It appeared time for Ohio

State University to take its place as a financially successful institution that not only drew on state funds, but on fundraising for endowment.

15 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920-22, (Washington: G.P.O., 1925),v. 2, pp. 384-425. 16 Utilizing Charles McMicken’s gift of $1,000,000 given to the city of Cincinnati to create a university, the Ohio Legislature chartered the University of Cincinnati in 1870 (the same year as OSU’s founding). Ohio History Central [Ohio Historical Society], “University of Cincinnatti,” http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/University_of_Cincinnati 17 United States Department of Interior, Office of Education, “Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36, being Chapter IV of Volume II of the Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: 1934- 36,” (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938), 276-277. 8

Time Ohio State OSU University of U-M Harvard Harvard Period University Percentage Michigan Percentage University Percentage Changes Changes Changes 191518 997,000 963,000 28,471,000 192019 1,046,000 4.9% 1,329,000 38% 44,569,000 56.5% 192620 1,120,000 7.1% 2,688,000 102.3% 76,022,000 70.6% 193021 1,150,000 2.7% 3,978,000 48% 108,087,000 42.2% 193622 1,160,000 0.9% 10,730,000 169.8% 134,600,000 24.5% 193923 1,604,000 38.3% 14,356,000 33.8% 141,250,000 4.9% Total Change 60.9% 1,390.8% 396.1% 1915-1939 Table 2. Endowment Values (in USD) and Increases from 1915 to 1939 at The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, and Harvard University

18 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1916, v. 2, pp. 253-319. The year covered was 1915, see p. 239. 19 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920-22, pp. 384-425. 20 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1924-26, v. 2, pp. 863-945. 21 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1928-1930 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1932), pp. 480-500. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. Financial Report 1929-1930, in Sixtieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1930 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1930), 291. 22 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Biennial Survey of Education...1934-36 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1938), v. 2, 256-273. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. Ohio State endowment figure found in United States Department of Interior [Office of Education], “Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36 being Chapter IV of Volume II of the Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: 1934-36.” (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938), p. 266. 23 Marsh, ed., American Universities and Colleges, s.v. 9

Year Ohio State University University of Oberlin College Cincinnati 187524 500,000 -- 115,000 188025 -- -- 150,000 189026 539,000 619,000 500,000 189527 548,000 1,490,000 900,000 190028 554,000 3,357,000 1,028,000 190529 695,000 1,446,000 1,631,000 191030 924,000 895,000 1,698,000 191531 997,000 870,000 2,415,000 192032 1,046,000 2,504,000 2,841,000 192633 1,120,000 5,680,000 13,953,000 193034 1,150,000 17,791,000 193635 1,160,000 9,146,000 193936 1,604,000 9,444,000 19,051,000 Percentage 197.6% 1,425.7% 3,710.2% Change 1890-1939 Table 3. Endowment Values (in USD) at Leading Ohio Universities, 1875-1939

24 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1875], 738-747. 25 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Annual Report for the Year 1880, pp.671. 26 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1890], 1600-1609. 27 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1895], Part 2, pp. 2132-2147. 28 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1900, v. 2, pp. 1924-1957. 29 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1905, v. 1, pp.616-635. Amount shown for OSU is $695,838.19 in Carl E. Steeb, Board of Trustees Report 1904-1905, Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 16. 30 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1910, v. 2, pp. 925-942.; The amount $924,053.37 listed in Financial Report 1909-1910, in Fortieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1911), 20. 31The amount 997,004.83 reported in Financial Report 1914-1915, in Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1915 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1917), 70, 72. U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1916, v. 2, pp. 253-319. The Year covered was 1915, see p.239. 32 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920-22, pp. 384-425. 33 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1924-26, v. 2, pp. 863-945. 34 Financial Report 1929-1930, in Sixtieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1930 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1930), 291. U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1928-1930 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1932), pp. 493. 35 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Biennial Survey of Education...1934-36 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1938), v. 2, 256-273. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. Ohio State endowment figure found in United States Department of Interior [Office of Education], “Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36, pp. 266, 276. 36 Marsh, ed., American Universities and Colleges, s.v. 10

As shown in Table 4 below, by 1931, Ohio State University’s total gifts from alumni amounted to $586,327. Of this amount $480,000 or 81.9% of gifts had been given by alumni for the Ohio Stadium.

University Gifts from Alumni Total Gifts Percentage of alumni gifts out of total gifts Michigan $26,043,597 $29,228,928 89.1 (est. 1817) Wisconsin $3,967,911 $7,112,925 55.8 (est. 1848) Illinois $2,111,312 $4,331,865 48.7 (est. 1867) Purdue $1,102,592 $2,453,220 45.0 (est. 1869) Ohio State $586,327 $3,607,222 16.3 (est. 1870) Table 4. Alumni Gifts to State-Supported Universities in the Western Conference, from the Beginning to 1931.37

My dissertation focuses on key moments in educational philanthropy, particularly endowment building, at Ohio State University (OSU), with comparisons to the University of Michigan (U-M), and occasionally Harvard University. When investigating OSU’s endowment between 1915 and 1940 several questions emerged. Why did Ohio State frequently abstain from securing funding from private sources, especially alumni sources? What was it about Michigan, also a state institution, that caused it to excel in

37 From Professor F. C. Blake’s Study--Presented to President Rightmire, May 27, 1931, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30.

11 this area? How did these institutions view income from state sources as opposed to private revenue streams? What were the disagreements on how to and whether to accept private monies for endowment and how did these disagreements play out? I use the OSU annual reports as well as other primary and secondary sources from both OSU and U-M to show the dynamic interplay of university leaders in making these key decisions. While

Harvard is not a public university, it was well-known for its leadership in raising endowment. Indeed, Harvard served as an early endowment-building exemplar for U-M and OSU. Also some comparisons will be made with other Ohio universities such as the

University of Cincinnati, Ohio University, , and Oberlin College (a private institution). Though Ohio State University compared itself to these and other

Ohio institutions, the University of Michigan had reached exemplar status for OSU by the

1920s.

I show that Ohio State was not concerned with developing endowment early on, a fault for which it would later pay a price. Why did OSU not grow the endowment? What kept it back? In the past, the dead hand debate (whether or not to accept restricted gifts from deceased persons) had been somewhat important, but with the rise of foundations, the dead hand debate seemed to become even more subdued during the 1920s.38

Consequently, there were other factors at play.

A study on endowment building in this context not only serves as a reference point for current issues in financing higher education, but identifies issues important for

38 Turgot, “On Foundations,” in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, ed. Keith Michael Baker (Chicago: Press, 1987): 89-97. Sir Arthur Hobhouse, “The Dead Hand: Addresses on the Subject of Endowments and Settlements of Property” (Spottiswoode and Co., 1880), 224. 12 today’s changing educational climate. Much of this dissertation has been written and based on sources transcribed from original sources in university archives and libraries. I have analyzed published and unpublished primary sources detailing endowment building at Ohio State University and at the University of Michigan and will discuss the critical period of early twentieth century fundraising efforts and highlight endowment building.

It is impossible to understand the financing of higher education, particularly of

OSU during the early 1900s without some understanding of the greater economic and political forces at work at that time.39 In an attempt to provide context and to promote understanding of the political, educational, and environmental factors that influenced the key figures and administrators at Ohio State University, I include discussions on the land grant movement and the founding of OSU. Also described are some of the contemporary debates over public versus private institutions, a description of the Ohio economy in the early 1900s, as well as brief descriptions of some of the Ohio millionaires, prime targets for private gift solicitations. I provide a chronological narrative in order to present events as a narrative, detailing OSU’s journey toward endowment building and the creation of the OSU Development Fund (through primary source documentation of correspondence and reports).

39 Robert Ulich, The Education of Nations; A Comparison in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1961), vi.

13

Institutional Context

OSU alumni were not utilized in fundraising until the stadium drive, and very lightly afterward, until the end of Rightmire’s presidency. OSU Alumni leaders had difficulty tracking old alumni, but coveted higher numbers of alumni at such universities as the University of Michigan.

There was an estimated average of 18% of enrolled students who graduated during the period 1900 to 1940. While this is an estimation, it is evident that most enrolled Ohio State students did not graduate from Ohio State during this period. And from 1878 (since the first graduating class) to 1940, there were 50,211 degrees conferred.40 Since tracking graduates or former students was challenging, the number of living alumni during this period is not clear.

In 1926 OSU claimed about 19,500 alumni.41 Ten years earlier, the University of

Michigan (U-M) already had almost double that number; 35,000 living alumni by 1915 according to William Oxley Thompson.42 Table 5 below describes the enrollment, degrees conferred, and graduation rates at OSU, and is followed by a table comparing enrollment at OSU, U-M, and Ohio University.

40 Degrees statistics are from the Seventieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees to the Governor for year ending June 30, 1940 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1940), Appendix IV. 41 F. D. Farrell [President of Kansas State Agricultural College] to Rightmire, 9 July 1926 and reply from G. W. Eckelberry to Farrell, 12 July 1926, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 42 William Oxley Thompson, OSU Annual Report for 1914-1915, p. 11. 14

Year Student Enrollment Total Degrees Estimated Conferred Percentage of students graduating43 1874 50 -- -- 1875 68 -- -- 1876 105 -- -- 1877 142 -- -- 1878 254 6 9% 1879 300 7 7% 1880 302 9 6% 1881 365 8 3% 1882 352 9 3% 1883 355 11 4% 1884 299 12 3% 1885 323 16 5% 1886 331 18 5% 1887 344 24 8% 1888 401 28 9% 1889 425 26 8% 1890 493 30 9% 1891 493 36 9% 1892 664 61 14% 1893 770 79 16% 1894 800 70 14% 1895 808 112 17% 1896 890 118 15% 1897 969 135 17% 1898 1,150 126 16% 1899 1,149 99 11% 1900 1,252 137 14% 1901 1,465 135 12% 1902 1,516 141 12% Continued

Table 5. Student Enrollment, Degrees, and Approximate Graduation Rate at The Ohio State University, 1900-1940.44

43 Comparing current year’s Total Degrees Conferred with the Student Enrollment of four years prior. Note: undergraduate and graduate degrees included. 44 Annual (Academic Year) Enrollment was counted through 1922. The Ohio State University, “Annual Enrollment, Total University, 1873-1874 through 1921-1922,” Office of the University Registrar, http://oesar.osu.edu/pdf/student_enrollment/historical/1873_1922.pdf ; Note: from Autumn of 1922, enrollment figures changed from documentation of annual enrollment to documentation of autumn enrollment only. Degrees statistics are from the Seventieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees to the 15

Table 5: Continued

Year Student Enrollment Total Degrees Estimated Conferred Percentage of students graduating45 1903 1,735 170 14% 1904 1,827 200 14% 1905 1,870 209 14% 1906 2,157 230 13% 1907 2,277 255 14% 1908 2,686 292 16% 1909 3,050 348 16% 1910 3,275 370 16% 1911 3,439 422 16% 1912 3,928 501 16% 1913 3,969 515 16% 1914 4,435 649 19% 1915 5,332 793 20% 1916 5,822 902 23% 1917 6,188 941 21% 1918 5,150 626 12% 1919 5,825 537 9% 1920 7,817 877 14% 1921 8,813 1,070 21% 1922 8,850 1,152 20% 1923 8,467 1,431 18% 1924 9,045 1,382 16% 1925 9,114 1,615 18% 1926 9,468 1,611 19% Continued

Governor for year ending June 30, 1940 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1940), Appendix IV. From 1923-1940, Autumn Quarter enrollment is shown, The Ohio State University, Autumn Quarter Enrollment, Total University, 1923-1940, The Ohio State University, Office of the University Registrar, http://oesar.osu.edu/pdf/student_enrollment/historical/1922_1944.pdf 45 Comparing current year’s Total Degrees Conferred with the Student Enrollment of four years prior. Note: undergraduate and graduate degrees included. 16

Table 5: Continued

Year Student Enrollment Total Degrees Estimated Conferred Percentage of students graduating46 1927 10,258 1,590 18% 1928 10,495 1,755 19% 1929 10,735 1,920 20% 1930 10,941 2,050 20% 1931 10,880 2,308 22% 1932 10,237 2,487 23% 1933 9,512 2,427 22% 1934 10,228 2,155 20% 1935 11,496 2,134 21% 1936 12,579 2,135 22% 1937 12,912 2,310 23% 1938 13,244 2,638 23% 1939 13,293 2,923 23% 1940 13,073 2,827 22%

Year University of Michigan Ohio State University Ohio University 1900 3,303 1,252 249 1910 4,755 3,275 651 1920 8,560 7,817 1,024 1930 9,807 10,941 2,338 1940 12,434 13,073 3,307 Table 6. Student Enrollment at University of Michigan, Ohio State University, and Ohio University, 1900- 1940.47

46 Comparing current year’s Total Degrees Conferred with the Student Enrollment of four years prior. Note: undergraduate and graduate degrees included. 47 Ohio University Fall Enrollment, ending in the year, Ohio University, Office of Institutional Research for recent data and Catalogs in Archives, http://www.ohio.edu/instres/Factbook/factenrl_hist.html; University of Michigan, Enrollment Figures from University of Michigan General Register (Calendars), http://bentley.umich.edu/research/guides/enroll.php. Student enrollment figures do not tinclude summer sessions and extension services. 17

The number of living OSU alumni in 1940 could not be identified. However, from

1878 (since the first graduating class) to 1940, there were 50,211 degrees conferred. In the same year for Michigan, there were approximately 61,762 living alumni. By 1940

Michigan had conferred 88,287 total degrees, 76,280 different people had received degrees, 48,510 were non-graduates, 124,790 were former students (graduates and non- graduates), 25,876 total former students were counted as deceased, and 98,914 total living former students.48 Thus while the exact number of living alumni for OSU is not evident for every year, it is obvious that during this period, Michigan had a much larger alumni body. More importantly, Michigan had a more active alumni body as discussed later.

Wilfred Shaw, alumni secretary for the University of Michigan (U-M alumni secretary, 1904-1929; U-M Director of the Bureau of Alumni Relations, 1929-1951) noted in 1920 the importance of the alumni on the growth of their alma maters. He claimed this influence was relatively new but that the university president should be very aware of the importance of its graduates.49 He claimed of alumni giving, “The existence of such a fluid source of income properly administered can be made of incalculable benefit, particularly in the numerous critical occasions, when the regular income is entirely unequal to the emergency, though it is not proposed to relieve the State from providing for the normal needs of the University, but to meet the special demands which

48 Lunette Hadley, “The Alumni Catalog Office,” The University of Michigan, an Encyclopedic Survey ...” in Wilfred B. Shaw, editor, University of Michigan. Part II Alumni, p. 394. 49 Wilfred Shaw, “The University of Michigan” 1920, p. 327. 18 are continually arising in such an institution.”50 How different was this approach from the slow-moving, “supplementary” gift receiving strategy of OSU in the same period.

OSU relied on the state for much of its income, though this state income was never sufficient. State appropriations decreased (in percentage of total university income) over this period. Federal support fluctuated during this time, but usually made up less than student fees.

50 Wilfred Shaw, “The University of Michigan” 1920, pp 340, 341. 19

(Income rounded to nearest U.S. dollar, followed by percent of the year’s total income)

Year Student State Federal Endowment Other Total Fees Income Available Income 1900 32,656 166,076 25,030 33,204 58,652 315,618 (10.3%) (52.6%) (7.9%) (10.5%) (18.6%)

1910 107,071 676,472 40,000 54,963 53,919 932,424 (11.5%) (72.5%) (4.3%) (5.9%) (5.8%)

1920 254,509 1,734883 279,505 17,388 236,353 2,522,637 (10.1%) (68.8%) (11.1%) (0.7%) (9.4%)

1930 783,122 5,055,956 375,183 22,312 2,428,913 8,665,486 (9%) (58.3%) (4.3%) (0.3%) (28%)

1940 1,058,310 3,976,928 965,677 48,126 4,181,301 10,230,342 (10.3%) (38.9%) (9.4%) (0.5%) (40.9%)

Table 7. Components of The Ohio State University’s Income for Selected Years from 1900-1940.51

From 1900 to 1940, despite the available income of the university increasing from about $315,600 to over $10 million, the income received from students remained relatively stable at around 10% of the total. The percent of income from the state peaked around 1910 and fell drastically between 1930 to 1940. Endowment income remained negligible during this time, but the percent of other income soared for the year 1940, mostly thanks to dormitories, commercial accounts, the athletic department, and bond proceeds.

51 The Ohio State University, Annual Reports [1900 (p. 14), 1910 (p. 20), 1920 (p. 157), 1930 (pp.287-289), 1940 (pp.15-16)] (Columbus, Ohio). 20

Obviously missing from OSU’s income portfolio was income from alumni gifts.

By 1938 Michigan had obtained from its alumni $3,000,000, compared to Ohio State’s

$85,000.52 Earlier, in 1930, OSU Dean Walter J. Shepard adamantly called for the cultivation of gifts from private sources. He said,

“Ohio State University aspires to at least a place of equality with the other great state universities and indeed with even the greatest of the endowed universities. Our resources come almost entirely from legislative appropriations. We have not as yet tapped to any great extent the resources of private beneficence…. Other institutions are securing not only large legislative appropriations, but great endowments. The state of Ohio cannot afford to be pushed into a secondary position. A real vision of future needs and of future possibilities should illumine our consideration of such a program as is herewith submitted. We must not be startled by what appear to be very large requests; we must learn to think in much more expanded and ambitious terms than we have in the past.”53

Shepard notes that Ohio’s income comes predominantly from the state. But even compared with other state institutions, OSU’s income from the state is not very impressive, especially considering the relative wealth of Ohio. The following table compares OSU to other institutions at Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

52 “Objectives of the First Annual Program, The Ohio State University Development Fund: Representing a coordinated movement of the alumni, former students and friends of the Ohio state University to provide for its special needs,” [1938] The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 53 Walter J. Shepard, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, to Rightmire, 18 June 1930, 3/f Budget: Arts and Sciences: College of: Biennial Requests: 1930. 21

Institution State Income for year State Income for year 1900 1920 University of Illinois 267,450 2,871,500 87,395 703,127 University of Michigan 293,583 2,346,750 Ohio State University 166,076 1,836,296 University of Wisconsin 268,000 1,926,160 Table 8. State Derived Income (in USD) for Select Universities in 1900 and 1920.54

In 1882, the taxable property of the following states were: Minnesota, at

$311,200,841; Wisconsin, $446,760,585; Missouri, $649,267,242; Michigan,

$810,000,000; and Ohio $1,634,910,734. Ohio was clearly the most property wealthy state. 55 It was more than double that of Michigan, its closest competitor, and as OSU

President William Henry Scott (pres. 1872 to 1883) put it “her revenue from taxation is less than one-fourth as great.”56 Though, OSU would receive funds from the two Morrill land grant acts and the Hysell bill, passed by the Ohio legislature, granting 1/20th of a mill, the state still failed to provide to provide sufficiently in order for Ohio State

University to compete well with peer institutions.

In the early 1900s, OSU was clearly poised to become a financial leader among state universities. Instead, OSU rapidly fell behind other universities in endowment building, and this is mostly attributable to the administrative failures of Presidents

Thompson and Rightmire, who continued to depend on the state for the support of OSU, rather than pursue private fundraising. Each at the end of his presidency recognized his

54 Biennial Survey, 1900 and 1920. 55 William Henry Scott, President’s Report, “Thirteenth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1883.” (Columbus, OH: G. J. Brand & Co. State Printers, 1884), 30-32. 56 William Henry Scott, President’s Report, 30-32. 22 mistake. Private fundraising, endowment building, and growing the alumni association proved absolutely vital to the success of the university.

Questions and Central Theses

My overall purpose is to explore the financial factors leading to OSU’s successes and failures in institutional financing. The following chapters draw on extensive original source material to show ways in which the Ohio State University developed financially during the early twentieth century. How did Ohio State attempt to meet its funding needs? And how did OSU compare to other universities, particularly the University of

Michigan.

In my dissertation I focus on the following factors:

 Regional, including economic differences within Ohio and Michigan

 State and federal roles for the university

 University leaders

 The role of the alumni association (officially called The Ohio State

University Association during the early twentieth century so as not to

leave out any non-graduates or friends of the university.)

Other questions emerged throughout my reading of original sources. Was Ohio

State University too passive in their alumni campaigning and fundraising efforts and did it alienate some of their potential donors? What role did the stadium fundraising

23 campaign play? Who were the key players that helped the university identify and carry out planning campaigns and soliciting funds with the goal of growing the endowment?

What role did prominent businessmen or alumni serve? Over the course of my research, three major theses emerged.

First Thesis:

In the 1920s, Ohio State University was in a prime position to make great strides in fundraising and building its endowment. At this key time, the university was in position to establish an alumni fund to drive endowment building. Several factors suggest

OSU could have maintained or even extended its lead in endowment building over public universities in neighboring states over the next two decades.

First to consider is the relative wealth of the state of Ohio. With a diverse economy and its own set of millionaires, Ohio certainly had enough resources to significantly support higher education. Even considering the severe economic problems faced by Ohioans during the depression, the state was arguably in a better position financially than were neighboring states.

OSU administrators also had knowledge of the tangible benefits of a major fundraising campaign and an alumni fund. OSU administrators followed the progress of the Harvard Endowment Fund campaign, an enterprise that influenced hundreds of fundraising campaigns during the 1920s by both public and private universities. Ohio

State administrators also knew of the successful example of the Yale Alumni Fund, founded in the 1890s. Many universities, including other Ohio colleges and universities,

24 learned important lessons about fundraising and the vital role of alumni by watching these successful campaigns.

Ohio State University also enjoyed a fairly close relationship to the University of

Michigan and recognized the great strides U of M was making in building its own endowment through the work of their Alumni. While the significant progress made by this neighboring university inspired many at OSU, the fervor for private fundraising did not catch on quickly enough.

Other significant factors that suggest OSU was in position to become dominant in fundraising are related to the obvious interest Ohioans and alumni took in the university.

It could be argued by some to be the new New , where education minded New

Englanders and their work ethic had migrated to Ohio. And OSU’s alumni were very interested in strengthening their ties to the university and in building an alumni association. Further, dedicated interest was generated for the university through athletics and competitive sports events.

In all, OSU was in a privileged position. The wealth of the state was waiting to be exploited in behalf of the university, public interest was significant, and there were several very good examples of how to successfully take advantage of this fundraising potential.

Second Thesis:

Despite the advantages and opportunities enjoyed by the university, OSU actually fell rapidly behind in fundraising and endowment building during the period from 1920

25 to 1940. The minimal progress of OSU during this period is very evident through the reports and correspondence from the time. And the progress of other universities is telling of what OSU might have accomplished.

Comparative data shows that OSU fell behind other leading universities, such as the University of Michigan and the University of Cincinnati. As shown in Tables 2 and 3 above, Ohio State University did not excel in growing its endowment during the two decades after 1920. Contemporaneous studies by Ohio State University Professor

Frederic C. Blake, OSU graduate student James LaPoe, and other OSU testimony demonstrate OSU’s lack of initiative during the 1920s and 1930s.

Professor Blake verbalized a push for progress in OSU fundraising. In 1937,

Blake wrote Jack Fullen, the OSU alumni secretary, and expressed his excitement for recent efforts to create development program, at the same time, regret that it was not started sooner. Blake’s observation was, “I ‘am tickled’ that the University has now under way a program for going forward for which I have waited and pleaded for more than ten years.”57 The Ohio State University Development Fund’s first meeting was not until 1938.

In the mid-1920s, Western Reserve University’s Medical Center group raised

$8,000,000 with the goal of constructing five buildings, while the Case School of Applied

Science led a campaign in 1926 that raised $1,660,000.58 Even Miami University, a smaller state institution, recognized the importance private fundraising for the purpose of

57 Frederic C. Blake [Mendenhall Laboratory of at OSU] to Jack Fullen, 3 August 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 58 Dougherty, Miskell, Merriam & Sutton‘s emphasized Organization, Management, and Publicity in the Cleveland area. Arman L. Merriam to President Thompson, 30 September 1927, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 26 endowment building. President Raymond M. Hughes of Miami (Acting Pres. 1911-1913;

Pres. 1911-1927) annually printed a statement of needs to notify private donors of ways they could help the university.

Despite the success of neighboring universities, OSU fell quickly behind in fundraising and endowment building in the early 1900s.

Third Thesis:

How then, did a university with good start and environment for endowment building lose its lead and fall so far behind in growing its endowment? A number of influential though secondary reasons for this change in momentum and endowment status are evident through extant sources. These include competition for state funding with other Ohio colleges and universities, a condemning Carnegie report, an over-emphasis on athletics, and a problematic Ohio Governor.

Other universities in Ohio siphoned off both state and private resources that OSU may have otherwise received. The University of Miami and Ohio University, both public

Ohio schools, were reported to have some overlapping missions with OSU, and certainly competed with OSU for available funds. Ohio also had a number of private colleges such as Oberlin College and the University of Cincinnati which courted private monies.

OSU was also adversely affected by the controversy with its medical school. The college of homeopathy, in a then discredited field, continued to operate because of the funding provided for it even when the condemnation of the Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching drove away potential donors. The Carnegie report (as will be

27 shown in Chapter Two below) condemned Ohio’s universities, making Ohio’s universities ineligible for the teacher pension plan.

The emphasis on athletics was also problematic. While the stadium drive was the first large fund drive at OSU and beneficial in that regard, it focused entirely on providing for an athletic building, the stadium. While this set a fundraising precedent for attention on athletics, it would be quite some time before another fund drive would be carried out for academic purposes.

The Ohio Governor at key times was unsympathetic to the needs of the university.

Governor Martin L. Davey’s (Gov. 1935-1939) vetoes especially caused financial concern for the university at a time when it was already severely pinched from the Great

Depression, having been hit by a forty-percent state subsidy reduction in 1933. Large salary decreases and other cutbacks resulted from this and from Davey’s vetoes in 1935, though the controversy did bring more attention to the need for a larger endowment.

Fourth Thesis:

Despite the significant financial difficulties faced by OSU, the most influential factor in the university’s lack of fundraising and endowment building during the period from 1920 to 1940 was undoubtedly the unprogressive presidential leadership of both

William Oxley Thompson (Pres. 1899-1925) and George W. Rightmire (Acting Pres.

1925-1926; Pres. 1926-1938). Both of these presidents, while they had some positive influences on the university, did not embrace private fundraising until the end of their presidencies, which was far too late.

28

Why did Thompson and Rightmire not raise private revenues? Plainly stated, neither of these men had the background, experience, and talent to move into what was for Ohio State, uncharted waters. They were slow to awaken to the new needs of the modern university. Neither of these presidents understood the importance of bringing private funds and allies to the university.

President Thompson, a clergyman, maintained until almost the end of his presidency that the state should and would provide for the needs of the university.

President Rightmire, onetime undergraduate football and track star, onetime country schoolteacher, onetime president of the Columbus (Ohio) city council, came to his position with little knowledge of research universities and their leadership. Alumni leaders at OSU encouraged Rightmire repeatedly to engage in private fundraising, especially considering the positive example of the University of Michigan. In 1928,

James L. Morrill, The Ohio State University Association’s Alumni Secretary, expressed strong interest in Michigan’s widely publicized alumni fundraising campaign:

“Altogether it strikes me as the most stimulating and far reaching proposal ever made in the field of alumni relations on a smashing scale by any great university.”59

Despite the suggestions and sometimes pleading of his alumni leaders, it took severe financial cutbacks from the state before Rightmire acknowledged, near the end of his presidency, that private fundraising was absolutely necessary for the basic needs of

59 J.L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 16 February 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 29 the university. OSU began to make strides, but by that time, a critical period for growing the endowment had passed, and OSU had lost its lead among its peers, never to regain it.

Thompson and Rightmire failed to see and act upon the need for private fundraising, including among alumni, at this crucial time, and this was the largest hindrance to the financial growth of the university during their presidencies.

30

Chapter One: Financial Strategy, Wealthy Ohio and its Millionaires, The Land Grant Movement and the Failure of the State of Ohio to Support its State University, 1860-1930

Through the early 1900s, the landscape of wealth, of university funding, and of government involvement in universities underwent significant transformations. The changes in university funding may in large part be attributed to President Charles W.

Eliot (pres. 1869-1909) of Harvard and the push for increasing university endowments.

As Harvard pulled ahead, becoming the leader of university endowments in the United

States by 1920, other universities began to look to Harvard as an example of successful fundraising.

Thanks to a series of economic shifts, the early twentieth century saw a new set of millionaires with a corresponding increase in the number and size of charitable foundations, many of which directed their gifts to higher education. The state of Ohio had its own diverse economy and its own diverse set of millionaires, but The Ohio State

University had difficulty claiming a portion of the gifts available.

The Ohio State University, founded in 1870 with land grant funds authorized by the Morrill Act relied on state funding for its support. However, state funds were obviously inadequate to support a growing university, despite such measures as the mill

31 tax which had been passed in the last decade of the nineteenth century. It was time for the university to take other measures toward ensuring its financial success.

Financial Strategy for Harvard University: The Wealthiest American University

President Charles W. Eliot (pres. 1869-1909) at Harvard developed a free money ideology that helped Harvard to become the most financially successful university in the country.

By 1922, Trevor Arnett and the General Education Board attempted to rescue others from misunderstanding the meaning of the term, endowment. “It is amazing to find how rarely the term ‘endowment’ is used in its correct sense,” Arnett noted. “This would be a trivial matter if it were simply a matter of definition. But, as the reader will soon perceive, unless the term ‘endowment’ is properly understood by the trustees and officers, the financial policy of an endowed college may go seriously astray.”60

The policy of spending all income was long followed by President Charles W.

Eliot at Harvard University. In his late nineteenth century annual reports, Eliot explained,

“The President and Fellows desire to manage the property of the University in a conservative way, although they mean to spend its whole income for the benefit of the present generation of youth.”61 In an 1882-83 report, Eliot declared, “It is the general

60 Trevor Arnett, College and University Finance (New York: General Education Board, 1922), 24-25. For more information about the meaning of how the term endowment changed over time, see Bruce A. Kimball and Benjamin A. Johnson, “The Inception of the Meaning and Significance of Endowment in American Higher Education, 1890-1930,” Teachers College Record 114, no. 10 (2012): http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16669. 61 President’s Report for 1889-90. [Charles W. Eliot’s Annual Report] Cambridge, January 10, 32 purpose of the [Harvard] Corporation to spend every year all their income. They believe that well instructed young men are the best investment or accumulation which the

University can make from year to year for the benefit of future generations. As fast as new resources are placed in their hands, whether from increase in the amount of tuition fees, or from the income of new endowments, the [Harvard] Corporation incur new permanent charges.”62 In essence, Eliot viewed the investment of financial resources in current programs for students as a living endowment that would pay the university back in the decades to come.

Eliot’s free money strategy was later adopted as a preface for the Harvard

Endowment Fund Campaign–in the late 1910s. As American universities competed among other universities, including foreign universities, “those universities will inevitably win which have the largest amounts of free money.”63 Eliot claimed that “The only way to increase the amount of such funds is to emphasize the urgent need of them, and then to treat them with such steady consideration that they will have...an assured permanence as funds.”64

189[1], Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1889-90 (Cambridge: Published by the University, 1891), 36. 62 President’s Report for 1882-83. [Charles W. Eliot’s Annual Report] Cambridge, January 4, 1883, Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1882-83 (Cambridge: John Wilson and Son, 1883), 41-42. 63 Harvard Endowment Fund, Harvard and the Future (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919), 8. 64 Eliot Wadsworth, “Campaign Book of the Harvard Endowment Fund Committee” [typescript] (June 1919), 2, in Thomas W. Lamont, Correspondence 1916-1921, Records of Harvard Endowment Fund, 1916-1939, boxes 1 and 2, Harvard University Archives, Correspondence; Harvard Endowment Fund (Harvard Endowment Fund Committee [Sep. 1919]), 11-2, in Lamont, Correspondence. Quoted in Kimball and Johnson, “The Inception of the Meaning and Significance of Endowment in American Higher Education, 1890-1930,” http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16669. 33

The early 1900s saw incredible growth in number and size of charitable foundations and endowments. Through the 1800s, “only five persons of wealth established foundations for philanthropic purposes....Thereafter the trend grew apace.

Six new foundations were established during the first decade of the twentieth century, twenty-two during the second, and forty-one in the third.”65 Higher education was a particularly popular recipient of funds from such foundations, and from 1900 to 1930,

“the great bulk of such endowments [we]re held by the colleges and universities.”66 The following tables show the immense increases in the endowments of some of the top colleges and universities from 1900 to 1939.

65 Eduard C. Lindeman, Wealth and Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936), p.18. 66 Henry S. Pritchett, “The Use and Abuse of Endowments,” Atlantic Monthly 144 (Oct. 1929): 520. 34

(Figures are in 1,000s of dollars; round numbers utilized for uncertain endowment figures.) Institution Harvard Columbia Stanford

and Year University University University of Chicago University

190067 12,615 13,285 4,942 5,726 18,000

190568 18,036 14,405 7,317 7,752 30,000

191069 21,990 25,846 12,532 14,902 24,000

191570 28,471 30,900 16,153 19,446 23,975

192071 44,569 39,602 24,049 28,364 33,260

192672 76,022 50,389 45,604 35,304 28,394

193073 108,087 73,375 82,857 59,615 27,846

193674 134,600 46,210 95,120 65,390 31,400

193975 141,250 70,714 100,449 70,944 30,503

Table 9. Leading Endowments (in USD) of Colleges and Universities, 1900-1939

67 U.S. Commissioner of Education, [Report] for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1900 (1901), v. 2, pp. 1924-1957. Princeton figure refers to 1898-99. For 1897-8 Harvard reported $10,230,000 investments (including rental properties) Annual Report of the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1897-98 (Cambridge: The University, 1898), pp. 31, 41. 68 U.S. Commissioner of Education, [Report] for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1905 (1907), v. 1, pp. 616-635. 69 U.S. Commissioner of Education, [Report] for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1910 (1911), v. 2. pp. 868-942 70 U.S. Commissioner of Education, [Report] for the Year Ended June 30, 1916 (1917), v. 2, pp. 253-319. The Year covered was 1915, see p. 239. 71 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920-22 (1925), v. 2, pp. 384-425. 72 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1924-26 (1928), v. 2, pp. 863-945. 73 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1928-1930 (1932), v. 2, pp. 480-500. Columbia includes Teachers College, but not Barnard. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. 74 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Biennial Survey of Education...1934-36 (1938), v. 2, pp. 256- 273. 75 Clarence S. Marsh, ed., American Universities and Colleges, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940). s.v. Endowment values for these institutions in 1940 are not included in this report: U.S. Office of Education, Statistics of Higher Education, 1939-40 and 1941-42 (1944), v. 2. 35

(The following figures are in 1,000s of dollars, round numbers are utilized for uncertain endowment figures.)

192076 1. University of California 7,254 2. University of Washington 6,344 3. University of Minnesota 3,860 4. University of Oklahoma 3,670

193077 1. University of Texas 23,960 2. University of California 15,223 3. University of Virginia 9,980 4. University of Minnesota 8,755

Table 10. Highest Ranked Endowment (in USD) Public Universities, 1920 and 1930

The growth of Harvard’s endowment was unique, not only in that it quickly eclipsed other universities’ endowments, but for the strategy Harvard employed in the allocation of gifts. Other wealthy universities received much larger gifts than did

Harvard. But Harvard, thanks to President Charles W. Eliot, allocated the largest portion of gifts to the permanent endowment. He was the first university president to develop this policy, and assumed, as did other university presidents, that colleges and universities would succeed or fail based on “survival of the fittest,” according to President William R.

76 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920-22 (Washington: G.P.O., 1925), v. 2, 384-425. 77 U.S. Bureau, Biennial 1928-1930, v. 2, 480-500. 36

Harper of the University of Chicago.78 But Eliot understood that this survival would be based on increasing the wealth of the university. He argued, “if the primacy of Harvard

University among American institutions of education is to be maintained, it must not be surpassed by any other in material resources.”79 And Eliot knew Harvard was not only competing with other private institutions but with public as well. Eliot and other presidents of private universities felt the threat of “formidable competition with a large number of strong State universities in which tuition is free.”80 So while universities such as Yale and Princeton divided their gifts among buildings, the endowment, and other costs, Harvard poured its gifts into the endowment.81

Eliot’s policies were so successful and well liked by the Harvard alumni, that even after Eliot’s retirement, his financial policies were continued,82 and Harvard’s five year endowment campaign ending in 1921 attracted national attention, especially from other colleges and universities.83 Before the campaign was even complete, other universities had recognized its success and by February of 1920, Princeton President

78 This discussion draws upon Bruce A. Kimball and Benjamin A. Johnson, “The Beginning of “Free Money” Ideology in American Universities: Charles W. Eliot at Harvard, 1869-1909.” William R. Harper, The Trend in Higher Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1905), 375. See Laurence R. Veysey, The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), 317, 323-32, 347, 357-8; Geiger, To Advance, 12. 79 Eliot, Annual Report 1895-1896, 43. 80 Eliot, Annual Report 1906-1907, 16. 81 George C. Holt, “The Origin of the Yale Alumni Fund,” Yale Alumni Weekly (2 Feb. 1917): 528-9. “The Yale Bi-centenary Fund,” New York Times (25 June 1901): 07; Samuel R. Betts, “General Alumni Gifts to Yale,” in The Book of the Yale Pageant, 21 October 1916, ed. George H. Nettleton (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916), 236; Geiger, To Advance, 50-51, 288n. “Princeton Opens $14,000,000 Drive,” New York Times (27 Sept. 1919): 13. 82 Richard N. Smith, The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 57-61. 83 “Call for Harvard,” Boston Globe (11 Jan. 1917): 1, 5; “To Raise Million A Year for Harvard,” Boston Globe (30 June 1921): 4. See Lamont, Correspondence. 37

Hibben claimed that about 75 universities and colleges were hurrying to follow suit.84 It seemed apparent that The Harvard Endowment Fund’s adoption of Eliot’s declaration that, “those universities will inevitably win which have the largest amounts of free money,” was influencing other universities.85 Eliot’s free money ideology deeply influenced not only Harvard, but many other universities, including the University of

Michigan which noted the success of Harvard’s endowment. But, as will be shown below, OSU would not successfully draw on this type of strategy, on a large scale, until

1938.

Philanthropic and Educational Climate at the Turn of the Century

Changes apparent from the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth century included a shift from private to public funding, large-scale philanthropy from newly minted millionaires, and a new emphasis on philosophical questions. Debates that surged to the forefront included arguments on: where to secure institutional funding, whether donations from questionable sources should be accepted, on democratic values and purposes of higher education.

84 “Universities Ask Over $200,000,000,” New York Times (8 February 1920): E1. For further information on the meaning of endowments and on Eliot’s influence in financing higher education, see the following: Bruce A. Kimball and Benjamin A. Johnson, “The Inception of the Meaning and Significance of Endowment in American Higher Education, 1890-1930,” Teachers College Record 114, no. 10 (2012): http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16669 and Bruce A. Kimball and Benjamin A. Johnson, “The Beginning of ‘Free Money’ Ideology in American Universities: Charles W. Eliot at Harvard, 1869- 1909,” History of Education Quarterly 52, no. 2 (May 2012): 222-250. 85 Harvard Endowment Fund, Harvard and the Future (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1919), 8. 38

Character of the University

Through much of the nineteenth century, the sentiment prevailed that the federal government had little role in education. By the end of the century however, a different ideology had taken hold. The Morrill Act of 1862 delivered federal lands to states for one or more institutions of higher education for the purpose of selling the lands and using the proceeds to build an endowment. These land grant institutions emphasized the sciences and were designed to broaden the demographic background of students. Later, with the

Hatch Act of 1887 and the Morrill Act of 1890, the federal government offered additional support for these land grant colleges.86 State and federal funding subsequently became more formal.

Debates on whether an institution should receive funding from private or public sources were not new to the turn of the century. This debate mirrored the church versus state distinctions. Scholars continue to debate the position and permeability of public and private boundaries. The famous Dartmouth college case of 1819 epitomizes the private versus public funding debate. The state decided it should have no control over the private college. This was in keeping with the widespread contemporary conviction to keep private institutions free from government intervention. Private funds, most often from religious groups, filled the void.87 The land grant acts signaled a small decline in the importance of private funding for higher education.

86 Roger L. Williams, The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George W. Atherton and the Land-Grant College Movement (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991, 13, 226. 87 Mark D. McGarvie “The Dartmouth College Case” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History ed. Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 103. 39

Though American institutions did have some unique qualities, European countries, particularly , were already financing and running scientific agricultural institutions.88 It took a significant amount of campaigning to pass the land grant acts through the United States Congress. George W. Atherton, president of The

Pennsylvania State University and advocate of the land-grant institutions, was successful in promoting his plans for higher education largely because of his friendship with senator

Justin Smith Morrill.89 Indeed, many of the significant changes in educational funding were due to dynamic leaders rather than simply to gradual changes in popular ideology.

Before the turn of the twentieth century, most colleges and universities were privately funded, although frequently through a church or other society. With the advent of the land grant acts, colleges and universities could now rely on government funding.

As one scholar, Roger L. Williams, explained, “The precedents land-grant college leaders set in the late nineteenth century foreshadowed the modern covenant of federal support for higher education.”90 So the land grant acts set in motion a movement that has carried through to the present.

A Unique Period for American Philanthropy

Scholars agree that around the turn of the twentieth century, there was a marked shift away from charity, mainly focused on the individual, to systematic institutional philanthropy. The birth of philanthropy in America was in eighteenth century

88 Williams,13. 89 Williams,199. 90 Williams, x. 40

Philadelphia,91 and was an attempt to change society, not remedy the needs of individual people (as did charity).92 Around 1890, philanthropy began to play a large role in funding

American colleges and universities, a shift attributable to the emergence of a new group of millionaires.93

At the turn of the twentieth century, some issues were clearly dissimilar from the past. The large fortunes of businessmen, such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller,

Sr., Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P. Morgan, Leland Stanford, and others impacted society through their profitable business operations and subsequent benefactions. Rockefeller in particular saw this period as a major turning point for philanthropy. Concerning

Rockefeller, Judith Sealander explained, “He did not want merely to relieve misery; he hoped to end it. Such a task required a new approach to charity. It required ‘scientific giving,’” As a result a new type of “endowed charitable foundation” was formed.94

However some philanthropists like Russell Sage’s wife, Olivia, proved that both individual charitable and institutionally philanthropic donations were compatible.95

The new scientific philanthropy appears to be an American construct. The turn of the twentieth century marked an important change in philanthropy: wealthy retired

91 Robert A. Gross, “Giving in America: From Charity to Philanthropy” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History ed. Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 37-39. 92 Gross, 31. 93 Williams, 157. 94 Judith Sealander, “Curing Evils at their Source: The Arrival of Scientific Giving,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History ed. Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 218. For more about the changes of philanthropy from past. 95 Friedman, “Philanthropy in America: Historicism and Its Discontents,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History ed. Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 8. In the same volume, see also Ruth Crocker’s chapter, “From Gifts to Foundation: The Philanthropic Lives of Mrs. Russell Sage,” 199-216. 41 industrialists attempted to prevent social ills, not just treat their results.96 Through the

1920s, big philanthropists realized they could use private foundations to make large improvements in society and national defense using science. In other countries these were primarily government concerns. Americans, however, valued limiting the influence of the federal government, contributing to the predominant “hands off” approach maintained until World War II.97 During the period from 1900 to 1930 colleges and universities vastly benefited from this scientific philanthropy.98

This remarkable period of early scientific giving ended at the beginning of the

Great Depression. This shift correlated with the change in the composition of the prominent philanthropists.99 Though many of the philanthropists died, their foundations born in the early twentieth century survived.

Philanthropic foundations in America not only funded scientific efforts, but were scientific endeavors in and of themselves. Like earlier philanthropic models, the newly created American philanthropic efforts of the early 1900s were built on endowments. One of the major individuals behind the shift to scientific philanthropy was Frederick T. Gates who was the administrator over Rockefeller’s philanthropic endeavors.100 Education was a popular medium of philanthropy for the big donors, and Gates played an important role.

Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other benefactors like Edward S. Harkness all viewed education as an “investment in human resources.” As author Donald Fisher argued, these

96 Sealander, 221. 97 David C. Hammack, “Failure and Resilience: Pushing the Limits in Depression and Wartime,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History ed. Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 273. 98 Sealander, 230. 99 Sealander, 238-9. 100 Howe, 26. 42 benefactors “were among the first organizations to apply a theory of human capital to education.”101

The birth of land grant colleges stemmed from democratic principles--schooling for all people--including those from rural backgrounds. It also incorporated utilitarian ideals. Allan Nevins commented, “liberty and equality could not survive unless all men had full opportunity to pursue all occupations at the highest practicable level.”102

Americans increasingly valued education as an opportunity that should be more generally available. Roger L. Williams explained, “Egalitarianism and populism, ‘practical’ or

‘useful’ education, applied research, public service, and of course the idea that the federal government has a key role to play in educational policy – these tenets have become generalized throughout the whole of American higher education.”103 Higher education thus became increasingly associated with the common man.

By the early twentieth century came the emergence of the foundation in the terms we know today, and “foundation policies accorded with and reinforced, the growing

American belief in education, research, and science as the surest path to progress.”104 The big donors continued to value education, and philanthropic giving to education actually performed fairly well through the Depression because big donors were still giving.105 The

Depression showed a decrease in religious and personal charity, but on a larger scale,

101 Donald Fisher, “American Philanthropy and the Social Sciences: The Reproduction of the Conservative Ideology,” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 257. 102 Allan Nevins, The State Universities and Democracy (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), 17. 103 Williams, 227. 104 Robert F. Arnove, “Introduction,” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 5. 105 Hammack, 280. 43 private donors continued to contribute, sometimes working with government agencies to achieve their aims.106 Liberal arts colleges and research universities kept receiving gifts despite the sluggish economy. On the whole, it seemed donors strongly believed in the benefit of new discoveries from the universities.107

Later in the century, there was a change in philanthropic giving related to tax exemptions for making donations to a non-profit organization. There was a resultant massive increase in foundations within the IRS listings. But not all of these were designed to help change society. Many were just looking for ways to move money around so they could avoid taxes.108 So after the first few decades of the twentieth century came a shift in at least the numbers of foundations. Philanthropic foundations remained autonomous, without government interference “until the Tax Reform Act of 1969,” which curtailed the convenient use of “foundations” as a means to avoid taxation.109 The parameters for giving became more rigorous. Thus after the first few decades of the twentieth century, giving to foundations waxed and then waned, but this appears to be a superficial change through which the big foundations remained strong. So despite changes through the rest of the century, the ideology of scientific giving and definitions of philanthropy remained much the same.

As noted by the French political observer, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), and later by twenty-first century authors, Americans were more connected to their society

106 Hammack, 274. 107 Hammack, 275. 108 Peter D. Hall, “The Welfare State and the Careers of Public and Private Institutions Since 1945,” Friedman & McGarvie 364. 109 Barbara Howe, “The Emergence of Scientific Philanthropy, 1900-1920: Origins, Issues and Outcomes” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 48. 44 rather than individualistic. Authors in Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie’s edited volume on Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History argued that

Americans were not as unique as mid-twentieth century scholars would have us believe.110 Americans remained ensconced in a system, it was argued, not easily separated out from the social element of the human condition. There were individuals, like Carnegie, who rose to great wealth, but not solely on their own merits. One cannot discount the vast network of individuals or society that led to one person’s success.

While democratic values were affecting education and philanthropy in general,

Robert Arnove, in the introduction of his edited volume, Philanthropy and Cultural

Imperialism asserted, “foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a very corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention.”111 This suggested that not everyone applauded some of the foundation efforts.

Large donors with this ability to buy what they want for the general social agenda influenced and were influenced by public values. And despite their great wealth and ability to push their own social agendas, the large donors were sometimes thwarted by the diversity of ideas rampant in American thought in the early twentieth century. The first two decades of the twentieth century saw a great diversity of ideas which curtailed the

110 Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie, eds. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 111 Robert F. Arnove, “Introduction,” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 1. 45 impact of programs sponsored by grand-scale capitalists, such as Rockefeller.112 For example, Julius Rosenwald, a Sears partner and philanthropist, focused on achieving equal educational funding for African Americans. Nonetheless, the application of his ideas was curtailed by the lack of American social acceptance, particularly related to racial equality.113

In subsequent decades, new ideologies gained power over the careful slower planning of early twentieth century scientific philanthropy. Lack of scientific research sometimes led to investing money into programs in the 1950s and 1960s that did not succeed.114 During this time, the Ford philanthropic arm had “experimental” programs that were not scientific research studies, but according to Dennis Buss, were simple attempts at “trying something new.”115 The Ford’s Foreign Area Fellowship program sent hundreds of new scholars to Africa and Asia to study heretofore unknown parts of the world for Americans. Was this a better approach than “scientific philanthropy”? Given the successful creation of foreign area studies centers, it appeared that this gave America badly needed competency it had not previously had.

During the Cold War Years, there developed a view that “society depended on talent in order to buttress itself against outside threats to survival.” The Carnegie

Foundation and others attempted to create an “academic elite” to take care of pressing

112 Sheila Slaughter and Edward T. Silva, “Looking Backwards: How Foundations Formulated Ideology in the Progressive Period” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 76. 113 Sealander, 234. 114 Dennis C. Buss, “The Ford Foundation in Public Education: Emergent Patterns” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 346-7. 115 Buss, 345. 46 social and technological issues. This “meritocratic view” held that the talented should be sorted out from the other students to prepare for needed roles. This view relied on

Jefferson’s theory that “the best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish.”116 This view clearly clashes with the democratic preferences held in American educational ideology at the turn of the century. By 1980, David Weischadle argued that higher education had

“been defused as a mechanism of democratization,” which no more appeared “to confound the established social order of the American corporate system.”117 So

Weischadle claimed that education had conformed to societal values; however, debates on the funding, purposes, and values of higher education continue thirty years later.

So, the distinction of the emerging twentieth century university is not readily apparent. Scholars have argued for and against themes relating to either change, continuity, or a mélange of the two.118 Educational institutions at the turn of the twentieth century had links to the past and the future. During this time frame, some important shifts marked the beginning of transitions toward today’s pallet of educational ideologies.

Government funding for American higher education had its initial impetus in the latter-half of the nineteenth century. Land grant institutions confirmed federal involvement in higher education. At the same time, the shift from charity or small-scale philanthropy toward large-scale scientific philanthropy led to increased funding for

116 David E. Weischadle, “The Carnegie Corporation and the Shaping of American Educational Policy” in Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad ed. Robert F. Arnove (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1980), 367. 117 Weischadle, 405. 118 Early twentieth century changes in philanthropy are argued for by Porterfield and Barker- Benfield who see Robert Gross’s as chronologically exacting. Nevertheless, these scholars agree that with bureaucratization came specialization. Lawrence Friedman, “Philanthropy in America: Historicism and Its Discontents,” in Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History ed. Lawrence Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 17.

47 higher education from the private sector. These new sources of funding had strings attached and were sometimes questionable considering the means by which the enormous fortunes of the donors were acquired.

To some extent, major donors were able to pass their ideology and values on to society. However, they were sometimes inhibited by competing ideologies and the readiness of society to accept their ideals. This period marked a decline of religious funding for higher education, the shift toward meritocracy, and the emergence of large- scale foundations which impacted the purposes and effects of American education. So the course of the twentieth century was a time of shifting values and strategies for higher education. It was undoubtedly a time of change, affected by the past and still affecting educational trends today. This period of change was markedly apparent in the state of

Ohio.

Wealthy Ohio with Many Millionaires

The geography, natural resources, innovation, and industry in Ohio contributed to the state’s economy, and produced millionaires in the twentieth century, some of whom saw fit to make OSU the target of their donations. Their money was made in diverse Ohio business and industries and was used to benefit OSU in diverse ways as well.

48

Ohio’s Economy

In Annales historical fashion, professor of education, George S. Counts, outlined in

1934 the beneficial and detrimental aspects of geographical influences on humanity.

Counts found the fertile area that included “the gently rolling prairies of Ohio” and “the valleys of the Ohio,” a natural land endowment “prepared through the ages to become one of the great granaries of the world.” Counts’ conception of natural endowment included land “well-endowed” in natural gas and other resources. The United States was in a position to lead the world, he felt. Oil fields in Ohio, and the generally “aesthetic endowment of the middle portion of North America is unusually rich and varied….

[E]ndowed with enormous stores of mechanical energy”119 Counts saw great opportunity for Ohio in the state’s geography and resources.

Historian George Knepper’s account of Ohio is outlined in a longue durée historical approach and emphasizes Ohio’s natural and human resources.120 He explained that much of the “black swamp” that existed over Ohio was drained and became the most fertile land in the United States.121 Hence, 52 percent of Ohio’s population (by 1900) lived in rural Ohio. “At Akron and Rittman superheated water was forced into salt strata and the resulting brine was pumped to the surface, where the salt was extracted by drying. Once an importer of salt, Ohio became a major exporter, ranking second only to Michigan in this industry.”122

119 George S. Counts, The Social Foundations of Education (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1934), 37, 46, 47, 52. 120 George W. Knepper, Ohio and Its People (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1989). 121 Knepper, 4. 122 But Ohio’s limestone from Kelley’s Island on the Marblehead Peninsula was eventually overlooked by consumers who purchased Michigan stone instead. Knepper, 290-1. 49

Up until the 1880s, coal played a significant role in helping Ohio grow. Toledo had a short-lived natural gas (1880s) and oil boom in the 1890s that was overshadowed by the substantial oil fields in California, Texas, and Oklahoma.123 John D. Rockefeller capitalized on oil and railroading in the Cleveland area that would give Rockefeller his successful start. Other industries and investments in Ohio included B. F. Goodrich’s interest in rubber, the rise of Goodyear Tire, the National Cash Register with its

“mechanical money drawer,” and investments in iron, steel, and coal.124

Transportation was important in Ohio during this period as well. Though passenger service via Ohio lakes was, after World War I, “doomed by the automobile and by the

1930s depression,” in 1910, the first American air freight trip flew from Dayton to

Columbus. And starting in the early 1920s, cities in Ohio benefited by commercial passenger flights, the flight from Cleveland to Detroit starting in 1922.125 Prominent

Ohioan, Charles F. Kettering (“Boss Ket”), who worked with Delco (Dayton Engineering

Company), was said to put women in the driver’s seat with his automobile self-starter invention, patented in 1915.126

In the early nineteenth century, something that boosted the Ohio economy was the

Ohio and Erie Canal that was built between 1825 and 1832. It quickly brought additional products via the canal. Businesses like Bucyrus-Erie, a company that started in Cleveland in 1880, and The Toledo Scale Company, founded by Henry Theobald in 1901, provided prestige and economy to the state and its neighbors. “No Springs Honest Weight,” was

123 Knepper, 290, 2. 124 Knepper, 294. 125 Knepper, 296, 301. 126 Knepper, 308. 50

Toledo Scale’s catchy slogan starting in 1904. By 1934, Toledo Scale had expanded into the food industry, developing food choppers, mills, and slicers.127

In the 1920s and 1930s, businesses focusing on oil, chemicals, paint, electrical equipment, and clothing also operated in Northeastern Ohio. In 1925, iron, steel, and the products created from such, included machines, heavy duty industrial equipment, and automobiles.128

Several of these businesses survived the depression. Timken Roller Bearing

Company brought in net income of $14.2 million in 1929, $7.5 million in 1930, $2.6 million in 1931, (lost $500,000 in 1932), $3.3 million in 1933, and $3.5 million in 1934.

General Motors Corporation for the same years respectively brought in 236.5, 144.3,

87.5, (lost 9.0), 74.0, and 85.6 million dollars. The Chrysler Corporation: 21.9, 11.1, 2.1,

(lost 11.3), 12.1, and 9.5 million dollars.129 It appeared that The Timken Roller Bearing

Company faired well during the perilous economic circumstances of the Great

Depression.130 In the top tier of wealth in the U.S. during the 1930s were the millions of dollars held by the Rockefellers ($1,007 million), Fords ($728 million), and Harknesses

127 “The First Fifty Years” (Toledo, Ohio: A Company History by Toledo Scale Company, 1951). 128 Michael S. Fogarty, Gasper S. Garofalo, and David C. Hammack, “Cleveland from Startup to the Present: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the 19th and early 20th Century” (Cleveland, Ohio: Center for Regional Economic Issues, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western University, 2002): 28. Another example of Ohio born fame was Charles F. Richter (1900-1985), born in Ohio and moved to California when he was nine years old. He received his Ph.D. from Cal Tech in 1928 and apparently stayed in California his whole career. He focused on geophysics and seismology and his name bears the name of the scale used to assess the magnitude of . 129 Pruitt, 120. 130 Pruitt, 119-120. 51

($450 million) along with the Fishers ($193 million) of Detroit and Timken ($111 million) of Ohio.131

The fertile land, significant natural resources, investors, inventors, and industrialists of Ohio, provided the state with a diverse economic environment, one that bred several millionaires. Some of these would impact the larger economy and have their names known throughout the United States.

Millionaires in Ohio

Considering it a business, “not a Philanthropic move,” Forbes highlighted Ford

Motor Company’s work with the railroad in Michigan and Ohio. Eugene Zimmerman of

Cincinnati had originally promoted the idea of extending the railroad route from “the coalfields of southeastern Ohio” to major cities in the Great Lakes region, but Ford’s enormous success in the 1920s was built on efficiencies. Ford took Zimmerman’s idea and made it work to the benefit of itself, also benefitting the economies of both Ohio and

Michigan. The article in Forbes included a quotation from Charles Kettering, General

Director of the Research Division at General Motors Corporation, “We must plan for change, for change is our only constant.... We must build on a firm foundation of scientific facts, realizing that this means constantly providing for new factors in our

131 Kevin Phillips, Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich (New York: Broadway Books, 2002), 73. 52 every-day life without the tremendous upheavals which we have experienced in the last few years.”132 Thus Ford’s economic influence branched down heavily into Ohio as well.

Joseph S. McCoy (Government Actuary, U.S. Treasury Dept.) drew conclusions about the large corporations as well as the numbers of millionaires in the United States by following trends in the tax returns. He wrote,

“It remained until a uniform Federal income-tax law was enacted before there was any check upon the wealth of our prosperous people.... It is true that the returns made for income tax are not made public, but the number of returns in the several income brackets are published annually by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.... One surprising thing becomes very clear. That is, that individual big business is practically obsolete. Out of a total income of over $189,000,000, less than a million and a quarter is earned in individual business, while about nine and a quarter millions is earned in partnership business. The fact is that corporate business possesses so many advantages as to discourage large individual business.” McCoy claimed that in 1914 there were “probably about 4,500 millionaires in the

United States. This number increased to about 6,600 in 1915, to about 10,900 in 1916, to about 11,800 in 1917, the maximum number of American millionaires at any one time-- due probably to war conditions.” Writing in 1926, McCoy estimated “there are about

11,000 American millionaires. The increase in number from 1923 has been caused by the wonderful prosperity of corporate business.... The probably number of persons with wealth in excess of $1,000,000, and the number, included in the former group, who reported net income in excess of $1,000,000 for the calendar year 1923, is given below.”133

McCoy’s list of estimated number of millionaires in 1926:

132 Edward Hungerford, “Henry Ford--Railroader: How He is ‘Fordizing’ the 500-Mile Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad…” Forbes (15 March 1926): 9-12, 46. Kettering’s quotation on p. 20 of Forbes (1 November 1935). 133 Joseph S. McCoy (Government Actuary, U.S. Treasury Dept.), “Our 11,000 American Millionaires,” American Bankers Association Journal (September, 1926): 134, 179-181. McCoy’s essay indicated the first American billionaire was from New York, but the name was not shared. 53

Michigan:

312 estimated number of millionaires

6 with yearly net income greater than $1,000,000

Ohio:

361 estimated number of millionaires

2 with yearly net income in greater than $1,000,000

Massachusetts:

610 estimated number of millionaires

1 with yearly net income greater than $1,000,000134

The total number of U.S. millionaires in 1926 was 8,600, seventy four of whom netted at least a million a year. McCoy claimed that it was, “safe to say” that among the

115,000,000 Americans, that 11,000 were millionaires because of the recognizable value of their respective properties.135

In a letter to the New York Times Editor in 1926, Joseph Farrell took issue with

Joseph S. McCoy’s claim there were 11,000 millionaires in the United States. McCoy got his data from 1924 income tax returns. Farrell pointed out that millionaires can “charge

134 Values for other states where probable number of millionaires and number of those returning net income of $1,000,000 follow: Wisconsin, 95, 1; Indiana, 85, 1; Minnesota, 110, 0; Illinois, 800, 6; New York, 2,800, 34; Pennsylvania, 1,052, 10, McCoy, “Our 11,000 American Millionaires,” 179-180. 135 McCoy, “Our 11,000 American Millionaires,” 179-180. 54 off losses sustained” and had a hard time believing that the number had dropped from

18,000 millionaires.136 Total income may be helpful therefore in interpreting the wealth of the states.

The numbers of millionaires were apparently difficult to track at this time. William

R. Kuhns, author of an article in American Bankers Journal, demonstrated the complexity of his time in a 1934 article, saying, “Normal” can mean almost anything, when referring to price levels.137 He summarized the problem, “With almost 200,000 books on social and economic subjects to choose from, it should be impossible to find the answer to any economic problem. Not all of these books, of course, offer complete plans or even parts of plans, but men have long been trying to make economics agree with common sense and human nature.”138

136 Joseph E. Farrell, “How Many Millionaires?” New York Times (Sep 19, 1926): pg. XX14 137 William R. Kuhns, “Less Planning Would be a Good Plan,” American Bankers Journal (April 1934):21. 138 Kuhns, 18. 55

The following tables illustrate total incomes for Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio.

Total income and income per person dropped over the decade starting in 1929.

State Total income Per Capita Income (millions of dollars) (dollars) Massachusetts $3,855 $912 Michigan $3,809 $794 Ohio $5,179 $782 Table 11. Total Income and Per Capita Endowment (in USD) Income for the States of Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio for the Year 1929.139

State Total income Per Capita Income (millions of dollars) (dollars) Massachusetts $3,367 $780 Michigan $3,595 $676 Ohio $4,575 $660 Table 12. Total Income and Per Capita Income for the States of Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio for the year 1940. 140

For the year 1930, Ohio had 21 individuals earn income of at least $1 million dollars compared to Michigan’s 19 and Massachusetts’s 17.141

139 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 [Bicentennial Edition]” Part 1, Series F, “Personal Income, by States: 1929 to 1970,” pp. 244-245. 140 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, “Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 [Bicentennial Edition]” Part 1, Series F, “Personal Income, by States: 1929 to 1970,” pp. 244-245. 141 It should be noted that only 3 percent of Americans filed federal income tax returns in 1930. See “$7,000,000,000 Drop in Incomes in 1930, Tax Returns Show,” New York Times (30 November 1931): 1. 56

Notable individuals included among the 903 Ohio millionaires in 1930:142

1. Harvey S. Firestone, Sr. (multimillionaire) and Harvey S. Firestone, Jr. of Akron, Ohio. 2. Henry H. Timken (multimillionaire) of Canton, Ohio 3. Charles F. Kettering of Dayton, Ohio 4. Cecil H. Gamble (multimillionaire) of Cincinnati 5. James H. Gamble (multimillionaire) of Cincinnati 6. Bernard H. Kroger (multimillionaire) of Cincinnati 7. John C. Lincoln of Cleveland143 8. Edward C. Turner (multimillionaire) of Columbus144 9. Julius F. Stone of Columbus 10. Benjamin J. Throop (multimillionaire) of Columbus145 11. Herbert Hoover (multimillionaire) of Miles 12. William H. Hoover (multimillionaire) of Miles 13. Mrs. James W. Packard (Elizabeth A. G.) (multimillionaire) of Warren 14. Orville Wright of Dayton 15. Simon Lazarus of Columbus146

We can surmise from the evidence however that Ohio, particularly Columbus, had a fair share of millionaires in comparison with other states, and many of these millionaires had economic influence on other states as well. OSU’s task then, would be to convince these top tier millionaires to invest in the university’s future.

142 Boyd's City Dispatch, Ohio Millionaires (New York), 1930. Ohio Historical Society WorldCat Library summary: “List of millionaires in Ohio, compiled by Boyd's City Dispatch of New York gives business and home addresses, with an ‘x’ indicating multimillionaires. The list was used by the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society for fund raising in 1931.” 143 John C. Lincoln is founder of Lincoln Electric and older brother of James F. Lincoln. 144 Former Ohio Attorney General. 145 One of two multimillionaires in Columbus at this time. 146 Records indicated that later Simon Lazarus of Columbus gave to Ohio State University in 1938 and played an important role in the early stages of the OSU Development Fund. 57

Founding of The Ohio State University as a Land-Grant Institution

As with all major universities, land grants or funds derived from public funds or private donors, have made possible the founding of institutions of higher education. The

Ohio State University started with the sale of funds derived from a public land grant endowment.

The Morrill Act and the Beginning of Ohio State

During the Civil War, Senator Justin Smith Morrill, Republican congressman from Vermont, in 1862 took advantage of the of the lack of representation of the southern congressmen to rally support for an act that would grant each state the profit of the sale of thirty thousand acres of public land per each United States congressman and senator it had in the year 1860. Named the Morrill Act, the goal was to provide financial support (a permanent endowment) to be used for a broader population of college attendees in the agricultural and mechanical colleges. Where institutions with such missions already existed, funds could be geared toward them, where they did not, institutions were started.

In the case of Ohio, the state legislature denied appeals from Ohio and Miami universities. Instead, Republican Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes guided the establishment of the Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College in 1870.147

147 Curtis W. Ellison, Miami University, 1809-2009: Bicentennial Perspectives (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2009), 21-22. Morrill had been a successful businessman and retired early, wealthy, at 38 years of age. Later he became involved in politics in Vermont, first as a congressman, then as a Senator. Lawrence Biemiller, “A Land-Grant Visionary's Notion of Home,” The Chronicle of Higher 58

The inception of a new, large land grant institution capable of wielding significant power was irresistible to several interested parties. According to historian Merle Curti, this may have delayed the start up of the school. Curti noted,

“Slower to get under way than its neighbors and stymied by conflicting regional, political, religious, and educational interests…. Ohio State was the result of the political ambition of Benjamin Wade to further divide Ohio’s Democrats by associating the Republican party with the acceptance of the state’s portion of the proposed Morrill land grant. Some of its founders and directors wanted a simple agricultural school, others an industrial training institution, others a combination of the two, and still others among whom Joseph Sullivant was especially important, a great modern university modeled on Cornell. In the end Rutherford B. Hayes, acting as mediator, effected a compromise between these conflicting objectives, which accounted for much of the character of the institution…. . Ohio State was dominated by a strong board of trustees that allowed presidents and faculty little influence…. Ohio State’s trustees insisted on compulsory chapel long after it was given up in other state universities.”148

This compromise of ideas and powers may have contributed to the “character” of the school, but it also may have contributed to the sometimes inconvenient administrational allotment of power, with both the day to day running of the university and with significant plans and policies. Kinnison noted, “Yet what was perhaps the gravest threat to the university’s existence and effectiveness as an academic community to university governance in general came when trustee and ex-U.S. President Rutherford

B. Hayes in 1887 put the trustees in full and detailed control of the university’s day-to- day administration. He, in fact, demoted the university’s president to the role of dean of

Education (16 October 2011): http://chronicle.com/article/A-Land-Grant-Visionarys/129422. 148 Merle Curti, Review of Building Sullivant’s Pyramid: An Administrative History of the Ohio State University, 1870-1907” by William A. Kinnison, The American Historical Review, 76, no. 5 (December 1971): 1598-9. 59 the faculty….”149 This problem lessened over time, but the extent of the Board of

Trustees influence cannot be overlooked in later years.

From 1862 to 1870 the State Legislature debated about who should receive the land grant funds. It was finally decided that a new institution should be created and on

September 17, 1873, one writer put it that, “The college in the cow pasture--Ohio State

University--at long last began to function.”150 The original site of the school took the place of the Neil Farm, hence, the cow pasture name. In 1920 OSU President William

Oxley Thompson summarized the debate about where OSU should be located. Thompson related:

“The early Trustees and other public-spirited citizens were active in the discussion of the fundamental policies that should control. The selection of the original Faculty was the most substantial evidence of the high purposes that governed the founders…. The endowment was so large as to arouse some fears. Indeed, it seemed to men of that day as equal to any emergency. There were few who supposed the institution would ever become the greatest single money- spending agency of the State. They thought the State had a great endowment for which account should be given. We are not permitted, therefore, to assume that this institution grew out of any sudden impulse or out of any desire to see a new college in Ohio or to do something different from what had ever been attempted in this Commonwealth where the experimental in religion, politics, and education had always found an easy entrance. The founding was marked by a desire to do the thing that set out in that epoch-making Act of Congress. The leading minds in the discussion clearly saw that underlying agriculture and the mechanic arts there were basic sciences that must be adequately taught if these two great spheres of human activity were to be permanently encouraged and strengthened. Then, too, the important issue of the liberal education of the industrial classes was kept in full view. The welfare not only of the industries of the State and [30] of the sciences related to these industries, but of the sons and daughters of those engaged in these industries were in full vision. We may now say without hesitation that our

149 Jurgen Herbst, Review of Building Sullivant’s Pyramid: An Administrative History of the Ohio State University, 1870-1907,” by William A. Kinnison, The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 54, No. 3 (Spring, 1971): 225-226. 150 Eugene H. Roseboom, The Civil War Era: 1850-1873, edited by Carl Wittke (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological Society and Historical Society, 1944) Vol. 4, p. 96. 60

fathers were alive to the fact that manhood and womanhood when properly educated where the chief asset of the State.”151

Thompson’s comments on the shifting point of view on the university’s financial strengths suggest some frugality and his apparent concern for the large financial needs of the university. It is also apparent that Thompson believed the university expenditures were investments in the people of the state. Thompson’s assumptions about the unity of the commonwealth of Ohio and the benefits to come to all therein, were not shared by everyone.

In mid-October 1920, Henry Eldridge Bourne discussed the historically complex make-up of Ohio. “Ohio in some respects is a group of states rather than a single great

Commonwealth. No part of the Old Northwest had so many centers of independent development,” Bourne related. The Ohio River “was the principal highway of westward expansion. The economic life of the State was concentrated near its banks. On the shores of Lake Erie was a wilderness with a few scattered hamlets. A change came in 1825 after the opening of the Erie Canal. Then the Great Lakes became a formidable rival of the

Ohio River. As the northern part of the State grew to be industrial its connections were chiefly with the sources of its raw materials or with its principal markets.” The state used coal from the southern part of the state and “looked to the West or the Northwest for iron, lumber, and wheat; it turned toward the East, to New York especially, for the disposal of its goods…. On the whole, therefore, the economic development of the State has not

151 Pages 29-30 in “Address of Welcome,” October 13, 1920, President William O. Thompson, pp. 28-44 in Mendenhall, Thomas C. and Joseph S. Myers, ed. History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920. Vol. 3. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922. 61 quickened the forces which lead to a consciousness of State unity or stimulate the feelings of State pride or patriotism.” Bourne continued:

“If Ohio be compared with the states immediately west and north, with Michigan and Indiana, the difference in the university or college situation is striking. In these two neighboring States the State Universities overshadow all other collegiate institution…. This is not the case in Ohio. Distinguished as our State University is there are other institutions in the State that have deservedly won a reputation wider than the borders of the Commonwealth. This apparent contrast between Ohio and its neighbors is emphasized by the dates of university foundation. Michigan and Indiana took formal and conclusive action to create State universities forty years before our own University was organized.”

Bourne noted that Ohio already had two universities: Ohio University at Athens, Ohio and Miami University at Oxford, Ohio. Bourne continued,

“But not until 1881 and 1885 did the State actually appropriate money and assume financial responsibility for these institutions. The relation of Ohio to the University at Athens was for long years decidedly that of the traditional step- mother. The story is too well known to need rehearsing. It is not a page of which the Ohioan may be proud. We may not blame the Legislature for supposing in the day of small things that the endowment of township lands was sufficient, but its refusal to permit a just reappraisal of the leases can be explained more easily than it can be defended. Other than this the action of the State was limited to the appointment of the Trustees. The Legislators appeared to think even so restricted a supervision of the new institution required justification, for in the preamble of the charter they called their action ‘interference’ and justified it on the ground that they were bound to see that the benefits of the grant were ‘applied to the purposes designated.’ Even in this period of her development Ohio had men farsighted enough to urge that the State should have a system of public education, beginning with the elementary school and ending with the university. In 1838, the very year in which the University of Indiana was founded, Samuel Lewis, then ex-officio Superintendent of Common Schools, recommended in the quaint diction of the time, that Ohio should ‘present to the world a system of education, embracing every department of learning from a, b, c, to the highest possible literary attainment,’ with a college or university as the ‘cap stone’ of the structure. He also pointed to Columbus as the place where the State University should be located. To his arguments and appeals the Legislature turned its deaf ear.”152

152 Henry Eldridge Bourne, L.H.D., “Higher Education in Ohio and its Historical Factors”, pp. 62

Thirty-two years after Samuel Lewis’s recommendation, in 1870, the state university was created. This demonstrated that the Ohio legislature at the time did not appear to value higher education, according to Bourne.

Former OSU President, William Henry Scott, saw the growth of the Ohio State and Ohio and Miami Universities all beholden to land grants, but saw Ohio State’s forced sell of public land grant funds as an unfortunate consequence. Referring to the 1862

Morrill Land Grant, Scott declared,

“Under this act Ohio received scrip for six hundred and thirty thousand acres, or nearly fourteen times as much as Manasseh Cutler secured for Ohio University, and more than twenty-seven times as much as Symmes secured for Miami University. But the greater part of it was sold at fifty-three cents an acre, and the total proceeds amounted to but $342,450. The blame for this pitiful result has usually been laid upon the legislature and the managers of the sale. But primarily at least the fault lay farther back, in a provision in the act of Congress, which required the state to provide a college within five years of its acceptance of the grant. This made it necessary that all the states should dispose of all their land within a brief period, with the unavoidable results of a glutted market, urgent competition, and low prices.153

It was apparent that if OSU would have had the opportunity to sell the lands at their ease, the land might not have sold so for so little, and as a consequence, OSU would have started with a larger endowment. Scott did not provide a comparative value of the difference between Ohio State and the Ohio and Miami Universities, but of interest, by the early 1900s when William Oxley Thompson was president (Pres. 1899-1925), Ohio

115-131. [Day not evident] in Mendenhall, Thomas C. and Joseph S. Myers, ed. History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920. Vol. 3. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922. 153 William Henry Scott, LL.D., “The Origin and Growth of the State University Idea in Ohio”, October 15, 1920, pp. 206-221 in Mendenhall, Thomas C. and Joseph S. Myers, ed. History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920. Vol. 3. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922. 63 and Miami universities were sometimes referenced in official documents generated by

OSU as Ohio’s “so-called state universities.”154

It was not just the initial Morrill Land Grant Act, passed by congress in 1862 that funded Ohio State University. OSU had to rely on approximately $32,000 a year from endowment income and the little money leftover that Franklin County contributed until

1877 when the state began to provide appropriations to the university. Later additional funds were secured through the Second Morrill Act of 1890.

While OSU indeed benefitted from these acts, it did not until much later receive similar attention from the people or government of its own state. This is strange considering the fact that Ohio was much richer than neighboring states, with much higher tax revenues. As a state, Ohio’s wealth surpassed the individual state incomes of

Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (see Scott’s explanation further below).

But even though OSU was early on favored by the federal government through the First and Second Morrill Acts, it was not until the Hysell Act, before the state legislature of

Ohio showed financial concern.155 These funds were helpful in expanding staff and offering additional agricultural courses.156

The appropriations given to OSU were seen by OSU President William Henry

Scott as inadequate. In the President’s Report for 1883, President Scott outlined Ohio

State’s financial situation. In a section boldly entitled, “True Policy of the State,”

154 Harry Gehman Good, The Rise of the College of Education of the Ohio State University (Columbus: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1960), 39. 155 The Hysell Act was sponsored by the Speaker of the Ohio House (Nial R. Hysell), Hysell Act, 88 Ohio Laws 159 (March 20, 1891), H.B. No. 1070. 156 Harry Gehman Good, The Rise of the College of Education of the Ohio State University (Columbus: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1960), 12-13, 15; 262 in endnote. 64

President Scott called for an improved regular state income for the university. “It is gratifying to note that Ohio has begun to recognize the claims of the University to her sympathy and substantial support. Last year her appropriations for it amounted to

$21,950. It is true, that compared with the character and magnitude of the demand, this is but a meager sum, yet it gives ground to hope that something commensurate with the greatness of the object hereafter be done.”157

At this time, OSU’s total assets were about $1,000,000, with an income of about

$40,000.158 Scott commented, “How insufficient this sum is for the purposes of a great institution of learning, will be made apparent by a review of the foregoing statement of what we lack…. If anything more is necessary to exhibit the necessity of our situation, it is found in a comparison of our income with that of the colleges which hold the foremost rank.” In other words, Scott intended to show by comparison what income OSU needed if it was to become comparable in significance to top tier universities. He said, “I give in each case the latest report that I have received.”159

Citing the example of Harvard first, Scott continued,

“The income of Harvard for the year 1881-2 was $233,353.88, and during the same year it received besides $208,032 in gifts. The income of Yale for 1880 was $182,855; of Cornell for 1880, $73,981, and this is now greatly increased…the University of Wisconsin for 1882, $92,736.90; and of the University of Michigan for 1881-82, $274,002.84. [Income of OSU as above was $40,000 per year] With reference to the State Universities in this list more may be said…. The income of the University of Michigan given above includes the following items: University

157 William Henry Scott, President’s Report, “Thirteenth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of the State of Ohio for the Year 1883.” (Columbus, OH: G. J. Brand & Co. State Printers, 1884), 30-32. 158 The Report of the Commissioner of Education for the year 1883, showed that “The total value of endowment and property exceeds $1,000,000.” U.S. Commissioner, Report [1883],206. 159 William Henry Scott, President’s Report, 30-32. 65

interest paid by the State, $38,398.47; State aid 1-20 mill tax, $38,250; State appropriation, $76,000; and students’ fees, $85,979.10. The 1-20 mill tax has been paid by the State of Michigan to the University annually for ten years. Yet the wealth of these States [Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan] is far below that of Ohio. Their taxable property was appraised in 1882 as follows: Minnesota, $311,200,841; Wisconsin, $446,760,585; Missouri, $649,267,242; Michigan, $810,000,000; and Ohio $1,634,910,734. The taxable wealth of Ohio is, therefore, more than twice that of Michigan, two and a half times that of Missouri, almost four times that of Wisconsin, and more than five times that of Minnesota. Of these States Michigan is the wealthiest…and her revenue from taxation is less than one- fourth as great. Why should not Ohio, with her greater wealth and population, pursue the same liberal and enlightened policy with respect to advanced education? Ohio should foster her University.”160

Thus, according to Scott’s report, Ohio was much richer than the surrounding states, including Michigan, which had less than one quarter the tax revenue of Ohio, yet supported its system of higher education better. Scott felt the state of Ohio should increase its appropriations to OSU, including giving to the university labs, professional schools, departments, buildings, and so forth, to make it “the center of a great intellectual life whose influence would be felt not only throughout the State but throughout the whole

Nation.”

Scott continued:

“A great future is before the people of this State…. The State gives hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in support of asylums to heal or to mitigate the consequences of the past. Shall she not give some comparable sum to set at work healthful and enobling causes for the future? If we are to maintain this University in a manner at all adequate to the great possibilities that belong to it, other and ampler sources of revenue must be opened. This is the meaning and end of my whole argument. What is needed to open these broad and inviting fields and to develop in the University the power to enter and possess them, is that Ohio shall do what Michigan has done and what Wisconsin has done. What is needed is a legislative act that will place the University side by side with the public schools and the benevolent institutions of the State. One-twentieth of a mill on the tax-

160 William Henry Scott, President’s Report, 30-32. 66

duplicate, added to its present resources, would afford the University an income somewhat commensurate with the dignity of the State and the character of university education. A tax so slight would be felt by no one. The man who pays tax on two hundred dollars, would contribute to the University just one cent a year. The man who pays tax on twenty thousand dollars would contribute just one dollar a year. The advantages of this plan are so great and so obvious that they hardly need to be named. I will specify a single one. To administer an institution with success, it is necessary not only to have funds but to know beforehand how much will be available. Otherwise no definite plans could be formed. No new department could be founded. No new professors could be elected. For it might happen that in another year there be no money to support them. On the other hand, if a given sum is fixed and can be depended on year after year, it will be possible to shape the whole policy of the University with confidence.”161

So Scott called for a mill tax to be instituted in the state of Ohio for the support of the university. This type of substantial legislative act in favor of the university was realized when on March 20, 1891 the Hysell bill was passed for 1/20th of a mill. This victory for

OSU was significant but despite it, the state still failed to provide adequately for Ohio

State University.

To conclude this chapter, the financial policy developed for Harvard by President

Charles W. Eliot in order to grow the endowment was hugely successful and made

Harvard the wealthiest university in the nation. While many scrambled to follow

Harvard’s example, OSU unfortunately spent too much time watching from a distance rather than adopting Harvard’s strategy.

The wealth and millionaires of Ohio, while diverse and thriving, did not come heavily to the aid of OSU in the first few decades of the twentieth century. While the potential for private funds was authentic, especially considering the increased number and gifts of charitable foundations, it seemed, early on, to be out of reach for OSU. The

161 William Henry Scott, President’s Report, 30-32. 67 land grant university, now a subject of state appropriations, was still under difficult financial straights because of the lack of private fundraising.

68

Chapter Two: The Thompson Years--Reliance on the State and Failure to Pursue Private Gifts, 1900-1925

President William Oxley Thompson’s twenty-six year presidency (born 1855, died 1933; OSU Pres. 1899-1925) at Ohio State University is worth discussing in detail in order to understand why OSU lost the opportunity to develop its endowment while

Michigan and other universities were developing their own.

Thompson’s father was a shoemaker from northern Ireland. As a teenager

William Oxley Thompson worked as a farmhand in Brownsville, Ohio. He took other jobs in order to put himself through school at Muskingum college from which he graduated in 1878. Then Thompson went on to earn his Doctor of Divinity degree from

Western Theological Seminary in 1881 and later accepted the presidency of the

Synodical College of the Synod of Colorado. He served as President of Miami University in Ohio from 1891 to 1899. He left Miami University to accept the presidency at OSU.

President William Oxley Thompson died at 78 years old, eight years after leaving the presidency of OSU.162

162 “Dr. W. O. Thompson Dies in Hospital,” New York Times (Dec 9, 1933): 15. See also “William Oxley Thompson,” http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/thompson.htm 69

Year Ohio State University of University of Oberlin College University Michigan Cincinnati 1875163 500,000 186,000 -- 115,000

1880164 -- 459,000 -- 150,000

1890165 539,000 550,000 619,000 500,000

1895166 548,000 542,000 1,490,000 900,000

1900167 554,000 546,000 3,357,000 1,028,000

Continued

Table 13. Endowment Values (In USD) for The Ohio State University, University of Michigan, and Oberlin College, 1875-1939

163 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1875], 738-747. 164 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1880], pp. 665-671. 165 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1890], 1600-1609. 166 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report [for the Year 1895], Part 2, pp. 2132-2147. 167 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1900, v. 2, pp. 1924- 1957. 70

Table 13: Continued

Year Ohio State University University of University of Oberlin College Michigan Cincinnati 1905168 695,000 546,000 1,446,000 1,631,000

1910169 924,000 309,000 895,000 1,698,000 1915170 997,000 963,000 870,000 2,415,000 1920171 1,046,000 1,329,000 2,504,000 2,841,000 1926172 1,120,000 2,688,000 5,680,000 13,953,000 1930173 1,150,000 3,978,000 17,791,000 1936174 1,160,000 10,730,000175 9,146,000176 1939177 1,604,000 14,356,000178 9,444.000179 19,051,000180

168 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1905, v. 1, pp.616-635. Amount shown for OSU is $695,838.19 in Carl E. Steeb, Board of Trustees Report 1904-1905, Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 16. 169 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1910, v. 2, pp. 925-942. The amount $924,053.37 listed in Financial Report 1909-1910, in Fortieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1911), 20. It is not clear why Michigan’s endowment dropped. There were no annual reports published at Michigan for this year. 170The amount 997,004.83 was reported in Financial Report 1914-1915, in Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1915 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1917), 70, 72. U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1916, v. 2, pp. 253-319. The Year covered was 1915, see p.239. 171 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920-22, pp. 384-425. 172 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1924-26, v. 2, pp. 863-945. 173 Financial Report 1929-1930, in Sixtieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1930 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1930), 291. U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1928-1930 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1932), pp. 493. 174 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Biennial Survey of Education...1934-36 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1938), v. 2, 256-273. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. Ohio State endowment figure found in United States Department of Interior [Office of Education], “Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36, p. 276. 175 U.S. Commissioner of Education, Biennial Survey of Education...1934-36 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1938), v. 2, 256-273. Columbia includes Teachers College, but not Barnard. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. 176 United States Department of Interior [Office of Education], “Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36, p.266. 177 Marsh, ed., American Universities and Colleges, s.v. Harvard does not include Radcliffe. 178 Clarence S. Marsh, ed., American Universities and Colleges, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940). s.v. 179 Marsh, ed., American Colleges and Universities, s.v. Not including Barnard and Barnard. 180 Marsh, ed., American Colleges and Universities, s.v. 71

This section addresses the pressing financial concerns and priorities during

Thompson’s presidency as well as some important milestones passed by the university, including the emphasis on teachers’ salaries, the situation with the medical schools, the stadium campaign, the beliefs about fundraising for private and public institutions, and the competition and relations between OSU and the University of Michigan.

During his presidency, Thompson emphasized the need for increased faculty salaries. This was the largest single financial need at the university in his eyes, even more emphasized than the library which was later named after him. Thompson repeatedly requested higher appropriations from the state for the purpose of improving salaries, which he saw as embarrassingly low compared to other universities.

President Thompson also saw significant competition with the University of

Michigan. Through his time, it was evident the University of Michigan was making great strides in their alumni association and endowment campaigns. Though Thompson applauded the success of U-M, he made little headway in these areas for OSU.

As will be shown in this chapter, despite financial difficulties posed by a condemning Carnegie Report (especially concerning the medical schools) and actions to assist the war effort (First World War), through his tenure as president, Thompson relied on the state almost exclusively, feeling that private fundraising was for private schools.

He also took issue and appeared out of touch with university finance by stating, “It is doubtful whether the non-resident fee, in such cases, is worth what it costs.”181

181 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1921-1922, in Fifty-Second Annual Report of 72

Upton Sinclair, contemporary journalist and author of The Jungle (1906)--a muckraking novel on the U.S. meat packing industry that influenced public opinion and led to increased regulation of the meat packing industry--commented on finance at Ohio

State University and Thompson’s ability to lead in his book, The Goose-step: a Study of

American Education (1923). Sinclair wrote:

“[T]ake Ohio State University, with nine thousand students. Here the president is a clergyman—‘missionary and pastor,’ he describes himself; also he is a coal merchant and farmer, vice-president of a bank and president of an insurance company, and faculty committees have to wait while he keeps his important business appointments. His professors are underpaid, and when they get into debt, he doesn't increase their salaries, but loans them money from his City National Bank at the prevailing rate of interest. This, you perceive, offers a quite unique method of controlling academic activities. President Thompson, I am told, is frequently quite kind-hearted to those who conform to primitive Calvinism in their personal righteousness; but on the other hand, a man who does not subject himself to the established order is sternly disciplined—for his own good, of course, as when a child is spanked. Ludwig Lewisohn was on the faculty for six years, and tells me of one professor who struggled many years to pay off a debt incurred for the funeral of his wife; another, an excellent teacher and scholar, who did not indulge in riotous living, but found that with the increase of prices during the war his family could hardly keep alive, delayed to pay a bill for a pair of shoes, and the shoe store sent the bill to the president of the university, and this guardian of the business proprieties fired the professor, stating that he ‘lacked integrity.’ Lewisohn declares that at the faculty gatherings in this university he never in his life heard a fundamental discussion of any subject; everything was ‘silence and stealth.’ Another professor writes, describing the extreme patriotism prevailing: ‘A bugler plays taps every Wednesday at convocation hour, and everyone is supposed to stand still with bared head. The president is attended at all functions by his ‘military staff.’ All instructors must swear to an oath of allegiance in the presence of a notary before they can receive their salaries.’ This correspondent tells me how a member of the staff was forced out because he had separated from his wife; also how the ‘university pastors’ on the campus are trying to establish a School of Religion, at state expense, and to get their courses listed for university credits. With a clergyman for president, this ought to be easy; especially when the president holds the opinion which President Thompson

the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1922 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1922]), 11. 73

expressed in answer to a suggestion that his professors ought to have more opportunity to study and improve their education. He said that most of them held Ph. D. degrees, therefore their education was a closed matter, and their only duty henceforth was to teach, both in the regular session and in the summer schools! A gentleman who was a member of President Thompson's faculty for more than ten years writes me about the place as follows: ‘My personal difficulties were primarily with the head of the institution, who is a Presbyterian minister, a man who would not tell a lie, but a man whose word cannot be depended upon; very jealous, sensitive to criticism, apparently always your friend to your face and your bitterest foe to your back. My observation is that ninety per cent of the faculty at Ohio State are afraid to offend the president for fear he will make them suffer for it, either in failing to promote them or to raise their salaries. The result of this condition is a servile faculty that are working harder to have a good ‘stand-in’ with the president than they are to develop their subjects. I think another result of this condition is to make narrow-minded, selfish, self-seeking men. One of the reasons that prompted me to leave teaching was the little narrow-minded individuals with whom I was compelled to associate, men whose chief thought seemed to be, how can I get my salary raised. I am farming now, and I must say that I find the companionship of my cows and horses a great improvement over some of my associates in university circles.’”182

Sinclair’s examples, drawn from faculty comments, and linked to Thompson’s own wording corroborates criticism.183 On the whole, Thompson seemed rather authoritarian and unprogressive, a president who appeared unwilling to seriously entertain opposing view points from his own faculty.

