The Historical Development of the Student Government Association As a Student Sub- Culture at the Florida State University: 1946-1976 Allison Hawkins Crume

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 The Historical Development of the Student Government Association as a Student Sub- Culture at the Florida State University: 1946-1976 Allison Hawkins Crume

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDENT GOVERNMENT

ASSOCIATION AS A STUDENT SUB-CULTURE AT

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY: 1946 – 1976

ALLISON HAWKINS CRUME

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded Summer Semester 2004

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Allison Hawkins Crume

defended on May 5, 2004.

______Robert A. Schwartz Professor Directing Dissertation

______Valerie J. Conner Outside Committee Member

______Joy L. Gaston-Gayles Committee Member

______Victoria-Maria MacDonald Committee Member

Approved:

______Carolyn Herrington, Chair, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

To Donny, my husband, my partner, my friend

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing my doctorate was more than an educational journey for me. It was an explorative odyssey in which I learned a great deal about myself. There are so many people who helped me along the way and who provided the support I needed. My mentor, guide, and major professor throughout these past few years, Robert Schwartz offered integral feedback, suggestions, and comic relief. I am grateful that you agreed to be my major professor even if I had to convince you a little. I especially appreciate the times when you told me to go relax because I often needed permission. I am also appreciative to my other three committee members whose insight was greatly beneficial. My outside professor, Valerie Conner, reconnected me with my historical roots. Her stories made me realize how relevant history is to our lives. Joy Gaston-Gayles and Victoria-Maria MacDonald also served on my committee providing needed feedback and support. Thank you to the faculty members of the Higher Education program who made me work harder and strive to succeed. A special thank you to Beverly Bower who continued to serve as an advisor and teacher even after my coursework was finished. In addition the important staff of the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies department who kept us all in check. A big hug to Jimmy Pastrano for all the times you helped make things a little easier. Thank you to the Hardee Center for Women in Higher Education. I had the opportunity to have some great mentors during my time at FSU. I would especially like to thank Nancy Turner, Chris Roby, Mark Striffler, and Kim McMahon for their time and patience. As a result I have a better understanding and appreciation for our profession. One of the most important support networks in the program for me was my cohort of peers. Thank you to Daniel Chen, Margo McClinton, and Ashley Tull for listening, commiserating, and supporting me. I look forward to our professional successes in the future. Other friends who helped me balance out the stress were Kristina Goodwin, John Mabley, and Simmie Raiford. Thank you to Paige Crandall, Tom Hollins, and Joe Oravecz for sharing their stories and insight. It made everything a little less intimidating. There were several people and departments that helped me with this study. Thank you to the Florida State University Student Government Association, Alumni Association, and Oglesby Union. Thanks to the student organizations and campus political parties who allowed me to observe them and participate in their activities. A sincere thank you to all the participants who gave their time to helping me better understand the student government at FSU. I would not have completed this process without the love and support of my friends and family. My ya-ya girls, Natalie, Mary, and Katherine thank you for everything! Laurie, thank you for understanding and always taking my side, I appreciated it. My family was instrumental in my finishing this study. Mom and Dad, I could never thank you enough for helping me see that it was attainable. All your coaching and listening really pulled me through. Rodney and Mallory thank you for keeping me grounded. It has always been so much fun being your big sister. Thank you to Granddad and Grandmom Mundy for helping me believe in myself! My dearest Donny, I definitely could not have done this without your unending love and support. What a roller coaster we have been on for the past three years, I am looking forward to the future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables …………………………………………………. ix Abstract …………………………………………………. x

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….. 1

Student Influences ………………………………………………….. 2 Student Government ………………………………………………… 2 Focus of the Study ………………………………………………….. 4 Rationale for the Study ………………………………………………….. 5 Research Question …………………………………………………. 5 Definition of Terms …………………………………………………. 5 Limitations …………………………………………………. 6 Significance of the Study and Implications ……………………………….. 6 Summary …………………………………………………. 7

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ………………………………………….. 8

Early Forms of Student Government ……………………………………… 8 The Nineteenth Century …………………………………………………. 9 The Effects of World War I …………………………………………………. 10 Twentieth Century Changes …………………………………………………. 10 National Student Federation .………………………………… 11 Campus Governance .………………………………… 11 The HUAC …………………………………………………. 12 The Myth of the Silent Generation …………………………………………. 13 Campus Diversity …………………………………………………. 14 Free Speech …………………………………………………. 15 Student Activism and Radicalism ………………………………………….. 16 SGA as a figurehead .………………………………… 16 SGA as a vehicle for change .………………………………… 17 Federal Legislation ………………………………………………….. 17 Feminism and Equal Rights …………………………………………………. 18 Changing Campus …………………………………………………. 20 The Modern Era …………………………………………………. 21 Student Government Purpose and Structure…..…………………………. 22 Student Government Elections .………………………………… 23 Activity and Service Fee .………………………………… 23 Future Directions on Student Government………………………………… 23 Research on Student Government …….……………………………….. 24 Summary …………………………………………………. 25 Conclusion ………………………………………………….. 25

III. METHOD AND PROCEDURES……………………………………………. 26

Setting …………………………………………………. 26 Participants …………………………………………………. 26 Data Collection …………………………………………………. 27 Archival Research …………………………………………………. 27 Oral History Research ………………………………………………. 27 Authenticity of Data …………………………………………………. 28 Internal Validity …………………………………………………. 29 External Validity …………………………………………………. 29 Data Analysis …………………………………………………. 29 Summary …………………………………………………. 30

IV. FINDINGS – HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT………………………………. 31

Institutional Background …………………………………………………. 31 Foundation …………………………………………………. 31 Florida Female College …………………………………………………. 32 Femina Perfecta …………………………………………………. 33 Campus Governance Emerges.……………………………………………. 33 Structure ………………………………………………… 33 SGA Advisors ………………………………………………… 34 Executive Council ………………………………………………… 34 Officers ………………………………………………… 34 Senate ………………………………………………… 35 Judiciary ………………………………………………… 35 Student Forums ………………………………………………… 36 Membership ………………………………………………… 36 Committees ………………………………………………… 36 Rules and Regulations ………………………………………………… 36 Extracurricular Activities ………………………………………………… 37 Men Join the Campus ………………………………………………… 38 World War II and Coeducation.…………………………………………… 38 Reaction to Coeducation ………………………………………………… 40 Divided Campus Governance……………………………………………… 40 Student Government Association ………………………………… 40 Campus Governance and Coeducation ………………………………………… 41 Coeducational UGA ………………………………………………… 42 Executive Branch ………………………………………………… 42 Legislative Branch ………………………………………………… 43 Judicial Branch ………………………………………………… 44 Class Officers ………………………………………………… 44 Desegregation ………………………………………………… 45 Emergence of the SGA ………………………………………………… 46 Executive Branch ………………………………………………… 46

vi Legislative Branch ………………………………………………… 46 Judicial Branch ………………………………………………… 47 SGA Accomplishments ……………………………………………. 47 Student Publications ………………………………………………… 47 Extracurricular Activities ………………………………………………… 48 Campus Governance and the Race Question ………………………………….. 49 Integration ………………………………………………… 49 Black Student Union (BSU) ………………………………………………… 51 Racism in White Greek Organizations.……………………………………. 51 Student Government Association (SGA) ………………………………… 52 SGA Staff and Administration …………………………………….. 53 Student Disillusionment ………………………………………………… 54 Allocation of A&S Fee ………………………………………………… 55 Student Publications ………………………………………………… 57 SGA Accomplishments ………………………………………………… 58 Summary ………………………………………………… 59

V. FINDINGS – STUDENT GOVERNMENT AS A SUB-CULTURE …….. 60

Purpose of Student Government ………………………………………… 60 Reasons for Involvement ……………………………………………….. 63 Relationships with the University Community …………………………… 64 Representation on University Committees ……………………… 64 State, Regional, and National Affiliations …………………………..…… 64 State Level ……………………………………………….. 64 Regional Level ………………………………………………. 65 National Level ………………………………………………. 65 SGA Elections ………………………………………………… 66 Campaigning ………………………………………………… 66 Campus Political Parties …………………………………………… 67 Impact of Gender on SGA Involvement ………………………………….. 70 Rules and Regulations ………………………………………………… 72 FSCW and TBUF ………………………………………………… 73 Coeducation ………………………………………………… 73 Student Activism ………………………………………………… 75

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ………………………. 78

Purpose ………………………………………………… 78 Research Design ………………………………………………… 78 Summary of Findings ………………………………………………… 78 External Changes ………………………………………………… 78 War ………………………………………………… 78 State Government ………………………………………………… 79 Internal Changes ………………………………………………… 79

vii Integration …………… ………………………………….. 79 Rules and Regulations….. ………………………………………... 80 Campus Political Parties…………………………………………… 80 Student Government as a Sub-Culture………………………………….. 81 Roles and Behaviors………………………………………………. 81 Rites, Rituals, and Ceremonies…………………………………… 81 Implications ………………………………………………… 81 Directions of Future Research ………………………………………………… 82 Summary ………………………………………………… 83

APPENDICES …………………………………………………. 85 Appendix A – Methodological Notes …………………………………… 85 Appendix B – Conceptual Framework …………………………………….. 88 Appendix C – Interview Participants ………………………………………. 90 Appendix D – Human Subjects’ Committee Letter ………………………. 94 Appendix E – Informed Consent Letter …………………………………… 96 AppendixF– Interview Guide for Oral History Participants ……………. 98

BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………. 101

ENDNOTES ………………………………………………… 107

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ………………………………………………… 129

viii LIST OF TABLES

1. Institutional Transformation of Florida State University ………………… 32

2. Interview Participants ………………………………………………… 91

ix ABSTRACT

The focus of this study examines the Student Government Association (SGA) at Florida State University (FSU) from 1946 – 1976. This time period is critical because it covers dramatic and important transitions both at the institutional and state and national levels of educational and social history. The primary research question to be answered in this study was: How has the student government at Florida State University developed as a student organization over the time period, 1946 – 1976? Sub-questions addressed in the course of the study included: How and in what ways did external changes in society between 1946 – 1976 affect the student government as an organization and its members? How and in what ways did internal changes at Florida State University affect the student government as an organization and its members? Is there a discernable student sub-culture within student government at FSU? If so, what are some of the roles, behaviors, rites, rituals, and ceremonies that mark this subculture and how did they develop historically? The time period, 1946-1976 was broken into discrete periods, roughly one decade per period. Oral histories were gathered from individuals representing each time period, for a total of 17 oral histories covering the time period, 1932-2000. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Historical documents, oral history transcripts, and fieldnotes were used to assist in identifying themes and categories. Some of the issues resonated with each group of participants. The time period of 1946 – 1976 provided a wealth of information to study the transformation of campus governance at FSU. Participants from more recent years proved less likely to be as open and forthright with their experiences whereas older alumni provided valuable insights into the SGA structure. Students involved in student government were part of a sub-culture on the FSU campus. They were the ambassadors of the institution and were responsible for representing FSU to the university community. Student government was more than just a microcosm of the state and national government. SGA provided a collegial environment for students to try new things and solve practical problems.

x CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, college students in the United States were predominantly White, Protestant, and few in number. In the population dense Northeastern states, colleges slowly spread across the 13 colonies, beginning with Harvard in 1636. By the end of the Revolutionary War, in 1780 nine colleges had been founded in the United States; seven more than England. Although more colleges were chartered during the 19th century, relatively few people attended those institutions. By the end of the 19th century, the number of students who attended college represented less than one percent of all 18-22 year olds.1 Most early colleges were small, private enterprises, run primarily by the faculty and operated under the guidance of Protestant religious denominations. Campuses were tightly supervised by faculty and staff members. Students were also under the moral and mental scrutiny of the church and church leaders who founded many of the 18th and 19th century colleges. Students had few opportunities for out-of-classroom activities. Their days were rigorously scheduled by faculty and administrators. The college campus was a tumultuous environment. For example, students showed their displeasure with faculty members and cafeteria food through riots and vandalism. Students who were involved in extracurricular organizations were less likely to riot.2 Students who belonged to Harvard’s secret societies – the champions of classic notions of friendship – were significantly less prone to riotous behavior than those who did not, even though they often shared the same grievances and frustrations as their nonfraternal fellow students.3 In 1776, Phi Beta Kappa was founded in Virginia at the College of William and Mary. Chapters of the organization were founded in 1780 at Yale and 1781 at Harvard. Phi Beta Kappa members were organized around the idea that the way to enact change was through the administration, not outside of it. Phi Beta Kappa “opposed overt rebellion…the good behavior of its members was a characteristic virtue.”4 In 1785, the University of Georgia was founded as a public institution of higher education. Similarly in North Carolina in 1789, the University of North Carolina opened. These institutions were selective in their students and mainly served as the overseers of the state’s educational system.5 After the Civil War the University movement started in 1868 when Cornell University was founded in New York. The first research university, Johns Hopkins University, was founded in 1876.6 The Morrill Acts of 1860 and 1890 provided needed federal monies for post secondary institutions and students seeking a higher education. In 1869, Charles W. Eliot introduced an elective system at Harvard to provide students with more flexibility in their course structure. However, not all faculty and administrators approved of the liberalized system. A compromise eventually emerged as the undergraduate curriculum was broken into an initial set of core studies in which prescription still reigned accompanied by a ‘major’ field of study. The compromise position honored both student preference and intellectual specialization, but without sacrificing liberal education completely.7

1 Student Influences DiMartini documented in some detail how students influenced change at the University of Illinois during the 1880s through student protests, disruption, and even acts of vandalism.8 The first two presidents at Illinois, John Milton Gregory (1867 - 1880) and Selim Hobart Peabody (1880-1891) tried hard to maintain the strict and restrictive moral codes of the private, denominational colleges among the students at Illinois. Curricular choices were limited, student freedoms were curtailed, and athletic events were prohibited. But by the 1880’s, students on many campuses demanded more freedoms and greater involvement. Athletic events encouraged school spirit. Students’ pride in their institution provided a way for students to rally together with a common purpose. Some of the most rebellious student demonstrations at Illinois occurred when limits were placed on the university baseball team. Many of the original presidential restrictions on student life at Illinois were rescinded late in the century by action of the faculty and the Board of Trustees, largely due to student unrest and the formation of student groups to represent dissatisfaction with the restrictive campus culture.9 Student organizations, like Greek letter fraternities and sororities offered students reprieve from academics. Phi Beta Kappa was considered the first original fraternity but was transformed into an honor society. In 1825, Kappa Alpha Order was founded and recognized as the oldest fraternity. More women began to attend coeducational institutions in the late 19th century. This was in part because of the decline in women’s colleges by 50% from 1880 to 1890.10 Their presence helped change the face of the college campus during this period. In 1851, Alpha Delta Pi was founded and is recognized today as the oldest sorority.11 As they became more prevalent on campuses, women used the sorority system to gain political clout on college campuses. “The sorority world…allied them with male power on campus.”12 The drive for women’s suffrage, a movement supported by many of the female faculty at the women’s colleges, further increased women’s interest in student self- governance. These patterns were copied from the women’s colleges into public and private institutions in the 20th century.13 These women students were independent and hedonistic in their way, their college life did not incorporate male hostility to the faculty or disinterest in study. As the colleges attracted the daughters of affluence, they brought society on campus with its divisions and exclusions.14 Student Government. Formalized student governments began to emerge in the early 20th century. The increased numbers of students on campuses across the country was closely tied to an increased interest in student self-governance. Student governments were seen as useful for teaching students about the value of the democratic processes. In 1901, University of North Carolina students initially formed an unofficial student government organization until they gained recognition from the University President in 1904 and became known as Student Council.15 The influence of Progressivism and concern for social issues such as health concerns, immigrant rights, and care for the poor and indigent as championed by Jane Addams and others, became public concerns. Muckraking books and newspaper accounts of the corruption and avarice of the wealthy elites drew great attention from the public. Ever idealistic, college students took up these social causes on campus and

2 “many variations on the theme of student government became widespread during the first decade of the twentieth century.”16 Student idealism and growing activism spurred the growth of representative groups to carry the demands of the student population to the administration to redress wrongs, both real and imagined. The new forms of student government which emerged in the early 20th century were far more interested in representing student issues and changing the campus through the political process. Social change on campus, already exacerbated by rising enrollments, coeducation, and social reforms, was further accelerated after World War I ended in 1918. Horrified by the nihilism of World War I, many students and faculty, saw the need for social reform as a desperate cause in need of their energies, and where better to begin the reforms than on their own college or university campus. As a result of these social conditions coupled with the increase in enrollments, student-governance grew rapidly evolved during the first decades of the 20th century and gained an increased presence, and demanded to share more power in decision-making with administrators on college and university campuses.17 By the mid-1920’s, student self-government was a standard feature of many colleges and universities. Indeed, many administrators who worked with students, such as deans of women and deans of men, had encouraged the organization and development of student government as a means to involve students in the day-to-day operations of student activities and extracurricular organizations.18 Student government leaders and their legislative bodies mirrored government legislatures, holding elections, collecting student fees, and enacting legislation. Similar governing bodies were created on campuses to represent the Greek letter fraternities and sororities through the Interfraternity and National Panhellenic Councils. Ironically, the fraternities that had been banned on campuses only 40 years earlier were now welcomed and readily visible; governed by institutionally sanctioned, student-run councils in the 1920s. Over the remainder of the 20th century, student government, continued its rapid growth on college and university campuses. Student government was so pervasive by the 1950s, the college or university without a student government was the rarity. As the student-run governments on college campuses proliferated, the organizations took on increased importance and significance for college life. Student governments were typically comprised of a student senate representing students across the campus and a cabinet of elected officers. Student governments collected student fees and then redistributed the monies to fund various enterprises and organizations. Elections were held, funds were dispersed, and legislation was passed, much of it decided by students with limited advice and direction from a faculty adviser. Student governments became sources of student recognition, power, and influence on campus. Students were excited to get involved in campus politics as a primary source of personal enrichment and high visibility on campus. Student government candidates were compared to athletes trying out for a sport, each student was getting involved in the campus culture.19 Student government leaders were responsible for recruiting students to support them through campus political parties and elections. Students with political parties or established groups such as a Greek organization had a distinct advantage over independent candidates. Student government leaders were often invited to spend time with the college or university president, to serve as ambassadors to visiting alumni and dignitaries, and to wield power and influence among their peers on campus. Student

3 government leaders had a lot of responsibility. It was a practical training ground for students who aspired to similar positions of leadership, influence, and power after graduation. Beyond the elected representatives and officers, student governments also became the focal point for many conflicts and controversies on the college campus. When students sought redress for real or perceived slights or maltreatment by faculty or administration, an immediate remedy was to bring those concerns the student senate. As issues emerged regarding residence hall hours, grades, faculty evaluations, food, libraries, and even the selection of a new college or university president, the leaders of student governments were often tapped for their advice, opinion, or representation. Viewed by the administration and faculty as the voice of the students, student governments were directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the institution. Over time, student governments became a fixture in higher education. They also became a reflection of the mood and temperament of the student body at large, mirroring the concerns, consternations, and quandaries of the student population on campus at any given point in time. In this study of higher education, student governments offer a window into the history, traditions, and culture of institutions and in particular, the students on campus. By examining student government at an institution, we gain greater insight, understanding, and perspective on that institution, its social history, and in particular, the student culture on campus.

Focus of the Study The focus of this study is an examination of the Student Government Association (SGA) at Florida State University (FSU) from 1946 – 1976. This period of time was selected because of the significant events that took place both at FSU and in American society during this time frame. External events were defined as occurrences that took place off-campus. Internal events were defined as occurrences that took place on- campus. External events during the time period between 1946 – 1976 included the rapid population growth in the state of Florida; social desegregation precipitated by the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954; the Florida legislative decision to allow student government to allocate Activity & Service fees; and the increases in external funding through student financial assistance and military research. Specific events, such as the Civil Rights Movement, led to considerable disruption and student unrest on campuses across the U.S. during this period and over time promulgated an increase in court cases and legal redress both by students and institutions.20 Some of the internal events at Florida State University examined include the transformation of the Florida State College of Women (FSCW) from a women’s college to a coeducational university after World War II; the integration of the university by African American students in the 1960s; campus unrest and demonstrations against the war in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s; and the expansion of the university both in degrees offered and student enrollments.21 The study examined these internal and external events through the interpretive lens of the actions, activities, and development of the student government at FSU.

Rationale for the Study The contribution of this study to the literature on education in general and the history of higher education in particular is to expand the knowledge and understanding of the role and functions of student government in higher education institutions by examining a specific student government entity at a large, public university. Prior studies by DiMartini and Horowitz and the notion of student cultures helped to frame this study (Appendix B).22 This framework allowed the researcher to examine, analyze, and interpret the development of the student government at Florida State between the years of 1946 – 1976. An underlying hypothesis of the study is that the development of student government as an organization includes the concurrent development of a student culture associated with the student government. As student government at Florida State was re-shaped to fit a new, coeducational university, a new type of student government emerged. As with any organization, a new set of roles, behaviors, rites, rituals, ceremonies, language, and actions developed as well.23 As a steady stream of students participated in student government from 1946 – 1976, a unique and discernible culture developed around the student government. This culture became a visible part of the organization. Members of student government were seen as members of a subculture within the university community. “Student subcultures, created in particular historic moments, persist over time…at some level [and help] inform the present.”24 To understand, describe, and analyze the historical patterns that contributed to the growth of the student government at FSU, it is important to examine the history and development of both the organization and the student culture.

Research Question The primary research question to be answered in this study is: How has the student government at Florida State University developed over the period, 1946 – 1976? Sub-questions addressed in the course of the study include: How and in what ways did external changes in society between 1946 – 1976 affect the student government as an organization and its members? How and in what ways did internal changes at Florida State University affect the student government as an organization and its members? Is there a discernible student sub-culture within student government at FSU? If so, what are some of the roles, behaviors, rites, rituals, and ceremonies that mark this subculture and how did they develop historically? These questions provided an outline for the study which in turn helped provide a thorough understanding of the development of student government at Florida State University as well as an understanding of the student subculture represented by student government, and the impact, if any, of student government on the university. To answer these questions, both primary and secondary sources were used.

Definition of Terms Authority. For the purposes of this study, authority is the role and influence SGA had in the campus decision-making process. This influence was seen in relation to internal and external factors.

5 Autonomy. Autonomy is the amount of independence the student government had in relation to the administration on their campus. For example, university administrative vetoes insured that student government did not have complete autonomy. Student Activism. Student leaders who created reform through active participation, usually outside of the traditional college or university organizations were involved in student activism.25 Student Culture. Magolda defined culture as “the knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs, and other habits acquired by members of a society.”26 Horowitz defined student culture as “the complex values, attitudes, and behavior held by undergraduate groups and transmitted to those entering them.”27 A student culture is created, over time, by all students within the larger institutional culture. Student culture is passed on from senior students through the transient nature of student populations on the college and university campuses.28 Student Government Association (SGA). SGA, for the purposes of this study, refers to a campus governance organization, in which representatives are elected or appointed by their peers to make policy decisions for the student body. It is also referred to as student government or student council. In this context, SGA represents a student organization that taught and shaped students while influencing the greater campus culture.29

Limitations This study was focused on one institution, Florida State University. There was an intentional effort placed on researching the cultural history of the institution rather than writing a ‘house history’.30 Participants represented three populations all of which were involved with student government at FSU during the period 1946 - 1976. These three groups were: 1) past SGA members; 2) SGA advisors; 3) administrators or staff members. As a result, this study did not seek the perspectives of non-SGA members on campus during those years. Participants chose to remain anonymous in this study. Gender of each participant was revealed to assist in better understanding their comments. Some participants self- identified with a race or ethnicity. However, demographics were not taken into account for this study. As a result, this study did not use demographics to determine the impact of SGA on members.

Significance of the Study and Implications Student government participation can have a positive impact on undergraduate students.31 This study expected to find that student government is an important extracurricular activity that prepares students for practical citizenship. At the least, a clearer perspective on the value of student government and its culture should emerge from this examination. Results from the historical analysis included in the study brings a broader perspective and greater understanding of the development of a student government association and the student sub-culture associated with that organization at a large, diverse institution as well as the impact of the sub-culture represented by student government on both students and the university. These findings may be useful to higher education professionals and in particular to the field of student affairs in their

6 relationships with student government members and student leaders in general. Finally, the study may help to analyze the development of student governance both as a governing body and as a student culture within Florida State University. As a result of this study, new ideas and interpretations about student government may be discovered that will be useful in understanding student government at FSU. By tracing the evolution of student self-governance from 1946 to 1976 through the lens of historical analysis, including oral histories, document analysis, and developing the social history of student government at FSU, a missing element in understanding the history and cultural changes within the university over time was revealed. This study was the first time past student government leaders had the opportunity to reflect on their involvement in the organization. The specificity of the research to the SGA at Florida State University from 1946 – 1976 allowed an in-depth analysis of a sub-culture on campus. The narrow focus of this study may not be representative to other institutions, but the results of the study provide original research that may aid in assisting others looking at similar data. The study adds to the literature on the history of higher education, on student cultures, on student government associations, and the impact of student government on college and universities during the time period, 1946 – 1976.

Summary

Student governance has been used in the K-12 educational system and in postsecondary institutions to teach citizenship.32 Prior to the Civil War, literary and debating societies represented students’ concerns to the administration.33 Early student governments were typically organized on a class system, e.g. freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors and focused mainly on a few academic issues and limited to internal campus concerns. Overall, they were relatively powerless.34 Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, student self-government became an important educational component for students in higher education. College and university administrators and faculty have identified student government as one method by which students may gain access to the management of the institution. However, few studies have explored how and to what extent such access is effective and what impact such activity has on students both collectively and individually. This study analyzed the development of student government at Florida State University from 1946 to 1976. The study examines the development of the student government association and the difference student government made on students and on the university. This chapter has outlined a study of student government and student leadership at Florida State University (FSU). A review of the literature on student government nationally follows. The research questions were answered through the analysis of historical documents and oral histories of alumni SGA members and student affairs’ staff as described in the methodology.

7 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This literature review will provide an overview of the history of campus governance in the United States. The following issues will be discussed: the history of student governments in colleges and universities throughout the 1900s; student government purpose and structure; the proposed future directions of student government; and past research conducted on student government in higher education. A focal point of this review will be how student government has evolved in post-World War II America.

Early Forms of Student Government in Colleges and Universities In the 18th century, the pervasive policy of in loco parentis [in absence of parents] reflected the paternalistic nature of the college and university environment.35 Faculty members and administrators supervised students both inside and outside of the classroom as well as dealing with all discipline issues.36 Institutional leaders were unsure how to categorize and govern students and debated over students’ classification as children, adults, or citizens. Faculty and staff members’ failure to recognize and respect students as young adults often encouraged brief but intense rebellion on campuses.37 Some students protested against their strictly controlled schedules through “rowdyism, vandalism, and riot-rebellions of savage dimensions.”38 Many of the student protests imitated the rhetoric of the American Revolution, such as their lack of representation in campus governance and the administrators’ tight control over the social order of campus life. At Harvard, the main two points of contention were 1) students’ lack of choice in their coursework, and 2) the institution’s regulation of their lives both in and out of the classroom.39 Although students’ days were regulated, the lack of extracurricular activities led students to organize independently. Students were often disciplined for their activities outside of the classroom. Some examples of these various misdeeds included card playing, consorting with women of ill repute, and drinking.40 In the midst of the student dissatisfaction with campus life in general, Phi Beta Kappa, a secret literary and debating fraternity was founded at the College of William and Mary in 1776.41 Phi Beta Kappa offered a way for students to be organized and share their ideas with each other. Members believed that through the organization they could affect change their individual campuses. Phi Beta Kappa was not as popular with the general student body because they were selective in their membership and supported by the administration. Phi Beta Kappa represented a type of student governance because of their ability to communicate student concerns to the administration. Phi Beta Kappa members acknowledged many, if not all, of the grievances expressed by the dissident students: they resented being considered children; denied that they lacked rationality; loathed the tedium of the classroom; detested the vile food served in the commons; and rejected the authority of the immediate government.42

8 Student organizations continued to increase on college and university campuses in the 19th century. But this did not stop the administration from closely monitoring students’ activities.43

The Nineteenth Century – Student Activities The undergraduate day was completely scheduled from morning until night leaving little time for extracurricular activities. In 1828, at the University of Virginia, an attempt to give students more responsibility over student discipline was not supported by the administration. However, a collegiate culture did emerge among these students who shared the unique experience of higher education.44 “As traditional college life created an adolescent peer culture, it linked students on any particular campus in a network of shared assumptions and joined them to their fellows in other institutions.”45 Students organized themselves to bring about change on campus through literary societies, athletics, and Greek fraternities. In the 1840s, the Greek-letter fraternity movement started by Kappa Alpha Order in 1825 led to a decline in literary organizations. Greek students emerged as their own subculture within the total student population. Students welcomed the social benefits of fraternities and also joined for the collegial, familial atmosphere they offered.46 Prior to the Civil War, student governments were organized through academic classifications: freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior.47 Student governance structures “served as a way to develop democratic habits, skills and responsibilities…Students could be kept from the political excesses that sometimes characterized real-life democracy.”48 Forms of student governments were established in secondary and postsecondary institutions throughout the 19th century. In colleges and universities, the system of student government allowed undergraduates to elect a select number of their peers to represent them. The administration recognized these student government officers as the leaders of the student body. Student government provided a venue for students and administrators to communicate.49 After the Civil War…student involvement in governance became real as their demands for freedom were somewhat realized, first, in changes in curriculum, particularly the elective system…; second, in the change of attitude on the part of faculty towards students, who accepted them more as young adults; and, third, in the introduction of the most important factor in calming and sophisticating campus life – coeducation.50 As a result, student government gained more support on campuses and students rose to a place of influence.51 In 1874, Berkeley students elected class officers and started cataloguing their activities. Students participated in class rivalries and the traditional hazing of entering freshman. However, by the late 1880s students found that these student councils caused more division among the student body than camaraderie. As a result, the students formed the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) an all- university government organization.52 On many campuses, a form of student government emerged as the student discipline council for the student body. “In return for office, heads of college government were given the responsibility for influencing their following and, where there were student courts, for acting as judge and jury.”53 Early student cases dealt with cheating,

9 gambling, and vandalism.54 For example, University of Virginia students were given some authority in the student conduct process through a judicial court called the Board of Censors. The University of Virginia relied heavily on the southern code of honor to help govern the students.55 At the beginning of the twentieth century, faculty and administration gave leaders of the culture of college life power to serve as official leaders of the student body as a whole.56 This development signified a shift in the campus governance structure. Student organizations came under the purview of the larger student government.57

The Effects of World War I The effects of World War I influenced the students of the 1920s and 1930s greatly in their views of American domestic and foreign policy. As a result of WWI America fell into an isolationist mode, which allowed the country to focus on the issues at home rather than dealing with the emerging international problems such as, fascism.58 Student organizations, such as the Liberal and Social Problems Clubs, served as forums for discussion of political issues. “The tiny undergraduate left of the 1920s…provided a group of future Communist academics with their first taste of left- wing politics.”59 Conservative pacifist students passed the Oxford Pledge in a debating society at Oxford University. The Pledge united students across the Atlantic Ocean against an impending war. American students used the Oxford Pledge to protest any war with capitalist goals. Socialists agreed with the anti-war strategy and isolationist ideology.60 Campus governments and newspapers were the most powerful student organizations within colleges and universities.61 Rebellious students vied for power with traditional student government leaders, such as Greek students, through campus elections. Campus newspapers often attracted more liberal and rebellious students than other student organizations. Campus newspaper editors played a major role in organizing debates around campus and national issues.62 Political interest among the mass of youth was minimal all through the twenties…the national election, the ROTC [Reserve Officers Training Corps] issue [compulsory ROTC training] a student referendum on the World Court, and…the National Student Federation, stirred up political interest and concern.63 In 1925, campuses ignited over compulsory military training, which became the major concern for campus activists. American students campaigned for their cause at anti-war conferences. Students regarded the U.S. involvement in WWI as a mistake and feared future militarism and war.64

