5 10 250 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/fb0a875e02ce5184d06d2a910b2fa55b.jpg d94de9645816965072ce76d4ff40a0a7 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b48e9839c6ee7f18e91be4ab97325ba1.mp3 9586fe3e50ac3b9987e6ccb27c791827 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-11-14 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Dirck Halstead, 1936-2022 Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dirk Halstead is a photojournalist, editor, and publisher of The Digital Journalist. Halstead started photojournalism in high school and at the age of 17, he worked with Life Magazine to cover the Guatemalan Civil War. He worked at United Press International (UPI) for 15 years after attending Haverford College. He has dedicated his life to photography and has created some great pieces of work.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13057,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dirck Halstead (1936-2022) was a photojournalist, editor, and publisher of <em>The Digital Journalist</em>. Halstead started photojournalism in high school and at the age of 17, he worked with <em>Life</em> Magazine to cover the Guatemalan Civil War. He worked at United Press International (UPI) for 15 years after attending Haverford College. He has dedicated his life to photography and has created some great pieces of work.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Subject LCSH Photojournalists; Editors; Publishers; Halstead, Dirck, 1936--Interviews Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 118:45 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Photojournalism; Vietnam; United Press International (UPI); Military draft; Tet Offensive; End of the Vietnam War; Dangers of Photographing War; Racism; Sexism; Drug Culture; Beatles; Rolling Stones; Apocalypse Now (film); Platoon (film); Richard Nixon; China; United States Military; Draft; Harry Truman; Dwight D. Eisenhower.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Photojournalism; Vietnam; United Press International (UPI); Military draft; Tet Offensive; End of the Vietnam War; Dangers of Photographing War; Racism; Sexism; Drug Culture; Beatles; Rolling Stones; Apocalypse Now (film); Platoon (film); Richard Nixon; China; United States Military; Draft; Harry Truman; Dwight D. Eisenhower.</span> Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Dirck Halstead Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 14 November 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:02): Testing one, two, three. First off, first question I have been asking most of the second half of the people that I have interviewed is, how did you become who you are as a photo journalist? Really, how did you start so young at the age of 17, I believe? DH (00:00:23): Well, I was given a camera by my parents for Christmas when I guess I was 15. It was a Kodak [inaudible]. And the thing that made the difference was they gave me a little dark room outfit with it, which allowed you to make contact prints. That was the thing that got me hooked, the ability to make prints, back before digital, of course. So I started taking the camera to school and making pictures of the kids and bringing the prints back and they loved them. Within a year, I was the official photographer for the school. So at that time I had talked my parents into giving me a two-and-a-quarter by three-and-a-quarter speed graphic. By the time I was in my senior year in high school, I was working on a part-time basis for a local newspaper. The local newspaper was owned by a guy named Carl Tucker in Bedford Village, New York. It had been a weekly newspaper. So I volunteered to take pictures for him and set up a dark room in the newspaper office, and he gave me $5 a picture for every picture that was run. Well, over the course of sixth months, he bought six other newspapers. SM (00:02:21): Wow. DH (00:02:24): All of a sudden I was shooting for seven newspapers and I was the only photographer. So that $5 per picture started to multiply and I was making real money. I was 17 years old and I was pulling in a couple hundred dollars a week. SM (00:02:53): Wow. DH (00:02:53): Taking these pictures. During the course of that spring, I went down to Washington to photograph the Army McCarthy Hearings, and would stay there on the day that Joseph Welch said, "Finally, sir, have you, no sense of shame." SM (00:03:19): Remember that very well. DH (00:03:21): Photographed that. And I have been through a series of circumstances, I wound up several weeks later going to Guatemala as part of a student expedition to build some schools, which resulted in my being the first, the youngest war correspondent Life Magazine ever had. SM (00:03:51): Wow. Quite an experience. Can you describe your parents? Who were your parents and what were the role models you had as a young person? What was it like going to your high school and actually, what were your college days like