Later towards the end of his presidency, Thompson advocated for private fundraising from alumni to build university endowment funds. He suggested that the state would no longer be able to pay OSU’s bill. In 1924, Thompson asked that alumni sacrifice, to “set aside a portion of their accumulated estates to the further endowment

182 Upton Sinclair, The Goose-step: a Study of American Education Rev. ed. (Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius Publications, 1923), vol. 3: 336-7. 183 Frank Donoghue echoes this point in his book, The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities. New York: Fordham University Press, 2008. 74 and support of the University.”184 So Thompson finally, at the end of his presidency, recognized that private giving would be necessary for state universities. This sentiment was very different from his comments and statements about state funding from the beginning of his presidency.185

Thompson’s Relationship with the State, 1904-1913

In President William Oxley Thompson’s Annual Report to the OSU Board of

Trustees for the academic year 1904-1905, Thompson, after asking the state for additional funds for buildings, applauded the fact that, “The state, through the legislature, is increasingly liberal in its support.” “A Woman’s Building,” Thompson suggested, “for the women on the campus, (not for dormitory purposes) but for physical education, for

Domestic Science and for general headquarters, is an imperative need and has been recognized for some years.” Citing the example of the University of Illinois, which “was the first state institution to make adequate provision for its women,” Thompson argued that Ohio’s young women would be more likely to “avail themselves of the educational facilities offered by the state if the facilities were supplemented by some recognized necessities and conveniences. In the practice of co-education, so cordially supported in

Ohio, it would seem that the call for a ‘Woman’s Building’ would meet with a hearty response.”186

184 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 26. 185 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 26. 186 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1904-1905, in Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 75

Turning briefly to a discussion of another campus building, Thompson wrote: “It is not to be forgotten that the Library facilities of the Ohio State University are inadequate. A library building will continue to be a necessity until the provision is made.”

Thompson clarified, “It is not presumed that the state will be willing to provide for all the needs of the University in any one year. The important consideration is that a recognition of these needs shall bring forth necessary facilities as rapidly and promptly as the revenues of the state will permit.”187 Thus Thompson took the “needs” of the university to the state, but admitted he was at the mercy of the state budget for when those needs should be met.

Starting in 1902, the estate (valued at $204,000) of Henry F. Page, resident of

Circleville, was sold and applied to Ohio State’s endowment.188 On January 28, 1905,

$5,000 was given by emeritus OSU Professor Stillman W. Robinson to endow a fellowship in engineering. With this latter gift, Ohio State during Thompson’s era received its first endowment of a scholarship fund.189

1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 33. 187 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1904-1905, 33. 188 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 193. By 1911, the Henry Fulsom Page gift had amounted to $208,863.84 worth of funds that were added to the general endowment. Fortieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1911), 18. 189 Later, in January, 1909, Robert P. Scott, of Cadiz, gave the University a much larger $25,000 as an endowment for a student aid fund. James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 175, 199. By 1905, the William Jennings Bryan prize regularly gave a $250 for the best political essay, though not considered a student scholarship. As with other funds at this time, the endowment funds were stored with the state treasury. See Carl E. Steeb, Board of Trustees Report 1904-1905, Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 16. 76

Later in the 1905 and 1906 academic year, support for the Lybarger Act and

Eagleson Bill by the Ohio State Legislature gave The Ohio State University a legitimate preference in the state of Ohio for the fields of graduate work and technical fields.190

Notwithstanding this new priority status, funds from the state of Ohio were never completely sufficient.

While Thompson acknowledged the Robinson scholarship fund, in this case, the need for increased faculty salaries was more frequently conveyed in his annual reports.

“The Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University is the only educational board in the state of Ohio whose discretion in the amount of salary to be paid to the teacher is limited by law,” Thompson lamented. “There is great danger that the State University shall suffer by reason of its inability either to secure or retain men whose services would receive higher appreciation elsewhere. There would seem, therefore, to be no good reason why the legislature should not repeal the statute providing for the limitation in salaries of professors in the Ohio State University.”191 Though the Ohio legislature removed the salary restriction in 1907, money for a faculty salary was insufficient, and Thompson’s frequent call for higher faculty salaries would not cease.192

Administrators at OSU could not always allocate money according to need. For example, by 1905, L. F. Kiesewetter, Ohio State University Treasurer, explained that the funds appropriated by the Second Morrill Land Grant Act (August 30, 1890) were

190 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 192. 191 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1904-1905, in Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 24. 192 Carol J. Summerfield, Mary Elizabeth Devine, and Anthony Levi, International Dictionary of University Histories (Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998), 321. 77 restricted in use. Kiesewetter indicated that some universities actually had to replace large amounts of money drawn from that fund. “In short, the plant--the land, buildings, and ordinary appliances of a school--must be provided from other sources, and this particular fund must be applied exclusively to the subjects named in the act and the facilities required for those subjects.”193 The restrictive nature of the Act consequently elicited calls from university administrators for university “plant” items to be met through the state.

For the year 1905, the Ohio State University endowment’s value was increased to

$695,838.19 from the previous year’s $577,246.47 value. The sale of Virginia military land (lot no. 2 in Union county) and income from rents were valued at $110,657.19. The annual interest of the 1904 endowment value at 5.99 percent yielded $41,750.29.194

In 1910, Thompson, after gaining more appropriations for an increase in faculty salary, asserted, “This recognition of their scholarship and service was due years ago and the only regret in the case is that the recognition was so tardy.”195 His annual report noted

“The year has not been characterized by any large gifts to the permanent endowment or equipment of the University. It is proper, however, to call attention to the detailed list of these gifts as found by reference to the report of the Secretary of the Board of Trustees.”

Thompson then recounted some smaller gifts given, such as Rocky Mountain sheep

193 L. F. Kiesewetter, Treasurer’s Report 1904-1905, in Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 150-151. 194 Carl E. Steeb, Board of Trustees Report 1904-1905, Thirty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1905 (Columbus, Ohio: Fred J. Heer, State Printer, 1906), 16. 195 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1909-1910, in Fortieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1911), 6. 78 secured when two members of the Board of Trustees were exploring the Colorado River area. “The faithful administration of such gifts,” Thompson expounded “is the best assurance the University can make to future donors both of the wisdom of the gift and the gratitude of the University.”196 Also in 1911, Thompson recognized the passing of

Emeritus Professor Stillman Williams Robinson, the same who had given the university its first student scholarship endowment, by dedicating a new engineering laboratory in his name.197

On the whole, Thompson had not been aggressive about seeking large donations.

In a similar tone, Thompson explained that the 1910 and 1911 academic year had “not been marked by as many gifts as some former years…. The stable character of University investments should offer an attractive feature to persons generously disposed in the interest of education. The University has repeatedly expressed its appreciation of the generosity of men, and especial mention should now be made of the fact that a large number of people have made small gifts that have been of real value and service.”

Deciding to highlight the impact of smallness, Thompson continued, “There is such a tendency to measure the gift by the largeness of it that the public and perhaps even the universities have not always seemed to understand the importance of small gifts that do a real service. Any large or growing institution develops a variety of opportunity for people of moderate means to make small but effective donations. The only suggestion necessary

196 Note Thompson’s use of the word, “permanent” to describe the untouched portion of the principal an endowment fund. William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1909-1910, in Fortieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1910 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1911), 9-10. 197 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1910-1911, in Forty-First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1911 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1912), 6. 79 is that a little inquiry would bring to view opportunities for a service suited to the individual taste and capacity of the giver.”198 Thompson expressed gratitude for tablets placed in Townshend Hall, Orton Hall, and Brown Hall, and for various portraits.

Thompson predicted that future giving would “cluster around the small gifts springing from a love and appreciation of the University and its teachers.” Commenting optimistically on the ongoing work of multiple OSU graduating senior classes, Thompson applauded the aggregate collection that would eventually support “the development of a fund for the purchase of chimes.”199

Thompson closed his 1910-1911 report, asking for two needs to be fulfilled. First, an “extension of the plant in order to provide the facilities for education, and second, the extension of the teaching force necessary. This means of course a larger fund available for the payment of salaries.” Commenting on the problem of expending income within a given year, Thompson suggested “a law could be passed which would provide that certain definite appropriations should be made the interests of education would be advanced. It is true that appropriations may not be for a period longer than two years, but there would seem to be no reason why a statute should not be passed making definite certain educational policies.” Having also asked for a special Summer Session subsidy from the state to provide for the recent expanded offerings, Thompson requested additional foresight and stability that the Board of Trustees would work with the state to

198 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1910-1911, in Forty-First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1911 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1912), 8. 199 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1910-1911, in Forty-First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1911 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1912), 8. 80 ensure of the institution’s success.200 Thompson therefore asked to at least allow the university consistency in knowing that it could count on certain state funds, so that there could be better institutional planning.

For the first time, permanent alumni offices were established on campus in 1911.

Alumnus Ralph D. Mershon (1890), president of the alumni association, met with the

Board of Trustees on September 26, 1911, and the Trustees agreed to help cover costs for an alumni secretary.201 Included in the deal, the office would actively canvass for members and compile a list of former students and alumni. OSU Professor James E.

Pollard commented, “This was the real beginning of the permanent Alumni Association which was to play so large a part in the later fortunes of the University.”202

Strangely enough, President Thompson’s annual report for the year 1911-1912 was lost in the production process and there was no attempt at replication. Thompson put it simply, “[T]he report submitted for the year ending June 30, 1912, seems to have been lost in transmission and cannot now be reproduced.”203 Hence, there is no summary of the founding of the Alumni Association available in a president’s report.

In the president’s report for 1912-1913, Thompson included no discussion of gifts.204 Concerned with the excessive turnover of faculty, Thompson explained that some

200 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1910-1911, in Forty-First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1911 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1912), 18, 14. 201 H.S. Dave Warwick was named Ohio State’s first Alumni Secretary. 202 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 209. 203 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1912-1913, in Forty-Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1913 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1914), 5. 204 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1912-1913, in Forty-Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 81 younger faculty “after practical experience in the University are given opportunities to enter into commercial and industrial positions at salaries quite beyond the possibility of the University…. The University, however, is confronted with the problem of paying sufficient salaries to men of this quality and of retaining in its services such men…. [O]ne of the most pressing problems now existing is the provision of sufficient money for salaries.”205 Thompson reported on the devastating March 1913 flood that had impacted the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum valleys and therefore had impacted industry in the state of Ohio.206 Thompson explained that in general, “The Ohio State University provides the widest range of education in the state, and for that reason finds itself continually confronted with the problem of revenues adequate to the needs.”207

Thompson, thus, gently pressed the state for assistance with needs but especially with the need for salary increases.

1913 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1914), 5-14. 205 Thompson, Annual Report 1912-13, 6. 206 Thompson, Annual Report 1912-13, 7. 207 Thompson, Annual Report 1912-13, 9. 82

1913-1915

There was again for the following year, 1913-1914, no mention made of gifts to the university.208 With regard to athletics, soon after Ohio State University had entered the Western Conference, the University of Michigan withdrew over a dispute related to its “training table.” This was unfortunate for many who had already grown to relish the football rivalry. Ohio State University officials expressed “sincere regret” to have to end associations with the University of Michigan in December 1913. Eventually, Michigan re-entered what became the Big Ten conference and their rivalry continued in 1918.209

This rivalry on the football field with Michigan would continue to the present and contribute to policy decisions in order to improve chances for competition in athletics.

While this football rivalry proved useful in motivating gifts to OSU, it sometimes overshadowed the failure of OSU to compete academically and financially with

Michigan.

Thompson reiterated his plea for increased salary in his report to the OSU Board of Trustees for the year 1914. He stated, “The question of salary is always uppermost in the mind of administrative officers. No dead level theory of salary will ever build a strong faculty…. The desirable thing for the university would be to have money available for

208 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1913-1914, in Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1914 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1915), 5-22. 209James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 220. 83 salaries when needed.”210 This continued to be a major theme for Thompson throughout his presidency.

“Harmony,” is what Thompson called the State of Ohio’s switch to the fiscal year financial system (something OSU was already on), that would end on June 30 of each year. “It should never be forgotten that a University is a money spending institution,”

Thompson urged, “not a money making institution. Its chief function being education, it is concerning itself not with the earning of making of money but with a wise, economic and efficient expenditure of the same…. Full publicity and careful examination of

University expenditures are essential for preventing abuses liable to arise in any institution expending large amounts of money. The State has been increasingly generous in its appropriations to the University and has steadily widened its field of service and usefulness.”211

In his discussion on gifts received for the 1914-1915 year, Thompson highlighted the University of Michigan, particularly their gift giving and alumni support. He compared them with Ohio State’s efforts in the same area:

“[It] is appropriate to say that the tendency toward generosity to State Institutions is very gratifying. During the past six years the University of Michigan has received from its Alumni more than $800,000. At present a single structure is being erected by an Alumnus which, when completed, will cost more than $400,000. The University of Michigan has approximately 35,000 living Alumni. The Ohio State University has not yet reached the proportion in its Alumni body to warrant the belief that such large generosity is at all possible.”212

210 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1913-1914, in Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1914 (Columbus, Ohio: F. J. Heer, 1915), 9-10. 211 Thompson, Annual Report 1914-15, 11. 212 Thompson referred to Michigan alumnus, William W. Cook’s $400,000 given for the Martha Cook Building, a women’s dormitory. Thompson, Annual Report 1914-15, 11. 84

It appears that Thompson is suggesting here that OSU needs more alumni in order to fill the large need for donations. His tone was not overly positive or hopeful for his time.

Thompson gratefully recorded, “that a renewed interest has been awakened among the Alumni and it is hoped that the future will reveal the fact that they have found the University an opportunity to express their generous impulses in gifts and provision for education.” Recognizing the limitations of the state, however, Thompson noted,

“There are certain finer features in education that the State will probably never provide.

The pressure of necessity in appropriations will always limit legislatures to the practical, the economical, and to a strict limitation in appropriations…. On the other hand,”

Thompson continued, “private individuals, individually or collectively have the opportunity to supplement the State with gifts and with provision for certain phases of education that are highly desirable and necessary to any complete provision for young men and young women. It is not necessary at present to call attention to these needs in particular but the suggestion is here made that the Alumni of the University might well consider through themselves and their friends the opportunity the University offers for expressing their interest both in education and in the welfare of students….”213

Whether alumni and “their friends” sufficiently answered Thompson’s request is debatable and will be left up to the reader to decide. Further, Thompson’s use of the word, “supplement,” is key because it implied additional private, non-state funding.

However, the word, “supplement” (even in the early twentieth century) was weak in

213 Thompson, Annual Report 1914-15, 20-21. 85 nature--that it implied luxuries, electives, or basically non-essential items. Having supplemental funds implied a bonus or an enhancement, as opposed to a need. In effect, the use of the word “supplement” did not make for a strong case for potential contributors. The implication was that while it would be nice to receive supplementary funds, the university would get along fine without financial gifts. Though Thompson directly calls on the alumni to support the university, his use of the phrase, “certain finer features” connotes ambiguity in identifying exact needs and appears to be a soft approach in asking for support.

1915-1919

Thompson’s report for 1915-1916 was unusually short.214 Nonetheless, he highlighted alumni and faculty members for their particular gifts and listed them in the body of this year’s annual report. While Ralph D. Mershon and Professor Edward Orton,

Jr. each gave $300 gifts, and C. F. Kettering intended $500 for Homeopathic Medicine,

Colonel J. G. Battelle’s $1,000 gift was “added to the Endowment Fund, the interest to be used annually for the Military Department.215

Thompson commented, “The largest single gift of the year was one of $30,000 received from the property of the former Pulte Medical College of Cincinnati and the

Cleveland Pulte Medical College. This money was used for the construction in part of the

214 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1915-1916, in Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1916 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1917), 3-12. 215 Thompson, Annual Report 1915-16, 11. 86 hospital for the College of Homeopathic Medicine which will be opened for service in

September 1916.”216 On the whole, Thompson claimed that medical education was making important advancements though one-third of the College of Medicine was discontinued due to retirement or reorganization.217

On the whole, however, Thompson appeared to have a lack of interest in private contributions that established endowed funds. Something not mentioned by Thompson in the President’s Report, but included in the Financial Report for the 1915-1916 year was the $1,708 amount gifted together by the classes of 1915 and 1916 for “an endowment fund for student aid.”218 Charles W. Eliot , President of Harvard (1869-1909), most probably would have included this material up front in his annual report and probably would have showed it as a model explicitly asking other classes to follow. In his conclusion for the year ending 1916, Thompson stated, “In closing this report it is a matter of sincere gratification to record a year of general prosperity and progress. The cooperation of trustees, faculty and students had been most commendable. No effort has been made in this annual report to show the needs of the University, but simply to make a record of service actually rendered.”219 This statement would likely have been considered anathema by Eliot of Harvard, countering his free money ideology as discussed in the

216 Thompson, Annual Report 1915-16, 11. 217 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1915-1916, in Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1916 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1917), 6. 218 Financial Report 1915-1916, in Forty-Sixth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1916 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1917), 79. 219 William O. Thompson Annual Report page 12. Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio for the Year Ending June 30, 1916. [Columbus, OH:] Ohio State Reformatory Press, 1917. 87 beginning of Chapter One. Eliot strongly advocated for needs of any kinds to support the university. Why Thompson was reluctant to ask for needs is unclear.

In contrast, the endowment-rich Harvard University, though not always at the top, seemed to rarely relax its fundraising efforts, perhaps one explanation for why it had arrived as an affluent institution. Harvard’s contemporary president, A. Lawrence Lowell

(pres. 1909-1933), himself no lover of fundraising efforts, asked for “urgent needs” to be met. “More endowment is urgently needed in many departments if Harvard is to maintain its rank among American institutions of learning.” Complaining about instructional salaries, Lowell commented that they had not “been raised for many years, although the cost of living has risen greatly; and many members of the staff ought to receive higher salaries than can be paid to them today.”220 Thompson’s lack of consistency in detailing institutional needs, in the case of Ohio State, may have inhibited its financial growth.

While the President’s Report for 1916-1917 included no discussion of gifts to the university,221 The Financial Report for that year indicated that Charles Kettering and E.

A. Deeds together gifted $8,000, but there was no mention whether the Kettering and

Deeds gift was intended for endowment or current purposes.222

This is another year gone by in which Thompson evidently paid little attention to gaining gifts for the endowment. Overall, Thompson’s reluctance to highlight gifts given

220 President’s Report for 1915-1916. [A. Lawrence Lowell’s Annual Report], Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1915-1916 (Cambridge: Published by Harvard University, 1917), 27. 221 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1916-1917, in Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, [1918]), 3-10. 222 Financial Report 1916-1917, in Forty-Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1917 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, [1918]), 62. 88 or to solicit gifts for particular needs demonstrates inattention to creating endowed funds, and this was a problem that would pervade his presidency at OSU.

The University During the First World War, 1917-1918

In anticipation that the United States would join the war effort, the Ohio State

University leadership declared its support a couple of days previous to the United States government’s formal announcement (April 6th, 1917) informing Americans of official entrance into the First World War.223 In the President’s report for 1917-1918, Thompson explained, “The fact that the United States was at war during the entire academic year will account for many temporary and local changes and adjustments. No year in the history of the University has been so disturbed in the plans and services of both Faculty and students.”224 Faculty, staff, students, and alumni associations worked diligently to assist the cause. It was suggested that the government would have as many as “300,000 graduates and former students of…institutions who had received military training and were of military age.”225

During the war, the Ohio State University spent money from the principle of their endowment. Thompson reported that while the state gave $80,000 for Military

Aeronautics, “The Trustees appropriated from the Endowment Fund, $11,209.62,”

223 Thompson, Annual Report 1916-17, 5. 224 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1917-1918, in Forty-Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1918 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, [1919]), 4. 225 Wilbur H. Siebert, History of The Ohio State University volume IV: The University in the Great War. Part 1: Wartime on the Campus. (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1934), vol. 1, p. 5. 89 apparently spending money from the principal of the endowment! Barracks were built and land was acquired to help with war-related assistance. The university and alumni groups solicited money from OSU, faculty, and alumni to support the war effort. These

“War Drives” facilitated by communities in Columbus and Franklin County were attended, supported, and often co-facilitated by members of the Ohio State University community. People at all levels were involved in planting, using tractors, canning, and other food production activities. War drives included those conducted for and in behalf of the Y.M.C.A, Red Cross, First Liberty Loan, Second Liberty Loan, War Chest, Third

Liberty Loan, War Stamps, Fourth Liberty Loan, Menorah Society, and Victory Loan.

The Fourth Liberty Loan appears to have subscribed the most with $110,000 for the sale of bonds.226 The Lantern, Ohio State University’s student newspaper, was a strong advocate of funding for the war. Titles like this one: “Buy Big Bonds and Beat the Beast of Berlin,” ran on the front page, and the article encouraged the release of college and university students, as well as high school students, to support the effort.227

Thompson’s president’s report for 1918-1919 included a necrology228 and noted significant gifts. With regard to gifts, Thompson related,

“It is worth while to direct attention to the gift of $1,500 by Frank A. Vanderlip, of New York City, the same being a fund the interest of which is to be used for

226 Thompson, Annual Report 1918-19, 9. Wilbur H. Siebert, History of The Ohio State University volume IV: The University in the Great War. Part 1: Wartime on the Campus. (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1934), vol. 1: pp. 41, 48-49. 227 “Buy Big Bonds and Beat the Beast of Berlin” Ohio State Lantern (6 April 1918): Front page. 228 Thompson notified readers of Alexis Cope’s death (September 3, 1918). Cope was long-time secretary of the Board of Trustees from 1883 to 1904 and secretary of the Virginia Military Lands that would make up a significant portion of Ohio State’s general endowment. At the time of his death, Cope had almost finished one of his volumes on the history of OSU that would be published posthumously by Dr. Thomas C. Mendenhall. Thompson, Annual Report 1918-19, 4. 90

the purchase of text books in the Department of Education. The second noteworthy gift is that of $1,000 from Mr. Robert F. Wolfe of Columbus, the interest of which is to be used for awarding a medal for the best paper in the Department of Journalism. The third gift is from Mr. F. P. Beaver of Dayton, for the benefit of the College of Homeopathic Medicine in connection with the work of research. Fourth mention should be made of the two fellowships in the Department of Chemistry, by the DuPont de Nemour & Company. The appreciation of the Trustees and the University is hereby expressed to these donors for their generous consideration of specific needs and service in the University.”229

Thompson’s direct mention of gifts was not always included in subsequent reports, but this description is helpful in portraying the type and specificity of gifts received during this time.

229 Thompson, Annual Report 1918-19, 13. See also Financial Report 1918-1919, in Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1919 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1919), 51. 91

Figure 1. OSU Football Program for October 26, 1918.230 The above figure was the program cover for an OSU football game. Note the similarity between the two figures.

230The Knowledge Bank at Ohio State University, https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/46808/OSU_Football_Program_1918_10_26.pdf?sequenc e=2 92

1919-1922

Though the years from 1919 to 1922 were marked by important needs of the university and the lifting of the salary cap, the lack of a proportional increase in appropriations made for limited progress. Thompson gave too little attention to the

Harvard Endowment Fund campaign, the first in national higher education, which was in full swing from 1916 and 1921. The Harvard campaign had been initiated with the goal of increasing Harvard faculty salaries, but Thompson ignored Harvard’s exemplary role and did not advocate a concerted fundraising effort.231

Rather than discuss gifts given to the university, for these reports Thompson tended to highlight the make-up of the student body. For example, “The appendix on the occupation of parents of the students is perhaps the most significant statistical table found in the report…. This table shows very distinctly that all the industrial classes of the state are making a distinct effort toward the higher education of their sons and daughters and that the University is rendering a real service in this field.”232

Commenting on the post-war building conditions, Thompson claimed the costs were too high, since there was not enough labor and materials. The University’s $400,000 acquired in 1916 had not been utilized because of the expensive building conditions.

Thompson suggested that the State use prisoners for labor and develop building materials. “It is mistaken theory” Thompson fumed, “if we assume that the state may be halted or defeated in making provision for its own needs. Any economic condition of this

231 Bruce A. Kimball, “The Disastrous Beginning of Law School Fundraising, 1914-1920.” Forthcoming in Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era (2013). 232 Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 7. 93 sort that persists for any length of time raises the question whether it is possible for government to function in the presence of diverse economic conditions. The University is one of the most active agencies of the state and at the same time the largest single money spending agency.”233

In unusual style, Thompson provided a separate section in his 1919-1920 report where he cited university needs, including the inadequacy of the university electric power house to cover the needs of particular campus buildings.234 Thompson explained, “The building program as outlined above may at first seem alarmingly large. Further reflection or an investigation will dispel that fear. The State of Ohio has not indulged in extravagance in the erection of buildings at the University…. Not a single proposal for the education of the youth of the state has been made that has not promptly attracted students. Indeed the demand has usually preceded the supply.” In his advocacy for OSU’s building needs, Thompson also called for the purchase of land and “control of [the]

Olentangy River between Lane and King” and special equipment to “protect the stadium field.”235

Not only should the university erect more buildings to meet the needs of students, but the “large institution must provide practically continuous service.” The “university plant estimated at about $10,000,000… should be organized into action as much as possible and make its facilities available for as much of the year as is practicable. The

233 Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 7. 234 Power was needed for the following buildings: dormitories, college of education, college of commerce and journalism, hospital for college of medicine, agricultural engineering, college of engineering, electrical engineering, horse building, dairy cattle building, beef cattle building, chemistry, administration and recitation building, and remodeling particular campus buildings. Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 10-18. 235 Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 18-19. 94 small additional outlay [from the state of Ohio] necessary to keep the plant going is so negligible a portion of the entire budget and the advantages of continuous operation are so great as to render this question most important if we are to consider the economies of education.”236 Thompson’s wish for year-round use of facilities would be realized and highlighted in subsequent reports.

Thompson concluded his 1920 report by mentioning that he had been asked by the President of the United States (Wilson) to serve on the “Industrial Commission.”237

On November 21, 1919, Thompson attempted to resign when he was invited to become a member of the Industrial Conference by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson. However, his resignation was not accepted by the board, and faculty and alumni groups requested that he retain the presidency.238 He continued to serve as president for an additional five years.

Thompson’s main financial concerns remained centered on poor salaries of the university teachers who were paid less than high school teachers.239 Although the faculty salary cap had been lifted previously by the legislature, Ohio State was still at the mercy of the legislature to provide additional money that could be used for salaries. In 1920

Thompson reported, “The feeling in the legislature was universally sympathetic with the movement for increased salaries. The revenue situation in the state, however, made it impossible to accomplish all that the legislature would have supported. The situation has been improved but the provision for salaries is still inadequate and remains the chief need

236 Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 22. 237 Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 22. 238 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 248. 239 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 24. 95 of the University at the coming session of the General Assembly in January, 1921.”240

Thus Thompson, apparently did not blame the state, calling it a matter of insufficient state revenue and something that could hopefully be addressed with a forthcoming meeting of the legislature. The need for higher salaries was still apparently one of

Thompson’s main concerns, but his actions did not seem to match his words, despite the example of Harvard.

Thompson further called on the “state” to rectify the inadequacy of teacher salary. Calling it “both just and imperative,” Thompson argued that “The state can not well turn a deaf ear to this call or compromise by denying to her own sons and daughters the requisite number of adequately paid teachers.”241 Despite the money Ohio State

University sought from tax resources, contemporary Richard Price felt it was worth the cost. He said, “by no stretch of the imagination can the taxpayer's support of higher education in Ohio be considered an unconscionable burden.”242

William Oxley Thompson’s 1920-1921 report indicated that higher salaries for teachers were to be paid for by increased student fees. For the year 1920, student fees made up ten percent of the total income for the university.243 Thompson commented,

“Two years ago the Legislature provided that the student fees should be given to the

University… the proceeds from such sources would go into the salary fund. In addition to the recognition of the justice of such money going to the University, there has developed

240 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1919-1920, in Fiftieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1920 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1921), 5. 241 Thompson, Annual Report 1919-20, 20. 242 Richard Rees Price, The Financial Suppot of State Universities (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 87. 243 The Ohio State University, Annual Report for the year 1920, p. 157. 96 a feeling that the student should pay a larger proportion of the expenses of education than he had been doing for some years past….” The university had taken three actions, according to Thompson. It required a $10 matriculation fee, increased the $30 fee for incidentals to $40, and instituted a $50 non-resident fee, then doubled it to $100 for each year. Thompson explained that “The rules governing non-resident fees are substantially those in force at the University of Michigan.” Thompson lamented, however, the fact that a student would go to great lengths, even unethically, to avoid paying the fee.244

The following year Thompson would again reiterate his perennial focus on the university instructional faculty needing higher salaries, and the need for additional funds.

“A moment’s reflection will suggest that University teachers whose services are permanent should receive salaries equal to those of our established high-school teachers…. The University would be more than pleased if the Legislature in its wisdom would relieve the Administration from the embarrassment arising out of the necessity of employing temporary instruction, in order to meet the needs of the students whose expectations are reasonable and should not be disappointed.”245 There are two things here worth pointing out with Thompson’s remarks. First, Thompson’s claim that university teachers were paid lower than high-school teachers, and second, hiring temporary contingent teachers was considered “embarrassing.”

While the need for better salaries had prompted Thompson to increase student fees in the 1920 to 1921 school year, he complained that medical education already had

244 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1920-1921, in Fifty-First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1921 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1921), 11-12. 245 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 24. 97 an “excessive cost.” Thompson suggested not raising fees in order to avoid decreasing the amount of enrolled medical students. Also, Thompson suggested scholarships were difficult to administer, so it would be better to have the state cover more of these educational costs. “People in very comfortable circumstances are disposed to make a plea of poverty when benevolent funds are available. Their superior influence in society would always make it somewhat difficult for the deserving boy to secure the funds originally intended to meet his needs. There is some doubt, therefore, whether funds for the education of youth can be wisely administered unless a more careful investigation into the financial standing of candidates can be made.”246 Perhaps Thompson’s distrust of the fair distribution of student scholarships may have inhibited his interest in raising more funds for such purposes.

In his 1920-1921 annual report, Thompson referenced the list of gifts in the

Financial Report, appended to his report to the Governor of Ohio. He stated,

“While the sum total of gifts is not large, the distribution is full of interest and suggestion. They reveal a developing interest on the part of the alumni and others in making provision for specific interests about the University. The most noteworthy of these gifts was that from Dr. T. C. Mendenhall providing for the Joseph Sullivant Medal. A further detailed account of this gift will be found in connection with the report on the Semicentennial at which time the gift was announced. It is a matter of genuine gratification to record the fine spirit in which these gifts are made. The hope is also expressed that those already made will stimulate others to make provision for some of the finer things about the University which are apt to be overlooked in the routine of legislative appropriations.”247

246 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 12. 247 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 17-18. 98

While Thompson indirectly called on alumni and emphasized that any kind of gift counts, even small gifts and special medals, he appeared overly focused on the “finer things”--implying a luxury, an add on, extra, or surplus. Instead of calling on alumni to campaign solicitations for endowment, Thompson soft-pedaled his call, asking for whatever things might be overlooked by the legislature.

Presumably more exciting than fundraising efforts, Thompson recalled, “The most interesting activity on the campus for the year was the celebration of the semicentennial in October, 1920…. For the first time in the history of the institution an effort was made to celebrate the progress of a definite period of university experience.”

Professor George W. Rightmire, who would become Thompson’s successor as OSU president, was the Chairman of the general committee on arrangements.248

At the semicentennial celebration of the founding of The Ohio State University, speakers focused on the Morrill Land Grant Act and the University of Michigan, among other topics. Representing the faculty and new President of the University of Michigan,

Professor Horace L. Wilgus congratulated OSU on, “not merely the successful but the very distinguished career of half a century,” and extending “very sincere personal congratulations.”249

Commenting on the close relationship between Michigan and OSU, President

William Oxley Thompson responded,

248 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 16. 249 The University of Michigan’s new president was Marion Leroy Burton (pres. 1920-1925), “Presentation of Messages,” October 13, 1920 in History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920, edited by Thomas C. Mendenhall, and Joseph S. Myers (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922), Vol. 3. p. 66. [Total article pages 53- 73] 99

“I may be permitted to say that Professor Wilgus of the University of Michigan, in its Department of Law, is an alumnus of the Ohio State University, one of the men who was at the helm at the beginning of the College of Law, and one of the men who assisted [OSU] President William Henry Scott to ensure the first mill tax levy for the support of the University in the so-called Hysell Bill. He has rendered distinguished service to this institution in the time of his youth and is rendering equally valuable service in the College to the north of us in these days of its strength and great prosperity.”250

Despite encouraging the rivalry between their respective universities, it appeared the administrators of OSU and the University of Michigan got along fine.

Carnegie’s Condemning Reports: Three State Supported Institutions

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching founded in 1905, had extended the funds benefits, including teacher pension plans, to qualified state universities--those institutions which met select academic criteria-- in 1908. The Ohio

State University, Ohio University, and the Miami University, all state supported universities, had applied to participate in the Carnegie teacher pension plan, but failed to quality for funding because these state supported institutions had duplicate programs.

The Carnegie Foundation published an unfavorable special report on Ohio, and

OSU President William Oxley Thompson included the language of the Carnegie report

(signed by President Henry S. Pritchett of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) in his annual report, though he did not expound with personal comments.

250 “Presentation of Messages,” October 13, 1920 in History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920 edited by Thomas C. Mendenhall, and Joseph S. Myers (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922), Vol. 3, pp. 66-67 [Total article pages 53-73]. 100

The Carnegie report called the Ohio policy and situation “demoralizing” and stated that,

“It is quite evident that the three state universities are not all real universities.”

Consequently, the Carnegie Foundation declined to admit OSU, OU, and Miami and suggested “that their functions may be differentiated and that each be assigned a definite place in a comprehensive and consistent educational system.”251

Having considered the State of Ohio’s policies on state support of institutions an

“unwise” and a “wasteful duplication of educational effort,” Carnegie reported and applauded the state legislature’s effort to reconcile the situation by 1913, whereby distinctions emerged among Ohio State and Ohio University and Miami University.

Miami University would focus on colleges of liberal arts.252

In his annual report for 1921, Thompson commented on the Carnegie

Foundation’s decision in 1909 to withhold financial support to the state of Ohio because it had multiple state institutions whose programs overlapped and because Ohio State

University itself had multiple types of medical education programs.253 Thompson said in his 1909 annual report, “Some publicity was given to the [Carnegie foundation’s] report at the time.” Quoting from the Carnegie report,

“‘The situation which brings discredit on the [Ohio State] University lies in the fact that it is supporting two medical schools when it has insufficient resources for one, and still further in the incongruity that while one school is pledged to the principles of inductive science, the other has its sole reason for existence in the

251 “The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Fourth Annual Report of the President and of the Treasurer” (New York: The Merrymount Press, 1909): 86-88. James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 199. 252 “The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Eighth Annual Report of the President and of the Treasurer” (New York: The Merrymount Press, October 1913): 76. 253 See also Thompson, Annual Report 1909, 10. 101

perpetuation of a dogma which has completely disappeared from medical practice in the land of its birth and is steadily disappearing in this country. That a university should simultaneously pledge itself to two mutually contradictory conceptions of medical science is to stultify itself as an intellectual leader.’”

Up until 1921, Thompson claimed the university had chosen not to engage in responding to Carnegie’s report, since there will always be those that are critical. Carnegie’s report as repeated in Thompson’s report then declared that even the founder of homeopathic medicinal system, maintained “‘in his belief, homeopathy is a faith, not a science.’”

Then, Thompson after quoting four pages from the Carnegie report, summarized,

“Hitherto nothing has been said in defense of the action of the University or of the policy of the state in support of education. Nor has anything been said in reply to the reports of the Foundation or in criticism of its position.” Though Thompson’s statement is accurate,

Thompson’s 1914-1915 annual report did indicate an overt strong support of the Board of

Trustees and their position:

“This report [1914-1915] will not undertake either defense or justification of any action taken but will direct attention to the published catalogs, to the financial statements, and to the printed record of the Board of Trustees for an exact statement of fact and of action. It will be sufficient here to direct attention to the fact that the motives of the Trustees in taking action were above reproach and that they will be guided in the future by their experience as developed from year to year.”254

In his 1921 report, Thompson alluded to a recent gift of 1,000 shares of General

Motors common stock which was offered to the College of Homeopathic Medicine, and

254 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1914-1915, in Forty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1915 ([Columbus, Ohio]: Ohio State Reformatory, 1917), 19. 102 the Board of Trustees discussed whether it should be accepted.255 On June 14, 1920

Charles F. Kettering had transferred 1,000 shares of General Motors stock to OSU.256

Kettering, who had previously given $7,500 worth of radium to be used for cancer treatment, gifted these shares to the Homeopathic College of Medicine. Dr. Thomas

Corwin Mendenhall, a member of the Board of Trustees, voted not to accept the gift and was outvoted four to one, with his dissenting vote of the opinion that the gift to the

Homeopathic College of Medicine would only further divide medical education at Ohio

State.257

“This report,” Thompson said, referring to his 1920-1921 annual report, “is interested chiefly in clearing the minds of any persons of a suspicion as to the motives of the Board.” His report continued, “[T]he action of the Board of Trustees was not due to political, partisan or unworthy motives. The wisdom of their action is, of course, always a proper subject of discussion.”258 Finally in a critical tone, Thompson claimed that the

Carnegie report failed to understand that even with gifts offered to homeopathic medicine by a sympathetic member of the Board of Trustees (Charles Kettering259), it did not require the university to accept the gift for that type of education. In fact, “The University is not obliged to continue indefinitely with the support of medical education in either of

255 The founder of homeopathic medicine spoken of in the Carnegie report was German physician, Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 19-21. “In 1922, after the University Board of Trustees voted to stop operating two colleges of medicine and the college of homeopathic medicine was discontinued.” It operated between 1914 to 1922. http://library.osu.edu/blogs/mhcb/2011/01/19/homeopathic-medical-schools-and-women). 256 1985 Ohio State University Calendar, OSU Archives. 257 James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 250, 265. 258 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 26, 22. 259 Kettering had given at least two other gifts (radium supply and $4,000 dollars), besides the shares of GM stock, to the College of Homeopathic Medicine. 103 the schools now established. It is improbable that medical education will be abandoned at the Ohio State University but no one is able now to declare what the future may be. That will probably be guided by the wisdom of experience and the judgment of future

Trustees. No present member of the Board of Trustees believes in a future dominated by the dead hand in history and from which there is no escape.”260

Thompson clears the air here. By criticizing the Carnegie Foundation’s perception that Ohio State University was locked into having two medical schools, or even medical education altogether for that matter, Thompson attempted to lay to rest the issue that the power lies in the policies of previous Board of Trustees’ decisions, whether those age-old decisions or of current Board members. The Board of Trustees was therefore, a powerfully viable institution that ultimately decided the direction of the university. What the impact was of Thompson’s forceful argument that policies and restrictions of the past were not overly restrictive and could be dramatically altered by future Board of Trustees’ decisions, was not clear at this point. And whether restricted gifts would be impacted remained to be seen. In July 1922, however, the 1,000 shares of stocks were returned to

Charles Kettering when the College of Homeopathic Medicine was officially dissolved.261

260 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 26. 261 James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 250, 265. 104

In closing his report ending with the year 1921, Thompson shared, “As a mere matter of information indicating the progress in the support of medicine it may be stated that the budget for the year 1915-1916 for the two colleges of Medicine was as follows:

College of Homeopathic Medicine….$15,330.00

College of Medicine…………………$38,240.00

For the year 1921-22 as follows

College of Homeopathic Medicine….$44,130.00

College of Medicine………………….$115,590.00

In addition to the above, the legislature has provided by a mill tax for a building fund from which the amount of $550,000.00 has already been set apart for the College of

Medicine as a beginning toward a building for medical science and the first unit of a hospital.”262

Though the Carnegie report gave OSU and other Ohio Universities grief, due to the fact that there was competition and overlap of existing Ohio universities, and the funding of two medical programs at OSU, it eventually helped the Ohio universities streamline their efforts and cooperate with each other in developing educational programs and priorities.

262 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 26. 105

Public v. Private Universities

An important rivalry that had long been brewing between public and private universities appeared to come to the forefront in Thompson’s mind during the early

1920s as judging from his reports and correspondence. Public and private universities, while dissimilar in their origins and main funding revenues, did compete for certain revenue streams. Each group sometimes expressed their concern over perceived financial disadvantage compared to the other. Leaders of public and private universities also endeavored to stake their claim and importance in the educational climate.

Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell commented on the distinguishing factors between public and private universities. Lowell reported,

The development of the great state universities in the West, and their success in meeting the needs of the communities by which they are maintained, have thrown a new light upon the functions of a seat of learning. Too sharp a distinction is sometimes drawn between the endowed universities and those supported by the state. The fact that the former are neither directed by the public authorities, nor maintained by public funds, does not relieve them from the duty of serving the public. They are public institutions, the crown of the educational system, and although their first duty is to give the highest education possible to all men, rich and poor, who are capable of profiting by it, they can, and should, give aid to those who seek instruction but are unable to abandon their occupations to enter the regular curricula.... Harvard has had an unfortunate reputation of being a rich man's college, and undeservedly, for a very large percentage of the students are obliged to earn money to pay their way, or to seek scholarships or aid from loan funds.263

Lowell’s opinion suggests that some educational leaders in the private sector may have considered state institutions to be “non-endowed,” meaning, implicitly, that they

263 A. Lawrence Lowell, 25 January 1912, Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1910-1911 (Cambridge: Published by the University, 1912), 19-20. 106 would not do fundraising. Likely, private university leaders would have begrudged state institutions who fundraised, feeling that they were double-dipping in the public purse. In particular, Harvard’s President Eliot appeared to view state institutions as threats to private institutions. In any case, Lowell attempted to show that in effect, Harvard too, was a public institution, serving those of any economic background.

In early 1914, President John Grier Hibben of Princeton University, facing a deficit of about $65,000 in the operating expenses, urged for additional endowment building support. He said, “While we are waiting for a more adequate endowment we are prevented from making the progress which characterizes a living and growing institution.” For him, the endowment was the most important influencer of progress.

Like Lowell at Harvard, President Hibben then argued for Princeton’s valuable service to the public, seeming to argue that private institutions, not public ones, were financially disadvantaged.

“On account of the evident service which a university such as Princeton is rendering our country at large, we are justified in appealing to those who are interested in the cause of education in general to come to our help at this time. Our alumni through their generous giving, even to the point oftentimes of serious self-sacrifice, show their belief in the work which Princeton is doing, and in the far reaching influences which radiate from this centre. We have no State funds upon which we can depend, and there is no city to the pride of whose citizens we can appeal for assistance. It is natural therefore that we should turn to our friends who know Princeton, and who believe in the ideas for which we stand and which we are endeavoring to make vital in the life of our country.”264

264 “Princeton Cramped by Yearly Deficit; President Hibben Says Some Way Must be Found to Add to Endowment; Fear of Losing Teachers; Better Salaries Being Offered at Other Universities--Appeals to Friends of Education,” New York Times (12 January 1914): 5. 107

The distinction between private and public funding becomes even more befuddled when one thinks about how a public institution like Ohio State got its start. Even the location of Ohio State’s university campus was solidified by the use of private funding.

Pledges (of land and money) from outstanding citizens and local bonds were offered by cities and counties. Columbus and Franklin County won with an offer of $328,000 that included private donations of $28,000 and $300,000 in bonds.265

Addressing concerns about public vs. private monies for higher education,

Edward Orton Jr., speaking at an OSU commencement in 1928 said,

“[T]he charges in state supported colleges are absurdly low--from ten to twenty- five percent of the per capita cost of maintaining the institution, which, in my opinion, is unfair to the taxpayer who derives only an indirect and intangible benefit from it…. The commoner University degrees become, the more machine- like the system under which they are granted, the easier they are to get, and the less they cost, the lower will their value be, both to the recipient and to the public…. I have not infrequently heard of students using up chemicals purposely and even breaking equipment in laboratories, under the queer obsession that they have paid for their share, thro[ugh] their fees,266 and that it is up to them to get the worth of their money even if they have to commit waste to do it….The attitude of the student at the privately endowed universities differs radically from the above. In general, they show a feeling of respect for the school, loyalty for its customers, consideration for its property and willingness in after years to contribute to its support.267 The student at the state university on the other hand seems to look upon the facilities there offered, as his right and in no sense a privilege.” 268

An interesting topical choice for commencement at OSU, Orton continued this discussion of “whether the State needs to be relieved of the expense it is lavishing upon

265 Samuel G. Cash, “Private Voluntary Support to Public Universities in the United States: Late Nineteenth-century Developments,” International Journal Of Educational Advancement 5, no. 4 (August 2005): 351. 266 Recall Orton’s problem with this euphamism. 267 Orton is signaling to the problem of alumni at state supported universities. Alumni at private institutions are willing to give back. 268 Edward Orton, Jr., “Higher Education – A Gift or a Purpose?”, OSU Commencement 16 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, p. 2-19. 108 the cause of higher education,” suggesting that a decrease in the education tax by half would hardly be significant to state expenditures or to taxpayers but that it would even the playing field between public and private universities. He stated:

“It should invoke and I think would receive the cooperation of the privately endowed institutions. They now feel that they are subjected to unfair competition, by an adversary who sells his wares below the cost of production. Their principal recourse is to invoke the argument of superior quality for what they have to sell. And, I think in many instances, and in some particulars, they have the right on their side in making this claim. If the cost differential were wiped out, the state schools and private schools could compete on a fairer basis, and both would be better off.”269

Surely the public universities in Orton’s time could have argued that the private universities had an unfair advantage by way of their large endowments, whose income was potentially more consistent and less subject to change from new legislators regularly coming into office.

Regardless of the numbers, it is evident that many administrators of private universities in the early 1900s felt stung and threatened by the public universities. “If our history as a State had been different, and we had a State university which overshadowed all the privately-endowed institutions, we should be unfortunate,” Henry Elridge Bourne

(1862-1946), historian at Western Reserve University asserted in 1920. Bourne continued, “To paraphrase a famous saying--if we did not have the local college it would be necessary to create it. The city of Columbus could not house the Ohio students who want to have a college education and want to have it in their own State. So far as its undergraduate department is concerned Ohio State University, as well as the other two

269 Edward Orton, Jr., “Higher Education – A Gift or a Purpose?”, OSU Commencement 16 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, p. 2-19. 109

State-supported universities at Athens and at Oxford, must expect to remain local colleges, leaders it may be, but brethren in fact among the fraternity of Ohio institutions of higher education.”270

Bourne suggested that the other Ohio colleges were necessary to service the number of students in Ohio.271 While Ohio State University indeed could not fill the needs of all the Ohio students who wished to attend, this was partially due to lack of funds, and this despite the fact that OSU was a land grant and state funded institution.

Thompson, who appreciated this dual income, declared the “Land-grant Act was the beginning of a great stimulus, as I conceive it, to the financial support of higher education.” He said,

“It would be very interesting to you to discover that the passing of that Act brought to the Commonwealths of this country considerable amounts of money and that those amounts at this day are most negligible in the budgets of these colleges called Land-grant Colleges. States have been stimulated to give to this form of education until the amount that comes to us through the Federal Government as the direct result of this Act is most negligible in any of our large colleges. I have no doubt that in the States where the Land-grant College is separate from the State university it has received larger appropriations than it would have received but for the stimulus of the Land-grant College. In the States like Ohio, where the two institutions are combined, the result of the Agricultural School, around which the University has been built up, has been to make it easier to secure liberal grants of money because of that combination.”272

270 This notion that Ohio State University strove to be the best in Ohio was shared in 2011 by University of Michigan President Emeritus, James Duderstadt, personal communication, 2011. See Henry Eldridge Bourne, L.H.D., “Higher Education in Ohio and its Historical Factors”, [exact day not evident] History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920 edited by Thomas C. Mendenhall, and Joseph S. Myers (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922): Vol. 3, page 128. pp. 115-131. 271 Private institutions included: College of Wooster, Denison University, Kenyon College, Oberlin College, and University of Dayton. Bourne, “Higher Education in Ohio and its Historical Factors,” pp. 115-131. 272 At this time, the term “Commonwealth,” was used to refer to the state of Ohio, by speakers in this volume, and other sources. Senator Benjamin Wade of Ohio played a large role in getting the Morrill Act passed. President William Oxley Thompson, “The Land-grant College and Agricultural Education,” in 110

Basically, Thompson reported that by his time (1921) land-grants themselves provided little back to the budgets of land grant colleges and that state colleges or universities without land-grant income received more from the state than they would have had if they been a land grant college. Nonetheless, Thompson seemed to think that the fact that Ohio

State was both land-grant and state university meant that it could secure more income on that basis.

A key figure who helped secure OSU’s land grant money, Dr. Norton S.

Townshend, joined the faculty of Ohio State University after serving as a member (and later president) of the State Board of Agriculture. Townshend took a key role in the

“controversy regarding the disposition of the proceeds of the sale of land scrip received under the Morrill Act and was largely instrumental in preventing a diversion of the

Endowment fund among the existing Ohio Colleges.” After the College was chartered he served as member of the Board of Trustees “and he at once became the able and ardent leader of that group who believed that the work of the institution should be restricted to practical instruction in Agriculture and the Mechanic arts, together with such branches of

Science as were closely related thereto.”273

When OSU started classes in autumn of 1873, former Ohio State University president William Henry Scott commented, “its endowment fund was a little more than a

History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920 edited by Thomas C. Mendenhall, and Joseph S. Myers (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922), Vol. 3., p. 175. 273 Thomas Corwin Mendenhall, Ph.D., LL.D.,“The First Faculty of the Ohio State University,” in History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920 edited by Thomas C. Mendenhall, and Joseph S. Myers (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922), Vol. 3, pp. 195-6 [total pp. 189-205] 111 half a million dollars, on which the interest for the year was $30,675. If anyone connected with the institution had been told at that time that in less than fifty years the annual income would be nearly four and a half times as great as the total endowment was then, he would have looked upon the prophet as a wild dreamer. Yet history would have justified the prophet.”274 Even by the early 1920s the income supplied to the university by the land grant provided only part of and selectively to the needs of the university. To

Scott, the fact that the endowment had quadrupled in 50 years was a significant milestone for the university. No doubt the endowment’s growth by Thompson’s time was a sign of progress, but it was still insufficient.

Year Western Reserve Case School of College of Mount Hebrew Union Applied Science St. Joseph College 1930275 10,579,620 4,328,497 10,231,967 4,342,562 Table 14. Endowment Value (in USD) of Privately Controlled Institutions in Ohio, 1930

In his 1920-1921 report, Thompson said, “It is hoped that during the biennium the funds available will provide a considerable relief from congested conditions and for certain needs that have long existed.” Thompson asserted,

274 William Henry Scott, LL.D., “The Origin and Growth of the State University Idea in Ohio”, October 15, 1920 in History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920 edited by Thomas C. Mendenhall, and Joseph S. Myers (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922) Vol. 3, p. 213. 275 U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1928-1930 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1932), pp. 493. 112

“The salary roll is the largest single item and is in itself a serious problem. The just demand for adequate salaries will be universally recognized. The repeated expansion, however, of the courses of instruction offered to the rapidly increasing enrollment has made the problem of organization difficult…. [T]here develops a demand for teachers altogether beyond supply. The result is that the modern university has a teaching force larger than the student body of most of the universities of 25 years ago. As a consequence all the universities of the country have felt the strain of finance. Money for salaries seemed imperative and all the privately endowed institutions have organized campaigns for endowment funds for the increase of salaries. State Universities have been left to urge the legislatures for increased money for these purposes.” 276

It is noteworthy that Thompson saw a clear division between public and private universities. In this case, Thompson, representing a state university, asked for more money for the “teaching force,” hoping that the state would come around and offer additional revenue for salaries, while the “privately endowed institutions” actively organized special endowment fund campaigns to obtain necessary funds. Also noteworthy is wording Thompson used at the end, “State Universities have been left to urge the legislature,” implying that the state university has no other course of action available to them, or that only private institutions could search out money from private sources.277

So while leaders of private universities felt disadvantaged because the public universities received money from the states, Thompson felt that OSU was comparatively disadvantaged because it lacked the large, successful endowment campaigns of private universities. However, while Thompson lamented that OSU had only the land grant and state money for income, the first large fundraising effort at OSU was already underway.

276 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 17-18. 277 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 17-18. 113

Ohio Stadium--OSU’s First major Fundraising Effort

A few years of successful football seasons in the late 1910s encouraged plans for a new stadium, and plans for a fundraising campaign were first announced in late 1919.278

The campaign to raise money for a new stadium was a success. Person to person contact in Ohio’s eighty-eight counties contributed to its success. Samuel N. Summer, chairman of the campaign committee claimed that they had raised $925,000 in five weeks. The public, for the first time on a large scale, was asked to give money for a university building project.

Fears associated with undertaking were that carrying out such a large project could potentially incur a massive debt by the OSU Athletic program, and it would be embarrassing if few fans attended. Certain elements of the fundraising campaign were kept secret. For example, Thomas Ewing French, an OSU engineer, and Lynn W. St.

John, manager of OSU athletics, withheld two components of the campaign: the exact size of the stadium and how much it was going to cost.

John Price Jones, the professional fundraisers based in New York who had assisted Harvard University with their multi-million dollar endowment campaign, put together a pamphlet with particular selling points. Expressions of emotional appeal were used in the campaign, like “Is your gift on the alter,” “physical vigor,” and “The Ohio

278 WOSU-TV, Richard Fenlon, “Birth of Ohio Stadium,” http://www.wosu.org/archive/horseshoe/ This video highlights Ohio State’s first main fundraising campaign for the “horseshoe”--The OSU football stadium. Richard Fenlon, Edwin R. Clay, Brent Greene, and Philip Bosco. The Birth of Ohio Stadium. Columbus, OH: WOSU-TV, 2002. 114

Stadium: A Magnet to draw the spark of loyalty.” The campaign also highlighted the fact that OSU had never asked for donations like this from the public before!279

What was the impetus for building a bigger stadium? After the end of the First

World War, 17,000 fans attended games in a stadium that was built for 12,000 fans.

Thomas French worried about the crowd’s size. At first President Thompson and the

Board of Trustees did not want to jeopardize the role of academic resources, so the fundraising campaign was carried out to private donors. While OSU had always accepted private donations, they had not done so in a systematic manner. Thomas Corwin

Mendenhall, a member of the Board of Trustees and one of the original faculty members at OSU at its start of classes in 1873, opposed the construction of a concrete stadium, preferring instead a brick one. Also, he suggested limiting the capacity to 40,000, instead of 65,000. Mendenhall’s objection was overruled by the other members of the Board.280

In 1921, Thompson reported that “the largest single enterprise which the

University has ever undertaken [was] the erection of a stadium to accommodate in excess of sixty thousands persons.” The estimated cost of the construction of the stadium was predicted to reach close to a million dollars. Despite the reduced construction costs, the revised estimate called for an additional two hundred thousand dollars. To date, “the actual subscriptions for the stadium amounted to $1,043,754.30. The portion of this payable by students was extended over several payments.” The plan was to continue collecting from incoming students. Thompson reported that

279 WOSU-TV, “Birth of Ohio Stadium.” 280 WOSU-TV, “Birth of Ohio Stadium.” 115

“on the whole the stadium project has been a matter of widespread interest and has aroused a large degree of genuine enthusiasm. It has been a means of enlisting the interest of the people in the University who, prior to this project, were at least uninformed and to a degree indifferent. However, the service that will be rendered by such a structure will, of course, be the subject of comment when experience has demonstrated the degree to which such a structure can be utilized in the interest of education and of popular demand.”281

Instead of elaborating on the details of how current and former students raised money,

Thompson generally seemed preoccupied with the purpose of the stadium and construction details.282

By October 1921, Ohio State University Monthly explained past and future fundraising efforts:

“Spring, then, must see the Stadium Building Fund in shape to stand a heavy drain. There is nothing mysterious about the figures available at this time. Pledges aggregate $1,042.00. The Latham contract calls for $1,341,017. The arithmetic is simple. Either $300,000 must be raised or construction of one or more units of the greater Stadium must be postponed pending future financing. No immediate general campaign for funds is contemplated by the Stadium Executive Committee. However, the ‘roll book’ is still open. New students on the campus will be canvassed this fall. And the alumni whose names are still unrecorded among those of Stadium subscribers, will be given at least one more opportunity to ‘register.’ Letters will be directed to them during the fall and winter. Before spring arrives and the final Roll Call is taken for permanent record in bronze, the Executive Committee hopes to add many a name to the present list of ‘Stadium Builders.’”283

Many more donors would in fact join the list of those so-called “stadium builders.” Total cost for the construction of Ohio Stadium was about $1.34 million, won

281 Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21 282 “Chic” Harley, famous OSU football player, helped popularize the sport that drew larger crowds to the Ohio Field, located on the land on what would become Ramseyer Hall, and would eventually lead to the move to a larger stadium at the current location near the Olentangy River side of campus. Thompson, Annual Report 1920-21, 15. 283 Ohio State University Monthly Vol. 13, no. 1 (October, 1921): 7. 116 by the bid from construction company, E.H. Latham, of Columbus. While the stadium campaign was the first of its kind at OSU, it may have also been a diversion for important fundraising for academic and endowment purposes.

The athletic rivalry with Michigan was flourishing during these years. The following flyer was used to advertise needed funds for the stadium and used the upcoming game against Michigan to illicit loyalty and payment of pledges. The Michigan stadium had been recently rededicated during a game against OSU, and OSU fundraisers hoped to increase the stakes and importance of the stadium funding by putting the game against Michigan as the goal for completion of the fund raising. This competition tactic was used repeatedly by OSU fundraisers.

117

Figure 2. Ohio State University Monthly 13, no. 3 (December 1921): final page.

118

The stadium was dedicated on October 21, 1922 during the third game of the season, against OSU’s rival, the University of Michigan. The stadium was jammed past capacity with more than 72,000 in attendance. 284 The original worries that few fans would come to fill the stadium were now be dispelled, but at what cost? It would not be until the following decade that academics came to the forefront in fundraising at OSU.

As the stadium brought more attention to athletics, the role of athletics in relation to academics was highlighted by Thompson as follows: “The head of the Department of

Physical Education is immediately and directly responsible to the President. The Athletic

Board itself is accountable to the Board of Trustees for all its activities and submits an annual report in addition to the occasional reports requested or desired as information in the President’s office. Throughout the country the President of the University is held more responsible for intercollegiate athletics than any other one person about the institution. At the Ohio State University the organization is such that the President supported by the Trustees has more immediate command of the Department of Physical

Education than he has of many of the other educational divisions of the University. This statement is made in order to correct in the minds of persons on campus as well as in the minds of citizens outside the campus, a certain misapprehension as to the status and responsibility of university athletics.”285

It is noteworthy that in Thompson’s appeals to alumni in his annual reports, he did not capitalize on the large-scale stadium campaign with regard to discussing the potential of what alumni and current students could do to assist financially. In other

284 http://library.osu.edu/projects/OSUvsMichigan/dedication.htm 285 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 21. 119 words, why did Thompson not use the Ohio State Stadium Campaign, the successful campaign to raise money for the building of a new stadium, as part of his strategy in asking for additional funds for academic purposes? The answer is not clear.

Funds for Graduate Research

Witnessing the success of the stadium campaign seemed to encourage some OSU leaders to continue private fundraising efforts in other areas. In his annual report to the

OSU President and Board of Trustees, William McPherson of the OSU graduate council included a report from three faculty members (Drs. A. W. Smith, G. R. Havens, and E. N.

Transeau) who investigated the needs of Graduate work at the university. The report stated:

“To carry on the productive work in a university in a way that its importance demands requires the expenditure of a large sum of money. This money is not now available and it is becoming increasingly evident that no adequate relief can be expected immediately from these conditions from funds appropriated by the State. The older endowed universities have long found it possible to support productive work largely by private contribution. The newer state universities are beginning to avail themselves of this means of supporting investigational work. For example, at Cornell University there has been established the Heckscher Research Foundation for the support of investigation. From the income of this endowment about forty-three grants in aid of research work at Cornell University were made in the year 1921. These grants, which ranged from $300 to $3,000 each, amounted in the aggregate to about $45,000. Recently, Dr. I. C. White has given property estimated to be worth eventually $2,000,000 to equip and maintain the Department of Geology at the West Virginia University. Similar contributions to other state universities might be recalled. In our own state not only have a number of private colleges raised large sums of money amounting in some cases to more than a million dollars but Miami University, a state institution like our own, is making rapid progress in her efforts to secure one million dollars for endowment purposes. The recent gifts of Edward Orton, Jr., Mr. Kettering, Dr. 120

Mendenhall, Mrs. Pomerene, Mrs. Clarke, Dr. Howard, and others, indicate that the friends of higher education are also willing to contribute to the support of productive scholarship at the Ohio State University.”286

The “Graduate Council is considering the possibility of the University making an organized and systematic effort to secure certain funds to be deposited with the Treasurer of the State of Ohio with the understanding that the income from the funds be used” for research work, including money to carry out research, books and equipment, a lecture series, published writings, and creative work at OSU.287

Thompson did not appear to be at the head of this new endowment plan.

Thompson’s report for the year 1922, focused on the problems of non-resident fees, especially for the children of alumni. He opined:

“Notwithstanding the non-resident fee of $100.00 in addition to the usual fees, a considerable number of students continue to come from outside the State of Ohio. There were 22, for example, from China. The number enrolled from some of the other states was as follows: Pennsylvania 75, West Virginia 71, Indiana 66, New York 40, Kentucky 25, and Massachusetts 12. The time has now arrived when children of alumni are returning in considerable numbers to the University. These alumni are resident all over the country and some of them live in foreign countries. The non-resident fee probably will act as a discouragement to many of these alumni, as well as to other people. The University would be the stronger from the sentimental point of view if some encouragement could be given for the children of alumni to come to the University. It is doubtful whether the non- resident fee, in such cases, is worth what it costs.”288

286 William McPherson and the OSU Graduate Council to OSU Board of Trustees, Ohio State University Monthly (July 1922): vol. 13:51. 287 William McPherson, Report of Graduate School 1921-1922, in Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1922 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1922]), 177. 288 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1921-1922, in Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1922 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1922]), 11. 121

Though the sentimental view as expressed by Thompson was a factor, it appeared that Thompson was unable to provide an alternative solution to finance. Thompson further stressed the need for appropriations for the library and compared Ohio State to the

University of Michigan.

“A recent report was submitted to the President by a large committee of the Faculty, urging that, for the next biennium, an appropriation of $100,000 annually be made for the Library. The facts on which this request was based grew out of comparison with other similar State institutions and looked toward such an extension of our Library facilities as would put our Library in a position comparable to that of the state universities of the Middle West. It may be of interest here to note that the Ohio State University Library contains 228,661 volumes. The University of Michigan has 456,847 volumes and the University of Wisconsin, with the Library of the Wisconsin Historical Association in the same building, a total of 507,800 volumes available for University purposes. The University of Illinois has 456,503 volumes. These comparisons will suggest the importance of University Libraries in the Middle West.”289

Ohio State’s collection of numbers of library materials clearly lagged in comparison.

In 1922, for the first time, Thompson included in the body of his annual report an

“Endowments” section, instead of a “gifts” section such as those which had been selectively included in Thompson’s previous reports. Thompson both summarized and advocated for endowments at the same time: “There have been a few small endowments provided by individuals for the university. It would be a matter of great satisfaction if generous people would increase these endowments and thus make a perpetual provision of considerable amount for the maintenance of a library.” Incidentally in later years the main campus library would fittingly be named in his honor.

289 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 15-16. 122

When the Board of Trustees agreed to do away with the College of Homeopathic

Medicine in the summer of 1922, General Motors common stocks, valued in 1922 at

$150,000, were returned by the university to donor Charles F. Kettering. From that point, elements of Homeopathic study continued under the umbrella of the College of

Medicine.290

When the College of Homeopathic Medicine was discontinued, it was proposed by Thompson that only the principal amount of gifts be returned to donors “without interest…on the endowment fund.”291 The full amount would be returned. Thompson commented that “The decision was based upon the question of public policy and the support by the State of two competitive schools of medicine.”292 Despite the merging of the two colleges, Charles F. Kettering had given another gift, $4,017.90, “for

Homeopathic Research.”293

290 “Trustees’ Decision Elimintates Study of Homeopathy,” Ohio State Lantern (14 July 1922): Front page. 291 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 19-20. 292 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 21. 293 Financial Report 1921-1922, in Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1922 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1922]), 213. Looking at the current (2012) endowment amount given by the Kettering foundation and valued at 1.8 million dollars, it is not clear whether Kettering’s donations by this time in the 1922 were intended for endowment or for current use. The problem lies with the category, “Designated Purpose,” since most in that gift section are not endowments, and are clearly a combination of endowment and current use funds. 123

Governors, Merchants, and Professors: Finances, Politics, and Leadership Style

During Thompson’s years as university president, the Ohio governors came and went (they typically served two year terms at this point), and were sympathetic to Ohio

State University. University presidents usually served longer tenures compared to governors, not usually restricted by term limits. In 1922 Thompson, in typical fashion when commenting on the governor, applauded Ohio Governor Harry L. Davis for his support to Ohio State University.294 The governor supported a new campus building levy

(House Bill No. 325) and Thompson particularly praised Governor Davis who was sympathetic from the “outset.” Thompson commented, “The University recognizes with appreciation the active interest and support given by the Governor as the essential factor in the passage of the bill.”295

Meanwhile, local Columbus merchants felt threatened by the new legislation and sued a Faculty-student Co-op. The Court ruled in favor of the faculty and students, despite the merchant opposition’s lobby for the paramount role of state taxes in funding efforts.296

In his annual report for 1922-1923, Thompson argued that there were too many with the rank of professor at OSU for the university’s benefit.

294 Later in Thompson’s tenure, in the winter of 1924, Ohio’s Governor “Veto Vic” Donahey, vetoed appropriations for OSU, but the legislature of the state of Ohio overrode the governor and passed appropriations. Governor Donahey declined to support legislation that would raise taxes, J. A. Meckstroth, http://ww2.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/ohgovernment/governors/donahey.html; George W. Knepper, Ohio and Its People: Bicentennial, p. 343. 295 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 25. 296 Thompson, Annual Report 1921-22, 28. 124

“The tendency to increase the number of persons having the rank of professor is very strong. It is perhaps too strong for the welfare of the University. The teaching body becomes out of proportion when so many persons are promoted. Furthermore, the very decided tendency of persons with the rank of professor to find reasons for light teaching schedules under the guise of research is a decided evil. If we may rely upon the testimony of apparently competent persons elsewhere, it would be safe to say that not over one-third of the teachers of the colleges of the country are capable of any important research work.” 297

Thompson did not relate in detail who these “persons elsewhere” were, but suggested that less than one-third of “teachers” were capable of significant research. However, he did note the importance of professors being very good teachers: “It is quite natural that persons giving their lives to university work should expect within a reasonable period to receive the rank of professor. It will be a better day when that recognition comes as freely for superior teaching as it now comes for alleged research.”298 Thompson, therefore, supported the idea of few professors and argued against the notion that one must be a good researcher to become a professor.

It appears that Thompson’s appeal in his last annual report made a difference. The library received small “special endowments” and the legislature gave the largest appropriation ever to OSU. “A very wide satisfaction exists because… the legislature at the last session made an appropriation of $50,000 annually for… the Library. There are some other sources of support for the library in the way of special endowments which are important but not large. This action of the legislature, however, was the most generous provision ever made for a similar period.” Thompson’s use of the word, “special” emerged here when describing endowments, instead of the use “designated” that had

297 Thompson, Annual Report 1922-23, 6. 298 Thompson, Annual Report 1922-23, 6. 125 been used in previous reports. Though Thompson was thankful for endowment income, he privileged the larger annual subsidy from the state ahead of it and continued to ask the state for double the amount appropriated. He asserted that OSU’s should be the “most important scholars” library in the Commonwealth. “As the President has remarked at other times, there is in this library a very clear call for endowment and support at the hands of private sources where money could be made available for library purposes. It is hoped that the University will not need to depend exclusively upon the State for the building up of a library such as the University of the commonwealth needs.” Since asking for twice the amount of income from the state did not seem likely to succeed, Thompson asked for endowment income from private sources to support the library.299

In a section of his annual report dedicated to Ohio State’s alumni association (The

Ohio State University Association) entitled, “Ohio State Alumni Association,” Thompson directly compared OSU with Michigan alumni and commented on James Lewis Morrill,

Secretary of The Ohio State University Association.300 Thompson wrote: “It is well worth while for those interested in the University to understand the excellent service rendered by this [OSU] Association under the leadership of Mr. J. L. Morrill, the

Secretary. Aside from publishing a very creditable magazine and thus giving to the

Alumni and University friends generally a reliable body of information, the Association has organized and developed a number of interesting programs for the University.”

299 Thompson and others frequently used the expression “Commonwealth” to refer to the state. Thompson, Annual Report 1922-23, 7-8. 300 It is noteworthy that Thompson would refer to the alumni of OSU as the alumni association, likely for clarity. The Ohio State University Association, had earlier chosen not to use the word, “alumni” in their title for the fear that non-graduated former students would not feel welcome. 126

Thompson further complemented The Ohio State University Association, “The

Alumni Association thus becomes an agency for aiding the University as no other organization is able to do it.” Referring to himself in the third person, Thompson submitted:

“The President has found Mr. Morrill a most effective assistant in university policies and recognized the value of the service of such an official not only to the University but to the University Association as well. The further development of the work of the Association depends largely upon its support by the alumni of the University. There is no good reason why the University should not make provision for some support of such a movement. On the other hand the existence of an Alumni Association is for the purpose of assisting and aiding the University in its large and forward-looking programs. In order to be effective to the last degree an Alumni Association should become not only self-supporting but should develop such activities as will contribute materially to the equipment of the University.301 It may be appropriate here to add that State Universities, and Ohio State University in particular, need the support of their alumni quite as really as they need the support of the State. A few years ago it was stated that 40% of the cost of all buildings on the campus of the University of Michigan had been provided by alumni and friends. That proportion would change, of course, with every new building. The important consideration, however, is that the alumni of the University of Michigan have seen the importance of making contribution[s] to the University. They are able in this way to do precisely and accurately the thing the University desires to have done. They do it in a way also pleasing and satisfactory to the donors and to the alumni. It often happens that legislative appropriations carry restrictions that prevent the free exercise of liberty in the development of plans for specific purposes. It is always true that there is a place on the campus where the alumni may do the beautiful thing without interference. The rapid growth of the modern State University has left so many gaps to be filled that it seems impossible to carry the program without the assistance of alumni and personal friends whose money is available.”302

301 OSU’s Association would not become self-sufficient and contribute back to the university until the start of The Ohio State University Development Fund in 1938. 302 In a later Report, J. L Morrill recalled to Rightmire, then president, that he had suggested that Thompson overtly applaud the efforts of the Ohio State University Association. This apparently brought more publicity to the unified efforts of alumni and former students. Thompson, Annual Report 1922-23, 8- 9. 127

In Thompson’s use of the word “equipment,” above he referred to buildings and classroom furnishings. Would this fill a need or merely serve as something supplemental for the university, according to Thompson? It appears Thompson changed his tune here about the importance of public versus private funds. Urging donors to assist OSU,

Thompson claimed that it seemed “impossible to carry the program without the assistance of alumni and personal friends whose money is available.”303 Whether the lack of funds was due to improper attitudes or to less systematic approaches to carrying out solicitations on behalf of the OSU administration is unknown.

In the financial report for the year 1922-1923, just one gift is listed in the “Gifts for Endowment Purposes” section. The others, listed in the “Gifts for General and

Designated Purposes” section, were definitely not endowment funds. The one endowed gift received was to establish the Charles Cutler Sharp Library Fund for $17,000.304

1923-1924

For the academic year 1923-1924, Thompson felt the “chief embarrassment” was the low pay offered to faculty members.305 Thompson argued that the situation was

“anything but satisfactory,” particularly for those who had proven themselves and not

303 Thompson, Annual Report 1922-23, 8-9. 304 As of 31 October 2012, the market value of this particular fund rose to $67,690. It’s principal value listed as $36,076. Financial Report 1922-1923, in Fifty-Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1923 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1923]), 190. 305 Charles F. Kettering, who had been reappointed to the Board of Trustees by Governor Donahey, was now its Chairman. The late Dr. Thomas Corwin Mendenhall, Physicist of Quaker origin and faculty member and trustee (appointed in 1919) had spent many fruitful years as an educator at OSU. William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1923-1924, in Fifty-Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1924 ([Columbus, Ohio, 1924]), 5-7. 128 been recognized monetarily.306 “The attention of the State and the legislature as well as of all parties concerned is cordially invited to this situation in the hope that the Ohio State

University may steadily approach a position of stability and independence as regards the matter of salary. This has been the chief embarrassment for 25 years of my own experience as administrator in the effort to build along with the Faculty a stable and well organized body of teachers to whom the State could look with satisfaction and assurance.”307

Thompson noted the changes in the course elective system308 and also reiterated his dislike for charging out-of-state tuition. His comments on tuition, the agricultural extension program, and administration-athletic relationships seemed geared to prove the value of the university and to clarify the roles of university administration. The many requirements placed upon the president, as well as the intricate hierarchy within the university, were not well understood by outsiders, though Thompson made no secret of it.

“[T]he fact that the State [state of Ohio] has superior institutions and that its leading University offers facilities for education attractive to alumni and their children and to others as well should be given more sympathetic consideration than is current. Especially in the Graduate School were men and women are attracted because of the superior facilities given in departments of learning, the attitude of the State should be a warm cordial welcome. It strikes one as strange that a State should interest itself in attracting industries of one kind and another and overlook the fact that its most important asset is a body of well educated men and women. The attractiveness of this higher education will perhaps do more to bring to the State of Ohio important and valuable citizens than any other

306 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 7. 307 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 8. 308 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 11-12. Charles W. Eliot of Harvard University popularized the elective system during his presidency. See Hugh Hawkins, Between Harvard and America: The Educational Leadership of Charles W. Eliot (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972). 129

procedure…. The public might, therefore, well be conservative in its tendency to restrict the opportunities for higher education.”309

So there appeared, according to Thompson at this time, a serious problem in the willingness of the state legislature and the people of Ohio to support higher education.

Recruiting the best and brightest to OSU and the state of Ohio, for Thompson, meant lowering tuition hikes with the hope that it would help attract out-of-state students to

Ohio.

In discussing the construction of Pomerene Hall for women, Thompson described it being half-finished so far and described the “equipment and furnishings,” were paid for by “private expense.” He alerted his readers that “These contributions from alumni and friends were expended in an equipment much more elegant and expensive than would have been possible if the building had been furnished at the expense of the state.”310

Nearing the end of his presidency, Thompson clearly advocated for private fundraising from alumni to build university endowment funds. He expressed the idea that the state would not be able pick up the entire bill for the university then and in the future.

Alumni were asked to sacrifice, to “set aside a portion of their accumulated estates to the further endowment and support of the University.”311 It appeared that Thompson was broadening his scope to include, more directly, solicitations for private funds as opposed to a virtually all out focus on gaining the approval of the state and its biennial appropriations. And these private funds were to be assigned for the needs of the university, not for supplementary perks.

309 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 12. 310 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 23. 311 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 26. 130

“This association under the competent and efficient leadership of Mr. J. L. Morrill has met all the requirement that could well be mentioned. The magazine published is one of the very best in circulation and speaks for the efficiency of the office and all of the service associated with it. This magazine itself is a sufficient warrant for membership in the association by all graduates and by all former students whose attendance has been long enough to arouse in them any interest in university activities. In addition to the office service and the Monthly, Mr. Morrill has been able to make contacts with local alumni associations, to assist in their programs of work, and in general to keep alive and active the interest of alumni. His service to the senior class from year to year has proved to be of high value. The University continues to make a certain grant of money from year to year in recognition of the services suggested above and of the further fact that the alumni office renders a distinct service in keeping the alumni roll and providing the records for the publication of the alumni directory. The time should come, and probably will come, when the alumni will be able through their own activities to finance in a satisfactory way projects that are developed from time to time through the office of the secretary.312 The University has now reached a stage in its development where the kindly sentiment of the alumni should find expression in a more substantial way and where alumni should assume the responsibility of providing for University needs not always possible through the ordinary channels of support. The magnitude of the work of the University grows and with it the opportunity offers itself for alumni endowments and alumni provision for many features of University life that would be highly appreciated and that are of the highest importance. It is doubtful whether the modern state university can ever meet in a satisfactory way all the demands upon it unless alumni contributions supplement the support of the state in a very substantial way.”

This is an important admission from Thompson. He here recognized that private giving would be absolutely necessary to the welfare of state universities. This is a far cry from his comments and statements about state funding from the beginning of his presidency. Thompson continued:

“The hope is here expressed that in the future the hearts of the alumni will set aside a portion of their accumulated estates to the further endowment and support of the University. Such enterprise should be undertaken after a study of the situation and possibly conferences with the President or other members of the

312 Here might have been a good opportunity for Thompson to highlight the impact of the stadium campaign. The campaign was a catalus that demonstrated what private donations could do for Ohio State. 131

University who are advised as to recognized needs. The policy of the University in the future, therefore, may be widely influenced by the proper assignment of endowment funds or maintenance funds through the intelligent support of alumni.”313

Further, Thompson called for the construction of a new Ohio Union building.

“The use of these facilities by students has been so extensive as to raise very definitely the question whether the time has not arrived when the present facilities should be enlarged by the erection of a new modern and adequate building…. A high appreciation of the service rendered constitutes a sound warrant for a new and adequate building.”314

In a “Gifts” section of the president’s report for 1923-1924, Thompson referred the reader to the Financial Report (included with his report to the OSU Board of

Trustees) to see a list of gifts that totaled $14,582.55 that year. The largest gift was worth

$4,105, given by the class of 1923 towards a greater than life-size bronze statue of Dr. W.

O. Thompson. Thompson expressed:

“It is appropriate here to remark that the University is grateful for all these expressions of goodwill and for the interest developed among friends and alumni through these gifts. The hope is cherished that the future will record a steady growth in the matter of giving to the University. There is a splendid opportunity in this connection to do the beautiful thing and thereby perpetuate an influence free from sordid motives or sinister influences. These gifts suggest a stream of living water carrying life and happiness throughout its entire course. The gratifying truth is that these beneficent influences touch the lives of those worthy among the students.”315

Thompson’s expression: “[F]ree from sordid motives or sinister influences,” seemed to attempt to erase any concern for tainted funds and thereby highlighted the viability of the

313 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 26. 314 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 27. 315 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 30. 132 funds offered to the university. Thompson’s words seemed to draw on Washington

Gladden, the prominent Congregational bishop of Columbus, Ohio. Gladden argued in his essay entitled, “Tainted Money,” (in 1895) that gifts to a college’s endowment come at a price. Once the endowment is set intact, the college is then obligated to offer no criticism on the way by which the gift was accumulated, thus curbing the college’s ability to positively impact society.316 In other words, a person of ill-repute could encourage legitimization of their actions by giving to a university, where scholarly critics would then of necessity or duty, be silenced. Gladden suggested that publically accepting donations, from the living or dead, endorses the giver by the recipient body.317 So there could be additional reason for an institution to decline large gifts from donors, regardless of status as alive or deceased. Gladden acted on this belief by not accepting a $100,000 contribution from John D. Rockefeller, Sr. in 1905 on behalf of the Congregational Board of Foreign Missions. Gladden’s refusal demonstrated his view and argument that

Rockefeller’s money was “tainted.”318

Even sometimes seemingly open gifts have latent purpose. Such was the case with

Carnegie’s desire to define higher education. He wanted to give pensions to college professors, but it necessitated formalizing specific definitions of colleges to be sure the right people were receiving the money. Consequently, Carnegie won the right to help define colleges and universities through giving to a faculty pension plan.319 With similar

316 Gladden, “Tainted Money” Outlook (1895): 887. 317 Gladden, New Idolatry, 52. 318 Scott M. Cutlip, Fund-Raising in the United States: Its Role in America’s Philanthropy (New Brunswick, N.J., 1965), 36. 319 Hollis, 128-9. 133 examples of the misuse and abuse of foundations and endowments, it seems Gladden’s cautions were validated.

1924-1925

Given an honorary doctorate of Divinity by Princeton University, Thompson who had served 26 years as OSU’s president, had seen it grow “tenfold” in size and “more than tenfold in wealth,” The New York Times reported. “[OSU] has become a beneficent centre of culture and knowledge for the great State which Sustains it.”320

Reiterating his favorite topic, higher salaries for OSU teaching staff, Thompson argued that the older faculty needed just as much increase in salary as the younger faculty. Thompson commented,

“The only cure for such a situation is an increased amount of money available for salaries so as to warrant the deserved and adequate recognition of men now in service…. The writer has repeatedly announced his belief, which is here expressed again, that the salary situation should be such as to provide at least a standard salary for all professors in the earlier period of their service to be continued through the strength of their years in service…. The equities in the situation would suggest that a man should receive his maximum salary while in maximum service. It is doubtful whether men ought to be expected to render their maximum service in their latest years.”321

So while Thompson argued that younger faculty needed higher salaries and that older faculty members needed higher salaries to be recognized for their work, he also asserted that paying the professors the most when they are in the prime is key, although

320 “466 Are Graduated from Princeton,” New York Times (Jun 20, 1928): 20. 321 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1924-1925, in Fifty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1925 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1925]), 9. [Total pp. 5-38] 134 he did not specify that optimal age. Thompson’s policy advocated for more salary in general, but also for more of a redistribution of salary. At this time there were 183

Professors, 153 Assistant Professors, and 217 Instructors, plus teaching assistants.322

While no mention of alumni satisfaction of giving back is mentioned (something that might have supported his case) Thompson did suggest that officials from the state look back on their service rendered to the university as a highlight.323

Addressing the agricultural side of the university’s student composition,

Thompson related the challenges for children of farmers. Thompson’s word choice is interesting in light of endowments:

“The fact remains, however, that the largest single source of supply of students at the Ohio State University continues to be from the families of farmers…. The fact should be noted that the ordinary young man without capital and with a reasonable education finds himself more in demand for other occupations than for agriculture. His lack of capital makes it difficult for him to equip a farm. The uncertainty of tenure presents a problem which this country has not yet met. In England not infrequently a man of considerable wealth will occupy a rented estate for a generation. In many instances the estate is passed on to his sons on much the same terms as to his father. This is due to the fact in English families land is looked upon as a permanent investment and endowment for the family.”

Whether Thompson meant the terms, “permanent investment” and “endowment” to mean very different ideas or synonyms of each other is not clear. On the surface, the terms are nearly synonymous. But the difference between an investment and endowment lies in the fact that “permanent investment” implies the concrete--or the principal of a fund, while the “endowment for the family” portion implies perpetual income, naturally derived from

322 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1924-1925, in Fifty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1925 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1925]), 9. [Total pp. 5-38] 323 Thompson, Annual Report 1924-25, 10. 135

“permanent investment.” The nature of the challenges of the farming situation and the job market changed what students wanted from their education.

In the following, Thompson’s own use of the word, “supplement,” connoted small in size. “The budget has now reached its maximum unless supplemented purely by state funds. The Smith-Lever Act provides for no further increase of federal funds. The off- setting funds, provided by the State, have been supplemented by some small increases in the annual appropriations made by the legislature…. The Farm Bureau and other farmers organizations have come forward in many instances with supplementary funds. This fact shows the satisfactory character of the service and furnishes the basis for experiments.”324

Asking for more money for OSU’s Bureau of Educational Research, Thompson wrote it was “highly commended by people engaged in the field of public education everywhere. It enjoys the confidence of the administration and should have more ample funds at its disposal.”325 Thompson’s request for money, however, usually stemmed from his belief that the state should pay for university needs with occasional additions from private donors. “The record of the Legislature for a long series of years has been one of increasing appreciation of the place and importance of the University in the State activities. A substantial proof of this statement lies in the fact that there has been a steady increase in the sum total of the appropriation.” Thompson applauded the efforts of the state to grow the university’s physical plant, but said not all of its needs had been met.

324 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1924-1925, in Fifty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1925 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1925]), 26. 325 Thompson, Annual Report 1924-25, 29. 136

“The most difficult portion of a budget to secure is the item of salaries. A large Faculty even at very modest salaries requires a considerable sum of money.”

Furthermore, the cost of living, the need for competent professors, and the fact that for the next biennium, the state legislature should have provided for at least an additional 500,000 dollars, had created concern.

“No phase of the University administration gives a President more heartaches than the making of a budget and its inevitable amendments as the year advances…. The development of a more just appreciation of the salary budget as compared with other needs of the University will inevitably be one of the problems before the next Legislature. These comments are made not for the purpose of criticism but for the purpose of making clear as possible the outstanding facts in the distribution of a budget by the Legislature. The fact that all appropriations must be made in advance of their application and needs must be anticipated for the entire biennium makes every judgment more or less unreliable and suggests the necessity of having at the command of the State under proper restrictions a fund that can be used for the purposes of ordinary operation. The theory of restricting the activities of the State to fixed appropriations may be carried too far for real efficiency. It sometimes prevents the highest utilization of existing resources. The last dollar often makes previously assigned money tremendously effective.”326

Anticipating the salary and other needs of the university presented a continual challenge for Ohio State and its president.

Discussing the “chief obstruction to education,” Thompson claimed that it was not the distinctions of whether a student’s grade was classified as either “inferior or superior” that was that major problem. “[B]ut rather in the handicaps due to the free use of money and the superficial standards of life arising out of social ambitions and oftentimes the failure among the children of well-to-do parents to realize that there is no royal road to

326 Thompson, Annual Report 1924-25, 30-31. 137 learning and that a university is built upon performance and efficiency in service.”327

Thus, according to Thompson, it was financial management, work, and social responsibility that would see education unobstructed.

Forcefully shunning the “provincialism” of those who think Ohio State University should only educate Ohioans, Thompson argued that Ohioans go out of state to be educated as others came to the state of Ohio. “It is a mistaken policy to measure the future of the University by any local or temporary conditions, or by the less important factor of money as reflected in the cost of education. It is interestingly significant that for a series of years on the campus of the Ohio State University all phases of religion, politics, business and industries, have been represented in the experience of students.”328

And for those who look on contemporary students as ill-equipped, Thompson had a few words:

“The opinion arising out of experience is here expressed that the modern student will justify himself; that he is the basis for an enthusiastic faith in the future. No other prospect is so bright. Industry, the social order, the great philanthropies, the world-wide movements in religion, and to an encouraging degree our political activities, all show the beneficent influences of the college-bred man and woman. The experiences and observations of the last 10 years bring emphasis upon this assertion. The average student may be, and doubtless often is, a conundrum to the professor…. It should always be kept in mind that a generation of youth is vastly better than its follies or vices may suggest.”329

It seemed that Thompson’s views had changed to an aggressive stance. What caused Thompson to change his outlook? It appeared the economic depression of 1921-

1922, caused by over-speculation in the post war economy, may have influenced

327 Thompson, Annual Report 1924-25, 31-32. 328 Thompson, Annual Report 1924-25, 32. 329 Thompson, Annual Report 1924-25, 34. 138

Thompson’s economic strategy.330 Also, he had seen the success of the OSU stadium campaign as well as profusions of national fundraising campaigns carried out by other universities.

Looking at the previous ten years, Thompson may have particularly referred to the valiant effort by students who participated in the First World War, and in their involvement in “the great philanthropies,” whether assisting in solicitation or benefiting as a recipient of philanthropy.

“There is no other organization that can quite take the place of an Alumni

Association,” Thompson quoted himself in his report. He laid out the other arguments he had made for the importance of alumni involvement and enthusiasm, printed in the

November 1925 Monthly previously mentioned, and continued,

“A thousand alumni united on important University ideals would be underestimated at a million dollars a year. Universities grow through the creative power of imagination and the persistent influence of University sentiment and tradition. These find expression chiefly in the alumni. The Association finds its great task in carrying out such projects as will bring to the young alumnus and alumni a permanent bond of interest and affection for Alma Mater. The problem in the future will not be one of bigness but rather one of idealism and a program of practical service which shall emphasize to the commonwealth the quality of service the University continues to render to society. Modesty should not prevent the citizenship of Ohio from knowing the important place already occupied in the support and maintenance of the State by educated men and women. The President desires to express his great happiness in the Alumni Association for 25 years past and to record his appreciation of the support they have always been ready to give. The future of the University is largely in the hands of the alumni. The hope is expressed that they will be able to supplement the provision made by the State with such gifts and endowments as their circumstances permit.”331

330 Business Booms and Depressions Since 1775 [Chart], accessed from U.S. Federal Reserve Archive, http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publication/?pid=145

331 William Oxley Thompson, President’s Report 1924-1925, in Fifty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 139

It is noteworthy how Thompson referred to the Ohio State University Association as the

Alumni Association in his annual reports. It seemed that by using the non-official name of the alumni organization, he recognized the name’s purposefully ambiguous nature (its goal was to include alumni and non-graduating former students) and generalized it on the basis that it might be understood for a general non-Ohio State audience. He also made the significant claim that “The future of the University is largely in the hands of the alumni.”

And this claim was made to the state via an annual report. It seems that toward the end of his presidency, Thompson saw the trend of private fundraising among public universities and the importance of the alumni in this endeavor, but it also seems Thompson possibly saw this alumni involvement and private fundraising as something for the future, not for his administration.