Twentieth Century Changes The early 1900s were a time of progressive reform for America. Schools were seen as a place to make a difference. Progressive intellectual John Dewey of the University of Chicago and Columbia University believed “education…ought to begin with the student’s own experience and should prepare the student to take charge of his or her own destiny in an industrial society.”65 These new ideas helped create an environment for student government on college and university campuses. The move to increase citizen participation in government through the Progressive movement affected the development of student government on college and university

10 campuses.66 Progressive educators believed in student self-governance and its democratic qualities. However, these student government initiatives were more closely associated with advising than decision-making; the protective nature of the university continued to permeate the students’ lives.67 “Self-government normally meant that while undergraduates might give opinions and advise, they could not make the rules, or at least not the important ones.”68 The American stock market crash of 1929, the Great Depression, and unemployment affected the entire United States. One result was that fewer people had the money to send their children to college. The government aided many families with relief packages to assist students in their pursuit of higher education.69 However, there were some privileged college students who remained insulated from the Depression facing the country.70 National Student Federation. Student activism fluctuated on college and university campuses after World War I. In 1925, the National Student Federation of America (NSF) was founded at Princeton University.71 The NSF was a traditional student organization made up of student government officers from America’s colleges and universities, which met annually.72 Student representatives from over 245 universities helped start the organization, which eventually merged with the World Student Union.73 Separatist regional issues complicated the initial meeting, as students imitated the beliefs of their geographic origins.74 Northern students made a pointed gesture toward racial equality by electing a black woman from Howard University as the representative for the Southern region…Northern students made an overt and public stand for racial justice, while Southern students, in turn, refused ‘to be represented before the world by a member of an inferior race’.75 In 1933, the National Student Federation was considered to be a more conservative group compared to other national student organizations. At their annual meeting, the NSF sided with the administration over student issues, such as censorship and anti-war sentiments.76 The next year, the growing student movement against war and the increased popularity of Franklin Delano Roosevelt influenced the NSF’s political shift to a more liberal organization. In the National Student Mirror, the NSF’s monthly publication, the NSF discussed campus issues and provided examples of activities members could implement on their campuses.77 Edward R. Murrow, the president of NSF in the early 1930s, challenged students to focus more on global issues. Murrow started University on the Air, a news radio show, which targeted the college student population.78 The National Student Federation became involved with other national student organizations, such as the International Disarmament Council and the United Student Strike Committee.79 Not all students were involved in the political environment on and off campus but membership in these organizations increased during this period. Campus Governance. Individual campus student governments continued to represent the more conservative students during the early 1930s. On many campuses, Greek fraternity and sorority members and athletes dominated SGA.80 These students were more traditional than the emerging student activists of the NSF. For example, at Columbia University in New York, the Student Board of Representatives supported the administration in denying students’ free speech rights.81 A similar stance was taken by Berkeley’s Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) President, Alden

11 Smith, during a 1934 free speech strike when he claimed that the strikers did not represent the majority of students on campus.82 In the 1930s, at the University of Minnesota, a group of unconventional students who called themselves the Jacobin Club decided to try to make SGA truly representative of the student body’s concerns.83 The Jacobin Club was an exclusive organization made up of affluent scholars and athletes who rebelled against the traditional structure.84 Eric Sevareid reflected on his involvement in the Jacobin Club during the 1930s as a time of disillusionment for him and his liberal peers. They ran for SGA in an attempt to take the power out of the administrators’ hands and place it in the hands of the students. During their tenure in SGA, the Jacobin Club members successfully ended obligatory military training on campus. The administration attempted to enforce the mandatory training but the Jacobin students had the support of the Governor of Minnesota, Floyd Olson.85 The administration did not appreciate the student government’s relationship with the political leaders of the state. “As in most state universities the authorities encouraged a modicum of student government as a kind of harmless training, always making sure to retain final control themselves.”86 The University of Minnesota presented the illusion of student involvement in decision-making but ultimately felt that they were the ultimate authority on campus. As a result, the administrators recruited like-minded students for student government and regained control of the organization.87 Not all colleges and universities shied away from student involvement in campus governance. Antioch College, a progressive experiment in higher education, had “a democratic community government composed of students and faculty [who] made and carried out decisions normally left to governing boards and administrators in traditional colleges.”88 SGA was seen as an educational opportunity that could be used to divide students or to bring them together collegially.89 On campuses where student activists lacked administrative support, campus political organizations formed alliances with national and regional associations. The National Student League (NSL) was the campus organization that represented the Youth Communist League (YCL). The NSL influenced the change in student attitudes toward political issues through their protests and revolts on campuses around the country.90 The Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) was the campus organization that represented the Youth Socialist Party League (YPSL). The result of the merger between the NSL and the SLID was the formation of the American Student Union (ASU). The ASU represented more leftist and radical students.91 These liberal organizations educated students about the United States’ involvement in World War I, the importance of students’ rights on campus, free speech, and encouraged student participation in elections.92 Students and faculty Communist Party members could not have foreseen the impact of their involvement.93

The House Committee on Un-American Activities on Campus The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) was established in 1938. Through the passing of the Smith Act in 1940, promoting communism became illegal in America.94 Senator Joseph McCarthy led the HUAC in the investigation of communist influences throughout the country specifically targeting college and

12 university campuses. Schools began eliminating student organizations affiliated with communism, such as the American Youth for Democracy (AYD).95 As a result of the HUAC attack on campuses, many students, faculty, and administrators stopped joining political organizations or discussing controversial issues for fear of the repercussions.96 Many institutions complied with HUAC to infringe upon students and employees’ rights. “The academy’s enforcement of McCarthyism had silenced an entire generation of radical intellectuals and snuffed out all meaningful opposition to the official version of the Cold War.”97 The HUAC demanded student organizations’ membership lists and organization activities were scrutinized. Liberal-minded political organizations were not welcome on college campuses.98 For example, on many campuses invitations for communist speakers to visit were revoked by the administration.99 Administrators controlled on- campus activities through institutional policy. For example, the University of California at Berkeley based their facility usage policy, known as Regulation 17, on the political affiliation of organizations. The administration’s taking the whole responsibility for deciding in each instance what was partisan…political nonalignment could just as well – and just as logically – have been preserved by throwing open the facilities to all political groups rather than closing them to all political groups…An open policy would have resulted in more political activity on the left because the left was more active than the conservatives…An open policy could have been justified as official nonalignment.100 Berkeley’s student government, the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), continued to petition against Regulation 17 policy even after World War II.101 Universities gained recognition during World War II for their contribution in the development of weaponry for the United States and their allies. The federal government realized that universities were an untapped resource for research.102 Congress started to provide funding for the building and expansion of research universities. These allocations included grants for initiatives in medical, military, and special project research. The renewed focus on research led to an increase in graduate school opportunities for students.103 After World War II, the federal government enacted legislation allowing returning military men an opportunity to advance their education. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act or GI Bill was passed in 1944. The GI Bill legislation made higher education accessible to a larger population of Americans. As a result, education became a necessity rather than a luxury.104 The majority of GI Bill recipients were older students who were not willing to be regulated and governed by institutional parents. These non-traditional students were interested in changing institutional policies to grant them more freedom. The changing demographics of the student population influenced campus issues over the next decade.

The Myth of the Silent Generation Students of the 1950s have been referred to as the silent generation. This label reflected both the impact of McCarthyism and a comparison to student activism of the 1960s.105 Students of the 1950s did not have freedom of assembly on their campuses. Many students believed the motto “Don’t say, don’t write, don’t join.”106 Any criticisms of

13 the United States were muffled during this time period. Student and faculty activists feared the consequences of their actions.107 Not all campuses were silent. In the 1950s, the President of Reed College attempted to redefine students’ role in administering the honor system…Student leaders preferred that the Student Council maintain control over student behavior, and representatives of the senior class wrote to alumni to protesting administrative interference.108 However, more liberal campuses, such as San Francisco State College granted their student government, The Associated Students of San Francisco State College, Inc., control over the allocation of student fees.109 These campus administrators were already working with their student leaders in campus governance. In the 1950s and 1960s, student affairs professionals provided a foundation for more extracurricular activities on campus. Student affairs staff members were “insisting that university education was a ‘twenty-four hour a day growth process,’ not just academic stimulation.”110 College students across the country benefited from the new view of a student-oriented campus. Student affairs staff provided opportunities and support for student governance initiatives.111 Students, faculty, and staff merged forces to make campus governance successful.112

Campus Diversity The diversity of the college campus was propelled in many ways. One of the key issues in the 1960s was the reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education decided in May of 1954. Although Brown had focused on the K-12 education system, it had far reaching effects on higher education as well. The Brown decision paved the way for the desegregation of historically White institutions of higher education on a national scale. Desegregation did not occur immediately or without a fight, but it took almost a decade for the issue to reach college and university campuses.113 The former Confederate states in the Deep South did not begin to integrate their higher education institutions until the early sixties. But even then, few institutions voluntarily desegregated. President Dwight Eisenhower supported the Supreme Court’s decision, but “central to Eisenhower’s position was his conviction that the federal government should be passive on controversial social issues.”114 As a result of this lack of leadership, the reaction around the country and on college campuses was more sedentary.115 Several issues ignited college and university campuses in the 1960s. Astin et al. listed the Civil Rights Movement as one of the most significant while Altbach and Cohen cited the Vietnam War as the main issue. Students were also passionate about atmospheric nuclear testing, campus free speech, anti-McCarthyism sentiment, and gender inequities.116 World War I and II were stories told by parents and grandparents, but the fear of U.S. involvement in Vietnam was real for the college students of the 1960s.117 The campus revolts of the sixties were bound to happen. A significant amount of young Americans rebelled against the establishment, which included the government, the institutions, society, and their parents.118 Students in the 1960s gathered together to speak out against inequities and preferential treatment. The Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War heavily influenced the campus environment. National organizations, such as Congress for

14 Racial Equality (CORE), ignited sit-ins and protests across the United States. Blacks and Whites alike worked together in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement through the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).119 African American students brought a new culture and set of issues to the college campus through integration. James Meredith entered the University of Mississippi on Supreme Court order in 1962.120 African American athletes were accepted on the field or court and simultaneously harassed in their classrooms or residence halls. In addition, Black and White students were segregated outside of school in their communities. “Students still went home to different neighborhoods, different churches, different worlds.”121 Public colleges and universities were forced to diversify and attempted to recognize the needs of the entire student body.122 Students, regardless of color or creed, participated in the movement to desegregate public areas, including educational institutions, and to demand equality for all American citizens. Some Black students struggled between focusing on their education and standing up for their rights as citizens. Some felt that White students had the luxury of protesting while Black students had to be more careful to insure their stability.123 Towards the mid-1960s, after the assassination of Malcolm X, Black activists began to separate themselves from non-Black activists. Organizations like SNCC decided to exclude Whites. This was especially true of separatist organizations such as the Black Panther Party were formed.124 Although these organizations were not campus-based similar reactions could be seen at colleges and universities. African American students on predominantly White campuses struggled to find organizations that supported Black issues with Black leadership. In 1966, the first Black Student Union (BSU) in the country emerged from the Negro Students Association at San Francisco State College.125 At Kansas University, “The BSU (Black Student Union) worked to promote Black Power not only on campus but also in the black community of Lawrence, fostering a black student union at Lawrence High School and creating town- gown coalitions for radical action.”126 African American students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill formed the Black Student Movement (BSM).127 The BSM fought for equal representation in the campus student government. In 1968, the BSM listed 22 demands related to campus governance. The students wanted equal representation in the student government at UNC, the Student Legislature. The BSM also called for funding for their programs. Although every request was not fulfilled, the administration did give the BSM a voice in campus governance. A year later, the Student Legislature began allocating a portion of the activity fees to the BSM and African American students were guaranteed representation in the campus governance organizations.128

Free Speech The Free Speech Movement (FSM) branched out of the Civil Rights Movement and was founded at the University of California at Berkeley. The issues were: “the purpose and nature of higher education; the rights, freedoms, and responsibilities of students; the relevance of the curriculum; the neglect of undergraduate education and the alienation of students from faculty.”129 Undergraduate and graduate students came together with faculty members to challenge the administration on their free speech

15 policies. For example, administrators were arresting students for promoting organizations not affiliated with the campus.130 The FSM shed light on the other inconsistencies and oppressive actions of the university administration. Mario Savio, the Berkeley student who served as the spokesman for the FSM related his experiences with the Mississippi Summer Project of 1964. “The same rights are at stake in both places – the right to participate as citizens in a democratic society and the right to due process of law.”131 Students wanted to be involved in the decision-making process of their institutions.132

Student Activism and Radicalism Student government was influenced by the progressive events of the era and saw the need for a more activist and public-spirited type of campus governance. As students’ political views began to change, their daily decisions and expectations of student government changed as well. Students wanted more representation in the university system.133 Although students were involved in SGA during this time, the student activists outside of SGA motivated by social reforms, led campus protests against the administration and the federal government.134 Student activists viewed student government organizations in two different lights during this period. Most activists agreed that student government did not represent their interests. One group of student activists believed that SGA was not effective and resembled more of a figurehead of student power on campus. The other group of student activists sought campus reform through student government initiatives. These students believed that through their involvement in the SGA, change would be implemented. Administrators rallied behind the second group and tried to encourage the other student activists to join the SGA. Student government was the official representation of students on campus. The administration had no control over the new organizations being created, which were not affiliated with the colleges or universities.135 Many student activists had the support of faculty members who shared their beliefs about student self-governance during this period.136 Campus administrators saw the activists as untapped resources for SGA.137 For this reason, some administrators welcomed outsiders and rebels into SGA in the 1970s, in short, to domesticate them. As increasing numbers of students moved out of fraternity and sorority houses...to engage in protest or to enjoy a more independent life, the balance of power on many campuses shifted…Some institutions, such as student government and the campus newspaper, came out from under the dominance of the Greek or club system.138 SGA as a figurehead. One group of student activists saw student government as a mainstream organization on campus. Token membership on institutional committees granted by administrations angered them. Some activists saw SGA as a product of an oppressive administrative system and did not recognize their usability. In this environment, student activists went directly to the university president rather than going through the SGA representatives.139 Student government was seen as ineffectual, which meant these students sought other ways to communicate with administrators.140 Off-campus organizations provided students a way to get out from under the administration’s control.

16 College and university campuses were hot beds for the discussion and debate of these issues.141 Student radicals participated in organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), which evolved from the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID) created in the 1920s. SDS garnered radical student support and made a difference on campus.142 Protestors and militant associations rallied against injustices on campus and around the world. “The university as a general institution, itself, was now regarded as the enemy, the target for disruption…”143 However, groups like the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) challenged both students and faculty to take back the curriculum from the administrative bureaucracy.144 SDS and other radical student activists argued against any collaboration with administrators. In the face of such opposition, the administrators had to prove that they were willing to listen to student activists’ concerns. SGA as a vehicle for change. The second group of student activists saw student government as a vehicle to promote their issues. The 1960s brought student government to the forefront of college and university campuses. The SGA was taken “from the margins during an era of limited governance into the mainstream of shared campus governance. When one thinks [thought] of SGAs, two main images come [came] to mind: politics and power.”145 Activists demanded true representation within campus governance and a real voice in affecting decisions that impacted students.146 Student leaders who did not recognize these changes were not elected. Traditional campus political parties and Greek organizations lost power in SGA as independent candidates garnered the majority of student body votes. These student activists were nicknamed politicos.147 Student activists created their own campus groups to rival the traditional SGA student leaders. At Berkeley, student activists founded a campus political party called SLATE. In the 1957 SGA elections, SLATE ran against the conservative Greek political party and won.148 During the mid-1960s, SLATE represented the FSM in the campus elections. Students came out in droves to change the student leadership, “every SLATE candidate won. With double the usual voting turnout, the student government’s existing conservative leadership was totally repudiated.”149 Change occurred all across higher education as students began participating in more that just student affairs related governing boards. More students’ voices were heard on campus issues. Administrators struggled with balancing the rights of students to express themselves.150 The decision-making conducted in the past with an elite group of students or administrators was no more.151 Students were invested in their college experience through their involvement in campus governance.152 Administrators invested in the future of their institutions through their participation in student government. Research showed that involvement in campus governance organizations helped undergraduate students develop holistically and increased student retention.153 As a result, students who were involved in college were more likely to be involved alumni after graduation.154

Federal Legislation The various social movements and an increased interest in social progress caused the federal government to pass several initiatives in support of higher education, the most significant being the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Higher Education Act applied to both public and private institutions and affected students nationwide. The

17 legislation provided direct aid to students. This was the first-time the government supported higher education for all social classes. The Higher Education Act funding “raise [d] the quality of developing colleges that for financial and other reasons are [were] struggling for survival and are [were] isolated from the main currents of academic life.”155 Generations of undergraduates have been measured against the unique band of students of the 1960s. The decade remains the standard for student activism and liberalism on college campuses throughout the literature.156 In response to student demands, institutions began to develop strategies for managing students’ passion; many colleges and universities saw student government as an acceptable and expedient venue to get students involved. “Student government was part of the effort to harness college life to official ends.”157 Higher education organizations and universities across the country reacted to the campus unrest of the 1960s by conducting research on campus governance. In 1966, the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) initiated the Campus Governance Program to research the issue of campus governance.158 In 1970, Cornell University published an internal report on their student government.159 By the 1970s, higher education was more accessible to a larger portion of the population. The children of the post World War II baby boom flooded colleges and universities in the seventies.160 Students interpreted Richard Nixon’s paranoid defenses during the Watergate Affair as an insight into campus administrators’ behavior.161 The violence displayed on university campuses, such as the killings at Kent State University in Ohio and at Jackson State University in Mississippi, shocked the nation. White middle-class American society questioned the future of the country in the hands of these rebellious demonstrators.162 What might have occurred if the reaction of the national government, campus administrators, and the American society had supported student activists’ protests and demands? Given the student power concepts of how to deal with a university president who does [did] not cooperate with student demands, the president may see [might have seen] his alternatives as either a rebuke from his governing board for being soft on student activists or a breakdown of order on his campus.163

Feminism and Equal Rights Female college students were faced with the double standard, which was the inequality in treatment between male and female students.164 “Women were unable to enroll in any college until Oberlin [College] permitted them entrance in 1837, ostensibly to provide ministers with intelligent, cultivated, and thoroughly schooled wives.”165 Since the 19th century, female enrollment in higher education has increased dramatically. This increase influenced the campus environment. Women’s issues have become more prevalent on campuses today because females represent the majority of the student population.166 The inequities between men and women in society were often mirrored in the rules and regulations governing the student body. A double standard was clearly visible in institutional codes of conduct dealing with curfew and visitation rights at coeducational institutions. Different rules and regulations applied to the undergraduate students based on gender.167

18 Colleges acting in loco parentis, or literally, in the place of parents, relied primarily on a system called ‘parietals,’…Parietals were a set of rules governing when and under what circumstances women students could leave their residence halls in the evening and on weekends.168 Female students were held to higher moral and ethical standards than their male peers.169 However, the strict curfews did not deter students from participating in sexual relationships. Women student leaders served as the judiciary arm of the administration hearing cases dealing with female students who had failed to follow the institution’s code of conduct. The students were often harsher on their peers than the administrators.170 The issue of women’s suffrage influenced many students to become involved in the politics of the country. Female students in particular carried banners and participated in political clubs on campus to further their cause.171 Feminism celebrated a great victory with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 to the United States Constitution, which granted the right of women to vote. This new law reemphasized the importance of the education of women, especially now that they had the ability to participate in the democratic process.172 Horowitz stated that, “by the 1920s, prominent families expected their daughters, as well as their sons, to attend college.”173 A new group of constituents was emerging on the college and university campuses. Historically, many organizations on campus were segregated by gender well into the 20th century.174 This was true in the student government as well.175 The administrator charged with working with the women’s government association was usually the Dean of Women. For example at the University of Kansas, The Dean of Women…and many of her colleagues justified student participation in rule making and discipline as a way to foster qualities of maturity and responsibility in youth…Administrators were at the forefront of change, pushing students to assume more individual ‘responsibility’ for their daily lives.176 Given the long historical intertwining of race and gender well before the Seneca Falls convention for women’s suffrage in the 19th century, the successes of race equality advocates initiated stirrings for a new Feminist Movement in the late 1960s. The civil rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s attacked both racial and gender discrimination, and the integration of Southern colleges and universities resulted in increased educational opportunities for both blacks and women. As the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection was used to challenge the constitutionality of publicly supported single-gender as well as single-race institutions, Southern states found themselves embroiled in legal disputes over educational access.177 Experienced feminists were reenergized by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented workplace discrimination based on gender. The National Organization of Women (NOW) and other feminist organizations, worked together to set about change although no actual reform would occur until the 1970s.178 A wave of the Feminist Movement expanded in the 1970s as male and female students came together to fight for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). A significant piece of legislation for gender equality passed in the early seventies. Title IX of the 1972 Education Act Amendments made discrimination based on gender in federally funded education programs illegal. Title IX was particularly effective in creating equality for women in college athletics.179 In addition, the federal government passed an

19 “Affirmative Action program which was designed to ensure that colleges and universities gave equal treatment to women and members of minority groups in every phase of their operations.”180 In 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), was passed to protect students’ rights. FERPA gave students control over the dissemination of their school and health records. Abortion and sexual freedom were the other central issues of the Feminist Movement. Members of the Independent Student Party at Kansas University brought the issue to the forefront of student concerns. The Dean of Women, Emily Taylor, supported the students’ attempts of birth control options with current studies and data.181 As a result of institutional support, many women became more confident and spoke out on the issues that directly affected them. “Women were significantly more open to diversity and challenge than were men across the first three years of college.”182 The counterculture of the seventies influenced women’s perspectives on the traditional expectations of them for example, wives and mothers.183 “An increasing number of young men and women began to live together ‘without benefit of matrimony,’ not as an affirmation of free love or revolution, but in a de facto rejection of the sexual double standard.”184 As the students of the 1970s graduated, the pendulum started to swing to the right as conservative ideologies reentered the mainstream on college campuses and across the nation in the 1980s. This political change would make it more difficult to implement the liberal policies passed in the previous decade.

Changing Campus “The decade of the eighties brought a rich array of minority students to the campus, along with more women and a veritable army of older and part-time students.”185 Diversity was a big issue in the eighties.186 Now that in loco parentis was no longer the mantra of the college and university administrators the question of institutional responsibility became an issue. Parents and legislators continued to believe that colleges and universities should offer a protective environment for their students.187 Student activism existed in the 1980s focusing on both local campus issues, such as tuition costs and international issues such as the Anti-Apartheid Movement.188 College students of the me generation made their voice heard on prominent issues while relating their experiences on campus to media depictions and popular culture.189 In the 1980s, Levine argued, “the politics of indifference” was “the result…not of shared understanding but further division as common bonds were weakened.”190 Minority students came together to form organizations based on their shared cultures similar to the earlier development of Black Student Unions. As a result, student organizations became smaller and more divided causing student government to revise the A&S allocation process on some campuses.191 A multicultural debate ensued arguing that the traditional academic coursework, such as Western Civilization was biased against minorities. Pluralism or multiculturalism…the aim is to legitimize both the intellectual and the emotional aspects of diverse cultures in academic and campus life in teaching, research, and service. The goal is [was] equity among diverse cultures and a symbiosis among them.192

20 The traditional Western education was called the canon, which was identified in the Liberal Arts curriculum. Minority groups’ contributions to the curriculum were known as border knowledge.193 The refusal to acknowledge students' border knowledge ostracized a significant amount of minority students. Some students protested Westernized curriculum and called for courses based on their culture.194 The South African Anti-Apartheid Movement gained momentum in the 1980s bringing students and communities together for a common cause. Students participated in non-violent demonstrations in between classes and examinations.195 National Anti- Apartheid Protest Day was April 24, 1985. It garnered support across the country on several campuses, such as Berkeley, Columbia, and Dartmouth and forced Ronald Reagan’s administration to take notice. Student activists of the 1980s planned and coordinated their protests with their institutions. The movement was non-violent and focused on influencing institutions to pull their investments out of companies that did business in South Africa.196 Students succeeded in gaining support for divestment, which was a substantial achievement because it was done during a politically conservative time in the country.197 The conservatism of the country affected student government on campus. A new professional business style was reflected in student leaders’ dress and attitude. This trend was seen in the increase of business majors and decrease in liberal arts majors. Students began to realize the worth of their extracurricular experiences, for example in resume’ building.198 Some students admitted to the self-serving interests of involvement, “the only reason to become a student leader, many assume, is to get to know some dean for reasons of your own.” 199

The Modern Era In the 1990s, student involvement in campus governance increased.200 As more students were appointed to various university policy committees, student leaders learned to work within the system. The majority of undergraduates might not have cared about being involved in campus governance but they did recognize student government as wielding authority. Students’ recognition of student government as a powerful organization might have been related to apathy rather than knowledge of campus governance. Student activism during this period stood at 25%, only 3% less than the 1960s. The two main issues of this generation were: multiculturalism and tuition costs.201 Multiculturalism carried over from the 1980s, continued to be a big social issue on campuses. Multicultural awareness represented the necessity to learn, appreciate, and be sensitive to diverse ethnic groups on campus.202 Some of these advocacy groups represented students of different cultures, sexual orientation, and religious affiliations. For example, the first Rodney King verdict, in which a team of White police in California was acquitted of beating a Black man, caused many campuses to erupt in protest.203 The racial tensions in American society were mirrored on campuses. A new university community evolved of several small organizations that wielded little power individually but collectively were powerful.204 On one campus…the undergraduate business club had split up by gender, race, student geographic origin, and finally sexual orientation, leaving the university with an assortment of business clubs, including organizations for women, African Americans, Koreans, and gays and lesbians, among others!205

21 The second big issue was high tuition costs.206 The increased commercialization of colleges and universities led to a business-oriented environment. Students, parents, the government, and American citizens held higher education institutions accountable for the future value of a student’s degree. Government entities controlled public institutions through their allocation of funds. As a result, institutions sought other sources of funding including raising tuition costs.207 The method of student protests and demonstrations changed from the protest rallies and marches of the 1960s. This generation took a professional business-like approach in dealing with the administration. The combination of petitions, litigation, demonstrations, and going public is [was] a direct translation of the most popular consumer tactics to student activism…The e-mail protest, which barrages an office with critical missives, is [was] another invention of the 1990s.208 The student – institutional relationship evolved into a consumer – producer exchange. Students started to refer to institutional funds as our money.209 Many students worked part-time while attending school and had invested their own money in their education. They expected a quality education and held their institution accountable.210

Student Government Purpose and Structure Initially, student government’s “purpose…was not to empower college leaders but to foster communication with them and to co-opt them.”211 In the 20th century institutions claimed that student government involvement was a way to produce a sense of citizenship in their students. Student government began to be seen as an opportunity for training in democracy for students preparing for life as members of society.212 There are many different ways that student government has been organized on college and university campuses. As student government became more involved in campus governance the organization expanded. Early student governments were small organizations in which all members participated in every aspect of SGA.213 “Replicating our nation’s representative government process, student government provides [d] students with opportunities to view a political governing body in action and realize the importance of voting and participation.”214 However, traditionally student government’s role was to represent the student body to the university community.215 The structure of student government varied from campus to campus. In 1969 scholar William M. Alexander proposed a student parliament form of campus governance. The parliament was to be proportionally representative of the student body. The intent of the change in student government structure was to strengthen the voice of the students. A non-representative student government lacked power in negotiations with the administration.216 The University of New Hampshire tested out student participatory campus governance with a unicameral system. Students served side by side with faculty and staff as senators. Students were involved in committee work and key decision-making. No academic credit or financial compensation was given to the students for their service. Students were allowed an equal voice through this system.217 The make-up of campus governance also varied from campus to campus. Members of the SGA included students who were elected, appointed, or volunteered. Some student governments were modeled on the state and federal governmental structure with three branches: executive, judicial, and legislative.

22 Traditionally, the executive branch included: the Student Body President, which might be the student representative on the state education committee; the Student Body Vice President; the Student Body Treasurer; and an executive cabinet. The legislative branch included: Senate President, which might be the Student Body Vice President; Senate Pro-Tempore; and senators. The judicial branch included: Chief Justice; Attorney General; Student Supreme Court and other courts deemed necessary by the institution.218 Student Government Elections. A principal way student government encouraged the practice of the democratic process was through student participation in SGA elections. Historically, these elections have been done through a traditional paper ballot system and based on student classification: freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Some institutions with large graduate student populations include these students in the campus governance structures. On some campuses, graduate students have a separate organization to represent them.219 The system of student government elections was not the same across the country. For example, in the 1950s, the University of Minnesota student government, the Minnesota Student Association (MSA) adopted a new method to electing members. Representatives of student organizations with 40 or more members could run for election under the new system.220 This method broadened the pool of candidates rather than limiting it to colleges or class rank. Student affairs personnel advised the elected student leaders and educated them on self-governance. Student leaders were given the opportunity to influence the institution’s practices and procedures through their elected positions in student government.221 Campus unrest resulted in high voter turnout by non-SGA members. During other periods, non-SGA members were not well represented at the polls. In 1997, undergraduate participation in campus elections had decreased by almost 50% since 1978.222 Most of the students who come out for elections have student government affiliations.223 Activity and Service Fee. Students paid Activity and Service fees along with their tuition at many public institutions. Traditionally, the administration oversaw the allocation of the funds to various student organizations and services. During the campus unrest of the 1960s and 1970s, students demanded the ability to allocate the A&S fee. As a result, some states, such as Florida and California, granted the SGA the ability to allocate the A&S fee on their campuses.224 Administrators advised the SGA members on the institution’s budgetary process. University departments did not appreciate having to request funds from college students. Campus politics became more important as the SGA determined which organizations were funded and how much they received. Student leaders often cited the importance of making all students feel welcome and encouraged co-sponsorships with other organizations.225 The University President retained veto power at most of the institutions, which served as a check and balance for the students.

Future Directions of Student Government There was literature based on recommendations for the future direction of student government. American society needed, “educated men and women who not only pursue their own personal interests, but also are [were] prepared to fulfill their

23 social and civic obligations.”226 Student leaders were charged with motivating and inspiring their peers. Senior student leaders were challenged to role model and train incoming students to insure the continuity of their organization.227 Student affairs professionals were called to be the teachers outside of the classroom. As direct and indirect advisors, they should be involved in the SGA leadership training and goal setting.228 Administrators and staff members should assist the institution in the promotion of altruism and spirituality. In addition, student affairs and academic affairs should collaborate to make practical connections between students’ classroom experiences and their extracurricular experiences.229 SGA should continue to integrate themselves into positions within university governing boards.230 “The credibility of student government rests on successive generations of student leaders working within an ethical framework consonant with universal standards of human rights and dignity.”231 Faculty, staff, students, and student government leaders must work together to achieve success in higher education.

Research on Student Government Some research has been done on the affect of students’ involvement in student government. Extracurricular involvement has been shown to enhance the college experience for students.232 Involvement in SGA has a positive effect on students. High interaction with peer group and heightened college experiences impact students’ involvement in college. In addition, election to student government office positively impacted students’ behavior and satisfaction with college.233 Participation in university governance by students has often been praised for the valuable training for citizenship it provides, such as the development of responsibility and communication skills, experience in policy making, and contributions to the development of leaders and followers.234 Extracurricular activities heavily influence undergraduates’ lives compared to their daily academic schedule.235 Kuh conducted a study focused on the outcomes of out-of-class experiences in higher education. He measured student participation by polling seniors from 12 colleges and universities. The questions asked were an attempt to link student organizations to specific outcomes. According to the 1995 study, 54.5% of White seniors and 38.9% non-White seniors claimed practical competence to be the greatest result of their leadership experiences.236 The skills gained through participation in leadership positions, such as student government, enhanced students’ overall educational experience.237 Gold and Quatroche emphasized the need for student government to train incoming students as they evolve into leaders. Leadership development and effective management became and has remained an integral aspect of student government training.238 In a 1983 study, by Schuh and Laverty, several students attributed membership in a Student Government Association as providing pragmatic training for future employment. In addition, the study found that student government members were more likely to be involved in civic affairs after graduation.239 Several studies comparing SGA members with non-SGA members exist. Cuyjet surveyed students on the value and importance of various SGA services. Involvement and coordination of student organizations were found to be the most important service of student government (88%). Activities programming (86%), representation on campus

24 wide committees (85%), and allocation of student fees (85%) were the other top rated services provided by SGA.240 These research studies discussed many different aspects of student government and its members. However, there was still a gap in the literature on campus governance. The research question guiding this study was: How was student government transformed at Florida State University as a result of the internal and external factors that occurred from 1946 – 1976?