in Haverford, because that is not far from where I live? I have known several graduates of Haverford. DH (00:04:13): Yeah. Is that feedback I am getting? SM (00:04:18): Oh, no, I am fine. DH (00:04:20): No, I seem to hear feedback coming on the line. SM (00:04:22): I do not know. DH (00:04:22): Okay. Anyway. My parents were probably the perfect hybrid for being my parents. My mother was an advertising agency executive, and my father was a telecommunications engineer. So that is the mix I came out of. SM (00:04:54): What was it like going to college there at Haverford? What was college like then? DH (00:05:00): Well, I will tell you quite honestly, I did not pay much attention to it because I had just got my first story in Life Magazine, and I really was not the slightest bit interested in Haverford. And so the main thing I did was I started a photo service at Haverford. I set up a dark room in the biology building and pretty much did my own thing for a year. I would say I was not really participating much in the Haverford lifestyle. SM (00:05:52): Now, did you graduate from Haverford? DH (00:05:55): I did not. I did not graduate. SM (00:05:57): Okay. When you- DH (00:06:01): No, [inaudible] at the end of the first year. SM (00:06:02): Oh, okay. One of the other things I was reading about your background, you were the UPI's Bureau Chief in Vietnam. Some of the questions I have about there from when to when, did you do that and how did you secure this position, and what did the job entail? DH (00:06:21): Well, I did Haverford for a year, and then I was offered a job by UPI in Dallas, Texas at the Dallas Times Herald. So I worked at the Dallas Times Herald for two years as a general assignment photographer. When I got to be, I guess, 19, I was drafted like everybody else being drafted in those days. That resulted in actually the best job I ever had. When I got my draft notice, I ran into another photographer named Don Uhrbrock, who was a Life photographer, who had just gotten out of the Army. We met at a Cotton Bowl game in Dallas. He said, "Well, listen, you ought to go see General Clifton." General Clifton at that time was the chief of information for Department of the Army. So I just called General Clifton's office and I made an appointment. On my way back to New York to go to Fort Dix for basic training, I just popped into the Pentagon with a portfolio, and I showed him my portfolio. Obviously, I have been recommended by Don Uhrbrock and he said, "Well, how did you like a job?" I said, "Well, great. What do I do?" He said, "All you do is when you get in basic training, you send me a postcard and you tell me what your serial number is and when you are expected out of basic, and I will take care of the rest." SM (00:08:35): Wow. DH (00:08:35): I will never forget, there was this major who was sitting outside the general's office, and he looked at me as I came out of the general's office and he said, "Kid, let me get this straight, you just got drafted and you just came in to show your portfolio?" I said, "Yeah, it seems to work." Sure enough, for the next two years, I had the best job ever. I was the chief photographer of the Department of the Army and wrote my own orders and traveled all over the world. SM (00:09:15): Wow. DH (00:09:15): Did all these different stories. Lived in a great apartment in Arlington. Never wore a uniform. SM (00:09:25): Oh my goodness. DH (00:09:25): So I had a great time in the Army. SM (00:09:30): Now you went to Vietnam as the UPI Bureau chief? DH (00:09:35): Yeah. There is some feedback I keep getting. After two years working for the Army, I went back to UPI, I first went back to UPI in Washington, and I was there for about six months, then I went to New York and I staffed UPI for New York for about six or eight months. And then I became a picture Bureau chief in Philadelphia. I was there for two years. Then in 1965, I got ready to send the Marine to Vietnam, and I was assigned as the Picture Bureau chief Saigon. SM (00:10:37): Wow. DH (00:10:38): [inaudible] Operation. SM (00:10:39): Wow. DH (00:10:40): I was there for two years. SM (00:10:45): Did you oversee many other photographers, or were you the photographer? DH (00:10:49): Yep, I was the Picture Bureau chief. I went out and I shot, but I also ran the bureau. SM (00:10:58): What were your personal feelings about that war when you went over there? Some people, when they first went, depending on whether you served in the military or were in other capacities, the early years, which you would say (19)64, (19)65 years were a lot different than the (19)67, (19)71 years, early on what were your thoughts about the war when you first arrived, and then what were your thoughts when you left? DH (00:11:27): Well, I photographed the first US Marines arriving on China Beach in March of (19)65. And I also photographed the last US Marines leaving in 1975. SM (00:11:44): Wow. DH (00:11:45): From the roof of the embassy. SM (00:11:45): Yes. DH (00:11:48): So I saw the whole hill. Actually, it was very exciting. We had a lot of mobility in those days, and you could go anywhere and do anything. Helicopters, boats, jeeps, everything was available to you. You could get on transport at the drop of the hat, go anywhere you wanted to go and get back to Saigon at the end of the day for a nice drink on the shelf of the Continental Palace. It was a great story. The US experience of the troops and Vietnam was a gradual learning curve for the first few months. This was a great, wonderful experiment in the use of the military. Everybody was having a great time. They were getting to test all the new weapons, and the leaders were gung ho. It was not for almost a year before US troops really began to be sucked into situations where they could no longer prevail. Then it became a very serious business. I think that the people who had been photographing or writing about Vietnam prior to March of 1965, had a much better perspective on how difficult this was going to be because they understood the tactics of Vietnam. They understood the corruption that existed within the South Vietnamese. Most of what we call the old hand, were very pessimistic right from the beginning. But for most of the new arrivals, people like me, we were just having a great time and we just were happy as it could be. SM (00:14:48): Would you say that this learning curve that the people you talked about, but even your learning curve as a professional photographer over there from early on, is when you look at (19)65, then you look at Tet in (19)68, and then you look at 1975, the helicopters going off the roof, those are three monumental happenings in this whole phase. Would you agree with that? Were you there with Tet? DH (00:15:18): I was not there at Tet. I was on home leave during Tet, but I was certainly there for the beginning and the end. Yeah. I mean, everything totally changed. But to this day, I do not believe that that war had to end the way it ended. The reason why I say that is because we walked away from Vietnam. The Congress stopped appropriating and by March of 1975, the North Vietnamese were pretty well shocked. The bombing offensives had been very effective, especially the Christmas bombing offensive. They had been cut off by China, they had been cut off by Russia. They were not getting their supplies anymore, and they were not in a good position. The way it all fell is that the North Vietnamese decided that they would launch an experimental offensive in the Highlands at a place called Ban Me Thuot. So they assembled an overwhelming force for this little place, and took Ban Me Thuot and started to march down the Highway 19 toward Saigon and the general who was in charge of what we called Free Corps, which is where [inaudible 00:17:36] was, he panicked because actually he had taken prisoner by the North Vietnamese during the French War, and he did not want to become a prisoner again so he got on a helicopter and he just left his headquarters and left it undefended and just told his troops to make their way to Saigon. At the same time, the president of Vietnam panicked, Nguyen Van Thieu, and he pulled the Marines out away and left the South Vietnamese marines trapped on the beach [inaudible] and totally cut off. From that point on, it was all that the North Vietnamese could do to keep up with the retreating troops. It was total complete panic. To this day, I believe that if that general had not bolted from Pleiku actually and if Thieu had not pulled the Marines out of Vietnam, probably it would have wound up with some sort of conciliation government. In fact, the day before Saigon fell, a conciliation government was formed by a guy named Big Ben, and they put up the new colors of this conciliation government. But by that time, it was academic because the tanks were already in Saigon. But no, I have always believed it was a very bad mistake all around from the beginning to end. SM (00:19:53): If you were to be asked, which I am asking now, the main reason why we lost that war, what would your response be? Still there? DH (00:20:19): Yeah. I am thinking. I think it is very easy to blame the media, but after Tet, and specifically after Walter Cronkite turned against Vietnam, that signaled the end of any US public support in the war. There was none. There was no support in Congress. The American people did not believe in it. The news media did not believe in it, and it was a hopeless case. SM (00:21:14): When you looked at McNamara's book, he just passed away this past year, but Robert McNamara's book, "In Retrospect," he had mention in that book that he made mistakes, and then of course, even in McGeorge Bundy's book that came out about six months before he passed away, he was against that war from the get-go, and actually told President Johnson that we should not be there, and it was a mistake. Yet they continued to stay in Vietnam regardless of