Wrapping up his final annual report of his presidency, Thompson explicitly, but still not aggressively asked alumni for “gifts and endowments as their circumstances permit.” He indirectly asked that alumni would be able to “supplement the provision made by the state.”

William Oxley Thompson, affectionately known as “Prexy,” retired on his seventieth birthday on November 5, 1925, after serving thirty eight years as a university president, and twenty six of those with OSU. Alumni and friends from around the nation

1925 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1925]), 36. The report is extremely similar to Thompson’s words to the alumni in the November 1925 Monthly (see previous footnote 140 joined Thompson for a town and gown celebration.332 In Thompson’s final contribution as president to the OSU Monthly, he explained:

“There is no other organization that can quite take the place of an Alumni Association. The importance of their concerted plans and services cannot easily be overstated. The task lies in securing in the consciousness of more than 17,000 living alumni that they are living part of a growing university to which they may make some contribution of thought or idealism. The tendency is to think in terms of money and materials. These have their place in a high degree of importance. The chief concern, however, is to carry in the minds of the alumni a true conception of what a university really is and to arouse in these alumni from year to year an appropriate enthusiasm for such ideals.”333

So ideals for the university, Thompson asserted, should come before asking for money.

Thompson’s presidency was characterized by a lack of aggressive private fundraising. His main concerns seemed to be improving salaries for teachers, providing for the library, the situation with the medical schools, and other pressing financial concerns including those related to supporting war efforts and post-war rebuilding.

Important debates about the nature of public and private universities continued on during this era as well, and Thompson, for most of his presidency, took the view that the state should provide for all the necessities of the university. During this era of Thompson’s presidency, OSU experienced a diversion away from academic fundraising and toward the stadium campaign. The rivalry with the University of Michigan helped bring in pledge money for the stadium campaign, which was the first major fundraising campaign in OSU history.

332 “Quits as Ohio State Head,” New York Times (6 November 1925): 3. 333 William Oxley Thompson, “To the Men and Women of Ohio State--A Message and a Challenge: Here’s ‘Prexy’s’ Parting Word to Alumni,” The Ohio State University Monthly, November 1925, 3-f Alumni College Conference Report 1925. 141

Nearing the end of his presidency, Thompson clearly advocated for private fundraising from alumni to build university endowment funds, though he pivoted his comments in such a way that he showed this only as a hope for the future. Having seen the university through the financial difficulties of the First World War, during the stages of support and rebuilding, he came to appreciate the idea that the state would not be able pick up the entire bill for the university, then or in the future. Thompson had asked for the state to provide for faculty salaries as well as other university needs, but clearly relying on the state had not been enough. Alumni were asked to sacrifice, to “set aside a portion of their accumulated estates to the further endowment and support of the

University.”334

Finally looking to the examples of Harvard and other universities, including

Michigan, he saw the financial future of the university as relying on private gifts. Perhaps inspired by the success of the stadium drive, Thompson’s conceptualization of a research endowment fund did not materialize under his administration. It seemed his calls for private funding were not echoed, nor quickly acted upon by the OSU Board of Trustees, subsequent alumni, administrators, and not even initially by his successor, President

George W. Rightmire. It is ironic that Thompson finally accepted the vital role private fundraising plays in the success of a university just before he handed over the presidency to George W. Rightmire. Rightmire, rather than learning from his predecessor’s mistakes, followed the same path of naively depending on the state and avoiding private fundraising until the end of his own presidency. The OSU Board of Trustees had

334 Thompson, Annual Report 1923-24, 26. 142 obviously not recognized or enforced the role of fundraiser in the next university president.

143

Chapter Three: Dawn of the Rightmire Years, 1925-1929

George W. Rightmire (born 1868, died 1952; Acting Pres. 1925-1926; Pres. 1926-

1938) was an Ohio native, born in Center Furnace, Ohio. Rightmire’s father died when

George was 8 years old, “leaving his mother to care for a family of five.” After a year of college (in 1891), Rightmire dropped out to teach in order to earn enough money to go back. He taught school for a year and then re-enrolled. In 1895 he was president of the

OSU Political Science Association.335

Later, at the time of Rightmire’s death, The New York Times inaccurately printed that he had “received a Ph.D. from Ohio State in 1895,” when in fact he received his

Bachelor of Philosophy (English Course) degree in 1895.336 In 1898 he received an M.A. at OSU, then studied law and won admission to the bar in 1902. In 1902 he became an assistant professor of American history and an Instructor in law at OSU.337 He practiced law from 1904 to 1909 specializing in patents, served as acting dean of the law school from 1908-1909, and served as president of the City Council of Columbus from 1906-

10.338

335 The Ohio State University, Makio for the year 1895, pp. 88-89. 336 OSU Annual Report for the year 1895, p. 18. “George W. Rightmire, “Ohio State Educator,” New York Times (Dec 24, 1952): 17. 337 In the 1902 OSU Annual Report, he is titled, “Mr. Rightmire,” not Dr. Rightmire as he would later be called. 338 “The President--A Decade of Service,” The Ohio State Lantern (5 November 1935): Front 144

On November 6th, 1925 George W. Rightmire started his service as Acting Ohio

State University President, to fill in until a search could be carried out for a new university president. Rightmire came to the position experienced both as a professor and as a dean.339 Ultimately, Rightmire was chosen as the next OSU president.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer described Rightmire. He “towers to a height of more than six feet. His features are thin, his figure lanky.... Simplicity marks the manner of this man. He is at once modest and firm.... He is a man who probably wouldn't venture an opinion unless called upon to do so. When he speaks, his words are worth listening to.

There is a ready smile always waiting to play over his features. His laugh is of a nervous, almost embarrassed sort, as ready as his smile.”340

Rightmire had never worked at a top research university and had little experience with fundraising. President Rightmire’s early correspondence and reports reflect his attitudes about private fundraising and his role in the university’s finances, as well as the progress (or lack thereof) in soliciting gifts for the university. In the following, these sources are organized first chronologically by year, and then separated out into correspondence and official annual reports.

A number of pieces to the puzzle emerge from these sources. First, it is very apparent that President Rightmire had little interest in becoming personally involved in soliciting gifts for the university. He saw himself as an educational leader, and his page. “Rightmire Heads Ohio State” New York Times (2 March 1926): 27. By 1952, Rightmire’s son Brandon G. had become an associate Professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 339 According to the New York Times, Rightmire “received a Ph.D. from Ohio State in 1895.” “George W. Rightmire, “Ohio State Educator,” New York Times (Dec 24, 1952): 17. 340 “Rugged and Firm, but Retiring, is New O.S.U Head,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (16 March 1926): Front page. 145 priority was to improve education at his school. Second, as did Thompson in his early years, Rightmire trusted the state to provide for all the needs of the university, and this despite the rising numbers of students enrolled without proportional rises in the state appropriation. When the university accepted money from private sources, Rightmire was careful to ensure and show that the university was acting as a steward of the gift rather than the beneficiary. It is evident that Rightmire, along with other university leaders, feared private giving would result in decreased state appropriations.

A third key issue during Rightmire’s early years was his inattention to, or delay in acting upon, the persistent advice of the Ohio State University Association president and secretary regarding the active pursuit of private fundraising and the initiation of a development fund. The OSU Association president, James F. Lincoln, and alumni secretary, James L. Morrill, followed by his successor as secretary, John B. Fullen

(“Jack”), all repeatedly encouraged Rightmire to engage in private fundraising and especially to make use of the alumni. Rightmire saw the alumni as a tool to pressuring the state to give better appropriations to the university, but the OSU Association leadership saw them as potential donors and active participants in private fundraising. Despite their urgent advice, Rightmire delayed in making a list of university needs that could be met by private means, and in becoming involved with potential donors. Instead, he shunted important decisions to slow moving committees.

Fourth, the sources show that Rightmire was aware of the examples of other universities, such as the University of Michigan, which led successful private fundraising campaigns. Rightmire was not quick to follow their example. Thanks to the active

146 involvement of the OSU Association leaders, over three years into his presidency, some progress was finally realized in the creation of an endowment fund for research.

Rightmire came to the presidency when public university administrators were attempting to convince their respective legislatures to increase funding. In the state of

Indiana, Indiana University and Purdue University, two state supported institutions, asked for funding to compete with “sister institutions in neighboring states.” Indiana

University’s Board of Trustees made its case before the state, justifying it in this matter:

“[I]t is deemed wise to go before the people of the State of Indiana to acquaint them through personal contact, and publicity, with the requirements and financial needs of both institutions, because it is believed that if the taxpayer is made to know and understand the financial needs, he will authorize the legislature to grant them.”341 This also seemed to be the strategy at Ohio State—possibly seeing Indiana as an example.

Members of the Ohio State University compared their university with the

University of Michigan. Instead of concernedly focusing on the state legislature, the

University of Michigan tended to focus their efforts on alumni to provide what the state did not. In 1925 OSU alumni secretary James Lewis Morrill put it this way:

“American alumni, since the war, have raised more than $200,000,000 for their colleges and universities. President M. L. Burton of the University of Michigan has said that the state universities may look reasonably to the various state legislatures to supply the ‘necessities’ of higher education, but that these universities certainly must look to private givers, their own alumni in particular, for the ‘amenities’ of education,--the museums, the funds to encourage liberal research, the finer library endowments, the scholarships, etc. Quite aside from this point of view, the interest and support of Ohio State University alumni is felt,

341 Indiana University Board of Trustees Minutes (21 November 1925): http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/iubot/about.do 147

increasingly, in the attitude of the Ohio Legislature toward the University--and toward the other state-supported schools. The legislature reflects very definitely the feeling of the constituents ‘back home’ in the matter of appropriations and taxes, --and the active interest of the alumni has marked effect in determining the attitude of these constituencies. The action of the legislature last winter in passing University appropriations over the veto of the Governor is a case in point. The University is interested in politics only to the extent that partisan politics shall not determine the action to be taken by the state with reference to needed appropriations for University maintenance and expanded service.”342

Did seeing private funding as a source for “amenities” rather than

“supplementals” suit Michigan as an added benefit? Perhaps Michigan’s emphasis on alumni support was more apparent to its alumni and friends. While Morrill cited the example of Burton at Michigan, he seemed to miss the important point that Ohio State might more directly (and frequently) stress “needs” to the alumni to win their support for the institution. Notwithstanding the lack of support from Ohio’s Governor “Veto Vic”

Donahey, the legislature of the state of Ohio passed appropriations to OSU.343

Despite repeated failed attempts to convince the legislature to provide adequately, it was not until 1938 before the Ohio State University Development Fund was officially created. Whether the delay was due to the Great Depression or a lack of impetus within the university will be explored in this chapter. But as Ohio State dawdled with the idea, universities around the country were putting endowment plans into action, despite the troubled economic times. Even in pre-depression years in the mid- to late- 1920s,

Rightmire seemed lackluster when it came to fundraising. Though he acknowledged gifts

342 Emphasis in original. J. L. Morrill to Ohio State Day Speakers, 25 November 1925, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Club Matters, 1928-29, box 2, folder 54. 343Governor Donahey declined to support legislation that would raise taxes, J. A. Meckstroth, http://ww2.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/ohgovernment/governors/donahey.html; George W. Knepper, Ohio and Its People: Bicentennial, p. 343. 148 received, Rightmire delayed fundraising work by shifting the assignment to slower working committees.

1926

The university’s focus, as will be shown in what follows, appeared to be more on arming alumni and former students with facts, so that they could argue the university’s cause before the legislature, rather than on asking them for funds or to assist in fundraising or other endowment building efforts. If this group could but convince the legislature, then their needs would be met. “The argument intended to be most effective before the Board of Trustees is that the more alumni and ex-students who can be brought into a knowledge of the University’s needs before the legislature, and if possible into some active co-operation with the University authorities in advocating the University’s needs before the legislature, the University’s financial requirements will be much more adequately attained.”344

In February 1926, President George W. Rightmire informed James Lew Morrill that there were no additional funds to expand the alumni association (The Ohio State

University Association).345 The tight budget was always a concern, especially considering the expanding student body, some of whom the state mandated should be allowed

344 “Matters Brought to the Attention of the Board of Trustees…,” 8 February 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 345 Rightmire to Morrill, 9 February 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 149 entrance.346 But The Ohio State University Association was regularly afforded monetary help from the university that kept it solvent.

Morrill contended that it was not the OSU Association’s job to keep track of records, but to make use of them. He felt that records should be kept by the university and therefore asked for more money to do so. Most of the money asked for, $6,210.75, was requested for equipment related expenditures, with $2,040 needed for two full-time clerks for one year.347 Henry D. Taylor who had been in “charge of Stadium ticket sales” took over the “keeping of alumni records.” The amount of $1,500 was paid from the university toward his salary. “Michigan, Columbia, Yale, Harvard and other large universities have recognized this principle and have insisted upon University responsibility in the keeping of alumni records,” claimed Morrill.

The university’s focus, as will be shown in what follows, appeared to be more on arming alumni and former students with facts, so that they could argue the university’s cause before the legislature, rather than on asking them for funds or to assist in fundraising or other endowment building efforts. If this group could but convince the legislature, then their needs would be met. “The argument intended to be most effective before the Board of Trustees is that the more alumni and ex-students who can be brought into a knowledge of the University’s needs before the legislature, and if possible into

346 Noting a particular challenge for OSU admissions, a memo read, “The state law hitherto has provided that all graduates of accredited ‘first-class’ high schools in Ohio should be admitted to the University, automatically.” “Ohio State Day” Memo, 28 November 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 347 Morrill to Rightmire, 1 February 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. In a later letter June 8, 1927, Rightmire suggested Prof. St. John, Director of Physical Education would be able to assist with some equipment to help the records work continue. Henry D. Taylor, Alumni Recorder expressed alumni office needs, including: mimeographs, multigraph, a folding machine, stencil-cutting machine, and filing cabinets. 150 some active co-operation with the University authorities in advocating the University’s needs before the legislature, the University’s financial requirements will be much more adequately attained.”348

On March 2, 1926, the Board of Trustees concluded their search for the next president of the university. Acting OSU President George Washington Rightmire, who had served for nearly four months, since November 5th of the previous year, officially assumed the full role as president, becoming Ohio State’s sixth university president.

During the summer of 1926, Rightmire and his family moved into a new $72,000 Tudor style home built on-campus for the university president.349

By March of 1926, in preparation for the university budget, James Lewis Morrill wrote, “[M]ay I remind you that the Association in recent years has received very material assistance from the University to the extent of an annual appropriation of $8500, from interest on endowment I believe, which has been payable in ten monthly installments each year, amounting to $850 each.” [The subsidy makes up 1/3 of Alumni

Association’s budget….] “The balance of which is derived from alumni dues and from whatever other money making enterprise we are ingenious enough to devise.”350

In a measure of good relations, Rightmire wrote President Clarence Little of

Michigan, noting that President Little would be attending the “Thirteenth Annual

Conference of the Association of Alumni Secretaries and of the Alumni Magazines

348 “Matters Brought to the Attention of the Board of Trustees…,” 8 February 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 349 “Rightmire Heads Ohio State,” New York Times (2 March 1926): 27. In conjunction with his appointment as president, Rightmire also resigned from Board of Directors of The OSU Association. 350 Morrill to Rightmire, 11 March 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 151

Associated” in Columbus. President Rightmire invited President Little: “It will give me great pleasure if at that time you will come into the office of the President here and permit me to place myself and any attention the University can show at your command. I shall be very happy to see you.”351 It appeared Rightmire was just as interested as

Thompson in keeping friendly relations with the president of the University of Michigan, regardless of other rivalries between the two schools.

By May John P. DeCamp of the Alumnal Association of the University of

Cincinnati (UC), replied to Morrill’s inquiry about UC’s “endowment plan inaugurated by the 1926 class.” DeCamp described the plan with the goal of having members that provided $5 a year for at least twenty years. In case of early death, the full-amount would be covered, anyway. DeCamp commented: “The scheme is certainly commendable. I don’t believe the members of the class realize the amount of work that will be required to induce subscribers to keep up their pledges; perhaps, it is just as well that they do not, at present. It seems to me that the success of the endowment depends largely on how well these yearly payments are made…. Should the entire class of 500 or more subscribe, the

University would receive $50,000 in 1946.”352 Already 150 members had subscribed.

By July of 1926, OSU was seriously looking at Michigan’s successful alumni activities. Responding to the “flippancies,” the “diatribe,” and the “smart superficiality” of Professor Percy Marks’s (having served as an instructor at MIT, Dartmouth College, and Brown University between 1914 and 1924) Harper’s essay, “The Pestiferous

351 Rightmire to Clarence Cook Little, 12 March 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 352 John P. DeCamp to Morrill, 20 May 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 152

Alumni,” the editors of the OSU Monthly cited instead the example of a more solid work by Wilfred B. Shaw, University of Michigan’s alumni secretary, published in Scribner’s,

“A New Power in University Affairs.”353 The Monthly’s editors claimed, “One comes nearer” to understanding the college and role of alumni in June (rather than November),

“when the alumni come back for their annual business meeting, when the year of day in day out organized alumni work is reported, discussed and planned anew.” Not only did the Monthly highlight the work of alumni, not just at football time, but throughout the year. And the OSU alumni leadership identified Michigan’s exemplar status when it came to alumni affairs.354

Discussing recent generosity of alumni, the July OSU Monthly reported, “This is the kind of thing that has been going on for 50 years at the University of Michigan one- third of whose total physical property is the gift of alumni and friends.”355 The OSU

Monthly quoted President Little of the University of Michigan, “Why do our American

Universities wait a few years and then try to build up a secondary relationship with the alumni? This is a weakness of our present-day alumni organization. This relationship should begin while the future alumnus is an undergraduate.” But the OSU Monthly continued, “graduates are going out in numbers too large for real assimilation. More than

50,000 degrees have been conferred by the University of Michigan and only 12,000 alumni are subscribers to the Michigan Alumnus. More than 18,000 men and women have gone out from Ohio State as graduates and of these just 6,500 are members of the alumni

353 Percy Marks, “The Pestiferous Alumni,” Harper's Monthly Magazine, 153 (June/Nov. 1926): 144 ; Wilfred Shaw [General Secretary the Alumni Association of the University of Michigan], “A New Power in University Affairs,” Scribner’s (June 1922): 677-684. 354 Editorial Comment, The Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 17 no. 10 (July 1926): 399-400. 355 Editorial Comment, The Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 17 no. 10 (July 1926): 400. 153 association.” The statement had many implications. First, U-M had more alumni subscribers than OSU, but proportionate to the number of degrees conferred Michigan had not faired as well as OSU (24 percent compared to OSU’s 36 percent). Retaining alumni allegiance by having a lower proportion of Michigan graduates who subscribed to the alumni magazine did not translate to numbers of actual alumni subscribers, however.356

Alumni leadership was supported annually at $8,500 plus was given office space.

The OSU Monthly published ten times a year (not specifically supported by OSU) with

6,500 subscribers, approximately 33% of all alumni. Member dues were $3 annually, and only members received the OSU Monthly.357

Not everyone thought alumni involvement a positive force in higher education.

Turning back to Percy Marks’s essay, “The Pestiferous Alumni,” Marks’ stinging comments seemed to address, in part at least, some of OSU’s goals and challenges.

“[Alumni] hold the purse strings, they elect many of the trustees, and their strength when they are aroused to union is invincible. And they are the bane of the American college. In discussing the alumni, I do not feel any need for caution; it is impossible to overstate their follies; it is impossible to be unfair to them considered in the mass. They are the visible and, worse yet, audible evidence of the results of American education, and what a sorry sight they are! Fortunately it is possible to get money out of them by sentimental appeals to their love for Alma Mater, especially if Alma Mater happens to need something athletic, a stadium, say, or a football coach. It is not so easy to get money from them to pay an adequate faculty or to build a library…. If the president is really clever, he won’t make his appeal until the football team has just finished an unusually successful

356 Editorial Comment, The Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 17 no. 10 (July 1926): 400. There were 52,000 U-M ALUMNI in 1921 U-M President’s Report, p. 122. 357 F. D. Farrell [President of Kansas State Agricultural College] to Rightmire, 9 July 1926 and reply from G. W. Eckelberry to Farrell, 12 July 1926, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 154

season. The alumni will be full of love for their college then. They will know that it is a great college and actually be eager to make it even better.”358

Much of Marks’ “diatribe” contained at least some grains of truth. At some points, “love for Alma Mater,” did seem to run falsely “sentimental,” for the purpose of exacting money from alumni for the library.

Later in the year, in an announcement to alumni sent by Roy D. McClure,

President of the Ohio State University Association (OSU’s alumni association), McClure made it clear that participants would not have to worry that they would be solicited for funds: “No campaign for gifts or pledges from alumni will be proposed or planned at this conference, and no alumni representative in attendance will be asked for money.”359

Apparently, the fundraising leaders determined that a special note was warranted to allay any potential concerns, even if the university had actually been successful in its OSU stadium campaign in the early 1920s. It seemed to be a missed opportunity for raising institutional funds for endowment.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1926

President Rightmire’s first annual President’s Report to the Governor of Ohio was acknowledged with gratitude by Ohio Governor A. Victor Donahey. 360 The Governor wrote a note: “Thanking you for this comprehensive volume which I shall peruse with

358 Percy Marks, “The Pestiferous Alumni,” Harper's Monthly Magazine, 153 (June/Nov. 1926): 144. 359 “The Second Biennial, All-Ohio Alumni Conference,” 23 October 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 360 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1925-1926, in Fifty-Sixth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1926 ([Columbus, Ohio]: [Ohio State Reformatory, 1926]), 5-15. 155 interest and assuring you of my continued co-operation, I am.”361 This apparently sympathetic note from “Veto Vic,” was likely appreciated given the fact that the

Governor had vetoed at least one bill that included money earmarked for Ohio State.

Fortunately for the university, the appropriations were passed anyway by the state legislature.

For much of his report, Rightmire, who was formally appointed President in

March,362 commented on the success of his predecessor, Emeritus President, William

Oxley Thompson, and compared the growth of students from 1899, when OSU had merely 1,250 students, to 1926 when it had 11,525 students.363 Rightmire included many excerpts from Thompson’s previous President’s annual report, highlighting Thompson’s views on liberal education and concern for students. Rightmire referred to a review of the

University by Professor B. R. Buckingham, Director of the Bureau of Educational

Research, related to “the institution for additions, subtractions, changes, requests for funds, and what not in reference to the University undertaking.”364 But unlike in

Thompson’s recent reports, Rightmire did not discuss the alumni and did not include direct references for gifts for endowment. It seemed the OSU Board of Trustees had not emphasized the importance for private fundraising, something that Thompson had advocated for at the end of his presidency.

361 Gov. A. Victor Donahey (1923-1929) to Rightmire, 17 May 1926, 3/f Annual Report: President’s Section: 1935. 362 Rightmire, Annual Report 1925-26, 8. 363 Rightmire, Annual Report 1925-26, 9. 364 Rightmire, Annual Report 1925-26, 7. 156

1927

In late-March of 1927, responding to a suggestion from Professor Albert Chandler

(an OSU faculty member) Rightmire questioned whether the university should consider a plan to advertise “trust funds, donations and gifts to the University.” Rightmire wrote

Morrill:

“Professor Albert R. Chandler, of the Department of Philosophy, has sent a communication which I have transmitted to Mr. Steeb, in which he suggests that wider publicity by way of booklet be given to trust funds, donations and gifts to the University; it might encourage others to and do likewise. The letter, I have forwarded to Mr. Steeb for his convenient comment, and your comment on such a plan would be of great interest. It is possible that this suggestion is worthy of serious thought now when, from time to time, a view is expressed that the alumni might be in a more generous frame of mind toward the University.”365

It is not clear why Rightmire viewed alumni as fluctuating in their levels of generosity. Morrill responded to Rightmire:

“This is in reply to your memorandum of March 25th in re[garding] publicity of Trust Funds and Gifts. Mr. Steeb showed me the letter from Professor Chandler and my own feeling about the matter is as follows: I believe that Ohio State might very well and profitably follow the precedent of President Hughes at Miami who at least annually makes printed announcement of certain needs of Miami University which might best be met by the private benefaction of alumni or other friends. President Hughes keeps hammering at this thing with the thought that ultimately it will have its effect on alumni and others and that when the urge of generosity does arise anywhere it can be made instantly effective through the knowledge that there are certain projects definitely awaiting action. This presupposes, of course, careful consideration in advance by the President, the Trustees and the faculty as to exactly what are the primary needs which private benefactors might meet. So far as I know no such program or schedule has ever been mapped out at Ohio State. I feel personally that it is greatly needed and that

365 Rightmire to Morrill, 25 March 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 157

it would positively stimulate benefaction. Such gifts that we now have are more or less haphazard. If, however, you were about to work out such a schedule of needs I think it might very well be to publish this with a statement about such gifts that the University now has and that this bulletin be given wide distribution to alumni and others.”366

So Miami University was ahead of OSU in soliciting gifts, and Thompson, followed by Rightmire appeared to hold OSU back by not explicitly asking for the needs of the university. Despite Morrill’s encouragement, it would be another ten years before

Rightmire would organize a committee and have the list of needs generated.

In asking for Carl Steeb’s “convenient comment” expressing that from “time to time, a view is expressed that the alumni might be” more generous to OSU, he seemed to put off the idea, put it at a lower priority for a later date. After receiving Morrill’s reply,

Rightmire shelved the idea. He hand wrote on April 7th at the top of the letter from the previous day, “Need for further study.”367 With regard to printing the list of needs, this was practiced on a smaller scale in the annual reports of OSU President Thompson, though particularly late in his career. Earlier on, a contemporary to Thompson, President

Charles W. Eliot at Harvard (pres. 1869-1909), had long made this his established practice in his president’s reports to both show gratitude for gifts received and express the need for additional significant gifts.

With these two letters in mind, one questions why it took more than ten years to map out the needs of the university and establish The Ohio State University Development

Fund? Did this stem from a failure related to over-cautiousness--trying to be fair in

366 Morrill to Rightmire, 6 April 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 367 Morrill to Rightmire, 6 April 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 158

“studying the needs” of the university by getting feedback from all departments and university committees? Or, was it related to the fact that the university apathetically or perhaps fairly expected it to be spearheaded by the alumni base? These questions should be kept in mind when exploring the subsequent narrative.

Questions related to endowment prestige were circulating at OSU among students at this time (1927). In the Ohio State Lantern, one student was quoted asking: “What 10 colleges in the country have the largest endowment? What is the endowment of Ohio

State?” The Lantern replied: “ is by far the largest with more than fifty-nine million dollars. Chicago University, Harvard University, Duke University,

Leland Stanford, Jr. University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University,

University of Rochester, Johns Hopkins University, and Princeton University are among the colleges with the largest endowments. Ohio State has an endowment of

$1,133,721.”368

Though the student newspaper became aware of the importance of endowment,

Rightmire apparently did not. While Rightmire may not have jumped head first into endowment building, he did take follow Thompson’s example by interacting with the state in order to vie for more public money for the school.

Dr. Roy D. McClure, Surgeon in-chief at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit

Michigan and President of the Ohio State University Association, sent newspaper clippings to Rightmire related to the University of Michigan’s budget and state allotted

368 Note the Ohio Lantern put Columbia at the top of the list for size of endowment, but it appears Harvard was ahead by this time. See Chapter 1, table 1. “Student Questions and Answers,” Ohio State Lantern, 19 May 1927, p. 2. 159 appropriation. “The mill tax [for U-M] seems to be the solution of some troubles at least,” McClure wrote. McClure’s interest in Michigan demonstrates there was some value placed by the OSU alumni association on comparisons with Michigan.369 Writing in reply to McClure, Rightmire claimed “I am glad also to have the clipping relating to the fortunes of the University of Michigan in the legislature in its last session. The clipping states that the Governor reduced the Michigan building appropriation

$2,800,000. It would be interesting to know what was left. Our building requests reached over two million and came out a little bit under one million.”370 Rightmire had a copy of an article that discussed Michigan’s appropriation. It turned out the building allowance was for the amount of $2,700,000.

Rightmire’s Retreat from University Finance

In attempting clarify the role of the university Appropriations Committee, Carl

Steeb, OSU Business Manager, suggested rotary funds could be allocated by such a committee.371 By August 1927, in a series of correspondence with Steeb and other university personnel, Rightmire came to the conclusion that he would like to take a lesser role on the Appropriations Committee and other such groups. He explained,

“my reason for omitting my own name from these groups is that I find an insistent and very important call to give much more time and study to the University on its educational side than I have yet been able to give. Unless I can be relieved of the

369 Roy D. McClure to Rightmire, 24 May and 17 June 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 370Rightmire to Roy D. McClure, 28 June 1937, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 371 Carl Steeb to Rightmire, 9 July 1927, 3/f Annual Reports: Correspondence: 1924-1934, 1935, 1937. 160

thought and time required by the Cabinet meetings and the Appropriation work, I shall be entirely unable to give to the educational problem the unintermitting and constructive attention which it clearly requires…. I regret that I am personally so constructed that I am unable to give the unremitting attention which appropriation and cabinet work require and at the same time retain the vigor and aggressiveness which the educational side of the institution also calls for…. These larger matters and the educational questions connected with the constructive ongoing of the University as a scholastic enterprise will take all of the energy and attention which I can muster, and I hope by obtaining some such relief as above scheduled, that I may be able to help in the general movement to make the University a better institution educationally. And to do this will require time and relentless thinking.”372

This indicates a critical point: Rightmire attempted to divest himself from the financial matters of the university by explaining that he would like to spend more of his time making the university better “educationally.” It seemed Rightmire was either or both physically and mentally incapable of the challenge of focusing on the financial and educational sides of the institution at the same time. His plan would be revisited within the next three years, however, when dire economic circumstances forced Rightmire to rethink his priorities. But in August 1927, Rightmire reminded several campus offices, including the Library, Registrar, Dean of Women, Entrance Board, and Physical

Education that campus appropriations are tied to state appropriations. He reminded them,

“It may be unnecessary to add that the legislative appropriation requires the different activities in the University to practice severe economy.”373 Rightmire responded to state cutbacks by cutting university budgets rather than look for new sources of funding.

In an important letter, dated September 12, 1927, Morrill wrote Rightmire on behalf of James F. Lincoln, OSU Association President, asking Rightmire three

372 Rightmire to Library, Registrar, Dean of Women, Entrance Board, and Physical Education (Men and Women) 9 August 1927, 3/f Annual Reports: Correspondence: 1924-1934, 1935, 1937. 373 Rightmire to Library, Registrar, Dean of Women, Entrance Board, and Physical Education (Men and Women) 9 August 1927, 3/f Annual Reports: Correspondence: 1924-1934, 1935, 1937. 161 questions. 1). Can the university come up with a five-year plan (or preferably longer)? 2).

Can alumni help with curriculum in a proposed Junior division? 3). Where can

“organized alumni fit into the University picture in a serious fundamental and useful way?”374

In response to Morrill, Rightmire replied on October 3rd,

“It would be interesting to have the thought of President James F. Lincoln of the Association about methods of bringing properly to the attention of the alumni the great field of usefulness that exists in reference to making endowments or gifts. This is a species of activity and affection on the part of the alumni which, in recent years, has more and more come to feature the relation of these alumni to their respective universities, most of which are on a private endowment. However, there are some notable exceptions, especially the University of Michigan, where W. W. Cook has donated some millions of dollars for a law quadrangle. Possibly other State institutions can show a similar interest on the part of their alumni, or others. Upon Mr. Lincoln’s thinking about possible contributions of alumni, he might also well consider the possibilities of gifts from persons not alumni. In fact, the whole field of possible future endowments by individuals or groups to this institution, should now be well thought over with a view to some kind of action in the near future. I appreciate the delicacy which will appear along the way in thinking of this enterprise, and that is one of the large reasons why it is worth the careful thought of Mr. Lincoln and the Secretary of the Association. If we can soon succeed in the preparation of a letter personal in form which might delicately and appropriately, yet clearly, bring this matter to the attention of the alumni, we shall have made great progress.”375

This significant letter indicates that Rightmire, early on in his presidency, gave some thought to keeping up with Michigan, to the importance of contributions to endowment, and to soliciting gifts from non-alumni. And yet, though he obviously recognized the benefit of these activities, he did practically nothing to further them at OSU.

374 Morrill to Rightmire, 12 September 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 375 Rightmire to Morrill, 3 October 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 162

Perhaps, Rightmire’s reaction to endowment building was influenced by pressure from OSU Professor Albert R. Chandler’s comments (as mentioned previously) and suggestions from recent fund raising firms. Just three days previous to Rightmire’s

October 3rd reply to Morrill, Rightmire had received a letter in his office, addressed to

OSU President Thompson from Arman Merriam of Cleveland of the fundraising firm

Dougherty, Miskell, Merriam & Sutton. Merriam told Rightmire of Donald C.

Dougherty’s “organized and managed” campaigns to help Western Reserve University’s

Medical Center group raise $8,000,000 for five new buildings and the Case School of

Applied Science had a new building and “increased its endowment through a campaign in

1926 which raised $1,660,000. “To you, a college president, the above, we believe, will prove interesting” to know about “these remarkable achievements in institutional money- raising enterprises…. Sometimes, we trust, you will want to discuss the financial needs of your institution in terms of the service we render.”376 No response from Rightmire was found among his papers, but it is assumed that he did not take the firm up on their offer of discussion at this time since no professional fundraisers were employed, even when fundraising campaigns by the OSU Development Fund began about ten years later.

Meanwhile, OSU alumni secretary James Lew Morrill expressed his intention to forward Rightmire’s letter of October 3rd that suggested “that the Alumni Association might somehow function in stimulating gifts from private sources, alumni and others, to

376 Dougherty, Miskell, Merriam & Sutton ‘s emphasized Organization, Management, and Publicity in the Cleveland area. Arman L. Merriam to President Thompson, 30 September 1927, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 163 the University.” Morrill expressed the belief that OSU alumni association president

James F. Lincoln would reply, but in the mean time, Morrill wanted to add,

“one or two thoughts apropos your letter: 1). I quite agree with you that the time is ripe for this kind of thing and that the Alumni Association should be a useful implement not only in spreading the propaganda, but in getting some results. You will note that I have many times broached the idea editorially in the Monthly, and I enclose three editorials on this subject published in the alumni magazine within the past two years. 2). I have the personal and very positive feeling that first essential to any movement of the kind you suggest is the projection by the University of a definite statement about standing needs which would be best met and perhaps only met by private benefaction…. 3). I think that both the University and the Alumni Association, working together on this plan, would have an asset of incalculable importance if Dr. Thompson might be persuaded to give the enterprise his attention and effort in a very definite way.”

Then referring to the American Alumni Council, “consisting of alumni workers from all the leading universities in America…. In this connection,” Morrill continued,

“you are familiar with the fact that alumni giving may be said to take three forms. A). Individual gifts or bequests, usually stimulated by direct contact and solicitation as between the prospective giver and the President’ division of the University, assisted by the alumni officers. It does not need to be said, I think, that this kind of gift, though it may appear to be the spontaneous result of someone’s generous impulse, is in fact usually the result of a very careful and definite cultivation by the University of the prospect. B). Campaigns. Our own Stadium campaign, organized on a big scale to reach as many people as possible with a large definite objective is entirely typical of this kind of giving. My own observation and experience is that this kind of effort is best handled with professional help, such as we had through the John Price Jones Company during our Stadium campaign. C). The Alumni Fund. This is a comparatively new development, generally speaking, though it has been in effect at Yale with conspicuous success for a good many years. Its whole theory is based upon the fact that it is easier for the average alumnus to give a small amount of money to this University each year for unrestricted use, than it is to pry out of him the capital that would produce annually an interest dividend equal to the smaller amount that he can more easily give each year. I enclose to you a study of this

164

kind of alumni giving of the Michigan Alumni Association, and I think you might be very much interested in looking it over.”377

Rightmire replied on October 11th, “Your letter of October 5th sets forth a most interesting outline of views about this [alumni raising money] matter, and attaches a literature which will be of great use in this connection. I shall find a little time soon to think more about this matter. Meanwhile, I also have a letter from Mr. Lincoln, dealing with the subject….”378 Thus Morrill again encouraged Rightmire in private fundraising, but Rightmire again delayed addressing the issue.

In a lengthy three page letter, Lincoln replied to Rightmire’s letter of October 3rd agreeing with the “proper and excellent suggestion of yours.” Referring to himself and

Morrill, Lincoln continued:

“The Alumni Association, insofar as the President and Secretary is concerned, have some two weeks ago, talked of this exact same thing and have at least taken the preliminary steps toward organizing our ideas along that line. In order to really do this job properly it is necessary that the needs of the University to which this fund would be put be rather definitely known because it is a rather difficult thing, I believe, to solicit funds from any one for unknown or indefinitely known objects. I know in the giving I do myself that whenever anybody comes to me with a request for a donation for the Community Fund, for the sake of argument, there is not anything like the same appeal that was made in the case of Sam Higginbottom in India, when he solicited funds for the teaching of agriculture to the Hindus, particularly when he allowed that he was in a position to do this job with the utmost efficiency, and the doing of the job being something which seemed eminently worth while. I think by the same token that it would be rather difficult for us to go to the Alumni of the Ohio State University and ask them for funds for the University. I think the reaction to that would not be anything like as

377 Morrill to Rightmire, 5 October 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. Rightmire replied on 11 October 1927. In this letter, Morrill refered to the Association, as the Alumni Association. 378 Morrill to Rightmire, 5 October 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. Rightmire replied on 11 October 1927. It was in this letter, Morrill refered to the Association, as the Alumni Association. It was not until the third part of the twentieth century that the name would include “alumni.” 165

quick and generous as if we could outline to them definitely where these funds are to be used and the reason for the need and the good which would definitely be accomplished by the giving of the money. I don’t think we need to worry at all about the desire and ability of the Alumni to meet any need properly presented to them. They have demonstrated in the case of the stadium that they can and will give and I believe that an even stronger appeal can be made to them for funds for educational purposes if we can go to them with the proper kind of appeal…. There are one or two possible handicaps to this appeal that I can see now which I am setting down perhaps to some extent to clarify my own ideas: First: If this campaign is successful I think that the Ohio legislature would be apt to take the attitude in periods of stress that the Alumni would support the University anyway and they can pass the buck to the Alumni. How important this might be is questionable in my own mind. Second: The difficulty (if it is a difficulty), is that if we get the Alumni interested in the University sufficiently to raise any large sum of money for the University they may be sure that they are going to take a great deal of interest in the University in other ways. This may or may not be advantageous. Personally it seems to me it is an advantage rather than otherwise, but I think it is safe to say that there will be a good deal more Alumni meddling (if I might call it that), if we stimulate the interest sufficiently so as to get any large sum of money. This meddling I believe, if it is properly led, can be of tremendous advantage rather than otherwise, and I have no doubt it can be properly led…. It is rather difficult however to those on the outside to know just exactly how to proceed until such a time as the needs of the situation have been thoroughly outlined by yourself.”

Lincoln suggested that in his upcoming “conference” or meeting with Rightmire and

Morrill, two topics might be discussed regarding, “What are the approximate needs of the

University insofar as money is concerned, not only from the Alumni but also from the

State over the next five year period or longer?” The second topic, Lincoln wanted to know more about was how, speaking on behalf of many alumni, alumni would be able to offer suggestions to the university on “curricula.” “At the present time I believe that this takes the form of mere disgruntled kicking in some cases. It can be organized into suggestions which I believe would be of enormous benefit to the University, and at least give the University a point of view from experience on the outside which at the worst will not be detrimental.” It is not clear whether Lincoln’s concern that the alumni would be 166 deeply interested in the curricular directions of OSU were taken seriously at this point.

Lincoln, who lived in Cleveland, was open to meeting with Morrill and Rightmire “in

Columbus at practically any time you may suggest.” This shows Lincoln placed this discussion on high priority.379

Lincoln, a realist, anticipated two concerns for fundraising: less money from the

Ohio legislature to OSU and the potential that alumni would expect more decision- making power in OSU administration, concerns that would be discussed in subsequent meetings. Lincoln’s concern that alumni might do some “meddling,” was overshadowed by the concern that the university’s case, in the eyes of the state, would be weakened if it were to receive large amounts of private funding. This point will be shown in later correspondence and meeting minutes.

As for potentially “meddling” alumni, it seemed for Lincoln the university must have been somewhat of a mystery; he did not appear sure just how to get the process of interacting with the alumni in motion, asking Rightmire to take the next step in letting him know how best to proceed. As a donor himself to the Community Fund, Lincoln referred to the problem that having unidentified or ambiguous fundraising aims is not particularly fruitful. Lincoln expressed that fundraising must be carried out with the

“utmost efficiency” and asserted that the stadium campaign served as an important precedent. He was convinced that where there was a clear need, such as in the case of the fundraising campaign for the stadium, alumni have rallied forth and provided necessary

379 Lincoln to Rightmire, 7 October 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. Sam Higginbottom was Pres. of Allahabad Christian College, American Presyterian Mission, an Agricultural institute in Allahabad, India. In later years he continued to appeal for university funds. 167 funds. Lincoln was convinced that fundraising for educational goals would be more fruitful, however.

Lincoln’s views on private giving, on having a list of needs, and on involving the alumni were, in fact, direct and motivating. At the same time, the question should be kept in mind at this point when looking back at the situation, why it took the university and its alumni until May 1938 to formally ratify a list of needs to be taken to alumni and friends of the university? The answers will emerge in what follows.

Ten days later, Rightmire responded to Lincoln, “I am looking very carefully at your letter of October 7th in this general matter, but have been driven so fast that up to the present time I cannot really make a well reasoned response. I am fairly delighted with the proposals you mention and discuss, as they all tend towards a better University and a more interested group of alumni. I shall very soon find the time necessary to think further about this matter and also talk with Mr. Morrill.”380 Having been “driven so fast” into an area that Rightmire did not want to get into appeared to be frustrating. Was Rightmire’s reluctance related to health, a lack of understanding on how to proceed on a complicated matter, or a reflection of his disinterest in financial matters? Rightmire had recently attempted to divest himself from university work related to significant financial matters: the state appropriation committees and other committee work to focus on “educational goals” instead. It seems Rightmire was interested in avoiding this prospect.

Two days later, it appeared Lincoln attempted to move things along more quickly by replying, “Might I urge that this meeting take place long enough before the eighteenth

380 Rightmire to Lincoln, 17 October 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 168 of November when the meeting of the Alumni Board occurs, so that Mr. Morrill and myself can get this in good shape for presentation to them? I can make my time your own and my whole idea in connection with urging action on this is to make sure that no time will be lost in attempting to carry out the views which may be developed in this meeting.”381

Still, with questions raised about how to market to and secure the support of alumni and friends, Rightmire was more concerned with having a clear plan to present to the legislature. He did not directly mention the role that private giving might play. A month later (November 14, 1927), after having his lunch “conference” with James Lewis

Morrill and President Lincoln, Rightmire wrote to Carl Steeb:

“President Lincoln is very much interested in attempting to direct the energies of the Association along a line or very few lines which will inure to the great benefit of the University and also of the Association…. The chief thought of the conference was that there might well be worked out a budget which would set forth the interests of the University for a term of years, and if possible cover a program for legislative consideration through five or ten years of time. In our discussion matters of policy in dealing with the Legislature came to the front, of course, and your long dealing with the legislative committees will suggest to you such matters as occurred to us and possibly a number of others. But the principal thought we had was whether now we should not concentrate on a program which will cover a period of time longer than the biennium and set up that program upon careful consideration of the possible further growth, the present and the possible future needs of the University, and when we have arrived at such a program to our reasonable satisfaction, go about organizing over the State in such a way as to bring this to the attention of important people and elicit their interest and support in the matter. Mr. Lincoln seemed to think that this kind of activity for the University Association would be most appealing and would in the end probably bring greatest results to the University ….”382

381 J. F. Lincoln to Rightmire, 19 October 1927, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 382 Rightmire to Carl E. Steeb [OSU Business Manager], 14 November 1927, 3/f Alumni:The Ohio State University Association and Club Matters, 1928-29, box 2, folder 54. 169

Rightmire’s plan to use alumni to pressure legislature to appropriate more for the university was similar to strategies that work with public pressure to pass a local tax levy for a school or to persuade a school board on a particular issue. This fixation on “public school” funding helps explain his avoidance of private gifts. Rightmire felt public schools should not have to rely on private gifts, and if they did accept private gifts, how could tax payers be expected to pass a tax levy to raise their taxes? In this passage, it is clear that

Rightmire’s intentions were not to directly solicit private donors, but rather to come up with a list of needs, present them to the legislature, and get the backing from prominent people in Ohio. This opinion was further explicated in a memo, likely written by

Rightmire, “And in making these appeals to the Legislature the University is in fact making them to all the people of Ohio, and with a degree of intimacy and sentiment it appeals to the alumni, strong in the feeling that those who have spent their student days here and who have here received the training which in a large way has helped them to their present stations in life, will find it their keen pleasure and will make it their welcome duty to secure all these advantages for the present and future generations of boys and girls in Ohio.”383

383 [Rightmire]. [December 1927], 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 170

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1927

In the early years of Rightmire’s presidency, his annual reports indicated that

Rightmire had retreated from finances into educational development.384 Though

Rightmire included more excerpts and briefer snapshots, covering the university more broadly than his predecessor, OSU President William Oxley Thompson, there were no gifts mentioned in Rightmire’s report for the year 1926-1927, and in fact, no reference to alumni--something that Thompson diligently attended to in his later reports. Nor, unlike

Thompson, was there expressed a need for increased salaries for the OSU teaching staff.

Instead Rightmire’s reports focused on administrative matters, such necrological and faculty lists and their leaves of absence. Also, the details (including scholarly accomplishments) of those prominent individuals of the university were recounted in selections throughout the report.

1928

Ideas for an alumni endowment fund had been brewing since the previous decade, but advocates could not get Rightmire to get a ten-year plan budget or identify needs for alumni fundraising. James F. Lincoln, who along with being president of the OSU association, was also an alumnus and Cleveland businessman, wrote President Rightmire indicating his conviction of the significance of a committee that would address the

384 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1926-1927, in Fifty-Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1927 (Columbus, Ohio, 1927), 5-20. There were 400 copies of this annual Report printed. Rightmire, Annual Report 1926-27, 9. 171 financial needs of the university. In response to a letter sent by Rightmire on January 7,

1928 concerning the next year’s budget, Lincoln responded with an urgent letter excerpted below:

“I trust we are not working at cross purposes because in my meeting with you a program over a ten year period was what was talked about and what I believe should be considered. I doubt very much if the alumni could or should be of much benefit to the University if they are going to be merely called in to assist in lending their influence to having the legislature dole out each biennium a certain amount of money. I do however believe that if a real program is laid out over say the next ten years, that it is possible to do something which is very much worth while in getting this program, first of all, understood by the alumni, and secondly, to be supported by the legislature with a gentleman’s agreement that the amount of funds required be forthcoming. I think anything less than this program is a mistake and that also was the impression I gathered from our conference regarding this matter some couple of months ago….Again let me suggest that I doubt very much if there is any too much time now to carry this thing through insofar as the preliminary work of developing the alumni organization, before this work will have to be done actively with the legislature and it would therefore seem to me that delay other than that necessary for the development of all facts required, is dangerous.”385

Lincoln therefore called for immediate long-term (ten-year plan) action, drawing on the alumni not just for their lobbying power, but for their capacity to donate. Elsewhere in this significant letter, Lincoln advocated for a newly formed committee, which Lincoln would go on to chair, to urge the legislature for funds for the purpose of supporting the costs of fundraising. Rightmire indicated more reluctance when it came to planning for fundraising matters when compared to Lincoln.

By February of 1928, Morrill reported to Rightmire that the Alumni Committee of

Five were ready to work with Rightmire in coming up with a ten-year legislative plan for

385 James F. Lincoln to George W. Rightmire, 12 January 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 172

OSU. In other words, rather than focus on the next biennium, the idea was to formulate a longer-term plan with the legislature to bring about more consistency in receiving state funding. Morrill recommended that Rightmire initiate the process, since he was familiar with how things operate in the university setting. Attempting to move things along quickly, Morrill expressed:

“Mr. Lincoln is pressing me considerably for a meeting of the Alumni Committee of Five whom was appointed in line with the action of our Board of Directors to cooperate with you in putting across a ten-year legislative program for the University. It seems to me imperative that the initiative must rest, properly, with the University inasmuch as we alumni cannot very well formulate the program, but must consider with the University the technique of putting it across. All members of the committee--namely, Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Hoover, Mr. Turner, Mr. Summer and Mr. Wertz--have accepted appointment and await some word from us…[O]ur committee is eager to discover what it can do and to get at the preliminary phases of its work whenever you are in a position to consult and advise with us.”386

After receiving a reply from Rightmire, Morrill responded, “I am forwarding your letter to Mr. Lincoln, and am advising him to let the matter rest from our standpoint until you are ready to set the machinery in motion. Meantime, unless you think it unwise, I might stir up some alumni interest in the whole project by releasing to the newspapers the story of the appointment of the committee.” Then in the margin of Morrill’s letter, a handwritten note explained, “I should be careful, of course, to handle the announcement discretely--no mention, obviously, of legislative relationships etc.”387 While Morrill agreed to place the budding development project on hold, he suggested that he might at

386 J. L. Morrill to Rightmire, 7 February 1928, 3/f Alumni:The Ohio State University Association and Club Matters, 1928-29, box 2, folder 54. 387 J.L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 10 February 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” box 2, folder 54. 173 least, “stir up some alumni interest.” Morrill’s note in the margin indicates his reservation not to offend the state. Morrill seemed to agree with Lincoln, but saw the necessity of planning the advance carefully in conjunction with President Rightmire’s wishes.

Meanwhile, offering some advice on a letter he received from a different Big Ten

Group alumni from Kansas, Morrill urged Rightmire,

“Although the alumni secretaries of two or three Western conference schools were inclined to view with alarm the growth and spread of these Big Ten associations in the belief that organization and activity of this kind might distract the attention of their alumni from their own local alumni clubs, I never shared this feeling--believing, indeed, that the spirit of competition between the alumni of each school within such an association was bound to react to the advantage of each group of alumni within the association. This was certainly the case at Cleveland where the organization of the Big Ten Club immediately stimulated the development of our own Ohio State activities.”388

In conjunction with James Lincoln’s letter and in response to correspondence with

President Rightmire, Alumni Secretary, James Lewis Morrill wrote:

“I can quite appreciate that the outlines of such a program cannot be drafted hurriedly or without the most thoughtful and consideration with the University. Of course there is something to be said for making a start, even if it is not wholly complete or satisfactory of the committee itself, -- and I suppose it is partly from this standpoint that Mr. Lincoln has been anxious to see something definite done as soon as possible.”389

The above letters and other correspondence show quite plainly that Rightmire’s reticence and plan to delay were not shared by Lincoln or Morrill, both of whom saw the urgent need to get private fundraising underway on a large scale.

388 Western Universities Club of New York listing of members were open to members west of the eastern border of Ohio, north of Ohio River, and west of the Mississippi river). Morrill to Rightmire, 10 February 1928, 3/f Alumni:The Ohio State University Association and Club Matters, 1928-29, box 2, folder 54. 389 J.L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 10 February 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 174

James Lewis Morrill was impressed by the University of Michigan’s Alumni- based funding programs and sent Rightmire copies of the Michigan Alumnus, Michigan’s alumni magazine. In the letter Morrill claimed, “I have President Little’s revolutionary proposal of the “Alumni University’ conception at Michigan.” The “alumni university” concept attempted to bring alumni back to campus in order to provide continuing education and stoke alumni interest in giving back financially to alma mater. “As you know,” Morrill continued “this has attracted nation-wide attention. I see it discussed at some length in the magazine Time, and likewise commented upon editorially by the New

York Evening Post. Altogether it strikes me as the most stimulating and far reaching proposal ever made in the field of alumni relations on a smashing scale by any great university.” 390 Morrill’s letter indicated his admiration for Michigan’s approach to alumni relations, an approach that was apparently receiving attention from around the country.

Rightmire replied, “I shall be glad to look over the proposal made by President

Little at the University of Michigan for the strengthening of the attachment to the

University of the alumni and the general purposes of the alumni organizations. This will be very interesting.”391 The next day after consulting Michigan’s alumni magazine

(Michigan Alumnus), Rightmire wrote again to Morrill that “the great project” for Ohio

State was to gain and retain the alumni’s sustained interest. He suggested that alumni could be involved two ways: first, the university desperately needed an auditorium to

390 J.L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 16 February 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 391 Rightmire to Morrill, 17 February 1928, 3/f Alumni:The Ohio State University Association and Club Matters, 1928-29, box 2, folder 54. 175 promote “a feeling of solidarity and oneness” and second, the university needed dormitories for Freshmen.392 In this instance Rightmire actually does request private donations for specific projects, something that he, and his predecessor, Thompson, had a difficult time doing. While these goals appeared to address immediate university needs with the teaching of their alumni, and possibly help gain alumni support, money was wanted for buildings not endowment.

Initially in February, Rightmire came up with three bienniums (six years) worth of information, but Lincoln insisted on 10 years. Always pushing, Lincoln wrote, “It would be my suggestion that this thing be carried on for the full five biennia…. All of us are of course in the dark and must be led by yourself on the matter of the needs of the university, but I certainly would carry this over the full ten years, because there is no use of doing this thing twice during that period.” 393 Not only does this demonstrate Lincoln’s urgency, but illustrates the fact that Rightmire has not been cooperating and that his concurrence is needed. It raises the question whether or not Rightmire put much effort at this point into getting people out of “the dark” on the needs of the university.

Unlike Thompson, who in his later annual reports to the Governor of Ohio included a section on alumni, Rightmire had not given it attention in his annual reports up through March 1928. Morrill, in submissive petition, explained,

“At the risk of seeming to offer a purely gratuitous suggestion, I am venturing in some fear and trembling to say that I think it would be helpful in the promotional

392 Rightmire to J. L. Morrill, 18 February 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 393 Lincoln to Rightmire, 17 February 1928, 3/f Alumni:The Ohio State University Association and Club Matters, 1928-29, box 2, folder 54. 176

work of the Alumni Office to have some mention of the work of the Alumni Association, and some comment by the President upon the Association and its work, in each of the annual reports of the University…. [T]he interest of the Trustees in alumni work is annually manifested by their appropriation toward the work of the Association--but this again is not known to very many people. A few paragraphs in the annual report give us some ammunition along this line which is not gotten so well otherwise. Is there any point in the suggestion, and will you pardon me for making it?”394

The fact that Morrill’s request to have Rightmire discuss the alumni association’s efforts and to report on the fact that the Board of Trustees themselves offered an appropriation to the OSU Association, meant that Rightmire did not have alumni work as his priority. Also interesting is the meek tone of Morrill’s message, though somewhat common at this time for gentlemanly correspondence.

As Lincoln, Morrill, and Rightmire formed plans and committees and drew on the example of peer institutions, there did not appear to be much opposition from within members of the university community. However, an embarrassing situation with a commencement speaker, the first one ever broadcast by radio, was about to occur. And though Morrill, a former journalist, was opposed to cutting the sound from the radio address, Morrill was clearly concerned that the ideas expressed would thwart the efforts of the financial development program.

Having served at the university as a professor and dean, and in the United States military in the First World War, and becoming a Brigadier General by 1919, Edward

Orton, Jr. (b. 1863-1932),395 son of Ohio State University’s first President Edward Orton,

394 J. L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 9 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 395 Colonel George L. Converse, Jr., Ralph D. Mershon, William Oxley Thompson, and former Dean Edward Orton, Jr. all contributed to “ ‘The Ohio Plan for Reserve Officers,’ which was incorporated 177

Sr., delivered a controversial OSU commencement address in March 1928.396 Orton’s address follows:

“[H]igher education at public expense has been carried along as a national fetish and accepted because of the context in which it is presented to the people. Now, it is wholly right for us to have our National enthusiasms and shibboleths. They may reflect the callow youth and exuberance of our national life--but, even so, they are not only worth while-- they are indispensible. May we never see the day when they disappear, for then we shall see the day of our disintegration begin. But, on the other hand, a thing is not necessarily good because it is in being--not even because it is a long established institution…. In fact, we have no duty more clearly laid upon us, both by theory and by practical experience, than the duty of eternal self examination. This is true of the individual, and even more imperative of groups of individuals for the group invariably lags behind the individual in idealism, efficiency or steadfastness. The thing that I want to examine with you today is this: What should be our attitude towards state-supported higher education. The mere fact that you have been the beneficiaries of the system, or may be the victim of it, is not in itself any warrant for assuming that you will be unable or unwilling to apply your critical judgment to the matter…. [My first thesis:] effort expanded and self denial practiced in order to get an education, the ultimate object of which is to earn a better living and to enjoy a fuller life than those who will not expend the effort or practice the self-denial, is strictly a praiseworthy thing. At the same time, it is for himself and not for society that he does it, and in that sense, it is selfish. My second thesis is that in affording youth an opportunity for a higher or professional education on easy terms, the public interest is also being served. Education of the masses up to a certain level is necessary for the perpetuity of a self-governing state…. In taking steps to insure a supply of people having such knowledge and such skill, commensurate with the population and development of the country, the state is merely looking for its own security and welfare. Furthermore, in not depending entirely upon commercial in the National Defense Act of 1916 which established the R.O.T.C. throughout the country.” James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873- 1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), p. 363. “Edward Orton, Jr., ‘84 a son of the first president, later distinguished as an engineer, ceramist, soldier, and citizen.” James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), p. 127. 396 Orton, Jr. an engineer took his engineer of Mines degree from OSU in 1884, and after nine years in industry, returned to becom the Director of Ceramics in 1894. Later Orton would serve as Dean of the College of Engineering twice (1902-1906; 1910 to 1915). During the World War I, Orton assisted in the war effort and never returned to teaching. He did, however, remain close contact with the members of the university community and endowed the Edward Orton, Sr. Memorial Library, in his father’s name. See Biography of Edward Orton, Jr from http://ead.ohiolink.edu/xtf- ead/view?docId=ead/xOhCoUA0001.xml;chunk.id=a2;brand=default;query=CONVOCATION 178

schools or privately endowed institutions, and itself directly proving a part of the requisite higher educational opportunities to its rising generation, the state is wise…. My third thesis is that the public now pays too large a share of the cost of higher education and the recipient pays too little. I have shown already that the boy wants the education for his own personal advantage, and the state wants him to have it, for reasons of benefit to the state. Both sides are served in the process. But, the benefits are sharp, clear and personal on one side and general, intangible and theoretical on the other side. The boy pays but little of the cost. The state pays the lions share…. If the proportion paid by the student be increased from its present low percentage, to a considerably higher proportion, it may be expected that its effect would be to somewhat reduce the output of university graduates…. [T]his would not be a wholly undesirable result.”397

Orton continued, by explaining there were too many lawyers and doctors for the number of jobs. He disagreed with the idea that continual production of graduates will continue to make things better. He argued that overconsumption is a problem, and that

“lessening of the volume of University output, is the hope that it would lead to a raising of its quality. There is a feeling that the present low cost of getting a degree in State supported schools is leading to too many degrees being granted and to a corresponding falling off in the quality of the graduate…. [T]he cost of the degree is really the cost of official charges only--tuition, as it is called, in privately supported colleges. The state schools try to disguise it under some more euphemistic title. From this standpoint, the charges in state supported colleges are absurdly low--from ten to twenty-five percent of the per capita cost of maintaining the institution, which, in my opinion, is unfair to the taxpayer who derives only an indirect and intangible benefit from it…. Still another benefit would come by definitely relieving the faculty mind from this incubus of using faculty production methods, and encouraging them to place a new emphasis upon quality. It has required a constitution of unusual virility and a mind of indomitable optimism to still retain any freshness and enthusiasm, after standing up to the grind of teaching in state universities during these years of their rapid expansion…. Embalmed enthusiasm is about as useful in a teacher, as it would be in a musician or an artist…. The commoner University degrees become, the more machine-like the system under which they are granted, the easier they are to get, and the less they cost, the lower will their value be, both to the recipient and to the public. We have already gone quite a way on this path…. I have not infrequently heard of students using up chemicals purposely and even breaking equipment in

397 Edward Orton, Jr., “Higher Education – A Gift or a Purpose?”, OSU Commencement 16 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, p. 2-19. 179

laboratories, under the queer obsession that they have paid for their share, thro[ugh] their fees,398 and that it is up to them to get the worth of their money even if they have to commit waste to do it. It is a queer twist of the mind that could evolve such a view, but it is a fact that this view does crop up every little while. The attitude of the student at the privately endowed universities differs radically from the above. In general, they show a feeling of respect for the school, loyalty for its customers, consideration for its property and willingness in after years to contribute to its support.399 The student at the state university on the other hand seems to look upon the facilities there offered, as his right and in no sense a privilege. Few apparently stop to ask themselves why the State should spend its money in the behalf so prodigally….”400

Orton continued, expressing the belief that problems arise when students think that the state “owes” them anything

“but justice and equal opportunity…. On the question as to whether the State needs to be relieved of the expense it is lavishing upon the cause of higher education, I can only say that taxes are mounting steadily as our civilization becomes more complex…. In all fairness, I think the cutting of our higher education tax in half would not long be noticed in the swelling tide of state expenses. Its effect however would entirely out proportion to its actual relief afforded. It would probably be remembered and credited up to the educational group of tax spenders for a long while. But so far as the average tax payer is concerned I don’t really think he would be able to notice the difference. It should invoke and I think would receive the cooperation of the privately endowed institutions. They now feel that they are subjected to unfair competition, by an adversary who sells his wares below the cost of production. Their principal recourse is to invoke the argument of superior quality for what they have to sell. And, I think in many instances, and in some particulars, they have the right on their side in making this claim. If the cost differential were wiped out, the state schools and private schools could compete on a fairer basis, and both would be better off.”401

398 Recall Orton’s problem with this euphamism. 399 Orton is signaling to the problem of alumni at state supported universities. Alumni at private institutions are willing to give back. 400 Edward Orton, Jr., “Higher Education – A Gift or a Purpose?”, OSU Commencement 16 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, p. 2-19. 401 Edward Orton, Jr., “Higher Education – A Gift or a Purpose?”, OSU Commencement 16 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, p. 2-19. 180

In other words, the financial savings would hardly be noticed by the average taxpayer, but the other benefits, the quality of degrees, alumni love for the institution, equal playing field for private and state universities, would make cutting the state’s higher education tax in half (e.g. OSU would receive half of its current state appropriation) worth it.

Morrill reacted negatively to Orton’s Commencement. “[Q]uite in confidence, I sweat a little blood last Friday at the Convocation when General Orton was making his very interesting and able presentation of the view that too many people are going to college, that the state university costs the tax payers too much money, and that college education nowadays, like the old gray mare, ain’t what it used to be,” exclaimed Morrill.

“At the same time I couldn’t help smiling to observe that we had picked this particular convocation as the first one to [be] broadcast by radio. General Orton’s wisdom and experience, I recognize, are infinitely wider and more valuable than mine, -- and certainly I do not agree with two or three very prominent people around here who thought that the radio should be cut off and that the News Bureau should suppress so far as possible any newspaper publicity upon his remarks--but at the same time I couldn’t help reflecting that a more unfavorable and pessimistic piece of propaganda against the idea that we are broaching in the development program could scarcely have been contrived.”402

Despite the skeptical nature of Orton's radio and in-person commencement address, Orton regularly gave to the memorial hall in honor of his father on campus and left OSU a bequest of $10,000.

Ohio State was not alone in admiring the work of the University of Michigan.

President William Lowe Bryan of Indiana University looked to Michigan who charged

402 Morrill to Rightmire, 19 March 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 181 fees to active Michigan alumni to fund the Alumni association. Instead of following

Indiana’s Alumni Council’s suggestion that newly matriculated students be required to contribute $10 toward an alumni association endowment fund, Bryan argued that it would be better to improve the salaries of instructors who teach those newly matriculated students or to improve scholarship opportunities for those new students. President Bryan explained:

“I call attention of the Trustees to the proposal of the Alumni Council that a matriculation fee of $10.00 be charged of all persons entering the University and that the proceeds from this fee be used as an endowment fund for the Alumni Association. I have given much attention to this proposal through the year and have had some correspondence and some conferences upon the subject. I submit letters from Mr. Frank Lindsey who favors the proposal and from the Aeons who oppose it…. My own view is as follows: The essential condition of substantial success for alumni activities is a large number of alumni who are active and paying members of the Association. Where this condition is met there is a large and effective Association. When it is not met there can not be a large and effective organization even if funds were supplied from some outside source. There should be strong and continuous effort to build up a large paying membership of our Association, such for example as that of Michigan University where the large budget of the Association is provided entirely in this way. It is my judgment that the undergraduates should not be required to provide funds for the Alumni Association by any plan direct or indirect. Students are at a time in their lives when they are least able to meet financial demands even those which are most necessary. In a State University, especially, student fees should be kept low. Such fees as are charged against students, along with surplus earnings of cafeteria, bookstore, dormitories and the like should go directly back to student service. If it were judged proper to charge a ten dollar matriculation fee, the best use of that money would be to provide higher salaries and therewith better instruction for those matriculants, and a second best use might be to provide scholarships to be won in competition by the best of those matriculants. In deference to the Alumni Council I would recommend that action upon their proposal which represents serious thought for the best interests of the University be postponed until there can be opportunity for further conference with the Council.”403

403 Indiana University Board of Trustees Minutes (23 March 1928): http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/iubot/about.do 182

Thus, in Bryan’s view, students should not be expected to contribute to alumni associations, as student budgets were already tight. Thus President Bryan of Indiana

University maintained student money should go to improving student education. OSU however, badly needed active and contributing alumni members.

In May 1928, James L. LaPoe, graduate student in educational research at Ohio

State University, wrote an article assessing the state of Ohio’s ability to support higher education and claimed that Ohio could, in fact, provide an additional $1,304,000 per year for educator salaries. Ohio was compared to six other states: Illinois, Indiana, ,

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In all there were thirteen state colleges supported among the seven states.404 Ohio had three of the colleges: Ohio University, Miami

University, and Ohio State University. Referring to the state, LaPoe wrote,

“Ohio’s share of the receipts from productive funds was 10.7 percent of the total; her percent of the total receipts from the United States Government was 14.5; her share of the $4,542,884 contributed to the thirteen schools during this period through private benefactions was 5.4 percent; and, finally, her share of the total receipts from all sources other than state appropriations was but 11.5 percent of the total amount received by the thirteen institutions…. That Ohio has failed to meet her standards of ability and need in providing for the maintenance of her three state universities has been indicated. Some of the results of this failure have likewise been pointed out.”405

404 Although LaPoe did not list the thirteen colleges by name in his published article, he cited the United States Bureau of Education’s Biennial Surveys that included the following publicly controlled institutions: University of Illinois, Indiana University, Purdue University, Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, State University of Iowa, University of Michigan, College of the City of Detroit, Michigan Agricultural College, University of Minnesota, Ohio University, Ohio University, Miami University, and University of Wisconsin. 405 LaPoe’s figures showed for the 1925-1926, the state of Ohio receiving $78,861 coming from productive funds and $65,119 coming from private benefactions (p. 184). James L. LaPoe, ‘Ohio's Support of Higher Education,” Educational Research Bulletin. 7, no. 9 (2 May 1928): 177-184. 183

In other words, Ohio schools made 23 percent of the total number of schools and should have had about 23 percent of the non-state money. Instead it had 11.5 percent, half that amount, showing that Ohio colleges were not receiving much non-governmental money compared to other states’ colleges. By LaPoe’s numbers, the three Ohio school were far behind the other states in non-state funding. Ohio especially lagged in the private sector, in which the three schools only achieved 5.4 percent of total funds between the 13 institutions.

In the late 1920s Rightmire was asked repeatedly by Roy Brenholts, OSU alumnus of Columbus Coal Mining, to consider hiring his friend who had fundraising administrative experience, someone who could help Ohio State. In September 1928,

Brenholts wrote: “[F]rom time to time I have discussed with you the possibility of my friend, Mr. E. B. Chamberlain, becoming connected with the University in some capacity whereby his experience could be used in managing campaigns for the raising of funds in institutions such as Ohio State University.”406 To this Rightmire replied, that it was not that the university did not want to consider Mr. Brenholts, but that the institution had no intention of having a professional fundraising position at Ohio State. “I have kept Mr.

Chamberlain’s name in mind since you mentioned it almost two years ago,” Rightmire replied but, “the administrative end of the University enterprise is completely staffed and it is not a part of the plan to create a position which is intended to solicit funds or to raise money.”407 Rightmire made it clear that employing a professional fundraiser was not a

406 Roy Brenholts [of Columbus] to Rightmire, 19 September 1928, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 407 Rightmire to Roy Brenholts, 28 September 1928, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 184 university priority. From this correspondence, two distinct points emerge: Rightmire does not want to establish a full-time fundraising university staff position, nor does he want to retain a professional fundraising firm or consultant.

Competition with the University of Michigan not only brought Ohio State alumni together for football games, but also brought them together for separate alumni conferences. In a rallying call to the commonwealth of Ohio, Rightmire expressed: “You are cordially invited from all the Counties of Ohio to come on Saturday, October 20th, for a conference with University people and a Michigan-Ohio State Football Game--all in one day! These make a combination of ‘peace and war’ that no Ohioan can resist.”408

On November 2, 1928 a meeting for the National Alumni Association of

Princeton University was scheduled to be held in Columbus, Ohio. The New York Times reported, “This gathering will mark the end of the alumni drive for a $2,000,000 fund to increase Faculty salaries…. A two-day session of the alumni association has been scheduled at the conclusion of the drive on the eve of the football game between Ohio

State and Princeton.” A dinner was planned whereby Princeton President John Grier

Hibben of Princeton and President George W. Rightmire of Ohio State University were scheduled to speak. The next day, Ohio State and Princeton were scheduled to play each other in football.409

Commenting on the meeting and Princeton’s successful endowment raising campaign, the Ohio State Lantern reported,

408 George W. Rightmire, “Greetings to Alumni and Invitation to a Conference,” [September] 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 409 “$1,700,000 Contributed to Princeton Fund,” New York Times (Oct 21, 1928): 32. 185

“Faculty members no doubt watched with interest the campaign staged by Princeton for a $2,000,000 endowment fund to be used to increase salaries. The campaign came to a close Friday when the announcement was made at the Deshler [Hotel, in Columbus] that the quota had been passed. Ohio State faculty might well wish for a movement of the kind here, as a survey shows that it is needed badly…. Considering the place that education and educators must play in society it is almost phenomenal that such low salaries are paid. Their duties are of the greatest importance, yet they are paid slightly more than the semi-skilled laborer. Is this justifiable?.... Before an instructor can even hope to make any real progress he must spend some time abroad. It is a great help, especially if he is to teach certain courses, if he received a degree from a college abroad. In return for all of this preparation he receives a meager salary. Education cannot hope to hold the best men unless some advancement is made in this matter. Ohio State enrolls specialists in its personnel who are outstanding in their respective fields of the business world. They cannot be held unless there some equalization made. Ohio State would do well to follow in the footsteps of Princeton in encouraging an endowment fund for this purpose. It is just another look into the future.”410

Apparently some endowment related discussions were in process (as noted in the previous text), but despite the increased publicity, there seemed to be no increased effort at endowment building at this time.

John B. Fullen (“Jack”) replaced James “Lew” Morrill to become The Ohio State

University Association’s secretary in 1928. Morrill transitioned to a new position as Vice

President of the University. Fullen indicated that,

“You will perhaps be interested to learn that our endowment project is getting under way. Mr. Lincoln has obtained the consent of Mr. Kettering to act on our committee, and has written to Mr. Fred A. Miller and Mr. Charles Stark, as well as to Mr. Charles P. Cooper. We feel a trifle uncertain about Cooper and believe that Mr. Lincoln’s request ought to be supplemented by urges from other sources to make it effective, as we are trying to get Mr. Cooper to assume the chairmanship of the committee. Would you, therefore, be good enough to write Mr. Cooper care of the American Telegraph & Telephone Company, New York

410 “Princeton Raises Salaries,” Ohio State Lantern, 6 November 1928, p. 2. 186

City, outlining the proposal to him, as you see it would add your appeal to ours in an effort to enlist him for this service.”411

Fullen, now as OSU alumni secretary, seemed keen on forming a committee for endowed research.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1928

Relying on the recommendation of a committee to help improve student scholastic achievement, Rightmire instituted Freshman Week to help first year students make the transition to the university.412 “‘Freshman Week’ is a part of the general movement to improve the methods of dealing with the beginning student…”413 He also set up the office of Junior Dean for those colleges that had the “heaviest enrollments, namely, Agriculture, Arts, Commerce and Administration, Education, and Engineering.”

Their purpose was to serve as a counselor to freshman, student organizations, assisting with remedial education and recommending course improvements, and so forth.414 Thus, it appears Rightmire was an active, busy president, but not one with endowment building as a main priority.

411 Charles Procter Cooper was an OSU alumnus, engineer, and vice president for American Telegraph and Telephone Company. Roger Scott, “Grads in Industry,” Ohio State Engineer [OSU College of Engineering], vol. 24, no. 4 (March 1941): 11-12. Fullen to Rightmire, 28 November 1928, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 412 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1927-1928, in Fifty-Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1928 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1928), 5-28. Note that the name of “the” is lowercase in the title. There was significant amount of vascillating between “the” and “The” during the early twentieth century. 413 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 5. 414 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 6-7. 187

For the first time in his annual report, Rightmire included a section on women graduates and he linked them to donations.

“A highly commendable spirit on the part of the Alumnae of the University appears in their large and frequent contributions to the Student Loan funds. The University is the custodian of a number of funds intended for loans to students and such funds are administered by a committee composed of the Assistant to the President, the Dean of Women, and the Student Counselor. A rather searching inquiry is made into the record and the purposes and the character of the student soliciting a loan and if granted, the student is required to execute notes for the repayment of the money in a reasonable time after graduation, so that the fund may become a rotary one and those who are its beneficiaries now may keep the fund intact for those who come after. Notable contributions for this purpose during the year have come from the Alumnae group in Detroit, in New York City, in Pittsburgh, and in Dayton. No large loan is made to any student, but the amounts of money which can be distributed from this source accomplish a very genuine purpose and the generous thought of the University Alumnae is appreciated by these needy students. This is a worthy manifestation of the results of education and such recognition of social need on the part of our women graduates goes a long way to justify the maintenance of the State University.”415

Further, Rightmire highlighted a $500 gift given for a student loan fund by a women’s organization called The Columbus Scholarship Society. “This group of women is thinking very constructively about the conditions of the student in this University and very actively contributing of their time and their money for the benefit of these students,”

Rightmire applauded.416 So Rightmire did recognize the importance of women who actively gave or donated to the university.

For the first time also, Rightmire included a gifts and endowment section, specifically listing gifts received from industry: The American Institute of Steel

415 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 15-16. 416 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 16. 188

Construction, The Hollow Building Tile, and the Electric Porcelain Manufacturing

Company. Rightmire explained:

“These cases of gifts of money to be administered by the University for specific purposes, all educational in their objective, show the regard of people in industry for educational institutions and also show the purpose of the educational institution to answer the questions raised by the processes of industry; there is thus established a mutual relationship which is cooperative and highly beneficial to all parties….. The Board of Trustees has always made prompt and appreciative recognition of gifts coming to the University and has the highest regard for its custodianship or trusteeship in all these cases. The University feels the honor of being selected by private donors as the trustee beneficiary of their free-will offerings and stands constantly ready to administer all gifts which may have a proper bearing upon the educational activity.”417

The tone of this text is revealing of what Rightmire wanted to portray to the state about private giving to the university. He states the university was “selected” by the givers, making it sound as though the gift was unsolicited. The phrasing at the end indicates that

OSU was simply administering the gift, not receiving it. Thus they were simply acting on behalf of the donor rather than improving the universities financial position.

According to Rightmire, students and former students were pleased to be in The

Ohio State University Association, which this year was given its own subsection in the annual report. The OSU Association included alumni and non-graduates.

“All persons who had ever been students here were to be gathered into one organization, general in its nature, with many purposeful units, so that the University might be kept perpetually green in the minds of all its former students. It was conceivable also that there might be as much enthusiasm for the University in the mind of one who had not received his diploma as there would be in mind of the graduate. In very many cases the thought has long since been verified, and the organization today is constituted in that manner, and the local units are found

417 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 16. 189

throughout the counties of Ohio and in many places in other states and countries….”418

So the name of the association was a deliberate attempt to appeal to not only alumni, but all former students. This was especially important because attending, but not graduating, from Ohio State was common at this time (see Table 5 in Introduction for graduation rates).

Making good on his commitment to Morrill to include information about the alumni and the OSU Association in future reports, Rightmire indicated that James Lewis

Morrill, in his roles as alumnus and (Class of ’13) Secretary of the Ohio State University

Association regularly made arrangements for Ohio State Day (held around Thanksgiving) and Alumni Day (held around June Commencement). These activities brought together upwards of 2,000 “graduates and ex-students for a very a happy reunion and social occasion…. Mr. Morrill and his staff have made a rare accomplishment in bringing this monthly to its high state of perfection.” Rightmire also noted that scholarships were created by “individual alumni” to assist in the “discovery and spread of knowledge.”419 It appeared that these scholarships were intended for both men and women.

Though Rightmire conveyed vague plans for the university in the following, he indicated that alumni should have some role to play. This is the first time that Rightmire mentioned something like this in his annual reports--the idea of deep involvement from alumni.

Rightmire wrote:

418 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 16-17. 419 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 17. 190

“Much thought is being given to ways and means by which the Association may undertake activities and importance to the University enterprise, and thus integrate their interest and constructive action into the growth of the University. A series of conferences with a selected group of Alumni and of the University Administration have been held for canvassing the entire situation and developing a program of Alumni interest and activities and some progress has been made. The outlook is very hopeful, the problem being to find a plan; certainly if the proposed plan can be devised both University and Alumni interest will be readily enlisted. The sympathy with the University activities is ever present in the minds of the former students, the University comes to mean more in sentiment to them as the years pass, their children are being educated here and they are very hearty in their readiness to assist in the development of the institution and spread of its usefulness among the people. The times are very auspicious and the Administration and Association officials are enthusiastically studying plans for making the University more helpful to the Alumni and Alumni more helpful to the University….”420

Once again, Rightmire delayed putting a plan into place. His deliberations demonstrated a lack of cooperation and had lethargic consequences. Alumni, like James

F. Lincoln and Lew Morrill, frequently prodded Rightmire to stop delaying, but

Rightmire continued to view the university as a public school, benefiting the public and therefore deserving of tax support. This progressivist view point was already outmoded, however, and adequate state support of the university was never to be realized.

In his discussion on the stadium campaign, rather than focusing on alumni participation, Rightmire’s focus was on the administration component. Rightmire commented on the successful “building of the Stadium and the very considerable enlargement of the facilities devoted to athletics, both competitive and recreative.” He explained, “the thought was expressed that a closer coordination between the University administration and the Athletic administration might be effected to mutual advantage.”

420 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 18. 191

Rightmire related the fact that the athletic board had turned over the athletic plant to the

Board of Trustees to help with managing that side of things. The point was to alleviate their burden, but that “does not relieve the athletic board of the business of managing athletics.”421

Convinced that university committee service promoted higher quality work was a critical aspect of Rightmire’s views on university administration. Rightmire asserted that besides teaching,

“many members of the staff are called upon for administrative activities, and work on committees having in charge departmental questions or investigations of interest to the particular college, or of studies interesting to the University as a whole, and of these committee assignments the number is legion, and the effort required is very exacting. Yet, no better way has so far been devised of carrying on the numerous studies and making the various reports about interesting matters in the University life and administration than to press the professor into committee service, which is as vital to the on-going of the University as any other activity connected with it. In fact, much of the progress we make comes about as the result of the careful and prolonged study of committees, and their well considered reports.” 422

Rightmire’s idea of “prolonged study” was perhaps too open ended. Also, a committee for the listing the needs of the university was too long in coming, especially considering the urgency of some of the university needs, such as increased salaries for instructors. So when other institutions like Michigan progressed in raising endowment income, Ohio State lagged behind.

Ohio State’s tardiness in the area of instructor salaries was demonstrated by its comparison with other universities. Comparing OSU first to Michigan, Rightmire stated,

421 For details on who raised money for the Stadium Campaign, see that section. Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 19. 422 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 21-23. 192

“In the last half dozen years, the salaries in all colleges and universities have risen considerably and the Ohio State University423 has been consistently behind the salaries paid for exactly the same kinds of duties in the Universities of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, all these universities being entirely comparable with this University in every other way. Consequently a drift from this institution to them and other institutions where higher salaries were paid, was becoming evident, and through the last few years, so far as University funds permitted, salaries have been somewhat increased…. It is clear that with the increase of students, the consequent increase of the teaching staff, the effort to make adjustments among the present staff to bring the more experienced teachers into contact with the various classes, the effort to make all accessions to the teaching staff of the highest quality obtainable, and the increases of salaries throughout the staff necessary to make the teaching conditions here comparable with other universities of the same grade, have called for constantly increasing annual expenditure. The funds annually expended have come in part from the federal government ($50,000-Morrill fund), from student fees (increased now to $20 per quarter), and from state appropriations; it is submitted that the policy of requiring the student to pay fees for the purpose of proving the teaching staff is contrary to the principle upon which such universities are founded. However, in the legislative stringency, there seemed nothing else to do a few years ago, except to assess against each student a fee of $15 per quarter. That has now been increased to $20 per quarter, so that the University today is demanding from students a ‘cover charge’ of $60 per year. The students, therefore, are contributing a considerable portion of the sum used for teaching.”424

Seeing no other way out, but to raise the student fees, Rightmire simultaneously viewed higher education like public schooling and did not conceive of private fundraising. So even though the $2.8 million from the Legislature awarded for each year of the biennium,

1929-1931, was the largest amount ever received by the OSU Legislature, it was still not enough to meet the university’s needs.

For several years, Ohio’s higher education institutions were commonly experiencing overcrowding. “Therefore, there is no hope for relief from a constantly

423 Rightmire tended not to capitalize “The” when referring to The Ohio State University. 424 Wisconsin tended to be cited after Michigan as a perceived peer university. Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 21-23. 193 growing body of students in the other educational institutions in this state,” explained

Rightmire. “And the clearly indicated course is adequate provision by the state for educating at the State University the constantly swelling throng of students from all parts of Ohio, who are asking for its service.”425

In response to more students, additional teachers were hired, but state appropriations were not covering the actual expenditure for salaries. In demonstrating the need for additional funds for teacher salaries, Rightmire showed that 18 month state appropriated salaries for 1927-1928 were $3,365,291, while expenditures for 12 month expenditures for 1928-1929 would exceed $3,200,000. Essentially, almost six months of teachers’ salary would not be provided for from the state funding.

Complaining about student fees--even though they were similar to what other state institutions are expected students to pay, Rightmire lamented, “Recent students and thinkers in the field of University education have recognized the practice that has become prevalent, and at the same time they sense a menace to democratic education in the creation of these fees.”426 Rightmire cited President of the University of

Minnesota (pres. 1920-1938) who claimed that states tended to be richer when they supported public higher education and quoted Mr. Lloyd Morey of the University of

Illinois who called land grant universities, the “World’s greatest experiment.” Rightmire summarized his thoughts with, “These thoughts of Mr. Morey and President Coffman show that the field which the State University was intended to occupy, may be materially limited if higher fees are in prospect…. So far it is not established that the fee scale has

425 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 24. 426 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 26-28. 194 kept deserving students away; employment and money-making possibilities in this country have probably enabled students to mount the fee barriers without serious inconvenience. Admitting that the fees already assessed are necessary, yet the argument should not be extended further…” That is, to make the fees higher, “No such emergency is in sight, and it would seem that the people of the state should be willing to bear the further expense caused by the success of their own enthusiasm for learning.…” He stated, state universities are “the people’s institutions” and have a “unique” role in carrying out public service. “It is here respectfully suggested, therefore, that student fees not be increased further.”427

Little did Rightmire know, when he explained that “no such emergency is in sight,” that the stock market crash would occur the following year, wreaking havoc on the economy and drastically affecting students’ ability to pay fees and living expenses!

1929

During the 1929 year, OSU’s student total enrollment reached 14,403.428 Student enrollments in the United States generally rose throughout the 1920s and 1930s, causing

427 Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 26-28. Discussing a federal survey of land grant colleges, Rightmire, noted that land grant universities “are rightfully regarded as having a popular mission of state- wide importance in education.” Rightmire, Annual Report 1927-28, 21-23. The 1927-1928 financial report highlighted some of the revenue received from tuition and fees: Tuition and incidental fees: $695,607.50 and Current Expenses: $3,134,947.20; capital improvements: $737,070.86; Agricultural Extension: $298,472.54. See Financial Report 1927-1928, in Fifty-Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1928 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1928), 233-4. 428 Students from Commerce and Administration and Commerce Extension totaled 2,914, while Education totaled 2,813, and Liberal Arts Education at 2,680. Rightmire, Annual Report 1928-29, 19. John C. Scott, “The Mission of the University: Medieval to Postmodern Transformations,” Journal of Higher Education 77, no. 1 (January/February 2006): 27. 195 an increase in state funding and additional financial support from the foundations contributing to additional buildings and equipment for science and engineering.429 This was an important time for universities to vie for funding, but it appears that with the large student body, Rightmire’s thoughts were often not dwelling on private fundraising. The budget took much of his time and energy, as did correspondence with various legislators and university leaders.

Commenting on Rightmire’s annual report, Morrill explained “I quite appreciate how likely we are to fall into perfunctory phrasing and to list facts and events without seeing them whole, and without the insight and interpretation which alone make them significant. Your report has avoided these pitfalls admirably and I congratulate you upon a splendid piece of work, if I may be permitted, humbly, to say so.”430 To which

Rightmire replied, “I am deeply grateful… The sentiments expressed there are extremely stimulating. I often wonder how carefully such reports are read by the people to whom we mail them. I hope at least that those people who are expected to have a general idea of the University’s progress may find the time to look them over. This, I think, is especially true in the case of our own feudality and the members of the Legislature.”431

It appeared that Rightmire acknowledged not only the limited scope of his annual report readership, but also brought to bear the question how he saw OSU in relation to the organization as a feudal system.432 Sending a copy of his annual report and a booklet of budget needs (for the year 1927-1928) to attorney Stewart Hoover, who administered the

429 Scott, “The Mission of the University,” 27. 430 J. L. Morrill to Rightmire, 23 January 1929, 3/f Annual Report: President’s Section: 1935. 431 Rightmire to Morrill, 24 January 1929, 3/f Annual Report: President’s Section: 1935. 432 For example, how did Rightmire view his role as president with regard to the lord and vassal relationship. 196

“business of the Board of Education of Columbus,” Rightmire added: “Also herewith please find a copy of the booklet to the budget needs of the University which supplements the budget estimates presented to the Governor of the State and now are on the way to the Legislature. These two booklets may serve to bring your thinking about this institution down to date. The proposal to select a Committee of Alumni to act in the matter of securing endowments for the University has not been quite carried out, as I understand it from Secretary Fullen. Progress has been made and in a short time it is expected that this committee group will be satisfactorily constituted.”433

Why it took so long for the committee to act may be due to several factors. Fear of receiving reduced funding from the state, Rightmire’s health problems, and feuding with the governor, all may have influenced why people decided to join an endowment committee or maybe even why they would not.

By February 1929, James F. Lincoln, then president of the OSU Association, in his contribution to the Ohio State Monthly wrote, “Custom has changed the meaning of many noble words.” He defined the words, Expert, Service, Research and Engineer to make his case. Lincoln was an innovator, at heart, and showed this in his efforts to engage alumni in the fundraising efforts of the university.434

Secretary of The Ohio State University Association, John B. Fullen, requested

Rightmire’s written contribution to the Alumni Monthly, but was declined in January

1929. At this point, Rightmire had temporarily experienced poor health and was catching

433 George W. Rightmire to Stewart A. Hoover [Attorney at Law] (25 January 1929) OSU archives 3/f Annual Reports: Correspondence: 1924-1934, 1935, 1937 4/35. 434 “The President’s Page,” The Ohio State University Monthly, Vol 11 (February 1929): 222. 197 up with his administrative duties, claiming that “The legislature situation will call for constant thought....”435 While Rightmire was sidelined with health issues, he evidently still considering the importance of the funding problem.

On January 26, 1929, Fullen corresponded with Rightmire concerning the development of the endowment. Fullen wrote, “I hope to have some information to convey to you concerning the proposed Endowment project within the next ten days as developments of significance are in the offering, which may embrace an abandonment of the plan at this time.”436 It is not clear what caused the delay in the Endowment project, since a follow up letter from Fullen to Rightmire has not been identified. Several months later, however, Fullen solicited the help of Hugh C. Laughlin, a specialist in adult education of Toledo and future faculty member at OSU to assist in carrying out

“experimental groups among the alumnae” for the purpose of developing stronger university associations. The solicitation for continuing adult education, or “alumni university,” had been a focus of Michigan’s strategy and something that Fullen was closely following. By April 1929, OSU invited Wilfred Shaw of the University of

Michigan to discuss how Michigan got their alumni university going.437

In a series of letters among Hugh C. Laughlin, Jack Fullen, and George

Rightmire, adult education for OSU alumni was discussed. Rightmire suggested that,

435 John B. Fullen to George W. Rightmire, 21 January 1929 and Rightmire to Fullen, 22 January 1929, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 436 John B. Fullen to George W. Rightmire, 26 January 1929, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 437 See letters among Rightmire, Fullen and Laughlin, April 1929, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29.” 198

“The plan must probably originate with the University or the Association, while the desire for prosecuting the work must originate from outside. This movement is new enough to leave me at the present time in a state of uncertainty about the response or the urge among the alumni and others for this continuing study.”438 So here Rightmire acknowledges the significant role of the university in assisting in alumni involvement, but shunts the responsibility for pursuing alumni as he did not feel that was his role.