Summary

Through this literature review it was clear that student life and student government had evolved over the past 50 years. One predominant theme is the transition from an in loco parentis administration to an environment for the democratic ideals of student self-government. This review of the literature discussed the dramatic shifts in the role and function of student governments through the early years of student organizations, 1950s McCarthyism, the campus unrest of the 1960s, the student activism of the 1970s and the quasi-professional SGA structure of the 1980s. The reaction of campus governance organizations to these events also served as indicators of students’ perception of campus and social issues. Campus conflicts and unrest in the 1960s led to a reorganization of student government in many colleges and universities. The resulting form of contemporary student government emerged from these events to a present state of peaceful co-existence on campus. Literature reviewed for the study considered the purpose, structure, and history of SGA. Gender and race issues in campus governance were discussed. In addition, past studies of student government participation and involvement were reviewed.

Conclusion

Student participation in campus governance will remain a large part of higher education well into the future. Student government taught, guided, and helped student leaders formulate ideas and beliefs, which impacted their life as citizens.241 The historical analysis of the Student Government Association (SGA) at Florida State University over a period of 30 plus years provided an in-depth analysis of how student government and its members responded to a plethora of internal and external events. Some of the events included the transition to a co-educational university, the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision, and the Vietnam War. The next chapter discusses methodology for the study on “The Transformation of the SGA as a Student Sub-Culture at Florida State University: 1946 – 1976.”

25 CHAPTER 3

METHOD AND PROCEDURES

The previous chapters provided a historical overview of student government in higher education serving as a context for this study. The purpose of this study was to examine the transformation of the Student Government Association (SGA) at Florida State University (FSU) as a student sub-culture from 1946 – 1976. Data for this study were collected using archival and oral history research. The method of triangulation was used to verify the data. According to Fraenkel & Wallen, triangulation is defined as the “cross-checking of data using multiple data sources or multiple data-collection procedures.”242

Setting The study was conducted at Florida State University (FSU). FSU is classified as a Doctoral/Research University – Extensive postsecondary institution by the Carnegie Foundation.243 FSU is located in Tallahassee, the capital city in the state of Florida. The geographic location adds a unique perspective to the study because many FSU student government members had the opportunity to network and intern with state government leaders. In fall 2003, there were 37,328 students enrolled at FSU. Of these students, 78.5% were undergraduates, 18.4% were graduate students, and 3.1% were unclassified.244 Over half of the student population was women. “Minorities made up 23.8 percent of the total enrollment; 48.5 percent of the minority enrollment was Black, 37.4 percent was Hispanic, 12.5 percent was Asian, and 1.6 percent was American Indian.”245 The 2003 FSU Student Government Association was made up of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The executive branch consisted of the elected positions of Student Body President, Vice President, and Treasurer. There were 18 appointed executive cabinet positions. The legislative branch consisted of 80 senators elected by their constituents in Undergraduate Studies and the 18 academic FSU divisions. The judicial branch consisted of appointed members of the Student Supreme Court and the Student Conduct Review Board.246

Participants To gain insight into the role of student government on the Florida State University campus, interview participants included past student government members, staff, and administrators spanning the time period from 1946 – 1976. The FSU Alumni Association assisted in providing contact information for past student government leaders. The criterion for selection of participants was their 1) past involvement with SGA; 2) prominence in SGA document research; 3) accessibility in Tallahassee or surrounding areas; and/or 4) current involvement in SGA and FSU. Past student government member participants included both elected and appointed representatives. Staff advisors included FSU student affairs’ professionals or faculty members with substantial institutional knowledge and involvement with SGA. Selection of other participants occurred using the snowball or chain sampling method. This method allows the researcher to utilize their relationship with participants

26 to identify other participants who may provide relevant information.247 Also known as the network method, this process allows the researcher to build a sample population through their networking with knowledgeable participants. The selection process is stopped when the data reaches saturation.248 This sampling method used in this study, “benefits [ed] inductive, theory-building analysis.” 249 Seventeen individuals were interviewed for this study (Appendix C). The participants were made up of 7 females and 10 males. Past student government leaders were involved in multiple SGA branches and entities, which included elected and appointed positions. Faculty, staff, and alumni participants were involved in various departments at FSCW and FSU, which included positions in Academic and Student Affairs. Some participants were involved in campus governance as students and were later employed by the institution after graduation. As a result, these participants offered the perspective as a student and as an administrator, faculty, or staff member.

Data Collection The data collection process took place during the 2003 – 2004 academic year. Data collection and data analysis occurred concurrently through the constant comparative method. The constant comparative method was stated as the “process of taking information from data collection and comparing it to emerging categories.”250 Archival research and oral history research were the main methods of collecting data for this study. Archival Research. Historical documents and archival data were used to create a historical review and analysis of the evolution of the student government function and role at FSU. This was conducted through the analysis of events, documents, and cultural artifacts related to the Florida State University and the Florida State University student governments from 1946 to 1976. In particular, the Special Collections at Strozier Library and the FSU Alumni Association had extensive archival materials relevant to this study. Primary documents included student government meeting minutes, meeting records, agendas, artifacts, legislation, correspondence, and newspaper accounts of campus events, activities, and reports of student government transactions were reviewed and examined for the time period, 1946 – 1976. Personal memoirs, speeches, biographical information of past student government members, and FSCW and FSU publications were other useful primary sources. These primary documents and accounts confirmed data gathered from the oral histories through triangulation. Secondary documents, such as university catalogs, programs, descriptions, newspaper accounts, reports, enrollments, videotapes, and similar material helped to build a context or supply additional data for the study. Institutional histories or histories of the student organizations, especially on student government and related entities that were relevant were utilized as appropriate. Oral History Research. Among the most important primary sources used in the study were former members of the Student Government Association at Florida State College for Women (FSCW), Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida (TBUF) and Florida State University (FSU). A select population of former student government leaders was identified through alumni contacts, recommendations from current and former administrators, and self-nomination as well as from student government documents. These former members, or informants, were asked to provide an oral

27 history of the development of the student government at Florida State in their own words. Reflections of past student government leaders, university staff and administrators gathered through oral histories conducted by the researcher were a primary source of information gathering. The oral histories were conducted through semi-structured interviews with select past students and student affairs’ staff who were involved with SGA at FSU over the period from 1946 to 1976. Semi-structured interviews allowed the researcher to begin the process with an outline of questions but provided flexibility to discuss issues more in-depth. This method allowed for a thorough and complete discussion.251 The time period, 1946-1976 was broken into discrete periods, roughly one decade per period. Oral histories were gathered from at least three persons representing each time period. Prior to the interviews, a cover letter was distributed to all interview research participants to insure confidentiality (Appendix E). In discussion with prospective participants, they did not wish for their identities to be revealed. Many of them are prominent alumni who remain active in the university community. Seventeen oral histories covering the time period from 1932-2000, each consisted of 60-90 minute interviews, were completed as a part of the study. Each informant was asked to provide the names of other informants who might be willing to be interviewed as well. To the extent these additional persons were available and willing to participate, they were added to the oral history section. Each informant was recorded using a digital voice recorder during the interview. Participation was purely voluntary, and specific questions asked of each informant included questions that provided a semi-structured format for SGA participants (Appendix F). Prior to the interviews primary sources were reviewed from the participant’s time period of involvement as a student or administrator and themes were generated to facilitate discussion. Recorded interviews were transcribed by the researcher and reviewed for accuracy against field notes. All transcribed interviews were edited for readability and grammatical structure. The researcher made an effort to maintain the original interview. Each transcription was returned to the informant either via e-mail or in hard copy for their review. Any erroneous or inaccurate material found in the transcription was corrected. If material was collected that the informant preferred not to have included in the final study, e.g. a statement or recollection that may be inappropriate, the researcher abided by the wishes of the informant. In most cases, the accuracy and authenticity of each oral history was preserved and included in the final study. Confidentiality was preserved where appropriate. The Human Subjects’ Committee granted permission to conduct this study (Appendix D). Interview files were maintained by the researcher and identified only by pseudonyms. The files may be kept for 5 – 10 years for future research and then destroyed.

Authenticity of Data The reliability of oral histories was an important factor in this study. Participants were asked to recall events and stories from their past involvement in or with student government. The triangulation of all data insured validity and assisted in the proper analysis.252

28 Internal Validity. Internal validity was checked through field notes and member checks. Field notes were taken during the interviews. These provided an overview of key points that served as a framework to compare with the transcribed interview. Field notes were used to identify further questions or points of clarification. More in-depth research of archival materials was done to verify participants’ comments. Member checks allowed participants to review the transcribed interviews and the initial groupings of data. The researcher wrote comments and organized data into similar categories during the transcription process. Participants were given an edited version of their interviews and encouraged to provide feedback.253 Once participants verified transcriptions, the data was ready to be analyzed. These questions were used to insure internal validity:254 1. Did the findings of the study make sense? 2. Were they credible to the people we studied and to our readers? 3. Did we have an authentic portrait of what we were looking at? External Validity. External validity was primarily checked through triangulation. Triangulation of interview transcripts and archival documents insured that evidence was authentic and credible.255 The researcher made an effort to use primary source materials throughout the study. Comparing and contrasting oral histories with the formal historical documents helped insure authenticity.256 These questions were used to insure external validity:257 1. Were the conclusions transferable to other contexts? 2. Do they fit? 3. How far can they be generalized?

Data Analysis The content analysis method was used as the system of data analysis in this study. Content analysis was stated as “a method of studying human behavior indirectly by analyzing communications, usually through a process of categorization.”258 Triangulation and coding were used to assist in identifying themes and categories. Historical documents, oral history transcripts, and fieldnotes were triangulated. All data were analyzed and compared to find commonalities. 259 Miles and Huberman’s Components of Data Analysis: Flow Model was used to analyze the data. The three processes of data analysis were done simultaneously and in conjunction with the data collection. These were data reduction, data displays, and conclusion drawing and verification. All were a part of the analytical process. Data reduction…sharpens[ed], sorts[ed], focuses[ed], discards[ed], and organizes[ed] data in such a way that final conclusions can be [were] drawn and verified…Designing a display – deciding on the rows and columns of a matrix for qualitative data and deciding which data, in which form, should be entered in the cells…The meanings emerging from the data have to be tested for their plausibility, their sturdiness, their confirmability – that is their validity.260 The data were organized in several different ways. First data were put in chronological order and then grouped by subject. Data relevant to the development of student government at Florida State University were selected. Data that answered the research questions were used to develop initial categories. The categories were then clustered into broader themes. “When two sources disagree [d] (and there is no other

29 means of evaluation), then historians take [took] the source which seems to accord best with common sense.”261

Summary

Student government’s role in higher education illustrated one of the original purposes of American education, educating students to become productive citizens.262 The study was done using the combination of archival and oral history research. Tests of reliability were used to insure validity and authenticity. This study provides a perspective on the major changes at Florida State University from 1946 – 1976 through the lens of student government. Was student government necessary? What was the purpose of student government? What kind of authority did student government have? What types of students were leaders in campus governance? What were the characteristics of leadership in campus governance? What was the future of student government? What power did student government have in institutional decision-making? These questions were used to analyze and interpret documents, interviews, events, and actions throughout the study.

30 CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS – HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

In this chapter, the research focused specifically on the historical development of student government on the Florida State University campus. A brief institutional background is provided to give context at the beginning of this chapter. The effect of external and internal changes in society from 1946 – 1976 on student government, as an organization and its individual members at Florida State University will be discussed in this chapter. During the time period of the study, student government leaders reacted in support and protest to external and internal events. External events between 1946 – 1976 included the rapid population growth in the state of Florida; desegregation precipitated by the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954; the state legislative decision to allow student government to allocate Activity & Service fees; and increased external funding through student financial assistance and military research.263 Internal events at Florida State University included the transformation of the Florida State College of Women (FSCW) from a women’s college to a coeducational university after World War II; the integration of the university by African American students in the 1960s; campus unrest and demonstrations against the war in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s; and the expansion of the university both in degrees offered and student enrollments.264 This chapter is divided into chronological sections reflecting the changes in campus governance at Florida State College for Women (FSCW) and Florida State University (FSU). The Student Government Association (SGA) grew from a judicial review board into a multi-faceted organization with responsibility for the allocation of millions of dollars of student monies through the Activity and Service fee. Over the time period, students slowly broke away from the administrative in loco parentis policy and challenged the rules that governed their behavior. Student government reflected these events and as a result influenced the culture of Florida State University.

Institutional Background

Foundation In January 1851, two sites east and west of the Suwannee River in northern Florida, were designated as public lands for higher education through a legislative act.265 Florida legislators stated that the institutions would “give instruction in the mechanic arts, in husbandry, in agricultural chemistry, in the fundamental laws, and in what regards the rights and duties of citizens.”266 The people of Tallahassee supported the building of an institution of higher learning in their community. As the capital, Tallahassee sought support from the legislature to build a seminary. In the meantime, the Florida Institute for Boys was opened and the local government appealed to the legislature for seminary status.267 The State Seminary East of the Suwannee was originally established in Ocala but later moved to Gainesville.268 In January 1857, the legislature approved Tallahassee as the location for the State Seminary West of the Suwannee River, to be known as West Florida Seminary.269 A year later, the Leon Female Academy for Young Women’s Education was closed and reopened as a separate department within the West Florida Seminary. The new

31 Seminary offered education for young men, although, through the years the name of West Florida Seminary changed along with the student population it served (See Table 1).270 Due the financial costs of fighting the Civil War, many southern state higher education institutions closed.271 Some of the students had been enrolled in military training as part of the curriculum and joined the Confederacy. After the war ended, the Tallahassee community and federal reconstruction funding helped rebuild the educational institutions.272 “In 1901, a 15,000 dollar appropriation…expanded student recruitment beyond Tallahassee”, which led to the renaming of the institution to Florida State College.273

Table 1 Institutional Transformation of Florida State University274 Year Institution Name Students 1854 Florida Institute Men 1857 West Florida Seminary Originally men, in 1858 co-ed 1863 The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute Coeducational 1885 University of Florida* Coeducational 1901 Florida State College Coeducational 1905 Florida Female College Women 1909 Florida State College for Women Women 1946 Florida State College for Women – Coeducational Tallahassee Branch of University of Florida 1947 Florida State University Coeducational

*“The legislative act passed in 1885, bestowing upon the institution the title of the University of Florida, has never been repealed.”275

Florida Female College The first public college for women in Florida was established in 1905 through legislation now referred to as the Buckman Bill. The institution was named Florida Female College. Other institutions that were created through the Buckman Bill included: The Florida Normal and Industrial College for Negroes, The Institute for the Blind, Deaf, and Dumb, and The University of the State of Florida.276 A governor-appointed board was charged with the responsibility of overseeing all four of these postsecondary institutions. The state made sure that all Floridians understood that the best students and educators were at the all White men’s school, The University of the State of Florida. The institution was the only one of the four that was given university status.277 The newly created Florida Female College…was assigned a curriculum that emphasized white women’s scientific expertise in domestic and childrearing work; a campus atmosphere designed to mirror the ostensible tranquility and harmony of white middle-class Southern family; a code of conduct that stressed religion devotion, personal sanitation, submissiveness to school administrators, and avoidance of black men; and a staff consisting largely of young, single, and poorly paid female teachers.278

32 Within four years, the institution was renamed Florida State College for Women (FSCW); men, football and fraternities were nonexistent; and college President A. A. Murphree was transferred to the University of Florida to serve as their President.

Femina Perfecta

Edward Conradi served as FSCW President from 1909 – 1941 in which time student enrollment increased exponentially.279 FSCW students were charged with establishing new traditions and customs. The most significant creation from this time period was the FSCW seal. “Three torches bearing the banners of vires, artes, and mores Latin words for strength, skills, and customs” made up the institutional symbol.280 FSCW promoted a safe and healthy environment to reassure parents. Student life was controlled and monitored by staff and administrators. For example, a Dean of the College Home served as the house mother in the residence halls. Racism and prejudice greatly impacted the rules and regulations of FSCW students and female staff members. Codes of conduct defined the students as pious and somewhat childlike, in need of constant supervision both from their own tendencies to stray and from the ‘dangers’ associated with the black men and women who lived and worked in the city just beyond the campus.281

Campus Governance Emerges The Student Government Association of (SGA) of FSCW was established in the 1912 – 1913 school year. The original purpose of SGA was to deal with infractions of the honor and conduct codes.282 The administration hoped that by allowing student involvement in campus governance the student discipline cases would decrease.283 SGA became the College Government Association (CGA) in the mid-1920s. The FSCW 1925 Catalogue stated that CGA would lead to a stronger relationship between faculty and students, which would promote citizenship.284 When asked, what they believed the purpose of CGA on the FSCW campus was, a past student government leaders stated: It [Student government] was a carryover from the early days when the minimum age of being a student may have been 9 or 10…because they were actually children. That has improved over time but people like to tell other people what to do and control them…in loco parentis.285 Another FSCW graduate reiterated, We [CGA] were sort of an arm of the administration. We were the mediators between the student body and the administration… We had very little real power.286 Structure. The structure of campus governance expanded over time. In the beginning, the SGA served as the student judicial court for violations of the student honor code. In 1930, the College Government Association was made up of an Executive Council, a Senate, and a Judiciary. Executive Council officers served as the leaders of the different branches and were elected by the study body. 287 CGA held student body meetings and sponsored social events to promote collegiality on campus. These included orientation events for new students and annual birthday parties for the college President.288

33 SGA Advisors. A faculty and administrative body known as the Advisory Council oversaw student government at FSCW. After World War I, women gained more rights in society and subsequently wanted more rights on the FSCW campus. “Wars made women more independent – that sounds terrible but they had to do the things that the men had been doing because the men weren’t there.”289 As a result, FSCW students wanted more autonomy and voice in their campus governance. In the mid-1920s, students rebelled against the FSCW honor code, which was supported by SGA. Students believed that SGA was being used as an enforcer of administrative policy rather than a self-governing policy making body. The campus newspaper, Florida Flambeau, opposed the false sense of authority.290 In response, an administration-led reorganization of student government occurred. SGA was renamed CGA, the College Government Association. All FSCW students were considered to be part of the CGA. The administration utilized CGA as their student representatives but the students did not have any decision-making ability. In 1943, the administration decided to give the student government more responsibility for upholding the traditions of FSCW, such as their motto ‘Femina Perfecta’, which meant “completed woman.”291 “College authorities pledged to support the students and the student Association promised to cooperate with the president and faculty in maintaining high scholarship and standards.”292 The Faculty Committee on Student Affairs replaced the Advisory Council. The FSCW President appointed committee members. The Faculty Committee on Student Affairs was charged with implementing all legislation and reviewing all judicial decisions made by the College Government Association.293 The Faculty Committee on Student Affairs and the Executive Board started to work together through the College Council. The College Council represented one of the first campus governing bodies with equal representation from administration, faculty, and students. The College Council met throughout the year at retreats and conferences held at various locations on campus, such as Camp Flastacowo. The Council met for “discussion and action upon campus issues…student ideas, presented by Executive Council of CGA, and suggestions from the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs are [were] reviewed with equal attention.”294 Executive Council. The Executive Council had 10 major CGA offices who were all elected by the FSCW student body. These officers were: President of CGA; Secretary of CGA; Treasurer; 1st Vice President; 2nd Vice President; 3rd Vice President; Freshman Advisor; Chairman of Judiciary; Chairman of Residence Hall Committee; and Chairman of Off-Campus Committee.295 Officers. One of the main duties of the President of CGA was to preside over the mandatory weekly convocations.296 The Chairman of Judiciary oversaw the CGA judicial process and developed an Honor Code. The Freshman Advisor worked with the Freshmen Commission to welcome incoming students to the FSCW campus and teach them about the CGA. There were three Vice Presidents of CGA, who each had a different role. The highest of the three was the 1st Vice President who served as the President of the Senate. The 2nd Vice President served as liaison to the executive cabinet, class officers, and the Sophomore Council. The 3rd Vice President was responsible for Student Forums and worked on special projects.

34 The Treasurer was responsible for the collection of fines and the accurate completion of the annual CGA budget report. The Treasurer was the only officer who stayed in office after the spring elections to train the incoming Treasurer.297 In addition, the Treasurer served on the Budget Committee and Auditing Committee to insure that funds were being used appropriately by student organizations including CGA.298 Senate. The President of Senate was the 1st Vice President of CGA, sometimes nicknamed gavel-pounder.299 The Senate of CGA was the most powerful branch of the Association. The strength of Senate came from its ability to develop legislation and serve as a voice for the student body. “Meetings are [were] open to the public; at them any student problem may [might] be introduced for immediate action by that body or for recommendation to the College Council.”300 Every student organization had a representative in Student Senate. In addition there were representatives from each of the four classes: freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. In 1943, there were thirty-seven members of the CGA Senate. This number increased as more student organizations formed at FSCW.301 Judiciary. Judiciary was made up of a “Chairman; 1 representative from the senior, junior, and sophomore class; President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of the Association [CGA]; Chairman of Residence Hall; President of YWCA [Young Women’s Christian Association] (ex-officio).”302 Judiciary was considered to be a minor office. A FSCW student stated that she did not enjoy her year as a judiciary officer. She did not like to sit in judgment of her peers when she did not always agree with the rules herself.303 The judicial branch had two Lower Courts: Residence Hall Committee and Off- Campus Committee, which referred more serious cases to the highest court, Judiciary.304 Judiciary dealt with infractions of the Gold Book or any other FSCW regulations such as, “smoking, coming in late, and not signing out when leaving the hall.”305 Student leaders were primarily doling out judicial decisions for minor conduct infractions. The Faculty Committee on Student Affairs or before the College Council reviewed serious cases decided by Judiciary.306 The Faculty Committee on Student Affairs worked with the students to realistically compare the infractions with the consequences. The administration and faculty found that the SGA members were less forgiving of their peers’ misconduct. The Judiciary was seen as the true example of self-government on the FSCW campus. Judicial officers provided a “clear interpretation of the regulation and through personal assistance in helping each person who appears before the court to adapt herself to the high standards and to contribute her best to the advancement of the college community.”307 Students were responsible for their peer’s behavior. One way the CGA Judiciary promoted high standards was through the Honor Committee.308 A past student government member reflected on the judiciary system at FSCW, The judicial cases dealt with cheating, academic dishonesty, stealing clothes – roommate problems, permission slips that were falsely written. One time I got a House infraction because I had played my instrument at 4:20 in the afternoon and we weren’t allowed to start until 4:30. Well, I had to be in my room by 7:30 p.m. for a couple of weeks – that was the consequence.309 The consequences for students who violated the established rules and regulations were severe. Serious infractions led to a student being campused or being

35 shipped. Campused meant that the student was on house arrest and was not allowed to go off-campus for any reason. Shipped meant the student was no longer welcome at FSCW and was sent home.310 The 1948 Tally Ho reflected back on the early judicial system of FSCW: “the favorite recreation of student government was campusing.”311 Student Forums. The 3rd Vice President of CGA coordinated Student Forums. These forums provided an opportunity for the entire student body to come together to talk about issues of interest to them whether it was the war effort or the latest fashion. Meetings were scheduled at least twice a month and limited to an hour. In the early 40s the forums were less structured as alluded to in the 1942 Flastacowo. “Student Forum, that grand-old-get-together where we gather after sundown to blow off steam, say what we want to say, and hash up the things that have been bothering us.”312 By 1944, the forums were focused on the war effort. “In time of war, these forums have assumed the important role of stimulating the student to an active part in defense.”313 The Student Forums served as a free speech arena for FSCW students to express their concerns, frustrations, and general thoughts. Membership. Originally, student government leaders were nominated by faculty members to serve on an Executive Committee as representatives of the larger FSCW student body. Every FSCW student was considered a member of SGA. When student government was restructured into CGA, student organizations were given the authority to nominate a student to represent them. The administration controlled the election process by only forwarding names to the ballot that had been screened by the Faculty Committee on Student Affairs.314 For the students whose names made the ballot, name recognition was important for a successful campaign. Popularity helped more than political savvy. A past CGA officer stated that CGA was not the place to learn about political science or the democratic process.315 For the students who did not win campus elections, there was a Defeated Candidates Club (DCC).316 Students who were defeated banded together to strategize for the next SGA election. Other defeated candidates aligned themselves with the winners and got appointed to a position. Committees. CGA was comprised of many different committees. Many of which were made up of students, faculty, and administrators. Some committees were mainstays throughout the years of CGA while others were established to deal with specific issues. The committees worked in conjunction with the different CGA entities and collaborated to accomplish their goals. For example, one of the main duties of the CGA Senate was the distribution of the college handbook known as the Gold Book. The Legislative and Codifying Committee of CGA revised and reviewed the Gold Book while the Handbook Committee edited the publication.317

Rules and Regulations All students were expected to follow the guidelines of the CGA handbook. “The Gold Book was all the dos and don’ts…It spelled out very specifically what you [female students] could and couldn’t do.”318 Regulation of off-campus travel was a major issue for the FSCW students. For example, On Sundays, students were banned entirely from downtown Tallahassee (a mere three city blocks from campus) because ‘there were too many negroes on the street that day’…Fear of black laborers – whether genuinely felt by administrators

36 and students or merely ritually asserted in order to appease worried parents and segregationist public observers – was played out in the vocabulary of health and safety.319 In the early 1940s, FSCW placed more limitations on students’ off-campus travel because a large number of men were entering Dale Mabry Field in close proximity to the FSCW campus. Members of CGA and the Florida Flambeau challenged the administrative policy. When questioned, the administration claimed it was military policy. The students leery of the administration’s answer invited the base commander to campus and inquired about the policy. The students were informed that was not a military policy but a policy set by the FSCW administration to protect their students.320 The Student Senate and the Executive Council worked to improve the rights of FSCW students. Most legislation centered on lessening the restrictions and granting more privileges to upperclassmen. Students were challenging the established codes of conduct. In general, students objected to the rules on dating, dress code, and curfew.321 In 1945, the Flastacowo stated that “the main issue of the year concerned the law governing the time at which students must return from over-night absences.”322

Extracurricular Activities Founded in 1939, the Organizations Committee of the College Council tracked student participation in campus activities. Statistics show[ed] that we have 100 organizations on campus including CGA, honoraries, religious groups, departmental clubs, and any other union of we the girls. These organizations lend welcome respites to book-worn students, offer valuable experiences to many, and serve to remedy the situation of idle hands; yet, woe is she that over indulges!!323 A FSCW student reflected on her over-involvement in extracurricular activities: I was a perfect example…you could do everything and anything you wanted to do. I belonged to so many things and it was great because I was exposed to so many things but I never had a chance to focus on only one – so there was a good side and a bad side.324 Student organizations including CGA were housed in the Rowena Longmire Student Alumnae Building, which was funded through the Works Progress Administration. 325 Campus organizations included academic and leadership honoraries; Greek-affiliated organizations; intramural clubs; and strictly social clubs. The types of organizations ranged from serious to humorous. On the serious side, the first chapter of Phi Beta Kappa in Florida was established at FSCW.326 On the humorous side, Mortified was made up of students who were rejected from membership in Mortar Board. One of the greatest extracurricular activities was the Odds and Evens intramural competition. Students were placed on a team based on the year of their expected graduation. With the exception of academics, the Odd and Even tradition was the heart and soul of the school. From the day you got there [FSCW] you received either a green feather with Even printed on it or a little beanie that was red, white, and purple for Odds.327 The entire college community enjoyed the rivalries between the two teams. Student publications provided another type of extracurricular activity for some students. The publications often reflected FSCW occurrences or happenings within the

37 community. Sometimes they reiterated the need for higher education for women and the benefit of an education at FSCW. For example, the 1930 Flastacowo stated: Yet he has returned to his armchair to pick up his old train of fancies in order to recapture his vision of a Femina Perfecta, the perfect woman for his every mood.328 FSCW graduates were prepared and trained to handle his every mood. The women’s education was justified as an advantage for marriage. Graduates were expected to use their education to be better wives and mothers to their families. “No future positions awaited them beyond the canons of feminine behavior.”329 World War II affected campus life dramatically; First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt visited FSCW in 1940 and spoke to students about the world events. Her visit inspired the young female college students and gave them hope and confidence in themselves as women. Women were needed to help the war effort on the home front. CGA kept the student body informed of national and state political issues. The 3rd Vice President organized activities in support of the national or state government on behalf of CGA. For example, in addition to serving as the FSCW representative to the National Student Federation of America, she also chaired the War Activities Committee under CGA. The War Activities Committee worked with student organizations to support the war effort. “Campus organizations sold war saving stamps at the Stamp Shack in Westcott, salvage paper drives were carried on, and defense movies were shown.”330 A FSCW student recalled her involvement in College Defense Gardens also known as Victory Gardens, which were all over the campus.331 Through the Student Forums, leaders in the defense effort on the home front were invited to speak to FSCW students.332 After World War II, women were expected to return to their subservient roles. Enormous changes had occurred during the war [World War II] in the economy, in education, and in gender relationships, changes which now provoked dissonance between widespread cultural expectations and women’s actual behavior at home and in the workplace. Fearful of economic pressure from returning soldiers, political and social leaders encouraged women to act as responsible citizens by leaving the labor force and rededicating themselves to family…these home-oriented images ignored the fact that both the labor force and educational participation of US women grew throughout the post-war ear.333 The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, better known as the GI Bill of 1944 greatly affected the higher education institutions of Florida. The University of Florida in Gainesville was not equipped to handle the number of veterans who wanted to pursue higher learning. In 1946, the Boards of Education and Control decided to establish the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida (TBUF) in Tallahassee to serve these veterans and alleviate the overflow at UF. The FSCW and TBUF students were officially two separate entities but shared a common campus.334

Men Join the Campus

World War II and Coeducation World War II precipitated the transformation of FSCW into a coeducational institution. The GI Bill promised veterans an opportunity for higher education. When the University of Florida realized they did not have enough space for the veterans, the state

38 legislature created TBUF. In 1946, Experiment: Coeducation began in the FSCW community.335 A TBUF alumnus recalled the creation of TBUF: When I got out of the military I applied for a college education. We [veterans] were all sent to Gainesville – all White men went to Gainesville. When we were down there we were told that the University of Florida did not have room for all of us…Before we left Gainesville they announced that the President of FSCW [Doak Campbell] and Governor Millard Caldwell had arranged to have 300 men come to Tallahassee and occupy the old Dale Mabry Military Base – which we called West Campus.336 Three types of students came to Tallahassee during the creation of TBUF. These three types included: male veterans; female veterans who served as Women’s Reserve of the U.S. Naval Reserve or Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service (WAVES); and male high school graduates who had not served in the military. A TBUF alumnus stated, “When people say TBUF you automatically think men, which was not necessarily true. It was not true that they were all men or all veterans.” 337 All male students were sent to Dale Mabry Field while all female students were admitted into the FSCW population.338 The administration reorganized to deal with the enrollment of male students. Doak Campbell served as University President during this transitional period. He was also the moral, ethical, and religious protector of the FSCW students. He assured the parents of FSCW students that the arrival of men on campus would not denigrate the prestigious reputation of the women students. President Campbell explained the strict dating regulations and curfews to the new TBUF students. A TBUF student compared President Campbell’s leadership style to a dictatorship.339 The veterans were not used to the structured environment of FSCW. A Dean of Men position was created. Otis McBride was appointed to oversee the TBUF students at Dale Mabry field. A FSCW student recalled the Notice from Otis letters that Dean McBride sent out.340 Dean McBride was challenged with controlling the veterans on West Campus, which was not an easy task. The barracks of TBUF began to resemble military camps with a lot of smoking, drinking, and gambling. A TBUF alumnus recounted, On one occasion in one of the men’s barracks – the Dean of Men, Dr. Otis McBride went into the barracks and tried to get the men to calm down. They escorted him out physically. The barracks had a reputation – Dr. McBride was a good guy except what was expected of him was somewhat unrealistic.341 The TBUF male students were not prepared for the controlling environment left over from the days of FSCW. Initially the FSCW administration attempted to control the TBUF men in the same manner as the women. However, coeducation meant a reorganization of the FSCW structure. The biggest changes were in the student code of conduct. Gender and age affected the more flexible regulations on these new students’ conduct. Rules on smoking, mandatory convocations and off-campus activities all changed. Many of the rules governing women students’ behavior remained the same but were not applied to their male peers.

39 Reaction to Coeducation The majority of the university community embraced coeducation. The male students were living off-campus at Dale Mabry Field removed from the women of FSCW. The TBUF students made a concerted effort to host activities at the Officers’ Club or O Club and invited the FSCW student body to attend. They hosted dances every Saturday night. There were some groups who did not appreciate the enrollment of men at FSCW. Some of the female students resented the incoming male students and were concerned that the female focus of the institution would become marginalized. Others feared that they would no longer hold leadership positions in student government.342 A TBUF male student recalled: There were some women who did not like men on campus – they just plainly did not like them. I don’t know if it had anything to do with their beliefs or sexual orientation…Even some of the professors didn’t like us being on campus because they [male professors] had a male ego trip…a lot of students fall [fell] in love with their professors, have a relationship…now the girls are [were] paying attention to the boys, as they should.343

Divided Campus Governance Student governance was divided between the two entities. FSCW and TBUF students were involved in separate organizations. However, student leaders came together through the College Government Association student forums to discuss coeducation. The topic was heavily discussed and debated by the university community throughout the year.344 CGA continued to represent the women students of FSCW. A CGA officer recalled her involvement on the Codifying Committee to revise the Gold Book. “It started to happen that the girls began to push more and more for the rights that the boys had…but it took a long time.”345 The men realized immediately that they were in the minority with only 600 students. They decided that they needed representation in campus governance as well. They were unsure of their future on the FSCW campus and decided to set up their own form of student government outside of CGA.346 The men of TBUF formed the Student Government Association (SGA) in the fall of 1946. Student Government Association. The 1947 Flastacowo described the emergence of the Men’s Student Government. In a special election held shortly after school began, Student Body and Class Officers were elected…The team-work of both faculty and officers has laid the foundation for a unique relationship between the Administration and Student Government functions of the school. A relationship built on trust and understanding that through the years ahead will stand as a model to those who follow in their footsteps.347 The men were decidedly more political than the women in campaigning for student government elections. TBUF students formed political parties, such as the All-Florida Party and the Independent Party.”348 A CGA member stated, “The men may have done more politicking and had platforms. We didn’t do a lot of politicking.”349 The TBUF campus government was called student government rather than college government. Their President was referred to as the Student Body President rather than the President

40 of Men’s Government.350 The title reflected the men’s belief that they represented the entire campus.351 A TBUF alumnus recalled the transition: If we hadn’t conducted ourselves in a very civilized manner and had a lot of respect for each other the university would not have become co-educational. If things had happened back then like they seem to happen on the campus now… that would have blown it.352 The success of TBUF led FSCW President Doak Campbell to pursue the change of FSCW and UF to coeducational institutions. President Campbell saw the opportunity of equality in making both institutions co-educational such as, equal pay for instructors. He cited the teamwork of students, faculty, staff, alumni and the Tallahassee community for making coeducation a success. 353 In 1947, Governor Fuller Warren signed the legislation making the two state institutions, Florida State College for Women and the University of Florida, coeducational. TBUF and FSCW merged to form Florida State University (FSU). Liberal arts remained at the core of the institution curriculum.354 Some TBUF staff and administrators continued to work at FSU.355

Campus Governance and Coeducation

The population of the student body continued to be majority women at FSU after coeducation. The campus population remained small and students enjoyed close relationships with the faculty, staff, and administrators. Student government especially worked closely with the administration.356 The student body was made up a variety of students. These men represented the non-traditional portion of the student population. The male students ranged from veterans to husbands. Women made up the majority of the FSU student body. Most of the female students came to FSU immediately after high school graduation.357 These women represented the traditional portion of the student population. However, women were not recognized in the FSU community as the core of the institution. In 1951 the theme of the Tally Ho yearbook was centered on a male student named Charlie. The publication stated, “He is Florida State University, the student.”358 Florida State believed that by publicizing a more masculine image the institution would gain more respect. FSU was determined to remake itself to be more similar to the University of Florida, which was originally the all male White institution in Gainesville. As a result, FSU focused on the historical foundations of the institution as a men’s seminary in 1854 rather than the FSCW heritage. FSCW represented the only time when men were not enrolled at the institution. A male FSU student recalled, In one hand we were trying to build back power all of our male alumni who had graduated in 1904 had died – I remember seeing a Homecoming Parade in the early ‘50s with the last surviving member of the football team from 1904…There was academic false pride and haughtiness on the part of other universities in the south especially in our state. The University of Florida looked down its agricultural nose at the liberal arts and basic sciences of FSU. There was a Manifest Destiny we knew we had to go reclaim – it was stolen from us [FSU].359

41 Coeducational University Government Association (UGA) President Campbell delegated the reorganization of student government in a coeducational institution to the Dean of Students, Olivia Dorman.360 A campus governance umbrella organization called the University Government Association (UGA) was formed. The WGA was a “survivor of university government revision.”361 The MGA started during the TBUF year and continued to serve the male students of FSU. The CGA represented the Women’s Government Association (WGA) and the SGA represented the Men’s Government Association (MGA). Each entity had four main officer positions: President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer.362 The purpose of the UGA was to orient the students with coeducational campus governance in stages. One organization that assisted in the transition process was the Senior Hall Council. This group of student leaders “promotes[d] better citizenship and improves[d] student government through examples set by its members.”363 The UGA was involved in the university community through volunteer work, such as the Annual Campus Chest Drive. The Campus Chest is FSU’s component of the Community Chest. Each year students and faculty are encouraged to give sacrificially to the Campus Chest. Part of the process of developing into mature citizens is an appreciation of the privilege of making a contribution to a worthy cause. The Campus Chest seeks to encourage students to develop such an attitude toward giving.364 New traditions were started by the UGA to encourage student interest in their campus governance. An entire week called UGA Week was dedicated to educating the student body about the purpose, programs, and services of their student government. In an effort to recognize the hard work of student campus leaders, the UGA established the Hall of Fame.365 During these transitional years, the WGA and the MGA continued to function separately but under the leadership of a UGA President. The men were still building their form of student government loosely based on the WGA structure. The institutional focus on increasing the status of FSU in the state influenced the purpose of SGA. The male students wanted SGA to be a prominent and powerful organization on campus similar to the University of Florida. As a result, the male students were more enthusiastic about reforming the campus governance than the female students. At first it seemed as if nothing was changing for the women’s campus governance structure. The men began working with the administration to develop a plan to phase out the gender divided student government. In 1948 – 1949, the University Government Association (UGA) emerged as a combination of the Men’s Government Association (MGA) and the Women’s Government Association (WGA). A couple of years later the UGA was given official office space in the Longmire Alumni Building and divided up into three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.366 Executive Branch. The WGA and the MGA leadership worked together under the UGA executive branch. The two entities were asked to review their individual constitutions and work together to develop a UGA constitution that would represent the entire student body. The leadership of the UGA was the University Student Council. This council was made up of the officers from the WGA, MGA, and the Student Welfare Committee.367 The University or Executive Council was the leadership board of the UGA. The Council was more representative of the university community and all student

42 organizations fell under their authority. The Council was made up of UGA leaders and non-UGA leaders, faculty, and staff members. The faculty and staff members participated as advisors. A past UGA officer recalled the transition, The President of the Women’s Government Association became the Vice President for Women’s Affairs and the President of the Men’s Government Association became the Vice President for Men’s Affairs. The President of the University Government Association became the only President.368 The President of the UGA served as the chairperson for the Executive Council. Past student leaders did not have a plan for training new leaders. Each newly elected President was handed a file with all the UGA information in it.369 In the early 1950s the UGA Constitution was changed to restructure the Executive Branch of the UGA. Instead of an elected Executive Council, the UGA President formed a President’s Cabinet with appointed members. The cabinet members served on various committees. These included: Elections; Honor; Social Standards; Athletic and Recreational; Organizations; and Finance Committees. Committees often included students and faculty members. 370 The actual cabinet positions depended on the initiatives of the newly elected UGA President. Student forums, which were part of the CGA at FSCW, were brought into the UGA by the women student leaders. These student discussions became an integral part of the UGA. The Forums Chairman position was part of the President’s Cabinet. The UGA often brought in speakers to discuss real-world government. The location of FSU in Florida’s state capital, Tallahassee, helped the UGA secure key state leaders for the forums.371 UGA leaders benefited from their relationship with the state government. Some student secured internships and jobs with the state government because of the networking they did when they were involved in the UGA at FSU.372 Legislative Branch. The University Senate or University Legislature was established to curtail the replication found in Women’s and Men’s Senate. Members of the University Senate were given the title of University Statesman or Senator. The University Senate met on a weekly basis. The Vice President of the UGA presided over the University Senate as Senate President. The UGA Vice President, the UGA Secretary, and the members of the Women’s and Men’s Senate made up the University Senate. Prospective classes within the student body elected members of the WGA and the MGA Senates. The Vice Presidents of the WGA and the MGA served as the Senate Presidents for their prospective group. Twelve women and men served dual positions in either the Women’s Senate or the Men’s Senate and in the University Senate. The equal representation of women and men in the Senate helped build trust among the students. The intent of the University Senate was to eventually abolish the need for two separate senates. The students revised the constitutions and established guidelines that applied to all students in an attempt to streamline campus governance. In 1951, all student regulations were compiled through the Legislative Reference Bureau. However, the unequal rules and regulations between male and female students prohibited the demise of the two entities.373 The students worked within their individual senates and then met collectively as the University Senate to discuss their issues.374 The Association of Women Students (AWS) represented the women of FSU. The Women’s Senate was part of the AWS. The

43 Vice President of Women’s Affairs position was part of the President’s Cabinet. The role of the Vice President of Women’s Affairs was to determine whether or not an issue should be brought before the Women’s Senate or the University Senate.375 The majority of the Women’s Senate legislation dealt with loosening the restrictions on female students’ off-campus activities. As a result, in 1952, female students were given permission to spend the night off-campus in Tallahassee.376 Judicial Branch. Derived from the MGA Honor Court, the University Honor Court became the highest court in the UGA. The Honor Court dealt with violations of the Honor Code and cases that affected male and female students.377 Types of infractions included: lying, cheating, and stealing.378 Originally the Honor Court was made up of two representatives from the junior and senior classes and presided over by a Chief Justice.379 In 1952, the Honor Court was expanded to four representatives from the junior and senior classes. The same year House Councils became part of the Judicial Branch. The House Councils heard cases dealing with minor infractions of on-campus students either in the residence halls or in the sorority houses. 380 As the highest court of the UGA, the Honor Court also heard appeals to Women’s and Men’s Judiciary rulings. Members of the Judicial Branch provided clarification on Robert’s Rules of Order and the UGA Constitution. In some cases, the Honor Court would serve as temporary legal advisors for students.381 The Honor Court collaborated with the Honor Committee to educate students on the Honor Code. One way they achieved this was through an Honor Emphasis Week.382 The major difference between WGA and MGA was their judicial process. The Women’s Judiciary heard the cases that affected female students. Men’s Judiciary heard the cases that affected male students.383 The structure of the WGA judicial was carried over from FSCW. The Women’s Judiciary was the highest court of WGA, which dealt with more serious violations of the honor and conduct code. The three lower courts: Upper-Class Court, Freshman Court, and Off-Campus Court dealt with less serious violations, such as dress code and curfew.384 Originally named the Honor Court, the Men’s Judiciary was the only court in the MGA. The Men’s Judiciary heard “all cases of minor infractions of university rules regarding general conduct and etiquette.”385 In addition, officers were responsible for creating the MGA constitution and interpreting it. The Honor Court and Men’s Judiciary provided a training ground for many TBUF students who immediately entered the University of Florida Law School upon graduation from FSU.386 Class officers. Class officers were an important part of campus unity at FSU. All classes had officers who represented their interests in the UGA. The officer positions varied depending on the class. Some positions were class specific for events that occurred in that year. The sophomore class held a Sophomore Hop each year, which occasionally was used to raise funds for the Campus Chest drive. By 1951, each class President served on the Executive Council of the UGA. One of the traditions at FSCW was that each class would make “to the school some valuable personal contribution in order to show proper appreciation for what it has done for them as students, collectively and individually.”387 This tradition was carried over to FSU. Not all students agreed with spending their class monies on a gift for the institution. The 1949 Senior Class President bitterly recounted his class’ decision to save their money.

44 Each class when they graduated gave a gift to the university…it was mandated by tradition. They would charge you a student activity fee…save it over four years to buy the university a gift when the class graduated. I didn’t think we should have to do that and I was President of the Senior Class. So we voted to put that money into a savings account and determine later what we wanted to do with it. Somebody asked where it was at our 50th reunion and nobody knew what happened to it. I know what happened, the administration took it and spent it.388

Desegregation The Board of Control did not allow postsecondary institutions to have identical programs at their schools because of the lack of funding. However, because Florida A&M University (FAMU) was a historically Black university, that did not apply. FAMU and FSU each had graduate programs. Some students inquired about exchange programs between the schools to expand their curriculum options. This idea was met with a resounding no by the FSU administration.389 A past SGA President recalled his advocacy of desegregation of higher education in 1950. We had a meeting of the Florida Student Government Association at the University of Florida. They had Black and White delegates, which was against the law and against the Board of Control… We discussed desegregation at the meeting and we felt that we should go ahead and do it. A motion was made to this effect and I supported it...at this illegal meeting at the University of Florida. As soon as I got back to FSU I was called into President Doak Campbell’s office to meet with him and a representative of the Board of Control. They were concerned about what I had done…I had attended this illegal meeting. I conceded that I did it…but I thought the law was just wrong. That was before you got into civil disobedience. The student government met and pretty much disclaimed the President of the Florida Student Government Association and me. I said I was voting my own convictions…so when I went back to that meeting (Senate) most of the students disassociated themselves from our position, which didn’t bother me. It was a very emotional and controversial thing. I felt very strongly that this whole business of segregation was morally wrong and inhumane.390 Participants stated that there was more advocacy of integration during war time because the military was integrated. Society found it hard to justify segregation when Blacks were being sent off to war for a country where they were not seen as equal citizens. A veteran stated, African Americans had been killed fighting for freedom and those who weren’t came back to the USA to face discrimination. The national government accepted Negro students from abroad as foreign students without recognizing Negro students from our own country who had fought in the war.391 The 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case Brown vs. Board of Education called for desegregation of primary and secondary public schools. The students mirrored the greater society; some of them became advocates while others figured out ways to prevent it. A SGA leader stated, “Racial integration was just around the corner…we had some issues come up about Black entertainers on campus. The university rules prohibited it and some students protested.”392

45 Emergence of the Student Government Association (SGA) After a few years of transition, the Student Government Association (SGA) emerged. The three branches of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial remained while some roles and positions changed. The remnants of a gender-divided campus structure continued to exist. The Executive Branch added two elected positions to represent the needs of the women and men of FSU. These were known as the Vice President of Women’s Affairs or Women’s Vice President and the Vice President of Men’s Affairs or Men’s Vice President. These two positions also served as the President of their prospective senates.393 The SGA held retreats and workshops, which varied in topic from goal setting to training on parliamentary procedure. The SGA expanded upon the community service initiatives of the UGA. They continued to sponsor the Campus Chest program and got involved with Parents’ Week. The SGA members also sponsored a student organization called SHARES, which provided scholarship funding for Hungarian students. Students recognized their ability to help students outside of their immediate vicinity.394 With the building of the University Union in 1964, the SGA was given more office space in a centralized location on campus.395 Executive Branch. The Executive Cabinet continued to serve as the liaison between the SGA President and the university community. Each SGA President had the authority to create or dismiss a cabinet position. In 1959, the cabinet positions were Student Welfare, Finance, Elections, Attorney General, Organizations, Honor (Code), Secretary to the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Events, and Secretary of the Interior.396 Students in leadership positions in the residence halls became affiliated with the SGA through dorm government.397 One hall government President recalled, “We had an Inter-Hall Council where the Presidents met on a regular basis.”398 Dorms were eventually given the same status as organizations, which granted the same privileges. For example, the residence hall students were given the ability to reserve block seating at athletic events.399 Legislative Branch. The University Senate served as the collective representation of the student body. Student senators were expected to communicate with the larger student body and discuss campus issues. It was through these conversations that senators determined what legislation needed to be written. Senators needed to remain cognizant of how students felt about FSU and the role of SGA. The Senate was responsible for writing the Traffic Code, which was used by the Traffic-Safety Court to regulate traffic problems.400 The Senate worked closely with the administration to learn about the budgetary process. Student government had control over “creating a budget and administering the student funds on campus.”401 The staff, faculty, and administrators educated student leaders on the process of long range planning and budgets. An administrator shared her experiences in working with the SGA: It was something that we had to teach them because they did not always understand the long range plans. If this didn’t work the Vice President for Student Affairs would go to Senate and say ‘It will be vetoed if you do not pay for the utilities for the Union because there is nowhere else for them to get the money.’ Of course, they didn’t want to get vetoed or even acknowledge that a veto could occur.402

46 Judicial Branch. The Judicial Branch was restructured into a 3-tier system: Highest Court – University Honor Court; Middle Courts – Judiciary and Traffic-Safety Court; and Lower Courts – Off-Campus Court and Dorm House Councils.403 The University Honor Court remained the highest court in the SGA judicial branch. Members of the Honor Court included a Chief Justice, clerk, and 8 students who were all elected by the student body.404 The Women’s and Men’s Judiciary, which existed under the UGA were merged into Judiciary or University Court. This new conglomerate heard cases dealing with all students. The Traffic-Safety Court not only heard traffic violations cases but also recommended new traffic policies.405 The SGA decided to hire two students to enforce university traffic and safety regulations as campus police.406 The Lower Courts were made up of the Off-Campus Court and the Dorm House Councils. Both of these Lower Courts targeted female FSU students and their adherence to the conduct code.407 Dorm House Councils worked with the Dorm Government to set and enforce regulations for residence hall students. SGA Accomplishments. The Student Government Association worked with the university to provide the best programs and services to the study body. Through their involvement on committees, passed legislation, written recommendations, and sometimes protests the SGA helped implement change at FSU. Communication among the student leaders and their constituents was vital for successful change. Students concerns were often followed by an investigation by an ad-hoc committee of the SGA. Some of these changes initiated by the SGA in the 1950s were: introduced male cheerleaders to the FSU squad;408 extended library hours; increased wages for hourly wage employees including outsourced food service company workers;409 upgraded university telephone system; expanded the intramural program; and established Student Travel Services.410

Student Publications The UGA continued to support student publications through the student activity fee. In 1951, Talaria, the FSU literary magazine, which evolved from the FSCW, Distaff, changed names again and became the Smoke Signal. The purpose of the publication changed from literary to a “general magazine with an accent on variety.”411 Student Publications was the voice for the SGA throughout the university community. The Board of Student Publications was affiliated with the Executive Branch. Student Publications worked with three types of media: print, television, and radio.412 In 1956, the Board of Student Publications was responsible for five media services: Florida Flambeau, Smoke Signals, Tally Ho, WFSU-TV, and WFSU-FM. There were times when the campus newspaper, Florida Flambeau, was under investigation by the SGA committees. The Flambeau often provided an opposing view to the administration and sometimes conflicted with the SGA.413 In 1958, the Florida Flambeau became “Florida’s First Bi-weekly University Paper.”414 Originally, the Board of Publications membership consisted of five student members of the Board who were elected in the spring semester and three faculty members who were appointed by the University President. 415 By 1960, there were still eight members on the Board of Publications but the process to become a member of had changed. Of the five previously elected student members, the Student Body President was given the authority to appoint two of them, which meant the student body

47 only elected three of the members. This change in the membership process took power out of the hands of the student body. The SGA and University administration were able to hand select members, which allowed them control over student publications.416 Student Publications was responsible for different projects around campus. All the different branches of the SGA collaborated with Student Publications to advertise their events. The Executive Branch developed a Fun and Functions weekly calendar to inform students about upcoming activities and compiled information for students on financial aid opportunities.417 The Legislative Branch worked with Student Publications more as a public relations department such as designing banners for them. The Judicial Branch depended on Student Publications to assist them in designing and printing the Honor Code for all students.418

Extracurricular Activities Student government served as the umbrella organization for all student groups on campus. Student government provided funding for general student activities and for individual student organizations. One of the first organizations that provided a place for male and female students to come together outside of the classroom was the FSU Flying High Circus. As one participant stated, “the Circus was everyone’s organization.”419 Student government financially supported the Circus as a recreational activity for students. While the Circus focused on unifying the newly coed campus, most of the extracurricular activities remained divided by gender. This was most apparent in the honorary organizations. Honoraries worked closely with the SGA to make the university campus a better place. Many of the SGA members were also members of one or more of the honorary organizations. The women’s honoraries that existed during the FSCW days were still around in the 1950s. The men of FSU realized that they needed to establish their own honorary organizations. Some of the women’s honoraries included Mortar Board, Garnet Key, and Mortified. Some of the men’s honoraries included Omicron Delta Kappa and Gold Key. Phi Beta Kappa was one of the early honoraries that was open to male and female students in the Liberal Arts and Sciences.420 Mortar Board and Omicron Delta Kappa were the highest honoraries for FSU students. Both organizations were nationally affiliated and recognized students mainly for their leadership and academic abilities. Garnet Key and Gold Key acknowledged students for their “leadership, spirit, and service.”421 Mortified was organized by FSCW students who did not get selected for Mortar Board. “The bases of membership are [were] service, character, spirit, activities, and leadership. Only a scholarship requirement is [was] lacking, hence the Mortified pin in the shape of a dunce cap.”422 Religious organizations were prominent on campus. A student recalled, “Religion was a dominant part of our lives.”423 The Baptist Student Union planned a Back to College Day to educate students on the importance of being involved in religious activities during their college years.424 Other religious organization included: the Catholic Student Center, the Christian Church, the Christian Science Organization, the Episcopal Center, the Hillel Foundation, the Epiphany Lutheran Church, the St. Stephen’s United Lutheran, the Methodist Student Center, and the Presbyterian University Center.425

48 Campus Governance and the Race Question

As the 1950s came to an end, students educated their peers on their responsibility to participate in the SGA. It was their democratic right to be involved in campus governance and decisions affecting the university community. The Tally Ho encouraged students to recognize the importance of these organizations. All phases of college life are [were] in some way affected by the work of student government and the university publication staffs. The activities of these two groups are [was] many-faceted and covers[ed] an area ranging from women’s rules and elections to news presentation and publication of student work.426 The 1960s brought many changes to Florida State University and the Student Government Association. The Dean of Students administration grew significantly in the early 1960s beyond the Dean of Women and Dean of Men. The increase in administrators reflected the needs of students, expansion of the student affairs profession, and general increase in enrollment at FSU. Some of the positions were Director of: Housing, Student Activities, Student Health, University Relations, Placement and Financial Aid.427 These FSU students had more freedom outside of the classroom than previous generations. In 1967, male and female students were shown smoking openly across campus. Parties and alcohol were freely associated with the collegiate culture. The Tally Ho described the social life of an FSU student, “Easter at Ft. Lauderdale, Daytona Beach, Mardi Gras, nearby in New Orleans all a part of education all a part of Florida State tradition.”428 Florida State was striving to disassociate itself with the women’s college image of FSCW and trying to identify with the research structure of the University of Florida. The majority female population continuously elected male students to the top offices of the SGA.429 The Student Government Association expanded as enrollment increased. Student government continued to serve the university community through projects, such as Campus Chest and the Student Artist Series. In 1961, the SGA helped to expand university facilities. For example, they increased student workers’ wages and improved laundry services.430 Through the support of the SGA the Student Union was created. The Student Union “coordinate [d] all campus affairs, from recreation to Artist Series, thus improving the efficiency and continuity of campus affairs.”431 In 1964, the same year the University Union was built, the Union Board was established as the governing body. The Board was made up of students, staff, administrators, and faculty members.432

Integration Tallahassee was described as a town of Southern hospitality and was considered by many to be an extension of South Georgia. “As is [was] the case with many communities in the South, Tallahassee had a strong history of racial segregation that was slow to erode.”433 The multiple issues facing the country during this era caused tense town-gown relations within the university community. The university community was torn by civil rights. FSU Religion and philosophy professor, Jackson Ice, moderated a discussion by the Tallahassee Council on Human Relations on civil rights demonstrations. During the discussion, Professor Ice stated, “a

49 people has [have] a right under certain conditions to engage in civil disobedience.”434 Professor Ice was admonished and targeted by the local citizens. Community leaders demanded that FSU President Robert Strozier dismiss him. There are taxpayers in this community who ‘seem to think that they own the university and constantly attempt to curtail academic freedom according to their own biases and prejudices…This places a university in an unfortunate situation.’435 A past FSU administrator shared his perceptions of the Tallahassee community feelings toward integration. We had a sheriff, the Leon County sheriff, who did not like having a liberal university with liberal Black students in the middle of his beautiful, Tallahassee town. There were constant Easy Rider type conflicts – the hippie culture versus the locals, the Black students versus the locals, the Vietnam protestors were not hippies or Blacks, just angry.436 FSU students illustrated their opposing view through various student publications. In 1961, the theme of the Tally Ho was freedom of opportunity: The democratic way of life demands[ed] both capable leaders and enthusiastic followers. It is [was] through conscientious service and informed awareness that the opportunity for leadership is [was] afforded…On the campus level, such opportunity is [was] made possible through participation in the discussion seminars, and sessions at the annual student government retreat…one of many examples of leadership through democracy.437 In 1962 FSU was integrated with undergraduate and graduated Black students. The first black FSU students included Phillip Hadley, who enrolled after graduating from Leon High School in 1965, and Jane Marks, the daughter of K. S. Dupont, one of the leaders of the bus boycott. All of the first black students at Florida State endured harassment, intimidation, and loneliness…But the campus, while not congenial, was not violent, and some faculty, campus ministers, administrators, and white students helped ease the transition to integration.438 Maxwell Courtney was the first Black graduate of the institution.439 While the Leon County police were not supportive of integration, the FSU campus security force was required to provide protection for the Black students. He [Courtney] was under attack and received a great deal of harassment from whites…We had people follow him for a goodly number of days and weeks here to insure that he was going to be able to function here in some reasonably effective fashion.440 A Black FSU student recalled the early years of integration, All we had was each other…we had to look out for one another…we went to classes together we walked across campus together, we ate together, we provided each other with a sense of belonging…but we did it, we got the job done.441 A Hispanic student leader talked about his recollection of integration on the FSU campus. He enrolled at FSU a year after Maxwell Courtney. His view of integration was completely different. To my knowledge it was without incident…I don’t know that there was ever any opposition or anything like that at Florida State…It doesn’t strike me as being an

50 issue on our campus compared to some of the other southern states like Alabama or Mississippi.442 The Florida A&M University (FAMU), a historically Black university provided a support system for the Black students at FSU but it was not enough. The FSU Black students needed the recognition of the FSU community. The experience of the FSU blacks as a small minority on a predominantly white campus was different from the experience of the FAMU student…As a result, FSU black students tended to identify more with each other and to want a social life on the FSU campus like other FSU students had.443

Black Student Union (BSU) To deal with the lack of support, the Black Student Union (BSU) was created in 1968. The BSU served as a safe haven for Black students and an organization that could bring attention to their issues. The event that immediately brought attention to the discrimination the students faced was the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968. Horace Gosier, the first leader of the BSU, stated, At that time there were about 30 black students at Florida State…This prompted us to vocalize some of the things that had been bothering us individually, some of the out-right racist things that we had been subjected to at Florida State. We needed some kind of structure. We needed to be together. Dr. King’s death…drew us together, forced us together really.444 The Black students began confronting the administration together. Through Omega Psi Phi and the BSU, the students realized they had more power in numbers. The students worked hard to gain representation in student government. BSU members challenged the traditions and norms of the university community. The students “demonstrated in a public manner” and decided they “would hold the university responsible for eliminating the system of racism on the FSU campus.”445 The faculty senate took on the challenge and led recruitment efforts in 1968. As a result, the FSU Black student population increased 500 percent from 1968 – 1970.446

Racism in White Greek Organizations In 1961, the Delta Tau Delta fraternity held a slave auction in which both new members and brothers were sold to the highest bidder. The Tally Ho described the event as a successful fundraiser. “Every slave had to perform in some way, dancing, singing, or such, after which he would be put up for sale.”447 In the 1964 Tally Ho White fraternity members were shown running with a Confederate flag on the introductory page of the Student Activities section.448 Omega Psi Phi, a Black fraternity, was the first Black organization on the FSU campus in 1967. Black students were rejected from the White sororities and fraternities and some of the other student organizations.449 That same year, even as Civil Rights support increased on campus, pictures of White fraternity members waving Confederate battle flags at a football game were published in the yearbook.450 The BSU confronted this institutional racism and called for an end to the use of these “symbols that black students considered offensive, specifically, the playing of Dixie and the displaying of the Confederate flag.”451 In 1969, the Inter-Fraternity Council (IFC), which served as the umbrella organization for White fraternities was charged with discrimination. In what had become

51 a yearly review, the Vice President of Student Affairs, John Arnold had each fraternity constitution checked for discriminatory clauses. The IFC stated that they were protected from these claims due to their membership selection process. In their rebuttal, the IFC made clear that their contributions to FSU outweighed the manner that their members were selected. Fraternities reserve the right to select their own members. We therefore feel that these are unfair charges against a group of students which has in the past and will in the future provide a large measure of university support. The Greek men at FSU would hope that in the future anyone who wished to make charges should look around to other groups before fraternities are spotlighted for any evils that can be found in other organizations.452

Student Government Association (SGA) Student government expanded in the 1960s and 1970s. Amidst all the upheaval some students used their role in the SGA to promote social justice.453 Executive agencies were created under the Executive Branch to ensure funding for organizations that promoted the mission of the SGA and the greater university community. In 1962, the Senate increased in membership to 47 students. These students were elected through the precinct system and by classification. The precinct system was based on students’ living quarters. Precinct elections were held in the fall and class elections were held in the spring.454 By 1966, the Senate membership was 49 students plus a secretary. The 49 members included two representatives from each class and one representative from each precinct. Precincts were reviewed annually to insure equal apportionment.455 In 1973, Charles Thompson became the first Black SGA President. The previous year he had served as Vice President of the Student Body. An administrative assistant recalled that Thompson was very combative, which might have been a result of his military experience in Vietnam.456 “The election of Thompson…to the position of president of Student Government demonstrated that black leadership could be recognized on the campus.”457 The Senate was responsible for writing and passing legislation. The Senate met weekly to discuss business and hear student issues. Bills and resolutions were initially read and discussed in the Senate. If the legislation was passed, it went through an approval process of the Student Body President, Dean of Students, and the Faculty Senate.458 The budgetary process continued to be one of the primary duties of the Senate. A past Senator explained, “All student organizations would lobby [lobbied] the Senate for the Activity fee to help us decide how much should go to which organization.”459 The Senate had the power to allocate funds to student organizations. This became a major controversy between the SGA and the BSU during the 1970s. If the funding for the BSU was decreased, the FSU administration used that as an indication that the BSU was not needed on campus regardless of the reasoning provided by the Senate.460 The BSU decided to apply for agency status to secure funding. “Agencies within Student Government were funded by the executive branch before any action by the Student Senate.”461 By the mid-1970s, “Black separatism had become more popular. The original version of integration wasn’t turning out the way that White people

52 had envisioned.”462 Black students were not assimilating into the majority White college culture. The threat to merge Florida A&M and Florida State caused upheaval in the Black community. BSU members joined FAMU students in demonstration against the merger. The coalitions of White and Black students were strained. Black students began to hold the entire university community accountable for their discrimination. A past SGA member recalled the relationship with the BSU, Student government had kind of an uncomfortable alliance with the Black Student Union…mostly because student government was ruled by all the liberals…it would have been hypocritical to not embrace the Black student activists.463 The University Court continued to hear cases dealing with men and women. The majority of these cases dealt with cheating on exams.464 If the infractions were gender specific, the cases were given to either Men’s or Women’s Judiciary.465 Serious cases were taken to a Faculty Review Committee instead of the University Court. “This check and balance system has been [was] established to safeguard the students’ rights…the individual’s welfare is [was] considered of up most importance.”466 The court system was reviewed and restructured in 1961 to make the process more efficient.467 Women’s Judiciary oversaw the Dorm House Council and Off Campus Court. Women who did not live in the residence halls were regulated through the Off Campus Court. There was no specific judicial system for male students based on their living arrangement. Men’s Judiciary served as the only court that heard cases dealing specially with men.468 Men were considered to need less supervision than women. The Men’s Judiciary was considered to be a good training ground for students interested in pursuing a law degree.469 SGA Staff and Administration. The SGA had a support network through administrative assistants and student workers. The first full time administrative assistant was hired in 1973, prior to that there had been a full time secretary assistant. At that time, the Student Body President served as the supervisor. That same year, Student Body President, Charles Thompson requested the personnel files for SGA employees. The Student Body President saw student government as a Department and himself as the Department Head. The reasoning was that SGA employees were paid with student monies thus were employees of the Student Body President. In response, Vice President of Student Affairs, Steve McClellan inquired about the ability of a student to supervise staff members. Vice President McClellan wrote to Mr. Robert Bickel, General Counsel for FSU: Can an individual student be held legally accountable for his actions as Student Body President? Is the Student Body President considered an officer of the State of Florida and therefore authorized to make administrative decisions regarding the status of State Career Service and sub-faculty employees? Is the Student Body President the proper custodian of personnel records?470 Mr. Robert Bickel, General Counsel responded: The Student Government is [was] not a department of this University. It is…a student organization recognized by the University…authority in personnel matters is [was] ultimately vested in the president of the university and is delegated by him under the provisions of Board of Regents’ policy…No authority

53 is conferred upon the student body president to make administrative decisions regarding the status of career service employees.471 An administrative assistant recalled her experience with a student supervisor, I did not have a problem with it because the students knew more about student government than I did. Also, many of the Student Body Presidents at that time were older students who were more knowledgeable than a recent high school graduate.472 The support staff members of the SGA were seen more as allies to the students compared to the FSU administration. “The staff did not necessarily represent the views of the administration – they were just working people like everybody else. I would say we had a good relationship.”473 An administrative assistant who also advised students stated, They trusted me and I trusted them. They knew I would do all I could to help them and the entire student body at Florida State University. The students always get [got] the run-around…by the time they come [came] to our office they are [were] frustrated.474 Many administrators served as advisors to student government indirectly. The Dean of Students was the direct advisor to the SGA until the 1980s. The Dean of Women was heavily involved with the Women’s Senate in setting rules and regulations for the female students.475 The staff, faculty, and administrators worked with student government to teach them leadership skills. However, the students were not always receptive. An administrator recalled her involvement with the SGA leaders, They do [did] not consider themselves in training for the future – they think [thought] they are [were] already prepared. Diplomacy and patience were very important – it doesn’t [didn’t] do any good to get angry.476

Student Disillusionment The late 1960s and early 1970s were a time of disillusionment in the world and on college campuses. A past student leader recalled, Within this tumultuous context of world change, we have Tallahassee and Florida State University: a sleepy Southern town less Florida, than Georgia – and a 16,000 student University with an identity crisis since becoming coed 20 years earlier – where in 1969 police with rifles and fixed bayonets were called out to surround this very building [Student Union].477 The physical symbol of the FSU administration, the Westcott Administrative Building, was burned in 1969. A student recalled, “Throughout this year [1969]…this symbol of our unity as a student body was slandered…by irrelevant cries against the establishment.”478 The importance of student participation in campus governance the SGA had championed 10 years earlier now seemed unattainable. By 1969, students were disillusioned with the democratic process. They lost faith in the U.S. government and the FSU administration. A student wrote, “Disillusionment is [was] mine…The White and the Black our democratic ideals of equality lost in the depths of one man’s prejudice another man’s bitter anger.”479 Black students united against the administration. In January 1970, thirty-five students demonstrated by conducting a sit-in. The students called for a meeting with FSU President, Stanley Marshall. They demanded more Black “professors, coaches, administrators, doctors,

54 and specific services.”480 The faculty senate successfully mediated between the students and the administration.