Despite Fullen’s attempts, it was another eight years before the Ohio State

University Development Fund was officially created. Whether the delay was due to the

Great Depression, or a lack of impetus within the university is difficult to say. But as

Ohio State dawdled with the idea, universities around the country were putting endowment plans into action, despite the troubled economic times.

Rightmire continued to avoid fundraising. Creating the budget was apparently enough of a headache. At the end of the next month, May 30, 1929, Rightmire was not happy with the way Dean Arps of the College of Education, who had incidentally been dean since 1920, handled the request for a budget. Rightmire complained:

“Your method of dealing with the recent budget communications and appropriations of the various departments in your college, resulted in this office about two days additional work…. [I]n all other Colleges they were scrupulously followed. It was therefore with an unsettled frame of mind that I went before the Board of Trustees with the budget of the College of Education last Thursday, knowing that some further thought and study would have to be given to the recommendations. Since that time, I have spent two days with all the correspondence relating to the next years’ budget…. We might have been able to reach these conclusions at the time the Budget was regularly presented to the

438 Fullen to Laughlin, 12 April 1929 and Rightmire to Fullen 15 April 1929, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29. 199

Board last Thursday if the returns from the College of Education had not created the situation just described. Permit me to suggest that the method of making the Budget which we have been following now for two years will be continued, and it does not seem that it should be difficult for any College or Department to meet the simple requests which that system entails. I trust you may find it convenient at the next budget making time to give this office a little more assistance in the method noted above, and I assure you it will be deeply appreciated. The business of making a budget for the entire University is, at the best, a most arduous, prolonged, and torturing procedure…. In the last analysis, it becomes a question of judgment here, but that judgment must be preceded by a prolonged and most attentive study of the University’s activities, and this we attempt to make continuously.”439

It seemed Dean Arps had struck a chord. The dean was not new to his position.

He had been serving since the early 1920s, but his office had really caused some grief for

Rightmire, who already felt budget making an onerous task. Rightmire’s parameters with budget making were essential to assessing the needs of the university on the whole. It appears that the dean hereafter mended his ways, as no such subsequent correspondence was identified in later years to Dean Arps.

Finally, on July 24, 1929, an endowment fund for research was created. “The belief that undiscovered truths are more important than established ones is the basis for a plan for the endowment of research which members of the Ohio State University Alumni

Association have recently developed,” reported the Ohio State Lantern. The Lantern continued,

“This project which calls for the financing by the alumni of research ‘is as distinctive and unique a program as has been essayed by the alumni of any college or university,’ according to a statement of John B. Fullen, alumni secretary. A Research Council, made up of representatives from the alumni, faculty, and board of trustees, will determine the research projects to be undertaken and will choose

439 Rightmire to Dean George F. Arps [of College of Education], 30 May 1929, 3/f Budget: Education: College of: Correspondence and data: May - June 1929. 200

the scholars to complete them…. The father of this unusual project is James [F.] Lincoln, retiring president of the alumni association. He saw in it opportunity for which the alumni had been looking. A chance to become a vital factor in the University program in a big and constructive way. The State Legislature provides funds for concrete things such as buildings and salaries of instructors. The alumni hope to provide the money for the abstract idea of research.”440

Starting an endowment fund geared for research was the first major accomplishment in endowment building for Ohio State and its alumni. Even students took notice of endowment funds. Two days after the announcement, posted on the top right of the front page of OSU’s student newspaper in an advertisement box it read, “We suppose the students would like an endowment for cushioned seats in the Library.”441

This sarcasm indicates a lack of appreciation for the significance or purpose of raising endowment, but discussion of building an endowment was beginning to become more integrated into members of the Ohio State University community.

Grateful for Rightmire’s role in working with the Board of Trustees for appropriation for the OSU Association, alumni Secretary Fullen wrote “This honorarium aids very materially in the prosecution of the program of the Association, the fundamental principle of which is the interest of the University. Naturally, we in the

Association are wont to endow our relationship with more than a dollars and cents evaluation. We like to believe that the service we have rendered to the University is

440 Research council alumni included: “Dr. Francis Carter Wood, New York City, director of the Crocker Foundation for research in cancer; Charles F. Kettering ’04, Detroit, president of the General Motors Research Corporation; Charles P. Cooper, VP for American Telephone and Telegraph James Lincoln, Lewis Chubb. Julius F. Stone and Lawrence E. Laybourne of Board of Trustees and Rightmire and Mcpherson of the grad School rep with one other faculty rep to be chosen for third faculty rep.” “Endowment Fund Created For Research: Research Council, Consisting of Alumni, Faculty, and Trustees, to Determine Projects,” Ohio State Lantern, 24 July 1929, Front page. By June 7, 1929 Lew Morrill was a director of American Alumni Council. 441 Ohio State Lantern, 26 July 1929, Front page. 201 priceless. May the cordiality between the University and its alumni continue in increasing measure. We are yours to command for any service.”442 So for Fullen, it was not just about receiving or raising money, but also serving in meaningful and long-lasting ways.

In late November Fullen wrote Rightmire about the campaign for endowment research. Fullen wrote, “I have just received in campus mail the letter and literature sent you by Lester S. Walbridge of the John Price Jones Corporation. This information will be valuable to us, no doubt, when we set in motion our campaign for endowment research.”443 Apparently the actual campaign for endowment research had not yet begun.

At the end of December 1929, Fullen explained to Rightmire a revenue problem with regard to graduating seniors for the Ohio State University Association.

“For some time I have been meaning to write to you or talk with you concerning the alarming falling-off of memberships in the Ohio State University Association on the part of the outgoing seniors. Our records show that in 1927-28, $2,643.00 was collected by the bursar’s office from graduating seniors, but that last year, the first year of my regime, this fell down to $1,195.00 a net loss of $1,448.00. Several factors might account for this situation. The first, perhaps, might be my own inexperience in this field. Accordingly, since that time, I have been laying the ground work for a better contact with the undergraduates as well as a more careful plan of approaching them for memberships…. It is because all this effort has been so, apparently, unproductive that I am looking further for the explanation and I think I have it, at least in part. I have discussed the matter of the alarming delinquency among present day seniors with Miss Hane, cashier, who so very thoughtfully and considerately cooperates with the Ohio State University Association by collecting senior Alumni dues with the diploma fee. She tells me that until a year ago, her office went further than this in that they went to the extent of asking seniors, as they came in to pay their diploma fees, whether they

442 Fullen to Rightmire, 16 September 1929, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29. 443 Fullen to Rightmire, 27 November 1929, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/2/54), “Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1928-29. 202

wished to pay their alumni fee. She explained that some difficulty arose through complaints from disgruntled seniors, who, she said, appeared to believe that they were being forced into payment of the alumni fee. Accordingly, the practice of mentioning the alumni fee was discontinued by Miss Hane and her assistants. I think that this, as much as anything else, has caused a falling-off in memberships and in revenue to the Association…. This is a day and age when all of us have to be reminded of our obligations. Might I suggest that the unpleasant situation previously experienced might be avoided if Miss Hane and her assistants simply said to the seniors as they pay their other fees, ‘Do you wish to join the Alumni Association?’ The interrogation need go no further than that. If a disinclination were indicated, the matter could be dropped, and with embarrassment to no one…. [Fullen further suggests that] a little slip similar to that enclosed with the cards on behalf of the bursar’s office…might say ‘seniors are reminded that fees for membership in the Ohio State University Association, the official alumni organization, can be paid at the bursar’s office any time before Commencement, or with the diploma fee. Membership in the Association is not compulsory, but is urged.’ This would serve as a potent reminder that there is such a thing as the Alumni Association and that the University, itself, takes official cognizance of it. I am inclined to think that some seniors consider us an alien group, working for our own selfish interest, although how this misapprehension could exist is quite beyond [my] understanding. I do not want to make the Alumni Association obnoxious to the University’s administration or to the seniors. But after all, the graduates owe a state university something for the education which they have received at so nominal cost. Three dollars a year is a very small measure of appreciation and loyalty, but collectively the dues of the members aid us in our ever-widening program of service to the University. As the number of Ohio State’s sons and daughters increases, the number of members in the Alumni Association ought to be showing a proportionate gain, but as a matter of fact, membership has been stationery for the last five years or six years, our total number being 6,000. This is rather disappointing when we consider that Wisconsin has 10,000 and Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota a much higher number.”444

Disgruntled by the lack of revenue during his “regime,” Fullen was adamant that graduating seniors had to understand their duty and express their “loyalty” to the university as stated above: “This is a day and age when all of us have to be reminded of our obligations” and the fact that “graduates owe a state university something for the

444 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 21 December 1929, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 203 education which they have received at so nominal cost.” While in this case, the decreased alumni memberships may have been due to something as simple as a change in the way the cashier talked with the students, OSU was already behind in gaining alumni members.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1929

In Rightmire’s report for 1929, he reported with “great pleasure… the cordial attitude of the Governor of Ohio and the Legislature in the last session.”445 He continued, that the visits to Michigan and Illinois were made possible,

“Through the generosity of a good friend of the University.446 A number of members of the important committees of the Legislature, some members of the State Administration, the Board of Trustees of the University and some University officials made a tour of inspection of the Universities of Michigan and Illinois, to gather information about the progress of those institutions. The trip was very illuminating to everyone; the university buildings at both institutions were impressive, the officials were entirely cordial, and every effort was made to give complete information to the party from Ohio. Out of these observations grew concrete ideas about what the State of Ohio might appropriately be doing for The Ohio State University447 in addition to what the State has already been doing in this direction. Likewise, the appropriate legislative committees and the Governor studied the needs of the University as these were presented; and the result of all the consideration was an appropriation surpassing by about one-third the support

445 Rightmire’s experience with Ohio Governor Myers Y. Cooper contrasted greatly with later Ohio Governor Martin L. Davey. Rightmire’s expressed sentiment was not so cordial towards Davey in the early 1930s. George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1928-1929, in Fifty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1929 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1929), 5-20. In this report, the capitalized, “T” is used by Rightmire. This is different from previous years reports. Does he correct himself, or does a copy-editor catch it? Rightmire, Annual Report 1928-29, 8. 446 According to Pollard, the practice of visiting like institutions was started in 1913 with the announcement of on November 7, 1913 in a meeting by President William Oxley Thompson that a ‘through the generosity of a personal friend,’ [whom Pollard suspected was trustee and benefactor Julius F. Stone] Ohio State University and state of Ohio officials would visit Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan and inspect “physical plant, facilitates, and budget in comparison with the Ohio State University.” James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 219. 447 Rightmire capitalized “The” in the draft version, [Undated] 1929, 3/f Annual Reports President, 1929, box 4, folder 17. 204

accorded by any previous Legislature in the way of personal service, maintenance, and buildings…. The building needs of the University are still rather comprehensive, and a well-considered program and a statement of needs will soon be undertaken, so that in future sessions of the Legislature the program of University building requirements may be presented in a very concrete and complete fashion.”448

So a group of Ohio State administrators, the OSU Board of Trustees, and legislators from the state of Ohio toured and compared themselves with the Universities of Michigan and Illinois. Following this visit, Ohio State received one-third more from the legislature than from previous legislatures in salaries, maintenance (including equipment), and buildings. A statement of needs would be generated. It appears the spirit of competition worked not only on students and alumni but on legislators as well.

Rightmire in a section on “Special Endowments” updated his readers (similar to his report for the year 1928 on the role of women donors: “Through the years a considerable number of endowment funds for designated purposes has been received by the University from many sources, and these are carried as Schedule H in the Annual

Financial Report of the University.” Among the list were gifts from women OSU alumnae who gave from Springfield, Ohio, Dayton, Pittsburgh, New York, and Detroit.

Their money was intended to help current OSU women students.

The following table describes OSU’s endowment and gift income in comparison to the income received from student fees and from the state. Already very low compared to student or state income, endowment and gift income was about to fall more rapidly in comparison to either during the Depression years.

448 Rightmire, Annual Report 1928-29, 5. 205

Year From Students449 From the From State Endowments and Gifts450 1929-1930 $926,816 $4,104,294 $92,410 1930-1931 $961,658 $4,088,789 $102,740 1931-1932 $985,820 $3,546,556 $88,356 1932-1933 $911,869 $3,377,028 $72,284 Table 15. Income Amount from OSU Students, from the State of Ohio, and from Endowment and Gifts, 1929-1933

During James F. Lincoln’s presidency of the alumni he motivated Rightmire, university administrators, and alumni to work together to create an endowment for research. Rightmire reported on Lincoln’s work,

“During the past two years the Ohio State University Association451, under the presidency of Mr. James F. Lincoln, manifested a great interest in possible activities of the Alumni for the advancement of the University. This may assume the form of an endowment, or a concrete gift, or some other form, and the particular purpose or purposes for which funds might be accumulated at once becomes the issue. This question received thorough discussion during the year, and a joint committee created by the Board of Trustees and the Association carefully considered the form which Alumni interest might profitably assume. An Alumni Endowment Fund for Research was decided upon by this committee and was approved by the annual meeting of the Association. An Alumni committee on ways and means has been set up, consisting of James F. Lincoln, Francis Carter Wood, Charles P. Cooper, Charles F. Kettering, L. W. Chubb, and H. S. Harwick, President of the Association. An executive head for the committee is now being sought to bring the proposal vigorously to the attention of Alumni everywhere.”452

449 Total Income from students, including tuition and incidentals, special fees, degrees, lab, etc. 450 Data adapted from, Rightmire, OSU Annual Report 1932-33, 22. Endowment derived from both permanent and temporary funds, not separated out. 451 In the early twentieth century, when referring to OSU’s full name, there is much inconsistency in the use of the capital letter “T” versus the lowercase “t”, and whether to include “The” in OSU’s name. 452 Rightmire, Annual Report 1928-29, 11. 206

At this point, Rightmire’s involvement and understanding of the future of the fund appeared vague. Though a committee had been setup, the emphasis was not of a long- term plan for endowment building, but rather indicated a one-time endowment or gift project. Why did it take eight more years before an official alumni endowment fund was integrated with the university? Is it because Rightmire was too careful? Was he too methodical in trying to make it happen? These questions are better understood when explored through subsequent years, as follows in the next chapter.

Thus the pre-depression years of Rightmire’s presidency were marked by a lackadaisical approach to private funding, and this during a time when the size of a university’s endowment was beginning to be equated with the prestige of the university.

Rightmire appreciated donations made, but for the most part did not actively seek out gifts to the university. Instead he relied on the state for the financial well being of the university and was careful to avoid offending the legislature with calls for private fundraising. While alumni leaders such as Lincoln, Fullen, and Morrill encouraged action and especially in dealing with the alumni and other donors, Rightmire delayed, putting the work into the hands of slow working committees. Rightmire, though he recognized the private fundraising work being done by other universities, did not follow their examples, only making some progress in 1929 with the creation of an endowment fund for research. President Rightmire’s conceptions of and intentions on endowment building were soon to be challenged by the Great Depression. 207

Chapter Four: Rightmire, the University, and the Depression, 1930-1934

The Ohio State University paid an even higher price for failure to enter fundraising during the 1920s. As OSU experienced the setbacks brought on by the

Depression, Rightmire’s challenges were similar to those in the past, but now on a grander scale. Decreased appropriations from the state meant not only poor but actually decreased salaries for professors and staff. Rather than expanding programs, Rightmire found himself under the necessity of cutting classes and extra-curricular activities.

Rightmire’s correspondence with administrators, politicians and citizens of Ohio and beyond, suggests he faced encouragement and pressure from an increasing number of people to become aggressive in private fundraising, but that he made little progress in this area, despite the example of and competition with Michigan.

In the Depression, institutions did not perform well. It is important to note that

OSU missed the window of opportunity during the 1920s to raise money when the economy was thriving. Though Rightmire voiced more requests, mostly from the state, he did economic and institutional factors contributed to a lack of progress.

208

1930

In an address given sometime between 1930 and 1932, President Rightmire highlighted the role of a strong “hand” by the government as well as some of the uncertainty about the education received by alumni. With regard to “The modern university,” he said it,

“has developed much inertia and educational programs change slowly…. Ye are not just sure that we have been giving you the best training and we are even proposing to give our alumni some ‘Adult’ education: Also we are not entirely certain what that should be: Inside, we shall be striving to understand modern needs and modern trends, and to present to the student an ordered progress in intellectual training that will increasingly fit him to find a constructive place in modern society and give him the foundation upon which to develop to the full his capacity for learning, doing and living.”453

Rightmire is trying here again to show that OSU is an institution of public education (which would make it deserving of tax support). In an attempt to meet the needs of Ohio State students, gifts for the OSU loan fund were encouraged. Rightmire and university committees started to voice more open gift requests. Examples of gifts included: “Gifts of Money,” “Gift of Real Estate,” “Gift of Residue,” “Gift of Remainder

Subject to Life Estate,” and “Examples of Special Directions Which May be Attached to any Gift.” 454 Donors were welcome to restrict gifts to a particular department, level and sex of students. Though all these choices may have been pleasing to the donors, they very likely complicated administration of funds throughout the university.

453 P. 26 Rightmire, “Education for Tomorrow” in 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 454 “Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Student Loan Foundation” 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 209

Early in 1930, Jack Fullen suggested that alumni membership in the Ohio State

University Association might be increased if emphasis were placed on outgoing graduating classes, campaigning for young alumni support.455

Fullen also reported to Rightmire on potential funding ($2,500) from the Carnegie

Foundation, “with which to prosecute quiet research along the lines of Continued

Education among the alumni.” Expressing that the “Alumni Association is very much interested in the matter,” Morrill attempted to arrange a visit with Mrs. Charters [Wife of

W.W. Charters] and himself, “in order that we might discuss the proposition with you.

The proposal has the approval of Dean Arps of the College of Education and is the result of negotiations begun by Mr. Morrill. As you doubtless know, this would be similar to grants already given to other universities in an attempt to evaluate alumni interest in the movement.”456

While trying to fund research, the ever present concern of low salaries continued to haunt the university. By mid-April, the Dean Walter J. Shepard, of the College of Arts and Sciences submitted a requests for “salary adjustments in” the College of Arts and

Sciences. Second on his list of sixteen salary adjustments, was a $500 salary increase for

Professor , raising it to $3500. Shepard felt the higher salary was necessary, “if we are to retain this very able, indeed brilliant, member of the English department.” Shepard explained that Hatcher “feels quite dissatisfied with his present salary and has indicated that he is considering turning his attention to writing, in which he

455 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 7 January 1930, The Ohio State University Archives 3/f Alumni: The OSU Association and Alumni Club Matters 1930-32. 456 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 26 February1930, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 210 is quite successful and where a number of very attractive openings have already appeared. We cannot afford to lose Professor Hatcher.” Also, historian Carl Wittke’s salary was asked to be raised $500 to $6500; otherwise, he might be lost to places like

Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, and the University of Michigan. “There is a dearth of first- class men in American History throughout the country.” By way of comparison, Shepard pointed out that other prominent offers were being made at Western Reserve for $9,000 for prominent professors and at $10,000 from Northwestern University.457 Thus it appears President Lowell’s, and later Rightmire’s, please for increased finding for salaries was justified further and the states was still not meeting this need .

It appeared the OSU Association was making progress in appealing to alumni.

One writer praised recent Ohio State University Monthly magazines, explaining that, “I believe we have succeeded in interjecting personalities into the Monthly which I believe quite important. The personal equation is the motivating force in any movement.”458

By mid-June, W. W. Charters459 asked that (sometime within the next ten years) the Bureau of Educational Research might have its own building, some 40,000 square feet of building space. Charters' petition claimed that “we are cramped to suffocation at

457 Walter J. Shepard [Dean of College of Arts and Sciences] to Rightmire, 16 April 1930, 3/f Budget: College of Arts and Sciences, Correspondence and Data, Jan 1930-June 1930. 458 N.[?]S. Warnick to Rightmire, 8 May 1930, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 459 Werrett Wallace Charters (1875-1952), advisee of Philosopher John Dewey, served as founding editor of the Journal of Higher Education and Director of the OSU Bureau of Educational Research that produced many innovative audio visual projects. Prominent OSU faculty included Charters’ former advisees William H. Cowley, Edgar Dale, and Ralph W. Tyler. http://www.kdp.org/meetourlaureates/laureates/werrettcharters.php 211 the present time. We will be able very definitely to fill a building within the next few years.”460

Though Rightmire was slow in perceiving the need, others like Dean Walter J.

Shepard of the College of Arts and Sciences were seeing the need to grow the endowment. In the third week of June, Dean Shepard asked for a better plan to grow the endowment. In his budget request for the Biennium 1931-1933 on behalf of the departments within the College of Arts and Sciences he prioritized the college requests that included better university library facilities (more space, copies of books, and additional knowledgeable staff. “If Ohio State University is to perform its function as a great University, it must have a library which compares favorably with those of other great state and endowed universities,” he explained.

At the end of his budget request, Dean Walter J. Shepard urgently demanded a better vision of cultivating money from private sources:

“Ohio State University aspires to at least a place of equality with the other great state universities and indeed with even the greatest of the endowed universities. Our resources come almost entirely from legislative appropriations. We have not as yet tapped to any great extent the resources of private beneficence. A program which takes the requests for this coming biennium as a point of departure and anticipates a continuing increase in the legitimate demands of the University, should include in its consideration the possibility of large gifts from alumni and other persons who might be interested in contributing to the needs of the University. Other institutions are securing not only large legislative appropriations, but great endowments. The state of Ohio cannot afford to be pushed into a secondary position. A real vision of future needs and of future

460 W. W. Charters to Dean George F. Arps, 17 June 1930, 3/f Budget: Education: College of: Correspondence and Data, 1930. Charters, often considered by many scholars to have drawn much of his ideas of systematic education from the Frederick W. Taylor’s “Taylorization” of education model, is now being viewed in light of pre-progressive era curricular activities. See Thomas Fallace and Victoria Fantozzi “Was There Really a Social Efficiency Doctrine?: The Uses and Abuses of an Idea in Educational History”Educational Researcher 42 no. 3 (April 2013): 148 [total article pages 142-150]. 212

possibilities should illumine our consideration of such a program as is herewith submitted. We must not be startled by what appear to be very large requests; we must learn to think in much more expanded and ambitious terms than we have in the past.”461

Shepard’s request for a program that encouraged large gifts from private donors-- something that other universities were doing--seemed to be half-complaint and half- request. Ohio State would indeed need to become more “ambitious” to compete with other universities of comparable status. And Shepard is discussing academic competition, rather than athletic competition which often was emphasized, perhaps even sometimes at the expense of academic priorities.

In a circular distributed to alumni, Alumni Secretary John B. Fullen made the following mention of football and what it had to do with the “Bludgeons of

Blandishment.” He said, “Some people like to be forced into an advantage. Others like to be won by soft words. With a keen sense of fairness, the Athletic Board has voluntarily placed in the hands of the Alumni Association a sugar-coated mace. We merely present this blandishing bludgeon to you. Either tap yourself lightly on the head with it, or run your tongue over it and enjoy the taste….” In a poignant back cover of the circular, it read: “Do You ‘Belong’ Or Did You Just Go To College Here? The Ohio State

University Association, John B. Fullen, Alumni Secretary”462 This circular seemed to be an effort to induce an emotional appeal on the alumni into giving. “Do You ‘Belong’ Or

Did You Just Go To College Here?” It appears that this tactic was not popular and perhaps contributed to a lack of alumni enthusiasm for giving as illustrated below.

461 Walter J. Shepard, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, to Rightmire, 18 June 1930, 3/f Budget: Arts and Sciences: College of: Biennial Requests: 1930. 462 The Ohio State University Association, Circular, “Bludgeons of Blandishment” [c. 1930] 213

In mid-September 1930, Edgar H. Mack (of Sandusky and) of the Board of

Trustees complained to President Rightmire:

“Three times in the last week, Ohio State University alumni here--three of them-- have called my attention to the circular being sent out this year by the Athletic Association. You, no doubt, know about it, but I inclose[sic] one of them. I had it in mind to bring the matter up before the Board at the next meeting I attend as it seems to me that means such as this are not helpful to the University, the Alumni Association, nor the Athletic Association. Why should any alumnus be clubbed into joining our Alumni Association if he doesn’t care to? I would be glad to hear from you with your thoughts in the matter.”463

John B. Fullen, secretary of the Ohio State University Association and author of the circular, responded to Mack’s complaint at the request of President Rightmire.

Copying Rightmire, Fullen suggested that the real reason for the complaint was rooted in offense taken by the priority policy with regard to the distribution of football tickets.

Fullen elaborated by giving a history (in his letter) of when priority was given to Alumni

Association members with football tickets [circa 1928],

“the practice of granting priority in allotment of football tickets to members of the Alumni Association was started by the Athletic Board here two years ago. It is in line with a similar custom observed by universities the country over, from Columbia in the east, to the University of California in the west…. I can readily understand why your first reaction to the complaints of the alumni you mention would be one of inquiry as to why anyone should be forced into membership…. It is the farthest from our wish to force anyone into membership. The circular was prepared to point out to non-members of the Association one of the advantages of membership. There is only one other advantage to belonging to the Alumni Association, from a selfish point of view, and that is that subscription to the Monthly is included in the dues. Outside of this, the only return is the satisfaction which the member alumnus gets from contributing, even in so small a measure, to the program of an organization which has as its first interest the welfare of the

463 Egbert [“Edgar”] H. Mack (Sandusky) of the Board of Trustees to Dr. George W. Rightmire (12 September 1930), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55.

214

University. Accordingly, we feel that it is to the interest of the University that it should grant such a privilege to those of its alumni who are actively engaged in aiding it in its legislative contacts, it its appeal for loan funds, in its appeal for endowment, and who have constantly aided the University through constructive suggestion and advice. One cry voiced by alumni at times has been, ‘The University doesn’t pay any attention to us. Why should we do anything for it?’ Some rush courtesy, as the granting of preference to active and interested alumni, is the sort of thing which makes the mutual relationship a happy and agreeable one. It has always seemed to me, personally, that the alumnus who is not interested enough in his university to pay three dollars a year to belong to its alumni association and thus make his interest effective through organization is not in a position to criticize…. It is perfectly natural that three complaints coming to your office in one week must have caused you to think that there was a widespread disapprobation of this policy. May I assure you that this is not the case? This office, to which most complaints would probably be directed, has only received four. I am hopeful that this letter may serve to answer the question you raise, but if this explanation does not clear up the matter satisfactorily, I should be only glad to discuss the matter further with you the next time you are in Columbus.”464

The fact that seven people had complained--three in the Sandusky, Ohio area and four in the OSU main office, and possibly others in other areas, indicated that alumni did not respond well to this circular. Fullen seemed intent in his letter to discuss another venue, football tickets for alumni, not an obvious answer to the concerns voiced by alumni about his circular. Despite the issue of Fullen’s word choice, it appeared that OSU alumni were not accustomed to giving and treated fundraising strategies practiced at other peer universities, as an imposition. This demonstrated that the culture of giving at OSU was far behind other universities. This is also an example of a negative consequence of the use of athletics to promote fundraising.

464 Fullen to Egbert H. Mack, 25 September 1930, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 215

The direct financial concerns of the OSU Association were set forth in a response by Fullen in late September to a request for information by Indiana University President,

William L. Bryan. Fullen explained that the association had an annual income of

$30,000, that the university contributed $8,500, and that yearly membership dues totaled

$18,000 ($3 fee from 6,000 members). As opposed to other universities like Harvard and

Yale, the OSU alumni were dependent on their university. Fullen further explained, “We feel here that the chief support for the organization should come from the alumni themselves, and within the last year, I personally have vetoed a suggestion that an attempt be made to enforce an alumni fee on all graduating seniors…. It has been found desirable in many universities that the University proper grant an annual subsidy, such as is done here, but it is always done by means of an appropriation from the general fund rather than by means of an undergraduate fee.” An important point in Fullen’s reply, and something that can be seen elsewhere in correspondence by OSU administrators, was that the alumni association disliked asking for money from the university. But, when it came down to the wire, the OSU Association was beholden to the university for a significant portion of its income, income needed to track alumni, publish the Monthly, and support alumni activities. According to Fullen, it was a common problem for alumni associations to have to beg for subsidies from their universities.465 It was not clear if President Bryan responded.

465 John B. Fullen (Secretary of the Association) to William L. Bryan of Indiana University, 27 September 1930, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 216

Meanwhile, on October 4, 1930, Morrill reported to Rightmire on his conversation with Fullen regarding the controversial alumni circular, “Bludgeons of

Blandishment,” that had irritated several alumni and leaders. According to Morrill:

“I had a talk with Mr. Fullen about this. He sensed very quickly that the tone of the circular was not quite consonant with the sensibilities of a good many older, the more quiet and the more dignified alumni, and I think that he will be likely to curb his exuberance somewhat as he prepares material of this kind in the future. The use of the word ‘bludgeon’ was not very fortunate, he recognized, and the bludgeon tone of the circular not really apropos to the kind of appeal to be made. He was really worried because he felt that Mr. Mack was objecting not so much to the kind of statements made as to the plan whereby the Athletic Department discriminates in favor of members of the Alumni Association in allotting stadium seats. I don’t believe that Mr. Mack meant to raise this point…this plan represents the best judgment and has the unanimous endorsement of both the alumni Board of Directors and the Athletic Board.” 466

In other words, Morrill recognized that the priority for privileged seating was not the problem and pointed that out to Fullen. The real issue was the language used in Fullen’s circular,467 language that was possibly more offensive at the time due to a recent murder trial involving an OSU professor.468

466 J. L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 4 October 1930, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 467 J. L. Morrill to George W. Rightmire, 4 October 1930, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 468 In 1929 a married Ohio State University professor, Dr. James H. Snook, killed an OSU medical student, Theora Hix (with whom he had had a love affair for the previous three years), with a pocket knife and a ball peen hammer. Snook, inventor of the snook hook, was tried, convicted and executed (by electric chair) in early 1930 after being found guilty for the murder of Theora Hix. Incidentally, the “Snook Case” was not mentioned by President Rightmire in his annual reports. “Dr. Snook Lodged in Jail After Confessing Slaying of Miss Hix,” Columbus Evening Dispatch (20 June 1929): front page; See also James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 296. 217

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1930

In his report for the academic year 1929-1930, Rightmire highlighted Professor

Erwin E. Dreese, a University of Michigan graduate who “succeeded to the chairmanship of” the Department of Electrical Engineering.469 Dreese had been “chief engineer of the

Lincoln Electric Works at Cleveland, Ohio” for the past five years and held a “keen appreciation of the educational problems involved in university work and the relation which may helpfully exist between the department and the industry.”470 The university’s relationship with industry had been important, partially thanks to James F. Lincoln,

President of Lincoln Electric and president of the OSU Association.

In this year, another from the University of Michigan, Professor Charles Scott

Berry, was made Director of the new, “Bureau of Special Education, dealing with backward, handicapped, or defective children in the public schools.” The Bureau was placed in the University by the last Legislature, and it was during the year set up in the

College of Education with a Director in charge.”471 This year Rightmire also included a section titled, “New Scholarships and Fellowships,” instead of a “Special Endowments” section from last year’s report. He recalled, “In recent years the University has been entrusted with scholarships and fellowships for a variety of purposes created by donors outside of the University, and this has been accepted as one of the hopeful signs of satisfactory and resultful university growth. These endowments for particular purposes

469 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1929-1930, in Sixtieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1930 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1930), 5-20. 470 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 6. 471 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 9. 218 have a very widespread interest as will be seen…” Then, Rightmire included a list of fellowships and scholarships.472

Also in 1929-1930, a Division of Alumni Records was created within the

Registrar’s office. The purpose was “so that the University might build up and maintain records of its alumni and former students who were not graduated, as complete as it may be possible to obtain.” Registrar Edith D. Cockins (registar: 1897-1944) became the

Director of the division and, according to Rightmire had “been prosecuting [the alumni records work] with great vigor.”473

Describing the inadequacy of state funding for male housing arrangements,

Rightmire noted, “Dormitories for men must be on a very extended scale and, therefore, up to present time have seemed financially hopeless if the money for their construction must come from State sources. However, it is hoped that private capital may see its way clear to venture into this field at some time in the near future.”474 Rightmire’s appeal for private funds for dormitories was not met with much enthusiasm at that time, but would contribute to the impetus for eventually focusing further efforts on raising money from non-state sources. Rightmire’s emphasis on dormitories demonstrates that he did not understand the significance for raising money for endowment.

Wife of W.W. Charters, Dr. Jessie A. Charters, was among the first women to have a Ph.D. and the first woman to become a professor of adult education. She founded the Department of Adult Education at Ohio State University in 1928. Under her direction,

472 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 8. 473 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 9. 474 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 11. 219 an “endowed project” funded by the Carnegie Corporation provided for research on a study of Alumni education.475 According to Rightmire:

“Adult Education has been urgently and widely advocated for the last few years, and one phase of that activity is the further education of the Alumni of the University. It has been represented that the Alumni are finding as time goes on that for certain reasons they desire further education in a particular direction, for benefit or for pleasure, and the thought has been expressed that the University is the natural agency for making this contribution. Just what the feeling is among our Alumni generally is not known, and the gift by the Carnegie Corporation will enable the University during the year to make a study of their desires. Assuming that Alumni do have a desire for further education from the University as a teaching agency, the whole matter of educational procedures and techniques will then have to be wrought out; we are here opening a field in which we have had practically no experience, and in which the University will venture only after the nature and extent of the needs have been very carefully ascertained. This study project will enable the University to go forward intelligently.”476

At a time when the graduate student population was growing considerably, the

Graduate Council made some recommendations. For many years the Graduate Council had “been urging the advisability of providing fellowships or graduate assistantships carrying a larger stipend” up $200 to the amount of $1,200 for instructors in Ohio to able to afford time off to do graduate study at OSU. Further, Rightmire reported that,

“The legislative appropriation for scholarships and fellowships has not increased for some years; there has been a great increase, however, in the number of graduate assistantships carrying an annual stipend of five hundred dollars, and of course these stipends are paid out of legislative appropriation with some exceptions. Scholarships and fellowships have been established by foundations or private institutions or industries, and the number of these is increasing each year. There is no uniformity in the stipends passing to the graduate schools…and the

475 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 12. 476 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 12-13. In later years [not sure exactly when] Dr. Charters “was forced to give up her job because her husband had one; two jobs in the same family were not allowed,” http://www.halloffame.outreach.ou.edu/2004/Charters.html 220

tendency is to make the stipend, considerably larger than that which has been so far allowed from legislative appropriation.”477

In a report from the Graduate School it was advised that departments who were preparing teachers to consider “awarding the degree of Doctor of Education, in place of

Doctor of Philosophy” that would “more adequately equip the candidates for their life’s work.”478 Moreover, “The faculty expressed its belief that some systematic and persistent effort should be made to secure funds for worthy projects, from alumni and other persons interested in the University; and that in this connection appreciation be expressed to the

Ohio State University Association for the proposal to establish an Alumni Research

Council with a view to raising funds for endowment of research.”479 It seemed everyone was on board to support an endowment campaign, though the emphasis on endowment funds for research was possibly too narrow of a focus. Later the OSU Development Fund, established in 1938, called for and encouraged endowments of all kinds.

Rightmire’s annual report asserted that part of the challenge the university faced was the difficulty of luring experienced faculty to the university because the experienced faculty member can often attribute much of his or her success to their existing institution.

Even if and when OSU could offer prominent faculty competitive salaries, it remained a challenge to lure them to Columbus.480

477 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 14-15. , The number of OSU graduate students in 1918 was 250 and grew to 2,444 in 1929., p. 17. 478 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 16. 479 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 16. 480 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 17. 221

To conclude his 1929-1930 report, Rightmire reported that Ohio State University had 25,000 graduates, 55,000 non-graduates, 15,000 students, and 1,000 teachers.481 He also included excerpts from Abraham Flexner’s book, “Universities.” Lamenting the state of colleges, Abraham Flexner pointed out that American universities were not distinct.

“[T]he college is confused with the ‘service station’ and overlaps the graduate school.482

In discussing the role of a university president, Flexner asserted, “A president is a good device; but he should not come between the faculty and the trustees.”483 Rightmire responded generally to Flexner by arguing that a state university fits in the definition of a university, and suggesting that there was more to a state university than Flexner would have readers believe.484

1931

The fact that OSU looked to Michigan for many things was apparent. Fullen described his experience, “I chanced upon a discussion of a recent meeting of the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan with reference to the old age annuity plan in operation there. I do not know what its actual relative significance may be, but I thought it might be interesting to you in the light of the insurance plan in contemplation here.”

481 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 18. 482 Abraham Flexner, Universities: American, English, German (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994), 45. (Original work published 1930). 483 Abraham Flexner, Universities: American, English, German (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994), 185. (Original work published 1930). 484 Rightmire, Annual Report 1929-30, 19. 222

Fullen enclosed a memo related to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching and benefits the foundation had intended to offer retiring faculty at the U-M.485

Loring Hapgood Goddard, an Ohio farmer, international businessman, and former experimentalist for what would become the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, wrote to Rightmire on February 16, 1931. Goddard was pleased with the way the OSU Monthly was shaping up recently, in contrast with his earlier sentiment, where he had, in fact, requested that he be dropped from the Monthly subscription list. He explained his earlier thoughts, “The Monthly impressed me as the organ of a Glorified High School which was making athletics a major activity and which had a juvenile enthusiasm because a ‘few’ of its graduates had attained success. Owing to the fact that I claim to know the eleventh commandment,--Do not take thyself too seriously--I stepped aside to let the crowd go by.

Please do not assume that I am opposed to athletics. It is the ‘over emphasis’ on same which has long impressed me….” Goddard explained that long ago he had actually given money to the football team to obtain equipment to protect themselves against Kenyon

College. He continued, “When I pushed the idea of having the alumni take over the management of the University athletics little did I realize the extremes to which the alumni would go. I did not sense the fact that college athletics would become the aristocratic pastime for hard working graduates and would take its place beside professional baseball which enables so many thousands of tired business men to relax from their strenuous work.”486 Goddard’s sarcasm is noted here and Goddard and

485 Fullen to Rightmire, 23 January 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 486 L[oring] H[apgood] Goddard, to Rightmire, 16 February 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 223

Rightmire continued to correspond through the years of Rightmire’s presidency.

Rightmire’s replies also indicated that he took Goddard’s advice (and criticisms) seriously. For Goddard, over-attention to athletics had detracted from his interest in the university. And indeed, this emphasis on OSU athletic programs sometimes came at the expense of conveying academic and financial considerations,

Though OSU administrators and alumni leaders were interested in retaining the good opinions of their alumni, they did not continue to send the Monthly to those who didn’t pay their dues. In a letter addressed to alumnus S. D. Newton of Sarasota Florida,

Kenyon S. Campbell, Treasurer of the Ohio State University Association, wrote:

“Dear Mr. Newton: Just six weeks ago we sent you a registered letter asking for your alumni dues. This letter has not come back, nor have we heard anything from you regarding your intentions of continuing as a member of the Association. In the meantime, you have received the January issue of the MONTHLY. Frankly, wasn’t there a bit of news or an article in this issue which was worth a whole year’s dues to you? Our association has really taken on new life. It is larger than it has ever been. It is accomplishing greater things. It is becoming more and more a vital force in the lives of the alumni, and a necessity to the growth of the school. Only a very small percentage of members are discontinued, and we certainly hope you will not be one of the few. In courtesy of the unsalaried officers of this Association who are working hard in your interests, won’t you acknowledge this letter in one of three ways:

1. Send your check for the enclosed statement. 2. Write on the margin of this letter when you will send it. 3. Break the bad news that you wish to be dropped.

Hopefully yours, Kenyon S. Campbell, Treasurer”

In reply, Mr. Newton wrote in the margin of the above letter and returned it back to the OSU Association with the following:

224

“Do you know, I really do not like the apparent spirit of this letter, and I cannot conscientiously choose any of your three alternatives. I suppose that I shall have to be dropped, although I don’t want to be; but I am in wretched health, unable to earn anything, and have no money, and so I don’t see any other way but to drop it. Please recall that I am one of the founders of the stadium, and that I have always tried to remain loyal to the university, and kept up my alumni dues as long as I had health to work. Please tell me what you are going to do about it. Yours very truly, S. D. Newton.”487

Alumni Secretary Jack Fullen replied to Newton with the following:

“In view of the circumstances you outline in your notation on our letter of February 6th to you, please be advised that you will not have to choose any of the alternatives we named. In other words, we shall be delighted to keep you on the mailing list for the alumni magazine as long as you are interested in having it. The fact that you kept up a loyal alumni relationship as long as you were able is something to be proud of and we are proud with you and are pleased for this opportunity to show you that the loyalty works both ways.”488

Proud of his efforts to help the loyal alumnus, Fullen shared the letters and the following with President Rightmire: “I thought you would be interested in this case as an evidence of loyalty of long standing to the University, and those of us here on the firing line ought to be thrilled by it. May I have the letter back for our files?”489 It appeared

Rightmire never returned the letter to Fullen, however.490 And while Fullen applauded his and the OSU Association’s efforts to placate loyal alumni, he seemed to miss the issue. It appeared Newton’s inability to choose from the three options offered, was due to the fact that he did not feel his loyalty to OSU was in question by the mere fact that he was

487 Kenyon S. Campbell to Mr. S. D. Newton [Treasurer of The Ohio State University Association] 6 February 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 488 John B. Fullen to S. D. Newton, 20 February 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 489 Fullen to Rightmire, 20 February 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 490 Campbell’s original letter with marginal notation is currently located within Rightmire’s files in the OSU Archives. 225 unable to pay alumni dues. He had valiantly served the institution in the past as a donor to the stadium building campaign. While creative, “loyalty works both ways,” Fullen appears to equate “loyalty” with dues paying even, in his return response. This was another example of a less than successful interaction with alumni, but the idea behind the original letter was valid. The association felt they couldn’t afford to hold onto members who did not pay their dues, nor track non-member former students.491

In an attempt to “give considerable relief in the Colleges,” Rightmire wrote the

Ohio State University Deans and suggested that department “detailed reports” were not necessary to meet the “statutes of Ohio which call for an annual report.” Dean Alfred

Vivian of the College of Agriculture wrote back to President Rightmire and readily suggested a systematic approach that the “complete annual report” be submitted “only on the even numbered years” to match the biennial request.492 Rightmire agreed with this idea of biennial detailed reports and later for the 1930-1931 year stated such in his president’s report. 493

Meanwhile, salary limitations continued to be a problem, even for important figures such as James Lewis Morrill, former OSU Association secretary until 1928, and since, a Junior Dean in the College of Education. Despite both the United States and university’s challenging economic situation, recommended salary increases were made

491 In mid-January 1931, the alumni association decided to stop tracking non-member alumni because of the cost prohibitive nature of tracking graduates and former students. At this time, the 6,000 alumni members were kept track of on 3 x 5 cards and address changes were carried out by Edith D. Cockins, OSU Registrar. Fullen to Cockins,14 January 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 492 Rightmire to Deans, 2 April 1931, Alfred Vivian to Rightmire, 4 April 1931, 3/f Annual Report: President’s Section: 1935. 493 Rightmire, Annual Report 1930-31, 25. 226 by George F. Arps, Dean of the College of Education. Top on Dean Arps’ list was the recommendation that James L. Morrill’s “salary be made $7,500 for the academic year

1931-32. I take it there is no need to elaborate the support of this recommendation. It is well known that Mr. Morrill has been offered positions carrying salaries far in excess of the figure here indicated. He has consistently refused to take advantage of these offers….

Moreover, Dean Morrill’s general value to the university is well known to the President.

He will be able to place a just value on this service….”494 By way of contrast, Arps recommended that the salary of History of Education professor Dr. R. H. Eckelberry be increased from $3,000 to $3,500 a year.

The OSU Association benefited from the following: “The Board of Trustees at its meeting yesterday adopted the following resolution, fixing the University’s contribution for next year for the Association as it has been for some years: ‘That there be appropriated from Maintenance Funds of the University $6,000 and from the interest on

Endowment Fund $2,500 for use of the Ohio State University Association for the college year 1931-32.’”495

In mid-November 1931 Carl Steeb urged President Rightmire to meet with

Chicago alumni. Steeb wrote: “Jack Fullen informs me Chicago Alumni strongly desire to see you at your convenience this week since D J Brumley National Alumni President is

Chicagoan and in view of your splendid program for alumni contacts I strongly urge that

494 George F. Arps [Dean of College of Education] to Rightmire, 17 April 1931, 3/f Budget: Education: College of: Correspondence and Data, 1931. President Bowman of Pittsburgh was considering him for a position, Morrill was considered director for the Laboratory Schools in the College of Education, but he turned it down. And he had the opportunity to head the OSU School of Journalism. 495 Rightmire to Fullen, 21 May 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 227 you arrange to meet with them…. We want Chicago alumni to know you better….”496 It is not clear whether Rightmire attended. This was not the last time that Rightmire’s presence was requested in alumni gatherings. Toward the end of his presidency,

Rightmire was frequently asked to visit the OSU alumni in New York, but turned them down. Rightmire was not particularly known for willingness to travel significant distances for university purposes.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1931

The university lab (Ramseyer Hall) was nearing completion at the time of

Rightmire’s , 1930-1931 annual report, but because of “Financial exigencies” it could not be opened yet.497

After listing several gifts to the university, Rightmire said there were other gifts that could not be mentioned since other topics would need to be discussed instead.

Among included topics were detailed outlines on the duties of student oriented administrators. But in discussing the gifts, he noted, “The University is highly gratified by these concrete evidences of respect for, and reliance upon, its scientific technique and its ability to carry forward scientific projects. Much enthusiasm is stimulated in a Faculty by the presence of these active projects and these manifestations of confidence in the

496 Carl E. Steeb to George W. Rightmire, 16 November 1931, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 497 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1930-1931, in Sixty-First Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1931 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1931), 5-26. Quoted phrase from Rightmire, Annual Report 1930-31, 5. 228

University coming from a variety of sources outside; these sources are always interested in tangible results.”498

Satisfied with composition of students who attended OSU, Rightmire expressed that “About 12 per cent of our attendance now is non-resident in the State, and this gives an air of cosmopolitanism which is stimulating.” 499 In a section entitled, “University

Depends Upon Legislature,” the fact that 10.5 million dollars was needed for the university was highlighted, more than 9.8 million dollars it had received in the past, but this time only received 7.38 million dollars. While asking for additional state funds,

Rightmire kept the division between requests for state funds very separate from those requests for private fundraising.500 Rightmire made it clear that public and private requests would not be co-mingled.

1932

The year 1932 was an extremely difficult economic period for Ohio State

University, Ohio, and the United States, in general. This year Rightmire’s leadership ability, his research, his concern for students and finances are particularly apparent in the correspondence of the time and in his OSU President’s report for 1932. During

Rightmire’s administration, Ohio State, along with many other universities, suffered economic setbacks. During 1932, the country and the university settled deeper into the

498 Rightmire, Annual Report 1930-31, 9. 499 Rightmire, Annual Report 1930-31, 20. 500 Rightmire, Annual Report 1930-31, 22. 229

Great Depression, Rightmire fearful of being called imprudent, encouraged faculty salaries to be cut, and refrained from travel far from Columbus during this period.501

In late February, 1932, D. J. Brumley applauded the work of Rightmire, Dr.

Thompson, Mr. Bricker and Mr. Fullen who all together with approximately eighty alumni club officers joined together at the Alumni Club Officers Luncheon. “It would be a very fine thing if similar meetings could be held in the great centers in the State of Ohio to consolidate efforts of the Alumni and friends of the University and be prepared to meet the situation which will arise in 1933 before the State Legislature. It seems to Mr. Fullen and myself that the organization of the alumni within the state is one of the most important things for the university and the Alumni Association to accomplish and I wish to assure that I will do all I can to direct the affairs of the Association to bring this about.”502 Even though the official name of the OSU alumni association was The Ohio

State University Association, here and in many other cases, it was referred to as the

Alumni Association. It was not until sometime in the mid-twentieth century when the

OSU Association would recognize the value in changing its name to the Ohio State

Alumni Association.503 Former students would be recognized as “friends” or “sustaining members” of the university.504

501 Rightmire to A. B. Myers, 16 August 1932 in 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 502 D. J. Brumley to Rightmire, 29 February 1932, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 503 Dr. Richard M. Mall became director of Alumni Affairs in 1967. 504 Current (2013) OSU membership eligibility into the alumni organization includes no dues for basic alumni membership with “Sustaining Members” and “Life Members” requiring additional financial support; see The Ohio State University Alumni Association, http://www.ohiostatealumni.org/resources/member-benefits/Pages/default.aspx 230

By May, 1932, there were new ideas with regard to sustaining alumni membership. Fullen wrote Rightmire:

“Recognizing that memberships in the Alumni Association, being in the so-called non-essential category, would be affected by the hard times, the Alumni Office has striven this year to make every possible outreach to its members. We have devised for them a new membership card, and have sent them several direct mailing pieces of literature, acquainting them of the activities of the organization which their support makes possible…. I think that it would be perfectly splendid, and in line with our policy, to be able to enclose with the ballots a letter from you, expressing, in a sense, the University’s attitude toward the Association and its program. I have taken the liberty to draft the kind of letter which might seem appropriate. This is not the kind of letter, perhaps, that you would write, but it might be helpful in suggesting ideas to you, if you approve the proposal…. But, I assure you that such a letter would do much to help the Association keep its members….”505

Fullen in his eagerness to sustain and attract alumni petitioned Rightmire to address the alumni in a letter to be sent out in support of the OSU Association. Though it is not clear what letter Fullen suggested Rightmire write, Rightmire often contributed to these personal requests.

On the first day of June 1932, additional funds were released and set aside for the

Ohio Student Loan Foundation. Fullen in a mass letter to various key players in the OSU administration reported, “Trustee Raymond informs me that he will be able to report the release to the Foundation of the $10,000 bequest in the will of the late Joseph Schonthal: the Executive Committee will report on loans to students this year; and other items of

505 Fullen to Rightmire, 3 May 1932, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 231 interest will be up for consideration. Since this is the first meeting held in more than a year, a full attendance is required.”506

Meanwhile before the OSU Loan Foundation meeting, anticipating his arrival to

Columbus within the week, Rightmire wrote Charles F. Kettering (a prominent donor who had served on the board of trustees) in Detroit, Michigan.507 Rightmire invited

Kettering to tour buildings and labs at the chemistry and physics departments. “It is a great pleasure to know through Professor Chubb that you are to be back for the reunion of the Class of 1904, on Saturday, June 10. Not only the members of the Class but the members of the University staff and the University community will be very glad, indeed, to welcome you at that time….508 It is not clear whether Kettering took Rightmire up on his offer, but down the road Kettering played an increasingly larger role in Ohio State

University activities.

On June 10, 1932, at the 8:00 p.m. meeting of the Meeting of the Board of

Trustees of The Ohio Student Loan Foundation, several key players were not present, including President Rightmire, Trustee Julius F. Stone, J. L. Morrill, businessman Robert

Lazarus, Dr. J. W. Wilce, and businessman James F. Lincoln, Carl Steeb, and President

Emeritus William Oxley Thompson. In a section entitled, “Report on Pledges,” a mere

$242.50 was collected for the year and “despite constant advertising of the Foundation in

506 John B. Fullen to Rightmire [and other trustees of the Ohio Student Loan Foundation: These included Dr. George W. Rightmire, Mr. Joseph A. Park, Dean Esther Allen Gaw, Mr. Carl E. Steeb, Mr. Frank M. Raymund, Mr. J. L. Morrill, Mr. R. W. Laylin, Mr. George H. Calkins, Mr. Robert Lazarus, Dr. J. W. Wilce, Dr. W. O. Thompson, Mr. Julius F. Stone, Mr. James F. Lincoln, Mr. John B. Fullen], 1 June 1932, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 507 Kettering was not a member of the OSU Loan Foundation committee. 508 Rightmire to Charles F. Kettering, President General Motors Research Corporation, Detroit, Michigan (3 June 1933) Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932-June 1934. 232 the columns of the Monthly, only two new pledges had been received, one of $50 from

Glenn S. Burrell, ’04, and the other from Miss Mignon Talbot, ’92, of $2.50.” In the loan program meeting a report was also given on a recent university bulletin “carrying warning from President Rightmire to students that it would be no longer possible to defer tuition and other University fees payments.” The minutes of the meeting reported that

“This is an indication of added difficulty confronted by students, hard pressed for money.”509

To offset the financial difficulty that students faced, it was proposed that an endowment fund be setup for student loans. The idea was that the principal amount from those who contributed to lifetime membership in the alumni association would be transferred to the loan fund for students. This had been done at the University of

Missouri. The meeting minutes indicated that “Interest of 6 per cent, paid by Students on

Loans, provided part of the Alumni Association’s operating fund. Principal, repaid and therefore remaining intact provided perpetual fund. Policy provided chance partially to run Alumni organization and to provide perpetual student loan fund.” Nevertheless, a

“difficulty” was “pointed out” considering the potential “loss of principle, on occasion, which would force Alumni Association to make it good. Stated matter had been presented to Alumni Board of Directors who had authorized further study of the plan.”510

Also in the meeting of the Board of Trustees on the Ohio Student Loan

Foundation, was discussed the fact the women frequently defaulted on their loans. To

509 “Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio Student Loan Foundation, held in the Faculty Club, June 10, 1932, 8 p.m.” Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932-June 1934. 510 “Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio Student Loan Foundation, held in the Faculty Club, June 10, 1932, 8 p.m.” Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932-June 1934. 233 alleviate this problem, Robert W. Laylin, who presided in the absence of former President

William Oxley Thompson, “suggested an extra signature on a girl’s note, pointing out losses due to marriages. It would not be working any hardship on anybody, he thought, to insist upon business methods in the handling of the funds of the Foundation…. [Mr.

Laylin] emphasizing making a strong point to women beneficiaries of repayment in full before marriage.” In other words, women were expected to repay the full amount before marrying.511 The meeting minutes include a female’s response:

“Miss Zorbaugh stated that two-thirds of the women graduates go into teaching; many register with teaching agencies which absorb 5 percent of their first year’s salary; most women have lower incomes, therefore it might be advisable not to charge the 6% interest rate of the Foundation to women, but lower it. Mr. Calkins opined that he did not see how a corporation like this could be operated on a sliding scale of interest rates. Since most of the loans were small anyway, the reduction in interest rate would not amount to very much. Mr. Laylin concurred, again emphasizing making a strong point to women beneficiaries of repayment in full before marriage.”512

It appeared that the argument expressed by two of the men in the room (Laylin and Calkins) had, at least temporarily, won the day.

Responding to an invitation from A. B. Myers, Rightmire wrote,

“I should be glad to come to and enjoy some of its wonderful climate and scenery, but it is not possible even to think about it for this year because of the great financial stringency prevailing in this country which seriously affects the University support and, therefore, calls for constant attention to the problem. Your kind invitation which has been renewed several times is deeply appreciated. I am sincerely sympathetic about the financial condition which you describe in your

511 Emphasis is in original. “Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Student Loan Foundation, Held in the Faculty Club, June 10, 1932, 3/f Alumni: OSU Alumni Association, Correspondence, July 1932-June 1934. 512 “Minutes of a Meeting of the Board of Trustees of The Ohio Student Loan Foundation, held in the Faculty Club, June 10, 1932, 8 p.m.” Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932-June 1934. 234

own case. I trust that it will work out better than it now appears to be doing. Starting is not easy at any period of life but beyond fifty it is especially difficult.”513

The Great Depression took its toll on deans as well. James Cooper Lawrence,

University Dean at the University of Minnesota, apparently committed suicide. In a letter marked “Confidential” from Lotus Delta Coffman, President of the University of

Minnesota, to George Rightmire, Coffman claimed that: “Dean [James C. Lawrence,

“Jimmy”] Lawrence left notes or letters for his wife, his stenographer, Mr. Middlebrook and me. His act was deliberate. He owed money and was unable to pay it. He thought his honor was involved and that his promise to pay must be kept. The only way to do it, he thought, was to pay out of his life insurance. He was advised to seek a postponement of debt or to go into bankruptcy. Either course, under the circumstances, would have been honorable, but he was governed by a false sense of pride. His act is deplorable.”514 About

Dean James C. Lawrence, The Northwest Monthly reported under a caption, “One of the most forceful speakers in the Northwest.”515

Another letter contained more welcome news. In August, R. J. Hendricks, the

“longest standing” member of the board of trustees of Willamette University, asked that

Rightmire send in a special tribute to President Carl Gregg Doney. President Doney had served 25 years as a college president. “It is therefore proposed to present President

Doney with a volume of letters from persons who appreciate his work in the development

513 Rightmire to A. B. Myers, 16 August 1932 in 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 514 L. D. Coffman to Rightmire, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 515 The Northwest Monthly [“Published Monthly by the Northwest School of Agriculture of the University of Minnesota, Crookston.”] Vol. 16, no. 2 (January 1932): 7. http://nwmonthly.umcrookston.edu/Northwest%20Monthly%201932%20Vol%2016%20No%202%20Janu ary.pdf 235 of these institutions of learning….” Describing the progress during Doney’s administration, Hendricks reported that in 1915 Willamette University had “an endowment of some $500,000 and a debt of over $30,000; now [in 1932] the endowment exceeds $1,700,000 and there are no debts….”516

Thompson and Rightmire co-wrote a tribute in reply to Hendrick’s request commending President Doney’s fundraising acumen and endowment building strategy.

“[Y]ou have met the existing requirements of the college presidency with unusual efficiency. We rejoice greatly in all this…. We trust that many years of useful service like ahead of you. Any president who has lived through a successful campaign for endowment funds and stands today with a university free of debt compels congratulation and commendation. Willamette as truly as yourself should have the felicitations of all our friends on these achievements.”517 The irony, of course, is that both Thompson and

Rightmire had not waged significant endowment campaigns themselves. Rightmire in particular avoided private fundraising at great cost because of his progressivist view of the university as a public school, a valuable public service which deserved to be funded by taxes.

In an address titled, “Education in Ohio Today,” Rightmire spoke about the

Common School Movement in the early 1850s. He reported on enthusiasm “about the educational revival then taking place.” Quoting Lorin Andrews in 1852 who addressed the State Teachers Association, “‘Gratifying evidences of an increased and increasing

516 R. J. Hendricks to Rightmire, 15 and 25 August 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 517 William Oxley Thompson and George W. Rightmire to Carl Gregg Doney, 9 September 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 236 educational spirit present themselves in every portion of our great State [of Ohio]….

More than one million of dollars has been raised to endow higher institutions of learning; at least, eight thousand teachers have been assembled in Institutes, and have thus been better prepared to act efficiently as missionaries in the great work of education... [W]e now [in the year 1852] have, what we have not very frequently had--a General Assembly, the members of which seem anxiously to desire to advance the interests of education by prudent and proper legislative action.’”518

Moving forward to the twentieth century Rightmire noted higher numbers.

“[B]etween 1900 and 1930 the population increased about 60 per cent,” while “the colleges and universities about 460 per cent. Today a high-school and college education is a part of the family budget--one of the ordinary expenses of living. In Ohio today, out of a population of 6,700,000… there is one college student for every five in the high schools. Practically 60 per cent of those of high-school age in Ohio are actually in the high schools.” Commenting on the differences between America and Europe, Rightmire, explained that:

“In Europe the story is very different; only from 8 to 10 per cent of the youth of high-school age are in the high schools. Secondary education is for a highly selected group, and all others are sent to the technical or vocational schools, or are taken out of school and placed at work. The American idea of universal education, free, carried to the ages of sixteen or eighteen years, is incomprehensible over there. We do not think of everybody here as being extensively educated--we have no illusion about that matter--but we do believe in

518 Lorin Andrews, “Report of the Executive Committee of State Teachers Association for 1852,” Ohio Journal of Education, II (February 1853), p. 60 quoted in George W. Rightmire, “Education in Ohio Today,” Proceedings of the Twelfth Ohio State Educational Conference, Ohio State University Bulletin, 36, no. 1 (15 September 1932): 6. [FULL REFERENCE: George W. Rightmire, “Education in Ohio Today,” Proceedings of the Twelfth Ohio State Educational Conference, Ohio State University Bulletin, 36, no. 1 (15 September 1932): 3- 16. 237

an equal chance for all, for the utilization of which the individual becomes responsible.”519

In discussing his belief about the role of education, Rightmire suggested shortening public education by one or two years. “[W]e cannot stop while we experiment; education is a going concern or nothing; we dare not stop or even slow down for financial stringency or economic hardship. There can be no moratorium on education.

Disheartening material conditions may affect our total program or our preferred procedures, but in times like these the educative process must be stimulated and exhilarated.”520 In other words, despite the economic situation education was experiencing, the educational process should continue.

Rightmire sent to Editor and Business Manager of Ohio Schools, a “condensed” version of an invited address that he gave to the National Tax Association, where he discussed “briefly the origin and growth of the elementary and high schools, and the public supported colleges and universities of this State--five in number.” He referenced the “educational philosophy upon which this system of public education is built” and related it:

“to the nature of our government and to the social responsibilities of the individual…. I believe thoroughly that the people of Ohio today are interested as never before in the theories and foundation principles upon which education in Ohio has been built and supported and through the operation of which a public school system has been established in this State second to none.”521

519 George W. Rightmire, “Education in Ohio Today,” Proceedings of the Twelfth Ohio State Educational Conference, Ohio State University Bulletin, 36, no. 1 (15 September 1932): 11. 520 George W. Rightmire, “Education in Ohio Today,” Proceedings of the Twelfth Ohio State Educational Conference, Ohio State University Bulletin, 36, no. 1 (15 September 1932): 16. 521 Rightmire to Walton B. Bliss, 20 September 1932, refers to abridged address “The Public School System of Ohio”--the actual address not seen in correspondence thus far. 238

Thus, Rightmire saw the university as an extension of the public school system.

In the fall of 1932, memorial plans for C. Sumner “Doc” Welch of Ohio

Wesleyan University of Delaware, Ohio were put on hold after learning about the upcoming Ohio State versus University of Michigan game. Unveiling the monument would therefore be cancelled until further notice. Organizer Walter A. Jones updated

Rightmire, “I will let you know as soon as the plans are completed for the services. I fear that it may conflict with your plans, as we had hoped to unveil the monument at

Delaware on Homecoming Day, which, most unfortunately, is October 15th, the day of your Michigan game.”522 For people who scheduled their time around the football games, like Charlie Sayre who resided in the U.S. Veterans Hospital in Chillicothe who was given the okay to attend Ohio State University games, it was likely that the OSU and U-

M rivalry would be sacrosanct.523 No wonder the association used the rivalry with

Michigan to motivate gifts.

The alumni office distributed a list of facts (12 October 1932) about The Ohio

State Student Loan Foundation, which had been created September 20, 1930, for “the purpose of maintaining a fund for needy students at the University.” By 1932 there was

$1,845 in the loan fund, and, as stated, “practically all of the money in the fund is in use.”

The Alumnae Council Loan fund had been setup in fall of 1928 and contained $3,310 for women.524

522 Walter A. Jones to Rightmire, 3 October 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 523 Charles B. Sayre [from U.S.V.S. Hospital] to Rightmire, 7, 8, 10 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932, 524 Alumni Office, “Facts concerning the Alumni Loan Funds,” 12 October 1932, 3/f Alumni: OSU Alumni Association, Correspondence, July 1932-June 1934. 239

Rightmire appeared content not requiring a state income tax in Ohio. He explained, “As to a tax on income, there is no such state tax in Ohio. We have to wrestle only with the national income and most people think that is enough. Perhaps the next

Legislature which meets in Ohio in January, 1933 will find it necessary to look to some new sources of general revenue, but up to the present we have not had the state income tax.”525

Rightmire received a letter from a certain Mrs. Lalla Malloy Brigham, who had been a teacher in the Del Norte schools in 1891 when Rightmire worked there also.

Speaking of her letter he clarified his position: “Mrs. Brigham asks a difficult question and I am not prepared to say whether the tax limit prevailing in our counties has operated detrimentally upon public school finances or not. Generally speaking, I think a tax limit is desirable…. Her letter gives complete evidence that the communities of the civilized world are all bound by about the same social, economic, and political influences, and that experience in one community is probably of great interest to people in other communities.”526

Rightmire’s influence outside the scope of higher education is further detailed in a letter from a Mrs. Harry J. Hammond to Rightmire. In it she expressed appreciation and explained how she used Rightmire’s own argument “in sustaining a resolution against

525 Rightmire’s letter went on to reminisce about his own history. “Your letter brings back to my mind several years of experience in Colorado in the early ‘90’s. As I recall it I succeeded you in the public schools in Del Norte. At least I went into the school system there in the autumn of 1891 and remained until the summer of 1893, working both years with Mr. Reed who was the principal and had been in your time. Although I came out of Del Norte in 1893 with the firm belief that I should be back there in a year or two, yet I have not been back up to the present time, almost forty years ago, which time I spent entirely in the state of Ohio.” Rightmire to L. H. Brigham, 8 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 526 Rightmire to G. W. Reed, 8 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 240 further reductions of our school budget.”527 Rightmire’s work, thus, extended far beyond the walls of Ohio State University.

Rightmire replied to Alumnus and farmer, L. H. Goddard (10 November 1932), commenting on the economic situation and its effect on attendance at OSU.

“I am greatly pleased to hear from you and trust that things are beginning to look up in your part of the State. Reports of the Bureau of Business Research indicate an upward trend in a number of lines of business in Ohio since last July. The trend has not yet gotten very far above the horizontal but it seems to be going in the same direction for several months. I do not know just how much that means to the agricultural activities of the State. The attendance at the University is about five percent below last year and last year was about two per cent below the year before. It is surprising that so many young people can find it possible to attend the University in the last two years. We are endeavoring to guide the University’s activities into channels of such breadth and depth as will confirm to the ability of the State to give support and that means considerable pruning. I think that all of the activities which the University has been carrying forward have been worth while in these past few years; worth whileness is a very comparative matter and we are, therefore, forced to a more serious and resolute comparison of the virtues of various pieces of the work at the institution and somehow must arrive at a decision that Activity A is to be preferred to Activity B as an educational essential. You read the Monthly and therefore through its columns have been able to keep pretty close to the financial condition. I do not know the exact reference you make in your letter of November 8 to articles about alumni carried in the Monthly, but I shall be interested in running over the last two numbers more carefully and trying to locate the things you are thinking about. I am glad to have your letter and your comment.”528

It did not appear that Rightmire would attempt to do anything about it the

Monthly, and in this case the alumni concern probably was not widespread. But

Rightmire’s answer does indicate his feelings about the drop in university attendance by

527 Mrs. Harry J. Hammond [sp?] to Rightmire, 9 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 528 Rightmire to L. H. Goddard, 10 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 241 five percent over the last year. Even with the decrease, Rightmire was surprised so many could still attend, considering the financial difficulties faced by the nation.

Rightmire wrote Governor George White (11 November 1932) a congratulatory letter after a recent election.

“The people of Ohio conclusively showed Tuesday that your administration, carried forward in the most critical financial period of the history of the State, had been deeply mindful of the needs of the people as well as of the essentials of government. Many occasions have arisen in the past two years calling for the most careful discrimination between essentials and desirable non-essentials and the necessity of maintaining a reasonable parity between income and appropriations was always present…. I beg to send you the greetings of the University and I congratulate you on the opportunity for continuing to guide the State through and out of this critical period.”529

Rightmire’s congratulatory tone was very different from the tone of the letters he would later write to Governor Martin Davey, who succeeded Governor White in 1935. At this point, Rightmire admits the non-essentials, perhaps even at OSU, needed to be put off by the state at that time.

John W. Bricker also expressed his appreciation to Rightmire for his note of congratulations on securing the Ohio Attorney General position. “I do hope to be able to do a good job,” he responded. He also suggested that he hoped to ask Rightmire for

“good advice during the next two years. After your kind letter, I shall feel at least, more free to do that,” Bricker explained.530 Thus Rightmire was depended upon for advise not

529 Rightmire to Honorable George White [Ohio Gov.], 11 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 530 John W. Bricker [Attorney General for State of Ohio] to George W. Rightmire, 17 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. Bricker, an OSU alumnus, would become a governor of Ohio, “And Governor Bricker,” The Makio [Ohio State University official student yearbook] (Columbus, 1939), 9, and later 1944 Vice-Presidential candidate for the United States. 242 only by alumni, but also by leaders of government, and this along with his university obligations and research.

Rightmire hoped in his own research to “bridge the gap between the Anglo-Saxon codes ending with the Laws of Cnut about 1034 and the Law of Glanville of about 1189.

There is a great hiatus which has never been adequately filled by the translated law books and some effort to set forth the procedure and the practice.”531 It’s not apparent whether

Rightmire was ever able to fill this gap, but he did send a copy of his “little book” which he finished over the summer titled, The Law of England at the Norman Conquest to

Henry Spencer, with an expressed hope of writing another book.532 This demonstrated

Rightmire’s preference for scholarship over finances.

Rightmire may have been aided in his work by the inventions and technological progress of the time. In late 1932, the speed of new technology in the midst of the

Depression was demonstrated through flight. American Airlines, for example, demonstrated their ability to transverse the United States. Flowers were cut in California on one day and delivered the next day in Columbus, Ohio.533

Rightmire acknowledged receiving three letters from Charles Sayre (28

November 1932) who was in the veterans hospital in Chillicothe and wanted to receive

531 Rightmire to Professor Joseph A. Leighton [OSU, Dept. of Philosophy], 22 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 532 “I hope,” Rightmire explained “this is not the last since I have had in mind for a long time another volume made up largely of translations from the Latin and there will also be, if I can get to it, rather extended comments on both of these codes known as the Laws of William and the Laws of Henry I.” Rightmire to Henry R. Spencer, 22 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 533 A. Schleichen [sp?] to Rightmire, 22 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. In response [November 1932] to Rightmire, Prof. Henry Spencer will be glad to read Rightmire’s book when he has “a moment’s leisure” 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932, 1932. 243 football privileges. Referring to alumni, in his reply letter, Rightmire expressed that generally alumni,

“have a feeling of genuine solicitude for the University and all are ready to do what appropriately can be done in these times for the State University appropriations on the part of the Legislature. We realize that the country generally is suffering from lack of employment and a general low state of business and that prices of all sorts have greatly declined. Taxes are not being paid in part nearly everywhere and the delinquencies have been accumulating. This means much diminished revenues and since appropriations for public purposes were based on estimated revenues, the actual payments coming to state institutions have been considerably reduced. We seem to be under the necessity of wringing out some of the activities carried on at state expense, retaining what is essential and during the slump try to provide money only for that. We can carry on and must use our highest intelligence in separating essentials from non-essentials.”534

Notice Rightmire did not mention anything about looking to other sources for solutions. A few days later, Fullen reiterated some of the problems facing the alumni as a result of the Depression. He wrote (2 December 1932) Rightmire about the desperate situation of the alumni association.

“I discussed informally with Mr. Steeb, the other day, the matter of an appropriation to the Ohio State University Association for the second half of the year. You will recall that half amount, $4,000, was appropriate this summer. I have no desire to add further distress to an already difficult situation. However, old man Depression is with the Alumni Association too. An unprecedented number of cancellations of memberships are causing us, at the moment, to live a hand-to-mouth existence. We simply cannot do any thing about alumni who are out of work or who have taken four and five salary outs. Nevertheless, the work must go on and it has seemed that the Association never had a more splendid opportunity to do a good job than at the moment. It seems rather incongruous that, when we are needed the most, we are cramped the most. The Board of Trustees meets December 12, and I have wondered whether it might be tactical to approach them at that time concerning the appropriation to the Association for the second half. If it were possible to make the appropriation and then allow us part of it some time in January I think we should be able to get by. Our regular collections

534 Rightmire to Charles B. Sayre, 28 November 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 244

will probably see us through until that time. My hope in writing this is that sufficient funds might be available from an interest on endowment to make this possible. I regret the necessity for writing you in this vein and my deepest understanding of the situation which confronts you is hereby expressed.”535

Fullen hoped that the Trustees would offer a second installment of appropriated funds, but also that at the least income from the endowment would sufficiently cover the

OSU Association during this distressing time. Noteworthy is the fact that Fullen saw the endowment as a type of safety valve to cover Association needs.

Rightmire faced many financial needs for the university, not just for the OSU

Association. His annual report to the governor conveyed the progress and needs of the university. President Emeritus William Oxley Thompson wrote Rightmire on December

30, 1932 and applauded Rightmire for an excellent annual report of the university to the

Governor of Ohio. “I sincerely hope that you may be able physically” and will be able to convince the legislature of university needs. “There are trying times calling for infinite patience and a great wisdom and a due portion of tact. I trust the outcome may be much better than you anticipate.”536

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1932

At the outset of Rightmire’s necrology section of his 1932 Annual report, he listed the passing of Edward Orton, Jr. Orton, Jr. who had served as a faculty member and dean, as well as Brigadier General in the United States military. In Orton, Jr.’s March 1928 controversial commencement speech (discussed above) Orton challenged the funding of

535 John B. Fullen to George W. Rightmire (2 December 1932), 3/f Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932-June 1934. 536 W. O. Thompson to Rightmire, 30 December 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 245 state institutions, actually calling for a reduction in state subsidy, believing that the over- inflated tuition rates would fall for state and subsequently private universities. In this section of Rightmire’s 1932 report, however, Rightmire honored Orton, Jr., who had regularly contributed to the Edward Orton Memorial Library of Geology in honor of his father, who had served as Ohio State’s first president. Money generated from the endowment for the Edward Orton Memorial Library was directed towards books and equipment. Orton Jr. left to the university, at death, a life insurance policy of $10,000 for the university’s “development and service.”537

A common theme through Thompson’s and Rightmire’s respective reports was that they were grateful for the generous aid from the state, they had received more revenue from the legislature (though rarely mentioned the difference in revenue proportions received from year to year) than they had ever received before in the history of the state, and, sometimes they highlighted the fact that it was still not enough to meet the needs of the institution, though they implied that it was not usually due to the fault of the legislature. For example, Rightmire explained in this year’s report, “The appropriation to the University for the biennium 1929-30 was the greatest ever made by the State Legislature. It fell only a little short of $10,000,000 and enabled the University to make considerable expansion in its activities in that period; but when the Legislature came into session in 1931 the shrinkage going on in industry and all sorts of productive enterprise was already noticeable and it became necessary to reduce appropriations for all

State institutions, the University feeling the need for economy along with the rest.” As a

537 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 5, 6, 9. 246 result, the legislature could only appropriate three-fourths of the amount given previously; they had to reduce the teaching staff by 91 people, and cut employee salaries.

Meanwhile, however, the decrease in student registration was only “very slight.” On the whole, Rightmire reported that despite these major changes, “[T]he University faculty and all employees have exhibited an excellent spirit of comradeship in the University enterprise, and a sympathetic and understanding appreciation of the financial difficulties of the State has been clearly evident. The University recognizes itself as a public agency and sensitively enters into the life of the State and continuously strives to make cultural and practical contributions to the material and spiritual growth of the Commonwealth.”538

So Rightmire applauded the generous attitude of the legislature in meeting the needs of the university, though their planned appropriations could not come to fruition.

Rightmire also applauded gifts totaling $65,000 from alumni, industry, foundations, and other organizations. He explained that “In a striking way they disclose the wide interest in the educational work of the institution and in the welfare of its students.”539

Rightmire highlighted the powerful role of the Monthly in connecting alumni to the university in a section of his report entitled, “The Alumni.” He explained,

“The Ohio State University Association is a constant source of support and enthusiastic spirit for the University faculty and administration…. The Monthly is a most interesting medium of communication between the University and the alumni, and under the capable and versatile direction of Mr. John B. Fullen and an able staff, this magazine has come to be the best known of such publications…. Mr. J. L. Morrill, for almost a decade as Alumni Secretary, built up the Monthly and stirred to a great depth the alumni interest and cooperation in the great University enterprise; his work was of the greatest benefit and significance. Then

538 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 9. 539 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 10. 247

for a few years he came into the Junior Deanship of the College of Education where had sympathetic dealings with students in their educational and social problems, and obtained an intimate acquaintance with the educational program. Thus, knowing the University inside and outside, he has a peculiar fitness for dealing with the numerous public relations which a typical state university must have. In view of these external relations or activities and their growing variety and complexity, the Board of Trustees elected Mr. Morrill vice president to function especially in this field. He is proceeding with keen intelligence and zealous industry to increase the usefulness of the University to the people of the State.”540

Thus Morrill, through his work with the alumni was promoted to vice president at

OSU. The University of Chicago had also created the office of vice president to alleviate the president’s administrative burden as reported in Abraham Flexner’s published book from 1930, Universities: American, English, German.541

Attempting to showcase the contributions of the university to the state, Rightmire noted that OSU, on the radio station, WEAO, had made exciting progress.542 And in making an appeal to the state, on behalf of the “16,000 students,”543 Rightmire highlighted the state’s history, expressing the view that education is a priority during the depression. Rightmire asked why should the public support education.

He answered by explaining that it was a natural extension of public funding from elementary education that was itself instituted more than eight years previous. He listed that five state institutions in Ohio help students prepare for careers and gain learning.

“Ohio University was founded in 1804, Miami University in 1809, Bowling Green and

540 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 10-11. 541 Abraham Flexner, Universities: American, English, German (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994), 185, see footnote. (Original work published 1930). 542 An exciting feat for OSU and radio broadcasting occurred with educational broadcasting programs on WEAO. Rightmire explained, “The station has an allocation of time covering forty hours per week; its signal can be identified practically anywhere in Ohio.” Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 12. 543 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 13. 248

Kent State Colleges in 1911, and the Ohio State University opened its doors in 1873….

We believe in democracy; here the people rule and are both governor and governed….

All must have the opportunity for education so that the democracy may be served by those whose native ability and whose character are of the highest ability. We must train all to find the best. This philosophy properly may be spoken of as political.”544 It seemed, for Rightmire, that education, political, and economic were converging more than ever.

His progressivist view of the nature and funding of a public university justified his inattention to private fundraising and weakened the university in the long run.

Describing the economic situation, Rightmire explained,

“We are now in an economic condition, world wide, which is featured by falling markets, reduced salaries, unemployment, human suffering, and a slow disintegration of social effectiveness and personal comfort. Our system of industrial and political organization seems on the verge of collapse, and all governmental activities are being scrutinized to find where they can be reduced and how far, in order that the expenditures may be commensurate with a greatly straitened income….. [S]hall all government expenditures be trimmed ruthlessly and proportionately or should discrimination be made among the activities for which the government is responsible? …. [I]t is clear that education must be a preferred charge upon the public resources…. I say that education must be unflaggingly carried forward. It cannot be suspended; we must prepare the oncoming generation…. We can do no less than be faithful to our past, our ideals, and to those who shall come after us.”545

Here Rightmire makes his case that in the difficult economic times, education should be a financial priority. He bases his argument on inter-generational responsibilities as well. Rightmire went on to argue that not only did the state need the university, OSU could actually lead the way out of the problem. In a section on “Citizenship and

544 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 14-15. 545 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 15-16. 249

Economics,” Rightmire expresses intense concern for the well-being of the state and its citizens while putting forth this argument.

“We know that something more than general education is needed to make responsive citizens. The State educational institutions particularly feel a ‘mandate’ to this end. Again, no evidence is now lacking to show our vast ignorance, as a people, of fundamental economic principles. The debacle of the last three years has left us all stranded and gasping and befuddled. Our ignorance has amazed ourselves! A much less ingenious person than ‘Coin’ Harvey could popularize false economic doctrine, and has successfully been doing so in recent times. We have with reliance imbibed our economic concepts from newspapers or periodicals, contentiously or seductively set forth; we have brought from the schools little to act as a check or a balance in this welter of economic theory. The charlatan has received even more attention than the sound economist; we have been unable to distinguish! This experience of the last three years is a sad commentary upon the general state of knowledge of fundamental economics on the part of a society strewn with college-trained people! In no university program for the future, however restricted it may be necessary to make it, can fundamental civic and economic training be omitted. Nor should these be left to student choice- -they should be required! Our trouble is going to be to present them appealingly and effectively as working tools for every citizen in a democracy; pedantic or didactic treatment will fail! We are now responsibly confronting this problem and our duty; as an institution drawing its support from the people through taxation, the Ohio State University should resolutely find the way! Government and business are inextricably related in our social order.”

Rightmire’s adamant language leaves little doubt he was interested in having the university properly funded. Nevertheless, it would take five years from this point to initiate a concerted effort to grow the university endowment.546

Rightmire concluded his report with the following appeal for financial support:

“In its fifty-nine years of activity, the Ohio State University has sent back into the life of country more than twenty-seven thousand graduates, and sixty-five thousand part-time students…. All over Ohio are men and women, capable and helpful in the community life, successful in their private lives, who gratefully attribute their vision and progress to the University. These people must forever be

546 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 17. 250

the great answer to the question--why a University at State expense? And the answer is found in every community! They are the natural and sympathetic translators of University organization, purposes, procedures, and accomplishments…. If we keep our University efforts eternally focused upon the student, our product in men and women will continually lift the level of the social order and develop the ultimate material and human resources of the State!”547

Despite his apparent enthusiasm, there was no explicit mention of the potential for alumni fundraising efforts. It appeared Rightmire had missed his chance. He steered clear of asking alumni and friends directly for funds in favor of gaining or maintaining their support with the state.

1933

January 1933

In volume four of his History of The Ohio State University published in 1934,

Ohio State University Professor Wilbur H. Siebert reported on the situation the country and university faced up through the mid-1930s.

“That the depression through which the country, including the University, has been passing since 1929, is part of the aftermath of the war, has been asserted by many prominent writers. For the University these years have meant the reduction of salaries, the lessening of the number of teachers and office staffs, and the serving on part-time of some of the instructors who have remained on the campus. Purchases of new equipment and supplies for departments and of new books for the library have been necessarily restricted. The student enrollment kept up surprisingly well through the years 1930-31 and 1931-32, as compared with the figures for 1929-30. There was, however, a decided decline in the enrollment for 1932-33, which became more marked in 1933-1934. This downward trend seems likely to disappear in 1934-35.”548

547 Rightmire, Annual Report 1931-32, 19. 548 Wilbur H. Siebert, History of The Ohio State University volume IV: The University in the Great War. Part 1: Wartime on the Campus. (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1934), vol. 1: P. 251

Enrollment Autumn Quarter for Year 10,654 1929-30 10,852 1930-31 10,796 1931-32 10,166 1932-33 9,449 1933-34549 Table 16. The Ohio State University Student Enrollment, 1929 to 1934

Even as enrollment was decreasing and things seemed uncertain at the university,

Rightmire was still considered an expert in many matters and his advice and speeches were sought out by those across the country. Rightmire willingly allowed contents of his annual reports and addresses to be used without credit. “Use any material suitable for your purpose without credit at your discretion,” Rightmire telegrammed to H. L. Kent,

President of New Mexico State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts who had asked permission for a radio broadcast [in station KOB at Albuquerque, New Mexico broadcast] to quote “verbatim except that we have adapted your report to fit New Mexico rather than Ohio” when discussing schools and institutions. “Just now,” Kent explained,

“because of the economic stress and dangers of radical action we are trying to broadcast rather sane and safe material on governmental reforms, problems of education, taxation, etc.”550

302. 549 Table from Siebert, History of The Ohio State University volume IV: The University in the Great War. Part 1: Wartime on the Campus, vol. 1, p. 302.

550 Rightmire to H. L. Kent, 9 January 1933, H. L. Kent to Rightmire, 3 January 1933, 3/f Annual Reports: Correspondence: 1924-1934, 1935, 1937. 252

Rightmire had very good reasons for staying well acquainted with taxation and government programs. “The revenue situation in Ohio is very uncertain” he explained to

S. H. Guss, Principal at West Virginia State College:

“But I suppose a certainty connected with it is that all state institutions will receive a more slender support for the next biennium than they have before received and of course we shall be greatly interested in knowing where we have to come out. The Ohio Legislature has always been a pretty well balanced group of people and their support of education has always been generous. Of course, the danger in this tie is that terrible condition in industry and therefore unemployment will produce a degree of pessimism and desperation which will lead to the appropriation of general revenues on a much diminished scale. This will not be done except upon thorough consideration and we may hope to fare reasonably well.”551

Guss replied, “I hope…that the general financial state of the country will not embarrass the University in its efforts to benefit the masses. We have upon our hands the beginning of another state legislature, and if the work of the special session of last summer is any sign of what we may expect out of the work of the present legislature, as you have doubtless learned, it is overwhelmingly Democratic, no one is able to foresee what excess of cutting and colleges may be indulged in by it, in its hectic attempt to adjust the budget.”552 Others, like Rightmire, feared for the upcoming whims of respective state legislatures.

President Rightmire was penurious, but tended to enjoy royal perks, like the use of a university car, a Packard. When it came time to pay the cost of upkeep for the car

($59.57 for repairs and maintenance), he was willing to let the bill sit while waiting for

551 Rightmire to S. H. Guss, Principal, West Virginia State College, 19 January 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 552 S. H. Guss to Rightmire to 19 January 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 253 funds from the legislature. In January 1933, Rightmire wrote the Packard Columbus

Motor Company that “we must now wait on the appropriation from the Legislature before any action can be taken with reference to this account.”553

“In view of your fine attitude as shown in your request budget” explained Dean

Vivian (22 January 1933), “you ought to receive friendly treatment from the legislature but, unfortunately, legislatures are not always as appreciative of cooperation as they should be.”554 In other words, they were less sensitive to the need for reciprocation and exchanging favors.

February 1933

Offered the alumni presidency of the Fayette County alumni, Ohio farmer L. H.

Goddard turned it down. He wrote Prof. D. B. Ireland about his decision, but not before commenting on the dire financial situation for agricultural education and that it appeared one-half of extension work would be cut.

“In further justification of this step I may say that I am carrying a very heavy correspondence load this winter because I happen to be personally acquainted with a number of people who are specially interested in economic work. My delay in doing this has been due to my personal friendship for President Rightmire and to my dislike to do anything which might indicate a failure on my part to support his administration. It has finally become very clear to me that by delaying this long I have done the University a harm; that you are so ideally fitted to lead in this county because of your age, your contacts and clerical assistance that I should have acted immediately after the meeting mentioned. With all good wishes and

553 Rightmire to Packard Columbus Motor Company, 11 January 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. The word “renew” was used to describe what would be termed “replace” in today’s automotive repair parlance. 554 Dean Alfred Vivian to Rightmire, 22 January 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 254

with the assurance of my desire to do anything in my power, under present circumstances, to assist you I am yours very truly.”555

Alumni leadership roles were apparently becoming more complicated.

Meanwhile, Goddard had let Rightmire know (the day before) that, “Prof. Ireland is ideally fitted to handle all phases of the work that I have still a lurking suspicion that the nominating committee expected him to do most of the work anyhow. That being true he should have the honor.”556

Rightmire wrote Goddard and also carbon copied Fullen, sending Goddard

“a letter sent by the Board of Trustees to the State Director of Finance and the Governor when the Board transmitted the request for the biennium 1933-34. I am enclosing also a copy of the letter sent by the Board recently with the allocation to the various items of the University expenditures of the sum of $5,716,000 which the Governor is proposing for the University for this biennium. You will be interested in reading these letters and consulting the figures. You will note at once a difference of $1,200,000 between what the University regards essential and what the Governor regards as possible. You will also note on the last page of the last letter that if no more money can be found for the University than is being proposed by the Governor, it will be necessary to make a reduction in the amount of money available for salaries for the year beginning July 1, 1933 of about $769,000. Inasmuch as the University has already reduced its salary expenditures in the past eighteen months by $360,000 this will call for a total reduction in our personal service inside of two years of $1,129,000. No institution whose teaching load remains quite constant can make such terrible reductions and remain efficient. It is a dark picture and we are hoping that something more than the Governor [proposes] may be done. I do not know of any literature I could send you which would mean so much as these two letters. I am asking Mr. Fullen, Secretary of the Ohio State University Association to forward a list of Ohio State graduates and old students in your county. Your interest in the University is deeply appreciated and the problem will be strictly a legislative one when all facts about the University and its service and its worth to the people of Ohio are laid before them. We hope to have an opportunity of laying such facts in front of legislative committees and members of the legislature and then [their] members

555 L. H. Goddard to Prof. D. B. Ireland[Principal High School, Washington C.H., Ohio], 12 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 556 L. H. Goddard to Rightmire, 11 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 255

will be in a position to decide whether they can keep the University going along in a fairly efficient manner or not. This educational activity is a type of public service to which I believe most of the people of the State are thoroughly committed and the only question arising now is due to a general hopelessness about public revenues….”557

OSU salaries had already been dramatically reduced and would need to be further reduced due to grave economic circumstances.558 Writing to a friend at the University of

Wisconsin Law School, Rightmire explained:

“We are in the trough of the depression and perhaps during this biennium 1933-34 we shall get deeper into it and I trust may feel that we have reached the bottom. Legislatures are terribly beset in these times with the demand for tax reduction and economy in all public activities; and an urgent call for relief both for suffering humanity and for elementary and secondary education echoes in the legislative halls and the legislative mind is unequal to the demands placed upon it in this confusion. Where higher education will come out is a difficult question. What is proposed in the biennium appropriation bill for the Ohio State University is a drastic reduction, which will call for a decrease in our salary roll effective July first of $769,000. We have already in the past two years decreased the salary roll $360,000. How we can go on down, nobody now knows and nobody is eager to draft a plan by which the descent may be made. We may have to face just that decrease in our salaries and much grief will necessarily be connected with the formulation of effective plans to accomplish the decline. I suppose the University of Wisconsin is likewise having experiences which are very difficult in these times of financial failure.”559

Alfred Vivian, Dean Emeritus of the College of Agriculture, in Tucson, Arizona

“to get relief from…bronchial trouble” was updated on the severe situation for agriculture.