Allocation of Activity & Service Fee The Activity & Service fee was collected along with tuition from students each year. The administration was divided up between student organizations and halls randomly. There was no established process and no student input on how the monies should be allocated. Students wanted control over the Activity & Service fee, which they believed was their money to spend. A 1953 campaign flier for the Student Party demanded, “Student control over the activity fee to be delegated to the U.G.A. and recommend[ed] that a separate banking account be set up under a Secretary of Finance.”481 A past SGA member recalled, The control of the student activity fee was a central issue for me…As a senator, I introduced a bill to Senate that we abolish student government…My whole point was if we do not have the authority to control the student activity budget, why are we here? We are not a social club, we are supposed to be affecting student life and we can’t do that if we don’t control student monies…In 1971 Student Senate voted 32 to 6 to abolish student government…Why? Because in the scheme of things, student government, as it was functioning, just didn’t seem terribly relevant. As it turned out, we were wrong. Luckily the student body told us [SGA] by defeating the abolition in the required referendum.482 Some students had specific problems with which departments and organizations received A&S fees. A past SGA leader explained, A significant portion of the student activity fee was taken out up front and given to the athletic department before it ever came to SGA…the student government had no control over the allocation of funds. The belief was that student government could play with the rest of the monies after they were distributed by the administration.483 A SGA advisor recounted the student movement to gain the right to allocate the A&S fee: There was a lot of student activism. There were rallies…there were protest marches…there was a group of students who went down to the capitol and lobbied for their rights. The students felt that this was their money that they paid themselves…this was a tax that placed on them. They wanted to have authority over where the funds went.484 A SGA administrative assistant reiterated, “The students had to fight for the authority to allocate the A&S fees. The university did not just give it to them.”485 In 1974, Governor Reubin Askew sponsored legislation, which granted individual student governments the authority to allocate the Activity & Service fee at Florida public postsecondary institutions. Since coeducation, FSU student government leaders had campaigned for the responsibility to allocate student monies. The bill granted the state of Florida student governments, The authority to write the budget for all student-related activities and services. However, university presidents do retain the right to veto items in the budget and reallocated those funds to either health centers or to intercollegiate athletics.486

55 Prior to this, “SGA was given a little money to operate on…it was life changing, world changing legislation.”487 The new responsibility created an important relationship between the SGA and the administration. It also gave more credence to the SGA as an organization. The veto clause provided a system of checks and balances, which held the SGA fiscally accountable. The bill gives [gave] State University System [SUS] student government statutory authority to allocate the $9.5 million coming from A&S fees each year. Student government [members] currently allocate $3.60 out of the $34.50 A&S fee which students pay as part of their tuition each quarter.488 Florida college and university administrators had mixed reactions to the A&S law. University Chancellor, Robert Mautz, on behalf of university presidents had fought against the legislation. Mautz asked Governor Askew repeatedly to veto the legislation.489 Student leaders were given the authority to allocate millions of dollars. Some state administrators did not appreciate the idea of requesting funding from students. There were schools that rebelled against the law and administrators who were determined not to allow 18-year olds the authority to allocate millions of dollars. An administrator recalled the transition, Florida State did not react as lively as some other schools. The University of South Florida, in particular, was just carrying a banner…they were very hostile. Florida State did not take a strong stand against it and we did not have as many difficulties...I think people would say it was painful and it was.490 Another administrator stated, “On every campus there was a different climate and different interpretation of the state law. It was really based on how that campus had developed.”491 Florida State approached the change as an educational opportunity. The law had originated in the Senate Education committee and at the belief was that this would serve as practical training for students. FSU students were excited and nervous about their new responsibility. In 1974, Student Body President, David Aronofsky, stated, “Sure we’re happy, but now we have to make a concerted effort to live up to what they expect of us…We have quite a burden to carry.”492 A past A&S fee recipient stated: After the A&S legislation was passed, the Union became recipient of A&S fees. That was our formal relationship with the SGA. Informally, we had a lot of responsibility as administrators to work with student government officers and with their advisors. We were charged to help them understand all that the Union was – that is was more than the home of student government – that the Union was there to serve as a community center for everybody who came: students, faculty, staff, and alumni…As time went on the SGA members got more and more sophisticated but every year we were working with a new group that didn’t know what we were about. Many of them came in and this was the first time they were working with salaries, benefits, and budgets…so it was our responsibility to help them understand what it took to operate the programs that they want to fund.493 In the early years of the SGA allocating funds the relationship between the administration and the students was tense. The tension might have been because of the general campus unrest. During the transitional years, the Florida legislature realized some changes needed to be made to the allocation process.

56 Originally, the Activity and Service (A&S) Fee law gave student government control of the allocation of funds to the Union and Recreation programs as well as athletics, the Health Center, and the Student Activities and Organizations (SA&O)…Athletics was leery about this arrangement. Eventually the Health Center and athletics were taken out from under SGA.494 A level of trust was built between the SGA and the administration as the students realized that the administrators were there to help. As a result, the budgeting changed from detailed line items to lump sum budgeting. The administration also worked with the students to have the calendar moved a year in advance to allow for long-range planning. This took some of the pressure off of the students as well when election time came around.495 It was not always an easy responsibility to educate students on the budget. The majority of students had difficulty visualizing large sums of money. As a result, they often debated smaller sums of money and cut them from the budget. In the 1980s, the Senate needed to find some monies in order to fund a program. They decided to cut two custodial positions from the Union budget. An administrator recalled the incident, One of the custodians whose name was struck through cleaned the ballrooms that night after the Senate meeting. He found some paper on the floor with his name on it and saw that his position had been eliminated…this man was physically sick for two weeks. Vice President for Student Affairs, Bob E. Leach was incensed about the situation. It was easier for the students to pick on a lower paid person that they did not know. Those staff members frequently did not understand the process and were most affected by it. I told the senators, ‘You would have saved a lot more money if you had gotten rid of my position’.496

Student Publications Many of the Student Publications projects championed the freedom of speech and freedom of press movement on the FSU campus. Established in 1959, the Student Publications lab served as the hub of campus media. The Tally Ho, the FSU yearbook, was traditionally a Who’s Who’s of the campus. Each student was given the opportunity to have their picture taken for the yearbook. Students could pay $1.00 to receive a copy of the yearbook and $2.00 if they wanted their picture to be included in their class section.497 The Tally Ho supported the more conservative White Greek organizations. The Greek organizations had clout in the SGA and the honoraries. The power of Greek organizations was their ability to participate in block voting. Greeks were as important to SGA candidates as residence halls. White Greek organizations were seen as hotbeds of intolerance. The Tally Ho publications reflected the prejudiced nature of the predominantly White campus. The Tally Ho came under more liberal leadership, which caused the structure of the yearbook to change. Students no longer believed in celebrating themselves and spending money on such extravagancies. The 1971 Tally Ho did not have the traditional class photographs. Instead the annual was documented in photographs of world, national, and local events. Editorials and articles written by students, staff, and faculty members highlighted the key issues of the time period.498 After 1971, the subsequent Tally Ho publications were senior yearbooks.499

57 The campus-based newspaper, the Florida Flambeau, was less traditional and faced institutional censorship towards the end of the 1960s.500 The Flambeau reported on national and international events. The student body elected the editor-in-chief of the Flambeau.501 The Flambeau drove the “faculty and students closer together for a better working relationship and exchange of ideas...It provided an open forum for all students to air their views.”502 In 1966, the Florida Flambeau celebrated its 51st year on the campus. The transformations of the publication over the years were identified with increased student enrollment, national and world events, and institutional changes. Some of the institutional changes the Flambeau staff advocated were open Faculty Senate meetings, student Bill of Rights, increase in campus governance, and accountability of faculty.503 At the same time, Student Publications was expanded to include a photographic service, which gave the department more autonomy.504 The Flambeau and Student Publications staff challenged the administration and the traditional policies of FSU. A Flambeau staff writer recalled, The editors wrote about the racial tensions and discussed them quicker than the rest of the student body. It [student publications] sort of attracted people who were more interested in things like social justice.505 One of the most controversial publications was Smoke Signals, the politically satirical campus magazine. The magazine barely outlived the 1965 – 1966 academic year because of their attacks on the establishment, which included not only the national government but also the FSU administration.506 Smoke Signals was banned from 1967-1969 because of a controversial article, which used expletives. A free speech movement erupted on the FSU campus as a result of the censorship. As a result, the Florida Flambeau eventually broke away from the campus and became an independent campus newspaper. A past SGA President recalled the situation, There were protests and there was a lot of debate. The quarterback of our football team and I both participated in a rally in support of FSU President John Champion. I was probably the only Student Body President that ever led any kind of demonstration in support of the President. Usually during those times it was the other way around…both sides of the issue were debated.507

SGA Accomplishments Student government strove to be a resource for students during the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s. SGA looked internally to the FSU campus and the Tallahassee community to make a difference. In 1964, the SGA led a program to evaluate university professors. Students rated their professors on a scale from 1 to 10, which represented poor to excellent. Questions in the evaluation will seek [sought] to determine whether students feel [felt] their professors ‘stimulate[d] intellectual curiosity and student thinking’ and student will rate[d] them on fairness of tests along with whether they ‘encourage[d] a better grasp of the course being taught’.508 Student government expanded its services to benefit non-traditional students. Student government started the Starlight Childcare Center to assist low-income people and married students. They matched federal funds with A&S fees. The Center for Participant Education (CPE), a university without walls, was created to provide free education for the university community. Anyone could teach or take classes through

58 CPE.509 For example, in the early 1970s, a student nicknamed Radical Jack taught a course titled, How to start a revolution through the CPE.510 A past student leader recalled, We created a student employment office which worked with community businesses to recruit and place students in meaningful part-time jobs in the community…These weren’t things that were going to stop the war or curb world hunger. But, they made a small contribution – to a troubled world – they were relevant – and they allowed us to propagate from student government – A Legacy of Caring.511 Student representation in campus governance continued to be an issue. In 1976, the Florida Senate approved a bill that allowed for two student members, one graduate and one undergraduate, on the Board of Regents (BOR). A BOR member used the already established relationship with the State Council of Student Body Presidents to defend his opposition to the student representatives.512 A student lobbyist stated the legal rights and educational opportunities for students, Students on the BOR will [would] enhance their understanding of problems…need further student involvement in higher education since students allocate, at the legislature’s mandate, over $10 million in student fees annually.513

Summary

Florida State University had successfully transitioned into coeducation by the end of the 1950s. The administration still reflected the gender divisions with a Dean of Students, Dean of Women, and Dean of Men. Student leaders merged the traditions of the FSCW and TBUF student government into the University Government Association. The result of that cohesiveness led to the establishment of the Student Government Association.514 The 1960s brought upheaval to the FSU campus and the student government. The university community struggled through integration. Black students demanded representation in campus governance and established the Black Student Union to help them achieve their goals. Student leaders from across the state banded together in protest to demand control of their Activity and Service fee monies. Their hard work and protests paid off when in 1974, the Florida state legislature passed a law granting the Student Government Associations of Florida the ability to allocate A&S funds. Several inroads were being made to insure FSU’s success. Dr. Ann Liddell taught credited courses in the College of Arts and Sciences through the technology of radio and television. The distance learning method assisted professors in educating their students. “It is [was] not a substitute for teaching; but, it is [was] an asset to the instructor since it leaves [left] him more time for specialization.”515 The technology initiative supported FSU’s mission as a research institution. Student Government at FSU was transformed from 1946 – 1976. Student participation in campus governance has been part of Florida State University since its inception. An overview of the institutional history was discussed. The findings outlined the emergence of campus governance from 1946 – 1976 at Florida State University.

59 CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS - STUDENT GOVERNMENT AS A SUB-CULTURE

Student government is a subculture within the larger student culture. Student government members shared specific roles and behaviors. They were involved in rituals and ceremonies that helped them develop as a subculture within Florida State University. SGA was the official representatives of the student body. The extent to which students are [were] involved in institutional governance may [might] affect the nature of student cultures; lack of meaningful involvement may [might] encourage a dominant student culture that is [was] in conflict with institutional priorities.516 Through the combined experiences of creating traditions, leading orientations, holding meetings, conducting elections, and hosting inaugurations the SGA members became a unified cohort of students.

Purpose of Student Government Student government was responsible for serving the entire student body although it had predominantly focused on the more traditional students. The 1957 Constitution of the Student Body of The Florida State University stated that the purpose of the organization was: To provide the means whereby the members of the The Student Body may express themselves effectively in the programs of the University which directly affect their social, economic, physical, intellectual, and spiritual welfare. To coordinate and regulate the activities of the Student Body for the benefit of the entire educational community. To promote better citizenship by developing a feeling of responsibility and providing practice in democratic living. To promote the Honor Pledge by administering the Honor System. To otherwise act as a service organization for the university.517 The official name of the Student Government Association was the Student Body of Florida State University because all students were members. This included graduate students who paid their Activity and Service fee.518 The ability and desire to govern oneself is [was] an inherent characteristic of American society. Through Student Government FSU students are [were] given the opportunity of self-government. In taking this opportunity to work in Student Government, students learn[ed] to accept the responsibilities of citizenship extended by democracy.519 Staff, administrators, and members of the university community assisted in the advising of the SGA leaders in different environments. Alumni of student government at FSU continued to work with students through leadership organizations that brought them together, such as Seminole Torchbearers. “I love to work with students who are wondrous about things you know they don’t have all the answers…they’re in college to learn new stuff…rather than the student who says ‘yeah, I got it all’.”520 SGA alumni, administrators, and staff were asked what the purpose of student government was. Surprisingly their answers were similar. The reason for this might be that the SGA alumni now have more perspective on the question than current SGA

60 members. The answers varied depending on the time period that the student was involved. As the SGA gained more authority on campus, the purpose of student government was more formalized. The official purpose of student government was to represent the student body. Participants recognized the role of SGA leaders as mediators between the students and the administration. Florida State College for Women (FSCW) students stated that the College Government Association (CGA) was powerless to develop or create policies for the student body. After coeducation, the SGA was involved in conducting protests and marches in support of Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War. The SGA was officially recognized by the administration as the elected representatives of the student body. Through this arrangement, the SGA was granted their power. Student government members were ambassadors of the institution and the university community. FSCW student leaders made a concerted effort to make incoming freshmen feel like part of the campus and after coeducation their FSU counterparts took on this responsibility as well. Student government was responsible for welcoming new students to campus. Freshmen and transfer students were given materials to help them prepare to be FSU students. Packets included copies of Pow Wow, the student handbook, The Florida State Student Body Constitution, and the governing policies of the SGA.521 Incoming students were taught FSU fight songs and cheers. They were expected to learn the spirit chants and be prepared to recite them. Upperclassmen were encouraged to stop freshmen on campus and test their knowledge. The sophomore class was the most involved group in the orientation of new students. During the College Government Association, the Freshman Commission made up of sophomore women, was “chosen each spring…to cooperate with CGA in creating among students an appreciation of College Government and a voluntary desire to support the system.”522 After coeducation, the tradition continued with a similar organization in the SGA called the Sophomore Council. The Council was a local honorary with female members elected by their peers. The Sophomore Council “acts [ed] as a service organization to the University in connection with the Student Government…assisting [ed] the faculty during orientation week, conducting [ed] campus tours, assuming [ed] various duties during University elections, and registering [ed] alumni during Homecoming.”523 Another organization that managed public relations for the SGA was the Speakers’ Bureau. The Speakers’ Bureau served as a promotional and informative way to reach the university community. They did this by traveling to neighboring high schools and community organizations.524 The students are [were] the ones affected by the student government’s actions, so each should make an honest effort to understand how it works and to let the officers know how he feels on campus issues.525 Arnold Greenfield, FSU Student Body President in 1957, encouraged students to get involved in the SGA in his message in Pow Wow. The benefits which come to us from student government are dependent upon your willingness to take part in it, and your desire to choose representatives carefully and to convey your problems and attitudes to them. Student government will do the most for you if you make it aware of what you expect from it.526

61 The following year, Progress through Participation was the SGA motto. The SGA leaders encouraged their peers to get involved in the organization so that reform of university policies could occur.527 Known as sophomore sludge, sophomores hazed freshmen students, who were called rats. One way sophomores initiated freshmen into the FSU culture was by writing R-A-T on their foreheads, a tradition started during the FSCW days.528 A FSU graduate recalled the orientation. During the opening week of school, which they called Rat Week you had to wear a rat hat. Any upperclassmen could stop you and ask you to sing the fight song and you were in real trouble if you couldn’t do it. Does that sound like hazing or what?529 During the transition to coeducation, student leaders tried to implement new traditions that would be unique to FSU. Over the years, more emphasis was placed on class unity. “The freshmen were no longer newcomers to FSU, but the Class of 1963.”530 An alumnus recalled an SGA meeting when a more formalized hazing tradition based on the Greek fraternity system was brought up. They wanted to start a tradition of having all freshmen hazed…the idea was that all freshmen would take a peanut and have to push it with their nose down the road to Westcott. I said, ‘you are going to get somebody killed. You are dealing with people who were trained to kill.’ The veterans, we were not trained to be nice to people. You can’t treat us like that. You are not dealing with a bunch of dumb asses. The proposed idea was never passed.531 Student government had a part in shaping the morality of the campus culture at FSU. Similar to their other roles that helped assimilate new students to campus; the SGA was responsible for the promotion and enforcement of the Honor Code. All students were expected to uphold and promote the Honor Code. The SGA sponsored an Honor Emphasis Week to educate students on the importance of trust. A publication titled, Honorbound was given to students with information about the Honor Code, types of infractions and the method for reporting students who violated the Code. The Judiciary structure was also explained to the students. Students, faculty, and administrators participated in an Honor Code Affirmation Ceremony to show their commitment.532 In 1954, the Honor Code was revised and renewed. An Honor System bill went through the University Senate, which gave students the ability to decide whether or not they wanted to be governed by the Honor Code. Students from each class were given the opportunity to vote for or against their group being held to the Honor Code.533 The Honor Code stated, “I pledge myself to uphold the highest standards of honesty in every phase of my University life and I refuse to tolerate dishonesty on the part of another.”534 SGA was a training ground for students to prepare them for the real world. The practical leadership training SGA members learned prepared them for their future roles. For example, student senators were required to learn parliamentary procedure and how to conduct a meeting. SGA leaders were also trained in public speaking.535 A student recalled: I gained a greater sense of parliamentary order, a greater political knowledge, and a better understanding of issues through my involvement in student government… that will help with my career as an educator. Education is a highly political field.536

62 Several past SGA leaders stated that their involvement in campus political parties through SGA prepared them for real campaigning in the local, state, and national government. As SGA candidates, students separated the FSU campus into different areas to make campaigning more manageable. For example, some of the groups listed were: Greeks, minorities, residence halls, band, and athletics. A past SGA member recalled, There are many times that I just think back to something that we did on campus... We broke it up into these different controllable aspects that make it easier to comprehend…A lot of it can translate to real life and not just in campaigns but in your decisions you have to make. I ran a statewide U.S. Senate campaign and it helped because I said, ‘You know what, it’s not the whole state of Florida – its different cities’.537

Reasons for Involvement The SGA members were often students who became involved their first year at FSU. Some students made election as SGA President their goal when they arrived at FSU.538 However, there was a large group of transient students who became involved in the Student Government Association because of a specific issue through the institution. Either way members of student government were part of a shared experience at FSU, which was emphasized in the structure of the organization. The face of student government became more diverse over the years. “I worked with two openly gay students in my administration. It was never an issue…it was a good experience.”539 Student government and athletics meet [met] different needs for different people. All are [were] part of the fabric of college life. Participation in the activities of the university is [was] an approach to a better understanding of one’s self.540 SGA alumni were asked why they got involved in student government. Past student leaders gave two main reasons for their interest in getting involved in the SGA. The two main reasons given were: 1) wanted to get involved on campus and 2) interested in politics. FSCW students claimed that their participation in student government was similar to being involved in other campus organizations. “College government was just something I did.”541 These students did not feel a connection to the political nature of the SGA. Campus governance was more of a judicial board that assisted the administration in upholding the honor code. Participants during and after coeducation cited their interest in politics as one of the main reasons they got involved in the SGA. Campus political parties emerged the same year as coeducation. As FSU alumni were elected to state government positions, students got involved in the SGA to secure internships at the capitol. As the SGA gained more authority on campus, students got involved for different reasons. Other reasons given for joining student government were: they were recruited through other organizations, they saw it as a way to meet new people, they were involved in leadership roles in high school, or they wanted to make a difference on their campus.

63 Relationships with the University Community The student government leaders at FSU were provided a unique opportunity because they were located in the state capitol of Florida, Tallahassee. The SGA worked to build coalitions with the local Tallahassee community. The students were especially interested in “establishing more contacts with the business community and receiving more student discounts from local merchants.”542 In 1966, the SGA created the Better Business Bureau (BBB) to assist with university and business community relations. The primary purpose of the BBB will be [was] to serve as a safeguard against unfair business practices of local merchants and bring about greater economic benefits for the student body.543 Many student government leaders were offered internship opportunities with state legislatures and participated in various candidates’ campaigns. The students were expected to not only serve as the representation for the FSU student body but often were asked to represent the greater population of college students in Florida. Student government leaders participated in national and regional campus governance organizations, worked with state government leaders, and served on university committees. Representation on University Committees. The administration, staff, and faculty utilized the student government leaders to serve as representatives on university committees. Some students sought participation in student government hoping to get the attention of the university administration. Student leaders participated as part of the Board on Health Services, which included professional staff. In 1958, student leaders worked with the university to secure a more cost effective insurance policy.544 SGA members were also involved in the programming of student activities and events such as the Student Artist Series.545

State, Regional, and National Affiliations Throughout the years, FSCW and FSU campus governments were part of larger student government organizations and groups. The SGA joined national, regional, and state associations and was involved in effort to increase student participation in campus governance. The FSU student government worked with their state and regional peers to affect change and promote student involvement on their campuses. Student government leaders volunteered for elected officials campaigns and lobbied on behalf of their student body. State Level. Students took advantage of FSU’s location in Tallahassee. In 1954, the University Senate questioned what constituted public record or an open meeting. The students were accustomed to voting through secret ballot. There was constant disagreement about the validity of secret ballot because the general student body was not privy to the information. Roll-call votes began to be called for at Senate meetings, which caused problems for students who did not feel comfortable voicing their opinions openly. That same year the Senate meetings began to be tape recorded to keep on record.546 Students volunteered and served as lobbyists to the state legislature to promote the interests of students.547 A Student Lobby committee was responsible for conducting research prior to Florida legislative sessions.548 The yearly tuition increases were a major concern of the SGA.549 In 1963, student government was nicknamed Capitol Hill.

64 This nickname reflected the changing structure of campus governance at FSU. The Student Body President was given an official car to use for official SGA business.550 FSU participated in the State Council of Student Body Presidents, which was a coalition that worked together to promote Florida students’ interests. The State Council of Student Body Presidents worked closely with the Florida Student Association to lobby the state government on student issues. Members included Student Body Presidents from Florida A&M, Florida Atlantic, South Florida, and the University of Florida. In 1967, the coalition came together to protest tuition increases. The organization issued: A joint statement representing a united stand against the proposed hike…It is almost certain that student government leaders will ask Gov. [Governor Claude Roy] Kirk and the State officials to give reasons in the form of statistical cause and data for such a tuition hike…the committee may launch a letter writing campaign to State legislators expressing concern at the proposed hike.551 Regional Level. The FSU student government was also involved in regional organizations. In 1954, the landmark judicial decision of Brown v. Board of Education was announced. Segregated facilities were unequal and illegal. That same year, regional associations sprouted up around the south. Student government leaders were no different. SGA leaders co-founded the Southern University Student Government Association (SUSGA) with student leaders at Emory University.552 The new association will enable[d] students of the participating southern universities to exchange ideas and pertinent information through workshops and clinics…The Southern UGA is [was] to be wholly a student body organization, a cooperative effort of undergraduates so they may [might] better govern themselves by pulling together and pooling their resources as a regional unit.553 Five years after FSU integrated, the SGA pulled their membership from the SUSGA. The SUSGA refused to acknowledge integration. Founded in Georgia, the students followed the lead of state governor, Herman Talmadge, who stated, “Georgians will not tolerate the mixing of the races in the public schools.”554 National Level. The United States National Student Association (USNSA) was founded in 1947 at the University of Wisconsin to promote students’ rights and democracy. In the early 1950s, the USNSA came under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities on Campus (HUAC) committee as a communist organization. As a result, Florida State University was considering dropping out of the organization. The National Association of Deans of Women (NADW), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) conducted an evaluation of the USNSA to dispel the HUAC allegations. The NSA is the most representative national student organization in the United States. The NSA Congress held each summer on a university campus brings over 500 elected student delegates from 150 American colleges and universities together with the representatives of many foreign student bodies and with recognized educational consultants for the purpose of stimulating student debate and discussion of vital contemporary affairs. The annual Congresses are practical workshops for democratic education which deserves the support of the colleges.555 Over 10 years later, the SGA was still defending their membership in the NSA.

65 At no time, unless mandated by the student body, will our Student Government adhere to or criticize NSA for its political stands…FSU’s role in NSA will be solely for the student services…in no way can NSA harm FSU or be a hindrance to us in any manner as a member school. We feel that membership will actually be an asset to this student body considering the benefits that will be reaped.556 The Florida Student Association (FSA) was the state branch of the USNSA. The FSA was “the board that all the Student Body Presidents in the state sat on.”557

SGA Elections Elections were a ritual of student government. The elections were administered through the Executive Branch.558 Sophomore Council members served as poll workers at campus elections.559 A FSCW student recalled the voting system. In 1947, I was in charge of student elections…we had great big voting machines that were brought into the hallway of Westcott. It was really good to learn about the mechanics involved with the voting experience.560 In 1954, a new IBM ballot was introduced for SGA elections to insure more efficient and accurate tabulations. Students marked in bubbles on the scantron ballots. 561 Elections were held twice in an academic year. The fall elections decided freshmen class officers and senators based on their residency as an on- or off-campus student. The spring elections decided all other class officers, senators based on their classification, and the SGA officers.562 The election process for student senators expanded in 1957. Students voted for senators in their same class and for senators who represented their living situation i.e. on-campus or off-campus.563 In 1966, the SGA Commissioner of Elections developed policies for student and political party participation in the campus elections. The SGA passed a voter registration decree, which “required students to have their I.D.s stamped with their precinct numbers.”564 Poll workers were responsible for checking students’ permanent ID cards as well as their green voter registration cards. This provided the SGA with a more accurate record of the total voter population.565 Student governments around the country required students to purchase voter I.D. cards as a way to raise funds. The Election Code was the policy governing the campaign and election process. Candidates sometimes sabotaged each other during campaigning leading to violations of the Election Code. The Commissioner of Elections received complaints of election violations, which mainly called into question the ethics of the poll workers. This led the SGA to hold training sessions for the poll workers on the proper procedure for handling, securing, and tabulating ballots.566 Campaigning. Prior to each election, students participated in the campaigning process. Campaigning was a type of behavior of the student government subculture. The Flambeau served as a major source of information about the SGA and its candidates. The campus newspaper interviewed potential candidates about their goals and intentions if elected.567 One method used in campaigning was called dorm storming. Candidates would go into the dorms in groups and share their ideas with residents. Political parties held forums in the residence halls to educate the students. The on-campus students living in residence halls represented an important voter population. An administrator stated,

66 Candidates wanted to spend time where they could make the biggest impact. Who was more likely to walk through the cold to vote? It was probably the on- campus student and a large percentage of students lived on-campus.568 More women than men lived on campus, which made the female students living on- campus a significant voting block for elections. A SGA leader stated that it was a well- known fact that spending time in the women’s residence halls was vital for a successful campaign. The women living in dormitories could easily be reached whereas most of the guys lived off campus. We only had a few men’s dorms when I was a freshman [1963] –My SGA mentors said ‘If you want to get elected, you better get the freshmen women’s vote’.569 The purpose of campaigning was self-promotion. The Tally Ho described the scene, “all available wall space is [was] papered with slogans and qualifications, and as campaigning reaches[ed] its peak, candidates canvas[ed] living units.”570 A past Student Body President shared, “In my campaign, my poster was a cover of Time magazine with my picture on it!”571 Another SGA member recalled, We used to buy posters and make fliers. We did cards, nobody had a lot of money…We did a lot of homemade banners with tempera paint. I do remember this girl whose last name was Pickles…she got these plastic pins from Heinz Pickle Company and passed those out.572 SGA held student forums for candidates to share their views with the student body prior to elections.573 A SGA member recalled that the majority of FSU students were not interested in the forums. “We gave speeches…a lot of people didn’t come to them.”574 A SGA advisor stated, Independents can get elected…there are some areas like the College of Arts & Sciences, which is a more liberal college where the students will always vote for independents over the majority party. But outside of Arts & Sciences it is normally pretty hard for independents to get elected. They have to work extra hard…I have seen independents go beat the pavement, get known…talk to people and shake their hands…and get elected.575 Organization was seen as a big part of a successful campaign. “The hardest part is organizing…Although many students may agree with your political philosophy; it is a question of finding them.”576 Independent and party candidates worked to recruit their peers to help them campaign. In 1974, students stated that block votes were the key to winning elections. Campus Political Parties. In FSCW days, candidates were nominated by student organizations, which may have included sororities, residence halls, and intramural teams. At FSU, student organizations were replaced by campus political parties. The reaction to the creation of campus political parties was mixed on campus. In 1953, the Florida Flambeau said the biggest controversy on the FSU campus was the emergence of campus political parties. Students shared their opinions in a 1953 editorial: Political parties can achieve the same result on campus as in national government…elected officers can well use their party behind them to exercise more freedom over their officials and to get farther in their demands. Political parties have the advantage on a campus of generating interest, creating legislation and making the student government more responsible to the students.

67 We must only be wary of the party’s falling into the hands of a small group with un-democratic tendencies.577 During this time period, the campus was more homogenous. Greek organizations were heavily involved in the campus political party system. Most of the SGA leaders were affiliated with a Greek organization. The fraternities and sororities were very powerful in those days even though numerically they did not have the majority on campus because day students and married students were not involved in Greek organizations.578 In 1952, the Student Party was founded as the first campus political party at FSU. Milton Carothers was the first Student Body President to run with the support of a campus political party.579 A student recalled, My freshman year [1952] they organized political parties. The Student Party was the real strong party in the beginning – it had virtually all the fraternities and sororities. A couple of years later, the State Party came into existence…it was made up of mostly dorm people and non-Greek students although there were some that overlapped…The State Party was more independent and older people – like veterans who were involved in dorm life. Those were the first political parties at FSU.580 Candidates were current members of the SGA and students who sought membership in the organization. Some candidates were affiliated with campus political parties while others ran independently without affiliations. Campus political parties held rallies and conventions to recruit fellow students to support them.581 Sometimes the only difference in campus political parties was the type of fraternity or sorority involved. 582 The opposing party to the Greek system during this time usually represented the residence hall students. A student leader recalled: There really weren’t any major differences or beliefs between the parties…it was more about the slate of candidates. You would support your party people – you weren’t bound to vote a straight party ticket. This was a pretty quiet time on campus…People weren’t into the political activities. You know the most extreme thing I can remember happening was people tearing signs down – that was probably the most outrageous.583 A past SGA President recalled, I was a freshman in 1959, in my early years at FSU there was only one political party, the Student Party. My junior year [1963] we created the University Party, which swept the elections that year and became the dominant political party in my last year at FSU.584 Newly created campus political parties had an advantage in fall elections because of the fresh group of incoming students. Both the new and experienced parties had to work hard to get the freshmen and transfer students’ vote. Over the next 20 years, Greek organizations continued to have a strong presence in student government but more campus political parties emerged in opposition to them. More independent candidates were elected to SGA. The independent candidates were often seen as the anti-Greek students and pitted against traditional student leaders. As students observed the advantage of campus political parties, more were created. Groups of students who shared similar ideologies and supported the same candidate formed their own campus political party.585 These groups included independent candidates. A SGA advisor recalled,

68 It is [was] easier for party candidates to get elected just like it is [was] with the Democrats and the Republicans. If you have the support of a group behind you in terms of getting out what your philosophy – your platform is that helps. People helping you make copies, having other arms and legs going around nailing up posters. Many times you have to pay a fee to join a party and that fee goes toward helping that party get elected. You have a lot of support money and some people in SGA that would not have gotten elected without it.586 In the 1960s and 1970s political parties were created to challenge the political ideology of the students leading the SGA. “Party platforms can [could] make or break a campaign, if the students are conscientious enough to read them, since they outline the projects and philosophies.”587 The struggles of between the students mirrored the social unrest around the world. There were distinct differences in candidates. Some focused on the importance of equality while others promised a return to the past. A SGA leader discussed the formation of the Student Progressive Party (SPP), A conservative leader had just been elected, the pendulum swung back to a more traditional student. The purpose of the Student Progressive Party (SPP) was to do some things that were significant…to be an instrument of change.588 The campus political parties had a system for determining their candidates each semester. Not every student who wanted a SGA position was allowed to run on a party ticket. The parties interviewed potential candidates to determine a slate to represent them. The members of the party then elected a slate of candidates and these students were nominated for the SGA positions on behalf of the party.589 A new student to FSU often believed the only way to join the SGA was through a campus political party. Rejection from a party led some students to leave SGA and get involved in other organizations. A SGA member shared his story: When I was a freshman [1986] I interviewed with the ONLY party, which stood for Outstanding New Leadership for You. I did not get slated and at that point thought this [SGA] was not going to work out and was pretty devastated. I was finished with trying to be in student government because I didn’t understand that the ONLY party wasn’t student government. I just understood that they were in control of the SGA through the officers; everybody seemed to be from their party. But there were several parties so that wasn’t true.590 Political parties educated candidates on the campaigning process. Each member of the party worked to get the candidates from the party elected even if they were not running for a position themselves. Underclassmen were encouraged to develop long- range plans and set individual goals. Students who wanted to be Student Body President were encouraged to serve in the Senate and run for Student Body Vice President prior to the junior year.591 Political parties that did not garner enough support during campaigning would make compromises with the leading political party before elections. This was an attempt to gain at least some leadership positions within the winner’s administration.592 The parties would create coalitions and the winning party would appoint representatives from the other group to their administration.593 Student organizations used this same philosophy to gain power in SGA. The Black Student Union used campus political parties to gain broader support for the organization. The Black students knew that they were an important voting block for

69 candidates so they used this to bargain with the political parties. The leaders of BSU worked out deals with specific political parties in return for the Black students’ vote. One of the agreements between the BSU and the Florida Students’ Party made to secure BSU support in the Student Government elections in February, 1977 was the creation of a cabinet position for minority affairs within Student Government…The budget of the BSU also showed the benefits of the coalition.594 The continuity of campus political parties depended on the ability of the upperclassmen to recruit new students into their group. If the senior-level SGA leaders did not succeed then the party would often be defunct after their last term. If a party did not do well in the fall elections, they would often change their name for the spring elections so that the general student body would not associate the two groups.595 Political parties were often founded around one or two people who sought the positions of Student Body President and Vice President. A SGA member recalled, Most people didn’t like the Greek style, the students may have been capable leaders but they were on the wrong side of the issues at the time, you know very conservative and there were those of us who decided we didn’t want them leading SGA. I was the person who said they weren’t going to be there and I did…I started another party with some other folks based around my candidacy called the Seminole Party.596

Impact of Gender on SGA involvement The women of FSCW were actively involved in campus governance through the College Government Association. The men of TBUF modeled their student government on the CGA. During the transition to becoming a coeducation institution, administrators and male students within the university community ignored the accomplishments of the FSCW years and reached back to the time when the institution had been coeducational in the late 19th century.597 There was some opposition to coeducation but ultimately FSU was created. The central argument was that the arrival of men on campus would take away leadership positions and academic opportunities for women students.598 This proved to be true at least in the top positions of campus governance. A male student who was involved in the early years of FSU student government stated, “I always thought that women played a pretty strong role in student government. Frankly, some of the brightest members were women.”599 Regardless, the long list of White male Student Body Presidents reflected a less diverse population of leaders. It was more difficult for women to gain the top leadership positions. An administrator reflected that, “It was a reflection of the times. Women were not supposed to be in leadership positions over men.”600 Several women’s honoraries and organization remained after coeducation. These groups similar to student government continued to be gender-segregated. An administrator reflected on the women’s government structure, “They maintained a dual organization for a long time. The women were stronger and more organized.”601 The Men’s and Women’s Judiciary showed the discrepancies in the treatment of male and female students. A past Chief Justice of the Men’s Honor Court stated, “You would not believe the things the girls got sent home for…if they had come before us in the Men’s Honor Court they never would have been sent home.”602

70 The university community believed higher standards for women would influence the men. The male veterans were exonerated of any wrongdoing because of their military service. Much of the rhetoric from the time period focused on married women’s roles as a supportive wife and mother. However, educated women had few choices after graduation. Women interested in politics had to figure out a way to rationalize their involvement. “Civic-minded post-war women co-opted the strictures of maternalism into powerful justifications for activism.”603 Female students were expected to model good behavior for their male peers. To insure that the women adhered to these standards, stricter codes of conduct were implemented for them.604 An administrator shared her frustration with the double standard for FSU students: It always bothered me that a Chief of Police or a Dean of Men would say that if the women stayed in line that it would help the men stay in line. That was really hard for me. I just honestly don’t believe that. I think that men and women, even today, could benefit from structure.605 The female students worked hard to elect a woman as President of the University Government Association. In 1952, Mary Ruth Summers was elected as the first woman UGA President. She established the first President’s Cabinet to help deal with campus issues.606 Almost 30 years later, in 1981, Jill Elaine McConnell was elected as Student Body President. She was only the second woman elected to the highest position in SGA since coeducation.607 One of the goals of the student government during the late 1950s and early 1960s was to build support for FSU through their alumni. The male students realized that there alumni base was made up of women. The men were supported by the FSU administration in seeking new ways to bring prestige to the new institution. One way they did this was by dismissing the FSCW years and refocusing on the time when the institution had been a men’s seminary. A past SGA President reflected on the importance of creating a foundation of male alumni. All of our male alumni who had graduated in 1904 had died…you couldn’t see grey haired male alumni at Homecoming events here [at FSU] in the 50s or early 60s because there were none. We had alumni who were turning 30 maybe at the most 40 years old by the end of the 60s…Now the Alumni Board and core are as accomplished and wealthy and grey haired as any other average southern university.608 The attitude that male alumni were needed to make the institution more prestigious permeated the university community and affected the campus governance structure. However, once the institution became co-ed, plans were made to merge the two campus governance structures. As a result, there became only one Student Body President. An administrator reflected on the impact of coeducation on women’s leadership roles: Women were well established in leadership positions on campus. They had their own organizations and were well structured. When men first came in many of them were veterans. Student organizations…were low on their list. However, when that changed and the male students were more traditional aged they took over the leadership positions on campus. You can see it by looking over the list of the past Student Body Presidents after FSU became co-educational. It was as if women became willingly subservient to men. Amazing isn’t it?609

71 The residence halls continued to be a place where women held significant leadership positions. Women had leadership positions because the halls were predominantly female. The student hall counselors were all volunteers. “It was truly student leaders emerging and being chosen by their peers to lead, to govern, and to supervise.” 610 Hall government leaders were given the authority to develop policies for their individual residence halls as long as they did not conflict with the administration’s rules and regulations.611 Each residence hall had two staff members, a Hall Director and Social Director. The Social Director scheduled formal teas every Wednesday. A FSU student recalled, “You invited faculty members to come and you had to dress up…they brought out the silver service. We were taught etiquette through these programs.”612 Not many men participated in these teas other than campus leaders, such as the Student Body President. On-campus women were considered to be an important voting block and were courted by student leaders especially during campaigns.613 A past SGA member stated, We would spend a lot of time at the women’s dorms and the sorority houses as well…The fraternities would serenade the women. The key to a successful election was the women’s dorms. Women tended to vote more than the men did…The women seemed to take SGA more seriously. They were more involved and more active in campaigning.614 Women worked hard to get their candidates, who were usually men, elected. However, the female students could not depend on the male students to implement changes on their behalf once in office. Reforms for rules and regulations pertaining to women continued to fall on the shoulders of the Women’s Senate. A male SGA leader stated, “I don’t recall a women’s issue that was brought to me by a student for me to address when I was Student Body President [1966 – 1967].”615 Social justice included dissatisfaction with gender discrimination on campus. In 1969, Sharon Strong, a candidate for Women’s Vice President on the Student Rights Party ticket called for reform in the campus governance structure. My qualification for the office is sensitivity for women’s problems. I believe the Association for Women Students, no longer needed as a legislative body for women’s rules, can be transformed into an educational body. AWS should sponsor speakers and conferences concerned with the modern women’s quest for a meaningful dual role, that of career and family….Please consider me…for a part in the transition from Women’s legislation to Women’s education.616 The AWS began programming to promote women on campus. The Senate allocated $300 to the Council for a Women’s Recognition Banquet, “to recognize outstanding women students at Florida State.”617 The main role of the Association for Women Students (AWS) was their role in publishing the rules and regulations for female students.

Rules and Regulations The structure of FSCW, TBUF, and eventually FSU was governed by rules and regulations established by the university administration and society. The student government “made recommendations for changes and simplifications in student regulations.”618

72 FSCW and TBUF. The male and female students shared the campus but they were officially enrolled in two different institutions. The presence of men on campus precipitated many changes in the rules and regulations governing the FSCW students. Students were granted more privileges, such as “allowing students to have automobiles; the lessening of the dating restrictions; plans for a revision of the college constitution; the changing of Thanksgiving festivities …allowing students a holiday.”619 Mandatory convocations became a thing of the past. The male TBUF students were not treated the same as the FSCW students. The problem was, “you couldn’t tell a guy who had been over seas fighting in World War II that all of a sudden he couldn’t smoke. He was a grown man.”620 President Doak Campbell made sure that the men of TBUF behaved themselves in a civilized manner and respected the reputation of FSCW. A FSCW student lamented that the role of the Dean of Women was “to keep the girls in line…watching out for our welfare and make sure we developed into nice ladies.”621 A TBUF rationalized, Florida State College for Women…was a place that parents could send their young ladies and be fairly certain that they were protected and were not subjected to any evil influences…there wasn’t a lot of trouble they could get into.622 Whether it was smoking, drinking, or a dress code violation, female students were held to a different standard. For example, female students even rumored to have tasted alcohol were dismissed from the institution while men who were convicted of Driving under the Influence (DUI) were allowed to stay.623 This parochial attitude permeated the Florida State College for Women. FSCW was a protective society that parents would feel safe sending their daughters to for an education.624 The code of conduct continued to be more restrictive for FSCW students compared to their TBUF peers. There were several rules that governed the time when FSCW and TBUF students were together. For example, if a female student had to sit in a male student’s lap it was required that magazines separated them. All female students had curfews whether they lived on or off campus. The female students had for the most part accepted the rules blindly prior to the arrival of men on the FSCW campus. Coeducation influenced changes in women’s regulations in positive and negative ways.625 A FSCW student reflected on the transitional TBUF year: We [FSCW students] did not see a whole lot of change in rules and regulations…in our time. That apparently held on for a long time before there was a lessening of in loco parentis. We didn’t see dramatic changes in what we could or couldn’t do – people may have gotten away with more.626 Coeducation. The restrictive rules and regulations continued after coeducation. The emergence of male-dominated activities, such as football, provided entertainment for the university community. Women were given some leniency in areas, such as dress code and curfew. Male and female students joined together to demand proof of rules and regulations. The FSCW had used the Gold Book but it was quite vague in its description of the code of conduct. In 1953, the Student Party called for “Regulations concerning students [be] CLEARLY STATED and PRINTED in a booklet given to each student.”627 The Women’s Senate was stricter on their peers than the administration. The Dean of Women and other women administrators tried to work with the Women’s Senate. The Dean of Women, Katherine Warren, attended Women’s Senate meetings

73 and tried to help them dissolve some of the discriminatory policies. “She saw the times were changing. She encouraged them to make changes.”628 Some female students served on committees through SGA to lobby the administration for more privileges. I remember quite a few appointments that I had with Dean Warren…begging her to let us wear pants on campus. My senior year we were allowed to wear pants on Saturday without a raincoat.629 A past SGA President recalled his efforts to increase the rights of women students. I remember I convinced Katherine Warren (Dean of Women) to let the women stay out later. She allowed them to stay out until 12:00. It is laughable now but it was a big thing back then. On one occasion, I think it was the first football game that we played in Doak Campbell stadium in the fall of 1950. She authorized women to wear slacks without raincoats. The metal stands had elevated seats and since it would have been awkward for women to sit like that.630 The enrollment of men at FSU increased the attention given to dating and sexual relationships. The FSCW Gold Book was transformed into Knowledge for College and served as guidelines for women’s behavior at FSU. The publication served as a do’s and don’ts list along with consequences for infractions. The FSU student handbook was called The Pow Wow. Administrators believed that by publishing booklets like Knowledge for College students would be less likely to engage in promiscuous behavior. Throughout the 1950s the system of structural controls became increasingly complex; by the early 1960s it was so elaborate as to be ludicrous…The myriad of rules…did not prevent sexual relations between students so much as structure the times and places and ways that students could have sexual contact…What could be done after eleven could be done before eleven, and sex need not occur behind a closed door and in a bed.631 Women and men were shown through illustrations and pictures in flirtatious situations throughout student publications.632 Students were engaged in mindless activities such as “goldfish gulping and cramming as many people as possible into a telephone booth.”633 In spring of 1958, male students led a panty raid on campus. Women threw their panties out of the residence hall and sorority house windows to the men below. Campus administrators and police tried to diffuse the situation peacefully but ended up using tear gas to break up the mob of men.634 Knowledge for College: Handbook for Women Students was published by the Women’s Senate and the Office of the Dean of Women. The publication educated female students on the expectations, social standards, and possible consequences of their behavior. The Social Regulations for Undergraduate Women within Knowledge for College stated, These regulations apply to you as a student at Florida State University and their observance is expected by you and every other woman student. Honorable citizens prove themselves to be such by their cooperation in supporting good government and by their loyalty to it.635 The administration enforced the various rules and regulations through constant supervision. For example, breath checks were periodically conducted at residence halls and sorority houses.636 The main regulation that affected male students was mandatory

74 participation in ROTC. There were also some issues specific to the men’s dorms but those were not as significant.637 By the early 1960s, students shared the sentiments of administrators. An early 1960s Student Body President stated, I dealt mostly with Dean of Students, Ross Oglesby, who was very talented and well liked by students. He gave student leaders a lot of responsibility…the responsibility was real, and we were held accountable by the administration.638 They rebelled against the traditional rules and regulations that were governing their behavior. It was difficult for some administrators to defend the rules and regulations. An administrator stated: I didn’t trust regulations for students. I was faced with that more here than anywhere else. It was astounding to me that an 18-year-old man was more capable of self-governance than an 18-year-old woman. When in fact everything we know about the development of men and women is exactly that opposite.639 In 1976, the Florida Flambeau ran an articled titled “[19]’64 women were chattel”, which stated that women were monitored on and off-campus as if they were property of the institution. A 1964 FSU student, Becky Croft, was interviewed for the article. The rules and regulations ranged from curfews to dress code. You needed permission to eat, breathe, and sleep…Most [female students] abided by the rules because they had never known anything else…While females were being effectively controlled…male students were encouraged to be ‘rascals’ who enjoyed themselves.640 The students of 1976 were outraged by this treatment of female students. The Women’s Center and other women organizations felt it was important to educate the student body on the history of the repressive rules and regulations at FSU.

Student Activism Throughout the time period of this study, students participated in protests against the administration or in support of an issue they believed in immensely. FSCW provided a protective environment for their students. The location of FSCW in Tallahassee meant that it remained part of the Old South values while educating White women for the rebuilding of the New South. The women of FSCW lived under an oppressive administration. Subtle and informal messages were embedded in various aspects of college life…this hidden curriculum constituted students as fragile and childlike…in this way, even as it credentialed white women for participation in modern life, the college attempted to do so inside repressive Southern conventions of female subordination and racism.641 The Dean of Women, Olivia Dorman, was also a popular Classics professor who was revered by her students. As Dean of Women, she kept a tight rein on the women students. Nominations for CGA members were forwarded to her prior to elections. In the school year 1945 - 1946, Dean Dorman prevented a student she perceived as too liberal from running for an office on Judiciary. An FSCW student, who was 2nd Vice President during the incident recalled: One of Dean Dorman’s favorite classics students planned to run for chairman of judiciary. She and another student had been representatives from the junior class

75 and both wanted to run for the chairman position. For no stated reason the dean disqualified the second student and refused her application to run for office. In the opinion of many (most) students both girls were highly intelligent, well liked and eminently qualified. Students were furious. We called a special meeting of the student body –the third Vice President was in charge of that sort of thing. We had a big open forum discussing the situation. There was a great threat that there was going to be a huge rebellion because Dean Dorman would not allow the other student to run for chairman of the judiciary… of course the administration won.642 A past student government leader shared his involvement in a protest against the administration in the early 1950s. One of our biggest protests was the administration was not going to let us use Suwannee Hall for an Inter-Fraternity Council dance. My fraternity said that everybody had to be a part of the picket line – which I did not want to do. They were picketing outside Westcott (Administrative Building). I finally agreed on a very short period of time and would you believe that during that moment Dr. Campbell walked up…This was when I was President of the Student Body. We didn’t have a lot of protests. 643 Some issues were constant throughout the years. For example, in 1954, the Student Government Association had lack of available parking at the top of their agenda.644 “Time magazine, seriously not tongue and cheek, stated that FSU was the Berkeley of the South because of our student activism…that here was a place trying to promote justice in society.”645 White and Black FSU students came together on behalf of civil rights and the Vietnam War. There were two groups of people on campus during the 1960s – there were hippie types who were apolitical who said peace and love and stayed high and then there were the politically conscious. There were extremes and there were people in the middle.646 Students also protested administrative policies, such as a lack of meeting space for student organizations by conducting a sit-in on the roof of the Union.647 The SGA worked with the administration combating policies that prohibited certain speakers from coming to FSU. The standard policy stated that the Board of Regents had to approve any speaker that an organization wanted to bring to campus. Student government leaders proposed that a committee representing all constituents of the university community would review all campus organizations’ speaker proposals. A campus group (student or faculty) would first have to become ‘recognized’ by filing its name, purpose and officers with the administration…No speaker’s remarks would be construed as representing the feeling of the university…a committee…meets [met] to decide whether questionable or controversial speakers should be admitted on campus.648 In 1969, Florida State hosted a Symposium on Student Unrest, which was held over a two-day period. Student activists invited Anson Mount, Playboy magazine’s manager of Public Affairs; John Laurence, Vietnam veteran; and the local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Although the SDS chapter was supported by the student activists on campus, the organization declined the invitation. The SDS members did not want to participate in an open forum with speakers who did not share

76 their beliefs. In effect, the SDS did not support the free speech initiatives that the symposium provided.649 Photographs of FSU students protesting illustrated the pages of the 1970 Tally Ho. The signs reflected issues of Black workers, Florida A&M University (FAMU), FSU, and the greater Tallahassee community: No Saturday Work for Campus Workers – Fight Racism; FSU out of the Black Community Now; Stop FSU Expansion; and Black (Not Business) Control of the Black Community.650After the Kent State shootings, FSU students reiterated the purpose of their protests was not violence. “The campus is [was] not for killing – let all who come [came] here hurl nothing harsher than words for we’re here to exchange ideas not rocks nor glass nor bullets.”651 Student government leaders organized and mediated groups of students during these times. A past SGA President recalled the involvement of the SGA in protests at FSU after he graduated. They [SGA officers] led demonstrations around the Westcott fountain against the war and for integration. They fought years of specific policies that supported in loco parentis…they got Greeks and non-Greeks to come together and have an orderly protest and prevented a riot.652 Some student leaders were punished for their involvement in protest activities against the FSU administration. A law school student, who had been a SGA President, was brought before the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court for his leadership in several protests at FSU. His right to practice law after graduation came into question because of his activism. The student graduated and went on to practice law, but the state’s actions served as an example and warning to other activists. Students realized the impact of their involvement in the protests on their future careers.653 The student activism of the 1970s was replaced by conservatism in the early 1980s. Rather than protesting the administration, SGA leaders had meetings with administrators to discuss issues. An SGA advisor recalled the change in student attitudes: By 1979, the SGA officers were more conservative…they took a more professional approach toward the administration…by this time the Student Body President was a student member on the Board of Regents.654 The Anti-Apartheid Movement of the 1980s spurred students to protest. The Black Student Union and the Student Government Association spearheaded the protest. A student recalled the protest, I remember we held a sit in inside the Foundation building until the university police came in and we were moved outside. We camped outside for at least a week…no one was arrested. If they had started arresting Black kids in front of the Foundation about a racial issue then it become racial. Everybody knew Apartheid – they at least knew it was a negative.655

77 CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

This chapter provides a brief review of the purpose of this study along with the research design. A summary of findings for each research question, followed by the implications of the findings, and recommendations for student affairs professionals is included. Recommendations for further research conclude the chapter.

Purpose

The focus of this study was an examination of the Student Government Association (SGA) at Florida State University (FSU) from 1946 – 1976. This period of time was selected because of the significant events that took place both at FSU and in American society during this time frame. This study was guided by the following research questions: How and in what ways did external changes in society between 1946 – 1976 affect the student government as an organization and its members? How and in what ways did internal changes at Florida State University affect the student government as an organization and its members? Is there a discernible student sub- culture within student government at FSU? If so, what are some of the roles, behaviors, rites, rituals, and ceremonies that mark this subculture and how did they develop historically?

Research Design

The qualitative approach taken with archival and oral history research provided a deeper insight into the development of campus government on the FSU campus. Florida State University was the site for the study. Individual interviews and the analyzing of documents provided data for this study. The study participants included past student government leaders, administrators, and advisors who were involved with student government at FSU during or around the time period from 1946 – 1976.

Summary of Findings

A summary of findings for each research question along with relevant discussion pertaining to the findings is included in this section.

External Changes Past student government leaders, administrators, staff members, and advisors were asked to identify external issues that affected the SGA from 1946 – 1976. The participants identified two external change agents: war and the state government. War. Whether participants were discussing World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War, the influence of war was apparent. War led students to question their role in society. During World War II, FSCW students planted Victory gardens and sold war saving stamps. Women were more liberated during times of war because they were given the opportunities to take on traditional male roles.

78 The large amount of World War II veterans led to a displaced group of male college students in Florida. This led to the creation of the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida (TBUF) in 1946. Veterans were not traditional college students. Their presence on campus challenged the in loco parentis policies and forced administrators to reevaluate rules and regulations for men initially and later for women. In the 1960s and 1970s, student activists protested mandatory ROTC [Reserve Officers Training Corps] for male students. ROTC prepared male students for military service and combat. As a result, anti-war activists were also anti-compulsory ROTC. The SGA sponsored open forums to encourage discussion among conservative and liberal factions. In addition, students created programs and services to better the university community. State Government. The state government of Florida passed significant legislation affecting the SGA. Participants stated that the location of FSU in the capital city of Tallahassee greatly influenced them. Changes in the SGA influenced by the state legislature included: the transformation from FSCW to the coeducational FSU, the transfer of Activity & Service (A&S) fee allocation from the university administration to the SGA, and the student representation on the Board of Regents (BOR). Coeducation impacted student government immensely. FSCW had a strong women’s government structure, which the men of TBUF emulated. The students came together after coeducation and created the University Government Association. However, the structure remained gender divided well into the 1960s. Women students continued to be discriminated against in the rules and regulations of the institution. In 1974, the student governments of the State University System of Florida were given the responsibility to allocate the A&S fee. Reactions were mixed from administrators and students. The legislation forced the administration and the student leaders to work together through the university budget. Some participants cited this external change as one of the ways FSU started the healing process after the campus unrest of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The budget required a level of trust that had to be built between the administration and the SGA. The SGA was an active member of the Florida Student Association (FSA). Due to FSU’s proximity to the capitol, many SGA members worked with FSA as lobbyists for students’ rights. FSU students and other FSA members held rallies and convinced state legislators that student representation was needed on the Board of Regents. In 1976, one graduate and one undergraduate student from the State University System were invited to become members of the BOR. The SGA had been instrumental in passing the legislation.

Internal Changes Past student government leaders, administrators, staff members, and advisors were asked to identify internal issues that affected the SGA from 1946 – 1976. Participants identified three internal issues: the integration of FSU, the university rules and regulations, and the creation and existence of campus political parties. Integration. Although the legislation legalizing integration was external to FSU, the actual integration of Black students to the FSU campus fit more as an internal change. Black students faced a hostile environment upon arrival at FSU in 1962. Florida A&M students offered some support but did not understand the plight of FSU Black students. Maxwell Courtney became the first Black student to graduate from FSU in

79 1965. Three years later, the Black Student Union (BSU) was formed to support and promote issues of Black students. The initial reaction of the SGA was not much. Some participants claimed they hardly remember integration and believed that it must have been a smooth transition. Other participants and sources stated that was not the case. The BSU formulated demands and worked to be recognized by the SGA. Some of the demands were directly related to campus governance. Black students wanted equal representation in the SGA and funding for the BSU. Both of these requests were fulfilled. BSU was also granted agency status by the SGA, which secured funding for the organization each year. Rules and Regulations. The original student government organization at FSCW was founded as a judicial arm of the administration. Student members heard cases that dealt with minor infractions of the student conduct code. The Gold Book served as the list of what was and was not allowed. After coeducation, rules governing women’s relationships, such as dating policies, became more stringent because there were men on campus. However, the arrival of men did encourage some leniency in the restrictive policies held over from FSCW. The return of football to campus gave women the opportunity to stay out later and wear slacks instead of skirts or dresses. Most of the first men on campus in the late 1940s were veterans. As a result, it was difficult for the administration to regulate their behavior. Women reaped the benefits in some cases. For example, weekly convocations were ended. Knowledge for College was published by the Dean of Women and the Association of Women Students (AWS), which was part of the Women’s Senate. Female students were involved in the development and implementation of the restrictive policies. These policies dealt with curfews, dress codes, off-campus outings, extracurricular activities, and proper etiquette. By the 1970s the Women’s Center and other women organizations were rebuking the old rules and regulations and calling for equal treatment. Campus Political Parties. Many participants cited the emergence and existence of campus political parties as an internal change at FSU. Campus political parties changed the way SGA elections were held. Candidates always had an organization that supported them. During the FSCW years, organizations nominated candidates for election. In 1950, campus political parties evolved from that concept. The two opposing groups were usually the Greek organizations versus the residence halls. Sometimes the two overlapped. Campus political parties were usually built upon one or two students who wanted to be Student Body President and Vice President. Parties interviewed interested students to fill a slate of candidates for an election. Students who had the support of a strong voting block i.e., a Greek fraternity or sorority or a residence hall were more likely to be slated. Organizations formed coalitions with parties to insure future funding and political favors. The campus political party phenomenon made it harder for independent candidates and non-Greek students to win elections. Slated members were expected to believe in the party platform and ideology of the main candidates. Party members paid fees, which provided funding for campaigns. Independent candidates depended more on the personal approach of campaigning. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, student activists formed political parties to enact change on campus.