“So that you may see about what the University faces today in the Legislature, I am enclosing a copy of a letter sent by the Board of Trustees to the Governor recently when the Board was required to allocate the proposed revenues to the

557 Rightmire to L. H. Goddard, 13 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 558 By point of contrast, with the economic difficulties of 2008, there were not salary reductions. 559 Rightmire to Mr. W. H. Page [Law School, The University of Wisconsin], 13 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 256

various items of expenditure in the University activities. This will be a distressing picture and I am adding to it by saying that both agricultural extension and the Agricultural Experiment Station are in the biennial appropriation bill to be reduced over last biennium by between fifty and sixty percent. You know there is a possibility of improving the situation by legislative action but just how this will come out is even a harder problem than it has been in the past. I think I may say that many of us here would be greatly pleased to be as far away as Arizona on a vacation trip but not only will there be no vacation this winter but the prospects for next summer constantly dwindle.”560

Rightmire said, “I know the presidency of the County alumni might involve considerable activity and it involves dealing pretty largely with the more recent graduates and students of the University.”561 Consequently, after Goddard turned down the presidency of the alumni group in Fayette County, John Fullen invited Goddard to be chairman of the Fayette County Committee on University Relations.562

In a letter to Rightmire, Goddard, perhaps representing the rural Ohio population expressed some sobering views of the difficult circumstances.

“From the Governor’s budget which has been published in the city press I see that 150,000 was added to the amount allowed the University and shall be interested in learning for what purpose this was included. To one interested in the welfare of the state the budget figures in comparison with preceding years is of extreme importance. I can see why some of the cuts were made but some of the others are a puzzle to me. For example why was the Experiment Station singled out for a 57% cut. While of course, I have had no chance to study the matter yet it seems to me that such a severe lopping off will kill work which has already cost very large sums of money. It would appear to me that leaders of each phase of work included

560 Rightmire to Dean Alfred Vivian, 13 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 561 Rightmire to Goddard, 18 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 562 “I have the presumption to ask you if you will not consider serving as chairman of the Fayette County Alumni Committee on University Relations, which, requiring only occasional activity, is nevertheless a very essential and fundamental division of local alumni responsibility. This committee, as it is constituted in other counties of the state, is designed to act as a clearing house for alumni office information so that two or three influential persons in the county can be kep posted constantly as to the University situation, with only an occasional request for action of any kind. The other two members of the committee will be Mr. [D. B.] Ireland and [Charles] Haigler….” John B. Fullen to Goddard, [undated-- February 1933], 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 257

in the budget owes it to his institution and to the public to proceed immediately to a special intimate study of the relation of his work to the public. Ordinarily public officials who are elected to office are quite sensitive to public feeling and, until proven to the contrary, it will be safe to assume that the Governor has had his finger on the pulse of the people. The developments of the next few weeks will be of very great interest. Through Prof Ireland I shall try to keep in touch with any information or suggestions you may send out as to methods of procedure. It is manifest that no one working singly can have any influence. In making your plans it will be well to remember that rural people are desperate.563 While farm prices are not so very much worse than they were forty years ago farmers are ground down by an enormous increase in taxes, by failure of industry to deflate its prices and by debts…. It is my guess that if your flock of ‘economists’ were watching Dr. Warren a little more deeply, as has he, the reaction in favor of the University would be much more vigorous.”564

In reply to Goddard, Rightmire discussed the financial situation.

“I am greatly interested in your letter of February 18. You present very concretely the rural situation which is calling desperately for relief and for which relief must be found. We have two kinds of economics going forward in the University, one devoted especially to rural conditions and known as rural economics. For some years the Legislature has been appropriating especially for the support of this activity, and research work and publications have been going on this basis. The farm organizations are always interested in obtaining money for this rural economic work and in the last two years the Emergency Board appropriated almost $13,000 out of the emergency fund to supplement the amount appropriated specifically by the last Legislature for these studies going forward in farm marketing and other matters of great importance to the rural community. Whether the professors in rural economics were in touch with Dr. Warren’s theories I do not know, in fact I do not know who Dr. Warren is, which at once proves to you that I am not a rural economist! The other department of economics is general and confines its attention to fields which have no specific reference to rural conditions. Some years ago the department of rural economics was created so that the interest of the farm people would have special attention and attention of the kind needed. Just how this has worked out I do not know specifically, except as stated above. It has had the support of the farm organizations. Turning to your question about the $150,000 in the executive budget for the Ohio State University, that amount is for Additions and Betterments which is entirely outside the field of operation and maintenance and personal service. Over one-half of this amount is for library books and journals and periodicals. The Director of Finance did not ask

563 It appears that Rightmire underlined this portion. 564 Underlining is presumably Rightmire’s, since he claims he does not know of a Dr. Warren, in his reply to Goddard. Goddard to Rightmire, 18 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 258

the University to allocate the items of Additions and Betterments contained in our biennium request. These were given attention by the budget commissioner. Our original biennium request contained $180,000 for Additions and Betterments, which the commissioner reduced to $150,000. What we have been working on in our publicity is the proposal for personal service, operation and general maintenance items which cover almost all of the University appropriations. A few years ago we always obtained a building or two from the Legislature and heating, lines and tunnels and other items which go to make up capital improvements. Library books, journals, and periodical are listed under this head also. This item of Additions and Betterments has now dwindled almost to nothing in some very important respects.”

Rightmire then disclosed what the $150,000 worth of Additions and Betterments was composed of: Power Plant ($7,000), Office Equipment ($5,000), Educational

Equipment ($40,000), Library Books ($35,000), College of Medicine and Hospital

($5,000), Technical and Scientific periodicals and journals, foreign and domestic

($50,000), and Service Lines ($8,000). “Our great problem will be how to do the work required by the 14,000 students coming here in a year with a greatly reduced staff and maintenance. We can plan nothing decisive until the Legislature finishes its work.

Meanwhile we shall be thinking diligently about methods which must be proposed in one or another alternative course.”565

Goddard replied to Rightmire’s latest letter.

“It is a relief that more than half of the other $150,000 is for the use of the library and that a third of the total amount is for technical and scientific periodicals. It would seem that your files of these absolutely must [be] kept complete. You will see therefore that I can get a little solace out of your letter of the twentieth. This letter will also be turned over to Prof. Ireland who as supervisor of a little army of his own will realize all the more keenly the responsibility for the great army of 14,000 students who look to you for high class instruction along their chosen

565 Rightmire to Goddard, 20 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 259

lines. I judge, however, that few persons have keener sympathy for or appreciation of your efforts to care for your people than has the writer.”566

In a letter to Prof. Charles Scott Berry of the Bureau of Special Education,

Rightmire listed various areas of the university that would be impacted, “[I]t is necessary to cut practically in two the amount previously requested for the Bureau of Business

Research, Commerce Extension, Bureau of Educational Research, Farm Marketing research, the Engineering Experiment Station, and by the same token the Bureau of

Special Education. The latter was not reduced quite fifty per cent… We are face to face with a financial crisis and what its maximum effect will be nobody now knows. We shall be fortunate if we can keep merely a skeleton of the various enterprises which the

University has set up and attempted to carry on in recent years.”567

Goddard sent a letter to Rightmire clarified a few things.

“When I was elected president of the local Ohio State group at the Ohio State meeting it was rather embarrassing to me because in the first place I am not a native Fayette Countian[sic] and therefore not so very well acquainted in the county and in the second place I am about two generations removed from a large part of those who were present that evening. Following the first impulse I asked permission of the nominating committee to resign by letter and was surprised to find that the committee had actually considered the matter before making recommendations. Perhaps I had best try to do what I can. This being true it seems to me wise to call the executive committee together shortly to consider legislative matters and perhaps follow that up with an enlarged committee meeting. In furtherance of this larger committee meeting I wish you would have sent to me, if available and convenient, a list of all Ohio State graduates in the county together with their addresses. If the names of ex-students are mixed with the graduates it would be well to send those also. You would of course have given the class of each person. If in copying off this list of names of your people would just as soon use cards, putting one name to each card, it would save my going to

566 L. H. Goddard to George W. Rightmire, 21 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July- Dec 1933. 567 Rightmire to Professor Charles Scott Berry, 28 February 1933, 3/f Budget: Education: College of: Correspondence and Data, Feb-Dec 1933. 260

that trouble. Farmers do not have clerks. Before arriving at the foregoing conclusion I mutilated both your Presidential address and the January monthly to send parts of each to persons who would be interested. Will you not kindly have another copy of each sent to me? If it is agreeable to others to carry out the above plan we shall be glad to have any further data that may be available--more about that later.”568

March and April 1933

Alumni seemed to find comfort in communicating with Rightmire about a number of issues. Burch Huggins, Attorney-At-Law and OSU Alumnus from 1899, wrote

Rightmire, “Having been reading lately, indulging in what I fear is a fast disappearing habit among Americans, or more truly perhaps, was a fast disappearing habit. It may be returning. I am wondering if the worship of Mammon, the charge that higher education has been developing only along the line of producing money-making machines, are not alike to be less and less the fact. I hope so.”569 In the midst of the depression there was still some concern that higher education be not only concerned with economical and wealth producing factors.

In the April OSU Monthly, alumni were encouraged to return for the first

“Alumni College” that lasted two days in duration June 8th and 9th 1933--where

“graduates and former students” were encouraged to return for a day of “curriculum,” in conjunction primarily with the College of Arts and Sciences.570

Edward Parsons, President of Marietta College wrote Rightmire thanking him for announcing that a coat had been lost. “You were very good to write as you did of my

568 L. H. Goddard to Rightmire, 29 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 569 Burch D. Huggins [Office of Burch D. Huggins, Hillsboro, Ohio] to Rightmire, 13 March 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 570 3-f Alumni College Conference Report [for year 1933] 1925 261 baccalaureate address and especially to take the time to read it. Thank you heartily for both. I have to thank you also for kindly giving the notice at the evening meeting of the

Ohio Educational Association in reference to the loss of my coat. I am glad to say that your words brought the coat back to me about half past ten that evening. If you had not helped me in this way I fear I should have had to go without a winter coat the rest of this year and until the depression ends.”571 Even university presidents had a tough time of the difficult economic conditions.

Rightmire replied to President Parsons. “Educators are honest people! If they seem to commit a wrong, it is entirely through mistake! I am glad your coat came back. It would be terrible in these times if an educator lost a good overcoat. The future is very dark and the possibility of replacing it is a dwindling one.”572 Although Rightmire is positive about the return of the coat, he felt the general outlook was still bleak.

During a particular volatile time, Huntley Dupre countered back with some significant questions, but ultimately deferred to Rightmire’s judgment. In a response to

Rightmire’s confidential letter that of “necessity” asked Dupre, Junior Dean in the

College of Arts and Sciences, suspend “activities” and “addresses.” Dupre said,

“I am willing to, for reasons of large and essential policy, to resign these official functions, provided it be thoroughly understood among my official associates in these enterprises that such resignation is at the request of the President of the University, for reasons of public policy, or for whatever reasons you care to declare through me, or directly from yourself to these associates. I assure you that I am devoted to the great and central interests, and to the integrity of this University, and to the welfare of its faithful and competent faculty. I would do

571 Edward S. Parsons [President of Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio] to Rightmire, 21 April 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 572 Rightmire to Edward S. Parsons [President of Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio], 21 April 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 262

nothing to jeopardize, willfully, the interests of the University or of my colleagues. Before I can know how to respond adequately to your letter it is necessary for me to know just how you would define those of my ‘activities and addresses’ that are to be temporarily suspended. If you mean to include my two chairmanships in the League for Independent Political Action, I need to know that fact by the meeting of our local executive committee on this Friday evening, April 28.”573

Dupre seemed to understand that some basic functions had to be cut from the university, but wanted to make sure those around him understood the cuts were being made not by Dupre’s decision, but rather by “policy,” or in other words, budget cuts.

May 1933

Jack Fullen and the alumni association had earlier requested that Rightmire sign letters of appeal to alumni who would be able to contribute to the OSU Association.

Rightmire’s appeal to J. E. Stuntz was one of those. Stuntz responded with an acknowledgement of Rightmire’s “terrible time… keeping Ohio State in the front line.”574

Fullen desperately attempted to get Rightmire to participate in soliciting funding for the OSU alumni. “I am begging the liberty of imposing upon you to the extent of having you sign the letters for just one more mailing, and this, I promise you, will positively be the last. It is a matter of life and death with the Association financially to get in just as much money as we can, so that we may close this fiscal year with a balanced budget. I have no hesitancy in saying to you that your letter has improved the

573 Huntley Dupre to Rightmire, 27 April 1933, 3/f Arts and Sciences: College of: Correspondence: Nov 1931-June 1934. 574 Stuntz to Rightmire, May 4, 1933. 263 collections for these months at a rate, the percentage of which I should barely dare to estimate.”575

Rightmire may not have been delighted to solicit money for the alumni association, he did seem happy to brag about university employees. With regard to the university staff, Rightmire argued they were unified in their efforts to support the university mission. “We also face a reducing program but in that respect we are not widely different from almost any other educational institution in America. There may be differences among these institutions in degree but I think no difference as to the fact, but a mere mention of that situation is sufficient and I may say that the staff of the University is entirely devoted to the University enterprise and is moving on vigorously and devoutedly notwithstanding the pinch of financial limitations.”576

Jack Fullen actively pursued alumni, great and small. He urged James F. Lincoln to meet with Charles Kettering, philanthropist, inventor, and OSU alumnus, in order for

Lincoln to develop a stronger relationship with Kettering. Fullen saw the potential for

Kettering to be an important figure in alumni relations and fundraising, especially given

Kettering’s interest in the Alumni Research Council, Lincoln’s “baby.” Fullen reported:

“I just learned indirectly that Charlie Kettering plans to come back to the campus on Alumni Day, June 10, for the reunion of his class which is 1904. It is rather an unprecedented thing for Mr. Kettering to attend a function of this character and I am extremely anxious to see that he does not change his mind. Meanwhile it occurs to me that, because of his interest in the Alumni Research Council, which is more or less your baby, it might be well for you to have opportunity to see him, not necessarily about the Alumni Research Council project, but just to pass the

575 Jack Fullen to Rightmire, 17 May 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933, 576 Rightmire to Dr. Charles F. Watson [President American University, Cairo, Egypt], 29 May 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 264

time of day with him. Accordingly, would you be interested in attending the reunion luncheon of the Class of 1904 in order to be with Mr. Kettering for a while? The luncheon is being set for 1 p.m. in Pomerene Hall in order to give those who participate in the Golf Tournament a chance to complete their rounds and get back to the campus. Therefore, if you compete in the Tournament, as I am hoping you will do, you will be able to make the grade all right. Please let me know what you think.”577

June and July 1933

The salary cuts Rightmire was obliged to carry out under the decreased budget were not always equal or proportional in their distribution. After twelve years, J. B.

Sparrow of the Mendenhall Laboratory of Physics on campus had his salary reduced by one-half down to $750 for half-time work. “I have been a taxpayer for 30 years or more and I feel that I am justified in protesting… Of course I could not protest if everyone had to take the same rate of cut. I think it unfair that I with a salary of $1500 should be asked to give up half of it in order to protect from reduction the salary of the men who are getting from $4500 to $7000…. I am sure you realize that such a salary is barely enough for such a family as mine to live.”578 It is not clear whether Rightmire responded.

From the time he was an OSU student, Rightmire looked to former Ohio State

University President William Henry Scott as a mentor and cited his example in his reports to the Governor of Ohio. Rightmire reflected,

“I am reminded that it has been fifty years since you began your tour of service in this University as President, and I beg to look back to that time and to express my

577 JB Fullen to James F. Lincoln (31 May 1933) Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932- June 1934. Rightmire enthusiastically welcomed Kettering for the future meeting ; see Rightmire to Charles F. Kettering, President General Motors Research Corporation, Detroit, Michigan (3 June 1933) Alumni Association: Correspondence: July 1932-June 1934. 578 J. B. Sparrow [of the Mendenhall Laboratory of Physics] to Mr. George Eckleberry, 27 June 1933, 3/f Budget: College of Arts and Sciences, Correspondence and Data, Jan 1930-June 1930. 265

appreciation for the constructive upbuilding accomplishments which your twelve years of presidency brought forth. I was privileged as a beginning student to come into your office in September 1889, and the acquaintance which I was so fortunate as to begin then has grown more dear and more deeply cherished during the passing forty-four years. The University must always look upon your presidency as the date of the beginning of great development in foundational work and in pointing the University towards its manifold future. Your annual reports to the Governor of Ohio have furnished me many of the soundest arguments which I have been able to discover in support of publicly supported higher education, and it is gratifying to know that they were effective in your time as well as in an increasingly magnified way through the years since. I couple your name with the great formative period of this institution for your wisdom gave it an impetus in numerous directions, all of which have [y]ielded notable development since. The University seems to be soundly fixed in the affections of the people of Ohio. Its financial support may fluctuate as it has been recently, but when economic conditions settle the people of the State will be found behind and under the University just as they have been for [all] these many years.”579

Interestingly, William Henry Scott lived next to OSU campus. He offered his support for the university during a difficult time. In a self-deprecating style, Scott congratulated Rightmire for his administration,

“I thank you for your appreciative letter of the 27th… I accepted the presidency of the University under Protest and with the assurance that I would be released as soon as the trustees found a suitable man for the position. Having thus the expectation of an early release so that I could devote myself exclusively to the department of philosophy, I formed no far-reaching plans for the development of the University as a whole. I heartily congratulate you on the achievements of your administration. It must be a source of deep satisfaction to you to witness the prosperity of the University under your guiding fostering hand.”580

Former President Scott made it clear that he had not wanted to be president and had not developed a “far-reaching plans for the university’s “development.” The irony was that Rightmire appeared to resist doing the same thing: not coming up with long-

579 Rightmire to Doctor William Henry Scott[3451 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio], 27 July 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 580 Rightmire to Doctor William Henry Scott, 31 July 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July- Dec 1933. 266 term plans for the benefit of the university. Rightmire was compelled to make a number of unpleasant decisions, including decreasing employee salaries, increasing student enrollment equating too a larger work load for instructors, and putting off needed buildings which resulted in overcrowding of the space OSU already had.

James Lewis Morrill was happy to see the newspaper treatment of the approved budget and encouraged Rightmire to take his vacation early to Otsego Lake, Michigan.

Morrill said he could be back in two days notice; otherwise, he would plan to return in two weeks. “Michigan seems really to be poverty-stricken with a very nasty psychology among the natives--almost the Iowa mood. The situation in Ohio seems to me to be both happier and sounder. There is a 3% sales tax here about which the merchants are quite wratchy[sic] and petitions for the recall of the Governor are in circulation, with a special session of the legislature just around the corner. So there is no bed of roses anywhere these days, it seems.”581 So according to Morrill, the economic situation in Michigan was even worse than that of Ohio. The Michigan Governor was William Comstock (gov.

1933-1935) who had earlier in February 1933 pronounced a bank holiday when the economic situation was rough and had instituted a three percent sales tax.582 This did not sit well with Michiganders.

581 J. L. Morrill [writing from Otsego Lake, Michigan] to Rightmire, 30 July 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec. 582 Dunbar, Michigan, P. 675. 267

August - December 1933

Rightmire replied to President Emeritus William Henry Scott:

“Everybody connected with the University is carrying on to the beat of his ability but we are laboring under a heavily reduced financial support with estimated resources in some areas and these are flexible; that is, they may go down as well as up. Some uncertainty inheres in the estimate of the resources of the institution for next year and we figured our budget on an extremely narrow margin, about $1000 in a personal service budget calling for almost three million dollars. The spirit of the Faculty and the entire administrative and clerical and physical plant staff is, I think, excellent and everybody is doing the best he can under the circumstances. It gives me great pleasure as I look at your letter to recall not only my early experiences in 1889-90 with you but all the fine experiences that have come to my life by association with you from time to time.”583

Dr. Scott replied to Rightmire, “Your problems have a larger proportion than those of my day, but I hope they are but little, if at all, more difficult. As the problems have grown, so have the resources. I admire your steady and apparently easy mastery of the situation.”584

Noteworthy items in September also included, The National Economic League

Invitation--a non-partisan group--headed by Nicholas Murray Butler (pres. of Columbia

University 1902-1945) asked Rightmire to represent Ohio.585 And J. L. Morrill acknowledged receipt of “The Jews in Nazi Germany”; wherein a Jewish committee highlighted the discrimination policies in Germany. Not discussed in detail in Morrill’s acknowledgment. “Thought you might be interested in reading this as it looks to me like a very fair presentation of the facts.”586

583 Rightmire to Doctor William Henry Scott[3451 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio], 4 August 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 584 Doctor William Henry Scott to Rightmire, 12 October 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 585 J. W. Beatson to Rightmire 24 August 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 586 J. L. Morrill [representing Rightmire who was away] to Mr. Fred Lazarus, Jr., 24 August 1933, 268

In a hopeful vein, Rightmire again wrote former OSU President Dr. Scott,

“Your continuing interest in the University and in my personal problems is very stimulating and I assure you I draw considerable strength from the study of your portrait which I have on the walls of the office. I believe we can carry the University forward most substantially by keeping clearly in mind the history of its progress from the beginning and the high aims of the presidents and faculties responsible for the University’s welfare in any given period. There is a continuity about institutional growth and development which an administrator and a member of a faculty must keep continually in his thinking. Although the experiences recently and for the immediate future are featured by financial difficulties, yet I do not believe we shall need to make serious dislocations in our University program, unless the financial support should become a great deal worse. Most of our activities are somewhat shrunken but this affords an opportunity for renewed appraisement which in times of prosperity it is difficult to achieve.”587

Here Rightmire gave an optimistic viewpoint about the future of the university and the benefits of restructuring. He felt financial difficulties provided an opportunity to revisit institutional processes that in times of university success were more difficult to assess.

Again, Rightmire’s public school interpretation of the university kept him invested in the idea of state funding and inhibited more creative approaches to solving the financial problems of OSU.

In early December, former President William Oxley Thompson died in a

Columbus hospital (on December 9, 1933) at 78 years old.588

3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec. Morril’s reply is in response to a short note dated, August 22, 1933, from Fred Lazarus, Jr. 587 Rightmire to Doctor William Henry Scott [3451 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio], 18 October 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. Rightmire also kept up with former OSU president Dr. W. O. Thompson, who had recently been suffering from some health conditions. November 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 588 “Dr. W. O. Thompson Dies in Hospital,” New York Times (Dec 9, 1933): 15. 269

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1933

Annual reports for 1933 were sent by OSU to every major state university in the

United States, members of the OSU Board of Trustees, university officials, State

Officials (Governor, Auditor of State, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Budget

Commissioner, and Director of Finance (Howard L. Bevis, future OSU president 1940-

1956), major Ohio School district officials, to new members of the Ohio Senate and

House, and to few other selected individuals. Four copies were also distributed to the library.589

Rightmire reported that “On account of the financial stringency which deeply affected all the activities of the State of Ohio… considerable sentiment developed in the

University in the Summer of 1932 for a complete study of the University’s activities, courses, and program.590 This was rendered desirable because of the approaching session of the legislature…”591

Meanwhile, the OSU lab school served as a useful medium for those in educational psychology and teacher training. Grants from industry helped scholars, and an emergency school for unemployed was setup with successful results. The government looked to the university for its example.592

589 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1932-1933, in Sixty-Third Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1933 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1933), 5-21; 3/f Annual Report: President: Correspondence: Final Draft and Mailing List: July 1932-August 1933. 590 It appeared in 1940, that Howard L. Bevis incorrectly asserted the university had not undergone a study of its activities since ten years previous. 591 Rightmire, Annual Report 1932-33, 7. 592 Rightmire, Annual Report 1932-33, 10-12. 270

Reporting on the recent financial situation, Rightmire indicated that the “The

University reached the zenith of its state support in the Legislature of 1929; at that time the total appropriation for the following biennium was just short of ten million of dollars.” Although taxes increased in 1931, “Industry by that time had declined tremendously, values had fallen out of realty, business was becoming discouraged, and a psychology of panic was beginning to possess the people. Under all the conditions the

Legislature maintained its poise well and made reasonable provision for all the State’s activities; but its appropriation for the University for the following biennium was almost exactly two millions of dollars less than the preceding biennium.” Because business conditions worsened, legislators met more frequently to assist public schools and the unemployed. Rightmire continued:

“We came into a time when the very bottom seemed to have dropped out of our economic structure. Unemployment increased, and the need for relief mounted inconceivably; industry almost vanished, and there was a resulting feeling of economic helplessness…. Since public revenues were dwindling, and money for the support of public education on the accustomed scale was difficult, if not impossible to find, it was inevitable that the schools should come in for destructive criticism. The public seemed to turn upon the schools savagely or to turn away from them impotently--as if in some mysterious way they should have prevented the crisis but did not! The school people themselves admitted that the educational work should be carefully scrutinized…. At the same time the higher state-supported educational institutions were meeting exactly the same experience as the public schools.”

OSU was then facing six million dollars, down from ten million, for the 1933-1934 biennium. Salaries, equipment, and supplies were reduced in 1931; in early 1933 salaries were further reduced, courses were wiped off the course schedule, and clerical, administrative, and educational staff were reduced. This “shrinkage” overloaded the

271 teachers and reduced the amount of lab instruction. Rightmire summarized it, “So under the financial restrictions we face a dilemma with reference to quantity and quality of work.”593 Because Rightmire was unable to get away from the public school approach to the university, he accepted the financial setbacks rather than vigorously fighting them.

The ratio of student contribution to total expenditures rose from 13% to 16.4% from 1929-1933 (see Table 15 above), and income from the state dropped .

Rightmire’s 1932-1933 report emphasized finances. The financial report was moved up earlier in the report, something that had not been done in previous reports. The

Timken Roller Bearing Company, an Ohio based company, funded X-Ray Research in

Chemistry providing $2,825.00.594

1934

The work of the alumni at OSU is elucidated in a list of at least eight reasons given for continued support of the OSU alumni association, found in the alumni association files and titled, “Reasons for continuing contribution to Alumni Association.”

These included:

“1. Contributions already returned many times over through gifts from alumni, arising out of organization’s activities enlisting alumni interest. A). Stadium Campaign handled through Alumni Association, $1,000,000 pledged. B). Total gifts to University for all purposes from outside sources in last 10 years, $318,977.77 -- a large share of it from alumni. Last year $67, 605.33. C). Cole

593 Rightmire, Annual Report 1932-33, 14-16. 594 Rightmire, Annual Report 1932-33, 27. 272

Memorial Library campaign through alumni, $22,000. D). Edward Orton bequest, $10,000. E). Gifts of equipment …

“2. Acts as ‘Chamber of Commerce’ of University, promoting its interests and aiding its welfare …

“3. Helps support Alumni MONTHLY …

“4. Keep records …

“5. Participation of alumni in University Affairs.

A). Board of Visitors of 15 distinguished alumni; pay annual visits of inspection to the various colleges and make recommendations for possible improvement of curriculum, policy, etc. Many valuable betterments have grown out of this practice.”595

B). Student Loan Foundation, Inc. Maintained by Alumni Association; started only two years ago, estates, contributions and pledges already total nearly $300,000 …

C). Alumni Research Council. Organized by Alumni Association-- James F. Lincoln, Cleveland millionaire alumnus, chairman;…”596

For reason six, events, such as Homecoming, Ohio State Day, University Day, and Alumni Day were included, and for reason seven, the fact that there existed 100 active alumni clubs throughout the country. Finally, comparing themselves to Michigan:

“8. Prospect work enlisting interest of good students through local alumni clubs. Alumni Association looks forward to the day when, like Michigan, Ohio State’s alumni will give even more generously than they have. One third [of the] buildings on [the] Michigan campus given by alumni. Due to Michigan’s financial aid and active interest in a live alumni organization. Most colleges and universities make similar contributions to their alumni associations. Illinois even goes so far as to require every graduating senior to join the Alumni Association. (Not done here nor contemplated).”597

595 One example of a betterment included the fact that Dr. Francis Carter Wood… “induced Dr. Doan to come to Ohio State.” 596 Kettering donated two days of time a year. 597 [John B. Fullen--probably--though not author’s name is seen], “Reasons for continuing contribution to Alumni Association,” 3/f Alumni: “Reasons for continuing contribution to Alumni Association, 1934, box 3 folder 3. 273

In handwriting at the bottom of the page of reasons, in what appears to be

Rightmire’s handwriting, it reads, “Not yet able to ‘carry on’ through annual dues!” It appears Rightmire was cognizant of the fact that with all of the alumni successes they were not yet self-sufficient. This appeared to be something that bothered him on some level, or at least caused him to further investigate. Further, the last point about OSU not requiring graduating seniors to join the alumni association is technically true: but if

Fullen had it his way as he expressed at the end of 1929, graduates would join if they would see it that they “owe a state university something for the education which they have received at so nominal cost.”598

The allocation of funds became an even more sensitive topic during this period. A multi-volume history of Ohio State University’s involvement during World War I was published during the early 1930s by OSU Professor Siebert.599 “Thanks all help received, especially the personal interest shown by President George W. Rightmire in the progress of the undertaking and the provision by him of needed clerical assistance.”600 This clerical help was not unnoticed by his colleagues. Fellow historian, Professor Carl

Wittke, reported to Rightmire that the budget for Siebert’s personal stenographer was unnecessary, especially since the history department already had one whom professors utilized. Complaining about Professor Siebert’s university funding for a personal

598 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 21 December 1929, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32” 2/55. 599 Wilbur H. Siebert, History of The Ohio State University volume IV: The University in the Great War. Part 1: Wartime on the Campus. (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1934), 3 volumes. 600 Wilbur H. Siebert, History of The Ohio State University volume IV: The University in the Great War. Part 1: Wartime on the Campus. (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1934), vol. 1: page v. 274 stenographer, Carl Wittke, of the Department of History, suggested that Rightmire not renew the position after the upcoming vacancy and suggested that Prof. Siebert use the services of the department stenographer. “By this communication I in no way wish to speak disparaging of the work Professor Siebert is doing. There is nothing personal in this, only an ingrained, Teutonic instinct to stop wasting $1000 of the university’s money in these hard times.”601 Perhaps it is not surprising that Rightmire, a history enthusiast, would prioritize the writing of an institutional history even during financially difficult times.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1934

Commenting on the necrology of Ohio State University, Rightmire started his annual report for the year with this dismal introduction, “Death was unsparing in its invasion of the faculty ranks during the year, removing some of the most eminent members of the teaching and administrative staff.” Professor Ernest Scott worked himself death, “practically exhausted his strength. His zeal was so great that he did not appreciate his physical condition.” Scott had prepared festivities in celebration of the hundred year founding of the College of Medicine that existed before Ohio State itself had been institutionalized.602 This announcement may have been a reprimand to the state. Professor

601 Carl Wittke to Rightmire, 26 February 1934, 3/f Budget College of Arts and Sciences, Correspondence Data. 602 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1933-1934, in Sixty-Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1934 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1934), 5-38. Lippmann coined the phrase, Stereotype, and included a section on it in his book. See Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan Co, 1934. Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 5-6. 275

Scott had been overburdened, and this was a time of increased workload and decreased pay.

Reporting on the death of OSU President Emeritus William Oxley Thompson,

Rightmire stated that Thompson stepped down as president on November 5th, 1925 and died eight years later on December 9th, 1933. In Thompson’s post-presidency, he remained active. He spent his efforts in the Community Chest campaign, elected

Moderator of Presbyterian Church of USA, and advised businesses. A memorial booklet on Thompson’s behalf was reprinted in the annual report. Some excerpts included the fact that during his OSU presidential tenure (1899-1925), “the annual income [increased] from $306,529.76 to $6,129,292.46…. [O]ne of the most eminent university presidents of

America…. He shared fully the late President Angell’s vision of the University as the center from which paths radiated to every home in the State.”603 Rightmire referred here to the late President who had been president of the University of

Michigan from 1871 to 1909.

In his 1934 annual report, Rightmire discussed private gifts for the year, including the scholarships and fellowships that had been set up. One “created under an award from the Hoover Company of North Canton, Ohio, for study of the bacteriological content of dirt found in carpets.” Hoover gave $750 for the fellowship in bacteriology.604

It appeared that Rightmire, though balanced in some of his stated views, leaned toward pessimism when it came to “New Deal” programs. “The group of statutes passed by Congress at the beginning of the Roosevelt Administration in March, 1933, and the

603 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 7-10. 604 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 13, 43. 276 administrative organization and regulations set up pursuant thereto for carrying these legislative enactments into effect, because of their sweeping provisions and generally adventurous nature, soon came to be called the New Deal.” Rightmire continued, explaining that college men and women as well as others were invited to serve in

Washington.

“…. The whole plan evidently was to lend the great powers of the federal government to the alleviation of acute industrial and social conditions, particularly at the earliest possible moment to relieve devastating unemployment by the provision for public works of many kinds, for federal aid in originating new kinds of work of a public interest, and also for bringing about closer and more effective cooperation and understanding in various types of business. Our whole theory of government and private life was one growing out of our conception of democracy in government and freedom of the individual in private life and activity. Suddenly we seemed to find that our odd practices in business were no longer working effectively, that our conceptions of the social order were proving strangely inadequate, and almost in despair of amending the situation which existed we enacted copious legislation and invested in the new President of the United States unprecedented powers of administration and expenditure of public funds.…. all carried forward with the feeling that conditions were desperate, and therefore, the remedies must be unusual. Educational institutions were interested from the beginning; they felt the necessity of bringing to the students analytical and enlightening discussions by eminent men engaged in carrying the New Deal forward, and so a course of lectures was arranged by the Graduate School of the University on the New Deal. …. This list will show that political scientists, economists, sociologists, historians, and other persons, experts in the business field, visiting the University and presented to faculty and students much material for thought and diverse viewpoints. Verily, it has been a time when fundamental conceptions of government and social order have been in question and the wisest men have been in confusion. The Universities have been endeavoring to cut a way through and the New Deal lectures have supplied weapons.”605

605 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 18-20. 277

Though Rightmire seemed grateful for funds for a lecture series that explored the New

Deal, he was critical of the increased power of the President of the United States and appeared skeptical that the New Deal was working.

Students had a difficult time getting jobs during this time period. “The depression has had disastrous social effect in curtailing educational opportunity. Young men and women just out of high school….find the way of their educational ongoing blocked by economic barriers….. The alternative, indeed of ‘going to work’ instead of going to college has largely disappeared”606 The university attempted to do what it could to alleviate these financial burdens. “The Tower Club” where students (75 of them), could live in the stadium and keep it in good order was setup. They lived in Southwest tower of

Ohio Stadium at a minimal rate.

The Board of Trustees approved the University cabinet, made up of Jack Fullen and others, and approved the names of the roadways on campus, the names of the streets mostly carrying through to modern OSU campus today.607

Rightmire also reported that a Dads’ Association had been setup in 1932 by Mr.

Paul C. Laybourne of Cuyahoga Falls. The association’s purpose was “to further intelligent appreciation and understanding of the problems and aims of the Ohio State

University among parents and taxpayers throughout the state; to strive for unity and cooperation in behalf of higher education; and to promote good fellowship among the fathers of students.” Rightmire reported that “Mr. John B. Fullen, alumni secretary, and

606 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 20. 607 Their policy was, “That the names of individuals be reserved for buildings, not for roadways.” A notable exception to this policy came toward the end of the twentieth century with the naming of a street after famous Ohio State football coach, Woody Hayes. Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 22. 278

Mr. Joseph A. Park, dean of men, have served unofficially as liaison officers between the

Association and the University.”608 Thus another venue was set up for improving relations between the university, students, and Ohioans.

In a significant effort to improve relationships with alumni (with eyes possibly to the future of alumni giving), the Alumni College had been set up in 1933. Rightmire describes the endeavor as follows:

“The Ohio State University has been a pioneer in the ‘alumni college’ movement in higher education, undoubtedly becoming a significant aspect of adult education in this country. Organized alumni interest in the institution of higher learning has been developed in America as nowhere else in the world. There is no parallel for it in Germany, or France, Italy, or Great Britain, despite the great antiquity and prestige enjoyed by the universities of those lands. Springing originally from the social motive of comradeship in the common experiences of undergraduate days, alumni organizations in America soon developed the motive of aid and support of Alma Mater; and the material growth of physical resources in American colleges and universities can be attributed in substantial part to the loyalty and generosity of their graduates and former students. Following the World War the alumni movement came into its third phase with an emphasis upon the importance of continuing educational relationships between the universities and their alumni. Interesting enough, it was not the Universities but the alumni themselves who brought this new purpose to the fore. The movement was first launched by the American Alumni Council whose president is Mr. John B. Fullen, alumni secretary of the Ohio State University--and the leadership of Mr. Fullen in urging and aiding the alumni college program at this University is recognized and commended. The first Ohio State University Alumni College was launched at Commencement time in 1933 under the energetic auspices of the College of Arts and Sciences. The two-day program attracted a registered attendance of 263, twenty-six of whom came from outside of the state and 81 from outside Columbus, to hear and to study with ten leading teachers who were selected from the faculty to lecture and who volunteered their services.”609

608 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 24. 609 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 28-29. 279

The 1934 participant attendance was at 400 and University staff aimed to continue the

Alumni College as a “fixed part of the University’s educational program.610 Indicating that the “material growth of physical resources in American colleges and universities can be attributed to in substantial part to the loyalty and generosity of their graduates and former students,” Rightmire at this point seemed to better understand the connection between alumni interaction and potential giving back to the university.

In the concluding pages of Rightmire’s report, he highlighted the fact that the federal government approved 100,000 new part-time jobs for young men and women at institutions on campus, that building construction was made possible through the

“assignment of relief workers,” and federal grants, such as CWA, FERA, Public Works

Administration, and CWS.611 The Citizens’ Conference on the Crisis in Education put on by George F. Arps attracted 17,000 people and included Ohio Governor George White,

President Glenn Frank of Wisconsin, Indiana, Senator of NY Royal D. Copeland, George

F. Zook US Commission of Education, and Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt.612

Now fully immersed in the Great Depression, Rightmire faced innumerable challenges to the university, mostly related to budget cuts and decreased state appropriations. Fullen and the Ohio State University Association worked harder than ever to push forward an endowment building plan, but could have used more enthusiasm and help from Rightmire, who was still reluctant to solicit private funds and to travel to alumni groups around the country. Rightmire for too long viewed the university as an

610 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 28-29. 611 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 31, 33. 612 Rightmire, Annual Report 1933-34, 34. 280 institution of public education that had the right to full or near-full tax funding. He felt people should not otherwise have to pay for the university, and this old fashioned, progressivist view hurt his ability to bring financial health to the university. Still, one of

Rightmire’s biggest challenges was yet to come: that of the conflict with Governor Davey over state appropriations.

281

Chapter Five: Problems with Governor Martin L. Davey, 1935-1937

The last years of Rightmire’s presidency would be marked by financial difficulties, but also with progress in private fundraising. Rightmire’s advice continued to be sought after by financial matters related to the depression by bankers, citizens, and businessmen with some particularly vocal and providing their own advice (See Appendix

A). 1935 was an extraordinary year financially for OSU. Rightmire had high hopes, even expectations, that the state would meet his appropriations request. But those hopes would be dashed by Governor Martin Davey. Davey’s vetoes appeared to have caused grief for

Rightmire that finally pushed Rightmire to be more aggressive with private fundraising.

These years saw the creation of the Ohio State University Development Fund which would become the main body for pursuing private gifts for the university’s endowment.

Rightmire’s correspondence gives particular insight into his concerns and goals for the university. Governor Davey’s unreasonable cuts indicated that the “public school” financing model of relying on state would not work.

282

1935

January 1935

Compared to other OSU presidents, George W. Rightmire was not very active in society, and his wife did not appear to have much interest in this area either. Through

Rightmire’s presidency, it appeared that Mrs. Rightmire frequently turned down many opportunities to socialize and was not present on several significant occasions. This would contrast with subsequent spouses of university presidents. In early January 1925

Rightmire (and Mr. Morrill and Mr. Steeb) all turned down an invitation for he and Mrs.

Rightmire “to act on the Reception Committee” at a Charity Ball at the Columbus auditorium--the proceeds going to various causes for children.613

A later contrast between Rightmire and his successor Howard Bevis, was made by

William Guthrie, a friend of Brandon Rightmire, President Rightmire’s son. Guthrie said,

“[Howard] Bevis was a very different person. The president’s wives always had a little role in this sort of thing. Mrs. Rightmire was never a participant in university affairs.

George Rightmire was pretty much a loner, even though Mrs. Rightmire was living in the president’s house. When the Bevis’s came in, Mrs. Bevis and Dr. Howard Bevis were both very active in university affairs. She was active in academic affairs. Depending on

613 [The Central Ohio Paper Company, Albert H. Miller, President], 7-8 January, 1935, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 283 where you got your source of information, she was too active in everything. She had all kinds of ideas for Howard to do.” 614

J. Earnest Carman of the OSU Department of Geology, expressed the difficulty of finding a replacement for an economic geologist and compared Ohio State University to the University of Michigan. “I cannot refrain from noting a comparison” Carman wrote to

Dean B. L. Stradley of the OSU College of Arts and Sciences, “Last summer the

University of Michigan also lost by death their professor of Economic Geology. The man whom they obtained places their work in Economic Geology in stronger hands, I think, than during any time in the last fifteen years.” So Michigan’s replacement was better.

“Our economic geology work,” Carman continued, “the field of specialization of Dr.

Bownocker and ably continued by Dr. Graham615 during his six years, is now in the hands of a new instructor and, even if our selection turns out well, it will be six or eight years before Dr. Freeman can have the standing in teaching and research that our professor of Economic Geology should have.” Again, OSU was compared to a higher standard, that of the University of Michigan.616 However, this academic comparison did not seem to instigate the fervor brought on by the athletic comparison.

February 1935

If Rightmire did not attend many social gatherings, at least he was prolific in his writing. In response to Rightmire’s ‘Public Higher Education in Ohio,’ Charles Lake,

614 William Guthrie, interviewed by Robert Sutton, 7 December 1983, Ohio State University Archives, Ohio State University Oral History Program, http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/479. 615 Dr. Graham is faculty member who recently passed away. 616 J. Ernest Carman [of Department of Geology] to Dean B. L. Stradley [College of Arts and Sciences], 15 January 1935, 3/f Budget College of Arts and Sciences Correspondence 1937. 284

Superintendant of Schools on the Board of Education in Cleveland, Ohio wrote, “I sincerely hope that we shall be able to develop a state support of education in Ohio of which we can be proud. In my opinion, this plan should include support from the first grade through the graduate schools of our state universities.”617 Others who responded to

Rightmire’s work included University of Minnesota President, Lotus Coffman. Coffman replied, “I found it especially comprehensive and helpful; as a matter of fact, I can make good use of it in connection with some of the things we are doing at Minnesota.”618

Meanwhile, Fullen let Rightmire know that he and others on campus had formed a new organization called, Ohio Staters, Inc. which was a successor of “Boost Ohio

Committee.” Fullen explained, “Ohio Staters, Inc. is a new student faculty administration alumni organization which has as its purpose the furthering of the interests of the

University in every conceivable way.”619 Presumably this included financial ways as well.

Rightmire seemed to anticipate the requested state appropriation, “There is a little more buoyancy in attitudes and our hotch-potch tax system seems to be producing considerable revenue, and we may be quite successful in getting our request.” 620

Convinced that the state held the responsibility for funding the university, and seeing

617 Emphasis appears to be Rightmire’s. Charles H. Lake to Rightmire, 12 February 1935, 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 618 Lotus Coffman to Rightmire, 15 February 1935, 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 619 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 15 February 1935, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32. 620 Rightmire to Alfred Thomas [of Surrey, England], 23 February 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. 285 improvement in state revenue, Rightmire felt confident the university would benefit.

Little did he know that Governor Davey would reject his request!

March 1935

Chester E. Tucker, Vice President of The John Price Jones Corporation of New

York sent President Rightmire a study called “Fundamental Factors in Fund-Raising.”

Tucker wrote: “It has seemed to us--with the swing of philanthropy back to education in the past few months and with a number of colleges and universities interesting themselves in financing--that this may be of interest to you now…. [I]n 1933 the bottom was touched in gifts to education and that in 1934 the total was very sharply upward.

Current reports from alumni funds also show that giving to institutions of higher learning is on the up-grade again. Should there be anything in your financial situation upon which you would have any opinion from us, we should be glad to hear from you.”621

In an editorial in The Daily Tribune, a Pomeroy, Ohio based newspaper, President

Rightmire’s efforts were extolled.

“Regardless of the many enemies of education, it still remains true that education does improve the average individual…. Every dollar that goes into the operation of the Ohio State University is a dollar not spent, but saved, for as the slogan of a famous utility goes, it is money that brings in dividends far greater than the original expenditure. Every believer in higher education therefore should insist that his representative vote favorably on the request made by President Rightmire of the University. This fine man is not interested in politics or subterfuges of other kind. He merely is trying to give and is succeeding in giving the people of Ohio the greatest benefits attainable with the means at hand. He could easily pad his report so that even if his original demands were reduced, he could still count on

621 The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/3/4), Chester E. Tucker to Rightmire, 4 March 1935, 3/f Alumni Affairs, Fund Raising, 1926-1935, box 3, folder 4. 286

enough to carry on at the school, but he is ‘above’ those tricks and is asking only for those things which the University must have if the children of Ohio are to compete on an equal plane with the children of other states having great universities. The people should not, they can not afford to be misled by a false security or a false economy and a failure to properly take care of this great institution of learning where the instructors have taken more and greater cuts in their pay, probably than any other place in the state, is nothing more nor less than a policy of penny wise and pound foolish. Let’s go all the way and support an institution that is really worth while.”622

Not only was this note personally supportive to Rightmire, but it acknowledged OSU’s policies--including payroll cuts. In short, if Ohio State was to compete with universities like Michigan, Ohioans needed to be supportive.

J. L. Morrill encouraged Rightmire to respond to the editorial, which Rightmire did, complementing The Daily Tribune for their “stirring editorial about the needs of education referring especially to higher education supported by the State of Ohio and particularly to the Ohio State University. Your fine grasp of the whole situation and your excellent analysis and your enthusiastic sentiments are greatly appreciated and I am certain they will go far towards placing the thinking about the Ohio State University where it should be.”623

April 1935

On behalf of Morrill, Steeb, Herbert S. Atkinson (member of the Board of

Trustees), and four members of the Ohio Legislature, Rightmire thanked President

Ruthven and his staff: “We shall always remember with keen pleasure the happy manner

622 Editorial [Mr. Carl Schaefer, editor of the Pomeroy Tribune], “Education’s Needs,” The Daily Tribune [Pomeroy, Ohio], 11 March 1935. 623 Rightmire to The Daily Tribune, 13 March 1935, 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 287 in which you received us, not only on this occasion, but on all previous occasions when we have made institutional and legislative visits to the University of Michigan”624 Thus it seems OSU administration not infrequently looked north for ideas and advice.

Morrill wrote a memo to Rightmire concerning a reminder to have Rightmire thank Hugh E. Nesbitt, President of Columbus Coated Fabrics Company, “thanking him for his gift of $350 which enabled us to take the four legislative chairmen to visit the

University of Michigan and the University of Illinois. You can very truthfully say to him,

I think, that this was not only a generous but a most productive investment in the welfare of the University.”625

In his thank you letter to Hugh E. Nesbitt for the financial contribution enabling officials from both Ohio State and the state of Ohio to complete recent trips to the

Universities of Michigan and Illinois, President Rightmire highlighted the benefits of making such a comparative trip. “[Y]ou made it financially possible for a group of the

University men to conduct a Legislative group to the Universities of Michigan and of

Illinois. This kind of educational trip has been made at different times in the past, but we were quite uncertain whether this year we could accomplish this constructive kind of thing. You nobly responded to Mr. Morrill’s explanation of the situation and I desire to assure you that we all feel that you have made not only a very liberal but a most productive investment in University welfare. The observations and experiences of the

624 Rightmire to Alexander G. Ruthven, 8 April 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. A similar letter was sent to Pres. A. C. Willard of the University of Illinois. 625 Morrill to Rightmire, 9 April 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. Since Morrill explained the situation to Nesbitt, it is unlikely Nesbitt was one of the anonymous donor(s) who had given previously to the trips to visit the Universities of Michigan and Illinois in the past. 288

Legislatures on this kind of trip are numerous and helpful and in some cases we feel give to the Legislator a new view of the importance attached to higher education in our neighboring states and reflexively therefore a renewed vision of what Ohio ought to be doing for the Ohio State University. In many ways the University benefits and we feel that an excellent good will be derived from your devoted thoughtfulness about the

University this year.”626

An interesting point in this thank you letter is the admission that Nesbitt had been solicited by Morrill and for a specific need, namely the legislative group trip to Michigan and Illinois for comparative and informative purposes. This practice of making solicitations for specific needs had been successful at Harvard and Michigan, two universities watched by OSU administration.

The desperate financial situation of the university was acknowledged by

Rightmire on several occasions, one of these in a letter to Hugh Laughlin.

“The University seems to be going along, preserving its balance, but not being able to develop in various directions where services are badly needed. Financial conditions have been very restricted for three years and we are now in suspense about whether there can be any material improvement in financial support of the next two years. What we need, of course, is our present payroll plus almost $200,000 a year for new teaching definitely allocated to departments in our study of the situation. The matter of supplies and equipment and other types of maintenance and improvements have also suffered and we need to have additional funds there. We are in the hands of the Legislature for all these necessities and at the present time we have no idea what the Legislature will do about the permanent appropriation.” 627

626 Rightmire to Hugh E. Nesbitt, 10 April 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. 627 Rightmire to Mr. Hugh Laughlin, 6 April 1935 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 289

Rightmire’s tone was certainly that of helplessness where the legislature was concerned.

He still at this point seemed to rely on the state for the university’s income. Rightmire’s slow progress on endowment building to this point was soon to be regretted, as Rightmire would learn in June. Meanwhile Fullen had his hands full in building the alumni association.

There are several interesting points about the following letter from Fullen to

Rightmire. The membership in the alumni association had dropped from 6,000 to 5,000.

It had been 6000 around the year 1930. Also, in response to earlier criticism of the approach advocated by the alumni association that solicited graduating seniors who were asked to pay an alumni association fee at the same time paying for their diploma, Fullen further attempted to rectify that situation, in the following explanation.

“I am sure you will be interested in the first contact with a graduating class being handled under the new arrangement for alumni memberships. I therefore enclose a copy of a letter individually addressed, to each of the 167 who were graduated in March. Mr. King, Mr. Campbell, and the other members of the Board of Directors whom I have apprised of this grand new outreach toward us by the administration, are confident that it means the revolutionizing of the Alumni Association as far as membership is concerned. The seniors now regard us in a happy frame of mind; we have not sandbagged them, nor embarrassed them, nor harassed them with appeals for alumni membership at a time when they were neither in financial nor mental situation to regard such an approach kindly. Now we have a year to educate them, develop them, and convince them of the mutual interdependence of themselves and their University. It may be foolish to be so optimistic but I should think that five years hence this Association might well be able to double its present membership of 5000 and become the active, efficient organization we all want it to be.”628

628 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 22 April 1935, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 290

Whether Fullen’s new approach was better than the former was yet to be seen.

June - October 1935

The minutes of the Board of Visitors cites that members discussed,

“attention to the growing disproportion between the appropriations that were made for the support of the University and its necessities, and raised the question as to whether or not the alumni were doing their full part towards improving this situation. With the continuing increase in the number of students and the demand for a higher grade of instruction, he stated that if the institution was to take its place ultimately among the leading universities of the country, it was absolutely necessary that the budget should be increased from year to year until we were able to offer accommodations and instruction equal to that offered by other similar institutions…. He insisted that the alumni, under progressive and aggressive leadership, should give an ever increasing amount of attention towards obtaining, either from the state or from private sources, the amount of money that will be required to enable the University to do for its students and the state, all that is expected of it. In this connection he stated that the alumni chapter of New York City had recently established a scholarship, and expected to establish another in the near future. Mr. Raymund moved and seconded that the report, as submitted by Mr. Brooks, be published in the [OSU] Monthly. The Board was unanimous in its opinion that the radio talks and lectures were exceedingly valuable in acquainting the people of the state with the interest of the University in the working out and solution of their problems.”629

So in 1935 Mr. Brooks and the Board of Overseers wanted the alumni to see the financial difficulties faced by Ohio State so that they could work toward higher state appropriations or increase private sources of revenue for the university

Fullen responded passionately to an apparent critic of the university. He wrote:

“I am sending you herewith the revised copy of your comments upon university affairs. If you don’t mind my suggestion, I ask you in your writing to bear just one thing in mind: That the University Administration, particularly the President, the

629 Board of Visitors Minutes, 8 June 1935, Columbus, Ohio, [Raymund, Brooks, Drackett, Rummell, Wendt and Newell] 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 291

Board of Trustees and most Faculty members who understand the University’s true view point, are enthusiastically committed to the Land Grant College ideal of higher education. This in essence assumes that the Land Grant Colleges do among their superior job too, namely, reach down into the bottom lands of the commonwealth and give to the ordinary stock of the country its opportunity for intellectual advancement. In terms of statistics a very bitter story of failures is already written into the records…. [referring to high school and college graduates] in terms of raising the level of civilization the universities already operate on the selected few and any higher increase in standards would throw us back into the Seventeenth Century ideal of education, namely, that it is either for the monied or the intellectual aristocrats. When I hear some of our alumni talking about cracking down to weed out more and more students (when our standards are very stiff now), I am reminded of something that Lew Morrill said to me not long ago: That we seem to be failing to do the fundamental job we ought to be doing in a great Land Grant University like ours--namely, to engrave somehow deeply in the hearts and minds of our students an understanding of the homely, human and democratic ideal that brought our kind of institution into existence, so that our people as they go on into later life (Particularly if they are successful) would be sincere sponsors all their days for the kind of opportunity that gave them their chance. This is no reflection on your view point which is perfectly sincere and has its roots the betterment of an institution which you love, but it expresses the sincere feeling of a young fellow who got his chance for higher education because there was a Land Grant College named Ohio State University and who does not want to see other young fellows like himself denied that chance because of severe financial and scholastic barriers.”630

Fullen vigorously defended the university as well as the administration. And this was a time when the university did indeed need to be defended. June saw enormous cuts to the university budget, thanks to Ohio governor, Martin L. Davey. Governor Davey’s veto of $1,266,500 of the state appropriations to OSU soon caused an all out battle between Davey and President Rightmire that would last years.

In 1935 Rightmire requested increased funding from the state to support an annual increase in attendance numbers (ten percent yearly since 1932). After the plans for state

630 John B. Fullen to Benjamin T. Brooks of New York, 17 June 1935, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. There does not appear to be an extant copy of Brooks’s letter. 292 appropriations of over seven million dollars for OSU were passed through the legislature, over a million dollars were vetoed by Governor Davey.631 So appropriations were decreased, rather than increased for the university in 1935. Not only was Davey’s appropriations veto devastating, it was also a very unpleasant surprise. Rightmire, in June of 1935, shortly after the budget cuts said that Governor Davey, “by his unbelievable appropriations vetoes has struck a staggering blow.”632

It wasn’t long before Rightmire’s correspondence was flooded with references to the appropriations veto. University leaders, friends, and alumni seemed anxious to state their feelings about the vetoes. Rightmire’s anxiety over the universities financial situation is evident in his correspondence and in public statements. Both he and the governor commented publically on their disagreement over funding the university.

Later it was described this way: “[I]n June, out of a clear sky, Governor Davey vetoed $1,266,500 from the university budget.” Either Fullen or Rightmire remarked,

“Less than a week before, the governor had addressed the commencement crowd in Ohio stadium, Governor Davey saying, ‘My heart has been softened toward the University by this spectacle today…. Early in the season Governor Davey took another fling at the University, by asserting that ‘most of the football players are on the state payroll.’… Governor Davey’s explanation a day later that he was only joking didn’t undo the damage, and Ohio State’s reputation abroad for clean sports will be questioned for years to come. As a matter of fact, 13 of the 55 varsity squad members have been working for the state--and have been earning their money. Even the governor admits that…. Ohio State students pay scarcely a fifth of the cost of their education. Fees here are kept at a minimum, because from its very beginning the University has desired to make itself available to the youth of the state, whatever their financial circumstances…. No alumnus ever can repay in full his debt to the University. It has given him the very best that it has, asking

631 http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=125. See also The Governors of Ohio. Columbus: The Ohio Historical Society, 1954 s.v. Martin L. Davey. 632 The Associated Press, “Football players on Ohio’s Payroll, Davey Discloses,” New York Times (12 October 1935): 1. 293

only a fraction of the cost in return. During the depression hundreds of colleges and universities have depended upon their alumni for liberal contributions, in order to keep open. Ohio State has asked no funds from its graduates--only an active, loyal interest. This year has shown the value of organized alumni support. The alumni association [officers]… has been on the job every minute in the crisis presented by Governor Davey’s vetoes. And it will stay on the job until the crisis is passed…. Ohio State alumni have more reason now to be proud of their alma mater than ever before.”633

According to the New York Times, Ohio Governor Martin Davey made an impassioned radio speech on August 19, 1935, and was taken off the air for two minutes.

Davey used “‘hell’ and ‘damn’ in an attack on Dr. George W. Rightmire, president of

Ohio State University.” In response to being taken off the air, the governor responded, “I didn’t care if I was on the radio or off. I was up there to talk to the labor men.”634

On October 11, 1935 Governor Davey claimed football “the supreme purpose of higher education.”635 The New York Times summed up his view: “In a statement bristling with sarcasm the Governor made his latest move to prevent the university from obtaining legislative nullification of a $1,266,500 cut he made in its biennial appropriation.” Davey responded to the claims from Ohio State administrators that the school with “depleted funds” might force its closing within ten days and cause the team to miss out on winning the Big Ten championship. The governor said, “We recognize the fact that football has become the supreme purpose of higher education.” Then, as though from the perspective of the state, he said, “We have certainly done our part, because we have most of the football squad on the State payroll and we are exceedingly anxious for a most successful

633 [John B. Fullen], Ohio State Day Speakers Bulletin, “Just Among Ourselves,” 1935, 3/f Alumni: OSU Association: Letters, Feb. 1935-Jan 1938. Page 12. 634 “Gov. Davey Cut off Air: He Loses Two Minutes of Radio Speech for Using Profanity” New York Times (2`0 Aug 1935): 12. 635 Davey quoted in The Associated Press, “Football players on Ohio’s Payroll, Davey Discloses,” New York Times (12 October 1935): 1. 294 season.” L. W. St. John, the director of athletics at OSU, claimed that students on the state payroll “are working for the money they receive and their eligibility” was “not endangered.”636

In a pamphlet entitled, “The Facts: Concerning the Crisis confronting the Ohio

State University as a result of Martin L. Davey’s vetoes of its appropriations,” President

Rightmire said, “Mr. Davey’s vetoes are a purchase order for mediocrity for the Ohio

State University. We should be false to any honorable and intelligent sense of trusteeship to the people of this state, if we fail, in this gravest crisis in the history of the University, to speak out and tell the truth.” In response to Rightmire’s complaints against the governor, Davey said, “President Rightmire can cry his eyes out and squawk to his heart’s content. I shall stand by the people of Ohio and not let him get away with it.”637

In the previous two decades during William Oxley Thompson and Rightmire’s presidencies, it appeared that Ohio governors were more sympathetic to higher education in Ohio.638 Though a previous Ohio Governor in the mid-1920s, “Veto Vic” Donahey, was not always supportive to Ohio State University, the legislature of the state of Ohio over-rode his veto to pass appropriations during OSU president Thompson’s era, making the situation not nearly as difficult as what Rightmire faced.639

636 The Associated Press, “Football players on Ohio’s Payroll, Davey Discloses,” New York Times (12 October 1935): 1. 637 [a Leaflet] “The Facts: Concerning the Crisis confronting the Ohio State University as a result of Martin L. Davey’s vetoes of its appropriations,” 3/f Alumni: OSU Association: Letters, Feb. 1935-Jan 1938. 638 One exception was Governor Veto “Vic” Donahey during Thompson’s era who vetoed a state appropriation, but was overruled by the legislature. Governor Donahey declined to support legislation that would raise taxes, J. A. Meckstroth, http://ww2.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/ohgovernment/governors/donahey.html. 639Governor Donahey declined to support legislation that would raise taxes, J. A. Meckstroth, http://ww2.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/ohgovernment/governors/donahey.html; George W. Knepper, Ohio 295

In 1926 William Oxley Thompson, President emeritus of Ohio State, discussed his concerns about overbearing governors. “Governors sometimes get ‘off the reservation’ as we say out west. A little brief authority is quite apt to impress some of us with our importance, and possibly with our greatness…. When these [politically-minded] men are Governors they forcibly imagine that by taking some such attitude toward the public they are operating in the interest of public welfare, or of the institutions…. There is some tendency on the part of the friends of the Universities, including the Faculty probably, to be unduly excited about a Governor.” Thompson wrote that the only governors he could quickly mention were one that was in the penitentiary and another that had illegally taken state money. “Notoriety is sometimes cheap, but if certain types of men continue to be re-elected Governor the notoriety may be somewhat uncomfortable….”640

Rightmire’s situation with Davey was more than uncomfortable. Fortunately

Rightmire’s contacts generally seemed supportive, and OSU’s decreased state funding may have increased support to the university by those who felt at odds with the governor.

William E. Leonard, President of the Leonard Coal and Supply Co., wrote, referring to

Governor Davey, President of Davey Tree Expert Company, a tree surgery businessman by profession: “Our tree pruner, jack-ass quack governor is now yodling to us poor down trodden tax payers-in the public press and other ways. I am rather inclined to believe he

and Its People: Bicentennial, p. 343. 640 William Oxley Thompson, “Recent University Affairs,” 25 October 1926, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1925-1927, box 2 folder 53. 296 has missed his calling of late. It may be that our Zoos are overstocked with American varieties.”641

Further correspondence to Rightmire about the governor came from Bryon

Goldsmith who wrote: “We are indeed gratified by the courageous stand you have taken in challenging the Governor on his budget cuts. The members of SOS [Stop Organized

Slaughter] have also protested vigorously. While we are primarily a Youth Movement concentrating on the war problem, we are, nonetheless, interested in the general welfare of our state and nation, and in maintaining the standards of education.” 642

It seemed Davey’s critics thought they would have a friend in Rightmire.

Not only Ohio schools that saw large decreases in state funding. For instance, the

University of Wisconsin was also plagued by budget cuts. “The Wisconsin senate has now done its worst for the University of Wisconsin…. As passed by the senate, the

Carroll budget bill reduces the university’s operating funds, wipes out the school of education, and contains provision for raising salaries of all university employees receiving less than $2,000 a year at the expense of those receiving more….”643 The financial setbacks of the depression seemed to affect state universities very differently depending on the actions of the state legislatures

641 William E. Leonard, 22 June 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 642 Byron Goldsmith to Rightmire, 5 July 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 643 “Hitting the Highbrows” Wisconsin State Journal (28 June 1935). 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 297

August 1935

Another supporter of Rightmire said, “Gov Davey’s threat of making Dr.

Rightmire and Ohio State University a campaign issue looks like poor politics to me.

The governor’s statement that Dr. Rightmire’s sole interest in a larger budget for the university is the fact that it will increase his personal salary simply demonstrates he doesn’t know the man.”644

Whether or not the show of solidarity and support from Alumni and others improved Rightmire’s attitude toward private fundraising, this time of increased need certainly seemed to push Rightmire in that direction. Davey’s cuts obviously showed that the “public school” financing model of depending almost entirely on state funding was not a realistic approach. It seemed Rightmire had to get beaten down by a tightfisted governor before he actively pushed through a stronger agenda for the formation of a university development fund. Rightmire’s supporters helped him retain his presidency and remain in favor with many Ohioans. A certain A.T. Arnold from the Ohio Council of

Religious Education reported, “Gov. Davey’s broadcast made no impression on the group who listened in of which I was part.”645

No doubt Michigan’s example of alumni and private giving provided motivation for Rightmire all along, but at this season, Rightmire was still admiring the gifts

Michigan received. Said Rightmire to one Michigan benefactor,

644 Arnett Harbage, “Thoughts of a Dirt Farmer” The Putnam County Gazette (1 August 1935). 645 A. T. Arnold [of the Ohio Council of Religious Education] to Rightmire, [undated], 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 298

“The copy of the ‘Michigan Alumnus’ came a few days later and I have had great enjoyment in reading the section devoted to your generous remembrance of the University of Michigan in a number of very material ways…. [Fielding H. Yost] is probably, and perhaps I should say certainly, the greatest football coach of all time. Your satisfaction should be very great when you recall the days when you were striving to make Michigan move forward in the great field of intercollegiate athletics; your accomplishment was a maximum one. The announcement of a gift for the carillon shows distinctly that your mind runs to the cultural and the aesthetic as clearly and emphatically as it did years ago to the athletic and the material. I compliment you and the University of Michigan on this fine gift and hope that when I go there I may have the pleasure of hearing these bells.”646

September 1935

Jack Newvahner, a graduate from the class of 1891, and President of the First

National Bank in Jackson, Ohio wrote to Rightmire, not only to encourage him during the distressing financial cutbacks, but to warn him that public opinion of the university was at risk.

“Now don’t you worry about all this controversy. It will all come out allright[original]. I do feel sorry that you are subject to these continual attacks. But they are not hurting you. Every body who knows you will feel all the more loyal to you. And time will bring about the necessary appropriations, and the University will come along allright…. I am told that it has caused you much worry. I am sure it has. But you must not let it get on your nerves. Our dear friend Doctor Scott used to have his worries in plenty. But he did not let them get him and he is living yet. I am pleased too, that you have refrained from breaking into print. You’re disappointing some people, your opponents, by that policy. Your dignified silence is your best answer to all that… I want you to win this fight, for you are right…. I hear criticisms…that students are being taught Communism and Socialism…. Also the charge is made that students are encouraging strikes among workers in the manufacturing plants in Columbus. Well, I believe if any students are doing that, they should be expelled as wherever a student goes. Now please understand me, I am not trying to tell you how to run your business. I mention

646 Rightmire to Charles Baird [Keith and Perry Building, Kansas City, Mo. Of Charles Baird Investments and Loans, Farm Mortgages, Western Exchange Bank], 5 August 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 299

these items because they are so widespread that they arouse antagonisms against the University among people who would otherwise be its friends.”647

In response to Jack Newvahner’s letter, Rightmire replied with placating statements minimizing the significance of political activity. Evidently Rightmire did not think there was much to do about this situation. He said,

“There is an organization, found in practically every university of the land, called the National Student League, formed to discuss, learn about and put into effect most liberal principles relating to industrial, labor and social organization, and their ideal, so far as they have any, is the government organized and going forward today in Russia. They are, however, students of government and are in the main what most people would call ‘emotional’ since they feel a weight of responsibility about the electors in the social order. My problem always is how best to deal with these groups. Any kind of discipline because of the ideas they voice and agitate would immediately make martyrs of them, and the publicity would be endless….” Rightmire continued to explain that it would be a “bad experience” for the university and the “result is that this group can have its occasional meetings and carry on the discussion of various types of government and may even agitate among the students and may even try to exemplify their principles by joining with a group of strikers. I have watched carefully and with interest to see whether this group is widening its sphere of influence and adherence among the students, but I cannot see that it makes headway. Very few students are interested in this type of thinking and conduct and the great majority pay no attention at all or, if they do give some attention to them, they express entirely skeptical thoughts about the whole proceeding.… The person who attends to his own business and makes an effort to move himself and the world forward is not interesting as a newspaper headline. This must always be borne in mind in reading news about the University, both with reference to the type of teaching going on, and with reference to the conduct of students. If so few as a hundred students shall engage in an egg fight or some such proceeding, it will constitute the feature article of the day in the newspapers locally and will be given by wire out over the country and readers are likely to think of that incident as the great feature of university life and student activity…. I hesitate long before saying anything for publication, since I am certain that the University’s business cannot be transacted in a newspaper, nor can any other kind of business be transacted as news or publicity…. [If parents of students would] more clearly sense the magnitude of the problem we have in the University where all kinds of homes

647 Jack H. Newvahner [President First National Bank, Jackson, Ohio] to Rightmire, 13 September 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. 300

have their representatives and we deal with the students who have had every kind of social training and political and industrial thinking. In the last analysis there are never more than a few who give the occasion for the publicity. If I could just get that thought through to the parents of Ohio, some of the criticism of the University would cease, but I do not know how to do it. My statement of that kind to the newspapers would not be regarded as news and hence would be printed only under protest.”648

Rightmire understood the need to showcase the university strengths and benefit to the community. He felt publicizing the political activity of a small minority of students could only hurt the university.

October 1935

After having read an article on the challenging work of a professor, in personal correspondence to John W. Bricker, attorney general of Ohio, Rightmire leveled some return criticism on Ohio Governor Davey. “I have had great enjoyment out of reading the article ‘So you Are a Professor’. This is not only rare entertainment, but it is pure fact.

Someone should now surreptitiously see that the Chief Executive of the State of Ohio has a copy of this. He has recently expressed some views about the industry of the college professor and might at least find this a very interesting statement.”649 Rightmire evidently knew that the work and needs of professors were not in high enough esteem by Davey.

Fullen made no secret of his contempt for Governor Davey. Fullen said, “I am passing your letter along to President Rightmire, who may desire to make some acknowledgement of it, although at the moment he is deeply involved in trying to keep

648 Rightmire to Jack H. Newvahner [President First National Bank, Jackson, Ohio], 14 September 1935, 3/f Correspondence, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. 649 Rightmire to John W. Bricker [Attorney General, State of Ohio], 8 October 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 301 the University going with decent efficiency in the face of captious and insulting harassments from a Governor who is picking on such generalizations as you have heard and is attempting to make political capital of them.”650

During this time of even tighter financial circumstances, Rightmire maintained that university administrators were careful not to waste funds. In response to outside criticism, he said, “[A] s I am able in this short minute to analyze, you have the belief that the amount of money spent in this institution for administration, as distinguished from money spent for teaching, is unduly large. I have lived with those figures and this situation for a great many years and I have not had that impression.” Rightmire then outlined various administrative components of the university that require money and service, including teachers, stenographers, deans, and assistants. He then claimed that as it was, he had to turn down requests for additional stenographers.651

“The lamentable spectacle of the Governor of the great commonwealth is most distressing…. In reflecting upon recent utterances of the Governor, I wonder if we are not spending more money for educational purposes than is warranted by the apparent results.” Rightmire replied that “The difficulty arises because the University is not a factory; it’s product cannot be standardized.”652

Amid the criticism, Rightmire continued to receive encouraging letters from supportive alumni, and in this case, a lawyer and former politician. “For months I have

650 Fullen to Fred Cornell (11 October 1935) 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 651 Rightmire to Fred Cornell of New Jersey (14 October 1935), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 652 Judge Roland W. Baggott to Rightmire, 29 October 1925, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. Rightmire replied on 1 November. 302 intended writing to say that I wish I were back in Ohio politics to take the stump on this appropriation issue. It seems as though this fellow Davey should go back to his trees and leave matters of education to the literate. I am sure every old graduate feels as I do and would surely like to help in some way.”653

November 1935

While Rightmire was feeling the pressure of the financial crisis, he was apparently grateful for those who worked for the benefit of the university. On a personal note to Lincoln, Rightmire expressed, “I am sure that you are achieving whatever can be achieved by high intelligence and boundless energy.” This appeared to be true. Lincoln’s

“boundless energy” pushed the university’s development program in important ways.654

Writing from Washington D. C. amidst the Davey controversy, Carl G. Anderson expressed, “had you been here we would have…gone to the White House and wished F.

D. R. and Eleanor bon voyage and the hope they remain away for a long time, and have gone and ‘got’ drunk. (Of course no word of that to Gov. Davey).”655 In Rightmire’s reply to Anderson, he shared, “The suspense the University has been in since June has been a very disturbing one and the situation is not illuminated in any way up to the present moment.” So by November 1935, finances for the university were still uncertain.

653 June Purcell Guild [Richmond, Virginia] to Rightmire, 30 October 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 654 Rightmire to Lincoln, 1 November 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 655 Carl G. Anderson to Rightmire, 22 November 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan- Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 303

He had hoped to know about the university’s situation back in December. “Some other parts of the United States,” he continued,

“are not prosperous, but the governmental business is running at high tide and the number of Federal employees has increased enormously. The salaries paid in Washington to University professors with special training or skill or experience are much greater than the Universities are able to pay. A large number of our professors were in the government service until the opening of the current school year, then we had to call them back in order to keep our teaching staff from being weakened for a long period and almost all of them returned at the lower salaries. The point I see is that the Federal government picked off the educational experts of the country by giving them higher salaries than the Universities could afford to pay and also by giving them a wider experience than the Universities could provide. The whole situation is so unusual and in many respects artificial that a great suspense hangs over most of the country and will probably continue to discourage normal business and normal procedures, at least for the next year. Thereafter it may lightened or it may be made heavier and the outcome is entirely uncertain as I see it.”656

Thus Rightmire felt the federal government was stealing away some of the best teachers at a time when the state universities couldn’t afford to entice them to stay.

Rightmire, who had depended on the state so exclusively was now in a very bad situation, all the worse because there was no significant structure in place for soliciting private giving. The state, would not provide for the university, not even for the most basic needs of the school. The state had fallen from it’s trusted place, and Rightmire and others were left to flounder through making up the difference by other means.

656 Rightmire to Carl G. Anderson, 25 November 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan- Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 304

December 1935

By December, Rightmire was pleased with the financial support from the members of the Legislature. He said he had, “only the deepest sentiment of appreciation for your earnest and continuous interest in University affairs. It begins to look as if the

Legislature might finally create support for the University for the biennium which will be adequate under all the conditions.”657

While the university’s friends among the legislature were more clearly defined, it appeared the conflict with Governor Davey also helped solidify alumni support of the university. The financial situation arising from the vetoes was also a significant factor that contributed to the creation of the Ohio State Development Fund.

In showing his and others’ support for the university, Dr. H. Ward Ewalt, Jr., an optometrist in Pittsburgh wrote: “We Ohio Staters, living in Pittsburgh followed the fate of the University appropriation closely. With the exception of the interest in the Football teams, I have never seen our group so thoroughly aroused as they have since Gov. Davey began making his mischief. We are developing an increasing sense of the value of the great University from which we graduated. If there is anything that we as an Association can do to serve the University, please feel free to call upon us.” In his letter, Ewalt included an insert with a note of resolution. The insert stated: “And Whereas, The

University, Faculty and President have been subjected to unwarranted political attack, during the past year, Be it resolved, That The Ohio State University Association of

657 Rightmire to Mr. Paul C. Laybourne, Attorney-at-Law (10 December 1935) 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 305

Pittsburgh… assure them of our increasing loyalty to the ideals and purposes of our Alma

Mater.”658

Rightmire, who was no doubt anxious rid the state government of Davey, had a clear choice for a successor. In a flattering tone, Rightmire showed his clear preference for future governor John W. Bricker. “In speaking of offices I do not confine my thoughts to the office of the Attorney General. There is another office in the State House which I hope and expect to see you occupying in January, 1937.”659 Bricker did go on to succeed

Governor Davey, but not until early 1939. Despite the deep rift between the governor and

Ohio State, Governor Davey won another two-year term as governor, serving until 1939.

So while the university had a devout set of supporters, it appeared the majority of

Ohioans were not extremely opposed to cutting higher education costs at OSU at this time.

Though Davey may have pleased voters, he did not get along well with Rightmire or even with the federal government. While OSU did receive some federal monies, according to historian James Pollard, Ohio schools were denied some federal funds thanks to Governor Davey. Pollard argued that the financial situation for Ohio State may have been better had Davey not quarreled with the Roosevelt administration.

“In terms of operating and building funds, especially the latter, the decade from 1930 to 1940 was a lean one for Ohio’s six state-supported universities. This arose in part from the Great Depression and its aftermath. But even then substantial funds for construction might have been available if the state administration of Governor Martin L. Davey had not been feuding with the New

658 H. Ward Ewalt to Rightmire, Jr. to , 12 December 1935, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1934-1936, box 3, folder 1. 659 Bricker did become Ohio’s 54th Governor on January 9, 1939 and served until January 8, 1945. Rightmire to John W. Bricker [Attorney General], 19 December 1935, 3/f Correspondence Personal A-M, Jan-Dec 1935, box 16, folder 8. 306

Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. On other mid-Western states, for example, where this was not the case, state educational and other institutions benefited considerably from Federal funds in that decade. Indiana and Purdue universities were among these beneficiaries as were Michigan State and others in the same ‘league’ as Ohio State. On their campuses many new dormitory and other buildings sprang up, nourished substantially by Federal funds.”660

So not only did Davey decrease state funding to OSU, according to Pollard he also prevented federal money from reaching Ohio universities.

At this time of decreased funding, the popularity of endowment building reached across the university, even into the departments. Charles Plumb, who had served more than three and a half decades as a professor of Animal Husbandry at Ohio State

University, in response to Rightmire wishing him well for his 75th birthday, sent

Rightmire a Christmas letter. “As most of you know, I have been much interested in securing an endowment fund for the library of the Animal Husbandry Department, a work begun in 1934. At present $45.00 is drawing six per cent interest annually…. The alumni should support the securing such a fund. If you have not already contributed, would a $5.00 contribution disturb your finances seriously? Would you not feel better for the giving?”661 In other words, Plumb was so excited to grow his library endowment that he even solicited the president of the university.

660 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940- 1956 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1967), Part 1: The University in a World at War, 1940-1945, p. 185. 661 C. S. Plumb to Rightmire, Christmas 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. See biographical note, “Charles S. Plumb papers, 1887-1936, Purdue University Libraries, Archives and Special Collections,” on http://www4.lib.purdue.edu/archon/?p=collections/findingaid&id=903&q=&rootcontentid=8967. 307

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1935

Writing the annual report this year that would be read to an Ohio governor who had never previously shown blatant disregard and even hostility to the university must have been no easy task for Rightmire.662 Indicating the priority of gift giving and gift acknowledging, Rightmire included a section entitled, “Gifts to the University” on page six of his annual report. A full list appeared in the university’s Financial Report section, but Rightmire summarized much of it, reporting that gifts for the 1934-1935 academic year totaled $75,000. Rightmire stated, “[T]he list serving as a good illustration of the wide spread of interest in the university enterprise. Such gifts have been given to the university in greater or less volume for a number of years and are always cordially accepted and scrupulously devoted to the purpose expressed by the giver.”663 Rightmire reported that the financial report was read by members of the state government and other educational institutions. He continued, “[I]t is shown that the value of the educational plant of the university now runs to almost twenty-three millions of dollars; endowment funds for general purposes are just short of a million dollars, while endowment for particular purposes specified by the donor is somewhat more than two hundred thousand dollars.” Particular purposes meant that they were considered “special,” and “specified” meant they were restricted for unique purposes. “This recital,” Rightmire continued,

662 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1934-1935, in Sixty-Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1935 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1935), 5-18. 663 Rightmire wrote, “This is an appropriate place for extending the university’s commendation to Mr. Carl E. Steeb, the Business Manager, and his able assistant, Mr. Charles A. Kuntz, the Comptroller, for the scope, the completeness, and the clarity of the annual financial report,” Rightmire, Annual Report 1934- 35, 6-7. 308

“goes to show the vast confidence of the people of Ohio in the institution and indubitably indicates the responsibility resting upon the institution in the higher educational areas. It is a great pleasure to recommend the annual financial report to those interested in the multiform ways in which the university of today is expected to serve the life of a great commonwealth.”664 In other words, Ohioans loved OSU, and Rightmire was writing only to those who were willing to recognize the responsibilities of the university to serve

Ohioans. No doubt this category did not include Governor Davey!

For the academic year the university had “much federal money, supplemented by smaller amounts of university funds here and there… providing proper upkeep and maintenance for buildings.”665 So despite the depression, it seemed the federal government, not the state, was supportive of OSU.

In a section titled, “Financial Conditions at the University,” Rightmire explained

“Previous annual reports have presented the university’s financial conditions, and have made it clear that in these times the university has not been a favored child of the state.”

Though previous annual reports showed the need for funding, Rightmire’s complaint here is more strongly worded, though still indirect.666

Ohio Governor Martin L. Davey vetoed appropriations to OSU despite the fact that it was “passed by both branches of the [Ohio] legislature with practically no dissent.”

Rightmire outlined the situation below.

664 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 6-7. 665 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 12-13. 666 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 14. 309

“The legislature gave most thorough and intelligent consideration to the university’s request, and the finance committee of the two houses visited the university and inspected the grounds and buildings and operations, both on the business side and on the educational side, a number of times during the session and finally agreed upon an appropriation bill which accorded to the university a reasonable increase in maintenance and in operation, with the thought of enabling it to function in a more adequately fashion. The legislature gave thought to the many requests for service made upon the university by the people of the state in various industries and activities, and to the continually rising requirement for direct educational training in a multitude of subjects and activities on the university campus. The university appropriation, amounting to $7,155,600 was passed by both branches of the legislature with practically no dissent, and in due course went to the Governor of the state for his consideration. On the 18th of June, the Governor announced sweeping vetoes in the appropriation proposed for the Ohio State University amounting to $1,266,500; this would leave for the biennium $5,889,100, exactly $17,800 less than the university had had from the state for the preceding biennium. Low-water mark had been reached in the support of the university in the preceding biennium when the state found itself financially quite paralyzed and was forced to limit the university to the smallest appropriation for any biennium in the ten-year period just then closing. The Governor stated that under the law, if he vetoed, he must veto entire items and therefore he had not affected directly the item for Personal Service, which was about 75 per cent of the entire university appropriation as fixed by the legislature. But in order to accomplish the reduction he had in mind, he vetoed many other items of prime necessity for university operation, with the thought that the Board of Control would transfer to these vetoed items from the Personal Service appropriation. However, the Supreme Court held that such transfers could not be made, since, when vetoed, the items in question had ceased to exist. Consequently there was nothing to which to make a transfer. This was the situation on June 30th at which time the financial plans and budget arrangements for the university for the coming year were in complete suspense and hopelessly confused. Particularly did this uncertainty control university freedom of action and policy and left it unable to make any restoration whatever of salaries to the university staff, although all members of the staff receiving $3,000 or more had been given three drastic cuts, and for all members of the staff receiving below $3,000 there had been two drastic cuts, in the preceding three-year period. Hence no restorations were possible, notwithstanding the fact that the salary reductions of all other employees of the state had been completely restored on January 1st, 1935, by act of the legislature and with the Governor’s approval. Consequently, on the 30th of June, 1935, the university staff found its properly expected partial restoration of salaries blocked by gubernatorial veto, and in addition its total appropriation for Maintenance and Operation reduced by veto beyond the depth of depression figures. In the closing days of June, the university, through the administration and the Board of Trustees, vigorously questioned the vetoes and emphasized anew the 310

necessity for and the wisdom of the total appropriation vetoed by the legislature.”667

Evidently Governor Davey valued other state employees over those at the university. Attempting to make the case for additional funds, during these “depression years,” Rightmire explained that additional experienced teachers were needed to give better individual treatment of students.

“Therefore, we sincerely hope that the legislature and the Governor may enable the university next year more adequately to provide sound training for the youth of Ohio. The university has a single purpose and justification, and that is ‘to serve the people of Ohio.’ Our biennium budget of requests, submitted to the legislature and the Governor, includes nothing that does not directly contribute to that end. Whether we serve well or poorly, depends solely upon our support. An unbelievable amount of time and thought are spent upon this matter by the university administration in order to keep the program logical and essential.”668

From Rightmire’s perspective, funding requests were already stripped down to the essential, and the legislature and governor needed to support the university in its time of need.

Rightmire reported on some other interesting points. The third year of alumni college was a success.669 And out of 46 gifts for general and designated purposes totaling

$75,005.76, James F. Lincoln’s $7,500 gift for Industrial Research was the second largest gift for the year.670 Timken Roller Bearing Company repeated a gift for X-Ray research in chemistry, totaling $800.671

667 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 15. 668 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 16-17. 669 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 17. 670 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 166. 671 Rightmire, Annual Report 1934-35, 166. 311

1936

A summary of a meeting in 1936 gives evidence that the university administrators felt under fire, and the alumni felt able to help the situation but becoming more involved in assessing university matters.

“‘It is a feeling of the members that the Board can function better as a special committee if given support in exercising this function. We think we shall know our place. We don’t intend to supplant the Board of Trustees of the University, or to take the administration’s place. But any organization needs criticism, especially a state university. We have all recently witnessed the University being severely criticized by the Governor. This has been unfriendly criticism. What the University needs is friendly criticism. The alumni, through the Board of Visitors, might serve as the finest kind of critics, because ours would be friendly and constructive. What we hope chiefly to do, as one of our members has stated, is to bring to the University the advantage of an ‘outside’ point of view, but an outside point of view that is sympathetic and understanding. The question is, does the University want this outside point of view from us?’ Mr. Drackett then called on members of the Board of Visitors and the consensus was that Mr. Drackett’s summarization of the situation had been complete. Mr. Drackett then called attention to the Board members to use of the expression ‘nuissance value’ in the minutes of the previous meeting. ‘The Board of Directors seems intent on the Visitors not being a nuisance, but we think that there are times when we shall very definitely have to be a nuisance,’ he said. ‘However, as previously stated, no Board of Visitors could properly function if it in any wise sought to usurp functions not belonging to it.’”672

At a subsequent meeting, more decisions on the venue were made.

“Mr. [James F. Lincoln]: I’d like ask those present whether we can come to the conclusion in this meeting now that the purpose of the Board of Visitors is expressed in the motion passed in our last meeting, namely, ‘that an important function of the Board of Visitors be the criticism of the administration and operation of the University for the constructive advancement of the University.’

672 Chairman Drackett then called upon President Rightmire for his reaction to the proposal to re- vitalize the Board of Visitors. Summary of 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 312

All present were agreed that the motion expressed their conception of a function of the board of visitors. There were nodded or verbal expressions of affirmation on all sides and not statement of dissent….. The Board of Visitors is responsible to the Board of Directors. If the directors feel that at any time the Board of Visitors is abusing its function it can abolish it.” 673

In a nutshell, Rightmire and Morrill and others urged that meetings of the Board of Visitors should be confidential and that criticisms were welcome but should not be published in advance. Rightmire also felt that the Board of Visitors’ role should be reassessed further with regard to frequency of meetings, with the role of either being self- starters or with getting information from the president and Board of Directors. Car Gas expense did not seem to be an issue.674 In other words, administrators were happy to have alumni input as long as that input didn’t cause damage to the university’s reputation and as long as the visitors didn’t become pushy or heavy handed.

January and March 1936

Rightmire wrote Fullen, “I am looking at your letter of January 7th concerning financial conditions of the Association, and that, of course calls attention to the obligation recognized through the years by the University to make contribution to the Association’s support. I assure you that we are all thinking about the Association sympathetically…”675

This confirms that through the years the university had helped the association with

673 [Minutes from Board of Visitors meeting--Board of Directors, Lew Morrill and Rightmire were all present.] (Date not clear in images), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 674 [Minutes from Board of Visitors meeting--Board of Directors, Lew Morrill and Rightmire were all present.], 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 675 Rightmire to Fullen (8 January 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 313 subsidies for its survival. At least Fullen and Morrill both solicited money from the state appropriations for the OSU Association. Ultimately, the alumni association became more self-sufficient. In a follow-up letter, titled, “an update on the subsidy from the state and university to the Alumni Association,” Rightmire explained, “The Governor’s vetoes, however, left many impossibilities in the financial program for 1935 and we have been called upon to release to the state about $127,000 gathered together from unspent items in the 1935 appropriation. Now, in accumulating these items for the state, we had to give up what was left in the item ‘Contributions’…..” Rightmire explained then that they were still waiting on the state.676

The following shows that the alumni association was receiving funds from the state for part of its support. When Governor Davey vetoed support for the alumni association, the university had to step up its contribution. Fullen reported:

“The regular University appropriation of $8,000 annually to the Association is always provided for in the appropriation bill and comes out of State funds. The item has been vetoed entirely by Governor Davey and our financial status has, therefore, been uncertain until it could be found what adjustment the University might be able to make for the Association from other sources. Business Manager Carl Steeb has just given me the heartening news that the Board of Trustees, at its meeting Monday, approved a readjustment of funds which calls for providing for the Association every penny of the amount we have budgeted, both under appropriations and fees graduates. The latter item now embodies the $2.00 annually given by the University for each outgoing senior. Apparently, therefore, the Association has been fortunate to meet a crisis in its own financial affairs because of the understanding and helpful attitude of University officials toward the Alumni Association.”677

676 Rightmire to Fullen (13 January 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 677 Fullen to All Members of the Board of Directors, The Ohio State University Association (13 March 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 314

Thanking Rightmire for the yearly appropriation, Phil S. Bradford (President of the OSU

Association) wrote, “[E]very penny will be husbanded and wisely spent in the interests of

Ohio State.”678 The OSU Monthly was also applauded and encouraged to continue its good work.679

In mid-March Rightmire expressed his thanks to Fullen.

“I deeply appreciate your restless energy and aggressive attitude concerning our University problems and uncertainties which are at the present time of vital interest to the Association. The alumni during the last few years have had such a stirring up through the Monthly and the activities of the Secretary as they never experienced before, and certainly it will be productive of much stimulating thinking and pertinent activity on the part of the alumni everywhere in the interest of the University. We shall need every bit of this that can by any means be brought into existence. The great agencies for creating this stimulus are the Monthly and the personal activities of the Secretary. I express to you the deepest appreciation for your unstinting efforts on behalf of the maintenance and the greater up-building of such a university as is inevitably called for by the social order in the state.”680

Fullen had become an important ally of both Rightmire and the university, though he was modest in his own assessment. 681

678 Phil. S. Bradford to Rightmire, 14 March 1936, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters, 1934-1936, box 3, folder 1. 679 Interestingly, Fullen justified cigarette advertising in the Monthly in addressing a certain Mr. Davis’s concern. “This magazine is for an adult reading public, most of whom have their habits formed.” Fullen to Viola Romana (30 March 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 680 Rightmire to Fullen (14 March 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 681 Fullen, in a moment of reflection, expressed the idea that “The one thing I desire more than anything else is that I shall be regarded as a faithful and devoted and trusted servant of this University…. In other words, if the day ever comes that I not think that I am a vital and useful and trusted member of the University administration, that will be the day when I will want to move on elsewhere….” Fullen to Rightmire (19 April 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 315

In late March, Rightmire wrote Ohio Senator Philip Wolfe and thanked him for his support of higher education. “I am recalling with deep pleasure the number of occasions during the past year when I have had the opportunity of meeting you in your capacity of Senator. Because of the condition of the state’s finances the position of the

University in the last few years has been a trying one, and it has always been stimulating and helpful to me to meet the Senators and Representatives who are deeply impressed with the state’s responsibility for higher education and are ready to go forward as far as possible with financial support for the State Universities.” He continued, “I have come to know of your keen interest in higher education and your desire to see the state give reasonable support thereto and to make the Universities adequate and able to carry on the demands constantly placed upon them by the people of Ohio.682 Rightmire certainly by now knew where his friends were in the legislature and wanted to maintain those good relationships as they meant much to the survival of the university.

April 1936

The University of Pittsburgh admired the work that OSU had done to market its issues with the state in the OSU Association. John G. Bowman (Chancellor of the

University of Pittsburgh, 1921-1945), looked at Ohio State as an exemplar institution in making the needs of the university known. Bowman explained, “Through the courtesy of

Mr. John B. Fuller[sic] I received some copies of The Ohio State University Monthly for

February. May I congratulate you and the University on the good service which, as it

682 Rightmire to Ohio Senator Philip Wolfe, 30 March 1936, 3/f “Correspondance: Personal: Jan- Dec 1936. 316 seems to me, the Monthly is giving? We have a somewhat similar “Governor-problem” in

Pennsylvania. I hope that we can do as well through our Alumni Association to interpret the facts to the people of Pennsylvania as you have done in Ohio.”683

D. J. Brumley, an editor and consultant, wrote President Rightmire, “One of the items on the income side of the budget statement is of outstanding interest to me, and that is the contribution made annually by the Board of University Trustees to the Association.

With this contribution from the University and with the income received from other sources, the Association has been able to carry on a program of activities designed to maintain a lively interest in University affairs by graduates, former students, and their friends. These activities were carried on during the depression, although with the same financial sacrifices to the Secretary and the personnel of his office that obtained to the officers and faculty of the University during the same years….”684 So the board of trustees saw the value in keeping the alumni interested in the university.

July 1936

Rightmire’s friend Caesar Money, wrote a critical letter addressed to Rightmire about Governor Davey. In it Money compared Governor Davey to “the Duke of Kent,” who was a British royal playboy notorious for drugs and sex scandals in England in the mid-1930s.685

683 Pennsylvania’s so-called “governor-problem” was Governor George Howard Earle III (gov. 1935-1939). John G. Bowman to Rightmire (17 April 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 684 D. J. Brumley [Editor and Consultant] to Rightmire, (22 April 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 685 Caesar Money to Rightmire, 1 July 1936, 3/f Correspondence: Personal: Jan-Dec 1936. 317

Despite problems with Davey, and possibly motivated by them, alumni contributions gained momentum. In a later report, private funding totals as of the summer of 1936 were provided through the American Alumni Council, and included number of contributors with total amounts received. Ohio State University the University of

Michigan, Indiana University, the University of Wisconsin, and others were not included.

Among the more noteworthy were:

Cornell University (Alumni Fund) $88,870.04 Total Amounts of 5626 Contributors-- alumni 12.16 percentage, Graduates 18.67 percentage.

Cornell University (Cornellian Council) $136,689.03 Total Amounts of 5636 Contributors--alumni made up 12.18 percentage, Graduates included 18.70 percentage.

Penn State $3, 878.00 of 1100 contributors with unknown percentage.

Harvard $81,994.00 with 7883 contributors, 22.6 percentage.

Dartmouth $84,957.19 with 6805 contributors with 67 percent contributing. [top 2 of the known percentage list]

Yale $269,869.96 with 7355 contributors, unknown percentage.686

October 1936

In suggesting what Rightmire might say to alumni who were planning to gather for the Seventh Biennial Conference of the alumni, Fullen suggested, “You might wish to take cognizance of recent trends in the alumni organization, namely, the re-vitalization of the Board of Visitors; the re-organization of the Association’s local clubs into districts,

686 A. G. Stoughton, VP for Alumni Funds of the American Alumni Council, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA., “Reports from 63 Alumni Funds for Past Fiscal Year, As of July 1, 1936” 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 318 bringing into the picture a whole new group of alumni workers, namely the District

Governors; the Alumni College activities; and perhaps the striking and reassuring manner in which the alumni body as a whole rallied to the side of the University in its time of trouble.”687

In the following article from the Ohio State Lantern, a brief history is given of major endowment funds at Ohio State University.

“If the recent bequest of $200,000 left to the University in the will of the last Miss Marietta Comly is accepted by the Board of Trustees, it will be the forty-third endowment that the University has received and bring the total sum to slightly under $2,000,000. The Comly bequest is for medical research. The first endowment given to the University, then as a struggling organization laboring under the title of The Ohio Agriculture and Mechanical College, was responsible for its early advancement. The money, the source of which was a land grant from the federal government, was given to the school on July 2, 1862, and amounted to $524,175.50. Another gift, the Virginia Military Land Grant, was received on February 13, 1871, and amounted to $227,380.54. The first and largest bequest from an in individual, that of the late Henry Folsom Page, came to the University in 1871. Professor Page left $217,431.34 to be used in any way that the Board of Trustees saw fit. In appreciation Page Hall was dedicated to his memory. Specific Purpose Gifts: All of the later bequests have been in the form of gifts for specific purposes. In 1923, a fund was set up in the name of Elizabeth Owens Campbell, amounting to $10,000 from the sale of the home of former Governor James E. Campbell, for the purpose of advancing research in the field of medicine and surgery. After the death of Alfred Dodge Cole, a group of friends collected a fund to form a memorial library dedicated to him, for the science of physics. The memorial amounted to $11,704. One of the most famous of the scholarship funds was the gift of Benjamin G. Lamme in 1926. It calls for the granting of two scholarships every year to the two most capable seniors in the fields of mechanical and electrical engineering. The interest from the principle of $15,211.34 is used to perpetuate the awards. All of the original gifts are still intact, only the interest is being used. The sums ranging from William E. Bingham’s memorial fund of $100, left for the Philosophy Club, and providing for an annual medal to be presented to undergraduate writing the best essay on philosophy, to that of the Page gift of $217,431, are in the state treasury vaults.

687 Fullen to Rightmire (20 October 1936), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 319

The annual interest from all of the endowments amounts to approximately $80,000, and steadily grows, being invested along with the principle when there is an excess.” 688

Noteworthy from some of OSU’s past use of money, was how it used Professor

Page’s large gift of $217,431.34. Instead of investing it in a permanent endowment, a building was built and named in Professor Page’s honor. Edward Orton, Jr. fund contained a sum of $10,000 and Stillman Robinson, a $12,500 fellowship. “In 1909, a fund to aid worthy but needy students was endowed by Robert P. Scott. The sum now amounts to $36,842.74. The original sum was $25,000, but the interest, 6 per cent, has added $11,842.74 in 27 years. [dept of chem. = $17,000, J. McClain Smith = 1905 for

$33,899 for men and ‘women attaining an education’]… The last bequest before the

Comly gift689 was left by the late Dean Walter J. Shepard, College of Arts and Sciences.

It provides for the booking of lectures in the field of political science.”690 The amount of

Shepard’s bequest was not included.

November 1936

At an OSU alumni college review for the year, Harold W. Schellenger provided a unique vantage perspective of university events. Rightmire wrote at the top of his speech,

“Inspiring!” after reading the following comparative information. “Harvard this year has celebrated its three hundredth anniversary, Ohio State University its sixty-third.

688 Richard G. Smith, “Forty-Third Bequest to University Swells Endowments to $2,000,000,” Ohio State Lantern, 23 October 1936, Front page. 689 After receiving the $200,000 in the Comly will case, Rightmire thanked Ohio Attorney General Herbert S. Duffy and his office for their work in securing the gift. Rightmire to Honorable Herbert S. Duffy (Attorney General of Ohio), 7 June 1938, 3-f Personal Correspondence Jan- Jun 1938. 690 Richard G. Smith, “Forty-Third Bequest to University Swells Endowments to $2,000,000,” Ohio State Lantern, 23 October 1936, Front page. 320

Considering the three centuries that higher education has existed in the nation, Ohio State is still young. It looks forward toward a greater usefulness, backward only for the foundation and experience upon which to build…. Enrollment of 12,057 students for the current quarter sets an all-time record. Average class size stands at 35--which is 25 per cent greater than the ideal number of 28 for which President Rightmire planned back in

1928 when setting up his new program of ‘personalized education.’…. Michigan, Illinois,

Minnesota are comparable state universities, and they too, have had enrollment gains. To meet the situation, Michigan’s state appropriation has been increased 20 per cent, Illinois increased the state appropriation 10 per cent, and Minnesota gave its state university 11 per cent more money than the year before. For Ohio State University the state appropriation was not increased. Instead, it was reduced $16,900 for last year…. The state has at the University an investment of $22,000,000 in land, buildings, and equipment, for which maintenance is important.”

Following this, the review drew from the financial editor of the Cleveland Plain-

Dealer who briefly summed up the situation. The Cleveland Plain Dealer complained that it was sad to see the burden shifting away from the experienced to the young instructors and graduate students. “Two distinctly forward steps have been taken in recent months, both tracing back to the interest of James F. Lincoln, of Cleveland. During his term as president of the Ohio State University Association, Mr. Lincoln proposed the establishment of an Alumni Research Foundation. The matter has been under consideration since that time, resulting in the establishment of a few weeks ago of the

Ohio State University Research Foundation…. The Foundation is expected to make the

321

University even more useful than in the past, in helping Ohio’s diversified industrial and business interests to solve their problem.” So essentially, this was a university-business partnership in the makings since the late-1920s. The first meeting of the OSU Research

Foundation was held in November 1936 and an address by Kettering was given. Efforts put forth for the OSU Research Foundation were instrumental in gathering key people together and served as a type of forerunner to the Ohio Development Fund.

The amount of $200,000 was given by Miss Marietta Cromly. “No alumna, Miss

Cromly came from a family long interested in Ohio State, particularly its College of

Medicine. Income from this bequest will go for medical and surgical research…. The hand of death fell heavily upon the University last January, claiming Dean Walter J.

Shepard, of the College of Arts and Sciences. A past president of the American Political

Science Association, Dean Shepard’s passing was mourned not only on the campus here but in colleges and universities throughout the nation.” Professor Wilbur H. Siebert became acting dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Furthermore, in this year, 1936,

Morrill was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Miami for his role in helping state supported institutions.

OSU at this point had 38,046 alumni, not including former students who withdrew without degree. And for them was a solicitation! “Few investments bring larger returns than the three dollars dues in the Alumni Association, this sum carries with it subscription to the MONTHLY rated one of the best alumni publications in the country…. If knowledge be power, then the knowledge coming from the columns of the

MONTHLY gives the power necessary for alumni in every corner of the state to properly

322 speak for the University in its times of need.”691 These were the grand states purposes of the Monthly, though improving alumni relations with the goal of receiving future gifts from alumni was surely a function as well.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1936

This year the annual reports underwent a dramatic shift. Rebranding efforts extended the annual reports to more than three times its size and was intended to convince people of Ohio State’s public purpose and service.692

Rightmire started his 1935-1936 annual report by saying: “In the report here presented I beg to leave to depart somewhat from the customary recital of the regular and routine activities hitherto stressed and to lay special emphasis upon the public services and public relations of the Ohio State University.” Rightmire had asked vice-President J.

L. Morrill to oversee a survey of public services offered by the Ohio State University.

“The attempt was made to collect information which would show what the University is doing in the way of instructional, technical, advisory, research, administrative, publication, cultural and other types of services for individual citizens, for lay groups, for professional groups, for business and industrial corporations and associations, for the federal government, the state government and local government units. The scope, variety

691 Alumni are distinguished by the apostrophe before the digit number year (e.g. ’10), but former student are distinguished by (w’10), referring to the date they “withdrew” from the university. Harold W. Schellenger, “Looking Ahead on the Basis of a Review of the Year,” November 1936 3-f Alumni College Conference Report 1925 [placed in the 1925 folder, but was for year 1936]. 692 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1935-1936, in The Public Services of the [YES, SMALL T]Ohio State University: The Outreach of Teaching and Research to the People of Ohio, Sixty- Sixth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1936 [(Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1935)], 1-61. 323 and value of the assistance even which the university is rending in these directions was astonishing even to the Committee, once it was described in a vast collection of reports and materials. The intention of the University to publish the results of this inquiry was defeated by lack of funds and what is here presented represents only an excerpted and typical but very incomplete picture of the outreach of the University beyond the bounds of its campus activity.”693 In effect, Rightmire showed two things here: first, that lack of funds inhibited the university’s very ability to show what it did and second, professors and staff were not cloistered in an ivory tower, but actively serving, some heavily involved with agriculture that directly affected farming and food supplies.

Rightmire outlined six major areas where the university made contributions. “The

Kinds of Service Rendered: 1). Science and Agriculture 2). Science and Industry 3).

Service and Assistance to Governmental Agencies 4). Service to Schools and Adult

Education 5). Information and Research for Business 6). Contributions to Public

Health.”694

Rightmire closed his annual report with the following, summary. “Apparent in this description of the ways in which the University serves the people of Ohio, must be the recognition that the University is a disinterested agency with nothing to gain except the satisfying reward that lies in the realization of indispensability to the public welfare.”695

693 Rightmire, Annual Report 1935-36, 1. 694 Rightmire, Annual Report 1935-36, 3. 695 Rightmire, Annual Report 1935-36, 61. A printed version of George W. Rightmire’s signature was appended to his annual reports. Something that Thompson had not done. 324

The appropriations vetoes by Governor Davey gave the clear message that financing the university in the “public school” method was no longer an option. Despite that he now more aggressively pursued private fundraising, Rightmire relentlessly tried to prove the university was a public benefit that deserved public financing.

The Alumnae Council of the OSU Association “undertook the establishment and equipment of a dormitory which might extend the same opportunities to a limited number of young women.”696 Similar to the Tower and Buckeye Clubs that assisted men with dorms, this women’s version was called the Alumnae Cooperative House.

It does not appear that any financial records were attached to this report as was done in other years. This is possible due to the financial report being in such confusion.

The financial records were included the following year in a section called “Board of

Trustees Financial” in the Table of Contents.697

1937

President Rightmire published a pamphlet that discussed the value of schooling at all levels in relation to democracy. Here is what he said about higher education:

“Some needs are apparent as I said in reference to the private Colleges. The general economic crash disabled public as well as private financing. The State had to default in sorely needed buildings in all the State institutions, including Universities…. These things [Labs, libraries scientific equipment] the State has for several years been unable to attend to, and the scientific and other teaching

696 Rightmire, Annual Report 1935-36, 65. 697 Rightmire, Annual Report 1935-36, 1-61. 325

apparatus in these State Universities needs considerable rehabilitation as do also buildings and equipment and other physical plant facilities! These are perennial needs, and if a session of the Legislature ever goes by without urgent requests from the State Universities for such items, it will be due to institutional dry rot or administrative myopia! People Sympathetic: But over the years the attitude of the people has been one of constructive purpose and high intelligence in building its educational agencies, and there is no sign to indicate that this vigorous appreciation will not continue!”698

Here Rightmire openly admits that for some time the state has not provided for the necessities of Ohio universities.

Howard L. Hamilton was secretary for the College of Arts and Sciences and an instructor in Political Science.699 He was also a founder, along with Fullen, of the Ohio

Staters in 1933.700 Three decades later, Hamilton served as president of the OSU

Association.701 Hamilton wrote a letter to Rightmire entitled “An Evolving Idea.”702 Here are some excerpts from his five and half double-spaced letter:

“Shortly after Governor Davey vetoed the funds for the University Library the idea occurred to me that the library ought to be endowed by some philanthropist to the extent of one million dollars so that the periodicals and continuations in the library would be insured against the manipulations of political demagogues. This idea was suggested to Mr. Manchester, University Librarian, but no action was taken on the matter and it was dropped for the time being. In the spring of 1936 my attention was arrested by the article in ‘Fortune’ concerning the philanthropies of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. After reading the article it occurred to me that it might

698 George W. Rightmire, “Education in Ohio--Lower and Higher” (1937) in 3-f Personal Correspondence Jan- Jun 1938, 22. [THERE ARE 29 PAGES TOTAL]. 699 The American Political Science Review, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Aug., 1946):766-767. Makio Yearbook, “Class of 1941” page 70. “Secretary Howard Hamilton was a football coach at Kenyon College when Ohio State offered him a position as Inventory Clerk. That was 1925. Today he is an instructor in Political Science, and is the Secretary of the College of Arts and Science.” 700 John B. Fullen to Rightmire, 15 February 1935, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1930-32. 701 “Howard Hamilton, President of Ohio State University Alumni Association , Predicts that the University will not ‘Disrupt’ its Relationship with the Alumni Association,” Columbus Dispatch (Thursday, September 10, 1964): 25 A. 702 Howard L. Hamilton to [Rightmire], “An Evolving Idea,” Undated [1936-1938], 3/f Arts and Sciences: College of: Correspondence: July 1936 - Nov 1938. 326

be possible to approach Mr. Rockefeller, Jr. with a request to place on the campus of the Ohio State University a memorial of some sort to his father, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. This memorial would be most fitting to be given to the Ohio State University since Ohio is the birth place of his father and the family fortune received its start and much of its impetus in the early business career of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. in the state of Ohio. The Ohio State University is the ideal recipient of such a memorial since money given for such a purpose would be used for the benefit of more people and society in general could be better served providing the funds were given in such a way that they might provide the most profitable returns in social dividends. [After consulting with] Vice President Morrill, Prof. W.W. Charters, Prof. Alpheus Smith Prof. Samuel Henshaw, Mr. George W. Eckelberry and others…it was thought that the original plan of asking for an endowment for the University Library would not be favorably received due to the fact that support for the basic programs of the University such as the periodicals and continuations in the University Library should be and must continue to be the function of the state itself. The idea was then suggested that perhaps such a fund could be provided for library material of a special nature which could not easily be obtained by means of state funds or adequately housed.703… The next development in the idea was that instead of making such a memorial entirely one of a library nature that it should be in the nature of an educational foundation.704 … [The foundation would] provide an opportunity for special donors to give money for specific developments in areas not already well developed in the University. For example, the field of optometry, or phonetics, or an experimental general college. It is thought that these had better come either from the use of state funds or more particularly from funds donated by private industry or other philanthropists who have special needs in mind that are not yet developed to the extent that they would permit preeminence in the field by the university. The writer has suggested what he thinks might be a novel idea to catch the attention of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. He proposes that in the first place the idea of memorial to John D. Rockefeller, Sr. would be fitting at this time for the younger Mr. Rockefeller to consider since his father must soon be approaching the end of his life and has never yet permitted any memorial to be established for him. Should the old man live to be a hundred years of age there might be some possibility that the memorial building could be in the process of erection and even dedicated before his life comes to a close. It might even be possible for him to attend such a dedication program. It seems to the writer that John D. Rockefeller, Jr. could be approached for a sum of money which would be equal to $100,000 for each year of his father’s life as the initial sum for the foundation’s

703 Charters suggested that if a building were named after Rockefeller, it would need to be “rather pretentious in size and in architecture” and would be more suitable and costing perhaps three to four million dollars. 704 Hamilton explained that with an educational foundation, money might be used for research funding, fellowships and scholarships, or funds to study particular problems, and the building in Rockefeller, Sr.’s name. 327

establishment. The sum would be therefore in the neighborhood of ten million dollars. Obviously, to be successful in obtaining such a gift it will be necessary to carefully work out the details which such a program envisages. As pointed out by Mr. Morrill, it will be necessary to discover someone who has the proper entre to present such a plan to Mr. Rockefeller, Jr. and it will be necessary to spend considerable time in organizing an developing not only the philosophy which the University must develop for the acceptance of such a gift but to also make such legal arrangements as would be necessary to protect the regular university appropriations from designing politicians in the legislature and to make it clear that such moneys as are set aside could not be used for regular university activities…. It is realized that the donor himself will probably have much to say about such details as are mentioned above and reasons will have to be developed for giving a sum of money to a state university instead of a private institution. It is the writers belief that these difficulties can be overcome if the President and the Board of Trustees are willing to permit the writer and other members of the university staff to work on such a program and get it ready for presentation. All this is written with the knowledge that the outcome is conjectural and that perhaps this dream bubble may be easily broken. However, the writer feels that there are some possibilities of it being brought to a successful conclusion and with that idea in mind he is willing to spend some of his time and effort to bring such an eventuality to pass, feeling that it would be of lasting benefit to the University, the state of Ohio, and society in general, as well as a lasting tribute to the genius and industry of a man whose name will long be linked in the financial and industrial history of the United States of America.”705

It is unclear whether the idea of giving money to Ohio State University was ever brought up to Rockefeller previously, but it demonstrates a level of ambition with regard to private fundraising efforts. Also interesting is Hamilton’s claim that is such a gift was forthcoming, steps would need to be taken to ensure the state did not use the money as a reason for decreasing state appropriations.

Attorney Edwin S. Wertz of Wooster, Ohio wrote Rightmire, discussing the purpose of OSU. “Ohio State is not a Yale or a Harvard. The closer we stick to carrying out the purpose of the founders the closer the university will stick to the people of

705 Howard L. Hamilton to [Rightmire], “An Evolving Idea,” Undated [1936-1938], 3/f Arts and Sciences: College of: Correspondence: July 1936 - Nov 1938. 328

Ohio.”706 Possibly Wertz felt the university was pulling away from its roots as it took on new roles and fundraising efforts.

February 1937

Rightmire’s replied to Wertz, “We are always entirely impressed with the need of improvement here and I welcome your letters, since they always carry me back to something fundamental in the establishment of the University and keep our thinking focused upon those matters which lie at the bottom of a public educational system.”707

C. F. Roy, an “old school mate” of Rightmire recalled a recent experience meeting Governor Davey in Cleveland. Upon meeting Governor Davey, Roy explained,

“At the reception I said: ‘Governor Dav[e]y, the way you are treating my friend George

Rightmire makes me sore. If you knew him as some of us old timers, you would co- operate and not try to discredit his school.’ He smiled and said he thought you and he would get along.”708 Davey’s very political sounding answer gave no indication that he had plans to be more cooperative with Rightmire.

While Rightmire was now more actively seeking private funding, it seems he did not pursue the prospect of asking John D. Rockefeller, Jr. for a gift because in the archival folder, a letter thanks Prof. Hunter of the College of Law for “listing the

[six]cases in Ohio involving practices of the Standard Oil Company in obtaining

706 Edwin S. Wertz to George W. Rightmire, 20 January 1937, 3/f correspondence, Personal, Jan - June 1937, box 16, folder 11. 707 George W. Rightmire to Edwin S. Wertz, 1 February 1937, 3/f correspondence, Personal, Jan - June 1937, box 16, folder 11. 708 C. F. Roy to Rightmire, 22 January 193[7], 3/f correspondence, Personal, Jan - June 1937, box 16. 329 preferential rates and in unfair competition with other companies. As I look at the style in each case it comes back to me very quickly. I thank you for your kindness and I trust I have not imposed upon you.”709 Among the possibilities, it appears Rightmire did not encourage a fundraising relationship with Rockefeller on the basis of “tainted money,” or discord with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil practices in Ohio.710 Or, perhaps Rightmire perceived a potential challenge from Rockefeller’s distaste for Ohio law.

Fullen was busy with “clean up” correspondence after “Ohio State Day” and replied to a recent letter written by Ohio State Professor Harlan Hatcher. Fullen said,

“Your analysis of Dr. Altmaier as first a politician and second an Ohio State University graduate strikes a vital spot.711 We have too many graduates whose first interests are selfish and whose more remote interests mildly concern the University. You told me more than I knew about Dr. Altmaier though, and your report was very valuable…. In the way of constructive thinking, let me make this observation, that a good many of our graduates make the University a secondary interest or have not interest in it whatever because the University doesn’t do very much to cultivate University spirit while our people are undergraduates. I seem to be knocking against a closed door every time I suggest even mildly that the University ought to take further cognizance of this situation. The new plan of giving every outgoing senior a year’s free membership in the Alumni Association is most helpful but doesn’t start the outreach soon enough.712 …. From a faculty point of view… may we not in the classrooms inculcate in our student body some awareness of the University as a great on-going institution which will always need their friendly interest and high regard? Is it too much for a faculty member occasionally to say to his students that the University has been made possible for

709 Rightmire to Professor Robert M. Hunter, OSU College of Law, 2 February 1937, Hunter to Rightmire, 2 February 1937, 3/f Arts and Sciences: College of: Correspondence: July 1936 - Nov 1938. 710 For a discussion on the “Tainted Money” controversy, popularized by Columbus Pastor Washington Gladden, see Appendix B. 711 Altmaier graduated from a dental program in 1901 and an OMU [Ohio Medical University?] in 1905. A Physician, Dr. C. J. Altmaier of Marion, was appointed by Ohio Governor Martin L. Davey to The Ohio State University Board of Trustees on July 13, 1937. 712 Since July 2012, all Ohio State graduates are considered basic members of The Ohio State University Alumni Association, Inc. Previous to this date membership was limited to dues paying members. “Alumni Association Welcomes Resident Graduates as Official Alumni,” Ohio State University College of Medicine News, http://medicine.osu.edu/news/archive/2012/10/31/alumni-association- welcomes-resident-graduates-as-official-alumni.aspx , posted 31 October 2012 by Jessica Rutan. 330

them because of the unselfish interest of the friends of education before them, and that they have a very definite obligation to undertake the same unselfish effort for the children of Ohio yet to come? Can we not get the faculty aroused to the point of attempting to create an Ohio State pride and consciousness in the student body? Can we not indeed get the faculty itself to feel some devotion for the University as something other than just a classroom in which to spout every eternal verity except that this University will be a finer one if more of us set ourselves constructively to the task of promoting toward it affection and devotion in the hearts of its sons and daughters? As a result of trips of various faculty members to Ohio State Day meetings, I have had many constructive reports from them, but none quite as thorough-going and helpful as yours.” 713

Fullen was certainly concerned about cultivating university spirit in order to make better future alumni. And Fullen appreciated Hatcher’s report as better than other faculty reports. Harlan Hatcher, an admirer of Rightmire’s discussions on Ohio education,714 would later end up as the University of Michigan’s eighth president from 1951 to 1967.

March 1937

Fullen, in a response letter to Kiplinger said,

“What you describe as a little loose thinking about fund raising fills me with joy because I think I have found a an ally, counselor and helper. I haven’t forgotten that you told me you would come to Columbus if necessary and help rig up a plan. Your question about the association of colleges and universities which is interested in fund raising leads me to believe you have reference to the American Council on Education (with headquarters there in Washington) which is just inaugurating a service to colleges and universities in their fund raising. This, I understand, is to be operated by the Council with a grant from the general Education Board. It proposes to assist in surveying the needs of an institution and in the carrying out of financed programs…. The American Alumni Council is the organization of the alumni secretaries, magazine editor and fund raisers--our union. The Council is organized on the basis of these very definite lines of

713 Fullen to Harlan Hatcher, 4 February 1937, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1934-1936. 714 Commenting on having read Rightmire’s radio address, “Education in Ohio,” [Lower and Higher] Professor Harlan Hatcher said, “I find it delightful and highly instructive…. You make of the educational situation in Ohio an exciting and inspiring story. I don’t see how anyone could listen to it (or read it) without a sense of pride in the Commonwealth.” Harlan H. Hatcher to Rightmire, 5 April 1937, 3/f correspondence, Personal, Jan - June 1937, box 16, folder 11. 331

activities. For example, many of the larger colleges have definite fund men, as distinguished from alumni secretaries and editors. The Council has a very comprehensive file of literature on the techniques of fund raising and I am studying up on it in preparation for the big swing next year….715 Our Professor Blake of the Department of Physics made a study of endowments here and elsewhere in 1930 which we had hoped would be the ground work of some activity here in this respect, but the depression and inertia combined to stymie it. Answering your question about how we might get going here, there is a wide variety of activities in connection with fund raising which can be attempted simultaneously. We should need some big, useful dramatic project of universal appeal if we were going to undertake a so-called drive. A drive might serve to dramatize to our alumni a possibility which hasn’t seemed to have occurred to them, that a state university can use gifts. But it would be the quiet, continual, general activity which would count rather than any drive.… Some 1300 students are today receiving $21,000 a month on this campus from Uncle Sam in National Youth Administration payments and thousands of others are working their way through otherwise. Provided we can make the repayment mechanism efficient, the loans that could be made to assist needy students here are practically unlimited. (However, we could set a goal of $50,000 by 1940 or something like that). Well, these random answers to your provocative letter of the 15th.716 I wish you know how delighted I am at the interest you feel in this whole idea….. Your encouraging interest is giving this idea a push. Both Lew [Morrill] and Carl [Steeb] have mentioned their conversations with you when they were in Washington recently.” 717

Fullen seems to have been doing his homework on endowments and fundraising with help from the American Alumni Council and Professor Blake of OSU. His insistence that a large project, a “dramatic” one at that, would appeal to the masses, was

715 Fullen’s study on fundraising literature included, “Among the most interesting and valuable literature are four publications: ‘An Alumni Fund Survey’, a 225 page book published in 1932 by the American Alumni Council and edited by the late Harold Flack, Cornell’s former able fund man. ‘The Techniques to Win in Fund Raising’, a 230-page book edited by John Price Jones of the John Price Jones, Inc. whose organization, by the way, helped out on our stadium drive. ‘Organizing and Operating: A Bequest Program’. This is a 21-page pamphlet reprinted from the proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the American Alumni Council at Cincinnati last year and is the work of Archie M. Palmer, executive secretary of the Cornellian Council. A good background on alumni relations of this character is found in the book ‘Alumni Stimulation by the American College President’ gotten out in 1930 by the Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. The author is Webster Schultz Stover, Ph.D.” 716 There does not appear to be a copy of this letter in The Ohio State University archives. 717 Fullen to Willard M. Kiplinger, [March 1937?] [The Kiplinger Washington Agency] 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 332 most likely grounded in the advice from the council and from OSU’s experience with the stadium drive.

After having read the letter that Fullen sent to Kiplinger, Rightmire was pleased to hear of Kiplinger’s interest. Commenting on Kiplinger, Rightmire expressed, “I am glad he is manifesting a deep interest in University progress and I hope that in time he may be able to extend some financial aid or help in organizing a contribution of financial aid for worthy projects in connection with the University. He is most intelligent about all that he undertakes and it is inspiring to know that he is expressing an interest in methods of helping the University development. I note that you are maintaining the closest correspondence with him and bringing to his attention suggested literature of a pertinent nature.”718 Truly, Rightmire must have been pleased to be adding a heavy hitter such as

Kiplinger to his team.

April-June 1937

Carl Wittke, OSU history professor, corresponded with College of Arts and

Sciences Dean Stradley about the salaries of professors. “I hope that we can restore in this budget the salaries of all our instructors to the $2500 level. This was the level on which they were paid before the depression and every one of these men are excellent teachers and seasoned scholars who have had their doctor’s degree for a long time and a number of years of successful teaching experience. It is little short of an academic crime

718 Rightmire to Fullen (23 March 1937) 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 333 to pay men of this type less than $2500.”719 So the continued low salaries at OSU was still a concern.

A. G. Crane, President of the University of Wyoming, wrote a letter to “State

University Presidents,” wanting to know about their alumni associations.

“It has been proposed to subsidize this organization, at least in its initial years, by use of University funds. We can see many difficulties and some dangers in this proposal. It will be of great assistance to us to have the benefit of your experience…. Does the University contribute from its funds for the support of an alumni association? How is the contribution made, in cash, in services, in office room, or in other ways? Has the use of school funds for the alumni association ever been protested by the legislature or others? Has your experience with such a subsidy been satisfactory?” 720

These are interesting questions because it obviously was not only OSU that had a growing alumni organization. The early 1900s were a time of great gift giving, despite the depression, and other universities saw the need for alumni organizations to spearhead private fundraising.

In reply to President’s Crane letter, Rightmire commented on the situation at Ohio

State.

“I am glad to tell you that the Ohio State University has for a number of years subsidized the Alumni Association, or as we call it here, the Ohio State University Association since it includes all former students as well as graduates, to the extent of $8,000 and $8500 per year in earlier years. This has come to use by way of a state appropriation under the classification item ‘Contributions.’ We are expecting to be able to carry this amount for a contribution to the Association without break. I should add that we provide office room in the Administration Building for the Association without charge. I think I can say that the subsidy has been entirely

719 Emphasis found in original. Carl Wittke to Dean Stradley, 6 April 1937, 3/f Budget College of Arts and Sciences Correspondence 1937. 720 A. G. Crane to “State University Presidents,” (15 June 1937) 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 334

satisfactory and we have heard no complaints of any kind about it. I trust that this information will meet your desires.”721

The inclusive approach to the OSU Association was a commentary on the fact that students would enroll and not graduate in an open enrollment situation at Ohio State during this period. Though Rightmire suggested there was no complaint with the amount of the subsidy itself, there were complaints about prospects of it not being disbursed.

Charles F. Scott, newly elected President of the Ohio State University Association

(who replaced Lincoln), was interested in the two-fold plan of getting more money from the legislature and from alumni themselves.

“The large idea embraces the question, ‘Shall the Alumni Association now undertake a project for which there is ample precedence elsewhere, namely, the encouragement of an endowment and bequest program for the University on the part of the alumni?’ This proceeds on the premise that State appropriations are practically always inadequate even for the regular needs of the University and that it is fitting to call upon alumni for some of the refinements boasted by its sister institutions with which it compares in set up and enrollment. Such refinements reasonably include fellowships and scholarships, student loan funds, special and much needed extra library and laboratory facilities--both general and departmental--perhaps a ‘cushion’ fund to supplement regular state appropriations for salaries into which the President might occasionally dip, in order to hold a key member of the faculty offered better [employment] elsewhere… ”722

So Scott is very forthright in his assertion that the state rarely covers the necessities of the university. Rightmire, included in the correspondence, replied,

“I have your letter… to consider plans for alumni support of the University through bequests or gifts or endowments…. The subject under consideration is one of grave importance. There are ways in which alumni support may be most effectively and constructively used for the advancement of the education program

721 Rightmire to President A. G. Crane of the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming. (21 June 1937) 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 722 Charles F. Scott to Mr. Erdis Robinson, 25 June 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 335

of the University. We need buildings, but we also have a thorough need for equipment in a considerable number of the scientific laboratories. The present need for up to date scientific equipment is very heavy and the appropriation bill by the Legislature now under consideration provides no money for such equipment…. The great thought now is to get the movement started among the alumni, the hope being that when one is agreed upon it will create enthusiasm among the alumni and will accomplish its purposes gradually.”723

Rightmire then, saw the alumni as a potential source of slow, but significant funding for the university. He made no mention of going after the big donations and his long-term, measured outlook was very different from the enthusiasm conveyed by Scott.

July 1937

An outline memorandum for a meeting to be held on 19 July 1937 was sent to

Rightmire and included the following planned discussion points. The first question, whether it was “in order” for alumni of Ohio State to be solicited for money, demonstrated a fear that a plan for fundraising might actually make Ohio State’s position worse and contribute to a reduction in State appropriations. These planned discussion points demonstrate private fundraising was a relatively unknown entity at OSU. At least it was expected that the main body of decision makers would need these concerns to be addressed. The discussion points were listed as follows:

“Is it ‘in order’ to encourage the alumni of a State University to give money to it, when constitutionally it derives funds from the Legislature? A). What are the precedents, if any? B). Would such a plan tend to reduce State appropriations?

723 Rightmire to Prof. Charles F. Scott, 29 June 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 336

2. Granting alumni bequests and endowments might be considered to be in order, what should be the method of approach? A). The direct method of open solicitation on the basis of campaign? B). Indirect suggestion only?

3. Assuming direct approach might be undertaken, what should be the basis of operation? A). An Alumni fund plan such as is the common practice in the endowed institutions and in some publicly supported universities with giving on the basis of a Community Fund plan, the alumnus ear-marking his contribution for specific uses? B). A Campaign for one big project, such as a new Union building; an Auditorium; The Student Loan Foundation; or the like?

4. Should such an appeal for funds be tied with membership in the Alumni Association, or should each operated separately? A). Explain the proposed Ketchum plan, which would tie the two together. B). Explain the Michigan Ten Year development program, which divorces the two. C). Cite the New York University and Michigan State experiences in which the two have been tied up together.

5. Can the University provide a list of things badly needed which it is conceded the Legislature may not give?

6. Should an alumni giving plan be undertaken with the help of professional experts or carried on through the present machinery?

7. Endowments from non-alumni. A). Will alumni giving stimulate? B). Should the University stimulate? 1). Industrial Research Foundation. 2). Any other specific possibilities from non-alumni sources.”724

Clearly the need for funding was apparent, but there were major concerns about how to do it. The questions above also show that at least some made the assumption that gifts from alumni for bequests and endowments were easier or more legitimate sources of funds to solicit.

In preparation for the July 19th meeting “to consider alumni giving plans,” Ohio

State University Association President Charles Scott “invited Dean Arps on the basis of his being the head of the Graduate School and therefore able to name a few projects

724 “Pertinent Questions Regarding a Plan for Alumni Giving at The Ohio State University,” Memorandum for 19 July 1937 meeting, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 337 which might conceivably be undertaken by the alumni. Dr. Charters has been invited because he has been the most successful person on the Campus in lining up outside funds from Foundations.” Up to this point Charters personally secured $500,000 in gifts.725

Charles Scott had worked with Yale in alumni relations and transferred his skills to Ohio

State. “I have had some [alumni Association] experience in this sort of relationship in my contact with the Yale Engineering Association (a graduate group).”726

OSU’s Professor Blake appeared to be ahead of the OSU administration. He presented the following information, found in the following table, to Rightmire in May of

1931.

725 Jack Fullen to Rightmire, 14 July 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 726 Charles F. Scott to Rightmire, 18 July 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 338

University Total Gifts Gifts from Percentage Alumni of alumni gifts out of total gifts

Michigan $29,228,928 $26,043,597 89.1 (est. 1817) Wisconsin $7,112,925 $3,967,911 55.8 (est. 1848) Illinois $4,331,865 $2,111,312 48.7 (est. 1867) Purdue $2,453,220 $1,102,592 45.0 (est. 1869) Ohio State $3,607,222 $586,327* 16.3 (est. 1870) Table 17. Alumni Gifts to State-Supported Universities in the Western Conference.727 (*Includes $480,000 from alumni given for the Stadium – in other words, almost all of OSU’s gifts from Alumni had been garnered during the stadium drive, a specific fundraiser for a specific need.)

By way of background, also included in the report was: “The State supported universities now operating alumni fund or formal alumni giving programs and who have paid workers holding membership in the American Alumni Council:

 University of Buffalo

 University of California

 University of Illinois

 University of Kansas

 Kansas State College

 Michigan State College

 Michigan state Normal School

727 From Professor F. C. Blake’s Study--Presented to President Rightmire, May 27, 1931, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30.

339

 University of North Carolina

 Penn State

 Rutgers University (New Jersey)

 University of Vermont

 Virginia State Teachers College”728

Significant alumni in attendance included Willard M. Kiplinger, William A.

Dougherty, James F. Lincoln, among others. A list of alumni who had “expressed interest” but “could not attend,” included Fred Cornell, H.S. Warwick, John W. Bricker, among others. Harry Drackett, acted as presiding officer after Charles F. Scott, president of the OSU Association called the meeting to order. Drackett was chairman of the

Association’s Board of Visitors. They addressed the seven questions that had been circulated in advance during the meeting with their first item of business related to the first two questions on the seven questions. Fullen added to this by discussing factual points to help provide “background of fund raising for universities in America.” The following is an excerpted portion of Fullen’s list:

 100 alumni funds “in operation in the colleges and universities of America.”  “… Some of them operate separately from the Alumni Associations, but practically all of them are closely tied into the regular, traditional alumni organization.  “Some of them combine the solicitation for dues in the Association with appeals for the funds; others operate separately.

728 “Alumni Gifts to State-Supported Universities in Western Conference,” 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 340

 “There were just about a dozen such [alumni] ‘Funds’ in operation in 1925, their increase to 100 at present would tend to indicate that they are proving their worth as a recognized alumni activity.  “Twelve state universities are now in the field; Illinois and Kansas have organized the University of Illinois Foundation and the University of Kansas Endowment Association within the last two years.  “The general plan of approach is on the basis of a continuous, annual steady alumni giving program. ‘Everyone give, if it’s only a dollar,’ is the Harvard slogan, for example.  “Yale started with 385 contributors in 1890; by July 30, 1933, the Yale fund has raised $10,212,154, exclusive of large, individual benefactions.  “Between 1919 and 1926, 68 colleges raised $149,391,142 in campaigns.  “Within the four years ending June 1, 1934 (during the worst of the depression) 31 institutions raised $165,486,417 from gifts.  “Michigan leads the Western Conference in benefactions from its alumni. Ohio State is close to the ‘cellar’ position…”

Then the minutes replicate the table found in Professor Blake’s study showing

Ohio State University in last place among the five listed universities.729 Clearly Michigan with its large number of benefaction dollars served as an exemplar institution to which

Ohio State compared itself.

Dr. W.W. Charters showed the members present how alumni gifts could be put to use. Through his own efforts he had received $560,000 for the university to date. He cited the General Education Board money given for an evaluation of Progressive Education movement, “effects of the modern motion picture on children,” and a W.P.A. grant for

“survey” of “rural school system in Ohio.”

The secretary taking minutes from the meeting summarized the next part of the meeting which came after lunch. Drackett “asked whether any members of the committee saw any objection to the solicitation of supplementary revenues from outside sources. Mr.

729 Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Purdue all ahead of OSU. 341

[Charles W.] Racine said he thought that should be taken for granted; that the question needn’t even be raised. He suggested that approval of such solicitation be adopted as the consensus of the meeting.”730

“Mr. [William A.] Dougherty asked whether, since there is not a way to limit attendance at the University and since there are not sufficient funds from the State, the alumni can be assured that the funds they contribute will be used for the special purposes designated, ‘In other words, can we be assured that they will be used for the refinements of the University and not for the necessities, which the State should provide?’731 The problem with this question is that a refinement from the donor’s perspective, means that the gift is not really necessary. Would a donor argue that the state is obligated to cover the basic funding needs and that should be enough--the rest or the “refinements” appear to be just luxury. Fullen responded to Mr. Dougherty and claimed that funds could, in face, be “ear-marked for specific purposes.”

“Dr. Murphy gave it as his conviction that the Legislature, seeing the alumni so unselfishly interested in the University, would be disposed to enlarge rather than decrease the appropriations.

“‘Putting the University on your budget regularly’ was the way in which Mr.

Calkins thought the alumni could be appealed to. By doing so they would derive a sense of pride which would lead them to work harder to insure that the Legislature provided adequately for the ‘bread and butter needs.’” Mr. Calkins’s statement attempted to bring

730 Charles W. Racine, of Second National Bank Building of Toledo and former president of the Ohio State Bar Association (1935). 731 William A. Dougherty, of 30 Rockefeller Plaza, NYC 342 it back to a basic budgeting need for the alumni. But the question remained, was this compelling enough?

James F. Lincoln chimed in. He suggested that rather than a few such projects be brought up--that “There ought to be a large number of them and they should be listed with their approximate cost so that the alumni may see the spread of them and thus individually find objects to suit their own interests and inclinations….” Arguing against the view set forth by Willard M. Kiplinger, Lincoln continued, “I doubt if we need three or more sub-committees because the features of the plan are so interlocked that it would be wrong to have the committees operating independently. It seems to me that one close- to-the-scene committee ought to iron this thing out and that committee, in my judgment, should comprise the President of the University, the President of the Board of Trustees, the President of the Alumni Association, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the

Business Manager of the University and the Alumni Secretary.” Everybody, including

Kiplinger, agreed with Lincoln’s statements. “Mr. Lincoln suggested that ‘the time of the next meeting of the committee be set right now.’” The meeting was adjourned until

November 13th on the day of Homecoming Game.732 Note the committee was close to the scene and made of university upper administration.

In a descriptive analysis of the meeting, there were some “answers found.” These included a “Strong, unanimous expression that the time has come when supplemental revenues to augment state support must be solicited if Ohio State is to keep abreast of the

732 “Minutes of a Meeting of a Committee of Alumni With University Officials to Consider an Alumni-Giving Plan for The Ohio State University Held in the Wallick Suite of the Deshler-Wallick Hotel,” 19 July 1937[10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.], 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 343 best universities in the country; that this aid can be sought from non-alumni as well as alumni.” Again, the idea put forth that Ohio State University needed “supplemental revenues” may not have been strong enough to get Ohio State out of the “cellar.” It seems the university would have been more effective in asking for it as a pressing need, instead of something to merely enhance the institution. Nevertheless, the summary highlighted the thought that “The alumni generally can and will respond to a continuous, annual alumni giving program (supplemented by large special gifts and bequests)” over ten to twenty year time frame. Follow up questions were asked by Jack Fullen, including the

“Name for the Organization. Shall it have Alumni in it or not? Are ‘Foundation’ and

‘Endowment’ words with wrong connotation? How about ‘Ohio State University Fund’, or ‘Alumni Fund.’ ‘Ohio State University Supplemental Fund has been suggested.

Sounds good. What’s your suggestion?”733

It is noteworthy that Fullen questioned the meaning of “Foundation” and

“Endowment,” fearing that they may provide a wrong connotation. Fullen’s pick, “Ohio

State University Supplemental Fund” was chosen, but the word “supplemental” was ultimately dropped. A subcommittee made up of Laybourne (chairman of Board of

Trustees), President Rightmire, Morrill, Steeb, Fullen, and Scott was charged with working out the what, how, and methods. Rightmire would “compile present attractively a wide variety of projects for which there is urgent need and which presumably cannot be obtained from the Legislature.” Mr. Drackett planned to look into the idea of setting up a permanent fundraising organization, separate from OSU. And Secretary Fullen’s work on

733 Emphases in original. “Descriptive Report of a Meeting held Monday, 19 July 1937 to Consider Alumni-Giving Plans,” 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 344 the Methods overlapped with Drackett’s to figure out how other institutions, drawing from the work of 100 Alumni Funds, carried on their work.

Later in the month and referring to July 19th meeting, Charles Scott said, “Our large task is psychological--to give our alumni and friends a vision of the University as it should be.”734

August 1937

Commenting on the successful “alumni meeting of July 19th,” Ohio State

University Professor Frederic C. Blake, wrote:

“I like especially the long range planning, the ten to twenty-year plan…. I wonder if you happened to notice the enclosed clippings from the N. Y. Times of July 25th.735 You may recall that in my 1931 report on gifts to certain state and other universities I called the attention of President Rightmire to the fact that the data supplied him on the Universities of California and Minnesota were obtained by correspondence and that I tried to include the University of Texas in my study but that the President of that university declined to cooperate, apparently for the reason that the royalty on oil for the university is very great. So that as it may, this $10,000,000 expansion program has come largely through the profit on oil. It is my understanding that the interest on the oil endowment enables the university to erect a new building annually, costing of the order of half a million dollars….”736

Though Blake had not earlier compared OSU to the University of Texas, he seemed justified in that it had a unique funding structure. Professor Blake also offered some

734 Charles Scott to Rightmire, 28 July 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. On one 1936 - 1937 list, it did not include the University of Michigan as one with an alumni fund. See “84 alumni funds of The American Alumni Council,” 1936-37, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 735 Probably refers to 25 July 1937 New York Times discussion about the University of Texas. There was a $10,000,00 expansion--$8,000,000 of which was used for a new administration building. 736 Frederic C. Blake [Mendenhall Laboratory of Physics at OSU] to Jack Fullen, 3 August 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 345 advice with regard to plans for the fundraising organization. “May I offer the suggestion as to name that the word ‘alumni’ be kept out of the name,” Blake wrote.

“In this connection, may I remind you that the recent $5,000,000 Rackham gift to the University of Michigan Graduate School (with promise of another $5,000,000 if needed) was from a non-alumnus. The chief point is that at the University of Michigan, both alumni and non-alumni are cultivated alike wisely but impartially. I should think it very important for your committees to develop proper methods of contacting and proper persons for contacting prospective givers. Personally I do not like the word ‘supplemental’ in the name. For the past few years we have been falling behind financially. Why not ‘The Ohio State University Sustaining and Developing Fund’? or better, ‘The Ohio State University Development and Research Fund’? In closing, may I say that I ‘am tickled’ that the University has now under way a program for going forward for which I have waited and pleaded for more than ten years.”737

Not only had Blake been advocating for an organization of this type for some time, he made some important arguments. First, that the name be inclusive of alumni and non-alumni. The University of Michigan had received a large endowment from the non- alumnus, Rackham family. Second, Blake did no much care for the word,

“supplemental,” in the name, especially since OSU had actually “been falling behind financially.” Blake realized that it would not help OSU’s case to view it as some type of optional fund. This is more evidence that this funding program was not a new idea and was rather late in its start-up.

Professor Blake had been a recipient of gifts to the university in the early part of the previous decade.

737 Fullen was initially sympathetic to the term “supplemental.” Frederic C. Blake [Mendenhall Laboratory of Physics at OSU] to Jack Fullen, 3 August 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 346

“Dr. Curtis C. Howard, ‘78, a member of the first graduating class…presented to the University a gift of $200 for the purchase of needed apparatus to be used by the Department of Physics in important research on the constitution of matter. Dr. Howard, in asking the privilege of making the gift, specified that it should be in honor of Dr. T. C. Mendenhall, University trustee and member of the first faculty, his beloved teacher. ‘If all donors could get the happiness I am enjoying in this there would be a wild rush of mankind, for the happiness it seeks, to donating,’ wrote Dr. Howard in a letter to Professor F. C. Blake, of the Department of Physics, in making known his benefaction to the progress of Science. The donor's generosity enables the University to retain as its permanent property the apparatus purchased.”738

Though Howard had given money for a purchase of the piece of equipment, the idea of “permanency” of it would become a major source of interest for Professor Blake.

A memorandum (on a half sheet of paper) for a mid-August “Meeting of Deans” called for two suggestions from each dean:

1. “Now we can best do the study of University needs, building and equipment. 2. A group of members of the University staff , say 25 or more, who in your judgment would most capably and with the highest degree of University thinking, compile a list of our most urgent needs.”739

In a letter from Henry Drackett to Rightmire, Drackett shows that he is not just interested in buildings and equipment, but interested in more broadly, perhaps more imaginatively, what the fund could do, so that it could it by nature appeal to donors’ varied interests.

“Dear Mr. President: In the report I have recently received from Jack Fullen, he stated that you intended to place before the deans at the meeting last week the proposal for an organization to acquire funds for the support of projects not supported by the State Legislature.

738 OSU Monthly, December 1921, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 30. 739 “Meeting of Deans,” August 13, 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of: Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 347

I take it that this was the part of your procedure to prepare the list of projects requiring outside support, which is part of the responsibility of the Sub- Committee of which you and I are members. For that reason, I am interested in the reaction of the deans and whether you and they feel that progress can be made in this list so that we may be ready to make an adequate report before the general committee on the date set.

Jack Fullen stated that your list would be of buildings and equipment required. I assume that this was an incomplete or inaccurate report of Jack’s, because, as I recall the spirit of the meeting in Columbus, the list of projects was to be of the greatest breadth, including in addition to buildings and equipment, many other projects, such as surveys, investigations, educational studies, fellowships, student aid funds, etc.

I would feel myself that our list of projects should have considerable breadth, because, after all, we must endeavor to list all sorts of people having a wide variety of interests and inclinations for money giving. We may wish from time to time to emphasize those projects most urgently required; and they may well be buildings, at the present time or later. But we ought always present the opportunity for those who like to leave their monuments in some other form than brick and mortar. [Signed: Henry Drackett]”740

It appeared Drackett intended to steer Rightmire away from thinking merely in terms of providing additional, temporary support for buildings and equipment and instead to intangible, but productive, funds for the goal of assisting the university with other current and future needs.

Drackett, two days later, wrote the other members of the sub-committee.

“As the summary of your meeting of July 19 transmitted to you by Secretary Jack Fullen indicates, you appointed a Sub-Committee consisting of President Rightmire, Trustee Chairman Laybourne, Alumni President Scott, Business Manager Steeb, and Alumni Secretary Fullen, under my chairmanship, to report in detail to you at a meeting to be held in Columbus on Saturday November 13, upon the following consideration:

740 Henry Drackett to George Rightmire, August 16, 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of: Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 348

a. What University projects require support other than that which may be obtained from the State Legislature? b. Permanent Organization - What should be the form preferred to manage methods of acquiring funds to support the above projects, and what regulations should govern their disbursement? c. How shall necessary funds be acquired, i.e. methods of making appeals, to whom, Alumni and others? Form of drives, outside solicitations or soliciting organizations?

President Rightmire and Mr. Laybourne have been requested to assume responsibility for the compilation of the projects, and President Rightmire has accepted by stating he has already put in motion machinery for studying and listing the needs of the University. Mr. Steeb and Mr. Fullen of the Committee have been asked to study the permanent organization and methods of acquiring and disbursing funds in use by other colleges and universities. They have been happy to accept and will have, in cooperation with them, Dr. Cowley of the Department of Education who has volunteered his information and contacts to assist in the preparation of this material.

A meeting of this Sub-Committee will be called, probably some time in October, to assemble its information and prepare a form of report. If you are a member of this Sub-Committee you will note your responsibility and proceed. Whether or not you are a member of this Committee, will you give thought to the three questions above listed and send your comments or suggestions to Jack Fullen? Yours sincerely, Henry Drackett, Chairman”741

September 1937

Charles F. Scott reported to Rightmire that,

“One of our Pittsburgh alumni struck a keynote when he was asked what the alumni should do for the University. He said that their concern and efforts should be directed to raising its Quality. Growth in size is apt to cause us to lose sight of the importance of attaining higher and finer quality. Alumni should respond to appeal for Quality…. [Impressed with the ‘Columbia University Booklet’, Scott suggested that,] a list of concrete gifts of specific moderate amounts, in fields with which they are familiar and in which they have a specific interest will presumably bring gifts which would otherwise be lost. It is important to know the needs of the University; it is also important to study the varied psychology of the large and heterogeneous group of people with whom we have to deal.”

741 Henry Drackett to Members of Committee, To Consider Alumni-Giving Plans, August 17, 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of: Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 349

Rightmire replied to Scott and Fullen and said such a list with faculty backing would be far more effective in representing the needs of the university. But it would take time, since the faculty would not return until October. “It is not an overnight exercise, however, to build this list, as you well know…. The matter will receive the most intelligent and concrete study of which the University is capable.” Further, Rightmire saw a particular booklet put out by Columbia University and given to him by Jack Fullen as possessing “moving statements of its needs” and containing “a great many suggestions,” which “will be of use in guiding us now into a course which will be very fruitful and which will provide collateral for many needs of the University which otherwise we seem eternally to be unable to supply.”742

Rightmire’s reply to Henry Drackett, somewhat vaguely responded to Drackett’s concerns about the collective fundraising effort, merely identifying needs related to

“brick and mortar.” Rightmire wrote,

“Returning from a brief vacation yesterday I find your letter of August 16th concerning the study of the needs and possibilities of the Ohio State University and an early listing of those which are most urgent. This week I shall get into touch with whatever people I can find on the ground - you know this is the real vacation for the University, the summer school having closed a week ago and the autumn quarter beginning the 28th of September. The college faculty members are likely to be widely scattered for these few weeks and I anticipate little if any progress in that time. However, the whole matter is thoroughly in mind and we shall begin a serious and persistent study of the most urgent needs of the University on all levels and in all lines at as early a date as is possible. My former letter explains this situation in a general way and I am sure you understand the conditions at the University.

742 Which Columbia booklet is not clear. Charles F. Scott to Rightmire, 11 September 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. Rightmire’s replies, 15, 16, 21 September 1937. 350

The study which we shall make concerning this matter must be serious and attuned to a proper vision of the University’s place in the Commonwealth. The program which we shall eventually make should in whole or in part be the program which is carried to the attention of the State Legislature at the next biennium and we should frame it so well that it will be invincible from any angle of attack. It should then constitute the foundation upon which we proceed for some years thereafter, subject to the intervention of unusual situations which are not foreseeable. We know that there are some such and very recently have been passing through one. I am greatly heartened by the attitude of a large number of the most progressive and energetic alumni and the University will make a study intelligently and hopefully. Your moving interest in this whole matter of alumni relations is deeply appreciated and is producing a sensational stirring of alumni and University minds and attitudes.”743

The same day he wrote Drackett, he also addressed a letter to three OSU deans: Dean Arthur J. Klein, Dean Bland L. Stradley, and Dean C. E. MacQuigg.

“After a little thought about the matter discussed in the Administrative Council meeting this morning, I am coming to you to constitute… a committee of the Deans to formulate the proper questions which the various departments in the University should now try to answer with reference to the needed buildings, equipment, research projects, and what not for a stimulating University program.

Each department should think of the buildings indispensably needed by the College and also by the University for general University purposes. A good deal of crossing of department and College lines will be very helpful in bringing together a well rounded group of buildings. In other words, each department chairman and his faculty will be thinking in terms of the College as well as of the University. This is true also of important equipment and, I presume, also of projects for research study and there may be activities of still other types which the University ought to encourage and for which its alumni or the state legislature or other citizens might be willing to make endowment gifts.

In other words, the whole field of what the University requires in order to build itself in the most inspiring and fruitful way is now under consideration. If this committee can analyze the problem and formulate the series of questions, we should now be answering in order to give us something to concentrate our thinking upon, we shall make great progress. Time is of the essence of the situation and I am suggesting that it is not necessary to await a regular

743 Rightmire to Henry Drackett, September 13, 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13.

351

Administrative Council meeting date to bring this matter up. The Council, I think, would be willing to get together any moment we have concrete material to work upon.”

Rightmire first mentioned buildings and equipment before research projects and money for endowments. It seemed he was slightly reluctant to openly advocate for

“endowment gifts.” The idea of raising money for endowment seemed a difficult leap for

Rightmire.744

Citing the University of Chicago’s experience and their need for “fighting alumni” to bring the university to the top position “to achieve her great destiny,” Prof.

Blake wrote to Fullen: “Now I want to offer certain reasons which attempt to show that the Universities of California and Michigan are rapidly getting into the select group of outstanding institutions of the whole world. The $5,000,000 Rackham Fund at Michigan for graduate and research work with the promise of being doubled when needed. And this on top of more than $30,000,000 in gifts, principally from alumni shows Michigan’s speed in getting out of one classification into another.” When referencing California’s experience, Blake cited [Armin Otto] Leuschner, Graduate School Dean at the University of California, who indicated that a small $2,000 “miscellaneous fund” for research was allocated by a state appropriation shortly before pre-depression era, but that amount for research grew to $100,000 and the need for “convincing the legislature” of research being important was no longer necessary. Blake continued, “Now I submit that…a University

[of California] that spends $100,000 of taxation money on research also has considerable

744 Rightmire to Dean Arthur J. Klein, Dean Bland L. Stradley, and Dean C. E. MacQuigg, September 13, 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 352 speed in getting into another classification from formerly.745 You [Fullen] are able yourself to rank Ohio State University on the question of equipment for teaching and research during the past decade, especially during the past three years. What do the alumni think about Ohio State’s classification and what do her friends who are not alumni think about it?” Blake sent copies of his letter to President Rightmire, Vice-President

Morrill, and Dean Arps].746 Blake, it seemed, was intimately concerned with Ohio State’s classification among universities, even in an era precluding U.S. News and World Report rankings.

October 1937

OSU Association president, Charles F. Scott, reported on the July 19th meeting to discuss the development fund. Scott had sent a letter inviting,

“some 25 Fullen-selected alumni to be members of a Committee to consider a serious Alumni-University project and asking them to attend a meeting in Columbus on July 19 (at their own expense). All responded, cordially. Some could not come but others did come from Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo and Cincinnati, as well as Columbus. They conferred with the Chairman of the Board and the President of the University and with other representatives of staff and faculty. They talked business and they meant business; they sub-divided the project and set sub- committees to work. In the coming months you may hear of the biggest thing the Alumni will ever have undertaken. I met in the Alumni Office this summer, one of our splendid district alumni governors, the editor of a county paper, a very live wire. I asked him what common program would serve to unite our heterogeneous alumni in common interest in the University. He replied ‘You can’t create it now; it must have started with an attitude in students days.’ Grant it--but maybe there is

745 Emphasis in original. 746 Frederic C. Blake to John B. Fullen, 30 September 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937- May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 353

a smoldering spark which may start a little fire if we blow hard enough and long enough. The Association’s Secretary is an expert on bellows but he needs our help--surely, we’ll get a lot more good blazes pretty soon….”747

Rightmire, who was certainly interested in gaining more support from alumni, was also interested in having faculty backing. In a letter addressed to faculty members, he reported on the recent the work of assessing university needs.

“The Administrative Council has had under very careful consideration the essential needs of the University as concerns buildings, equipment, research projects, and educational growth and has looked at these needs from the viewpoint of (a) the University, (b) the College, (c) the Department, and (d) inter- college and inter-department relations. A committee of the Administrative Council has formulated a report which is herewith enclosed and this report has had the careful study of the Administrative Council. The University is at this time attempting to cooperate enthusiastically and effectively with a large committee of alert and deeply interested and highly intelligent alumni in the study of the University’s essential needs. When these needs can be assembled and classified, it is expected that they will make a strong appeal to alumni and other citizens and that, as a result of this interest, endowment funds may come into existence to be used for these University purposes. It is also expected that these needs will be presented in due time and in a proper way to the Legislature of the State of Ohio….”

Rightmire continued to explain that he expected that deans would talk to all department chairs about contents of his letter. A committee from the faculty would then be selected to consider “the recommendations and requests.” He called for a ten year plan. “Public presentation of the University’s needs to be made at any time in the near future,”

Rightmire suggested. “Let us, therefore, undertake this study as a most serious and constructive piece of University business. I have no doubt that the feeling exists in the mind of every member of the University faculty that this study and its resulting analysis

747 President [Charles F.] Scott, “The Other Letter” in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. “First reference to the new Development Fund was made by President Scott in the OSU Alumni Monthly, October 1937 issue.” 354 and classification should now be made for immediate use.” Through Rightmire’s presidency, since the turn of the new decade, he had been somewhat reluctant to actively advocate for the university endowment. Now he was finally becoming a little more aggressive.748

The October Monthly reported that,

“Curious summer school students watched, last month, as truckmen unloaded some fine old furniture form a van and shunted it down the elevator to the University’s Receiving Department. Perhaps they wondered what a great modern university could want with such. Little did they know that the pieces were only a part of a bequest approximating $100,000 that had been willed to Ohio State by Mary Stowbridge Muellhaupt” of Portland Oregon. Originally Mrs. Muellhaupt’s assets were to go to the city of Portland and Stanford University, but they did not comply fast enough in having a fireproof building to hold her bequeathed items.”749

Ohio State was fast enough in complying with Mrs. Muellhaupt’s bequest. They couldn’t afford to miss out on the opportunity.

Dean Arthur J. Klein of the College of Education headed up a sub-committee for the fund raisers. Trying to make it “interesting in terms of the human elements,” Fullen wrote:

“Now, to call back men like Lincoln, Kiplinger, Brooks, Steffan, Tangeman, Turner, Lazarus, Boesel, Bricker, and the rest, and have nothing in the agenda but the mere blanket of approval of some dry by-laws and constitution, would be to give them no emotional reactions to the venture. We fear they would leave with the same reaction one involuntarily achieves for Monday morning chicken pot pie -- the notion of warmed-up leftovers. But Dr. Scott and I believe (and we think you will agree) that we need to put on a ‘show’ for these men…. Therefore, it is our thought that we need to dramatize to our conferees some of the needs to which we hope to put what money we shall eventually raise.”

748 Rightmire to Members of the University Faculty, October 7, 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 749 “University Affairs,” The Ohio State University Monthly, Vol 19. No. 1 (October 1937): 3-4. 355

Asking for select deans to discuss needs at the meeting, Rightmire replied that at least “four directions” would be explained.750 Thus Fullen wanted to spice up the meetings in order to draw better attention to the university needs.

November 1937

Some needs had already been determined by university units before the request for faculty to collaborate formally on the university’s urgent needs faculty committee.

These already pre-determined needs included more than twenty seven new buildings, plus an additional ten for veterinary medicine. This does not include new wings, additions, or remodeling. The list of needs was as follows:

1. Auditoriums 2. Dorms 3. Plant 4. House 5. Building for math and physics and electrical Engineering 6. Center for history 7. French house 8. Spanish house 9. Chemistry building 10. Arts and sci. building 11. Lab 12. Commerce building 13. Geography building 14. Adult education building 15. Elem. School building

750 Emphasis in original. Full names and affiliations of conference attendees included, James F. Lincoln, of Lincoln Electric, Williard Kiplinger (President of Kiplinger Washington Agency, Washington, D.C.), Benjamin T. Brooks (Consulting Chemist, NYC), Roger Steffan (VP National City Bank, NYC), Theodore H. Tangeman (Counsel, Columbus Mutual Life Ins.), Edward C. Turner (Attorney in Columbus), Robert Lazarus (Lazarus Company), Boesel (Jackson Bros. Boesel Co.), John W. Bricker (Attorney of Columbus), Fullen to Rightmire, 27 October 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. Rightmire replied 28 October and 8 November 1937. 356

16. Fine arts building 17. Music 18. Psych building 19. Lab 20. Lord hall replaced 21. Physic building 22. Eleven new buildings for veterinary medicine 23. Plant at lake lab 24. New armory 25. Grad school building 26. Women 27. Service building 28. Field house751

In one of the sub-committees related to university graduate work, E. E. Dreese,

William McPherson, and Alpheus W. Smith provided a detailed report. In an

“Endowment of Superior Instruction” section, Dreese, McPherson, and Smith wrote,

“Great scholars constitute the first essential of a great university. There is positively no substitute for them. No need is more urgent than the imperative necessity of manning the University staff with a limited number of men of real distinction. There are not enough of these men to supply the needs of more than a half dozen universities, and The Ohio State University must have its full quota of them, or accept a position of relative inferiority. Scholars such as Compton at the University of Chicago, Einstein at the Institute of Advanced Study, Morgan at California Institute of Technology and Whitehead at Harvard University, are the primary essentials of any University. The legislature, naturally enough, looks dubiously at salaries which will attract men of this type. In these circumstances there is no escape from the necessity of providing additional funds from private sources. The amount necessary for such a fund is difficult to estimate. Certainly not less than $100,000 ought to be available annually for the salaries of such scholars. The University must be prepared to provide a large part of this amount out of legislative appropriations. The remainder must be secured from gifts and endowments. What a small sum to invest in placing The Ohio State University second to none in this or any other Nation! Ten wealthy alumni could each endow a chair in each of the major fields of thought without excessive payment for the advantages received while a student in the University. This would be about one- fourth of what one alumnus contributed recently to Michigan.”

751 Alumni Council, 2 November 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 357

Dreese, McPherson, and Smith highly encouraged private fundraising for augmenting the salaries of distinguished scholars, comparing Ohio State’s efforts with Michigan’s.

Dreese, McPherson, and Smith continued. “Some illustrations of the possibilities for the endowment of instruction of this type have been selected from suggestions submitted to the Committee on Urgent Needs.” Then a series of six Professorships were listed by the committee. “Amount Needed for Endowment of Instruction: Endowments which would yield $80,000 or $90,000 annually should be provided for such professorships.” Then the committee called for endowment “for exchange professors, visiting professors, lectureships, and special lectures and colloquia.”

In a new section on “Fellowships and Scholarships,” the committee reported, “We are far behind other universities in the number of endowed fellowships which are now available for graduate students. It is doubtful if sufficient funds from the regular appropriations will ever be made available for this purpose. Therefore, it is increasingly evident that the University must look to its alumni and friends of higher education for gifts by means of which such fellowships and scholarships are made available.”

“The Ohio State University is far behind the Universities of Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin” with regard to stipends for scholarships and fellowships. “Under existing conditions The Ohio State University is not receiving its rightful quota of superior graduate students.” The University of Michigan was not included in this comparison group. Then the committee discussed “Industrial fellowships.” The amount of $40,000 was needed for Fellowships and scholarships. In a section titled, “Endowment of

Research,” the report related, “The uncertainty of appropriations from public money for 358 research makes it very desirable to establish an independent endowment for this purpose.

With such an endowment there will be no uncertainty when the winds of political adversity blow. Moreover, the income from such a stable source of revenue will enable departments to initiate investigations without delay when new developments arise.”

Fields like physical and biological sciences, physics, and chemistry are fields that are

“complex and expensive” and could use assistance from “private sources of support.”

The committee cited the examples of “Kettering Foundation on [development of] chlorophyll, Boyce Thompson Institute on plant sciences and the Rockefeller Institute for

Medical Research…. The organization and the endowment of a number of research institutes of this type in different fields are much to be desired.” 752 Clearly faculty on the graduate school committee were aware of the success of other institutions compared to

OSU.

Viva Boothe of the Bureau of Business Research wrote a memorandum entitled

“University Needs” to President Rightmire. These needs included a new “22 story” library building to rival Yale, Harvard, and U of Texas. “A Library Endowment for the purchase of books, scientific journals and current periodicals. (This is too important a factor in the University’s functioning to be left entirely to the whim of legislators.)” At this time, it appeared universities were disgruntled with the “whims” of politicians.

Boothe stated that 12 to 15 graduate fellowships were needed, along with endowed chairs.753

752 E. E. Dreese, Wm. McPherson, Alpheus W. Smith (Chairman), “Report of Sub-Committee on Graduate Work and Research of General Committee on Urgent University Needs,” 3/f Urgent University Needs: Report of: Committee on Sub-Committee Reports: 1937-38. 753 Viva Boothe of the Bureau of Business Research wrote a memorandum entitled “University 359

In an early November OSU Board of Trustees’ meeting, it was suggested that

“Cooperative arrangements” between midwest state universities, could relieve

“duplication” of efforts. For example, “forestry work” was a focused course of study at

Michigan and aeronautical engineering at Purdue.754 Four areas were listed and represented by the following: Rightmire reported on personnel needs, Prof. Charles A.

Doan, M.D. on Equipment Needs, Prof. Harlan H. Hatcher on Library Needs, and Prof.

Howard Dwight Smith on Buildings. It was decided that the name of the collaborative organization would be called the “Ohio State University Development Fund” or just “The

Development Fund” in the By-laws. The purpose included, “encouraging gifts of money, property, works of art, historical papers and documents, museum specimens having educational, artistic or historical value, to the University from sources other than those from which the State of Ohio ordinarily makes appropriations to the Ohio State

University, and to receive, hold and administer such gifts.” The organization would be comprised of eleven members of the Board of Directors (two without voting privileges--

CFO of University and CEO of Development Fund) who represent the following three groups: Board of Trustees, OSU Administration, OSU Association.755 There needed to be at least one woman director drawn from the alumni association. There would be two meetings a year, in spring and fall. “All officers of The Development Fund shall serve without compensation, with the exception of the Secretary.” The secretary would serve as

Needs” to President Rightmire, received 8 November 1937, 3/f Urgent University Needs: Report of: Committee on Sub-Committee Reports: 1937-38. 754 Record of the Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University (Columbus, OH, 1 July 1937 to 30 June 1938), 8 November 1937, p. 129. 755 Notice that there is no student representation. 360 the CEO of the development fund. Up to 10% of each transaction “whether given with a designated purpose or otherwise” would assist with operating expenses.

It was decided that each spring the chairman of Board of Directors would ask the

President of OSU for a list of needs. From that list, the Board would choose what they would like to focus on. In “Article 1,” there was included a discussion on the “Nature of

Contributions,” whereby, “Contributions may be received for the regular or special needs of the University to be disbursed immediately in principal or may be received for the creation of a capital fund, the interest from which only may be disbursed. Such capital fund may be continued for a designated or limited period or in perpetuity.”756 This meeting among alumni, trustees, and university administrators and faculty defined

“capital fund,” to mean endowment fund.

Rightmire reported, on the meetings in positive terms. “[E]minent alumni coming together for the purpose of considering the state of the University and planning way and means to improve it are the most stirring experiences which have come to me in recent months. Be assured that the University will do everything in its power to provide a reasonable program, perfectly clear in its outlines and its intimate details, and has the keenest appreciation always of alumni interest.”757

756 “Meeting of the Committee on Alumni Giving Plans,” 13 November 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. See also, approved By-Laws of the Ohio State University Development Fund, 19 March 1938, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 757 Rightmire to Fullen, 23 November 1937, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. Rightmire, Morrill, Lawrence Laybourne, Steeb, Drackett, Kiplinger, Lincoln, Mrs. E. M. Poston, Samuel N. Summer [President Summer and Company, Buttles Ave. in Columbus]are all first members of Board of Directors and leaders. 361

Rightmire’s enthusiasm for the project was apparent, and later in a May 31st 1938 meeting, he presented a list of needs based on a “report of Faculty Committee of 25.”758 It took Rightmire a while to do this, however. What caused the lag? At this point OSU had already fallen far behind Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, and others.

December 1937

Describing his plan and purpose to the Committee of 25, Rightmire provided an update on events in the following.

“Cooperating earnestly with the alumni, the University is endeavoring to accumulate and organize data showing the needs in building, in equipment, in the creation of special chairs in departments, and in the matter of preferred projects for research and investigation, so that the University and the alumni may give careful consideration finally to such lists. The purpose is then to devise ways and means for creating an endowment fund, either for particular purposes or for general purposes or for both, this remaining to be determined later…. The picture which we shall draw will also be available for legislative study at the proper time and this reinforces the suggestion that we must do this with the greatest care. Accordingly, I have taken the liberty of appointing a University Faculty Committee of twenty-five persons to come together at an early date for a general statement about the activity intended and discussion of procedures on the part of the committee. You are named as a member of this committee and I shall be pleased to hear from you at once, stating whether you can find it agreeable and convenient to undertake this service…. I desire to announce the committee on Thursday of this week.”759

Rightmire wanted to do a thorough job of identifying university needs, knowing that needs change over time. In personal correspondence to John Kaiser, then a former

758 “Operating Picture Development Fund, Fiscal Year 1938-39”, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. Proposed Expenses: $11,700; Visible Income = $7500 from Board of Trustees Appropriation and $500 “Gift from a Friend.” Amount to be raised from Alumni for Operating Expenses: $3700. 759 Rightmire to [Form letter to invited faculty committee members, known as a Committee of twenty-five], 6 December 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 362 member of the Ohio State Board of Trustees, Rightmire described the goal of land grant colleges and the evolution of the needs of the university.

“The fact is, however, that amid conflicting theories of the time and recommendations coming from all quarters about the new type of college, the land-grant college grew and grew and expanded in accordance with the exigencies of the new times. Nobody in 1866 guessed the ultimate scope of activities of such institution in Ohio and the present Ohio State University is probably a type of institution which Senator Morrill never had in his mind, nor did Lincoln who signed the Act on July 2, 1862, nor did any of the other congressmen. In fact, the growth of the institution has taken unprecedented directions and unprecedented responsibilities and opportunities have been added to the University as it has come along through these years. It seems to be another quite conclusive proof of the statement that no institution should be hedged about with the qualifications of the particular era which creates it; in cases where this has happened the institution has generally lost caste in time and other institutions have come along which expend into the new needs and new requirements…. Today the arguments which we keep making about the needs of the Ohio State University and the way in which it answers demands coming from the public and the new directions which its activities should from time to time take-- all these grow out of the times invariably. There is no other way of progress for an institution which endeavors to meet the needs of the people. Therefore, [Marietta College President Israel Ward] Andrew’s (pres. 1855-1885) argument and many other arguments made back in those days, while full of wisdom and logic when fitted into the conditions of the times, yet fail in large degree to visualize the institution after a quarter of a century or half a century or, as we are now approaching it, three-quarters of a century.760 The human intellect is not equal to such a vast leap into the future. Doubtless today, concerning a number of governmental and educational and industrial activities going forward, our judgments are just as circumscribed as were those of men of the sixties about the new land-grant college. Since we are not super-men, this must be true. In the year 2000 the ideas we insist upon today as being logical and meeting necessities and answering vision will be looked upon as shriveled and issuing from narrowminds, and we cannot help that either.”761

760 Rightmire drew from The Marietta Collegiate Quarterly 1866. http://www.marietta.edu/About/marietta_history/presidents/Israel_Ward_Andrews.html 761 Rightmire to John Kaiser [of Marietta, Ohio], 7 December 1937, 3/f Correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1937, box 16, folder 12. John Kaiser prior to his service as a trustee (1916-1936) had been editor of the Register-Leader Company, Publishers. Kaiser attended Marietta College and had become a trustee before becoming one at OSU. The Ohio State University Monthly reported that, “Marietta is an endowed institution and has a number of scholarships that pay the tuition of students who obtain them. Mr. Kaiser would have been given one of these if he had asked for it, but his independent spirit kept him from doing so,” “John Kaiser, Trustee: Service to University is Fulfillment of Boyhood Ambition,” vol. 12, no. 7 (April 1921): 25, 50. 363

When Rightmire referred to “the statement that no institution should be hedged about with the qualifications of the particular era”--he was referring to the restrictive vision that an institution may place on plans for the present and future. Whether the dead hand would be pleased with the institution would not be apparent, and according to

Rightmire, they would likely appear “shriveled” and “issuing from narrowminds.”

Rightmire’s more nuanced perspective on the foreseeability of the creators of the land grant act as demonstrated in this personal letter would possibly not have been shared in a public setting, as Rightmire would want to avoid giving the appearance a donor’s restricted wishes for the institution might be less concrete.

Laurence Snyder, Professor of Zoology, replied to President Rightmire’s request asking him to join the committee of 25 faculty, to be formed to discuss faculty needs.

Snyder replied, “Although I find myself somewhat over-involved in committee work with year, I am accepting the appointment to the Committee of twenty-five to consider the matter of an endowment fund for the University. I shall endeavor to serve on this committee to the best of my ability.”762 Apparently, Snyder realized the value of growing the OSU endowment. Others replied to Rightmire’s request similarly in the affirmative.

The December 8th Lantern ran a story that discussed a plan “sponsored by

University alumni.” It was “designed to make the University the recipient of millions of dollars over a period of years, was disclosed today by John B. Fullen, alumni secretary. A committee of alumni will present the constitution of the Ohio State University

762 Laurence H. Snyder to Rightmire, 7 December 1937, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 364

Development Fund to the University Board of Trustees next Monday morning. If the plan is approved, the organization will elect a board of directors and immediately go ahead with plans for raising large sums of money from alumni by means of contributions, endowments, and legacies.”763 Non-alumni were, of course, also targeted in the plan. One newspaper reported that “Mr. Fullen emphasizes the alumni fund will not take the place of legislative appropriations.”764 Rightmire, Fullen, and their associates wanted to make it clear from the beginnings of the fund that the state responsibility would be in no way decreased.

“Approval of a new Ohio State University alumni associate which will add millions of dollars to the university endowments over a period of years is now being asked of the Ohio State Board of trustees, according to John B. Fullen, alumni secretary. Decision on the new organization will be made by trustees next Monday morning, when a committee of alumni will present the constitution of the Ohio State University Development fund at a meeting of the board. A number of Columbus business men and executives are members of the committee devising the endowment plan. They include John W. Bricker, former attorney general of Ohio; Robert Lazarus, F. & R. Lazarus & Co.; Robert W. Laylin, vice president of the City National bank; Hugh Huntington, attorney; Theodore Tangeman, counsel, Columbus Mutual Life Insurance Co.; Delmar Starkey, secretary of the Columbus Chamber of Commerce; Edward C. Turner, former Ohio attorney general765; Hugh E. Nesbitt766, general manager of the Columbus Coated Fabrics Co.; Samuel Summer, president of Summer & Co., and Erdis Robinson, president of Robinson Houchin Optical Co. Members of the organization will elect a board of directors and immediately proceed with plans for raising large sums of money toward the fund if the university trustees give their approval. The money will be

763 “Alumni Secretary Discloses Plan for Development Fund: Huge Endowment Would be Created, Trustees to Review Constitution, Many Notables Included on Board of Directors; Board Approval Necessary,” Ohio State Lantern, 8 December 1937, Front page. 764 “Alumni to Give Trustees OSU Endowment Fund Plan” in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. [The Columbus Dispatch] [undated c. 1937] 765 Multimillionaire of Columbus. 766 Nesbitt responded to Morrill’s request for financial assistance to support the OSU and state of Ohio group to visit other Michigan and Illinois in 1935. Rightmire to Hugh E. Nesbitt, 10 April 1935, 3/f Correspondance, Personal, N-Z - Jan. - Dec 1935, box 16, folder 9. 365

raised from alumni through contributions, endowments and legacies. The money, according to Mr. Fullen, will be used ‘to provide those educational refinements not otherwise provided for by legislative acts. We are thinking in terms of scholarships and fellowships for gifted students,’ he continued, ‘special work in graduate fields, special libraries and art collections, and here and there the endowment of a particularly valuable piece of research.’”

It was also reported that, “Other alumni taking active interest in the formation of the development fund,” included James F. Lincoln, Willard Kiplinger, Aubrey Mellinger,

Roger Steffan, George H. Calkins, Glenn S. Burrell, Fred Cornell, among others.767 It appeared that Fullen steered away from using the word, “supplement,” and used the word

“refinement,” instead, which was not a much better word choice--still suggesting the optional nature of the item in question. Nonetheless, discussing student scholarships and fellowships first enhanced Fullen’s case.

Fullen, Lincoln, Morrill, and Scott, encouraged by Blake and others, finally succeeded in starting the Development Fund, despite Rightmire’s slow approach. In 1935

Rightmire had felt confident the members of the state legislature, with whom he was well acquainted, and for whom he had provided assistance and advice in the past, would pass legislation for funding for the university. Indeed, the state legislature did agree to

Rightmire’s requests, but the governor, Martin Davey, vetoed the appropriations, signaling decreases in state funding for OSU rather than the long overdue increases

Rightmire had expected. This left Rightmire and his assistants scrambling to redistribute the shrunken budget, but also brought in a steady stream of correspondence supportive of

767 “New Ohio State Alumni Organization Proposed: Constitution of Development Fund To Be Presented for Approval of University Trustees” in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. The Columbus Dispatch [undated c. 8 December 1937]. 366

Rightmire and critical of Governor Davey.768 The problems faced by the university as a result of Governor Davey’s vetoes indeed pushed Rightmire to become more aggressive with private fundraising, finally making significant headway with endowment building.

The creation of the OSU Development Fund in 1937 and its progress over the next years, as described in the following chapter, was a particularly important step for the school as it became the main driving force in soliciting gifts for the endowment and for the university.

768 According to Frank P. Vazzano, Davey was “embarrassed” by the OSU budget disagreement, Politician Extraordinaire: The Tempestuous Life and Times of Martin L. Davey (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2008), 297. 367

Chapter Six: The Creation of The Ohio State University Development Fund, 1937-1938

The year 1937 was significant for the OSU Association due to the creation of The

Ohio State University Development Fund. It also marked important progress for

Rightmire, as he finally seemed to recognize and fulfill his own role in this process.

Considering the chronological flow of correspondence above, a summary of the creation of the development fund may be more helpful in portraying the events and goals of this endeavor.

Finally the stars seemed to be aligned and during the summer of 1937, Rightmire,

Chairman Drackett, Dean George F. Arps of the Graduate School, Dr. W.W. Charters

(head of educational research), and others met to generally assess university needs and create a plan to further investigate those needs.769 They raised questions concerning state involvement and approaches to soliciting from alumni and non-alumni. During the July

19th meeting, Secretary John B. Fullen highlighted several historical points. He cited the rapid increase in alumni funds in the past decade, noting that twelve of the hundred schools that solicit funds from alumni were state universities, and that even “during the worst of the depression,” more than $165 million was raised in gifts. Fullen further emphasized that in the Western Conference Michigan led in alumni giving and that 89

769 “Memorandum for Meeting of Alumni & University Officials to Consider Alumni Giving Plans,” July 19, 1937, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/17/30), “Development Fund: June 1937 - May 1938.” 368 percent of total gifts to the universities came from alumni compared to only 16 percent at

Ohio State University.770

Concern was raised that if Ohio State were to collect large gifts from supporters, the state might decrease its funding to the university. But, according to the meeting minutes, Dr. Murphy argued that increases in alumni giving would actually enhance state funding as opposed to reducing state subsidies for Ohio State University.771 Murphy seemed to believe that support from alumni would cast the university in a more favorable light among legislatures, securing greater monetary support.

It seems that during this same July 19th planning meeting, Rightmire plunged enthusiastically into fundraising work. Charles F. Scott, president of The Ohio State

University Association, applauded that Rightmire “entered so heartily in the project” and participated in the subcommittee.772 Was Rightmire possibly trying to make up for the large delay in starting this Alumni funding project? Or maybe he realized the importance of the university president taking a lead in this particular program.

In July of 1937, 40 alumni requested President Rightmire produce an account of

“Urgent University Needs which could not be obtained from the State and which the

770 “Minutes of a Meeting of a Committee of Alumni with University Officials to Consider Alumni Giving Plans,” July 19, 1937, p.2, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/17/30), “Development Fund: June 1937 - May 1938.” 771 “Minutes of a Meeting of a Committee of Alumni with University Officials to Consider Alumni Giving Plans,” July 19, 1937, p.2, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/17/30), “Development Fund: June 1937 - May 1938.” Charles F. Scott to Rightmire, July 23, 1937, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/17/30), “Development Fund: June 1937 - May 1938.” 772 “Minutes of a Meeting of a Committee of Alumni with University Officials to Consider Alumni Giving Plans,” July 19, 1937, p.2, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/17/30), “Development Fund: June 1937 - May 1938.” 369 generosity of alumni and friends might supply….”773 Rightmire asked for input from the faculty and a list of needs was generated. A committee was appointed and a larger scale meeting took place in which the details of the program were hammered out. One interesting debate came over the name of the program. President Rightmire evidently requested input from the faculty on this issue as well, put careful thought into it, and addressed other questions concerning the program.

The program was supported by other bodies interested in the welfare of the university. The Board of Trustees “ordered that $7500 be appropriated from the Interest on Endowment Fund as the University’s portion” to meet the expenses related to the

Development Fund budget. In this way the program got up and running with a secretary and a stenographer who had many supplies at their fingertips including two typewriters.774 Including the university contribution, the total budget was $13,400. This amount did not include the $10,000 projected expense needed to assist with a

“professional fund raising organization, if employed.”775

On Monday, December 13, 1937, the Ohio State University Development Fund was officially recognized by the Board of Trustees.776 “At this time a committee representing the alumni, consisting of Mr. Harry Drackett of Cincinnati, as Chairman,

773 “Objectives of the First Annual Program, The Ohio State University Development Fund: Representing a coordinated movement of the alumni, former students and friends of the Ohio state University to provide for its special needs,” [1937] The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 774 “Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes, 12-13-[19]37,” p. 148. The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 775 Record of the Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University (Columbus, OH, 1 July 1937 to 30 June 1938), 13 December 1937, p. 148. 776 An OSU Calendar from 1985, located in the Ohio State University Archives, also highlighted this day in Ohio State history, the day when the OSU Development Fund was organized. 370

Mr. James F. Lincoln of Cleveland, and Mr. John B. Fullen, Alumni Secretary, appeared before the Board to present the proposed Constitution for the Ohio State University

Development Fund.” The Resolution and Constitution for the creation of the Ohio State

University Development Fund was “unanimously approved” by members of the Board of

Trustees.777 “Therefore, be it resolved: First, That the Ohio State University

Development Fund is hereby created as the official agency for the solicitation of funds for the Ohio State University, other than those appropriated by the General Assembly of

Ohio and the Federal Government; and for the receipt of funds thus solicited….”

The purpose as found in the constitution and repeated again at the meeting was:

“To assist in developing and increasing the facilities of Ohio State University for broader educational opportunities and service to its students and alumni and to the citizens of the state of Ohio by encouraging gifts of money, property, works of art, historical papers and documents, museum specimens having educational, artistic or historical value, to the

University from sources other than those from which the state of Ohio ordinarily makes appropriations to the Ohio Sate University, and to receive, hold and administer such gifts.”778

Discussing the recent historic events surrounding the recognition of the university’s official fundraising agency, the December Ohio State University Monthly summarized the detailed events of a conference held at Homecoming. Harry R. Drackett presided at the conference where,

777 Record of the Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University (Columbus, OH, 1 July 1937 to 30 June 1938), 13 December 1937, p. 139. 778 Record of the Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University (Columbus, OH, 1 July 1937 to 30 June 1938), 13 December 1937, p. 140. 371

“thirty-eight alumni and others prominent in science, industry, and education spent the morning of Homecoming Day discussing the proposed organization of an Alumni Giving Plan for Ohio State along lines similar to those in operation at more than a hundred institutions of higher education in America including seven of the state universities. When matured, the plan will call for raising from the alumni and others funds for purposes not provided by the Legislature. The Homecoming Day meeting was the second held by the group, the first session having been held July 19…. Called to order by Harry Drackett, ’07 chairman of the Board of Visitors, those present heard reports on the following: personnel needs, President Rightmire; equipment needs, Dr. Charles A. Doan, Director of Medical Research; library needs, Professor Harlan Hatcher, ’22, ’23, ’27, Department of English; and buildings, Professor Howard Dwight Smith, B. Arch. E., ’07, University Architect. Consideration was given to proposed constitution and by-laws and to a proposed budget for operation.”779

On the final page of the first program (pamphlet) for the Development Fund, a couple of charts illustrate the disparity between Ohio State and four other state universities. Ohio State is compared to Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota.