80 Student Government as a Sub-culture The archival documents and oral history interviews assisted in answering the last research questions. Is there a discernible student sub-culture within student government at FSU and if so, what are some of the roles, behaviors, rites, rituals, and ceremonies that mark this subculture and how did they develop historically? Yes, there was a student sub-culture within student government at FSU. The structure of student government changed over the years. However, the main three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial have remained integral parts throughout the years. The purpose of student government as the official representatives of the student body has continued since its inception. Roles and Behaviors. Student government members served as campus ambassadors for incoming students and the entire university community. Participants stated their role as the voice of the student body. Many of them were the only student member on any given university committee. The SGA members were charged with recruiting students to get involved in campus. Mainly through Student Publications, the SGA promoted themselves and FSU. All elected SGA members participated in campaigning and elections. SGA members attended regularly scheduled business and committee meetings. Students were expected to know parliamentary procedure and professional etiquette. Members were responsible for talking to their peers about campus issues and encouraging students to attend the SGA meetings to voice their concerns. SGA members were involved in the Florida Student Association (FSA) as lobbyists for students’ rights. Due to their location in Tallahassee, student leaders were often called upon to speak on behalf of the entire State of Florida student governments. Rites, Rituals, and Ceremonies. All elected SGA members were inaugurated before they took office. Part of the inauguration ceremony was also a farewell to the previous student leaders. Traditionally, state political leaders or past SGA members attended these functions and shared insights with current student leaders. An alumni organization called Seminole Torchbearers was founded by SGA alumni and the Division of Student Affairs to recognize student leadership and service. Administrators and staff members nominated students to be a part of this organization. A secret society called Burning Spear was also founded by SGA leaders to recognize potential and exceptional leaders. The students selected for membership were considered to be the elite group of leaders on campus.

Implications

The purpose of this study was not only to trace the beginnings of campus governance at Florida State University (FSU) but also to analyze student government as a sub-culture within the greater collegiate culture of higher education. The findings will help guide student affairs professionals who serve as student government advisors or work with student government on their campus. The original purpose of student government on the Florida State College for Women (FSCW) campus was to serve as a judicial board. The College Government Association (CGA) represented the administration to the students. Over the time period of this study, student government leaders gained more prominence on campus. More students got involved in SGA as candidates started to represent the different schools

81 and colleges instead of individual classes. SGA members led the student body in lobbying for the right to allocate their monies. By 1976, the Student Government Association represented the students to the administration. The transformation of single sex FSCW to the coeducational FSU had a great impact on the student culture of the institution. The women of FSCW had a working structure of campus governance through the CGA. However, the men of the Tallahassee Branch of the University of Florida were not welcomed into that organization. As a result, they formed their own student government loosely based on the CGA. The majority of women students acquiesced to the new male led student government, which resulted in the merging of the Men’s and Women’s Student Government Associations. The FSU administration supported the subservient role of women on campus. Women who had been student leaders at FSCW saw their leadership roles decrease on the FSU campus. Administrators from that time period were very open and shared their frustrations over the cultural shift from empowering women in leadership positions to encouraging a more supportive role. In 1952, Mary Ruth Summers was elected as the first woman Student Body President after coeducation.656 Twenty-nine years would pass before another woman, Jill Elaine McConnell, was again elected to the prestigious position in 1981. Evidence from the findings suggested that a small population of students actually participated in campus governance at FSU. The majority of students who did participate in student government were involved also involved in Greek, residence hall, and honorary organizations. The students who were officers in SGA often held leadership positions in other organizations. As a result of these findings, more effort should be put into the recruitment of students into the SGA from different organizations. Because such a small group of students were involved in the SGA, campus political parties were largely seen as the face of the organization. Independent candidates were not as successful in campus elections. Often they lacked the visibility and funds of the political parties. Campus political parties were favored in the election process through SGA. Independent candidates should be given more direction and support.

Directions of Future Research

Participants of the study were either past SGA members, administrators, or staff members. This study did not research non-SGA members. It would be interesting to compare the two groups during the same time period, 1946 – 1976. Is SGA only important to students who are involved in it? How did student government affect non- SGA members at FSU? This study uncovered the emergence and existence of campus political parties. Campus political parties were discussed briefly. Findings showed that student participation in SGA elections was low. The election process was thought as a major way that the SGA involved students in the democratic process. More research about the influence about campus political parties and student government elections would benefit student affairs practitioners in better understanding today’s SGA election process. Participants in this study spanned approximately four generations. Research about the different types of student government leaders over the generations would

82 provide more insight into the decisions made by SGA. A past alumnus stated that today’s SGA leaders were more serious about campus governance and its ability to help them in the future. He wanted to share with them, “Hey guys, this is only student government, okay – get a grip!”657 How have the SGA members changed and evolved over time? The structure of the SGA remained archaic in nature. There continued to remnants of gender and race divisions after the institution had become coeducational and integrated. The majority of SGA leaders were members of a White Greek organization. How does Greek membership affect the SGA culture? Does the selective membership used in Greek organizations carry over to the SGA? The foundation of student government withstanding, the entire structure needs to be reevaluated by current administrators, staff members, and students. Is the three-branch structure still the most effective way to manage the SGA? Are minorities given an equal voice in majority rules decisions? Another recommendation would be to change the setting for this study. “The more important development is likely to be studies of the ‘ecology of institutions,’ the ways colleges and universities sharing the same geographical areas developed.”658 Student government research could be conducted at different institutions or in different regions of the country. How did student government evolve at Historically Black Colleges and Universities? How does the geographic location of the institution affect the SGA?

Summary

The intention of this study was to provide an in-depth analysis of the transformation of the SGA over the time period from 1946 – 1976 on the FSU campus. Student cultures exist on a continuum, with conservative and liberal extremes. Administrators and staff reflected on the student unrest of the 1960s and realized that the methods they use now are a result of what they learned from their experiences. Some of the issues resonated with each group of participants. The time period of 1946 – 1976 provided a wealth of information to study the transformation of campus governance at FSU. Participants from more recent years proved less likely to be as open and forthright with their experiences; whereas older alumni provided valuable insights into the SGA structure. By examining a student government at a particular institution over a period of time, it is possible to gain greater insight, understanding, and perspective on that institution and its social history and in particular, the students at that institution during the period under study. Student government provides an optimal environment for undergraduates to learn the founding principles of democracy and the importance of compromise. Student government encompasses the educational ideal of practical citizenship.659 Higher education has evolved over the years through “the decline of paternalism, the rise of legal-rational authority, the rise and decline of student participation, the politicalization of the university, and institutional vulnerability.”660 Student government has expanded greatly on the Florida State University Campus. As one participant stated, “you can’t talk about student government without talking about what was going on in the world during this time period.”661 Each participant provided a lens into the SGA during their tenure.

83 Students involved in student government were part of a sub-culture on the FSU campus. They were the ambassadors of the institution and were responsible for representing FSU to the university community. Student government was more than just a microcosm of the state and national government. SGA provided a collegial environment for students to try new things and solve practical problems.

APPENDIX A

METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

85 Methodological Notes

Before conducting the research for this study, I tried to anticipate the types of questions or concerns that might arise. In the beginning, I had intended to use the participants’ names and demographic information to help better understand their perspectives on student government. However, it became abundantly clear in the data collection process that these participants did not want to be identified. Many of them continue to be involved in the university and wanted to insure that their relationship with FSU would remain intact. For example, Florida State College for Women alumni stated that they did not want to make FSCW look bad. After multiple discussions with interviewees, I decided that by keeping their identities confidential, participants would be more forthcoming in their involvement. I did remain concerned that some of the interviews were more like propaganda. I made sure to check and recheck events and statements made by analyzing various documents. I digitally recorded and transcribed each interview. During and after transcription I broke the interviews up into themes and subjects. I also put my own commentary in brackets to show the participant what I was thinking. I then sent the participant an explanation of how I transcribed and analyzed their interview. I asked each participant for feedback. One participant did not understand this process and thought that I was going to use a certain quote that he had stated that he did not like. I explained to him that he could strike it out and it would not be used. He was upset because he claimed he had said it in jest, not really wanting me to transcribe it. After discussing the matter, the quote was taken out and I realized the importance of allowing the participants to read over their interviews before using them. Due to my limited budget and role as a doctoral student, I was not able to travel to interview other prospective participants. Through the snowball technique, one participant often led me to another. FSU community members who were involved in student government during the time period still know each other and many stay in touch. As a result, I did not seek out as many participants as exist, however, due to a lack of time and money. For example, an interview with an important SGA leader from the 1970s fell through after attempts of rescheduling. In other situations, people agreed to participate but later cancelled. These participants may have provided more insight into this study. In conducting this study I came to understand how political higher education is. It was imperative for me to work with the FSU Alumni Association and my established contacts to secure interviews with past SGA leaders. Sometimes the only way I got an interview was through a participant calling a friend and telling them about me. The current Student Government Association was both excited and apprehensive about this study. Originally I intended to survey current SGA leaders to gauge the changes over the years in the organization’s culture. This plan was changed early on and I decided to narrow the time period to gain better perspective. Current student leaders were protective of SGA even though I did not focus on them. A current officer approached me recently and stated, “I need your dissertation,” meaning to review it for content. I deferred the request by indicating it would be available in the library. A recent phenomenon in SGA is the lingering student leader. In the past decade the majority of SGA officers have been graduate students. These students were

86 involved in SGA during their undergraduate years and decided to attend graduate school at FSU so that they could continue to serve as an officer of SGA related groups. Some interview participants commented on this change and its impact on SGA. For the most part participants believed the lingering student affected the ability of SGA to change and recruit new leaders. The time period was shortened based on two major internal events at the institution: coeducation and desegregation. However, several events and activities post- 1976, the end date of this study, were also uncovered during the data collection. One of the most controversial was the creation of the organization, Burning Spear. More study participants remained quiet or speculated on this topic than any other. One participant shared his story about the organization as one of its founding members. Burning Spear is a registered student organization at Florida State. There is much speculation about the organization and who actually controls it. Some say that the organization was started to help former football player, Charlie Ward, win the Heismann trophy and it evolved from there. Others stated that there was a need for an organization that brought elite student leaders and influential alumni at FSU. In many discussions, Burning Spear was compared to The Machine at the University of Alabama and Blue Key at the University of Florida. Both of these organizations are known for their student leaders and alumni involvement. Alumni members of Burning Spear now reside across the country. A core group of alumni in Tallahassee assist SGA leaders in their discussions with the Board of Trustees and university President. Burning Spear strives to insure the success of FSU in the state of Florida and across the United States while maintaining the rights of students. A controversy erupted over its selectivity of members when it was founded. There is no application process or membership roster. Active members of Burning Spear wear garnet jackets to important student government or other political events, so far this is the only way that they may be identified outside of their clandestine. Another related controversy is alumni influence on the current student leaders. The SGA controls over six million dollars through their Activity and Service fee allocation. Burning Spear members do not do anything without the consent of the alumni members. As a result, these students are not controlling their own monies. In addition, Burning Spear acts as a campus political party by funding individual student campaigns for SGA office. Burning Spear tries to insure that members of their organization get elected to SGA positions, such as Student Body President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Senate officers. I learned about the current campus political party system through informal conversations and observations during the data collection process. The political parties change names frequently but not ideologies. The reasoning is that most FSU students will not know the difference and only vote on name recognition. Party candidates still go through a selection process, in which their ability to pull in votes for the party is measured. For example, members of Greek organizations and residence halls were considered to have a large constituency behind them. There is definitely more research to be done on student government as a sub- culture. These were some of the issues that arose during the study that I wanted to share in these methodological notes.

APPENDIX B

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Past SGA members, staff, and administrators (Oral Histories)

The Historical

Development

of FSU

Student

Government

1946 – 1976

Historical SGA as a Documents Student (Triangulation) Culture

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework

APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS (Listed chronologically by first year of involvement)

Table 2 Interview Participants Participant Number Years of Involvement Position(s) Held and Gender P16 – Female 1933 – 1936 & 1940 – Member of Freshmen Commission; 1984 2nd Vice President of College Government Association (CGA); President, CGA; Chemistry Professor; Dean of Women; Associate Vice President for Student Affairs P14 – Female 1943 – 1947 & Present President, Freshmen Flunkies; Judicial Officer; 1st Vice President of CGA; President of CGA; Permanent Class President for FSCW Class of 1947; National Board of FSU Alumni Association Member P13 – Male 1946 – 1949 TBUF President, Jr./Sr. Class; President Sr. Class; Chief Justice of Men’s Honor Court

P15 – Male 1948 – 1951 President Sophomore Class; President, University Government Association (UGA) P6 – Male 1952 – 1956 President, Freshmen Class; Senator, Sophomore Class; Senator, Junior Class; Flambeau staff writer; Vice President of UGA and President, Student Senate P5 – Female 1954 – 1956 & 1981 – Secretary, Sophomore Class; 2003 Junior Counselor; Home Economics Professor; FSU Foundation Development Officer; Associate Director of FSU Alumni Association

91 Table 2 – continued. Participant Number and Years of Involvement Position(s) Held Gender P9 – Female 1957 – 1961 & 1971 – 2003 Fire Marshall, Hall Government; President, Hall Government; Inter-Hall Council; Junior Counselor; Coordinator for Public Affairs; Associate Director of University Recreation and Leisure Services (RLS); Director of Multi-purpose Facility/Union

P12 – Female 1959 – 2003 Assistant Dean of Women; Director of Housing; Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs; Associate Vice President for Student Affairs P17 – Male 1959 – 1964 President, Hall Government; Student Senator; Vice President of Student Body and President, Student Senate; President of Student Body; Permanent Class President for FSU Class of 1964

P10 – Male 1961 – 1963 Vice President of Student Body and President, Student Senate; President, Student Body P11 – Male 1963 – 1967 Student Senator; President, Sophomore Class; Vice President of Student Body and President, Student Senate; President, Student Body P1 – Male 1971 – 1973 Student Senator; President, Student Body

92 Table 2 – continued. Participant Number and Years of Involvement Position(s) Held Gender P8 – Female 1973 – Present SGA professional staff member and advisor P7 – Female 1975 – Present Office of International Programs; Office of Graduate Studies; Member, Activity & Service Fee Committee; Coordinator of Student Affairs; Advisor, SGA; Associate Dean of Students P4 – Male 1986 – 1993 Student Senator; Editor, Black Student Union newspaper; Vice President of Student Body; President of Student Body; Chairman of Florida Student Association (FSA); Student Member, Board of Regents

P2 – Male 1998 – Present Member, Union Board; Member, Executive Cabinet; Student Senator P3 – Male 2000 – 2002 Student Senator; Pro-Temp, Student Senate; Interim President, Student Senate

APPENDIX D

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL

APPENDIX E

INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

96 INFORMED CONSENT LETTER Dear Prospective Participant: I am a doctoral student in the Higher Education program in the College of Education here at Florida State University. With permission from the Student Government Association, I am conducting a research study to assess student involvement in student government at Florida State University from 1946 – 1976. I am requesting your participation in a research study. Participation will involve an interview, which will have a time commitment of 30 minutes to 1 hour. The interview is confidential. The results of the study may be published. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. Please note that your participation in the study does not influence your involvement in student government. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if you agree to participate in this study. All participants must be 18 years of age or older. Although there may be no direct benefit to you, the possible benefit of your participation will be the better understanding of the student gains through involvement in student government. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at 309-0918 or e-mail me at [email protected]. You may also reach my supervising professor, Dr. Robert A. Schwartz at 644- 6777. Contact information for the FSU Institutional Review Board is as follows: 2035 E. Paul Dirac Drive, Box 15, 100 Sliger Bldg., Innovation Park, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2763 (Phone: 644-8632). Please check the appropriate line below and sign as an indication of your decision to participate in the study. Thank you very much! Sincerely, Allison Hawkins Crume

_____ I choose to participate in this study. _____ I choose not to participate in this study. ______Participant Signature

APPENDIX F

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ORAL HISTORY PARTICIPANTS

98 General questions for past SGA members included: 1. What do you think is the purpose of student government on college and university campuses? 2. What organizations outside of SGA were you involved in at Florida State University? 3. When and how did you decide to become involved in student government at Florida State University? 4. Beginning with your first semester at FSU, what appointed or elected positions did you hold in SGA? 5. Why did you get involved in SGA? 6. Please describe the campus political party system at FSU. Were you involved in a campus political party? Why or why not? 7. What was the relationship between SGA and the FSU administration during your tenure in student government? 8. What types of internal and external issues did student government deal with when you were a student? (This question was modified depending on the time period. For example: The students of the 1950s are sometimes referred to in historical literature as “the silent generation”, what types of issues did student government deal with in the 1950s?)

99 General questions for administrators, staff members, and advisors: Questions were modified for administrators and were not as structured: 1. What do you think is the purpose of student government on college and university campuses? 2. What do you think is your role as a student affairs administrator in relation to student government? 3. What is or has been your relationship with student government at FSU? 4. What types of internal and external issues did student government deal with when you were at FSU? (This question was modified depending on the time period.)

100 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Materials Artifacts, Yearbooks, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1980 – 1981. Flastacowo, Yearbooks, Florida State College for Women, Tallahassee, Florida, 1930 – 1931; 1933 – 1947. Florida State University Student Government Archives, Student Government Archives, Florida State University SGA Department, Tallahassee, Florida. Honorbound, Student Publications, Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1951. Knowledge for College, Alumni Association Archives, Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1957. Orientation for New Students Bulletin, Student Publications, Dean of Students, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1957. A Salute to the class of 1978 – 1979, Gail E. Perryman (Ed.). Florida State University, Tallahassee, 1979. Pow Wow, Student Government Association, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1957 – 1958. Student Government Association Papers, Special Collections Department, Florida State University Libraries, Tallahassee, Florida. Tally-Ho, Yearbooks, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1948 – 1971; 1973. Personal Collections Governor Reubin O. Askew, personal memorabilia, Tallahassee, Florida. Milton Carothers, personal memorabilia, Tallahassee, Florida. Danny Pietrodangelo, personal memorabilia and papers, Tallahassee, Florida. Nancy A. Turner, personal and professional memorabilia and correspondence, Tallahassee, Florida. Newspapers Florida Flambeau, 1945 – 1976. Tallahassee Democrat, 1950 – 1976. Books and Articles Allen, B., & Montell, W. L. From Memory to History: Using Oral Histories in Local Historical Research. Nashville, TN: The American Association for State and Local History, 1981. Altbach, P. G., & Cohen, R. “American student activism: The post-sixties transformation.” In Journal of Higher Education 61, no. 1 (1990): 32 – 49. Astin, A. W. “Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.” In Journal of College Student Personnel 25 (1984): 297 – 308. Astin, A. W. What Matters in College? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Bayer, A. E., & Bisconti, A. S. Overview of the unrest era. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechesler (Eds.), ASHE Reader on the History of Higher Education (pp. 529 – 544). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 1989. Bailey, B. Sex in the Heartland. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Beyer, J. M., & Trice, H. M. “Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonies.” In Academic of Management Review 9, no. 4 (1984): 653 – 669.

101 Birnbaum, S. “Making Southern Belles in Progressive Era Florida: Gender in the Formal and Hidden Curriculum of the Florida Female College.” In Frontier 16, no. 2/3 (1996): 218 – 248. Bledstein, B. J. The Culture of Professionalism: The middle class and the development of higher education in America. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978. Boatwright, K. J., Egidio, R. K., & Associates. “Psychological predictors of college women’s leadership aspirations.” In Journal of College Student Development 44, no. 5 (2003): 653 – 669. Bok, D. Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Bok, D. Universities in the Marketplace. NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Bowen, H. “Goals: The intended outcomes of higher education.” In Investment in Learning (pp. 31 – 59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977. Brax, R. The First Student Movement. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1981. Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. Higher Education in Transition (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997. Burner, D. Making Peace with the 60s. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996. Bush, N. B. “The student and his professor: Colonial times to twentieth century.” In The Journal of Higher Education XL, no. 8 (1969): 593 – 609. Cashman, P. H. “Working with the modern student.” In The Journal of Higher Education XLI, no. 4 (1970): 264 – 274. Chalmers, D. And the Crooked Places Made Straight (2nd ed.). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996. Chafe, W. H. The Unfinished Journey: America since World War II (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Chambers, T., & Phelps, C. E. “Student activism: Impacting personal, institutional, and community change.” In New Directions for Student Services 66, no. 2 (1994): 45 – 57. Coates, A., & Coates, G. H. The Story of Student Government in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, NC, 1985. Cohen, R. When the Old Left was Young: Student Radicals and America’s First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Creswell, J. W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1998. Cuyjet, M. J. “Student government as a provider of student services.” In New Directions for Student Services 66, no. 2 (1994): 73 – 89. Deutsch, C. J., & Gilbert, L. A. “Sex role stereotypes: Effect on perceptions of self and others and on personal adjustment.” In Journal of Counseling Psychology 23, no. 4 (1976): 373 – 379. DiMartini, J. R. “Student culture as a change agent in American higher education: An illustration from the nineteenth century.” In Journal of Social History 9 (1974): 526 – 541. Donato, R., & Lazerson, M. “New Directions in American Educational History: Problems and Prospects.” In Educational Researcher 29, no. 8 (2000): 4 – 15. Downey, R. G., Bosco, P. J., & Silver, E. M. “Long-term outcomes of

102 participation in student government.” In Journal of College Student Personnel 25, no. 3 (1984): 245 – 250. Eagan, E. Class, Culture, and the Classroom: The Student Peace Movement of the 1930s. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981. Eisenmann, L. “Educating the Female Citizen in a Post-war World: competing ideologies for American women, 1945 – 1965.” In Educational Review 54, no. 2 (2002): 133 – 141. Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1998. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. The University of Chicago Press, 1995. Fass, P. S. The Damned and the Beautiful. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000. Geiger, R. L. (Ed.). The American College in the Nineteenth Century. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000. Gold, J. A., & Quatroche, T. J. “Student government: A testing ground for Transformational leadership principles.” In New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 31 – 43. Goldberg, M. “Student involvement: A resource for administrators.” In Educational Record 61, no. 2 (1980): 15 – 17. Golden, D. C., & Schwartz, H. L. “Building an ethical and effective relationship with student government leaders.” In New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 19 – 30. Graham, K. “Expansion and exclusion: A history of women in American higher education.” In Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 3, no. 4 (1978): 759 – 773. Grundy, P. Learning to Win: Sports, Education, and Social Change in Twentieth- Century North Carolina. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Horowitz, H. L. Alma Mater. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, 1984. Horowitz, H. L. Campus Life. The University of Chicago Press, 1987. Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. From Reliable Sources. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001. Jenks, R. S. “Faculty-student participation in university government: A case history.” In Educational Record 54, no. 3 (1973): 236 – 242. Keeton, M. “The disenfranchised on campus.” In The Journal of Higher Education XLI, no. 6 (1970): 421 – 429. Kluger, R. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality. New York: Vintage Books, 1977. Komives, S. R. “Gender differences in the relationship of hall directors’ transformational and transactional leadership and achieving styles.” In Journal of College Student Development 32, no. 2 (1991): 155 – 165. Kuh, G. D., & Lund, J. P. “What students gain from participating in

103 student government.” In New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 5 – 17. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges and Universities. Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988. Lavant, B. D., & Terrell, M. C. “Assessing ethnic minority student leadership and involvement in student governance.” In New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 59 – 71. Lee, C. B. T. The Campus Scene, 1900 – 1970. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970. Leonard, E. A. Origins of Personnel Services in American Higher Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Levine, A. (Ed.). Higher Learning in America: 1980 – 2000. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998. Levitt, M., & Rubenstein, B. (Eds.). Youth and Social Change. Detroit: MI: Wayne State University Press, 1972. Light, R. J. Making the Most of College. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2001. Link, A. S., & McCormick, R. L. Progressivism. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1983. Lucas, C. J. American Higher Education. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994. Magolda, P. M. “Saying good-bye: An anthropological examination of a commencement ritual.” In Journal of College Student Development 44, no. 6 (2003): 779 – 796. McCandless, A. T. The Past in the Present: Women’s Higher Education in the Twentieth-Century American South. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1999. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1994. Miller, T. The Hippies and American Values. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1991. Morison, R. S. Students and Decision Making: A Report on Student Involvement in Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1970. Nidiffer, J. “Poor Historiography: The ‘Poorest’ in American Higher Education.” In History of Education Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1999): 321 – 336. Nidiffer, J. Pioneering Deans of Women: More than wise and pious matrons. New York: Teachers College Press, 2000. Orrick, W. H., Jr. College in Crisis. Nashville, TN: Aurora Publishers Inc., 1970. Otten, C. M. University Authority and the Student: The Berkeley Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1991. Rabby, G. A. The Pain and the Promise: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Tallahassee, Florida. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1999. Renner, K. E. “On race and gender in higher education: Illusions of change.” In Educational Record 74 (1993): 44 – 48. Rhoads, R. A., & Valadez, J. R. Democracy, Multiculturalism, and the

104 Community College. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. Rudolph, F. The American College and University, 2nd ed. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990. Sampson, E. E., & Korn, H. A. (Eds.) Student Activism and Protest. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970. Schrecker, E. W. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Schuh, J. H., & Laverty, M. “The perceived long-term influence of holding a significant student leadership position.” In Journal of College Student Personnel 24, no. 1 (1983): 28 – 32. Schwartz, R. A. “The rise and demise of deans of men.” In Review of Higher Education 26, no. 2 (2003): 217 – 239. Seidman, I. Interviewing as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press, 1998. Sellers, R. J. Femina Perfecta: The Genesis of Florida State University. Tallahassee: The Florida State University Foundation, 1995. Sevareid, E. Not So Wild a Dream. New York: Atheneum, 1976. Unger, I., & Unger, D. (Eds.). The Times Were a Changin’. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998. Urban, W. J., & Wagoner, J. L., Jr. American Education: A History (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Vaccaro, L. C., & Covert, J. T., eds. Student Freedom in American Higher Education. Columbia: Teachers College Press, 1969. Wagoner, J. L., Jr. “Honor and dishonor at Mr. Jefferson’s university: The antebellum years.” In History of Education Quarterly 26, no. 2 (1986): 155 – 179. Whitt, E. J., Pascarella, E. T., Nesheim, B. E., Marth, B. P., & Pierson, C. T. “Differences between women and men in objectively measured outcomes, and the factors that influence those outcomes, in the first three years of college.” In Journal of College Student Development 44, no. 5 (2003): 587 – 610. Wolf-Wendel, L. E., Twombly, S. B., Tuttle, K. N., Ward, K., & Gaston-Gayles, J. L. Reflecting Back, Looking Forward: Civil Rights and Student Affairs. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA), 2004. Electronic Media Alexander, W. M. “Rethinking student government for larger universities [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 40, no. 1 (1969): 39 – 46. Bloland, P. A. “A new concept in student government [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 32, no. 2 (1961): 94 – 97. Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video. Produced by Scott Atwell. 7 minutes. FSU Video, 2001. 1 videocassette. Johnstone, D. B. “The student and his power [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 40, no. 3 (1969): 205 – 218. Josephson, S. “Designing valid communication research class presentation.” In Communication Research Methods (chap. 5). (2 December 2003). Kuh, G. D. “The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 66, no. 2 (1995): 123 – 155.

105 Marquez, A. “Greeks: A brief history of fraternities in America,” In Beacon Newspaper http://www.beaconnewspaper.com (12 January 2004). McCormick, A. C. “The 2000 Carnegie Classification: Background and Description,” (2 September 2003). Moffatt, M. “College life: Undergraduate culture and higher education [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 62, no. 1 (1991): 44 – 61. Office of the Dean of Faculties. “History of Florida State University,” 2001., (20 October 2003). Office of Institutional Research. “FSU Fact Book Archive,” 2003., (15 January 2004). Phi Beta Kappa Society. “The Phi Beta Kappa Society History,” (8 July 2003). Shaffer, J. C. “Students in the policy process [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 41, no. 5 (1970): 341 – 349. Skeet, C., & Hirt, J. B. “Cognitive development and student leadership experiences,” (3 October 2001). University Libraries. “Archives of the National Student Federation of America,” (16 July 2003). Younger, J. (1931). “Student self-government [Electronic version].” In Journal of Higher Education 2, no. 4 (1931): 204 – 206. Theses and Dissertations Palcic, J. L. “The History of the Black Student Union at Florida State University, 1968- 1978.” Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, 1979.

106 ENDNOTES

1 B. J. Bledstein, The Culture of Professionalism: The middle class and the development of higher education in America (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978). 2 Leon Jackson, The rights of man and the rites of youth fraternity and riot at Eighteenth-Century Harvard, In Roger L. Geiger (Ed.), The American College in the Nineteenth Century. (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000), 46 – 79. 3 Jackson, 48. 4 Jackson, 72. 5 W. J. Urban, & J. L. Wagoner, Jr., American Education: A History (3rd ed.). (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 120 – 123. 6 Urban & Wagoner, 180 – 181. 7 Urban & Wagoner, 182; F. Rudolph, The American College and University, 2nd ed. (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990). 8 J. R. DiMartini, “Student culture as a change agent in American higher education: An illustration from the nineteenth century,” Journal of Social History 9 (1974): 526 – 541. 9 DiMartini. 10 Roger L. Geiger, The ‘superior instruction of women’ 1836 – 1890, In Roger L. Geiger (Ed.), The American College in the Nineteenth Century. (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000), 183 – 195. 11 Rudolph; A. Marquez, “Greeks: A brief history of fraternities in America,” Beacon Newspaper, 12 January 2004. 12 H. L. Horowitz, Campus Life. (The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 17. 13 H. L. Horowitz, Alma Mater. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, 1984). 14 Horowitz, Campus Life, 17. 15 A. Coates, & G. H. Coates, The Story of Student Government in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Chapel Hill, NC, 1985). 16 Rudolph, 369. 17 D. C. Golden, & H. L. Schwartz, “Building an ethical and effective relationship with student government leaders,” New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 19 – 30. 18 J. Nidiffer, Pioneering Deans of Women: More than wise and pious matrons. (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000).; R. A. Schwartz, “The rise and demise of deans of men,” Review of Higher Education 26, no. 2 (2003): 217 – 239. 19 Horowitz, Campus Life, 17; Coates & Coates, 193 – 205. 20 Horowitz, Campus Life; Glenda Alice Rabby, The Pain and the Promise: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Tallahassee, Florida (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1999). 21 Robin Jeanne Sellers, Femina Perfecta: The Genesis of Florida State University (Tallahassee: The Florida State University Foundation, 1995); Rabby. 22 DiMartini, 526 – 541.; Horowitz, Campus Life. 23 J. M. Beyer, & H. M. Trice, “Studying organizational cultures through rites and ceremonies,” Academic of Management Review 9, no. 4 (1984): 653 – 669.

107

24 Horowitz, Campus Life, xii. 25 T. Chambers, & C. E. Phelps, “Student activism: Impacting personal, institutional, and community change,” New Directions for Student Services 66, no. 2 (1994): 45 – 57. 26 P. M. Magolda, “Saying good-bye: An anthropological examination of a commencement ritual,” Journal of College Student Development 44, no. 6 (2003): 779. 27 Horowitz, Campus Life, xiii. 28 DiMartini, 526 – 541.; G. D. Kuh, & E. J. Whitt, The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges and Universities. (Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988). 29 Magolda, 779 – 796. 30 J. Nidiffer, “Poor Historiography: The ‘Poorest’ in American Higher Education,” History of Education Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1999): 335. 31 G. D. Kuh, & J. P. Lund, “What students gain from participating in student government,” New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 5 – 17. 32 W. M. Alexander, “Rethinking student government for larger universities [Electronic version],” Journal of Higher Education 40, no. 1 (1969): 41. 33 F. Rudolph. 34 F. Rudolph; A. Coates, & G. H. Coates; C. M. Otten, University Authority and the Student: The Berkeley Experience. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970). 35 R. Cohen, When the Old Left was Young: Student Radicals and America’s First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 36 N. B. Bush, “The student and his professor: Colonial times to twentieth century,” The Journal of Higher Education XL, no. 8 (1969): 593 – 609. 37 Jackson. 38 L. C. Vaccaro, & J. T. Covert, (Eds.). Student Freedom in American Higher Education. (Columbia: Teachers College Press, 1969), 58. 39 Jackson. 40 Jackson; E. A. Leonard, Origins of Personnel Services in American Higher Education. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956); See also: K. Graham, “Expansion and exclusion: A history of women in American higher education,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 3, no. 4 (1978): 759 – 773. 41 Jackson; Phi Beta Kappa Society, “The Phi Beta Kappa Society History,” (8 July 2003). 42 Jackson, 74. 43 Rudolph; C. M. Otten, University Authority and the Student: The Berkeley Experience. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970). 44 Horowtiz, 1987; Rudolph. 45 Horowitz, 1987, 12. 46 Horowtiz, 1987; Rudolph. 47 Rudolph. 48 W. J. Urban, & J. L. Wagoner, Jr., American Education: A History (3rd ed.). (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 236. 49 Horowitz, 1987. 50 Vaccaro & Covert, 58.