One table explains that within the previous six years, Michigan “received from her alumni $3,000,000,” while Ohio State only received $85,000. The pamphlet announces its goal of $75,000 and admonishes that “the experience of other universities indicates that we must secure the following contributions….” This call for money is followed by detailed figures on the number of contributions and amount type.780

779 “News of the Alumni: Alumni Giving Plan” in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. OSU Alumni Monthly, December 1937 issue. 780 “Objectives of the First Annual Program, The Ohio State University Development Fund: Representing a coordinated movement of the alumni, former students and friends of the Ohio state University to provide for its special needs,” [1938] The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 372

Figure 3. Contributions by Alumni to Five State Universities (University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, and The Ohio State University) to 1938781

In mid-December of 1937, a representative committee from the alumni presented a constitution to the Board of Trustees for the Ohio State University Development Fund.

The alumni through the Ohio State University Association had recently voted in support of the proposition. The Board of Trustees approved the proposal on December 13,

781 “Objectives of the First Annual Program, The Ohio State University Development Fund: Representing a coordinated movement of the alumni, former students and friends of the Ohio state University to provide for its special needs,” [1938] The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 373

1937.782 The long delayed time had come. The program was christened The Ohio State

University Development Fund, and committee members soon set about to canvas alumni and non-alumni in order to raise funds for the far-reaching needs of the university.

The 1939 edition of The Makio, Ohio State’s official yearbook, reported on the purpose of the development fund.783

“The Ohio State University Development Fund is the newest and undoubtedly the most important function the Ohio State University Association has ever tackled. The purpose of the fund is to raise money, through an annual campaign and program, to provide those needs and refinements for the University which cannot be met by legislative appropriations. It is a method by which the alumni and interested non- alumni friends of the University can participate in the development of Ohio State through a program of annual giving. No one will be overlooked in this nation-wide appeal. The Association was established in 1937, with H. R. Drackett, ‘07, as chairman of the board of directors. A comprehensive survey of the University's special needs was made by a faculty committee named by President Emeritus Rightmire, headed by Dr. W. W. Charters of the Bureau of Educational Research. The Board of Directors then met and planned its program. To assist John B. Fullen, executive secretary of the association, in directing the work, the Board approved the appointment of D. E. Proctor, a man with a university background and fund-raising experience. The 1939 goal of the fund is $75,000, a large part of which will be used to purchase special apparatus and equipment for many departments of Ohio State and provide money for loans to needy students. In addition, a large sum will be used to provide the library with many special needs.”784

Thus the Development fund was started in the late 1930s for the “needs” of the university, and though alumni were the main target of the campaign, non-alumni were

782 “Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes, 12-13-[19]37,” pp. 139-148. The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” An OSU calendar with important university dates published in 1985, highlighted the advent of the OSU Development Fund, officially organized on December 13th, 1937. 783 Makio is Japanese for magic mirror. 784 The Makio [Ohio State University official student yearbook] (Columbus, 1939), pp. 236-7. 374 considered as well. The fear of causing decreased state funding was set aside, and the project entered into wholeheartedly by Rightmire and his associates.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1937

President Rightmire delegated the writing of the annual report for this year to

George W. Eckelberry, Assistant to the President. Perhaps Rightmire was ill or too old and tired? This report, signed off by the OSU Board of Trustees to Governor Davey and the legislature focused on “student activities and agencies.”785 The number of students increased more than ten and a half percent to 16,670 “different students.”786

Dr. William Henry Scott, President of Ohio State from 1883 to 1895 and Emeritus

Professor of Philosophy died in this year. During Dr. Scott’s presidency, “the place and function of the University in the life of the state became clearly defined and formulated a broad conception of the University as a powerful agency in a democratic society upon which the late President William O. Thompson built so firmly.”787 In fact, Rightmire frequently consulted with Dr. Scott and saw him as a mentor.

This year gifts from various businesses were offered to the university. One thousand dollars from Cincinnati-based company Procter and Gamble went to a fellowship in Chemistry and $705.86 to research in engineering. Julius Stone, member of the Board of Trustees, gave $3,267.82 for sound projection equipment, Sherwin Williams

Company offered $6,500, Kraft-Phenix Cheese Corporation gave $200 for research in

785 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1936-1937, in Sixty-Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor, for the Year Ending June 30, 1937 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University[, 1937]), 1-6. Quote on Rightmire, Annual Report 1936-37, 1. 786 Rightmire, Annual Report 1936-37, 6. 787 Rightmire, Annual Report 1936-37, 6. 375 dairy technology, Robert Lazarus donated $500 for social administration expenses. All gifts for general and designated purposes totaled $185,496.66.788

1938

January 1938

There arose some discussion among the faculty on what the name should be for the committee that was formed to study university needs. “[T]he question was asked of the president as to what the committee’s name should be. It seemed clear that it should not be merely called the ‘University Committee on Endowment Funds’ or ‘University

Committee on Cooperation with Alumni.” The president suggested ‘Faculty Committee on Urgent University Needs.’ Professor Held suggested that the committee might find it difficult to arrive any suggestions as to priority of projects since this would be determined largely by the donors to an endowment fund. However, the president pointed out that since a part of the committee’s function was to prepare budgetary proposals, priority was an important consideration. Mr. Steeb then explained the organization and purposes of the Alumni Development Fund. President Rightmire pointed out that this corporation had been created with the express sanction of the Board of Trustees and was closely tied in with the development of the University…. It was also suggested that the committee might indicate to the president which items might serve as a basis for an appeal to the alumni

788 Rightmire, Annual Report 1936-37, 126. 376 and which might best be secured through legislative appropriations….”789 In this case, it appeared that Rightmire had attempted to broaden the scope away from just endowment building and to include soliciting the state.

In late January, Prof. C. W. Foulk of the OSU Department of Chemistry was invited to join the,

“large University Committee of twenty-five now undertaking to study the urgent needs of the University in buildings equipment, library maintenance, research projects, dormitories, and other matters which are of interest in the on-going of the University. A general movement is now under way, behind which is the Ohio State University Association and approval to which has been given by the Board of Trustees in the creation and ratification of a University Development Fund. This Fund is staffed by interested, aggressive alumni and members of the University force and has as its object a solicitation of money for expenditures in the total or for endowment and the expenditure only of interest thereon, this solicitation to be carried forward among alumni and other people who may have or may be induced to find an interest in the University. The work of this University Committee in organizing the urgent needs of the University in various fields will also present a program which may be taken up with the State Legislature at the right time. We are going along on a platform of enthusiasm and optimism about the University future and the chance of interesting outside parties in extending aid. The work of this University Committee promises to bring to the front the University view point, I think, which the faculty has not hitherto undertaken. The urgent needs of the University are, I would suppose, best understood by the men who day after day devote their lives to the work of the University. I am, therefore, deeply interested in having the results of the careful consideration which the University faculty committee is giving to this whole proposal and situation…. [A]t the first meeting the plan agreed upon was, first, to appoint a Committee on Committees and, second, the Committees when thus created would each take up a particular field of need…. All of the information you desire, I think, can be obtained from the office of Dr. W. W. Charters who is the chairman of the Committee. I am writing him a note saying that you have been so good as to accept service on the Committee and that you will call him to get

789 [undated, but perhaps generated in early 1938?] 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 377

into step with the Committee’s activities. I hope I am right in all this assumption….”790

This showed Rightmire’s interest in developing a consensus from the university, as opposed to hearing from just one constituent. It further demonstrated a type of success for committee work that would ultimately provide a better product for the university and community.

The Citizen caught wind of the upcoming meeting of the official agency of Ohio

State University. The newspaper reported, “A new organization of Ohio State University alumni, designed to raise a development fund, will be perfected on the campus Feb. 17-

18. Harry R. Drackett, president of the Drackett Co., Cincinnati, is chairman of the fund committee. Members of the board of trustees of Ohio State have given their approval to the solicitation campaign, believing that there are many needs at the school involving expenditure of funds which cannot be met from legislative appropriations. An interlocking directorate of alumni, trustees and administrative officers of Ohio State will be established as the agency through which the alumni contributed fund will be distributed. Although this is a new venture for Ohio State, more than 100 other large universities have carried on such an alumni organization for years. Michigan is a notable example among state universities….791 Again, the proximity to and competition with

Michigan seemed to work in their favor.

790 Rightmire to Professor C. W. Foulk, Department of Chemistry, 19 January 1938, 3-f Urgent University Needs: Report of : Committee on: Correspondence, Meeting Minutes, Supporting Documents: 1937-1938. 50/13. 791 “Ohio State Alumni Organize To Raise Development Fund” Citizen (January 20 193[8]) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 378

Turmoil in the OSU New York Alumni area arose that Rightmire appeared unable to do anything about. Rightmire had expected, but was not able, to visit the New York alumni. Fullen and Dougherty claimed that they were unable to meet together without

Rightmire present. Harry Carr, in charge of alumni in the area was criticized for not allowing for an election in 10 years and for possibly using alumni lists to sell insurance.

Still Rightmire turned down an emphatic request from New York alumni to visit.792

In a bulletin to alumni District Governors, Jack Fullen reported on the OSU

Association’s Board of Directors meeting. Fullen reported that those at the meeting,

“on the basis of my report of your activities voiced themselves as feeling that the creation of this new organization has represented one of the most outstanding developments in alumni relations and in the history of organized alumni activities in these parts. As a matter of fact, our district organization, to my way of thinking, is in many ways superior to that of the University of Michigan, from which we got the idea. Alumni Secretary Hawley Tapping of Michigan said to me recently- -‘Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery but when you show us how it really should be done, that’s an insult.’ I think Kipke said something like that to Schmidt--let’s insult Michigan some more! And let’s above all things keep this fine new group from being just a paper organization.” Fullen ends his bulletin with “p.s. The Ohio State University Development Fund is now about to make its debut. The first meeting of the Board of Directors will be held within the next few weeks and we shall then start on a new alumni relationship, namely, the organized solicitation of gifts to the University from alumni and others.”793

Rightmire reported on Ohio Governor Martin L. Davey’s (gov. 1935-1939) disposition over the past year. “So far as the Governor is concerned, he has been very cordial since December 1936 and he said in a public address the other day that he and the

792 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 793 John B. Fullen, District Governors’ Bulletin, 21 January 1938, 3/f Alumni: OSU Association: Letters, Feb. 1935-Jan 1938. 379

‘Ohio State University were just like kittens.’ He seems to be trying to be helpful.”794 So

Rightmire gave Davey the benefit of the doubt.

Alumni President Charles F. Scott provided a synopsis and reported on recent successes of the OSU Association and its work with various university, alumni, and non- alumni groups.

“There is something fascinating in the progressive development of an idea as it takes shape and becomes a Reality…. Last June the Directors of the Association closed a general discussion by voting to appoint a committee on Alumni Giving Plans. Should a project for Fund raising be undertaken? What should be its purpose? What should be the plan? In a half year the answer has been found through the cooperation of many individuals and several groups. In July a committee of alumni, under Chairman Harry Drackett, met with representatives of the University. After general discussion by the group of twenty-five, it was unanimously agreed that raising funds for the University should be undertaken. These would in general be used for purposes other than those included in appropriations by the Legislature. The next step involved Objectives and Organization. The President of the University and the Chairman of the Board of Trustee were asked to present the University’s needs in a comprehensive program for future development. The form of Organization and plans for proceeding was delegated to a sub-committee. At a meeting of the Committee on November 13 in conference with members of the University, objectives of the project were presented by the President and members of the faculty who pictured the larger needs of the growing University, contrasting them with present inadequacies. This was both depressing and inspiring--some of the present deficiencies in personnel, in equipment, in buildings, were astounding--largely because funds and facilities have not kept pace with increasing attendance and growing demands and with the progress of sister institutions. On the other hand, it was an impressive demonstration of the opportunity before us…. The project contemplates such items as scholarships, fellowships, special professorships; art, museum, historical and library collections; scientific equipment; provision for research, memorial buildings. The Sub-Committee on Organization presented a Constitution which raised this enterprise from the level of an alumni committee undertaking to a major enterprise of the University. It establishes the Ohio State University Development Fund as the agency of the University for acquiring and administering funds other than those appropriated by the Legislature. This

794 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38 Rightmire to Hugh D. Laughlin (27 January 1938). 380

Constitution has been approved by the Directors of the Association. It was presented by an alumni committee to the Board of Trustees of the University at its December meeting and was approved by the Board. The new enterprise will be administered by the Board of Directors of the Development Fund, consisting of representatives of the Association, the Trustees and the University Administration. Appointments are now in progress and further action awaits the organization of the new Board. This definite achievement involving constructive planning and important decisions and the coordination of many individuals and groups testifies to the ability and serious interest of those who have had part in the project. It justifies my observation in the July issue of the Monthly that the men responsible for the affairs of the Association were not merely well-wishers; they were go-getters…. The support for higher education is derived from private endowments and gifts and from State appropriations. Private support was well nigh universal until the Morrill (Land Grant) Act of 1862. The universities of the country may therefore be divided into two general groups, although there are some which happily represent a combination of the two as their alumni and friends have supplemented State support. Ohio State has received some notable gifts from its alumni and other private sources. These, however, are very meager as compared with what it receives from the State and also with what is received from their alumni by universities of some other states. What is now projected should mean a new era in the development of the University as it involves both continued State support for the general operation of the institution and also substantial private support for adding to quality and refinement. The great development of the institution in the past is due to the growing appreciation by the State of the value of the University as a factor in its own development. Granting that this support continues to increase in proportion to general growth, there is need for much more to enable the institution to attain high quality and to maintain leadership. Hence the alumni of our State institution have advantage over those of a privately endowed university as their support does not go to ordinary operating expense, but contributes directly to elevating quality. That, in general, is what the University faculty is stressing--the new and better things they can do with funds and facilities. As “overhead” is provided by the State the additional resources may produce large returns. Our graduates must be shown definitely an concretely just what the situation is: then they must visualize the vital importance to our modern surging, changing world of university training for expert service and for leadership. Our present turmoil demonstrates the need for sound understanding and for capable leadership in political, industrial, economic and social affairs--a need which will be greater in the coming years. It is a magnificent conception--the university graduate capable of discriminating insight and understanding, gaging[sic] the vital need in coming years for the best ideas…”795

795 Charles F. Scott, “The President’s Page,” (January 1938) Monthly in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 381

So Scott argued that private support of universities was nothing new--it had, after all, been the norm up until the Morrill Land Grant Act, and so a mix of public and private support was acceptable. Calling previous private contributions to Ohio State University

“meager as compared with what it receives from the State and also with what is received from their alumni by universities of some other states,” was a call to do something better.

It was a call to ask “substantial private support for adding to quality and refinement.”

Notice the word “supplement” was not used here by Scott as had been used in previous solicitations by Fullen and others for added private support. Scott extended his argument to suggest that compared to private institutions, where “overhead” is covered by private support, OSU has the overhead covered by the state, so private donations to OSU are used for “elevating quality.”

February 1938

The university itself offered loans to students. This sometimes became problematic, especially at this time when the university was in need of the funds, because students didn’t always pay back their loans. In discussing student loan repayment with former OSU trustee John Kaiser, Rightmire commented, “This is more proof of the fault in human nature, some people when the need is great will make any kind of promise in order to get help and promptly forget it afterwards, while others are sincere and subject themselves to great sacrifices in order to meet the obligation. The record seems to be the same as in other cases where human beings are involved and we found a great deal of

382 neglect also in the University where loans are made to students.”796 Students sometimes failed to keep their addresses updated with the university, making billing complicated.

And it was not only for billing purposes that the university needed to keep track of alumni. It was vitally important for the OSU Association to be able to contact alumni in order to solicit donations.

The OSU Records Division did not have sufficient funding and was considered by

Fullen as “woefully inadequate.” OSU Registrar Edith Cockins reported to Fullen that it lacked enough manpower to track names of medical alumni, for example. Fullen called for a general ramping up this area. “The imminent operation of the Development Fund now requires careful scrutiny of alumni relations particularly those having to do with mailings…,” Fullen stated.”797

Fullen’s job was not only to find the alumni, but to inspire their loyalty to the university. In a letter to a group of presidents of universities, Jack Fullen hoped to have a

“panel discussion by college presidents” who would address the issue of igniting loyal fever among alumni.

“We may come out with a suggested code of techniques, certainly we hope to get the recognition from our college heads that this is a college problem needing facing: that the inculcation in the minds of the students of a sense of lifelong obligation to the college is the only way to make good alumni; that the problem should be faced deliberately and not dealt with, as now, in a catch-as-catch-can manner. The College President’s Panel, in which we hope you will take part, will provide opportunity to approach the problem from the point of view of the heads

796 George W. Rightmire to John Kaiser, 1 February 1938, 3-f Personal Correspondence Jan- Jun 1938. 797 Fullen to Rightmire (23 February 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 383

of the universities. This is the grist for their mills as well as ours. The signs are apparent that higher education, publicly or privately supported, will need in the coming years the greatest constituency it has ever mustered. Alumni support, the most important phase of this constituency, can be much better developed, we feel, if more attention is given to its inculcation during the under-graduate days of the alumni-to-be…. Other presidents being invited to join this Panel include President Frank P. Graham of the University of North Carolina as chairman, President Henry M. Wriston of Brown University, President Arnaud C. Marts of Bucknell University, President John J. Tigert of the University of Florida, President Raymond A. Kent of the University of Louisville, and President Mildred McAfee of Wellesley College….798

Thus Fullen saw the benefit of working together for the improvement of private fundraising.

Concerned about information overload, Rightmire discussed radio and how listening to it can be problematic. “Our news information is so vast in these times that we hardly know how to absorb it and it pelts away at our sensibilities moment after moment through the day and through the night if we listen on the radio in such an extreme way that we hardly ever acquire a quiescent moment. This was more readily possible twenty- five years ago and any time prior to that than it is today and one of our difficult problems is to create conditions under which we can think quietly for a time from day to day. That also is a test of our ability to live in the kind of world we have.”799 This is an interesting contrast to the types of information overload and distractions experienced today.

Sometime in 1938, Robert Ferguson of the OSU Lantern reported, the

“Number one laudable project on State’s campus is the Alumni Development Fund. To it, from graduates and friends, moneys will come to create and to refine

798 Underlining emphasis in original. Fullen to President Raymond Walters (University of Cincinnati) (15 February 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 799 George W. Rightmire to Florence E. Allen [Judge U.S. Circuit of appeals in Cleveland], 26 February 1938, 3-f Personal Correspondence Jan- Jun 1938. 384

a greater all-purpose University. Enthusiastic were the alumni when approached on the Fund idea, and now the students should welcome it in the same manner, since theirs is the primary advantage from the success of such a plan. Conceived a year ago because of visionary men, the Fund was officially launched February 17 and 18 at a conference held on the campus. Organization plan, program and a first year goal of $75,000 was adopted at this two-day meeting. For the first time it was starkly brought to the attention of the alumni that Michigan’s graduates had contributed $25,000,000 to their school while Ohio State had received $685,000, and that during the last six years to Michigan was donated $3,000,000 and to Ohio State went $85,000. It is generally conceded that one of the state government’s first obligations is education, but today, with constantly increasing governmental expenditures and other social demands, the University can only look to the Legislature for the absolute needs. Those things which go to make a University unsurpassed, such as the finest of research equipment, must come from other sources…. Although $75,000 is a modest beginning it is hoped that in time this sum will be the nucleolus of an endowment program which will have everlasting, incomparable educational effects. One significant part of the Fund’s program is the earmarking of some of the contributions to direct student aids such as loans, scholarships and fellowships. Since our present loan facilities are totally inadequate this provision will insure the continued enrollment of worth-while students financially unable to stay in school, and will encourage more persons to take graduate work. For these reasons and countless others, the student body must become aware of and proud of the Alumni Development Fund. To graduate from a University which is growing and rising as the result of alumni interest will have a fuller and finer meaning.”800

On March 2, 1938, Rightmire refused again Fullen’s adamant request for

Rightmire to meet with alumni in New York. Calling it an “emergency” and urgently explaining his “temerity” to have Rightmire meet the New York alumni, Fullen was ultimately unsuccessful.801 Whether this was due to Rightmire’s decision to retire, or even influenced his decision to retire, is not apparent.

Dictating a letter from Grant hospital and commenting on Rightmire’s upcoming retirement Oscar L. Hooper, a “friend” of Rightmire’s, explained, “I hope this is not an

800 Robert W. Ferguson, “No Axes to Grind” [Editorial] OSU Lantern [undated] in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. [NOT FOUND IN SEARCH OF ONLINE LANTERN ARCHIVES] 801 See Rightmire to Fullen, 7 March 1938, and Fullen to Rightmire, 2 March 1938, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 385 indication of how insidiously politics is creeping into the conduct of the University.”

Commenting on Rightmire’s retirement, Howard T. Mitchell, a law student in California, but from Marion, Ohio wrote, “The university will lose a great administrator and a most genial and gentlemanly personality. On the other hand you are very deserving of retirement and rest from the irksome duties which have entailed your high office.”802

On March 19, 1938 the first meeting of the Board of Directors of The Ohio State

University Development Fund was held. Staggered terms of alumni member board of directors were setup. Mrs. Preston’s term was set to expire in one year; Mr. Summer’s in

1940, and so forth. The Board of Directors decided for long-range plan of “steady, annual giving” as opposed to a “large sum for one project like the Stadium campaign.” In their

“Discussion of the Budget… The question of establishing in the budget of a contingency fee for the employment of a professional Fund raising organization was discussed at length. The Board was unanimous in its disapproval of the idea in the light of the fact that policy favored a long-range, steady, annual giving plan rather than a single, dramatic, limited campaign for a large sum for one project like the Stadium campaign.”803 So rather than employ a professional fundraising organization, like John Price Jones, the Board of

Directors decided that their long-view would not include employing a professional organization to assist with their long-range fundraising planning efforts.

A faculty committee of 25 was still identifying the most significant of OSU’s needs. The Board of Directors “will sponsor an annual giving plan among University

802 Howard T. Mitchell to Rightmire, 19 March 1938, 3-f Personal Correspondence Jan- Jun 1938. 803 “Minutes” from First Meeting of the Board of Directors for Development Fund, 19 March 1938, 3/f Development Fund, June 1937-May 1938, Box 17, folder 30. 386 graduates and former students, to provide the University with facilities not available through legislative appropriations.…. According to [Jack Fullen,] the alumni secretary

100 such funds are now in existence, some six of them in state universities. Near the top is the Michigan fund, which has raised 35 millions of dollars for that university.”804

April - June 1938

Despite the fact that a professional fundraising organization would not be hired, statistics on “gifts and bequests to colleges and universities” generated by John Price

Jones Corporation were sent by Jack Fullen to the Board of Directors of the OSU

Development Fund. The statistics had been “prepared for the recent Silver Anniversary

Conference of the American Alumni Council, to which [Ohio State University] were the hosts.”805 Fullen hoped the report would provide useful background information.

Lockwood Thompson of the firm Baker, Hostettler, Sidle & Patterson, located in

Cleveland, Ohio, and since January a member of the Board of Trustees (appointed by

Gov. Martin L. Davey) wrote Jack Fullen about the role of Ohio State alumni, suggesting that alumni should have a bigger role in university affairs.

“I am very much interested in the question whether or not the Alumni of Ohio State University have as much voice in the affairs of the University as do alumni of other state universities. I am wondering, therefore, whether you have ever made any detailed study of the methods whereby alumni in other state universities are given a voice in the affairs of their own university. I realize that one of your

804 “Cincinnati Man Made Chairman of Fund Directors: Harry R. Drackett ’07 Heads Directors of Development Plan.” OSU Lantern, p. 1 and [?] [30 March 1938] in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 805 Fullen to Rightmire [and to All Members of the Board of Directors of The Ohio State University Development Fund, 16 April 1938, 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 387

biggest problems is to make the Alumni of Ohio State University realize that they are just as necessary a part of the College as if they were graduates of a private institution which constantly turns to its alumni for financial aid. In the case of the state university the alumni naturally feel that the main financial responsibility is that of the state and therefore in a sense these alumni do not feel that they are much needed. Furthermore, an alumnus who has financially contributed to his institution perhaps is more likely to feel the proprietary interest which we would like to have all of the alumni of our University experience. If you do have any data with references to this subject, I would appreciate having any resume that you may have compiled. I think that the University Development Fund which gives opportunity to the alumni to contribute is a very wise and wholesome step forward in increasing alumni participation in the affairs of the University, but all of us should direct our thoughts it seems to me to tying in the Alumni more closely to the program of the University, and the experience of other universities may supply us with additional means for accomplishing this result.”806

Lockwood Thompson’s request for information signifies his interest in alumni actually having a say in university matters. His comments on alumni donations causing alumni to feel a keener interest in the university provokes the idea of a positive feedback mechanism because those who have an interest in the university are more likely to give another gift.

Fullen replied to Lockwood’s question about the role that alumni should play in deciding the university program. “I am going to answer informally your question regarding the voice of alumni in University affairs because I hope that you and I will find it possible to go into the matter in greater detail later in face to face conversation….”

Then, Fullen calls the Development Fund an alumni “undertaking,” or “an alumni brainchild,” saying “President Rightmire, Dr. Morrill and Mr. Steeb have given us every encouragement and their approach to all of our problems has been most sympathetic and

806 Lockwood Thompson [of Baker, Hostetetler, Sidle & Patterson, Union Trust Building, Cleveland, Ohio] to John B. Fullen, Alumni Secretary (27 May 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 388 understanding. To my mind a spirit of this character is as important as any official mechanism we might create to provide a means of alumni support.” Fullen’s response to

Lockwood’s question indirectly refers to the Development Fund--meaning that Fullen thinks the top university administrators need to possess the right spirit along with the alumni newly created development fund group. Fullen did not really address Lockwood’s question about whether the alumni would play an active role in the future programs of the university.807

The Ohio State University Monthly reported on the summer activities. In the June

1938 Commencement and Alumni Day activities it was expressed that the Development

Fund was “Patterned after the Alumni Fund plan in operation in more than 100 colleges and universities,” and was “expected to bring to the University some badly needed endowments and a vital new alumni service activity.”808 A dinner celebration was setup on the eve of Rightmire’s retirement to celebrate his 36 years of service as a faculty member.809 “Under the leadership of Mr. [Harry R.] Drackett the Alumni Board of

Visitors has become increasingly active and effective in the last three years and the

Development Fund has been created under his direction. Mr. Drackett has devoted a great deal of his spare time to the administrative and alumni groups of the University and has

807 Fullen to Lockwood Thompson (2 June 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 808 “Commencement and Alumni Day,” The Ohio State University Monthly Vol. 29, no. 9 (June 1938): 1. 809 “Commencement and Alumni Day,” The Ohio State University Monthly Vol. 29, no. 9 (June 1938): 2. 389 had considerable association with the legislature in the matter of University finances….”810

In the last month of Rightmire’s service as president, Fullen wrote him a strong letter of appreciation.

“[P]ermit me to say something that I have avoided saying face-to-face simply because it is not the easiest thing to do. Your never-failing understanding of our problems and your most cordial encouragement of our dreams and ambitions to help build a greater University through a greater and stronger Alumni Association are both practical and spiritual considerations which have made our job not only more effective but soul-satisfying. I dare say you are getting a great many letters of this character these days but I doubt if any comes more sincerely from the heart in an expression of gratitude for your kindliness and consideration and poignant regret at the impending severance of our working relationships.”811

To Fullen’s letter, Rightmire replied with similar appreciation.

“I appreciate more than I can tell you your kind sentiments contained in your letter of June 3rd and I hasten to assure you that they are reciprocal. I have enjoyed all my contacts with you before you came to the campus and since and commend you most highly for the significant way in which you have carried forward the development of the Ohio State University Association. I am delighted also that the opportunity seems so near at hand when you can escape from the irksome detail work which you have had to carry hitherto and devote your time and talents to larger matters of a promotional kind, all looking to the improvement and greater usefulness of the University.”812

810 Drackett has B.S. in Chemical Engineering at OSU, Wroked for Procter and Gamble, associated with P. W. Drackett and Company. Involved in a number of university groups -- Sphinx founder and Varsity “O” member, ran track at OSU. For 1905-07. “Commencement and Alumni Day,” The Ohio State University Monthly Vol. 29, no. 9 (June 1938): 16. 811 Fullen to Rightmire (3 June 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 812 Rightmire to Fullen (6 June 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 390

At an meeting for the Alumni Association, Educational Researcher Dr. W. W.

Charters provided a summary of a comprehensive report undertaken by OSU faculty.

Then, Rightmire spoke after him. Discussing the alumni association, Rightmire said:

“The alumni were intrigued in that program, interested immensely…. [A]nd with that as a guide for the next few years at least I think we can make some progress that has never been possible before. This is clear, isn’t it, that we are now in times--none of you must think that I am croaking up here-- we are now coming to a time when the state may feel its resources stretched to the elastic limit in dealing on the present basis of sufficiency, adequacy and competency of various state institutions and with the constantly enlarging demand coming to the State Legislature for the proper care of the other kinds of institutions in Ohio. And there are numerous other kinds. So that education is merely in the hopper with the rest of them, and how it comes out depends upon a larger number of factors, which it is not necessary to take time to try to delineate here, but it is true that the competition is keener now than it may have been at some times in the past, when we have had very material augmentation of our support. That apparently means that our alumni body, the individuals of the alumni of the university, will have the opportunity to think through this problem with the university administration and organize some lines of help which will be carried out through the years, and thereby enable the university with alumni help now to supplement state and federal aid and get a much higher basis of efficiency and of operation and of adaptability to the social and industrial needs of the state. That is our whole thought, I think. That is our thought. You live out there, most of you, in the various communities of Ohio. You see what is happening in industry, in banking, in the social order generally, and you see a good many danger signs all of the way along. But we have got to face those. I think it is clear that if we could know by any possibility even half as much about what happened to the people of Europe in the Napoleonic wars as we know about what is happening to us in this country today, we would have to concede that the situation back there looked just as hopeless, with just as many new problems in it, just as many unsolved situations, as we find today. But we cannot avoid some of the consequences of this situation. Our system of reporting, of transmitting things, today is universal and it is almost instantaneous. We have the radio, about which the old Scotch philosopher said that it is the nearness of the far off and the presence of the absent. That applies equally well to other things. It accounts for the uncertainty we have. We know too much. And we can’t avoid knowing it either. Our whole problem is what we will do about it. So I think our test of whether we are a great people or not is right here before us. We will have to do what our ancestors did in the past. We will have to face the situation as it is and go on from there. That is what we will do here. And 391

the hope is that the almost universal system of education that has prevailed in these United States for, lo, these many years will give us a citizenry that will help us go over the top and do those things which are necessary to keep us on a fairly even keel and adjust ourselves to the new situation. That is your test. It is your test as alumni in doing something at the University. It is a test that lies on all of us. Some have said that if we change the party in power we should be in a different situation. We could not have any different situation. We would be in the same situation with a new party in power. The future is a cross section of the present. That is fundamental. Our test is ahead of us, and some unfolding of the program of the university for the next few years is a part of our problem as alumni. In helping solve that I think we help solve the social requirements of the time. We apply ourselves to specific things, but if we succeed in them, the outcome will have almost universal application. We are engaged in a great cause as alumni. We have something here which will stimulate us. Of course, we have the problem of making a living. We have that every day. But in addition to that we have the problem of living a life. In doing that you have much in addition to making a living. I think if you go ahead from where you are in the best possible fashion you will accomplish something worth while. You cannot go back. Progress is always made to the front. Well, it is a great pleasure to see the former graduates of the institution who are gathered here in this business meeting. I am glad to stand before you, not because of any personality at all, but because of my interest in the University always since 1889 and the opportunity I have had for some participation in university affairs. I have in one way and another been carrying an obligation and meeting an opportunity here. Your obligation is in a measure the same and your opportunity is in a measure the same. We are all bound up in this business of promoting the Ohio State University, at the same time keeping in mind the requirements of the commonwealth, to give us a satisfactory kind of life, a living progress and a citizenship which will solve these problems by adaptability, by the intellect which is here and by the social intelligence which up to date I think almost without exception has marked our being.”813

Charles F. Scott, reported on Rightmire’s career. “The University has now reached the stage where one of its own graduates is retiring from the presidency. No other person has gone through nearly a half century of University relations from freshman to retiring president. You have had opportunity of experience and acquaintance which no- one else has had. You have had a growing understanding of the relationship of its various

813 “Remarks of President George W. Rightmire at the Annual Meeting of the Alumni Association, Saturday, June 11, 1938,” 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 392 parts. You, as an alumnus, can view alumni and University relations with an experience and background which no-one else possesses….” Scott then asked for President

Rightmire to contribute some words of wisdom, based on his background, to the next issue of the Monthly.814

A week before Rightmire retired, he asked Mr. George M. Siebert of the

University Print Shop to distribute the list of university needs to members of the faculty, including lecturers. In his Foreword Rightmire wrote, “The accompanying report is the result of the first united effort of the Ohio State University Faculty to present in an analytical and constructive fashion the urgent needs of the University…. This report is receiving the careful attention of the Ohio State University Development Fund,” and to the OSU Association, and the OSU Board of Trustees. “It is hoped that this [report] will now be made the basis of future appropriations and future solicitations for gifts, and that it will serve for a few years as a guide to the most urgent needs of the institution and as encouragement to their satisfaction.”815

Time magazine reported on the last few days of Rightmire’s presidency. “As busy, as varied and as cosmopolitan as a fair is Ohio State University, fourth largest university in the U. S. Running it is a strenuous job, and this spring gaunt President George

Washington Rightmire told the board of trustees he wanted to retire July 1, just before he becomes 70.” Contrasting this description of a worn out Rightmire with an earlier one,

Time magazine continued,

814 Charles F. Scott (President, The Ohio State University Association) to Rightmire (20 June 1938), 3/f Alumni: The Ohio State University Association and Alumni Club Matters: 1937-38. 815 Rightmire to Faculty, 3/f Forward to a Report on the Needs of the University: June 23, 1938. 393

“A onetime undergraduate football and track star, onetime country schoolteacher, onetime president of the Columbus (Ohio) city council, Dr. Rightmire during twelve years as head of Ohio State has greatly expanded the sideshows and the attendance at the university. Generally regarded as the heir apparent on Ohio State's campus was keen young J. Lewis Morrill, once a newspaperman and now university vice president. Last week the university's board of trustees met to appoint Dr. Rightmire's successor. Then newsmen hurried to the house of 74- year-old Professor-Emeritus William McPherson, former dean of the Graduate School, to startle him with the news that he had been elected the university's acting president. Since the appointment was obviously temporary, observers began speculating. Then they remembered. On August 9, Ohio's Governor Martin Luther Davey will run for renomination in the Democratic pri-mary against former Lieutenant Governor Charles Sawyer. If Governor Davey is defeated, the board of trustees, four of whose seven members he appointed, at a scheduled meeting on August 17 might pluck him the job as Ohio State's president.”816

The July 1938 Monthly reported that The Board of Trustees was expected to make its decision for a new president to replace Rightmire “some time within the next few months.” Further, the Monthly reported that “Informed campus observers feel that Time’s article in its June 25 issue that the delay is due to the influence of Governor Davey who

‘wants the job if defeated in the elections,’ may be misleading. Mr. Davey, in a public statement made several weeks ago, himself declared that he was ‘not qualified.’ The possibility of the Governor’s dictation in the final selection is also the subject of much curbstone gossip.” The Time article pointed out that the reason why it was thought that

Governor Davey might be appointed president of OSU because the majority of the trustees had been appointed by him! 817

816 “After Rightmire.” Time 31, no. 26 (June 27, 1938): 58. Rightmire’s retirement was planned to go into effect on July 1st, 1938. The four members of the Board of Trustees selected during the governorship of Martin Davey (gov. 1935-1939) included, “Lockwood Thompson (of Cleveland), Dr. Burrell Russell (New Philadelphis), Dr. C. J. Altmaier (of Marion), Carlton S. Dargusch (of Columbus). 817 Rightmire’s final official dinner as president was held on June 10, 1938. “University Affairs,” 394

The irony that Rightmire could be replaced by Governor Davey may have been too much for many people, considering the negative publicity he stirred up in his distrust for OSU in the mid 1930s. It was in fact reported that Rightmire did have health some issues at times while in office, but it’s not clear whether Rightmire had always been of slender build.

William McPherson, emeritus professor was in the process of writing a chemistry textbook, but willingly took on the interim presidency (interim pres. July 1, 1938 to

March 1, 1940) having served as acting president just after former President William

Oxley Thompson.818 In Rightmire’s “Last Message to the Alumni,” he reiterated that the state’s resources would need to be “augmented by some kinds of collateral support.” He continued, “[I]t is hoped that the alumni can now think most seriously about supplementing the State and Federal aid, so that the University may constantly move to a higher basis of efficiency and of adaptability to the social and industrial needs of the country.”819 Rightmire’s use of the word “supplementing” appeared to be common, but may not have been the best word choice in advocating for the needs of the university.

December 1938

On December 2, 1938, The OSU Lantern reported that,

“The feature of the observance of Ohio State Day today is the announcement to the alumni of the new Ohio State University Development Fund…. The survey of needs was made at the request of the alumni, who asked former President George

The Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 19, no. 10 (July 1938): 1. 818 Rightmire’s final official dinner as president was held on June 10, 1938. “University Affairs,” The Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 19, no. 10 (July 1938): 1. 819 George W. Rightmire, “Last Message to the Alumni,” The Ohio State University Monthly, vol. 19, no. 10 (July 1938): 6. 395

W. Rightmire last year to tell them what the alumni might do for the University. President Rightmire broadened the scope of the survey to include regular as well as special needs. The resulting report, a historical document in the life of the University, presents a 10-year outlook in the way of University development, to be met by the Legislature as well as by the alumni…. Although the Development Fund plan is being announced to the alumni today, first solicitation of the alumni will not be undertaken until spring….”820

Acting president William McPherson reported that “For the first time, today, the new

Ohio State University Development Fund will be announced to the alumni. Through it, the alumni hope to provide money for special library needs, for research and for facilities for you that cannot be gotten from the Legislature. The background for this activity will be the Report of the Faculty Committee on Urgent University Needs, parts of which are being published in the LANTERN daily, as you know….”821 Here McPherson made it clear that funds requested would go directly to particular needs that could not be met by the Ohio legislature. He attempted to show more explicitly than perhaps others did, that the gifts were requested for needs, rather than something supplementary.

Rightmire’s Report for the Year 1938

Among the “notable gifts” to the institution was that offered by industrialist and former member of the OSU Board of Trustees, Mr. Julius F. Stone. Stone “made it possible to build a cyclotron” to better understand energy and also gave motion speaking picture equipment to the university. Marietta Comly at her death left a will which gave to the University $200,000 to be used in medical research. Further, “The General Education

820 “University Fund Plays Part in Ohio State Day: Propose to Finance University Needs,”OSU Lantern (2 December 1938) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 821 William McPherson (acting OSU President), Memo to Faculty and Instructional Staff, 2 December 1938, in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 396

Board appropriated $36,500 for the study of school broadcasting to be conducted by the

Bureau of Educational Research.”822

Rightmire reported on the “Faculty Study of Urgent Needs.” He said:

“We are coming to the time when the State will experience serious difficulty in financing all of the institutions which call for public support. We are, in fact, facing this situation today and have been for several years. The enormous social claims being made upon the body politic call for more and more of public revenue. Therefore, it seems that such institutions as The Ohio State University must study their urgent needs with a forward look of five to ten years, organize these needs in the most intelligent fashion, and then proceed to present such needs to the State Legislature from time to time.823 These needs must also be presented to the alumni and other individual citizens of Ohio who are interested in the University in the hope that private sources of support may be developed. A dual base for University financing is indicated.”

The 25 faculty members that formed the committee to assess the needs of the university included Alpheus W. Smith, Dean Emeritus William McPherson, Professor E. E. Dreese,

Professor James E. Pollard, Miss Edith D. Cockins, Mr. Carl E. Steeb, and Professor

Harlan H. Hatcher [future President of Michigan]” among others.824 Rightmire made it clear that needs would have to be presented to both the legislature and alumni--it appeared that Rightmire’s focus had finally shifted at the end of his presidency to the alumni and private giving instead of reliance on the state. In attempting to build his case for more money, not just from the state, but from others, he conceded that the state was unable to meet their needs. This is the “first general opportunity” the faculty had to

“study and present analytically the University needs and the work of the committee,

822 George W. Rightmire, President’s Report 1937-1938, in Sixty-Eighth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1938 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1938), 1- 24. Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 6. Rightmire uses a capital “T” when referring to The Ohio State University here. 823 Rightmire uses a capital “T” when referring to The Ohio State University here. 824 Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 9-10. 397 therefore, is of epoch-making significance.” Commenting on the report, Rightmire stated,

“The hope is that this committee report…may present a compelling argument to alumni and other citizens and also to the Legislature for more adequate support.”

Of interest, this “epoch-making” report of needs took Rightmire more than 10 years to create. The leaders of the OSU Association had been encouraging him to create such a list since 1927.

In another section, entitled “State Support,” Rightmire wrote,

“Most cordial recognition of the efforts of the Legislature and the Governor to meet the needs of the University is hereby made; these State authorities have proceeded in the most generous way possible in the present biennium to carry the University increasingly forward and upward. [17,411 students; one million dollars more offered for next biennium to be included at 7 million dollars. ]…. Since this enlargement of University support is taking place in a time in which the Legislature and the Governor of the State are sorely harassed by emergency demands of many kinds, the people of Ohio may take renewed courage from the most liberal and sympathetic efforts of their representatives to meet the needs of higher education.”825

Rightmire continued by asking for new university buildings and commenting on the improvement in employment among graduates. Rightmire explained that more jobs were being filled by graduates than ever before. In 1937, 74% of graduates were finding jobs compared to 40% of graduates who found jobs in 1932.826 Rightmire echoed OSU

President Canfield’s (pres. 1895-1899) remarks made long ago that OSU was essentially and extension of public education that continues beyond the twelfth grade with 13, 14,

15, and 16.827

825 Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 10. 826 Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 11. 827 Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 15. 398

As his presidency was drawing to a close, Rightmire in this annual report included thanks to those who had assisted him. In particular, “Mr. George W. Eckelberry, the

Assistant to the President for twelve years, has covered the whole area of educational interests…. His office staff has been very capable and helpful.”828

Rightmire again included a list of gifts given to the university.

“GIFTS FOR DESIGNATED PURPOSES [TOTALING $226,151.16]….

Michigan Tool Co. …… Research in Mechanical Engineering…$260 Fred Lazarus, Jr. ….Social Administration Expense….$500 Fred Lazarus, Jr. ….Visiting Professor of Economics…..$666.66 Simon Lazarus…. Visiting Professor of Economics…..$666.66 Simon Lazarus…. Visiting Professor of Economics…..$666.68 Progressive Education Association….Commission on Relation of Schools and Colleges…$10,466.67 Progressive Education Association….Research in College of Education…$42,114.14 Rockefeller Foundation….[Radio Evaluation Study, Research in Physiology, and Foreign Language Short Wave Study for a total from Rockefeller of about $47,000] Sears-Roebuck and Co.….Scholarships in College of agriculture ….2,500”829

The creation of the OSU Development Fund, which would become a vehicle extremely important to the financial support of the university, was long in coming. By the time Rightmire retired in 1938, he’d finally become committed to the fact that the university could not survive on state appropriations, and that private fundraising was a necessity for the university. Unfortunately the realization had been gradual, and important fundraising activities long delayed. For example, it took more than ten years and an extensive study by the faculty to create a list of important university needs.

828 Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 20. 829 Rightmire, Annual Report 1937-38, 174. 399

Rightmire saw the successful creation of the Development Fund shortly before his retirement, thanks to encouragement from leader of the OSU Association, including

Fullen, Dougherty, Lincoln, and Drackett.

Rightmire during his presidency had focused on student affairs and academics, rather than fundraising. As William Guthrie said, “So here was a university president who was fairly austere, scholarly type person, but who recognized that his talents were for setting up an organization which would express the openness and the willingness of the university to make student life comfortable and adjust it to the academic pursuits that were primary in every student’s education.”830 Thus, Guthrie felt Rightmire’s legacy was his work with students. It certainly was not the financial wellbeing of the university.

Between Governor Davey and the lethargic approach Rightmire took to private fundraising, OSU missed out on an important window for financial growth, especially of the endowment. Now it would be up to the newly formed OSU Development Fund and a new university president to try to make up for lost time.

830 William Guthrie, interviewed by Robert Sutton, 7 December 1983, Ohio State University Archives, Ohio State University Oral History Program, http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/479. 400

Chapter Seven: The Post-Rightmire Era, 1939-1940

While Rightmire left the university and country, taking a trip to Europe to enjoy his retirement, the Development Fund was still evolving.831 It carried out its first drive which had mixed success. Alumni activity increased over the next couple of years, and football was again used as a medium to motivate alumni to contribute. First William D.

McPherson as acting president, then Howard Bevis as president of OSU, participated in the activities of the Development Fund.

1939

Early in the year 1939, publicity marked a planning meeting of the OSU

Development Fund. “Many of the country’s leaders in business and public life are on the committee which will meet in Columbus Feb. 17 and 18 to discuss plans for the drive….”832 said the Post.

A two-day meeting was held on Feb 17th and 18th 1939.

“From New York, Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit and many other sections, these boosters, 124 strong, whose names would fill a section of ‘Who’s Who,’ came to

831 “To Ex-President,” The Makio [Ohio State University official student yearbook] (Columbus, 1939), 8. 832 “Drackett Heads O.S.U. Campaign: Heekin, Bonham and Brodie Also on Fundraising Committee” The Post (13 Feb 1939) [unpaginated] in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 401

the campus to help make the Development Fund the most significant step in the University’s history…. Gov. Bricker set the keynote when he said at Friday night’s dinner meeting in the Faculty Club:

‘I intend not only to be an honorary member of the National Program Committee of the Development Fund but a working member. For more than a quarter of a century as a student, alumnus and now as governor I have maintained and active interest in the University and I hope to help it become one of the truly great universities of America. In so far as the state’s finances make possible, we can count on the Legislature to support the University adequately. But no state university has reached greatness from public support alone. It must have private support from its friends.’….”833

Harry Drackett was then quoted, explaining how excellent alumni and non-alumni could make a difference. Dr. Charles F. Scott “said the Development Fund would take its place alongside the Ordinance of 1787 and the Morrill Land Grant Act…as the third great step forward in the development of the University. Dr. William D. McPherson, acting president, enriched this thought in his friendly style.” 834

Through the years, Michigan had received $25,000,000 from alumni contributions compared to Ohio State’s $685,000. The launch of the OSU Development Fund was described in the following newspaper clippings:

“‘How We did it at Michigan’ was the subject of the highly informative talk by Wilfred B. Shaw, director of the Bureau of Alumni Relations at the University of Michigan. He told Ohio State’s friends that: 1. Michigan has been the beneficiary of $48,500,000 in private gifts from its friends. 2. Alumni gifts alone have totaled $25,000,000. 3. In the past six years a total of $3,000,000 has been contributed by the alumni to supplement state revenues.

833 “Development Program Launched: Governor Bricker Heads List of 124 Distinguished Citizens Who call Alumni and Friends to Provide Special Needs” (March 1939; p. 3 of [The Monthly?]) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 834 “Development Program Launched: Governor Bricker Heads List of 124 Distinguished Citizens Who call Alumni and Friends to Provide Special Needs” (March 1939; p. 3 of [The Monthly?]) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 402

“‘What the friends of Michigan have done at Ann Arbor the friends of Ohio State can do for your university, I am sure,’ said Mr. Shaw. ‘Michigan is 50 years older than Ohio State and got an earlier start on its gift program. You are to be congratulated upon the fine conception and organization of your Development Fund.’

(Charts exhibited at the meeting showed that since Ohio State’s founding in 1870 contributions from alumni have totaled $685,037 including $480,000 for the Stadium. During the past six years Ohio State received $85,000 in gifts from her alumni.)…

Mr. Drackett announced and explained the first year’s goal of $75,000, terming it a ‘practice hear’ for the annual programs which are to come. Vice President J.L. Morrill, Arts, ’13, inspired the alumni workers with an address at the luncheon meeting closing the sessions Saturday. He said:

‘The big job of the Development Fund will be to habituate the practice of alumni giving to the University. That’s the challenge and I am confident our alumni will meet it.’

Another speaker at the luncheon, George M. Trautman, Agr., ’14. President of the American Baseball Association, spoke personally of the many fine things the University had done for him” Solicitations were expected to being on April 1st.”835

April 1939

The modest goals of the organized fundraising campaign were outlined by Roy E.

Layton (an attorney), who served as chairman of a new branch of The Ohio State

University Development Fund in Auglaize county. It was reported that “This is the first organized effort by Ohio State alumni since the drive for funds to build the Ohio Stadium in 1920-22. It differs from the latter in that it is the first of a series of annual campaigns.

835 “Development Program Launched: Governor Bricker Heads List of 124 Distinguished Citizens Who call Alumni and Friends to Provide Special Needs” (March 1939; p. 3 of [The Monthly?]) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 403

The goal of $75,000 for the first year is small enough to preclude any ‘high pressure’ salesmanship, according to Layton, chairman of the local campaign.”836

Meanwhile, The OSU Development Fund created a series of advertisements that were used to attract new donors into giving. Here are two similar examples. The one on the left is early on in the fundraising effort, while the other was clearly later.

Figure 4. Advertisements, The Ohio State University Development Fund, [c. 1939]837

Another flyer ad (on the right) replicated the earlier one (on the left) but included a few significant differences besides including higher numbers for additional funds

836 “O.S.U. Alumni to Raise Funds: Local Lawyer to Head Annual Drive Among Old Grads in This County” (8 April 1939) Wapakoneta, O. News in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives 837 “Yea, Ohio!” [c. 1939] in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. The later flyer Northwestern, Minnesota, and Michigan, “Yea, Ohio!” Flyer in year 1939?] in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 404 received since the first one was published.838 The revised ad included the needs (“student loans, scholarships, and research equipment”) that would be offset by funds.

The line in the flyer, “Yours is On the 40-Yard Line” was further clarified in the later flyer, so that it was only 40 yards away from the opponent’s goal line. This clarification may have improved the football analogy--at least it is in the opponent’s territory (past the half-way fifty yard line marker). The line, “Those Able to Make the

Larger Gifts are Doing Their Share” was removed completely from the later flyer.

Perhaps the insinuation that those making smaller gifts were not doing their share was pointed out and omitted from the revised version. Michigan and Minnesota were included on both versions of the flyer, while Illinois was included on the first and Northwestern on the second (probably due to the current game schedule and rivalries).

McPherson’s Report for the Year 1939839

In Acting President William McPherson’s first report, he stated that on March 14th

Rightmire announced his intention to retire, his resignation was accepted by the Board of

Trustees on May 9th, and he served his last day on June 30th. He was given $5,000 per year in retirement to teach law classes and to help create a pictorial history of Ohio State

University.840

During Rightmire’s administration (1925-1938), the enrollment increased from

11,658 to 17,411 (49 percent increase); the value of land, buildings, and equipment

838 “Yea, Ohio!” [c. 1939] OSU Archives. 839 William McPherson, President’s Report 1938-1939, in Sixty-Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University to the Governor of Ohio, for the Year Ending June 30, 1939 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1939), 1-27. Ohio Governor was John W. Bricker. 840 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 1. 405 increased 68% from $14,100,433 to $23,670,102.841 George W. Eckelberry, Assistant to the President, also retired and “resumed his position as Professor of Accounting.”842

McPherson summarized the fiscal matters of the university which were still problematic. The university asked for 8.8 million for the 1939-40 biennium. This was one million less than what was asked for ten years previous, even though student enrollment had increased 22 per cent over the decade. The state could only offer $7,372,955, however. This was $371,000 more than previous biennium.

McPherson reported on a special trip made by Ohio State administrators and state of Ohio contingency. “Through the interested generosity of two members of the Alumni

Association,” the contingency conducted “an inspection tour of the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan so that these officials and legislative leaders might see at first hand and make constructive comparisons of the facilities at the state universities in these two neighboring states with those of the Ohio State University….The defeat of this bill [that would have subsidized educational buildings] was serious to the Ohio State

University which has not received for eight years any state appropriation for the construction of a major building on the University campus.”843 This meant that since

1931, the university had been in need of funds for campus buildings.

Partially blamed for the lack of needed funding was the competition OSU faced with five other state universities in Ohio. “Inter-University Council of Ohio [January

841 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 3. 842 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 7. 843 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 10. The Governor, secretary, Lieutenant Governor, the State Director of Finance, the Budget Commissioner, Chairmen of Finance Committees, Educational Sub- sections of the House and Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the majority of floor leaders of both house and senate participated on this trip to Illinois and Michigan. 406

1939 launched]…. Anyone acquainted with the general organization of public education in Ohio cannot fail to realize that the state has had no well-planned program of higher education. Not only are there five state universities--an unprecedented number, not found in any other state--but more serious is the fact that there has been certainly in recent decades little or no coordination among these universities.”844 And recall that Carnegie had denied pension benefits to Ohio universities for this reason as well. OSU was indeed weakened by its competitive relationship with other state funded colleges and universities within Ohio.

Presidents, business managers, and other key administrative members were invited to a meeting to discuss funding from the state. Among attendees included Ohio

University, Miami University, Ohio State University, Kent State University, and Bowling

Green State University. They met with “a view to discussing common problems and with the hope that these universities might agree upon a system of corporation that would redound to the good of the whole cause of higher education in the state.” At the meeting items of business that were discussed included state finances and high enrollments, and participants hoped to revisit the idea set forth by the Ohio legislature in 1906 that declared that Ohio University and Miami University would focus more on the liberal arts side and offer mainly masters of arts degrees at the highest. The question was asked by

OSU,

“Is it likely, or possible, that the state will or can continue much longer this policy of ‘laissez-faire’ in dealing with the problem? If not, should the Ohio State University…make proposals to other state universities…avoiding uneconomical

844 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 11. 407

duplication of educational offerings and facilities where possible? …. [T]he conclusion is inescapable and must be frankly faced by all concerned that the state cannot and should not embark upon the impossible purpose to build five equally large, highly specialized and all equivalent universities capable of comparison with such single outstanding institutions in surrounding states as the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota, the University of Illinois, and the like.”

The assertion was made that OSU should pursue Ph.D.s and move away from “junior college work in liberal arts, education, business, and commerce.” It was determined that one member of the Board of Trustees at each institution would meet with other institutional representatives four times each year. The other institutions were in agreement that “in the interest of efficiency and economy, a coordinated program of nurture and support which will strengthen each of the five state universities…” OSU

“having acted as the proponent of this important issue” took “some pride and satisfaction” in bringing this Inter-University Council together. Acting President

McPherson was elected chairman and J. L. Morrill elected secretary.845

In a lengthy discussion on “alumni relations,” the previous year had, according to

McPherson,

“witnessed the most active interest in the alumni relations in the history of the University. John B. Fullen, the Executive Secretary of the Ohio State University Association, has been primarily responsible for arousing this interest and guiding it. During the year the Ohio State University Development Fund launched its program with an organization meeting in November and its first campaign in spring of 1939. The launching of this program is epochal. For the first time in the history of the Ohio State University it has been organized, under the stimulus of alumni, to enlist the support of its friends in a permanent giving program. In the future the alumni and other friends of the University through gifts wisely allocated to help point the direction of its future development.… The Faculty

845 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 12-15. 408

Study of Urgent University Needs, reported in the President’s Report for 1937-38, provided the basis of the Project List which suggested the objectives of the first annual campaign program. All of the needs listed in the Development Fund’s Project were described so as to acquaint friends with the activities of the University, perhaps as this has not been done before, and so presented as to appeal to their sympathetic interest. The objective of the first annual program was $75,000. Needs listed include:

“Forty-six pieces of research apparatus and other equipment 1. Special Library needs 2. A President’s Emergency Fund 3. Student Loan Funds, scholarships and fellowships 4. A Portrait in oil of Dr. George W. Rightmire 5. A Joseph V. Denney Memorial Shakespeare Collection.

“The first annual campaign was launched in March 1939. As this report goes to the printers 2400 persons have contributed just under $60,000 toward the $75,000 objective. To the members of the Board of Directors, and especially to Harry R. Drackett, the chairman of the Board, and also to John B. Fullen, the Executive Secretary of the Ohio State University Association, the University owes a sincere debt of gratitude. To assist Mr. Fullen in his increased duties, D. E. Proctor has been appointed Assistant Executive Secretary of the Development Fund and Pat J. Kirwin, Assistant Secretary of the Ohio State University Association.” 846

The President’s report indicated that Charles W. Racine of Toledo was elected the new alumni president by the 7500 members of the alumni association. Racine had been president of the Ohio State Bar two years previous and now replaced Dr. Charles F. Scott,

Professor Emeritus of Yale University. Yale had been effective in its own fundraising efforts and seemed to have influenced Scott’s work with OSU. McPherson reported that

“During Dr. Scott’s able two year regime as president of the Association the University witnessed a real upsurge in alumni activity. During that time the Development Fund was conceived and organized, the district alumni organization dividing the alumni clubs into

846 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 15-18. 409 districts was perfected, and the alumni initiated the new men’s dormitory project on the campus.”847

Meanwhile, Dr. A. Ray Olpin, from Columbia, was brought in as a new director of The Ohio State University Research Foundation. It’s purpose “to promote educational objectives by encouraging, fostering, and conducting scientific investigations and industrial research; by training and developing persons for the conduct of such investigations and research and by acquiring and disseminating knowledge in relation thereto.” Fellowships were added across the university and the Research Foundation led an Industrial Research Conference where prominent business executives were asked to speak.848

In a section called, “Selection of the Most Prominent Gifts,” McPherson highlighted money given from various donors, industries, and foundations that included the American Petroleum Institute’s “investigation of Pure Hydrocarbon, Rockefeller

Foundation--Radio Evaluation Study ($38,700), and The Comly and Coleman Fund for

Medical and Surgical Research ($200,000),” and $40,000 worth of Cyclotron equipment.849

Praise was given for money offered to graduate scholarships and fellowships.

Each were listed this year in the body of the President’s report. Of the thirty nine types, six were paid from the interest on deposited funds, that is “Paid from the income from

847 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 15-18. 848 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 15-18. Olpin was recruited from this position to become the president of the University of Utah on July 1, 1946. 849 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 20, 23. 410 gifts of money deposited in the State Treasury.” At this time endowment money

(including the land-grant funds) was actually stored with state treasury.

Elizabeth Clay Howald Scholarships…$6,000 Stillman W. Robinson Fellowship……...$750 Lumley Memorial Fellowship………...$1,060 Lamme Scholarships…………………….$900 N. W. Lord Fellowship……………….…$750 John A. Bownocker Scholarships……..$1,350850

Student enrollment had risen by four percent since the previous year, bringing the numbers to 18,067, “the largest number ever registered in the University during any year in its history.” McPherson summarized the accomplishments of the 1938-1939 academic year, “The inception of such projects as the University Development Fund, the Inter-

University Council and the Ohio State University Retirement Income Plan must be regarded as of outstanding importance by everyone. Gifts have been generous and promise to increase from year to year.”851

1940

McPherson had taken over the presidency twice: once in 1924 for a short time and after Thompson retired, and again in 1937 after Rightmire retired. He was about 73 years old when he took over the presidency the second time. McPherson had been dean of the

Graduate School from 1911 to 1937, and when he moved to acting president of the

850 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 24-25. These six endowment funds are still intact today. See Ohio State’s Bursar’s office website for details. Though the thirty-three other fellowships and scholarships were generously provided by “various industrial organizations and individuals,” it was not clear in the report which were, in fact, perpetual funds, whereby the interest on a fund was used and the principal was kept in contact. 851 McPherson, Annual Report 1938-39, 27. 411 university, George F. Arps succeeded him as dean. Arps served in this position until his death in 1939.852

Who Would Replace Rightmire? Nobel prize winner for physics, Dr. Arthur H. Compton, was asked by the Ohio

State University board of trustees on March 12th, 1939 to replace Rightmire who had retired on July 1, 1938.853 Compton, originally of Wooster, Ohio, however, preferred to stay at the University of Chicago and subsequently took a leading role assisting with the

Manhattan project that developed the atomic bomb. Instead of Compton, Howard Landis

Bevis became Ohio State’s seventh president. Before coming to OSU, Bevis had practiced law in Cincinnati and “served again as state finance director during the first part of the administration of Governor Martin L. Davey. In 1935 he became Ziegler professor of law and government at Harvard University….”854 Bevis abdicated his Harvard tenured professorship to become president of Ohio State University.855 He would serve as president until 1956.

Many speakers took part in the inauguration proceedings of OSU President Bevis on October 24 and 25 of 1940, including Harvard President James B. Conant. President

Conant addressed those in attendance on October 25th: “When the history of American

852 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 1, 3. Dean Dean George F. Arps had been a Professor of Pscyhology since 1912 and served as Dean of the College of Education from 1920 to 1937. 853 “Ohio State Wants Compton,” New York Times (13 March 1939): 14. 854 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940- 1956 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1967), Part 1: The University in a World at War, 1940-1945, p. 2. 855 Pollard, James E. History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940- 1956. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1967. Part 1: The University in a World at War, 1940-1945, p. 2. “Becomes Ohio State Head,” New York Times (Feb 2, 1940): 20. 412 education during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries comes to be written, the development of the state-supported universities will be the dominant theme. The tremendous growth of these institutions during the first half of the twentieth century is a unique phenomenon. This growth will be recorded by historians as clear evidence that the optimistic intellectual courage born of the fifteenth century Renaissance was, five centuries later, still driving westward with undiminished vigor.”856

Though Rightmire’s term as President of OSU immediately preceded Bevis’s,

Bevis’s inauguration’s ceremony paid many tributes to Rightmire’s predecessor,

President William Oxley Thompson, rather than highlight the accomplishment’s of the

Rightmire’s presidency. Dwelling on growth and expansion, Thompson was acknowledged as a visionary.857

Besides select remarks from President Bevis, there was little direct mention of private fundraising in the inauguration proceedings. Bevis admonished the American public to support the university, arguing that people are more stable in their ability to fund the university than an endowment fund is able to. Bevis elaborated by citing the then current debate that endowment income was not stable, since it had the tendency to

856 “James B. Conant, “The University and a Free Society,” in History of The Ohio State University, V. 5. Addresses and Proceedings of the Inauguration of Howard Landis Bevis, October 24 and 25, 1940. Edited by William McPherson and Harold Kent Schellenger (Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1941), 25, 34. Later, historian Benedict Anderson defined a nation as an imagined political community. Though, Conant acknowledged the “artificial” construction of higher education, he appeared to place it within a more clearly defined notion of “state or nation.” See Benedict R. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991), 6. (First published in 1983). 857 History of The Ohio State University, V. 5. Addresses and Proceedings of the Inauguration of Howard Landis Bevis, October 24 and 25, 1940. Edited by William McPherson and Harold Kent Schellenger (Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1941), 413 fluctuate, and relayed the question of whether the principal portion of a fund should be spent. Bevis noted that:

“American support of institutions of higher learning is a phenomenon unique in history. Private benefactions and public appropriations have provided housing and equipment on a scale almost beyond imagination. Neither distance nor expense separates the child of poverty from the opportunities of learning. And the demand has grown with the opportunity…. The decades of our development have gradually shifted the pivot of support from private endowment to public appropriation and the pros and cons of the development have been much discussed. Only of recent years has it become apparent, however, that public support by a great commonwealth, which believes in the benefits of education, is a more stable reliance over the long run than a portfolio of securities whose values fluctuate and whose yields tempt no one to berate the profit motive. So acutely have we become aware of this situation that educational financiers are questioning the sacredness of capital accounts; the heterodox even advocate the consumption of principal. To the extent that this trend continues the responsibilities of public institutions increase. My personal hope is that the trend may be stayed and reversed. Private and public education should be supplementary. But in any contingency the demands upon tax supported institutions are bound to grow heavier, and the provision of tax revenues for their support more difficult. Our burden of taxation mounts steadily and is approaching some ultimate limit. Social security and relief add their insistent demands to those of other public services with which education has long competed for its share of the tax dollar. We who are charged with the responsibility for fostering education have need to look to our facts, for the case will finally be won or lost upon their cogency. It has traditionally been difficult to interest private donors in tax-supported universities. The reasons, I suppose, are understandable; yet as the public institutions approach the private ones in the capacity to perform equivalent services, there seems to be no conclusive reason for the preference. Indeed, exceptions to the rule are occasionally in evidence and the trend seems to be increasing. Our university, in fact, receives each year an astonishing number of donations, though the aggregate is not large in comparison with our total budget. We welcome and shall seek to merit private support, but we shall, of course, have to rely chiefly upon the generosity of the people as represented in the General Assembly…. We recognize, indeed, that the funds given us to use are the product of human toil. Save the small amount accruing from the original grant of government land, we derive little support directly from the bounty of nature. We subsist from wealth that is made. And this fact is an admonition to frugal administration.”858

858 President Howard Landis Bevis, “Inaugural Address,” in History of The Ohio State University, V. 5. Addresses and Proceedings of the Inauguration of Howard Landis Bevis, October 24 and 25, 1940. 414

Though Bevis presented arguments found on both sides of the debate, public support from the state and private support from donors, he seemed to mitigate the power that endowment income can provide an institution. The “original grant” or land grant income itself was considered very small even by Bevis’s day. He suggested that it was the hardworking taxpayers who contribute money to legislatures who represent the state that ultimately provide the basic funds for operation. No longer could state institutions rely on state funding alone, both “[p]rivate and public education should be supplementary,” meaning that both private and public institutions should rely on

“supplementary” funds for support. Note that Bevis uses the term, “supplementary,” here in terms of the state context, even though “supplementary” funds for a private university appeared to be generally considered more essential.

Like his predecessor Rightmire, Bevis centered his attention and gratitude on the state for supporting the university. Private donations were appreciated, but not aggressively praised or sought after.

Bevis, now member of the OSU Development Fund committee, worked alongside the same alumni leaders who had pushed Rightmire to prioritize private funding: Morrill,

Lincoln, Fullen, Drackett and others.

By 1940, the OSU Development Fund leaders were comprised of the following individuals:

“Officers and Board of Directors:

Edited by William McPherson and Harold Kent Schellenger (Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1941), 41-42. 415

Harry R. Drackett, Chairman (President, The Drackett Co., Cincinnati, Ohio) Samuel N. Summer, Vice Chairman (President, Summer and Co.) Carl E. Steeb, Treasurer (Business Manager, O.S.U.) Mrs. Therese Erb Poston (Columbus, Ohio) James F. Lincoln (President, The Lincoln Electric Co., Cleveland Ohio) Willard M. Kiplinger (Pres. Kiplinger Washington Agency, Washington D.C. Julius F. Stone, Hon., President, The Seagrave Corp. Columbus, Ohio) L.L. Rummell, Public Relations Dept. Kroger Company, Cincinnati, Ohio Howard L. Bevis, President, O. S. U., Columbus, Ohio J. L. Morrill, Vice President, O. S. U., Columbus, Ohio John B. Fullen, Executive Secretary D. E. Proctor, Asst. Executive Secretary”859

859 List slightly adapted. Ohio State University Development Fund, “Something to Shoot at for 1941: Objectives,” in Development Fund Newspaper Clippings, OSU Archives. 416

Figure 5. An Advertisement for the OSU Development Fund860

The fund was intended for student loans, scholarships and fellowships, Alumni

Scholarship House, laboratory, medical equipment, and other miscellaneous Purposes.

The idea of a living endowment, indicated that money donated would be put to use immediately for present needs, rather than shelved to fund future priorities.

On January 5, 1940, a report of the OSU Development fund was given. “The first annual drive of the University Development Fund is now closed with contributions of

860 Ohio State University Development Fund ,“Something to Shoot at for 1941: Objectives,” in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 417

$59,840 towards the goal of $75,000. While the expected goal was not realized, total contributions were exceeded only by five other universities with similar drives. Thus, for the first attempt, the campaign was nearly four-fifths successful in terms of actual money collected….” The fund was actually used for student loan funds, books, microfilms, labs, president and deans’ emergency funds. But it is not clear from these sources how much of these funds were placed into permanent endowment.861

Bevis’s Report for the Year 1940

The first report of President Bevis looked very similar to the previous year’s

President’s report.862 Bevis discussed leadership changes, gifts to the university, and alumni activities. He discussed changes to administration as follows:

“Miss M. Edith Campbell retired as a member of the Board of Trustees May 14, 1940, having served as chairman during the preceding year. [7 years of service]…. One of two women ever to serve as a Trustee of the University…. Miss Campbell was succeeded on the Board of Trustees by Mr. Charles F. Kettering, distinguished alumnus of Ohio State University and one of the world’s leading engineers. Mr. Kettering brings to the University not only the great ability of scholarly and scientific analysis of problems, but experience in the specific duties of a Trustee as well, having served on the Board of his Alma Mater from 1917 to 1923. Mr. Kettering was graduated from Ohio State University in 1904 with the degree of Mechanical Engineer. In 1929 he was awarded the honorary degree of Doctor of Engineering for his world-famed achievements in science and engineering.”863

861 “Development Fund Drive Succeeds Even Though--“ Lantern (5 January 1940) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 862 Howard L. Bevis, President’s Report 1939-1940, in Seventieth Annual Report of the Board of Trustees To the Governor, For the Year Ending June 30, 1940 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1940), 1-13. Ohio Governor was John W. Bricker. 863 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 1. 418

Bevis highlighted the gifts of the university. “Each year as the circle of friends increases, the University is the recipient of additional gifts and endowments. A most heartening fact is that the number of donors is increasing each year, even though the amounts contributed are not always large. Moreover, as is the case with donors to the

Alumni Development Fund, donors to the University are getting in the habit of giving, and are repeating their gifts year after year…..[D]uring the year ended June 30, 1940, the

University received gifts and endowments totaling more than $287,000 for general and designated purposes.”864 Bevis went on to distinguish how much was raised for each.865

The Ohio State University Research Foundation worked with businesses to support grants and projects. Equipment used for research work was kept by the foundation, unless otherwise specified.866

Similar to what McPherson said in the previous year’s report, “[T]he year just closed witnessed the most active interest in the alumni relations in the history of the

University.” Bevis continued,

“The first annual campaign of the Ohio State University Development Fund was launched in March, 1939. During the year more than 3300 alumni contributed in excess of $75,000. Major allotments from the fund for the year were: $6,600 to loan funds; $8,000 to scholarships, fellowships and other student aids; $4,300 to the library; $3,000 to the President’s emergency fund; $3,000 to the Denney Memorial Shakespeare Collection; and $15,000 to research apparatus and equipment which included $3,200 to cyclotron equipment. To the members of the Board of Directors, and especially to Harry R. Drackett, the chairman of the Board, and also to John B. Fullen, the Executive Secretary of the Ohio State University Association, the University owes a sincere debt of gratitude.”867

864 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 7. 865 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 7. 866 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 7. 867 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 9. Bevis used lowercase “t” when referring to “The Ohio State University Association.” 419

So Bevis felt that the Development Fund was already proving successful. He noted that on August 16th, 1939, the Board of Trustees approved the university plan for retirement income and university plan for group insurance.868 He also said,

“We count the numbers of our students, alumni, faculty, and friends; we add up the gifts, scholarships and endowments; and we itemize our buildings, equipment and other tangible assets. But there is much more to a University than mere numbers of people and things, something infinitely more important, namely, the quality of those people and things ant the manner in which they are integrated and coordinated. …. The family has long since outgrown its house. As indicated previously, several buildings and considerable equipment are urgently needed…. The University has not had a thorough-going inventory and critical analysis of its activities for nearly a decade. It is time for another such inventory, and it is hoped that one can be made during the next biennium which will be even more comprehensive than that made by the Klein Committee in 1933.”869

Bevis evidently didn’t consider the recent list of needs compiled by the committee of 25 faculty as a “thoroughgoing inventory.” Overall however, Bevis seemed pleased with the work done so far by the Development Fund.

Almost a year later, in March 1941, Bevis commented on the work of the OSU

Development Fund.

“The real meaning of the Fund--and of your part in it--comes from a new realization on the part of students, faculty and administration that our former students believe in Ohio State and are behind it. A lot of lip service is being given to national defense’ these days. We’re busy with armaments and mobilization. But these are only the mechanisms of defense. The real issue is the spirit of our people toward the American institutions these mechanisms are designed to defend. So, when we see you--and so many others digging into your pockets to show your faith, we are assured. Public education needs to do a qualitative as well as a quantitative job these days, and you’re helping Ohio State to do both….” 870

868 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 10. 869 Bevis, Annual Report 1939-40, 13. 870 Howard L. Bevis to “List of givers to the Development Fund” (March 1941) in Newspaper Clippings, The OSU Development Fund, OSU Archives. 420

While the university presidency changed hands twice between 1938 and 1940, the

Development Fund was beginning to fulfill its purpose. Though Bevis, like his predecessors, was very interested in courting state funding, the Development Fund was already up and running and it seems Bevis did see the benefit, though perhaps not the potential, of the Development Fund. Using football and national defense to attract the attention of an increasingly large and interested alumni body, the Development Fund began to gain momentum in the early 1940s.

421

Conclusion

The Ohio State University’s finances and endowment have made significant progress since the early 1940s. As Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), British historian and philosopher, noted with “challenge and response” Ohio State University had experienced a challenge--it lagged significantly behind other Ohio and peer universities in fundraising and endowment building--and now its response led to a series of successes.871 Though

The Ohio State University, like many public universities in the early 1900s, faced the challenge of inadequate state appropriations, it created a culture of giving that helped it’s future growth. Though OSU’s responses to this challenge of inadequate funding unsuccessful early on, overtime, OSU experienced success in raising money and endowment building.

In the 1920s, state economy and public sentiment was in Ohio State University’s favor. A diverse economy, an interested body of alumni, the successful examples of

Harvard, Yale, the University of Michigan, and other universities all should have prompted an active alumni fund, other private fundraising, and endowment building. In

871 Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1934-1962. 12 Volumes. 422 other words OSU should have maintained or increased its financial lead over other public universities in neighboring states.

However, despite its lead and the many factors in its favor, OSU lost its momentum and actually fell behind other universities, including its rival, the University of Michigan, during the period from 1920 to 1940. A number of factors influenced this failure to progress financially, including other public and private Ohio schools siphoning off available resources, the emphasis on fundraising for athletics, the divided schools of medicine and homeopathy, and the financial setbacks caused by Governor Martin

Davey’s vetoes.

As significant as these financial concerns were, they were far outweighed by the unwillingness of Presidents Thompson and Rightmire to engage in private fundraising.

Each through the majority of his presidency unwittingly relied on the state to provide for the necessities of the university and for far too long ignored the growing need to engage personally in private fundraising. Hence delays plagued the start up of the Development

Fund and other private fundraising endeavors, and OSU lost its financial lead.

For these reasons, The Ohio State University, founded during the land grant movement, is an important case study of private fundraising and endowment building during the early 1900s. Thompson, Rightmire, and others, while rightfully recognized for their important contributions to the university, were too slow to emphasize and build the university endowment through private fundraising and too slow to utilize the alumni.

These administrators seemed to feel restricted in their fundraising because of the public nature of the university (as opposed to private universities who were expected to engage

423 in private fundraising), and because of their other roles within the university. Many

Ohioans were willing to support the university with donations large and small, but as the primary sources suggest, it would take a concerted effort from alumni, through the OSU

Development Fund, to make significant progress in collecting gifts on a large level.

In sum, Ohio State was ahead of Michigan in terms of raising endowment from

1895 to 1920, but due to political, economic, and administrational failures on the part of

Ohio State, a gap arose and widened between the universities with regard to the solicitation of private funds and in endowment building. It appears that programs to build the endowment were slow in formation, since there were many critics who feared offending the state which provided essential revenue streams. Michigan was therefore able to succeed where it had earlier fallen short in comparison to Ohio State. OSU delayed, apparently failing to recognize the value of endowment building. By the early

1940s, the difference between Michigan and Ohio State was nearly insurmountable. It appears that Ohio State’s reticence to engage in endowment building significantly detracted from the school’s ability to compete for endowment size. 2012 figures put

Michigan’s endowment at more than three times that of Ohio State.872

Despite the grueling economic situation that affected the state of Ohio, the Great

Depression was instrumental in helping Ohio State see the value in raising money from

872 University of Michigan’s endowment boasted $7.69 billion compared to Ohio State University’s $2.37 billion in 2012. “U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2012 Endowment Market Value and Percentage Change in Endowment Market Value from FY 2011 to FY 2012.” National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2012NCSEPublicTablesEndowmentMarketValuesFinalJanuar y232013.pdf . Sometime between 1915 and 1920, Michigan technically surpassed Ohio State in the amount of total university endowment. Ohio State had been in the lead since 1895. For endowment values in 1915 and 1920, see U.S. Commissioner of Education, Report for the Year ended June 30, 1916 [The Year covered was 1915], v. 2, pp. 239, 253-319; U.S. Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education 1920- 22, pp. 384-425. 424 private sources. During the economic lull there were opportunities to progress financially and that ultimately initiated creativity in securing funding from alternative sources.

Though major philanthropists were still giving heavily through the Great Depression, state funding was not so reliable. The Ohio State University state subsidy dropped forty percent to $6 million dollars during the depression. This decrease was heavily influenced by the poor relationship between President Rightmire and Ohio Governor Martin L.

Davey (gov. 1935-1939).873 While it appeared Rightmire was modest in his requests for appropriations and the state legislature willing to support the school, Davey was not willing to allow the full appropriation planned by the legislature. However, a positive stroke for the university was hidden in this financial setback. With decreased state funding, administrators looked to other sources of income, notably gifts from alumni and other friends of the University. Other public institutions in Ohio already had significant endowments. In 1935-36, Ohio State’s endowment value was $1,158,318 compared to the University of Cincinnati’s value of $9,146,438, both publicly controlled universities.874 Thus, thanks to the difficult economic circumstances of the university, the steps were finally taken to join the other state universities already heavily engaged in private fundraising. It became the time at which Ohio State university to take its place as turned toward becoming a financially successful institution that not only drew on state funds, but on interest from endowments as well.

873 The Ohio Historical Society. “Martin L. Davey.” Available online at http://www.ohiohistory.org/ 874 University of Cincinnati had merged with Cincinatti College in 1918 and made significant gains in endowment since that point. Office of Education. “Statistics of Higher Education, 1935-36” in Biennial Survey of Education in the United States: 1934-36. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938, pp. 276-277. 425

Though by today’s standards, the money initially raised by the Development Fund appeared small and insignificant, it was the beginning of a large movement to gain outside sources of revenue for OSU. Now donations are accumulated such as that made by Leslie H. Wexner who in 1986 donated $10 million to assist in constructing a building for the Center for the Visual Arts. On the reception of this particular gift, Pres. Jennings commented that Wexner’s gift “will provide an immeasurable impetus for our new endeavors in private fund raising.”875

Rightmire had achieved at the end of his administration what he had considered but never succeeded at in his beginning administrative years. It appeared Rightmire had the same difficulty as his predecessor, Thompson. Each at the beginning of his presidency focused on courting the state legislature for funds, only to acknowledge later that the state alone could not provide for the needs of the university. The delay in seeking private funding for the university was an attitude which changed for Rightmire once

Governor Davey interfered with the passing of the state appropriations for the university.

The OSU Association and the Development Fund, though slow in their formation, became active tools on behalf of the university, thanks to Fullen, Morrill, Dougherty, and others. The Ohio State University, which fell so far behind other universities in endowment building, in subsequent years improved drastically in receiving alumni donations.876 By the time Rightmire retired, the Development fund was just beginning to

875 “Les Wexner makes $10 million gift,” pp. 1-2 in “Developments: The Ohio State University Campaign,” 3, no.1 (Winter) 1986, The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” Up to that point, however, the late Col. Ralph D. Mershon bequested $11,267,654 to create the Mershon Fund. 876 James E. Pollard, History of the Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 335-36. 426 make progress. Overall, The Ohio State University Development Fund as conceived by

Rightmire and his contemporaries was slow in its formation, but it was the first undertaking of its kind at OSU and the foundation for future fundraising endeavors.

With increased digitization and text recognition of primary sources, it is expected that future scholars will be enabled to gather text from original sources with increased ease. It is hoped that the primary sources used extensively in this dissertation may be useful to others studying aspects of fundraising and university administration in the early

1900s.

The years from 1904 to 1940 saw much change in state appropriations and fundraising efforts at The Ohio State University. The challenges faced by OSU during this time remain relevant today. Institutions need to be innovative in fundraising policies in order to face faltering economies and prevalent social transformations. Issues of public and private fundraising, including endowment building, are vital to any discussion of educational reform or re-invention. Endowment funds, though sometimes overly- restrictive, can maintain intergenerational equity in higher education.

427

Epilogue

Here are some turning points for Ohio State University’s fundraising path, which may be helpful in illustrating progress since 1940.

By October 1948, at the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Celebration of the Ohio State

University, Lew Morrill was invited back, as President Howard L. Bevis noted, as “head of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, one of the greatest, most powerful organizations in America….”877

President Bevis applauded the progress of the university and the Morrill Land

Grant fund (1861) whose proceeds contributed to the formation of what would become

Ohio State. Bevis reflected, “We can smile now with complacent hindsight at the forecast made of this university in 1870 by the Cleveland Herald: ‘We make the prophecy that the time will prove the College [now Ohio State] to be a failure and the fund [for its establishment] to have been wasted.’ The Cleveland Herald is now defunct.

We are reasonably sure now that the enterprise has not failed and that the money has not been wasted.”878

877 Howard L. Bevis, “Opening Remarks,” October 14th, 1948. , pp. 13-14 in The Ohio State University. History of The Ohio State University V. 6. Addresses and Proceedings of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary, 1948-49. Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1951. 878 The brackets in the above quotation are not my own. I was unable to confirm the existence of the cited then “defunct” primary source. See pp. 35-36 of Howard L. Bevis, “Our Diamond Jubilee,” pp. 428

Despite fluctuating economic and social factors, gifts continued to come to the university. James Pollard noted “a sharp increase in giving to the University” in the decade after the Second World War. This giving was,

“fostered substantially by the steady growth of gifts through the University Development Fund. But it received its biggest boost in 1952 through the multi- million dollar Ralph D. Mershon bequest. In those years also there were several other substantial windfalls, running into six figures each. By mid-1956 the University’s endowment had risen to some $13.5 million as against $2 million at the end of fiscal 1944-45. [The] 1956 figure was still modest by contrast with the endowments of Michigan, Harvard and Yale, for example, but the encouraging sign lay in the steady increase in giving, much of it unsolicited…. [The] endowment figure as of June 30, 1956 was $13,540,616.90, of which $9,692,504.27 constituted the Ralph D. Mershon Fund. But this was not the true picture since the figure given the latter was a book value while the market value of the common stocks therein was $13,709,710.40. So a truer figure for the total endowment then still carried in the irreducible debt of the state was more like $17.5 million. If anything, the showing in terms of the Development Fund was relatively even more spectacular. In 1945, 8,923 donors gave $278,708 to the University through the Fund. In 1956 the corresponding figures were 25,254 givers and $800,144 in gifts. For the 11-year period, there were 203,000 individual gifts, including the Mershon bequest, totaling $12,503,561…. For some years [Mershon] had also contributed $10,000 annually to the Development Fund.”879

It seemed Ohio State, now fifteen to sixteen years into the Development Fund had by now made good headway in its endowment.

Between 1939 and 1956, it was reported that Ohio State had raised $6.5 million.

John A. Pollard, Vice-President of the Council for Financial Aid to Education, viewed

32-40 in The Ohio State University. History of The Ohio State University V. 6. Addresses and Proceedings of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary, 1948-49. Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1951. 879 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940- 1956, Part 2: The Post-War Years and the Emergence of the Greater University, 1945-56 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1972), 337-338. The concern was expressed that the state could potentially reduce its support in a July 19, 1937 meeting, but Dr. Murphy seemed to think that it would actually help the university’s case with the state in arguing for more funds. “Minutes of a Meeting of a Committee of Alumni with University Officials to Consider Alumni Giving Plans,” July 19, 1937, p.2, The Ohio State University Archives, George W. Rightmire Papers (RG 3/f/17/30), “Development Fund: June 1937 - May 1938.” 429 fundraising as something that actually bolstered the state’s support of the university, contradicting a common fear of OSU affiliates in the early 1930s.880

The Ohio State University Financial Report for fiscal year 1957 indicated “The valuation (at cost) of all of the stocks held (principal and income) was $11,841,015.74.

The valuation of these holdings if converted to cash and added to the cash on hand at July

5, 1957 would be approximately $14,500,000.00.”881

The OSU endowment had continued to grow since Mershon’s large gift in 1952.

The market value on June 30, 1971 of the OSU endowment fund came to $43,660,000.882

The Financial Report shared the following information about total gifts given to OSU since 1891: “558 gifts or bequests have been accepted in the total amount of

$23,248,103.26.”883 President Fawcett, who retired in 1972, had ten endowed chairs given over the course of his presidency, none having existed prior to 1956. For five hundred thousand dollars an endowed chair could be established. Named professorships, like the John W. Bricker Professorship of Law, were more numerous since they were supported “by smaller funds than the endowed chairs.”884

880 John Albert Pollard, Fund-raising for Higher Education (New York: Harper, 1958), 86. 881 The Ohio State University, “Financial Report Detail of Endowment Funds, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957,” vi. 882 “By the end of fiscal 1970 total endowment funds amounted officially to $26,853,566.04.” In a footnote, Pollard likely indicated that “officially” referred to what is known as book value rather than market value of OSU endowment funds. Sometimes the book value and market values were not distinctly apparent. It was not until the late-twentieth century when the Chronicle of higher Education and the U.S. News and World Report when the market value price became the overwhelming distinguishing factor for institutional prestige. James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940-1956, Part 2: The Post-War Years and the Emergence of the Greater University, 1945-56 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1972), 337-338. 883 The Ohio State University, Financial Report Detail of Endowment Funds, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957, vi. 884 Francis Phelps Weisenburger, The Fawcett Years, 1956-1972 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1975), 227-228. 430

The value of the OSU endowment was $67,665,806 as of June 30, 1978. With a one year increase of 14.4 percent. A publication by The Ohio State University

Development Fund reported, “This continued growth of the Endowment assures the level of excellence from Ohio State in the future that has been exhibited in the past.”885 So at least the development fund at this time was completely supportive of endowment building.

Receiving and investing the Mershon gift was a major turning point for Ohio

State University, a point when administrators realized that they should invest its money.886 In 1951 prominent alumnus and journalist, W. M. Kiplinger argued that the university needed a sound investment policy. According to Pollard, Kiplinger

“wrote President Bevis to urge the creation of a special committee ‘to study investment policy for University funds--not of the past, not of the present, but of the future.’ Dr. Bevis so reported to the Board at its December 10, 1951 meeting. Kiplinger saw no acute need, but added if the Board did not ‘do something about it as one of its forthcoming meetings, I shall do some prodding.’ Dr. Bevis recommended the appointment of such a committee, and the Board gave its approval… . The committee was to study an investment policy for University funds and report to the Trustees. To illustrate, the University’s holdings from the Mershon estate of American Gas & Electric Co. alone, were so large as to give the University some years a place on the A.G.&E. board of directors. By the end of 1965, moreover, University investment funds amounted to nearly $19,000,000.”887

885 The Ohio State University Development Fund, “Cornerstone: Endowment Fund Report 1977- 1978.” 886 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940- 1956, Part 2: The Post-War Years and the Emergence of the Greater University, 1945-56 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1972), 344-5. 887 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940- 1956, Part 2: The Post-War Years and the Emergence of the Greater University, 1945-56 (Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1972), 344-5. 431

In 1972, OSU president Enarson decried the fact that the state of Ohio had imposed tuition freezes and offered insufficient state funding. Citing Oliver Wendell

Holmes, Enarson suggested that taxes that support higher education are a good thing for civilization itself.888

In an earlier example, Enarson criticized the amount of state support by comparing the 25 percent provided by student fees in the 1959-1960 academic year to 34 percent of the 1973-1974 year.

“‘Shifting the cost of education to students and their parents, however carefully wrapped in the tinsel and glitter of ‘easy loans, easy payments,’ is a booby trap.… More and more young Americans and not so young Americans are studying now and paying later. They will be paying their debts 5, 10, 15, and 20 years from now, or their parents will be paying.’”889

Enarson was disgusted with “fluctuating” student fees that kept students from knowing how much they should expect to pay for tuition.890 In the summer of 1980, when the university experienced multiple cuts of at least six per cent in state support, Enarson expressed his frustration with fees in higher education in Ohio, calling the situation,

“unprecedented… except during the great depression.”891 Summarizing the conditions,

Enarson explained,

888 Enarson quoted in Paul Underwood, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985), 71-72. (213 pp total). Chapter, “Money, Money, Money,” pp. 68-85, discusses money problems, but little related to endowment. 889 Enarson quoted in Paul Underwood, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985), 72-73. 890 Enarson quoted in Paul Underwood, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985), 72-73. 891 Enarson quoted in Paul Underwood, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985), 80-81. 432

“We have aggressively sought out other sources of income to augment the state’s support and student fees. Since 1976-77, income from these sources--for example, our cash management program, from indirect cost recovery and from gifts and endowments--has more than doubled, from $11.6 million to $25 million. Despite this enviable record, the income from these amounts to only 11 percent of the University’s unrestricted funds. While we will continue to exert our best efforts to increase our income from these sources, clearly they cannot bear the burden of significant erosion occurring in the other 90 percent of our funds.’”892

Clearly, revenues from private fundraising and endowment building were growing, but not enough.

Enarson longed for the state to do more. He said, “If Ohio is to benefit fully from the tremendous creative talent represented by our university faculties, the state must provide a level of support that enables us to innovate. I think here of the need for seed money to stimulate research on pressing problems--energy, health, and the like.”893

Dr. Richard L. Meiling, OSU Vice president Emeritus for Medical Affairs, Dean of the College of Medicine and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, recited a discussion he had had with OSU President Edward Jennings (pres. 1981 to 1990) in which Meiling shared his own views about the benefits of an endowed chair versus a named building. “The Chair lasts forever and does something specific. The building is like a monument. It may or may not be torn down.” Further, Meiling summarized that a chair provides a “degree of excellence that they might not have been able to obtain from

892 Enarson quoted in Paul Underwood, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985), 82-83. 893 Enarson quoted in Paul Underwood, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985), 84-85. 433 appropriated funds.”894 Meiling received both, and a chair of obstetrics and gynecology was created and named in his honor.895

In October of 1985, The Ohio State University president, Edward H. Jennings, claimed in his “State of the University Speech” to the University Senate that the five-year

$350 million fundraising plan was “the largest private fund-raising endeavor ever launched at this institution, or at any public university.” Jennings pointed out that campaign priorities “were identified by the deans and the departments, not by administrators and fund raisers.”896 Furthermore, Jennings drew on past presidents

Edward Orton and William Henry Scott to develop his argument for the significance of the fundraising project. Of particular note is the quote Jennings utilized from Scott’s State of the University address in 1885. Scott explained, that the university had “rendered a service of the first importance to the state and to the cause of education. But what it has done should be regarded only as a sign of promise. It gives assurance of what, with an adequate endowment, it may do -- and points to a future rich in benefits to society and the state.”897

Jennings may have initiated the largest scale fundraising plan at The Ohio State

University, and he drew on the history of the university to eloquently prove his point. But

894 Dr. Richard Meiling (Vice president Emeritus for Medical Affairs, Dean of the College of Medicine and Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University) interviewed by Robert Sutton, 21 November 1983, http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/34380; Ohio State University Archives, Ohio State University Oral History Program. 895 Nutrition Today, vol. 20 no. 1 (January/February 1985): 28. 896 Quotations above are drawn from “Jennings Explains Campaign Goals,” October 5, [1985], p. 10 in “Developments: The Ohio State University Campaign,” 3, no.1 (Winter) 1986, The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 897 Scott quoted in “Jennings Explains Campaign Goals,” October 5, [1985], p. 11 in “Developments: The Ohio State University Campaign,” 3, no.1 (Winter) 1986, The Ohio State University Archives, Information File, “Development Office of University: 1937-1989.” 434 it is important to note that about 50 years after Scott’s 1885 address, the university began its first major fundraising program, The Ohio State University Development Fund (1937).

I argue that it was during this period, under the direction of university president George

Washington Rightmire898 (president, 1926-1938), that OSU first widely accepted the idea of, and made a concerted effort for developing a university endowment. Though the creation of the Development Fund did not quickly rival that of Michigan, for example, it was OSU’s first major organizational initiative to develop an endowment.

Chris Perry’s account of the university during OSU President William English

Kirwan’s years (pres. 1998-2002) reported that

“University funding comes primarily from five sources: the state of Ohio, especially through its instructional subsidy, student tuition and fees; grants from the federal government and industry; private contributions; and user charges for medical care, football tickets, and so forth. As with other public universities, the proportion of total funds coming from these sources has changed significantly over the years. Once providing a dominant portion of total funding, state support has steadily declined as a percentage of the total. In the mid-1980s, Ohio State’s share of instructional support was nearly double its student fee income; by 2002 the trend lines had crossed, with tuition providing more money than state subsidy. In response to this trend, universities like Ohio State are becoming more self- reliant, aggressively raising money from private donors and seeking more and larger grants from the federal government and industry. These funds help enlarge the total pie, making the other pieces look even smaller by comparison. What’s more, many university resources are not fungible, which is to say that they are earmarked for certain uses and not transportable. Thus, money donated or granted for construction, for example, is not available for faculty salaries or academic programs.”899

898 George Washington Rightmire, apparently the least studied of past OSU presidents. 899 Chris Perry, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 13: The Kirwan Years: 1998-2002 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2005), 141. 435

So, though endowment income and private donations had become more important to the university, the problem of highly restrictive endowment funds not being fungible persisted.

Perry indicated that by

“March 1999 Bill Shkurti--whom Kirwan considered ‘a superb CFO’--compared Ohio State’s revenues to its nine benchmark universities. He found that state appropriations on average were about 8 percent below that of benchmark institutions, while tuition and fees were off by about 7 percent. Compared with other Ohio public universities, Ohio Sate was ninth out of thirteen for undergraduate tuition and fees. Leading the list in resources per student, Michigan came in at $39,999--about $15,000 more than Ohio State.”900

“Between 1985 and 1990, under the leadership of Ed Jennings, Ohio State raised $460 million in a capital campaign that made the university a credible player in big-time university fund-raising. In 1995, under Gordon Gee, the university launched an even more ambitious $850 million, five-year capital campaign-- naming it ‘Affirm Thy Friendship,’ inspired by the words in alma mater ‘Carmen Ohio.’ The 1990s were an extraordinary good time to raise money--donors ‘gave more and more again and more than they thought they would give,’ says Jerry May, former vice president for Development and president of the University Foundation--and the campaign was progressing well. In fact, by June 30, 1998, the eve of Kirwan’s arrival, the campaign had raised 91 percent of its goal…. By year’s end, campaign gifts, pledges, and planned gift totals exceeded $885 million. By January 31, 1999, the university endowment--separate from the campaign--broke the billion-dollar mark, placing it in the top ten nationally. As Kirwan told the trustees, ‘[I]t took 113 years to reach $50 million, 20 more years to reach $500 million, and 4 more years to reach $1 billion.’ The overall campaign closed on June 30, 2000, and on September 22, to pyrotechnical accompaniment, Kirwan announced to a thousand guests in Mershon Auditorium that final campaign commitments totaled more than $1.23 billion….

“[President] Kirwan and [Jerry] May would go from box to box [in the stadium box seats], visiting prospects like George Steinbrenner. ‘I can barely quantify, but it’s worth tens of millions of dollars a year,’ May estimates. ‘And not just for athletics. It especially facilitates academic fund-raising.’”901

900 Chris Perry, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 13: The Kirwan Years: 1998-2002 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2005), 142-143. 901 Chris Perry, History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 13: The Kirwan Years: 1998-2002 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2005), 155-6. 436

The president of the university at this time was heavily and personally involved in fundraising.

Comparing state support to tuition during the last couple of decades has shown the changing dynamics of university budgets. Since 1987 when the State Support was at

67%, the funding from the state has gradually decreased to 29%.902 OSU, like many institutions, has had to look elsewhere for needed funds, so campaigns, business deals, and publicity have become increasingly important.

Before publicizing a major fundraising campaign, many colleges and universities will first attempt to raise a significant amount of money, half-or more, to indicate success from the beginning. OSU’s 2011 campaign employs a number of strategies, including an important up front investment in personnel to ensure success.

“To build the relationships necessary to meet the $2.5 billion goal, the fundraising team is asking for additional members. The campaign budget isn't final yet, because of questions about state funding and reorganizing. But the plan proposes permanently adding $7.8 million to the annual $27 million budget as well as $1.5 million in one-time money for marketing and campaign events. If approved, the money would allow the fundraising team to eventually add 91 positions to its staff of 107 people. The money might sound like a lot, but if used right, it can pay off, said Ann Kaplan, director of the annual fundraising study from the Council for Aid to Education, which is based in New York City. ‘Institutions that spend the most tend to raise the most,’ Kaplan said. ‘The truism is that, if you have a case for support, your trustees behind you and enough resources, it should work.’”903

902 “ ‘State Support’ includes State Share of Instruction, Success Challenge, and Innovation Incentive funding.” The Ohio State University Current Funds Budget, 2007-2008, (September 2008) http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/cfb/docs/cfb-2009.pdf, p. 8. The Ohio State University Current Funds Budget, 2011-2012, (September 2011): http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/cfb/docs/cfb-2012.pdf, p. 9. 903 Elizabeth Gibson, “OSU Seeks Donors with Deeper Pockets: Fundraisers Turn Focus to Gifts of $1 Million or More,” (7 April 2011): http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/07/osu-seeks-deeper- pockets.html?sid=101 437

Kaplan seems to accept the same philosophy as Harvard’s President Elliot: show the need in order to get the support. No longer is OSU seeking donors only for the refinements

Dougherty spoke of in 1948 when it was assumed that the state would carry the needs of the university.

Raising money for universities can also be highly affected by the demographics of the fundraisers and especially by publicity and rankings. Women development officers have faced gender challenges when it comes to raising money.904 Overcoming stereotypes can be difficult, as is overcoming poor rankings. In the wake of the increasing prestige of the U.S. News and World Report rankings, Ohio State University has attempted to increase its standing in the rankings. What do rankings have to do with a college or university? Institutional wealth, including size of endowment, percentage of alumni donating annually, and faculty salaries all play a role in determining an institution’s value. But sometimes the methods utilized for assessing institutional prestige seem inadequate.

In light of the complex and tight economy, many are seeing that the purposes of higher education have changed. Calls for change range from mild calls for innovation of revamping, to dramatic curriculum overhauls, like proposals to doing away with classrooms in favor of teaching solely online (MOOCS), to reducing the bachelors degree curriculum to three years and having the capstone or major classes come first and the liberal or general education classes come next. To be sure, it is a challenging time for

904 Katherine C. Titus-Becker, “ ‘Make That Gift’ Exploring the Stoical Navigation of Gender Among Women Fundraisers in Higher Education” (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 2007). 438 higher education. What is to be done in the crisis? University presidents call for new ways of looking at the university. Others see the university degree as equivalent to the high school diploma of yesteryear. Accumulating large undergraduate student loan debt presents challenges to many who cannot find suitable jobs upon graduation.

At a time when regular tuition increases occur, students, faculty, and staff question whether there are other sources of income that could help offset expenditures.

Donors today are encouraged to make posthumous gifts to universities. For example, brochures published on The Ohio State University treasurer’s website indicate that donors can have their “purposes for which any named fund was established…carried out indefinitely.”905

Since Rightmire’s time, fundraising and endowment building at OSU have undergone fairly comprehensive paradigm shifts. No longer can private donations be considered supplementary or a source for the refinements of a university. Fundraising, including for endowment building, is now essential to the university’s survival.

Fundraising arms of the university have become businesses in themselves, and the university president is expected to play a very large part in the enterprise. Besides relying on savvy investors and their investments of its endowment funds, administrators hope that multimillionaires will strongly consider leaving a legacy at their university. Perhaps more consistently, universities rely on its alumni to build the endowment and become prime targets of fundraising campaigns.

905 The Ohio State University, Office of Financial Services, Office of Investments, “Endowed Funds: Management Accounting & Reporting,” fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, see http://www.treasurer.ohio-state.edu/Endowment/PDF/EndowedFundsManagementBrochure.pdf 439

With the increasing significance of fundraising for Ohio State and other public universities, one questions the changes to the idea of the university, if its very survival depends on fundraising.

440

Preface to Appendices A and B

The following two Appendices are included to shed some light on the mindset of administrators, educators, critics, politicians, and alumni, in the 1920s and 1930s.

Appendix A: Pres. George W. Rightmire’s Correspondence about the Depression

Appendix B: Washington Gladden and Tainted Money

441

Appendix A: Pres. George W. Rightmire’s Correspondence about the Depression

Correspondence from September 1932 indicate that Dean Shepard of The Ohio

State University College of Arts and Sciences disagreed with the Ohio Governor George

White (gov. 1931-1935) and Howard L. Bevis, the state of Ohio’s Director of Finance and future president of Ohio State (pres. 1940-1956), on how OSU and the economy should be run. Shepard expressed his view that overconsumption is not the problem, rather over production. He “sharply challenged” Bevis’s statement that attributed the economic downturn to “a prolonged period of consuming more than was produced,” by commenting that Bevis adhered to a “continued policy of economy and retrenchment.”

Shepard fumed:

“The depression is the result of producing more than could be consumed under our present economic system. The surplus product has gone into unnecessarily expanded plant and swollen profits which have been used largely in speculation. The resulting collapse is marked by the throwing out of work of millions of men whose economic product can no longer be absorbed. Were Mr. Bevis’ statement correct, there would be no explanation for our extensive unemployment…. A policy which looks toward further curtailment of the services of the state is an encouragement and justification for further curtailment of employment in industry…. An aggressive attack by governmental, federal, state and local, upon the problem of unemployment by instituting extensive projects of public works and public improvements, financed in part through bond issues and in part by tapping new sources of revenue through taxation upon incomes, particularly in the higher brackets, is the only sensible procedure. In my judgment, the University should not stand silent in the face of the policy of economy and retrenchment presented by the Director of Finance and urged on every occasion by the 442

Governor. Not [only] is the University’s interest vitally engaged in this matter, but it has an obligation of education to the people of the state in connection with an economic situation that touches everyone and in regard to which real enlightenment and understanding seem to be so totally absent from those placed in authority.”906

Shepard clearly viewed the state of Ohio’s leadership as out of touch with society and amiss when conceptualizing the contributing factors to the poor economic situation.

Ohio farmer and former Ohio experimentalist at the Ohio Agricultural Experiment

Station, Loring Hapgood Goddard, addressed a spirited letter (and sent Rightmire a copy) to New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt at the end of September 1932.907 Goddard explained

“When I came back to this country in 1925 it seemed well nigh sacrilegious to even hint a question as to Mr. [Andrew W.] Mellon’s magical ability in handling the nation’s finances. The change since that time is almost unbelievable. It is quite generally believed now that Mr. Mellon retired under fire and that his reputation would have been destroyed had he dared to fight the proposed impeachment. Whether it be true or not people seem to assume connivance on the part of the Administration with the large moneyed interests in unloading the billions of comparatively worthless foreign bonds upon the nation’s banks thus contributing very largely to the many bank failures which have gone so far toward wrecking agriculture and other industry. They seem to feel that every step of the Administration which relates to finances is dictated by this unfortunate group. It is also well to bear in mind that this opinion is not limited to a select few. Belief in it seems quite general. The number of people who have reached this opinion with in the past year or so is almost startling. They are not limited to any one class. Mechanics, tradesmen and farmers seem to in accord in the matter. In [Oberlin College] President [Henry Churchill] King’s A New Mind for the New Age published in 1920 he states regarding pre-war German thought ‘For there (in Belgium) were written the natural and inevitable consequences of a national selfishness that had no scruple and no thought or care for any other interests than its own, and gloried in its shame.’ It would seem that much of this will apply to the large monied interests to which I have referred. I do not have personal

906 Walter J. Shepard to Rightmire, 26 September 1932, 3/f Arts and Sciences: College of: Correspondence: Nov 1931-June 1934. 907 Roosevelt took office of president of the United States on March 4, 1933 at the nadir of the depression. 443

acquaintance with its members to make me sure ‘that they glory in their shame’ but surely we have abundant proof that ’they have no thought or care for any other interest than their own.’ The people of this section seem determined that this abnormally selfish group shall be retired from positions of authority. They all seem to know that to save Mr. Mellon’s face he was sent to the most important embassy in the world and that every dedication of Mr. Hoover is in accord with the views of his big monied friends. They seem to feel that arrogant selfishness was responsible for the blunder made when the U.S. army was called out for the ‘Battle of Pennsylvania Ave’, and that other similar blunders may be expected at any time.”908

Goddard was referring to Andrew W. Mellon who was Secretary of the Treasury from

1921 to February 1932 and went on to serve (as ambassador to the United Kingdom from

February 1932 to March 1933. Clearly upset with the economic situation, Goddard felt the narcissism of those at the top had damaged the American economy.

R.C. Miller, Superintendant of The Pennsylvania Railroad, Central Region,

Eastern Ohio Division, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and father of Ralph C. who recently visited with Rightmire said,

“I was particularly interested in the second paragraph of your letter, wherein you commented upon the depression, and your point of view was so striking that I discussed it with several men in Philadelphia yesterday. It is true that we must be led out of our present condition, and while we lack definite knowledge as to the path, yet we must be very careful that we do not follow a ‘false prophet.’ Too many times the crowd is like a bunch of sheep who, caught in a snow storm, are liable to follow the ‘belled’ leader perhaps into deeper drifts. I am, however, convinced of the fair thinking of the American people, and I am confident that they will solve their problems with sober and intelligent thought. Business is looking better. August was the low month. September was better than August and this month promises to be much better than September. Unless something develops to stop this improvement, I am sure, within a year, we will at least be out of the ‘woods.’”909

908 L[oring] H[apgood] Goddard to Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 29 September 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 909 R. C. Miller to Rightmire, 14 October 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 444

Miller’s hope for a better future was immediately realized given the fact the dire economic situation did not improve to the point of being out of the “woods” within the following year.

Goddard wrote Rightmire on December 15, 1932 further discussing in detail the

American financial situation from international and local perspectives.

“Larry Green’s write up advocating Outright Cancellation of European debts in which he quotes seven members of your staff still sticks in my craw even though it is about a week old. It is my guess that he took a lot of liberty in reporting his interviews to bring out to the best advantage the goal he had in mind. It is hard for us to remember, until we have been burned several times, that oral statements to a newspaper man are dangerous even though he be of extremely good intent. It is so easy for the report to leave out qualifying sentences or even phrases in a sentence, that change the meaning very much.

“It probably is true that some members of your staff do not fully realize that a quotation from the staff of one of the greatest of the forty eight great State Universities is a matter of very serious concern. In the present instance I doubt not this news item was hurried across the water and helped to encourage Premier Herriot to make his declaration of December 12 which surely puts France in an unenviable light. Manifestly all our blood and dollars were worse than wasted.

“Pray do not think I have any excuse to offer for the meddling of the Big Banker Mutts of the seaboard in European affairs. Their reparation plan under which they loaned more American money to Germany than she paid in reparations was enough to prove to Europe that our name was Mr. E. Z. Mark and to encourage European nations to jump into the borrowing game while we thought we were flush. Our writing off of the pre-armistice debts encouraged Germany to go bankrupt and the other nations to plan to do the same in a more orderly manner. European statesmen think in terms of quarter centuries or even centuries whereas we seem not to have learned to think beyond decades or even years. In this country we have laws to prevent the imposition of scheming individuals upon nit wits who comparatively speaking are fully as shrewd as our Big Banker Mutts were in dealing with Europe.

“Incidentally I may say that I am never quite sure about the term Mutts. When I think of the four percent profit the Big Bankers secured when they stuffed the foreign bonds of practically no value down the throats of confiding small bankers thus having much to do with the large number of bank failures in the States as 445

compared practically none in , I wonder if Big Banker Bandits may not after all be the proper term…. I agree with you the quotations from your staff that the American taxpayers are stung; that we shall correct but little of these unfortunate debts. But would it not be best to keep our head and make the best trade we can instead of just cancelling and thereby establishing the conviction that we have absolutely no financial maneuvering ability? For example could we not trade cancellation for armament reduction dollar for dollar? That would save millions for our taxpayers. Or could we not cancel a dollar for every five dollars, or some such figure, of imports larger than usual from this country? Could not tariff adjustments be made? Trained economists will think of a lot of other possibilities along this line. It is recognized that every gold dollar sent from Europe to our shore magnifies our desperate condition yet at the same time will not tend to call the attention of world financiers to our present unfortunate worship of the Gol[d] Calf and the need in the absence of a large new supply of gold as was developed in the nineties, of a more efficient use of gold--perhaps by revaluing the gold dollar? So far as establishing good will is concerned will not your psychologists tell us that small favors, not large ones, beget good will? Respect must precede good will. That we have lost.

“It would appear that if we give the Larry Greens full liberty to quote distinguished people it will take much longer to work out decent trades. It will take a number of McFaddens to offset such quotations. I am sorry to believe that we must insist on the payment of the interest installments, or let them default if they wish, until the new administration takes hold. While poor Mr. Hoover has proposed a trade on disarmament and some other trades the public has lost confidence in his fidelity to the American people. See enclosed copy of letter to Mr. Roosevelt dated September 29. In explanation of the chrystallization of the sentiment against Mr. Hoover I may say that the broadcasts of the Detroit catholic priest were materially important. He called the roll of the Big Banker Bandits last Sunday I am informed. Most pitiable of all, some time last February he ties up Mr. Hoover with a Miners Magazine story that well nigh ruined him. The American people are quick to turn thumbs down on an idol that shows duplicity. Personally, it gives our family pleasure to hope that Mr. Hoover’s viewpoint has materially changed since he wrote the Miners Magazine article twenty years ago.

“With all good wishes for our great State University and the hope that it will not suffer unreasonably at the hands of the State Legislature this winter….”910

On the same day Goddard (December 15, 1932) wrote his letter disparaging the

“Big Banker Bandits,” prominent Washington based OSU alumnus Willard Kiplinger

910 L. H. Goddard [Bloomingburg, Ohio] to Rightmire, 15 December 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 446 addressed a letter to Rightmire. Kiplinger, of “The Kiplinger Washington Agency:

Washington Correspondents for Banks, Business Houses and Professional Firms,” wrote

Rightmire asking him to consider signing up some friends and said “it is not a business- building proposition, and we don’t seek names of persons who later would be ‘good prospects.’” The letter read: “Can I, with entire good taste, offer you subscriptions to our

Washington Letter for six months’ period (covering this session of Congress and running well into the Roosevelt regime) for three or four of your friends?”911

Four days later (19 December 1932), Rightmire replied that he would like the following persons to receive subscriptions: “Mr. Julius F. Stone (Seagrave Company),”

“Mr. S. H. Barrett (Columbus Bolt Works),” and “Dr. Andrew Timberman. Rightmire commented, “I believe these friends will be very much interested in your letter for the period and I suggest that you state that this is a New Year’s Greeting. At home we read your weekly letter with the greatest enjoyment and I beg to send to you the best wishes for the New Year and kindest personal regards…”912

Notice that Rightmire did not list Goddard as one of those who might receive a subscription to the Kiplinger Washington Agency. In reply to Goddard though, Rightmire showed disdain for eastern bankers, and it was in his opinion that the Europeans should continue to pay war reparations from the First World War. Rightmire sympathized and replied at length:

911 Willard M. Kiplinger to Rightmire, 15 December 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July- Dec. 1932. 912 Rightmire to Willard M. Kiplinger, 19 December 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 447

“I have read with great interest your letter of December 15 and enclosed copy of your letter to Governor Roosevelt, dated September 29, 1932. I received much enjoyment from your original method of dealing with the big banking interests of the Atlantic seaboard. Your picture of fair complicity and duplicity may be correct, it is a little difficult to get verified information about the exact interest these bankers have taken in our international financial arrangements. The other day I read that the J. P. Morgan Company is the agent of Great Britain in this country in making financial deals and I assume that a banker charged with such responsibility and opportunity would be, of course, in favor of the thing which would result in financial benefit to his business. Therefore, I am very hesitant about approving a financial policy which has the approval of the eastern banking houses, whether it has an international relationship or whether it is merely in reference to domestic transactions. I suppose there is no doubt that much money which we had widely distributed among the people in the seven or eight years of great prosperity went into foreign investments which neither at the time nor since were worth anything, but so many of our people had so much money rather easily obtained that they did not think through European conditions in making these investments.

“I did not see the quotation you mention in which the names of some of our faculty people subscribed to the opinion that the United States should cancel the European war debts. However, I am not surprised that there are some people in this institution that are in favor of such cancellations. A great many economists widely scattered over this country are in favor of such procedure and the position taken by Nicholas Murray Butler, and the President of Princeton, and many faculty people in Columbia and Princeton, has been well advertised. There are bona fide differences of opinion about this matter. Personally, I happen to be on the side of those who do not think the debts should be cancelled. They should either be paid as agreed upon or some more reasonable arrangement ought to be entered into to the advantage of this country and not to the disadvantage of the foreign borrower. There is a great deal of heat, a great deal of temperament involved in this whole discussion, and Americans would do well to let the Europeans object and discuss the matter and fume about it, because everything that has been said on the other side of the water has not yet shown that the debts are unjust and that the foreign nation did not undertake the indebtedness with its eyes open and for its own benefit. Also, we must not forget in this period of discussion that the debts have already been generously scaled down by the United States. Also, it must not be concluded absolutely that the depression or the lack of trade is vitally tied up with the existence of these debts.

“Somebody suggests a formula and thousands of people at once gullibly begin to repeat it and already in the minds of many of our own people nothing is quite so iniquitous as the tariff provisions of this country and our insistence upon the

448

“payment of the debts. Lower the tariff walls and forgive the debts is a slogan which, unfortunately, has many repeaters who are not thinkers!

“In my judgment the United States should go very slow in making any degree of reduction in the indebtedness to us of these foreign nations. I do believe that our last tariff law in some respect was vicious. I have placed no reliance upon the mushy international sentiment of the kind which we are being deluged with in recent months but I do believe there is a healthier kind of international sentiment which we should encourage in this country, but we cannot encourage such proper international thinking without going into the League of Nations. That, I think, would involve us in real trouble. I have little patience with some of the arguments we all see which proceed on the theory that what the Europeans do is right always and if we do not fall in or agree with it then we are wrong. A great many of our people are failing to see that there are forcible arguments in favor of the United States in the discussion of all these questions. But there is no use to become petulant about it. Our biggest job in the next few years will be to keep our heads and not be swept away by the temperamental arguments that reach us, both from Europe and from various sections of this country. I am delighted to hear from you again and when you come to the University be sure to come in and see me. With greetings and kindest personal regards….”913

Telling Rightmire about Dr. George F. Warren, Goddard explained,

“He is by all odds the greatest investigator of monetary matters in this country. Your own Dr. J. I. Falconer will tell you as much more about Dr. Warren as you care to learn.914 Dr. Falconer is known in his work from shore to shore and can give you an accurate rating of any one who makes any claim to the title of Economist in this the most depressed spot on the face of the highly civilized part of the globe. Up until the last few years we have supposed that the Big Banker Bandits had real economists at their service. Indeed I am pretty thoroughly convinced that they do have such but that the dope which has been passed out to those who do not make investigations on their own part has been and is being prepared for the special consumption of such persons many of whom are actually called economists simply because they are good parrots. Please call upon Dr. Falconer for further information.”915

913 Note: underling is in original. Rightmire to L. H. Goddard [Bloomingburg, Ohio], 19 December 1932, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1932. 914 The forthcoming book mentioned by Goddard was entitled, Prices by George F. Warren and Frank A. Pearson (New York: Wiley, 1933). 915 L. H. Goddard to George W. Rightmire, 21 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July- Dec 1933. 449

Then in the margin of the letter, Goddard wrote, “such as comparisons with appropriations for others lives of work--confidential of course.”916 Goddard continued to explain, “The economic condition down here is more serious than one can realize who is not intimately in touch with it. For example, I have mentioned the terrible [Experimental]

Station cut to a number of persons of the highest type and have been shocked that the information did not seem to shock them in the least. Our member of the legislature is very congenial but it must be remembered that he represents the whole county and not just a few of us. The situation is very confusing.”917

Rightmire reported to A. B. Myers in Mexico about the Ohio banking situation.

“To add variety and flavor to the general financial stringency prevailing in this part of the world, the banks almost all over Ohio issued an announcement that they would recognize checks only to the extent of five per cent of the available deposit until further notice. This rather complicates living but is not much out of line with what is happening in other places.”918

Meanwhile, Goddard got back to Rightmire. “Very glad to know from your letter

February 28, 1933 that you have a copy of Dr. Warren’s ‘Prices.’” Interestingly

Rightmire circled this and wrote at the bottom of the page, “Did I order a copy?” Then, in different handwriting just below Rightmire’s notation (perhaps from a “clerk”) a reply,

“Yes. It came in today and is on your desk, Mar. 6, 1933.” Goddard continued,

916 Underlined emphasis in the original. 917 L. H. Goddard to Rightmire, 29 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 918 Rightmire to A. B. Myers [in Mexico], 1 March 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 450

“Knowing how very busy you are just now trying to hold the university together financially I am going to ask that you take time to turn to the curve at the bottom of page 50 in this book. I fear you have not followed Dr. Falconer closely enough but that this curve will be something of a surprise to you. Having done this I hope your curiosity will be enough aroused to make you steal time to get into some of the more important features of the book. Please keep it clearly in mind all the time that Warren is a fundamental scientist not one who has a preconceived theory to defend or one who cares for the opinions of others even though they be associated with big business. He will, however, accept facts from any source.”919

Rightmire replied to a letter from J. E. Stuntz:

“Under the present industrial and financial conditions I suppose you may not be in America again soon but when you do plan to come kindly let me know and if it is at all possible we shall get together…. A great many things seemingly call for action before we can move conspicuously in the regeneration of business. The American Congress has been putting powers one after another into the hands of the President and some things are on the way now but I believe that any permanent upward movement will hinge directly upon the condition of international affairs and unless we can make headway at the early conferences for economic discussion and for reduction in the expenditures for armament, the matter of improvement will require a long time. It is very clear that the methods we have been pursuing since 1920 in international affairs are not fruitful for us and are not even very persuasive for foreign nations. Some new ground of common understanding will have to be discovered and I hope we shall all be wise enough to find it within the next few months.”920

Rightmire’s invitation to Stuntz for a get together seemed political and economic in tone.

Skeptical of the powers in the hands of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and America’s conception of the international situation, Rightmire invited further discussion.

Similar to present day (2013) challenges for law schools and the apparent surplus of lawyers, Rightmire commented on Aumann’s work, the “Lawyer and his Troubles.”

Rightmire wrote:

919 L. H. Goddard to George W. Rightmire, 3 March 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 920 Rightmire to J. E. Stuntz [Consulting Engineer, Horter Building 419, Havana ], 19 May 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 451

“I was very much interested in your account of the declining field for the trained lawyer and I have no doubt that your estimate of the whole situation is quite correct. A considerable degree of readjustment is being called for and I believe our Law schools have not fully awakened to this matter. In any case, as you know, a great many young men and women taking work in the College of Law are not expecting to be lawyers; they regard the training very useful in a number of other fields; however, that has no bearing upon the number of lawyers trying to make a living for there have always been many in the law schools who have finally done something other than practice law. Certainly, there have been too many lawyers for many years and I presume only economic conditions will wear down the number. It has been an alluring field, but the prospective lawyers who read your article will find the allurement very much dimmed. It is an excellent piece of writing and sets forth the situation with great clearness.”921

In reply to Rightmire’s congratulations, Dr. W. J. Kerr, Chancellor of the Oregon

State System of Higher Education, replied, “I very much appreciate your letter with reference to my appointment as Chancellor, received some time ago. My task is doubly difficult, due to the financial situation. With the proper cooperation, I see no reason why the plans for the development of higher education in Oregon should not work out successfully. There is reason to believe that the adjustments made thus far are resulting in advantage to the institutions concerned.”922

Rightmire was generally sympathetic to those who ask for help. But, he claimed inability to help Frank Foster of Columbus. “I have looked very carefully through my possibilities with the purpose of giving you some aid if I found I could do it. I should be very glad to help out at this time but I find my obligations such that it will not be possible for me to do so. I trust that you have by this time been able to make temporary arrangement somewhere else. I sympathize with the condition you describe. I have many

921 Rightmire to Mr. F. Aumann [ Dept. of Political Science, OSU], 31 May 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 922 Dr. W. J. Kerr to Rightmire, 16 June 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec. 452 fixed obligations and many calls besides but in these times it seems impossible to do anything more than I am required do up to the present.”923

In sympathizing with a lawyer in Toledo, Rightmire wrote,

“I have been greatly pleased in following your progress not only as a student in the University but as a lawyer outside and know that your father and your sister derive the greatest pleasure from your success. I hope that even in these times you are finding yourself constructively and profitably busy and I use those expressions because I know through some Columbus attorneys what the practice of law has been like for the last two years. I imagine Toledo is no more fortunate in this respect than Columbus. You have had some experiences there which are much worse than any we have had to face here and I trust that somehow the people of Toledo are weathering the financial storm. It is more than financial now almost everywhere, although I presume the causes can be traced to terrible financial conditions. It is now a social situation which must be faced and this also is distinctly terrible.”924

In a letter to James F. Lincoln, Rightmire commented on Lincoln’s recent writings or “discussions of economic and industrial conditions.” Rightmire wrote,

“[I] have a high admiration for your direct, driving and uncompromising style of attack upon many of the theories which are running rampant in the world today. I cannot escape the thought that we are for better or worse parting company with some of the theories upon which you most strongly lean, and that we are doing so is the inevitable result of the wide spread of the liberalized democracy in this country. The scene is constantly shifting, the emphasis is more and more upon the social and, for better or worse, I am convinced it will remain there. The combination and coordinate action of a prolonged period of the severe type of depression have had an almost unguessable effect upon the minds of the people and one result certainly has been to cut society loose from its recognized social moorings. The Government has ventured into the field of individual relief of its citizens in manifold ways and to an extent so far unlimited, and with many results which are distinctly disastrous so far as the individual and his character are concerned. I think we stand amazed in the presence of an appropriation bill for public relief which amounts to almost five billions of dollars in one lump sum and very naturally we wonder whether we are letting go or whether we are merely

923 Rightmire to Mr. Frank M. Foster [of Columbus, Ohio], 14 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 924 Rightmire to Hugh C. Laughlin[ofWilliams, Everman and Morgan, Board of Trade Building, Toledo], 17 February 1933, 3/f correspondence, Personal, July-Dec 1933. 453

taking a more secure hold upon this business of governmental sustenance for the individual. It is certainly clear that governments are going to find it terribly difficult to extricate themselves from this area of expanding public relief and in a country where the government is put up or put down by the votes of these individuals the tendency in any government we have ever had, I am quite sure, would be to get the votes. No doubt that is what is progressively filling the American scene and will be more strongly evident next year than this. I am utterly unable to see the way out. Like you, I feel that some things, if done, would relax the pressure but apparently no power in the Federal Government at Washington is intending to do these things at the present time…. I do not believe the remedies you suggest will be tried in toto [Rightmire’s word here]or even in large part because the whole tendency for forty years in this country has been towards a large degree, a constantly expanding degree, of control of industry and society by government. That tendency is fixed and will continue and will enlarge. Our problem is to adjust our economic and industrial and financial (if those are in any wise different) interests within this kind of frame of reference. I don’t know what can be done but I sincerely believe that it will be done and I also sincerely believe that it can be done only after a long period of troubled and confused and sometimes acrimonious conflict and experience. We are definitely headed away from the simple conceptions of government and life which prevailed in the nineteenth century. When I say that, I do not mean that we are definitely headed towards something which we as individuals shall like any better. I am sending you herewith a copy of the address delivered by Dean Walter J. Shepard before the American Political Science Association last December. You will catch some of the advanced thinking and the attempt to generalize on the part of the political scientists which to my mind are really worth very careful consideration. I look upon this as a very good statement of the various directions in which we are departing from the Hamiltonian and even Jeffersonian conception of government.”925

Rightmire then asked that Lincoln please return the enclosed copy of Dean Shepard’s address, “but I assure you there is no hurry about it.” Here Rightmire again (as in previous correspondence) emphasized that the increased priority of the government on the “social” side had ramifications, “for better or worse.” Rightmire stated the government’s “unlimited” intervention “into the field of individual relief of its citizens” had already had “many results which are distinctly disastrous so far as the individual and

925 Rightmire to James F. Lincoln, 6 April 1935, 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 454 his character are concerned.” Rightmire’s concern for the large “appropriation bill for public relief,” suggested that he thought government would “find it terribly difficult to extricate themselves from this area of expanding public relief.”

In explanation for losing his composure. In an apparently apolitical posture,

Rightmire, expressed: “This is not another screed on government and is not intended to be either a support of or in opposition to the New Deal or any other deal, it is just a slight uncontrolled aberration which doubtless you will understand. I should be surprised if you have not boiled over a few times yourself about conditions in the last four years.”926

Ohio businessman James F. Lincoln was critical of the Roosevelt administration.

“[I] will read the pamphlet because of your recommendation. I do not expect to find much in it which will have to do with present day problems any more than I would expect to have much in a treatise on Christianity from a Jew who had never read the Bible nor been a practicing Christian. He would undoubtedly have very interesting theories to spin. He would undoubtedly dwell long and eloquently on the fact that Christ was not divine, or that he didn’t live, or that he didn’t do the things he was reputed to do. He probably would be entirely successful in proving his case because there are a host of things which can be proven by logic when you do not know all the facts involved, but I doubt if the treatise would be of much value. The chief difficulty at the present time is the fact that we have an administration without any knowledge of the fundamentals with which they are dealing and which they are using as a platform to spring into power and remain there. You know perfectly well that the vast majority of voters have no more conception of what is happening than they have of the binomial theorem, but they do know that as long as they can keep them fooled they will stay in power, and in the case of Roosevelt, who is after all the dictator of the present administration up to date, I am fairly sure that the man is not fully intelligent. Personal conversations which I have known of would indicate this rather extensively, and I am fairly sure that the man hasn’t the faintest conception of what he is doing or why he is doing it. The chief difficulty with governmental operation of any activity is the fact that the man or men never lived who can successfully operate a business as large as government is at the present time. That is where the thing will

926 Rightmire to Mr. Hugh Laughlin, 6 April 1935 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 455

fail and that is the thing which will wreck society if allowed to continue in its present direction for much longer time.”927

Clearly Lincoln was not an admirer of Roosevelt’s administration, calling him a

“dictator” and arguing that government, up to the present, was unsuccessful at managing that large of a business.

Deploring the economic and social conditions of the period, Carl G. Anderson of

Washington, D.C. sent Rightmire a poem about problems he felt were caused by the

Roosevelt administration. He titled it Psalm 1938:

“Mr. Roosevelt is my shepherd, I am in want. He maketh me to lie down on park benches; He leadeth me besides still factories; He disturbeth my soul. He leadeth me in the paths of destruction, For my party’s name sake. Yea, tho I walk in the valley of depression, I anticipate no recovery. For he is with me. He prepareth a reduction in my salary, And in the presence of mine enemies He annointeth my income with taxes; And my expenses runneth over. Surely unemployment and poverty Shall follow me all the days of my life, And I shall dwell in a mortgaged house forever. --AMEN.”928

927 J. F. Lincoln to Rightmire, 9 April 1935, 3/f correspondence, Personal, A-M: Jan-Dec 1935. 928 It is not clear who authored the poem, but Anderson sent it on to Rightmire. Carl G. Anderson to Rightmire, 26 April 1938, 3/f Correspondence: Personal: Jan - June 1938 16/13. 456

Appendix B: Washington Gladden and Tainted Money

In 1895 Bishop Washington Gladden raised many questions on whether one should receive funds from questionable sources. Gladden, long-time pastor of Columbus,

Ohio, in his 1895 essay, “Tainted Money,” condemned receiving funds by contaminated sources. Gladden claimed, “Much of the money that comes into our hands has been tainted by methods of which we are not aware. This may be true, but so long as we are not aware of the evil sources, we are not contaminated.” He suggested one ask “Is this clean money? Can any man, can any institution, knowing its origin, touch it without being defiled?” He continued, “The question of tainted money is a question that this generation must face. There are vast heaps of it on every side of us…”929 Ten years later,

Gladden, on behalf of the Congregational Board of Foreign Missions, practiced what he had preached by refusing a $100,000 gift from Standard Oil founder, John D.

Rockefeller, Sr. For Gladden, Rockefeller’s money was “tainted,” earned by questionable means.930 Gladden made it clear that he would forego a generous gift from what he thought was accrued through unethical means, even if the donation might be potentially used for so-called beneficent purposes.

929 Washington Gladden, “Tainted Money,” Outlook (30 Nov 1895): 886. 930 Scott M. Cutlip, Fund-Raising in the United States: Its Role in America’s Philanthropy (New Brunswick, N.J., 1965), 36. 457

Gladden was once considered for the presidency of Ohio State in 1895 before

Gladden’s “Tainted Money” by Outlook was published and before James H. Canfield, formerly Chancellor of the University of Nebraska, accepted the offer, but Gladden refused the presidency on the basis of the low $3,000 salary, even at the recommendation of President Rutherford B. Hayes. Gladden had hoped for $5,000.

Gladden had served for thirty years in Columbus as an illustrious pastor of the

First Congregational Church. He graduated from Williams College and had worked in the newspaper industry. The limit on the OSU president’s salary was rejected by the legislature. These and other factors took Gladden out of the running for OSU presidency.931

Whether Gladden’s views on “Tainted Money” directly influenced later Ohio

State administrators and faculty in their fund raising efforts is not clear. Nevertheless, the fact was, there was a reluctance to pursue significant fundraising. Perhaps Gladden’s views were a contributing factor in stalling fund raising work.

When Gladden turned down the OSU presidency, it was offered to several others, but ultimately accepted by James H. Canfield, having been recommended by Charles W.

Eliot, President of Harvard, who recommended him as one who “had a wide experience as a teacher and administrator in various institutions. He is a ready worker, a good speaker, and a decidedly vigorous person in all respects.”932

931 James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 134. 932 Eliot quoted in James E. Pollard, History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy-Five Years, 1873-1948 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952), 136. 458

On July 1, 1895, James H. Canfield officially became president of Ohio State, in the presence of former Ohio State Presidents Orton and Scott, Dr. Gladden, and the governor among others. The Board of Trustees, in resolution, formally concluded Dr.

Scott’s presidency, claiming that he had “borne fruit not only in a strong and united faculty, a large and enthusiastic student body, in increased appropriations and endowments from the state and nation in the beginnings of private munificence, but in every detail of the strong and healthy growth of this great institution in all its departments.”933 Canfield, having been born in Delaware, Ohio, grew up in New York.

The challenge for President Canfield’s presidency was his disagreement with the OSU

Board of Trustees on whether they should establish a medical college by including both

Starling Medical College and Ohio Medical University.934 Most members of the Board of

Trustees disagreed with Canfield and so he resigned. Canfield was, “a schoolmate and lifelong friend” of future Columbia University President Seth Low. After his presidency he followed Low to Columbia University, becoming Columbia University Librarian.

Tainted Money

Scientific philanthropic reforms were typically top-down reform. Even with the attempt of scientific assessment to neutralize ambiguities and get at a quantifiable starting point, there remained relative disparity. Rockefeller’s goal to end misery is interesting in light of the controversy surrounding how his money was earned and expended.

Consulting the receiving end did not seem a necessary component of scientific

933 Quoted in James E. Pollard, 139. 934 Pollard, 161-2. 459 philanthropy. Carnegie and Rockefeller, Sr. stood firm against independent worker unions and bloody rifts between workers and their employers (e.g. “Homestead Strike” and “Ludlow Massacre”) marred the turn of twentieth century period.

Abraham Flexner, one-time philanthropic administrator for both Carnegie and

Rockefeller, initiated harsh measures against schools which benefited women, minorities, and low-income students. It was claimed that anyone but rich white males were barred from attending medical school. Paradoxically, his efforts (including his reports) made a significant impact on improving the academic quality of education in America--nurturing better quality schools to match Europe.935 From the 1930s and 1940s, Carnegie donations funded the Educational Testing Service which helped create standardized testing in the

United States. Carnegie wanted better students at universities in an attempt to get the best scientists into the field.936

Even before the creation of the large-scale scientific foundations in the 1910s, critics opposed accepting donations from certain members of the wealthy. Washington

Gladden spoke out plainly against the ills of soliciting or publicly accepting money from the enormously wealthy, whose money was gained by “violence and plunder,” and taken from “the helpless.” Such a donor was “a pirate on the sea of industrial life,” and taking such money “stains” the recipient organization.937 Gladden argued that when organizations go after the big donors, the multitudes of small givers are turned off and

935 Sealander, 230-232. 936 Hammack, 279. 937 Washington Gladden, The New Idolatory (London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, LTD., 1906), 43- 4. 460 then do not contribute, lessening the sum of donations overall.938 But in the cases of education, it seemed that Gladden’s mathematical scheme would not hold true. How could so many colleges and universities (very expensive enterprises) be supported by many small “untainted” donations? While philanthropists mostly delivered their donations for particular purposes with proselytizing fervor, there appeared sometimes a lack of respect for the recipient’s autonomy.

938 Gladden, 53. 461

Bibliography

Archives:

The Ohio State University Archives

Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan

Harvard University Archives, Pusey Library

Newspapers:

Auburn Democrat - Argus Boston Globe Chicago Tribune Cleveland Plain Dealer Columbus Citizen-Journal Columbus Dispatch Columbus Dispatch Sunday Magazine Columbus Monthly The Day Forbes Harper's Monthly Magazine New York Times The Makio Ohio Magazine Ohio State Journal Ohio State University Lantern Scribner’s Time Magazine The Toronto World Washington Post

462

Primary and Secondary Sources (Archival and Published Materials):

“$15,000,000 Sterling Bequest to Yale, Lawyer Graduated in 1864, Leaves his Residue to his Alma Mater, Other Gifts $5,000,000, $1,000,000 to Osborne Home and Rest to Relatives, Employes, and Charity.” New York Times (17 July 1918): 11.

Ackerman, Carl W. George Eastman: Founder of Kodak and the Photography Business. Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930.

Altbach, Philip G., Robert Oliver Berdahl, and Patricia J. Gumport. American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.

Anderson, Benedict R. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. First published in 1983.

Andrews, Lorin. “Report of the Executive Committee of State Teachers Association for 1852.” Ohio Journal of Education, II (February 1853): 60.

Angell James R. [son of James B. Angell]. “The Endowed Institution of Higher Education—Its Relation to Public Education.” In Proceedings of the Sixty-Sixth Annual Meeting, National Education Association (Washington, D.C.: The National Education Association, 1928): 766-777.

Angell, James R. “The Support of Endowed Universities.” School & Society 40 (22 Dec. 1934): 848-9.

Arnett, Trevor. College and University Finance. New York: General Education Board, 1922.

Arnett, Trevor. Observations on the Financial Condition of Colleges and Universities in the United States, with Special Reference to the Effect of Current Interest Rates on Endowment Income, Occasional Papers, No. 9. New York: General Education Board, 1937.

Arnett, Trevor. Suggestions as to the Methods of Handling Endowments and other Funds. New York: Abbot Press, 1927.

463

Arnett, Trevor. Trends in Current Receipts and Expenditures and in Receipts for Capital Purposes of Endowed Universities and Colleges, and in Current Receipts of State Institutions, No. 12. New York: General Education Board, 1939.

Arnove, Robert F. Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad. Boston, Mass: G.K. Hall, 1980.

Axtell, James. The Making of Princeton University: From Woodrow Wilson to the Present. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Ayres, Leonard P. Seven Great Foundations. New York: 1911.

Baroway, Malcolm S. The Gee Years, 1990-1997. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2003.

Beadle, Muriel. Where Has All the Ivy Gone? A Memoir of University Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1972.

Becker, C. L. Cornell University: Founders and the Founding. Ithaca, 1943.

Berg, Eric N. “Students Will Manage $5 Million.” New York Times (26 April 1988): http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/26/business/students-will-manage-5- million.html

Bernholz, Lucy. “The Future of Foundation History: Suggestions for Research and Practice” in Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities. Edited by Ellen Condliffe Lagemann. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Pp. 359-376.

Betts, Samuel. “General Alumni Gifts to Yale.” in The Book of the Yale Pageant ed. George Henry Nettleton. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916.

Biemiller, Lawrence. “A Land-Grant Visionary's Notion of Home.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (16 October 2011): http://chronicle.com/article/A-Land-Grant- Visionarys/129422.

Block, Jean F. The Uses of Gothic: Planning and Building the Campus of the University of Chicago, 1892-1932. Chicago: University of Chicago Library, 1983.

Blumenstyk. Goldie. “Market Collapse Weighs Heavily on College Endowments.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 55, no. 22 (6 Feb. 2009): 17.

Boyd's City Dispatch, Ohio Millionaires. New York, 1930. [Ohio Historical Society.]

464

Bremner, Robert Hamlett. American Philanthropy. The Chicago history of American civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Originally published in 1960.

Brittingham, Barbara E., and Thomas R. Pezzullo. The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human Development, the George Washington University, 1990.

Broad, Molly C. “Endowments are Both Vital and Misunderstood.” Chronicle of Higher Education v. 55, no. 13 (21 Nov. 2008): A32.

Brooks, Arthur C. Gifts of Time and Money: The Role of Charity in America's Communities. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.

Brubacher, John Seiler, and Willis Rudy. Higher Education in Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 1636-1976. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

Burlingame, Dwight. The Responsibilities of Wealth. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992.

Burlingame, Dwight. Philanthropy in America: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2004.

Cabot, Paul C. “The Investment Trust, Its Use and Abuse.” The Atlantic Monthly (March 1929): 401-408.

Cain, Joseph Harvey. College and university investments and income, 1925-41. Published by American Council on Education, 1942.

“Call for Harvard.” Boston Globe (11 Jan. 1917): 1-5.

Cannon, Cornelia J. “Philanthropic Doubts.” Atlantic Monthly 128 (Sept. 1921): 889-93.

Carnegie, Andrew. “Deed of Gift.” [Carnegie Corporation of New York]. http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/centennialmoments/Deed_of_Gift.pdf

Carnegie, Andrew. “Wealth.” North American Review (June 1889): 653.

Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth and Other Timely Essays. New York: Century, 1901.

Cary, William L. and Craig B. Bright. “Income of Endowment Funds.” Columbia Law Review (March 1969): 396-417. 465

Cash, Samuel G. “Private Voluntary Support to Public Universities in the United States: Late Nineteenth-century Developments.” International Journal of Educational Advancement 5, no. 4 (August 2005): 343-356.

Caulkins, Jonathan P. Intelligent Giving: Insights and Strategies for Higher Education Donors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2002.

Chalmers, Thomas. “On the Use and Abuse of Literary and Ecclesiastical Endowments.” Glasgow: W. Collins, 1827.

Charles R. Sattgast, The Administration of College and University Endowments. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1940. No. 808

Chernow, Ron. Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. New York: Vintage Books, 2004.

Chew, Helena M. “Mortmain in Medieval London.” The English Historical Review (Jan. 1945): 1-15.

Choate, Joseph H. Education in America: Mr. Choate’s Inauguaral Address, August 1, 1903. London: Harrison and Sons, 1903.

Choate, Joseph Hodges. Abraham Lincoln, and Other Addresses in England. New York: The Century Co, 1910.

Chung-Hoon, Tanise L., Julie M. Hite, and Steven J. Hite. “Searching for Enduring Donor Relationships: Evidence for Factors and Strategies in a Donor/Organization Integration Model for Fund Raising.” International Journal of Educational Advancement (31 May 2005): 34-53.

Clarke, Jack A. “Turgot’s Critique of Perpetual Endowments.” French Historical Studies (Autumn 1964): 495-506.

Cockins, Edith D. Ralph Davenport Mershon. Columbus, Ohio: [The Ohio State University, printed by the Anthoensen Press, Portland, Maine], 1956. 2 Vols.

The College Association of the Middle States and Maryland. Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention of the College Association of Pennsylvania. [?]: Globe Printing House, 1888.

Columbia University. “Finances of Columbia University.” School & Society 45 (16 Jan. 1937): 82.

466

Conti-Brown, Peter. “Scarcity Amidst Wealth: The Law, Finance, and Culture of University Endowments in Financial Crisis.” (August 6, 2009). Available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssrn.com/abstract=1444978

“The Contributors’ Column.” Atlantic Monthly (May 1929): 716.

Cook, W. Bruce. “Fund Raising and the College Presidency in an Era of Uncertainty: From 1975 to the Present.” Journal of Higher Education (Jan/Feb 1997): 53-86.

Cope, Alexis. History of The Ohio State University, 1870-1910. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1920. Vol. 1.

Counts, George S. The Social Foundations of Education. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1934.

Cornell, Alonzo. True and Firm: Biography of Ezra Cornell. New York, 1884.

Cremin, Lawrence A. American Education, the Metropolitan Experience, 1876-1980. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Cremin, Lawrence Arthur. The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957. New York: Knopf, 1964.

Curti, Merle Eugene, and Roderick Nash. Philanthropy in the Shaping of American Higher Education. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1965.

Curti, Merle. “Review of Bricks without Straw: The Evolution of George Washington University Review of Indiana University: Midwestern Pioneer Review of Building Sullivant's Pyramid: An Administrative History of the.” The American Historical Review, v. 76 issue 5, 1971, p. 1598.

Curti, Merle. “Tradition and Innovation in American Philanthropy.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105. no. 2 (21 Apr. 1961): 146-156.

Cutlip, Scott M. “Fund Raising in the United States.” Society (March 1990): 59-62.

Cutlip, Scott M. Fund-Raising in the United States: It’s Role in America’s Philanthropy. New Brunswick, N.J., 1965

Department of Photography & Crime Staff. First Hundred Years: A Family Album of the Ohio State University, 1870-1970. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1970. 160 pp. [by Robert W. Wagner].

467

Dewald, William G. “The Ohio State University Years.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking. (Feb. 1977): 249-251.

Dienst, Charles Franklin. The Administration of Endowments: With Secial Reference to the Public Schools and Institutional Trusts of Idaho. Teachers college, Columbia university, 1933.

Donoghue, Frank. The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities. New York: Fordham University Press, 2008.

Dorf, Philip. The Builder; A Biography of Ezra Cornell. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

“Dr. W. O. Thompson Dies in Hospital,” New York Times (Dec 9, 1933): 15.

“Duke University Will Get $40,000,000 More: Will Then Wealthiest in United States.”

New York Times (28 Oct. 1925): 1.

Dunbar, Willis Frederick. Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1965.

Edmiston, James P. “The ‘Dead Hand’ of Charitable Institutions--Ohio’s Statute of Mortmain.” Northern Kentucky State Law Forum (Winter 1973): 151-163.

Edwin R. Embree, “The Business of Giving Away Money.” Harper’s Monthly 161 (Aug. 1930): 320-9.

Eells, W. C. “Endowments in American Colleges and Universities.” School & Society 41 (23 Feb. 1935): 263-272.

Eells, Walter C. “Income from Endowments.” Journal of Higher Education (December 1936).

Ehrenberg, R. G. & Smith, C. L. “The sources and uses of annual giving at selective private research universities and liberal arts colleges.” Economics of Education Review, 22 (2003): 223-235.

Eikenberry, D. H. and L. L. Love. “The College of Education of the Ohio State University.” Educational Research Bulletin (3 Jan. 1940): 12-23.

Eliot, Charles W. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: A Report to the Trustees of the Endowment on Observations Made in China and in 1912. Washington, D. C.: Press of Byron S. Adams, 1913. 468

Eliot, Charles W. University Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1908

Eliot, Charles William, and (ed.). Charles W. Eliot, The Man and His Beliefs. New York: Harper & brothers, 1926. 2 Vols.

Eliot, Charles William. Educational Reform: Essays and Addresses. New York: The Century Co., 1901.

Elliott, Deni. The Kindness of Strangers: Philanthropy and Higher Education. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

Elliott, Orrin Leslie. Stanford University: The First Twenty-five Years. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1937.

Ellison, Curtis W., ed. Miami University, 1809-2009: Bicentennial Perspectives. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2009.

Elsner-Sommer, Gretchen, Marjorie Rabe Barritt, and Doris Attaway. Michigan Memories: Student Voices and Images, 1856-1935. Ann Arbor, MI: Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan, 2005.

Embree, Edwin R. “The Business of Giving Away Money.” Harper’s Monthly 161 (Aug. 1930): 320-9.

Fallace, Thomas, and Victoria Fantozzi. “Was There Really a Social Efficiency Doctrine?: The Uses and Abuses of an Idea in Educational History.” Educational Researcher 42, no. 3 (April 2013): 142-150.

Fallis, George. Multiversities, Ideas and Democracy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007.

Farrand, Elizabeth Martha. History of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Register Pub. House, 1885.

Fawcett, Novice G. The Ohio State University: A Centennial of Increasing Commitment. New York: Newcomen Society in North America, 1971. 24 pp.

Feingold, Gustave. “The Basic Function of Secondary Education.” School and Society (22 Dec. 1934): 847-849.

Field, Kelly. “Lawmakers Ease Pressure for Mandatory Payouts as Colleges Increase Aid.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (9 Sep. 2008): see http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/09/4536n.htm.

469

“The Finances of Columbia University.” Atlantic Monthly (16 Jan. 1937): 82-3.

Fitch, Joshua. “Proceedings of the Second Annual Convention of the College Association of Pennsylvania.” Pp. 20-24.

Fitch, Joshua. Educational Aims and Methods: Lectures and Addresses. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Flexner, Abraham. Universities: American, English, German. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Original work published 1930.

Flint, Nott William. The University of Chicago, A Sketch. Chicago: The University of Chicago press, 1905.

Fogarty, Michael S., Gasper S. Garofalo, and David C. Hammack, “Cleveland from Startup to the Present: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the 19th and early 20th Century.” Cleveland, Ohio: Center for Regional Economic Issues, Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western University, 2002.

“Football is a Fight, Says President Eliot, Harvard’s Head Vigorously Attacks the Game, Strong Prey on the Weak, Conditions Governing the Sport Dr. Eliot Describes as Hateful--Wants $2,500,000 Endowment.” New York Times (2 Feb. 1905): 6.

Friedman, Lawrence J. and Mark D. McGarvie, eds. Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in American History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Garrett, Betty, and Edward R. Lentz. Columbus, America's Crossroads. The American portrait series. Tulsa, Okla: Continental Heritage Press, 1980.

Gasman, Marybeth. “W.E.B. Du Bois and Charles S. Johnson: Differing Views on the Role of Philanthropy in Higher Education.” History of Education Quarterly (Winter 2002): 493-516.

Gasman, Marybeth. Envisioning Black Colleges: A History of the United Negro College Fund. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.

Gates, Frederick Taylor. The Country School of to-Morrow. New York city: General education board, 1913.

Gaudiani, Claire. The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. New York, NY: Holt, 2004.

Geiger, Roger L. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. 470

Gibbs, Paul. “Does Advertising Pervert Higher Education? Is there a Sase for resistance?” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17 (2007): 3-11.

“Gifts in Perpetuity: Examples of Early Foundations which Show Unwise Restrictions Attached to Their Endowments.” Atlantic Monthly (May 1929).

Gladden, Washington. “Tainted Money.” Outlook 52 (30 Nov. 1895): 886.

Gladden, Washington. The New Idolatry. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1906.

Gladwell, Malcolm. “The Order of Things.” The New Yorker (14 Feb. 2011): 68-75.

Goebel, Julius Jr. A History of the Law School of Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

Good, Harry Gehman. The Rise of the College of Education of the Ohio State University. Columbus: College of Education, Ohio State University, 1960.

Goodale, Frances A., ed. The Literature of Philanthropy. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893.

Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. A History of the University of Chicago. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press, 1916.

Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. The Story of the University of Chicago, 1890-1925. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925.

Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield. The University of Chicago Biographical Sketches. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1922.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector and Other Essays on Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Nonprofit Organizations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Hall, Peter Dobkin. The Organization of American Culture, 1700-1900: Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality. New York University series in education and socialization in American history. New York: New York University Press, 1982.

Hansmann, Henry. “Why do Universities have Endowments?” Journal of Legal Studies (Jan 1990): 3-42.

Harbage, Arnett. “Thoughts of a Dirt Farmer.” The Putnam County Gazette (1 August 1935). 471

Harper, William R. The Trend in Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1905.

Harris, Seymour E. The Economics of Harvard. New York: McGRaw-Hill, 1970.

Harvard Endowment Fund, Harvard and the Future. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919.

Harvard Law School. The Centennial History of the Harvard Law School, 1817-1917. The Harvard law school association, 1918.

Harvard University. [Annual Reports, President and Treasurer, 1869-1940]

Hawkins, Hugh. Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University, 1874-1889. Baltimore: Cornell University Press, 1960.

Hawkins, Hugh. Between Harvard and America; the Educational Leadership of Charles W. Eliot. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Hayes, Ralph. “Dead Hands and Frozen Funds.” North American Review (May 1929): 607.

Healy, Beth. “Harvard Ignored Warnings about Investments: Advisers told Summers, Others Not to Put So Much Cash in Market Losses hit $1.8b.” Boston Globe (29 Nov. 2009): http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/11/29/harvard_ignor ed_warnings_about_investments?mode=PF.

Heddesheimer, Walter Jon. The Study and Teaching of History in the United States Prior to 1940 with a Special Reference to the Ohio State University. Thesis--Ohio State University, 1974.

Herbst, Jurgen. Review of Building Sullivant’s Pyramid: An Administrative History of the Ohio State University, 1870-1907, by William A. Kinnison. The Wisconsin Magazine of History 54, no. 3 (Spring, 1971): 225-226.

Herrick, John H. The OSU Mirror Lake Hollow. Columbus, OH: Office of Campus Planning and Space Utilization, Ohio State University, 1984.

Heskel, Julia and Davis Dyer. After the Harkness Gift: A History of Phillips Exeter Academy Since 1930. Exeter, N.H.: Phillips Exeter Academy; Hanover: University Press of New England, 2008.

472

Hinsdale, Burke A., and edited by Isaac N. Demmon. History of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: Published by the University, 1906.

Hirsch, Adam J., and William K.S. Wang. “A Qualitative Theory of the Dead Hand.” Indiana Law Journal 68, no. 1 (1992): 1-58.

Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennial Edition On Line, eds. Susan B. Carter, Scott Sigmund Gartner, Michael R. Haines, Alan L. Olmstead, Richard Sutch, and Gavin Wright, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Hobhouse, Arthur. The Dead Hand: Addresses on the Subjects of Endowments and Settlements of Property. London: Chatto & Windus, Piccadilly, 1880.

Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform; From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Knopf, 1955.

Hollis, Ernest V. Philanthropic Foundations and Higher Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938.

Holmes, J. “Prestige, Charitable Deductions and Other Determinants of Alumni Giving: Evidence from a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College. Economics and Education Review 28, (2009): 18-28.

Holt, George D. “The Origin of the Alumni Fund.” The Yale Alumni Weekly (2 Feb. 1917): 528-529.

Hooper, Osman C. History of The Ohio State University, 1910-1925. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1926. Vol. 2.

Hooper, Osman Castle. History of the City of Columbus, Ohio: From the Founding of Franklinton in 1797, Through the World War Period, to the Year 1920. Columbus: Memorial, 1920.

Indiana University Board of Trustees Minutes. Available online, http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/iubot/about.do

Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University Charter, Extracts of Will, Officers and by-Laws. Baltimore: Printed by J. Murphy, 1874.

Jonathan Gill, “Blackboard Notes; Bears, Bulls and Students,” New York Times (7 August 1988): http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/07/education/blackboard-notes- bears-bulls-and-students.html

Karabel, Jerome. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. 473

Karl, Barry D. “Philanthropy and the Social Sciences.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (March 1985): 14-19.

Karl, Barry D. “Philanthropy, Policy Planning, and the Bureaucratization of the Democratic Ideal.” Daedalus (Fall 1976): 129-149.

Karl, Barry D., and Stanley N. Katz, “The American Private Philanthropic Foundation and the Public Sphere, 1890-1930.” Minerva 19 (1981): 236-71.

Kenny, Michael. “Is Inheritance a Right?” Loyola Law Journal (New Orleans) (May 1924): 183-191.

Kimball, Bruce A. “The Disastrous First Fund-Raising Campaign in Legal Education: The Harvard Law School Centennial, 1914–1920.” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 12 (2013): 535-578.

Kimball, Bruce A., and Benjamin A. Johnson, “The Inception of the Meaning and Significance of Endowment in American Higher Education, 1890-1930.” Teachers College Record 114, no. 10 (2012): http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16669

Kimball, Bruce A., and Benjamin A. Johnson. “The Beginning of ‘Free Money’ Ideology in American Universities: Charles W. Eliot at Harvard, 1869-1909.” History of Education Quarterly 52, no. 2 (May 2012): 222-250.

Kinnison, William A. Building Sullivant's Pyramid; An Administrative History of the Ohio State University, 1870-1907. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1970.

Knepper, George W. Ohio and Its People. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1989.

Kuhns, William R. “Less Planning Would be a Good Plan.” American Bankers Journal (April 1934):18-21.

Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe, ed. Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe. “The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation and the Formulation of Public Policy.” History of Education Quarterly (Summer 1987): 205-220.

Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe. Private Power for the Public Good: A History of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1983.

474

Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe. The Politics of Knowledge: The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy. Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 1989.

The Lantern: Online Archive 1881-1997. Ohio State University http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Default/Skins/Ohio/Client.asp?Skin=Ohio&AppN ame=2&AW=1268272082626

Lapovsky, L. Critical Endowment Policy Issues. New Directions for Higher Education 140 (2007): 99-110.

Latham, Earl. John D. Rockefeller, Robber Baron or Industrial Statesman? Boston: Heath, 1949.

Lawson, Robert F. “The American Project for Educational Reform in Central Europe.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 24, no. 3 (1994): 247-257.

Leslie, William B. Gentlemen & Scholars: College and Community in the “Age of University.” New Brunswick [u.a.]: Transaction Publ, 2005.

Lester, Robert M. “Philanthropic Endowments in Modern Life.” South Atlantic Quarterly 34 (Jan. 1935): 1-14.

Levi, Edward Hirsch. An Adventure in Discovery. [Chicago]: University of Chicago, 1972.

“Lifting ‘Dead Hands’ from Charities.” Literary Digest (February 1929): 26.

Lilley, A. L. Sir Joshua Fitch: An Account of his Life and Work. London: Edward Arnold, 1906.

Lindeman, Eduard C. Wealth and Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936.

Little, Clarence Cook. Papers, 1924-1929 (Bentley Historical Archives, University of Michigan).

Magnes, J. L. Jewish Charities: “The Needs of a Community” See https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/10466/THE%20NEEDS% 20OF%20A%20COMMUNITY.PDF

Marcus, George E., and Peter Dobkin Hall. Lives in Trust: The Fortunes of Dynastic Families in Late Twentieth-Century America. Institutional structures of feeling. Boulder: Westview Press, 1992. 475

Marsh, Clarence Stephen, ed. American Universities and Colleges. American Council on Education. Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940.

Masterson, Kathryn, “As Endowment Values Plummet, Some Institutions Consider Suing Over Investment Advice.” Chronicle of Higher Education (19 November 2008): http://chronicle.com/daily/2008/11/7571n.htm.

Matthew Josephson, The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901. New York: Harcourt, Brace, [1934].

McComb, Mary C. Great Depression and the Middle Class: Experts, Collegiate Youth and Business Ideology, 1929-1941. New York: Routledge, 2006.

McCoy, Joseph S. “Our 11,000 American Millionaires.” American Bankers Association Journal (September, 1926): 134, 179-181.

McCracken, William Clyde. The History of the Physical Plant of the Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio: [s.n.], 1942.

McKersie, William S. “Philanthropy’s Paradox: Chicago School Reform.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (Summer 1993): 109-128.

Mendenhall, Thomas C., and Joseph S. Myers, ed. History of The Ohio State University: Addresses and Proceedings of the Semicentennial Celebration, October 13-16, 1920. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1922. Vol. 3.

Mendenhall, Thomas C., ed. History of Ohio State University, 1870-1910. Columbus: Ohio State University Pr., 1920-1941. 5 vols.

The Michigan Alumnus, 1894-1950.

The Michigan Daily, 1890-1950.

Mill, John Stuart. “Educational Endowments 1866,” in John Stuart Mill, Edition used: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXI - Essays on Equality, Law, and Education. Edited by John M. Robson, Introduction by Stefan Collini. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.

Mill, John Stuart. “Endowments,” (1869) in Mill, John Stuart. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume V - Essays on Economics and Society Part II. Edited by John M. Robson, introduction by Lord Robbins. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967.

476

Miner, Dwight C. A History of Columbia College on Morningside. Bicentennial history of Columbia University series. Columbia University Press; Oxford University Press, 1954.

Miner, Frances Hudson. Horace H. Rackham and Mary A. Rackham Fund, Detroit and Ann Arbor, 1934-1940. Ann Arbor: The Trustees, 1940.

Mitchell, John P. Stanford University, 1916-1941. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958.

Monk, David H, Michael J. Dooris, and Rodney A. Erickson. “In Search of a New Equilibrium: Economic Aspects of Higher Education’s Changing Faculty Composition.” Education Finance and Policy (Summer 2009): 300-318.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Development of Harvard University Since the Inauguration of President Eliot, 1869-1929. The Tercentennial history of Harvard College and University, 1636-1936. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard university press, 1930.Morison, Samuel Eliot. Three Centuries of Harvard, 1636-1936. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1936.

Morris, Charles R. The Tycoons: How Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould, and J.P. Morgan Invented the American Supereconomy. New York: H. Holt and Co, 2005.

Morris, Joe Alex. “The Small Colleges Fight for Their Lives.” Saturday Evening Post, CCXXVI (May 15, 1954), pp. 42 ff.

Murlin, L. H. “Problems in the Use of College Endowments.” School and Society 16 (1919): 246-250.

Murphy, William Michael, and D. J. R. Bruckner. The Idea of the University of Chicago: Selections from the Papers of the First Eight Chief Executives of the University of Chicago from 1891 to 1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Naisbitt, John, and Patricia Aburdene. Re-Inventing the Corporation: Transforming Your Job and Your Company for the New Information Society. New York, NY: Warner Books, 1985.

National Association of College and University Business Officers Endowment Study. “All Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2008 Market Value of Endowment Assets with Percentage Change between 2007 and 2008 Endowment Assets. http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/NES2008PublicTable- AllInstitutionsByFY08MarketValue.pdf

477

National Association of College and University Business Officers Commonfund Study of Endowments. “U.S. and Canadian Institutions Listed by Fiscal Year 2009 Endowment Market Value and Percentage Change in Endowment Market Value from FY2008 to FY2009.” See http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009_NCSE_Public_Tables_Endow ment_Market_Values.pdf

Nettleton, George H., ed. The Book of the Yale Pageant, 21 October 1916. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916.

Nevins, Allan. John D. Rockefeller. Charles Scribner, 1959.

Nevins, Allan. John D. Rockefeller: The Heroic Age of American Enterprise. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1940.

Nevins, Allan. Study in Power: John D. Rockefeller, Industrialist and Philanthropist. New York: Scribner, 1953. Vols. 1-2.

Newman, John Henry. The Idea of a University. Dublin: J. Duffy, 1852.

The Northwest Monthly. “Published Monthly by the Northwest School of Agriculture of the University of Minnesota, Crookston.” 16, no. 2 (January 1932): 7. http://nwmonthly.umcrookston.edu/Northwest%20Monthly%201932%20Vol%20 16%20No%202%20January.pdf

Novak, Richard, and David Leslie. “A Not So Distant Mirror: Great Depression Writings on the Governance and Finance of Public Higher Education.” Edited by Roger L. Geiger, History of Higher Education Annual 20 (2000): 59-78.

Nutting, A. W. “Costs of attendance and the educational programs of first-time community college students.” Economics of Education Review, 27 (2008): 450- 459.

O’Connell, J. F., and G. M. Perkins. “The Economics of Private Liberal Arts Colleges. The Journal of Business, 76(3) (2003): 499-514.

O’Connor, Alice. Social Science for What?: Philanthropy and the Social Question in a World Turned Rightside Up. A Russell Sage Foundation centennial volume. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007.

Ogg, Frederic A. “Foundations and Endowments in Relation to Research,” ch. 15, pp.323-61. In Research in the Humanistic and Social Sciences. New York: Century, for the American Council of Learned Societies, 1928.

478

Ohio Historical Society, Ohio History Central. “University of Cincinnatti,” http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/University_of_Cincinnati. Martin L. Davey, http://ww2.ohiohistory.org/onlinedoc/ohgovernment/governors/donahey.html.

The Ohio State University Alumni Association. [Member eligibility]. http://www.ohiostatealumni.org/resources/member-benefits/Pages/default.aspx

The Ohio State University Alumni Association. Ohio State University Monthly.

The Ohio State University. Annual Report of the President… [to the Board of Trustees]. The Ohio State University, [1890-1941].

The Ohio State University, Annual Enrollment, Total University, 1873-1874 through 1921-1922, Office of the University Registrar, http://oesar.osu.edu/pdf/student_enrollment/historical/1873_1922.pdf

The Ohio State University, Autumn Quarter Enrollment, Total University, 1923-1940, The Ohio State University, Office of the University Registrar, http://oesar.osu.edu/pdf/student_enrollment/historical/1922_1944.pdf

The Ohio State University Archives. George Washington Rightmire Papers (3/f).

The Ohio State University Archives. William Oxley Thompson Papers (3/e).

The Ohio State University College of Medicine News. Available online, http://medicine.osu.edu/news/archive/2012/10/31/alumni-association-welcomes- resident-graduates-as-official-alumni.aspx. Posted 31 October 2012 online by Jessica Rutan.

The Ohio State University. Cornerstones: Annual Report, The Ohio State University Endowment Fund. [Columbus]: The Ohio State University Development Fund, 1900s. 1972-73 to 1991-1992 and 2002-2003.

The Ohio State University. “Endowment Opportunities.” Available online, http://www.osu.edu/giving/guide-to-giving/endowments/opportunities.html.

The Ohio State University. Financial Report of Endowment Funds. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1957 and June 30, 1971. OSU has 1956-67 to 1973-74.

The Ohio State University. From Cornfield to College: A History of the Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1970s.

The Ohio State University. History of The Ohio State University, V. 5. Addresses and Proceedings of the Inauguration of Howard Landis Bevis, October 24 and 25, 479

1940. Edited by William McPherson and Harold Kent Schellenger. Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1941.

The Ohio State University. History of The Ohio State University V. 6. Addresses and Proceedings of the Seventy-Fifth Anniversary, 1948-49. Columbus, [OH]: The Ohio State University Press, 1951.

The Ohio State University. History of The Ohio State University, V. 7. Addresses and Proceedings of the Inauguration of Novice G. Fawcett (and) Dedication of Mershom Auditorium, April 29, 1957. (Columbus): Ohio State University Press, 1959.

The Ohio State University. Knowledge Bank. Oral History Program. Available online, http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/479.

The Ohio State University. Office of Public Relations. “A Brief History of Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.” June 1971.

The Ohio State University. Minutes from the Annual Report of the Board of Trustees.

The Ohio State University. “Statistical Summary.” Available online at http://www.osu.edu/osutoday/stuinfo.php.

Orton, William A. “Endowments and Foundations.” In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. Edited by Edwin R. A. Seligman and Alvin Johnson. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935. Vol. 5: Pp. 531-537.

Palmer, R. R. “How Five Centuries of Educational Philanthropy Disappeared in the French Revolution.” History of Education Quarterly (Summer 1986): 181-197.

Pappas, Gregory Fernando. John Dewey's Ethics: Democracy As Experience. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2008.

Parker, Alton B. “Rights of Donors.” Educational Review 23 (Jan. 1902): 15-21.

Patterson, Frederick Douglass. The College Endowment Funding Plan. American Council on Education, 1976.

Payton, Robert L., Michael Novak, Brian O’Connell, and Peter Dobkin Hall. Philanthropy: Four Views. Studies in social philosophy & policy, no. 11. [Bowling Green, OH]: Social Philosophy & Policy Center and Transaction Publishers, 1988.

480

Peckham, Howard H. and edited and updated by Margaret L. Steneck, Nicholas H. Steneck. The Making of the University of Michigan, 1817-1992. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library, 1997.

Peckham, Howard H. The Making of the University of Michigan, 1817-1967. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library, 1967.

Penniman, Josiah Harmar. “Founders Day Address at the Drexel Institute of Technology.” School and Society (16 Jan. 1937): 81-83.

Perry, Chris. History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 13: The Kirwan Years: 1998- 2002. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 2005.

Phelps, William Lyon. Autobiography with Letters, chap. on “Life at Harvard.” New York, London [etc.] Oxford University Press, 1939.

Phillips, Kevin. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich. New York: Broadway Books, 2002.

Pierson, George W. Yale College an Educational History, 1871-1921. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952. Vol. 1.

Pinkerton, Richard L. and Wilfred B. Shaw. “Story without End: The History of the University of Michigan Union: 1903-1954.” October 1954. Located in Michigan Union-printed, Histories folder.

Pollard, James E. History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940-1956. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1972. Part 2: The Post-War Years and the Emergence of the Greater University, 1945-56.

Pollard, James E. History of The Ohio State University: Vol. 8, The Bevis Administration, 1940-1956. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press, 1967. Part 1: The University in a World at War, 1940-1945.

Pollard, James E. History of The Ohio State University; The Story of Its First Seventy- Five Years, 1873-1948. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1952.

Pollard, John Albert. Fund-raising for Higher Education. New York: Harper, 1958.

Powell, Arthur G. The Uncertain Profession: Harvard and the Search for Educational Authority. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Price, Richard R. “The Financial Support of the University of Michigan: Its Origin and Development.” Harvard Bulletin Ed., No. 8 (1923): 1-58. 481

Pritchett, Henry S. “Should the Carnegie Foundation be Suppressed?” The North American Review (April 1915): 554.

Pritchett, Henry S. “The Use and Abuse of Endowments,” Atlantic Monthly 144 (Oct. 1929): 517-524.

Pultz, Frederick. “Veterans in the Ohio State University College of Education.” Educational Research Bulletin (17 Sept. 1947): 153-156.

Raines, J. Patrick, and Charles G. Leathers. The Economic Institutions of Higher Education: Economic Theories of University Behavior. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar, 2003.

Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, [1920-1939] Cambridge: Published by [Harvard] University, [1920-1939].

Reuben, Julie A. The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Richardson, Theresa. “Rethinking Progressive High School Reform in the 1930s: Youth, Mental Hygiene, and General Education.” American Educational History Journal 33, no 1 (2006): 77-87.

Rightmire, George. W. “Education in Ohio Today.” Proceedings of the Twelfth Ohio State Educational Conference, Ohio State University Bulletin, 36, no. 1 (15 September 1932): 3- 16.

Rockefeller, John D. Random Reminiscences of Men and Events. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1909.

Rockefeller, John D., Sr. “The Benevolent Trust.” World’s Work 37 (May 1909): 14-38.

Roeske, Clarence Edward. “The Land-Grant Philosophy Historical Implications in Its Changing Definition Through the American Experience.” Thesis--Ohio State University, 1973.

Roseboom, Eugene H., The Civil War Era: 1850-1873. Edited by Carl Wittke. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological Society and Historical Society, 1944. Vol. 4, p. 96.

Romano, Louis A. Manual and Industrial Education at Girard College, 1831-1965: An Era in American Educational Experimentation. American ethnic groups. New York: Arno Press, 1980.

482

Rosenwald, Julius. “Principles of Public Giving.” Atlantic Monthly 143 (May 1929): 599- 606.

Rosenwald, Julius. “Trends Away from Perpetuities.” Atlantic Monthly 146 (Dec. 1930): 741-9.

Sander, Kathleen Waters. Mary Elizabeth Garrett: Society and Philanthropy in the Gilded Age. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Schaeper, Thomas J., and Kathleen Schaeper. Cowboys into Gentlemen: Rhodes Scholars, Oxford, and the Creation of an American Elite. New York: Berghahn Books, 1998.

Schervish, Paul G., Virginia Ann Hodgkinson, and Margaret Jane Gates. Care and Community in Modern Society: Passing on the Tradition of Service to Future Generations. The Jossey-Bass nonprofit sector series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995.

Scott, John C. “The Mission of the University: Medieval to Postmodern Transformations.” Journal of Higher Education 77, no. 1 (January/February 2006).

Sealander, Judith. Private Wealth & Public Life: Foundation Philanthropy and the Reshaping of American Social Policy from the Progressive Era to the New Deal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Sears, Jesse Brundage. Philanthropy in the History of American Higher Education. New Brunswick, U.S.A.: Transaction Publishers, 1990. Originally published in 1922.

Seass, Arthur R. “Endowment Income and Investments, 1926-35.” Bulletin no. 8 of the Financial Advisory Service, American Council on Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1937.

Shaw, Wilfred B. “Support of the University of Michigan from Sources Other than Public Funds or Student Fees, 1817-1934.” University of Michigan Official Publication, XXV (1934).

Shaw, Wilfred B. A Short History of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, MI: G. Wahr, 1937.

Shaw, Wilfred B. Support of the University of Michigan from Sources Other than Public Funds or Student Fees, 1931-1939. Ann Arbor: Michigan, 1940.

483

Shaw, Wilfred B. The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1941. Vols. 1-9.

Shaw, Wilfred. The University of Michigan. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Howe, 1920.

Siebert, Wilbur H. History of The Ohio State University: The University in the Great War. Vol. 4: The University in the Great War. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1934. Part 1.

Siebert, Wilbur H. History of The Ohio State University: The University in the Great War. Vol. 4: The University in the Great War. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1938. Part 2: Our Men in Military and Naval Service.

Siebert, Wilbur H. History of The Ohio State University: The University in the Great War. Vol. 4: The University in the Great War. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1938. Part 3: In the Camps and at the Front.

Sinclair, Upton. The Goose-step: A Study of American Education. Girard, KS: Haldeman- Julius Publications, 1923. Vol. 3. Revised edition.

Sisson, Roger G. “Relaxing the Dead Hand’s Grip: Charitable Efficiency and the Doctrine of Cy Pres.” Virginia Law Review (Apr 1988): 635-654.

Slosson, Edwin E. Great American Universities. New York: Macmillan, 1910. [For information on Michigan, see Chapter VI: “University of Michigan,” pp. 182- 209.]

Smith, Richard G. “Forty-Third Bequest to University Swells Endowments to $2,000,000.” Ohio State Lantern (23 October 1936): front page.

Smith, Richard N. The Harvard Century: The Making of a University to a Nation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

Smith, Shirley W. and the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, 1951.

Smith, Shirley W. James Burrill Angell, an American Influence. Ann Arbor, 1954.

Smithsonian, “History: The History of the Smithsonian,” http://www.si.edu/about/history.htm

“Socializing Legal Education,” The New Republic: A Journal of Opinion from the April 14, 1926, Vol. XLVI, no. 593, pp.211-213. 484

St. John, Edward P., and Michael D. Parsons. Public Funding of Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Steneck, Margaret L. The Making of a National Institution: A History of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: M.L. Steneck, 1983.

Stewart, William Rhinelander. The Philanthropic Work of Josephine Shaw Lowell; Containing a Biographical Sketch of Her Life, Together with a Selection of Her Public Papers and Private Letters, Collected and Arranged for Publication. New York: Macmillan Co, 1911.

Stokes, Anson Phelps. Yale Endowments: A Description of the Various Gifts and Bequests Establishing Permanent University Funds. [New Haven]: Yale University, 1917.

Storr, Richard J. Harper's University: The Beginnings; a History of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.

Summerfield, Carol J., Mary Elizabeth Devine, and Anthony Levi. International Dictionary of University Histories. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998.

Sweeten, Ryan. A History of the Ohio State University: Magic Memories. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1985.

Tappan, Henry Philip. University Education. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1851.

Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.

Thompson, Derek. “How Harvard University Almost Destroyed Itself.” The Atlantic (28 May 2009): http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/05/how-harvard- university-almost-destroyed-itself/18466/.

Thwing, Charles Franklin. “New Trend in Colleges Stresses Personal Need, Individual Student, Ordinary as Well as Superior, Receives Increasing Attention, Dr. Thwing Finds, in Survey of the Last Academic Year.” New York Times (7 June 1925): 22.

Titus-Becker, Katherine C. “‘Make That Gift’ Exploring the Stoical Navigation of Gender Among Women Fundraisers in Higher Education.” Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 2007.

Toledo Scale Company. “The First Fifty Years.” Toledo, Ohio: 1951.

485

Toynbee, Arnold J. A Study of History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1934-1962. 12 vols.

Turgot, Anne-Robert-Jacques. Oeuvres de Turgot et documents le concernant avec biographie et notes par Gustave Schelle. Paris: Librairie Félix Alcan, 1913. Reprinted, Glash tten im Taunus: Detlev Auvermann, 1972.

Turgot. “On Foundations.” In The Old Regime and the French Revolution. Edited by Keith Michael Baker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Pp. 89-97.

Ulich, Robert. The Education of Nations: A Comparison in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Underwood, Paul. History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 10: The Enarson Years, 1972-1981. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1985.

United States Bureau of Education, Biennial Survey of Education [1890-1940]. [United State Commissioner of Education Reports; “Statistics of Higher Education.” Washington: Government Printing Office, [1890-1943].

“Universities Ask Over $200,000,000.” New York Times (8 February 1920): E1.

University of Michigan Board of Regents. Proceedings of the Board of Regents b. Ann Arbor, MI: The University, 1837. See also, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umregproc/

University of Michigan. Catalogue of the academic senate of the University of Michigan, and of those who have received its regular and honorary degrees. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1871.

University of Michigan. The Chronicle-Argonaut. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, [1890-1891]. Vol. 1, nos. 1-29.

University of Michigan. A General Catalogue of the Officers and Graduates, from its organization in 1837-1864. Ann Arbor: The University, 1864.

University of Michigan, The Michigan book. Ann Arbor: [The Inland press], 1898.

University of Michigan. Michiganensian. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, [1897- 1931].

University of Michigan. The Presidents Report to the Board of Regents for that Academic Year…Financial Statement for the fiscal year. [1870-1966].

486

University of Michigan. The Union-Review Published by the Michigan Union. October 25, 1934, December 7, 1934, March 5, 1935, May 17, 1935, May 17, 1935. Located in Michigan Union-printed, Newsletters, The Union Review, 1934-1935 folder, Bentley Historical Archives, University of Michigan.

Vazzano, Frank P. Politician Extraordinaire: The Tempestuous Life and Times of Martin L. Davey. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2008.

Veblen, Thorstein. The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men. New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1918.

Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.

Vigeland, Carl A. Great Good Fortune: How Harvard Makes its Money. Houghton Mifflin, 1986.

Waldman, Morris D. In Bulletin of the National Conference of Jewish Charities, 1913- 1914. Edited by Lee F. Frankel. Located in Berman Jewish Policy Archive. Baltimore, MD: Vol. IV: 9. Published April 1914. See https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/10466/THE%20NEEDS% 20OF%20A%20COMMUNITY.PDF

Walton, Andrea. “Building a Pipeline to College: A Study of the Rockefeller-Funded ‘A Better Chance’ Program, 1963-1969.” American Educational History Journal 36, no. 1 (2009): 151-169.

Walton, Andrea. “Rethinking Boundaries: The History of Women, Philanthropy, and Higher Education.” In Higher Education Annual. Edited by Roger L. Geiger (2000): 29-57.

Walton, Andrea. Women and Philanthropy in Education. Philanthropic and nonprofit studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005.

Ward, A. N. “Endowments of 400 Universities and Colleges.” Liberal Arts College Bulletin (November 1930). Vol. 1.

Ware, Jane. An Ohio State Profile: A Year in the Life of America's Biggest Campus. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1991.Warner, Amos Griswold, Mary Roberts Coolidge, and George Elliott Howard. American Charities. New York: T.Y. Crowell, 1908.

Watras, Joseph. “Philanthropy and Educational Reform during the Great Depression.” American Educational History Journal 32, no. 2 (2005): 116-121. 487

Watson, Frank Dekker. The Charity Organization Movement in the United States: A Study in Philanthropy. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1922.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958. Originally published in 1904-5.

Weisbrod, Burton Allen. The Nonprofit Economy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Weisenberger, Francis P. History of The Ohio State University, Vol. 9: The Fawcett Years, 1956-1972. [Columbus, Ohio]: The Ohio State University, 1975.

“When Doctors Disagree” New York Times (13 Jan 1923): 12.

White, Andrew Dickson. Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White. New York: The Century Co, 1905. Vols. 1 and 2.

White, Andrew D. Seven Great Statesmen [including Turgot] in the Warfare of Humanity with Unreason. New York: The Century Co., 1910.

White, Andrew D. My Reminiscences of Ezra Cornell. Ithaca, 1890.

William A. Orton. “Endowments and Foundations.” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, v. 5, pp. 531-7.

Williams, Roger L. The Origins of Federal Support for Higher Education: George W. Atherton and the Land-Grant College Movement. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.

Williston, Samuel, Life and Law: An Autobiography. Boston: Little Brown, 1940.

Wong, Kenneth K., and Robert Rothman, eds. Clio at the Table: Using History to Inform and Improve Education Policy. New York: Peter Lang, 2009.

WOSU. “Birth of Ohio Stadium.” http://www.wosu.org/archive/horseshoe/ . [website and video]. Fenlon, Edwin R. Clay, Brent Greene, and Philip Bosco. The Birth of Ohio Stadium. Columbus, OH: WOSU-TV, 2002.

Wren, Daniel A. “American Business Philanthropy and Higher Education in the Nineteenth Century.” The Business History Review (Autumn, 1983): 321-346.

Wuthnow, Robert, and Virginia Ann Hodgkinson. Faith and Philanthropy in America: Exploring the Role of Religion in America's Voluntary Sector. The Jossey-Bass nonprofit sector series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 488

Yeomans, Henry Aaron. b. 1877 [HLS 1900-01]. Abbott Lawrence Lowell, 1856-1943. Cambridge, Harvard University. Press, 1948.

Yeomans, Henry Aaron. Abbott Lawrence Lowell, 1856-1943. The Academic profession. New York: Arno Press, 1977.

Young, James C. “Dead Hand in Philanthropy.” Current History 23 (March 1926): 837- 842.

Zinssner, Hans. “The Perils of Magnanimity: A Problem in American Education.” Atlantic Monthly 139 (Feb. 1927): 246-250.

Zollman, Carl Frederick. American Law of Charities. Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1924.

489