108

51 Rudolph. 52 Otten. 53 Horowitz, 1987, 108. 54 Coates & Coates. 55 J. L. Wagoner, Jr., “Honor and dishonor at Mr. Jefferson’s university: The antebellum years,” History of Education Quarterly 26, no. 2 (1986): 155 – 179. 56 G. D. Kuh, & E. J. Whitt, 85. 57 Horowitz Campus Life; Kuh & Whitt; Rudolph. 58 Cohen. 59 E. W. Schrecker, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 27. 60 Cohen. 61 Horowitz, 1987; E. Sevareid, Not So Wild a Dream. (New York: Atheneum, 1976). 62 Horowitz, 1987; P. S. Fass, The Damned and the Beautiful. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). 63 Fass, 353; Schrecker. 64 Cohen; Fass; Schrecker. 65 A. S. Link, & R. L. McCormick, Progressivism. (Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc., 1983), 90. 66 Rudolph. 67 Coates & Coates; Otten. 68 Horowitz, 1987, 108. 69 Cohen; Rudolph. 70 Cohen. 71 University Libraries, “Archives of the National Student Federation of America,” (16 July 2003). 72 R. Brax, The First Student Movement. (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1981); Cohen; E. Eagan, Class, Culture, and the Classroom: The Student Peace Movement of the 1930s. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981). 73 University Libraries. 74 Fass. 75 Fass, 351. 76 Brax. 77 Brax. 78 Cohen. 79 Eagan. 80 Cohen; Sevareid. 81 Cohen. 82 Otten. 83 Golden & Schwartz. 84 Sevareid. 85 Sevareid. 86 Sevareid, 65. 87 Golden & Schwartz; Sevareid.

109

88 Rudolph, 474. 89 Coates & Coates. 90 Cohen. 91 Cohen. 92 A. W. Astin et al., Overview of the unrest era. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechesler (Eds.), ASHE Reader on the History of Higher Education (pp. 529 – 544). (Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press, 1989). 93 Schrecker. 94 W. H. Chafe, The Unfinished Journey: America since World War II (4th ed.). (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999). 95 Schrecker. 96 C. B. T. Lee, The Campus Scene, 1900 – 1970. (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1970); Schrecker. 97 Schrecker, 341. 98 Otten. 99 Schrecker. 100 Otten, 132. 101 Otten. 102 D. Bok, Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). 103 Bok, 1982. 104 D. Chalmers, And the Crooked Places Made Straight (2nd ed.). (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996); Urban & Wagoner. 105 Lee. 106 Lee, 92. 107 Chafe; Schrecker. 108 Kuh & Whitt, 63. 109 W. H. Orrick, Jr., College in Crisis. (Nashville, TN: Aurora Publishers Inc., 1970). 110 B. Bailey, Sex in the Heartland. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 87. 111 Bailey. 112 P. A. Bloland, “A new concept in student government [Electronic version],” Journal of Higher Education 32, no. 2 (1961): 94 – 97. 113 R. Kluger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality. (New York: Vintage Books, 1977); Chalmers. 114 Chafe, 155. 115 A. W. Astin et al.; Chafe. 116 A. W. Astin et al.; P. G. Altbach, & R. Cohen, “American student activism: The post-sixties transformation,” Journal of Higher Education 61, no. 1 (1990): 32 – 49. 117 Chafe. 118 I. Unger, & D. Unger, (Eds.). The Times Were a Changin’. (New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998). 119 D. Burner, Making Peace with the 60s. (NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). 120 Lee.

110

121 P. Grundy, Learning to Win: Sports, Education, and Social Change in Twentieth-Century North Carolina. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 280-281. 122 Horowitz, 1987; C. J. Lucas, American Higher Education. (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994). 123 Horowitz, 1987. 124 A. W. Astin et al.; Burner. 125 Orrick. 126 Bailey, 148. 127 Coates & Coates. 128 Coates & Coates. 129 Lee, 120. 130 A. W. Astin et al.; Horowitz, 1987. 131 A. W. Astin et al., 531. 132 A. W. Astin et al.; Horowitz, 1987. 133 E. E. Sampson, & H. A. Korn, (Eds.) Student Activism and Protest. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970). 134 A. W. Astin et al.; Golden & Schwartz. 135 Alexander; P. H. Cashman, “Working with the modern student,” The Journal of Higher Education XLI, no. 4 (1970): 264 – 274; A. W. Astin et al. 136 M. Levitt, & B. Rubenstein, (Eds.). Youth and Social Change. (Detroit: MI: Wayne State University Press, 1972). 137 D. B. Johnstone, “The student and his power [Electronic version],” Journal of Higher Education 40, no. 3 (1969): 205 – 218. 138 Horowitz, 1987, 252. 139 Alexander, 40. 140 Otten, 4; Alexander; J. C. Shaffer, “Students in the policy process [Electronic version],” Journal of Higher Education 41, no. 5 (1970): 341 – 349. 141 Horowitz, 1987. 142 Cohen. 143 A. W. Astin et al., 533. 144 Horowitz, 1987, 229. 145 Golden & Schwartz, 27. 146 Sampson & Korn. 147 Horowitz, 1987, 261. 148 Horowitz, 1987, 225. 149 Burner, 145. 150 Jenks, R. S. “Faculty-student participation in university government: A case history,” Educational Record 54, no. 3 (1973): 236 – 242. 151 Coates & Coates. 152 Levitt & Rubenstein. 153 A. W. Astin, “Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education,” Journal of College Student Personnel 25 (1984): 297 – 308; B. D. Lavant, & M. C. Terrell, “Assessing ethnic minority student leadership and involvement in student governance,” New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 59 – 71.

111

154 M. Goldberg, “Student involvement: A resource for administrators,” Educational Record 61, no. 2 (1980): 15 – 17. 155 J. S. Brubacher, & W. Rudy, Higher Education in Transition (4th ed.). (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997), 236. 156 Altbach & Cohen. 157 Horowitz, 1987, 108. 158 M. Keeton, “The disenfranchised on campus,” The Journal of Higher Education XLI, no. 6 (1970): 421 – 429. 159 R. S. Morison, Students and Decision Making: A Report on Student Involvement in Decision Making. (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1970). 160 Horowitz, 1987; Unger & Unger. 161 Burner; M. Moffatt, “College life: Undergraduate culture and higher education [Electronic version],” Journal of Higher Education 62, no. 1 (1991): 44 – 61. 162 Golden & Schwartz; Urban & Wagoner. 163 Alexander, 40. 164 McCandless. 165 Graham, 417. 166 K. E. Renner, “On race and gender in higher education: Illusions of change,” Educational Record 74 (1993): 44 – 48. 167 McCandless; Coates & Coates. 168 Bailey, 78. 169 Bailey; Graham. 170 Bailey. 171 Horowitz, 1987. 172 A. T. McCandless, The Past in the Present: Women’s Higher Education in the Twentieth-Century American South. (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1999). 173 Horowitz, Alma Mater, 284. 174 Rudolph. 175 Coates & Coates. 176 Bailey, 90. 177 McCandless, 106. 178 Unger & Unger. 179 Grundy; Chalmers. 180 Brubacher & Rudy, 236. 181 Bailey. 182 E. J. Whitt et al., “Differences between women and men in objectively measured outcomes, and the factors that influence those outcomes, in the first three years of college,” Journal of College Student Development 44, no. 5 (2003): 588. 183 T. Miller, The Hippies and American Values. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1991). 184 Bailey, 10. 185 A. Levine, (Ed.). Higher Learning in America: 1980 – 2000. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 324. 186 Levine; Horowitz, 1987.

112

187 Levine. 188 Horowitz, 1987; A. Levine, & J. S. Cureton, When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998). 189 Altbach & Cohen; Horowitz, 1987. 190 Levine, 324. 191 Altbach & Cohen. 192 Levine, 334. 193 R. A. Rhoads, & J. R. Valadez, Democracy, Multiculturalism, and the Community College. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996). 194 Levine. 195 Horowitz, 1987. 196 Altbach & Cohen; Horowitz, 1987. 197 Altbach & Cohen. 198 Horowitz, 1987. 199 Moffatt, 51. 200 A. Levine, & J. S. Cureton, When Hope and Fear Collide: A Portrait of Today’s College Student. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998). 201 Levine & Cureton. 202 A. Levine, (Ed.). Higher Learning in America: 1980 – 2000. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993); Rhoads & Valadez; Levine & Cureton. 203 Levine & Cureton. 204 Levine; Levine & Cureton. 205 Levine & Cureton, 63. 206 Levine & Cureton. 207 D. Bok, Universities in the Marketplace. (NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003). 208 Levine & Cureton, 68. 209 Levine & Cureton. 210 Bok, 2003. 211 Horowitz, 1987, 108. 212 Bowen. 213 Rudolph. 214 Golden & Schwartz, 19. 215 Horowitz, 1987. 216 Alexander. 217 Jenks. 218 Coates & Coates; Rudolph; Florida State University Student Publications, The Torch. (Tallahassee, 2001). 219 Horowitz, 1987. 220 Bloland. 221 Bloland. 222 Levine & Cureton. 223 Moffatt; Burner. 224 M. J. Cuyjet, “Student government as a provider of student services,” New Directions for Student Services 66, no. 2 (1994): 73 – 89; Shaffer.

113

225 Light, R. J. Making the Most of College. (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2001). 226 Levine, 332. 227 J. A. Gold, & T. J. Quatroche, “Student government: A testing ground for Transformational leadership principles,” New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 31 – 43. 228 Kuh & Lund. 229 Kuh & Lund. 230 Kuh & Lund. 231 Gold & Quatroche, 35. 232 E. T. Pascarella, & P. T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1991). 233 Astin, 1984. 234 R. G. Downey, P. J. Bosco, & E. M. Silver, “Long-term outcomes of participation in student government,” Journal of College Student Personnel 25, no. 3 (1984): 245. 235 G. D. Kuh, “The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development [Electronic version],” Journal of Higher Education 66, no. 2 (1995): 123 – 155. 236 Kuh, 1995. 237 Kuh & Lund. 238 J. A. Gold, & T. J. Quatroche, “Student government: A testing ground for Transformational leadership principles,” New Directions For Student Services 66 (1994): 31 – 43. 239 J. H. Schuh, & M. Laverty, “The perceived long-term influence of holding a significant student leadership position,” Journal of College Student Personnel 24, no. 1 (1983): 28 – 32. 240 Cuyjet. 241 A. W. Astin, What Matters in College? Four critical years revisited. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993). 242 J. R. Fraenkel, & N. E. Wallen, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (5th ed.). (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003), G-8. 243 A. C. McCormick, “The 2000 Carnegie Classification: Background and Description,” (2 September 2003). 244 Office of Institutional Research, “FSU Fact Book Archive,” 2003, (15 January 2004). 245 Office of Institutional Research, “FSU Fact Book Archive,” 2003, (15 January 2004), 18. 246 Florida State University Student Government Association, The Torch. (Tallahassee, 2003). 247 M. B. Miles, & A. M. Huberman, An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1994); J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1998).

114

248 S. Josephson, “Designing valid communication research class presentation.” Communication Research Methods (chap. 5). (2 December 2003); I. Seidman, Interviewing as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). (New York: Teachers College Press, 1998). 249 M. B. Miles, & A. M. Huberman, 28. 250 Creswell, 57. 251 Creswell; Miles & Huberman. 252 L. R. Gay, & P. Airasian, Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000); B. Allen, & W. L. Montell, From Memory to History: Using Oral Histories in Local Historical Research. (Nashville, TN: The American Association for State and Local History, 1981). 253 R. M. Emerson, R. I. Fretz, & L. L. Shaw, Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. (The University of Chicago Press, 1995). 254 Miles & Huberman, 279. 255 Fraenkel & Wallen; E. W. Eisner, The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1998). 256 Gay & Airasian. 257 Miles & Huberman, 279. 258 Fraenkel & Wallen, G-2. 259 Creswell. 260 Miles & Huberman, 11. 261 M. Howell, & W. Prevenier, From Reliable Sources. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 71. 262 H. Bowen, “Goals: The intended outcomes of higher education.” Investment in Learning (pp. 31 – 59). (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977). 263 Horowitz, Campus Life; Glenda Alice Rabby, The Pain and the Promise: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Tallahassee, Florida (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1999). 264 Robin Jeanne Sellers, Femina Perfecta: The Genesis of Florida State University (Tallahassee: The Florida State University Foundation, 1995); Rabby. 265 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 266 Sellers, 3. 267 Office of the Dean of Faculties, “History of Florida State University,” (20 October 2003). 268 Sellers. 269 Office of the Dean of the Faculties. 270 Sellers. 271 S. Birnbaum, “Making Southern Belles in Progressive Era Florida: Gender in the Formal and Hidden Curriculum of the Florida Female College,” Frontier 16, no. 2/3 (1996): 218 – 248. 272 Sellers. 273 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette.

115

274 Sellers; Office of the Dean of the Faculties. 275 Office of the Dean of the Faculties, 3. 276 Sellers, 1; Birnbaum, 226 – 228. 277 Birnbaum, 218. 278 Birnbaum, 218 – 219. 279 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 280 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 281 Birnbaum, 235. 282 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol.1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 283 Sellers. 284 Sellers, 164. 285 Participant 16, interview with author, 20 February 2004. 286 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 287 Flastacowo, ed. Sarah Caldwell, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Foote and Davies Co., 1930). 288 Flastacowo, ed. Sarah Caldwell, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Foote and Davies Co., 1930). 289 Participant 16, interview with author, 20 February 2004. 290 Sellers, 163. 291 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 292 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943), 20. 293 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943), 19. 294 Flastacowo, ed. Margaret Baugh, vol. 33 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1946), 19. 295 Flastacowo, ed. Margaret Baugh, vol. 33 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1946), 19. 296 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 297 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943), 30. 298 Flastacowo, ed. Mary Jane Dews, vol. 31 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1944), 22. 299 Flastacowo, ed. Mary Jane Dews, vol. 31 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1944), 19. 300 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943), 22. 301 Flastacowo, ed. Cleo Anne Sapp, vol. 32 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1945), 22. 302 Flastacowo, ed. Sarah Caldwell, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Foote and Davies Co., 1930). 303 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004.

116

304 Flastacowo, ed. Marion Webster, vol. 29 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1942). 305 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 306 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943), 21. 307 Flastacowo, ed. Betty Wynn, vol. 26 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1939), 203. 308 Flastacowo, ed. Margaret Baugh, vol. 33 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1946), 31. 309 Participant 16, interview with author, 20 February 2004. 310 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 311 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol.1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 312 Flastacowo, ed. Marion Webster, vol. 29 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1942), 31. 313 Flastacowo, ed. Mary Jane Dews, vol. 31 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1944), 19. 314 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 315 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 316 Sellers. 317 Flastacowo, eds. Louise Sims and George Croy, vol. 34 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1947). 318 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 319 Birnbaum, 235 – 236. 320 Sellers, 250. 321 Flastacowo, ed. Margaret Baugh, vol. 33 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1946), 20. 322 Flastacowo, ed. Cleo Anne Sapp, vol. 32 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1945), 22. 323 Flastacowo, ed. Sonia Mitchell, vol. 28 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1941). 324 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 325 Robin Jeanne Sellers, Femina Perfecta: The Genesis of Florida State University (Tallahassee: The Florida State University Foundation, 1995), 223. 326 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 327 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 328 Flastacowo, ed. Sarah Caldwell, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Foote and Davies Co., 1930). 329 Horowitz, Campus Life, 17. 330 Flastacowo, ed. Cleo Anne Sapp, vol. 32 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1945), 24. 331 Participant 16, interview with author, 20 February 2004. 332 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943).

117

333 L. Eisenmann, “Educating the Female Citizen in a Post-war World: competing ideologies for American women, 1945 – 1965,” Educational Review 54, no. 2 (2002): 133. 334 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 335 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol.1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 336 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 337 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 338 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 339 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 340 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 341 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 342 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 343 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 344 Flastacowo, eds. Louise Sims and George Croy, vol. 34 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1947). 345 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 346 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 347 Flastacowo, eds. Louise Sims and George Croy, vol. 34 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1947), 252. 348 Flastacowo, eds. Louise Sims and George Croy, vol. 34 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1947), 10. 349 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 350 Flastacowo, eds. Louise Sims and George Croy, vol. 34 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1947). 351 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 352 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 353 Florida State University: Sesquicentennial Feature Video, prod. Scott Atwell, 7 min., FSU Video, 2001, videocassette. 354 Sellers. 355 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 356 Participant 5, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 357 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 358 Tally-Ho, ed. Charles Newman, vol. 4 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1951). 359 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 360 Sellers. 361 Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949). 362 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948); Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949). 363 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 364 Pow Wow, ed. Ann Stickler, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1957), 60.

118

365 Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952); Tally-Ho, ed. Claudia Thomas, vol. 6 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1953). 366 Tally-Ho, ed. Charles Newman, vol. 4 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1951); Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 367 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 368 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 369 Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949). 370 Tally-Ho, ed. Charles Newman, vol. 4 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1951). 371 Tally-Ho, ed. Claudia Thomas, vol. 6 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1953). 372 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004; Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 373 Tally-Ho, ed. Charles Newman, vol. 4 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1951). 374 Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949). 375 Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952). 376 Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952). 377 Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949); Tally-Ho, ed. Jacquie Allen, vol. 3 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1950). 378 Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952). 379 Tally-Ho, ed. Jacquie Allen, vol. 3 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1950). 380 Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952). 381 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948); Tally-Ho, ed. Jacquie Allen, vol. 3 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1950); Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952). 382 Tally-Ho, ed. Claudia Thomas, vol. 6 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1953). 383 Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949). 384 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 385 Tally-Ho, ed. Art Skevakis, vol. 2 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1949). 386 Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948).

119

387 Flastacowo, ed. Charlotte Cooper, vol. 30 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1943), 20. 388 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 389 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 390 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 391 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 392 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 393 Tally-Ho, ed. Tom Woods, vol. 8 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1955); Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 394 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956); Tally Ho, ed. Eve Morris, vol. 11 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1958).

395 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 396 Tally Ho, ed. Denise Pickard, vol. 12 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1959). 397 Tally-Ho, ed. Tom Woods, vol. 8 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1955). 398 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 399 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 144. 400 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 122. 401 Participant 17, interview via e-mail, 22 February 2004. 402 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 403 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954); Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 404 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954); Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 405 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954); Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 406 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 407 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954); Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 408 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 409 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 410 Tally Ho, ed. Eve Morris, vol. 11 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1958). 411 Tally-Ho, ed. Charles Newman, vol. 4 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1951); Tally-Ho, ed. Jean Sharer, vol. 1 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1948). 412 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 413 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954); Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 414 Tally Ho, ed. Eve Morris, vol. 11 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1958).

120

415 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 416 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 124. 417 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 418 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 419 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 420 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960). 421 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 147. 422 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 150. 423 Participant 5, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 424 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 425 Pow Wow, ed. Ann Stickler, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1957). 426 Tally Ho, ed. Harriett L’Engle, vol. 14 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1961), 110. 427 Tally Ho, ed. Harriett L’Engle, vol. 14 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1961). 428 Tally Ho, ed. Terry Hudson, vol. 20 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1967), 21. 429 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 430 Tally Ho, ed. Harriett L’Engle, vol. 14 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1961). 431 Tally Ho, ed. Scarlett Pogue, vol. 15 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962), 106. 432 Tally Ho, eds. Pattie Childs & Beth Ann LeGate, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1964). 433 Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel et al., Reflecting Back, Looking Forward: Civil Rights and Student Affairs (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2004), 267. 434 Rabby, 113. 435 Rabby, 114. 436 Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel et al., 267-268. 437 Tally Ho, ed. Harriett L’Engle, vol. 14 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1961), 13. 438 Rabby, 263. 439 A Celebration of Integration, trans. with author, 30 January 2004 (Tallahassee: Florida State University). 440 J. L. Palcic, “Interview with W. A. Tanner, Director of the FSU campus security force”, The History of the Black Student Union at Florida State University, 1968 – 1978, Ph.D. dissertation, (Tallahassee, 1979), 63. 441 A Celebration of Integration, trans. with author, 30 January 2004 (Tallahassee: Florida State University).

121

442 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 443 J. L. Palcic, 77. 444 J. L. Palcic, “Interview with Horace Gosier, President of BSU”, The History of the Black Student Union at Florida State University, 1968 – 1978, Ph.D. dissertation, (Tallahassee, 1979), 79. 445 J. L. Palcic, 90. 446 Rabby, 263. 447 Tally Ho, ed. Harriett L’Engle, vol. 14 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1961), 88. 448 Tally Ho, eds. Pattie Childs & Beth Ann LeGate, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1964). 449 J. L. Palcic, 76. 450 Tally Ho, ed. Terry Hudson, vol. 20 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1967). 451 J. L. Palcic, 86. 452 “Discrimination Charges Answered by Inter-Fraternity Council,” Florida Flambeau, 23 April 1969. 453 J. L. Palcic, The History of the Black Student Union at Florida State University, 1968 – 1978, Ph.D. dissertation, (Tallahassee, 1979), 68. 454 Tally Ho, ed. Scarlett Pogue, vol. 15 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962). 455 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966). 456 Participant 8, interview with author, 12 November 2003; Note: Michelle Pletch became the first Black female elected to Student Body President in 2002. 457 J. L. Palcic, 175. 458 Tally Ho, ed. Scarlett Pogue, vol. 15 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962). 459 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 460 J. L. Palcic, 180. 461 J. L. Palcic, 193. 462 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 463 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 464 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 465 Tally Ho, ed. Scarlett Pogue, vol. 15 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962), 113. 466 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 121. 467 Tally Ho, ed. Harriett L’Engle, vol. 14 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1961). 468 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 122. 469 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 470 Custody of Personnel Records, office memorandum, Student Government Archives, 23 August 1973.

122

471 Response Memo: Custody of Personnel Records, office memorandum, Student Government Archives, 4 September 1973. 472 Participant 8, interview with author, 12 November 2003. 473 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 474 Participant 8, interview with author, 12 November 2003. 475 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 476 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 477 Danny Pietrodangelo, “1968,” paper presentation, personal memorabilia, Tallahassee, Florida. 478 Tally Ho, ed. Cyndee Patricio, vol. 22 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1969), 30. 479 Tally Ho, ed. Cyndee Patricio, vol. 22 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1969), 10-11. 480 Rabby, 264. 481 Student Party Campaign Flier, Milton Carothers personal memorabilia, Tallahassee, Florida. 482 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 483 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 484 Participant 7, interview with author, 21 October 2003. 485 Participant 8, interview with author, 12 November 2003. 486 “A and S bill signed into law,” Florida Flambeau, 28 June 1974, 1. 487 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 488 Henri Cawthon, “Askew probably to sign A and S fee bill,” Florida Flambeau, 18 June 1974. 489 “Askew still studying bill to give SGs A and S hike,” Florida Flambeau, 21 June 1974, 3. 490 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 491 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 492 “A and S bill signed into law,” Florida Flambeau, 28 June 1974, 1. 493 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 494 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 495 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 496 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 497 Orientation for New Students, Student Publications, Dean of Students Office, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1957), 3. 498 Tally Ho, ed. Ginger Gardner, vol. 24 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1971). 499 Tally Ho, vol. 25 (Tallahassee: Florida Flambeau Foundation, Inc., 1973). 500 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 138. 501 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 502 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 126. 503 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 126.

123

504 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 138. 505 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 506 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 132. 507 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 508 “FSU Government Big Organization,” Tallahassee Democrat, 23 September 1964, 15. 509 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 510 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 511 Danny Pietrodangelo, “1968,” paper presentation, personal memorabilia, Tallahassee, Florida. 512 “Senate approves 2 student regents,” Florida Flambeau, 3 May 1976, 1. 513 “Senate approves 2 student regents,” Florida Flambeau, 3 May 1976, 1. 514 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960). 515 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 75. 516 Kuh & Whitt, 88. 517 Constitution of the Student Body of The Florida State University, Student Government Archives, (Tallahassee, 1957), 1. 518 Constitution of the Student Body of The Florida State University, Student Government Archives, (Tallahassee, 1957), 1. 519 Tally Ho, ed. Scarlett Pogue, vol. 15 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1962), 102. 520 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 521 Tally Ho, eds. Pattie Childs & Beth Ann LeGate, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1964). 522 Flastacowo, ed. Sarah Caldwell, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Foote and Davies Co., 1930). 523 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 163. 524 Tally Ho, ed. Denise Pickard, vol. 12 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1959). 525 Tally-Ho, ed. Gail Albritton, vol. 5 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1952). 526 Pow Wow, ed. Ann Stickler, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1957). 527 Tally Ho, ed. Denise Pickard, vol. 12 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1959). 528 Tally Ho, ed. Sally Street, vol. 16 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1963). 529 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 530 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 34. 531 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004.

124

532 Honorbound, Student Publications, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1951). 533 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 534 Orientation for New Students Bulletin, 1957. 535 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 536 Participant 2, interview with author, 12 October 2003. 537 Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003. 538 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 539 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 540 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 19. 541 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 542 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 543 “White Appointed SG Sec. of State,” Florida Flambeau, 4 May, 1966, 1. 544 Tally Ho, ed. Eve Morris, vol. 11 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1958). 545 Tally Ho, ed. Eve Morris, vol. 11 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1958). 546 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 547 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 548 Tally Ho, ed. Denise Pickard, vol. 12 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1959). 549 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 550 Tally Ho, ed. Sally Street, vol. 16 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1963), 115. 551 “Universities’ Student Body Presidents United Against Tuition Hike Last Weekend,” Florida Flambeau 53, 95, 28 February 1967, 1. 552 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954); Rabby. 553 “FSU, Emory Form New Student Group,” Florida Flambeau, 22 January 1954. 554 Rabby, 201. 555 “University Associations Give Unbiased Evaluation of NSA,” Florida Flambeau, 24 April 1953. 556 “SG Explains Stand on NSA,” Florida Flambeau, 31 March 1967. 557 Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003. 558 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 559 Tally Ho, ed. Sally Street, vol. 16 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1963), 59. 560 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 561 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 562 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 37.

125

563 Tally-Ho, ed. Jim Broderick, vol. 9 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1956). 564 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 144. 565 “Polling Places Announced,” Florida Flambeau 52, 91, 8 February 1966. 566 Participant 7, interview with author, 21 October 2003. 567 Tally Ho, ed. Donna Wiehaus, vol. 23 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1970). 568 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 569 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 570 Tally Ho, ed. Al Nichols, vol. 13 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1960), 37. 571 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 572 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 573 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 574 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 575 Participant 7, interview with author, 21 October 2003. 576 Clare Raulerson & Mike Brennan, “SG politics a mixed bag,” Florida Flambeau, 29 January 1974, 1. 577 Al Pierce, “Campus Controversy Centers on Politics,” Florida Flambeau, 21 April 1953. 578 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 579 Boots Haynie, (Ed.)., Smoke Signals, June 1953. 580 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 581 “Carothers and Lawler Head Student Party Nominees,” Florida Flambeau XXXIX, 42, 14 April 1953. 582 Participant 5, interview with author, 20 October 2003; Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 583 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 584 Participant 17, interview with author, 22 February 2004. 585 Tally Ho, eds. Pattie Childs & Beth Ann LeGate, vol. 17 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1964), 28. 586 Participant 7, interview with author, 21 October 2003. 587 Clare Raulerson & Mike Brennan, “SG politics a mixed bag,” Florida Flambeau, 29 January 1974, 1. 588 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 589 Participant 6, interview with author, 20 October 2003; Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003. 590 Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003. 591 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 592 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 593 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 594 J. L. Palcic, 215. 595 Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003. 596 Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003.

126

597 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 598 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004; Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 599 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 600 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 601 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 602 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 603 Eisenmann, 138. 604 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 605 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 606 Tally-Ho, ed. Claudia Thomas, vol. 6 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1953). 607 “FSCW/FSU College Government Association & Student Body Presidents”, Student Government Association Papers, Special Collections Department, Florida State University Libraries, Tallahassee, Florida. 608 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 609 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 610 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 611 Knowledge for College, eds. Betty Faye Horner, Elizabeth Lynn, and Katherine Warren, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1957), 20. 612 Participant 9, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 613 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 614 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 615 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 616 “Women’s V.P.,” Florida Flambeau, 28 January 1969. 617 “Student Senate Approves Legislation, Appointments,” Florida Flambeau 55, 90, 20 February 1969. 618 Flastacowo, ed. Margaret Baugh, vol. 33 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1946), 31. 619 Flastacowo, eds. Louise Sims and George Croy, vol. 34 (Tallahassee: Florida State College for Women, 1947), 8. 620 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 621 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 622 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 623 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004; Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 624 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 625 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004; Participant 5, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 626 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 627 Student Party Campaign Flier, Milton Carothers personal memorabilia, Tallahassee, Florida. 628 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 629 Participant 5, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 630 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004.

127

631 Bailey, 79. 632 Tally-Ho, ed. Charles Newman, vol. 4 (Tallahassee: Rose Printing Company, 1951). 633 Participant 13, interview with author, 12 February 2004. 634 Nancy Turner Collection, personal scrapbook, 1957 – 1958. 635 Knowledge for College, 1957, 4. 636 Participant 5, interview with author, 20 October 2003. 637 Participant 11, interview with author, 26 January 2004. 638 Participant 17, interview via e-mail, 22 February 2004. 639 Participant 12, interview with author, 30 January 2004. 640 “[1964] ’64 women were chattel,” Florida Flambeau, 22 April 1976, 1. 641 Birnbaum, 239. 642 Participant 14, interview with author, 17 February 2004. 643 Participant 15, interview with author, 18 February 2004. 644 Tally-Ho, ed. Becky Brown, vol. 7 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1954). 645 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004; Rabby. 646 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 647 Tally Ho, ed. Joanna Romer, vol. 19 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1966), 144. 648 “Students Representing,” Tallahassee Democrat, 29 April 1968. 649 Earl Rickey, “Revealing Insight of Aims Is Provided by FSU’s SDS,” Tallahassee Democrat, 20 April 1969, 7D. 650 Tally Ho, ed. Donna Wiehaus, vol. 23 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1970). 651 Tally Ho, ed. Donna Wiehaus, vol. 23 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1970), 38. 652 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 653 Participant 10, interview with author, 20 January 2004. 654 Participant 8, interview with author, 12 November 2003. 655 Participant 4, interview with author, 16 October 2003. 656 Tally-Ho, ed. Claudia Thomas, vol. 6 (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1953). 657 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003. 658 Ruben Donato & Marvin Lazerson, “New Directions in American Educational History: Problems and Prospects,” Educational Researcher 29, no. 8 (2000): 11. 659 Golden & Schwartz. 660 Otten, 15; Levine & Cureton. 661 Participant 1, interview with author, 30 September 2003.

128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Ten days before Halloween, 1977, Rodney and Barbara Hawkins welcomed Allison Marie Anne Hawkins into their lives in Manassas, Virginia. Allison is the older sister of Rodney Jr. and Mallory Hawkins. Allison has always been a fun-loving and outgoing spirit. She enjoys participating and watching all kinds of sports, her favorite is soccer. Allison identifies herself as a Georgian, where her family has lived for the past 15 years. In 1994 Allison met Donald Crume, whom she married in the summer of 2001. After graduating from Houston County High School, Allison enrolled at Georgia College and State University in Milledgeville. She participated in several activities including Phi Mu Fraternity and Student Government Association. Throughout her time in college, Allison worked seasonally at Frito-Lay in Kathleen, GA. She graduated with a B.S. in History in 1999 and immediately began graduate school. In 2000, Allison graduated with a M.A.T. in Broad Field Social Science. Upon graduation, she taught at Crawford County High School (CCHS) as a World History teacher. She was the advisor to Student Council. She was named CCHS Teacher of the Month in December of her first year. Allison decided to pursue her doctorate in higher education at Florida State University in 2001. During her time at FSU, Allison worked as a graduate assistant in the Student Government Association and Oglesby Union. She participated in the Hardee Center for Women in Higher Education and the Student Advisory Council Association for the College of Education. Allison was also the doctoral student recipient of the Sherrill Ragans Award in 2004. Allison successfully completed and defended her dissertation in the summer of 2004. She and her husband plan to stay in the southeast. Allison looks forward to continuing her career in student affairs and starting a family.

129