these attitudes of some of our leaders. Do you put any blame at all on President Johnson, and particularly with the people, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy- DH (00:22:00): Of course, yeah, it was a very bad idea. SM (00:22:10): But that scene where you are taking pictures of the helicopter, I believe it was April 30th, 1975, if I remember correctly, were you inside the facility? Did you get on a helicopter yourself? DH (00:22:28): Yes. Yeah. Yeah. SM (00:22:31): There is all kinds of stories there that the Vietnamese people that were able to leave were friends of the Americans or linked to the Vietnamese military, that a lot of them were left. Of course, we know what happened in Vietnam after the helicopters left with the reeducation camps. There were stories of South Vietnamese troops throwing their uniforms away because they did not want to be identified as that whole thing. When you arrived at the aircraft carrier, what were the scenes like? What was going on there, just firsthand description? DH (00:23:16): Well, by the way, I have written at great length about that whole experience, and it is on the Digital Journalist, and it is called White Christmas. Just go onto Digital Journalist, and it is a very long piece, which goes into great detail. SM (00:23:48): All right. Any short little anecdote you want to say though for the interview? DH (00:23:55): Well, it was total chaos. The group that I left Saigon with came out of the defense attache's office, which was out at Tan Son Nhut. The Marines were busing Americans and Vietnamese from meeting points in downtown Saigon, and they were being bused out to Tan Son Nhut. When they got to Tan Son Nhut, they were taken inside the bowling alley, which was full of Vietnamese and Americans and civilians. Once the Marines established their landing zone, almost immediately these big Chinook helicopters started to come in and they would just hover. They were loading those helicopters as fast as they could. Then everybody was being flown out about 12 miles out to ships in the Gulf. I was landed on the Coral Sea, which was one of about a dozen carriers that were receiving people. What was interesting was that among the helicopters that were coming in were all these South Vietnamese helicopters. What they would do is they would touch down and the South Vietnamese would jump out, and then they would push those helicopters off the ship. In fact, in a couple of occasions, they did not even land. There was one pilot who just ditched his helicopter right next to the carrier, but there were a lot of helicopters thrown overboard that day. SM (00:26:22): Wow. Of course, that was the beginning of the Boat People that we all know what happened afterwards, trying to escape in the thousands and thousands who drowned at sea trying to escape Vietnam. DH (00:26:36): Right. SM (00:26:38): What pictures do you remember most from your time there in Vietnam? Were there any pictures that you took that stood out? Can you describe the exact environment when you took that picture or pictures? DH (00:26:54): You know what, I hate to tell you this, but I have to do it all the time, and every photographer who is interviewed says the same thing. We are very bad when it comes to saying, my favorite picture is... or, I like this picture. We cannot do that. It is something that we are just not wired to do. I cannot objectively discuss my pictures. The only picture I can objectively discuss is the Monica Lewinsky picture. SM (00:27:32): Oh, yes. DH (00:27:32): Other than that, I cannot. SM (00:27:36): But you would say though, you had full access in that war to take pictures, but obviously there was dangers too, that you could have lost your life. Did you know other photographers who lost their lives during the Vietnam War? DH (00:27:52): Yeah, many. Vietnam had the highest casualty rate among photographers of any war in history. SM (00:28:03): Did any of your UPI photographers die? DH (00:28:03): Oh, yeah. Well, in fact, are you by your email right now? SM (00:28:07): No, I am not. DH (00:28:09): Oh. Because I just answered a question to the John Winslow of News Photographer Magazine, who more or less asked me a similar question and I sent him a reply. I will read it to you. I am going to put you on speaker for a minute. SM (00:29:59): Okay. Were the troops well aware of what was going on in America at the time with respect to what many people call the war at home? SM (00:30:03): America at the time with respect to what many people call the war at home, the protests. DH (00:30:04): Oh, yeah-yeah. SM (00:30:07): I have read some novels, and I have also read some books depending on the year, obviously, the late (19)60s and early (19)70s were the greatest amount of protests in America, but what were the troops thinking when they... What part do you believe that played in the war itself? Not only in terms of the feelings that many of the troops had, but the enemy? DH (00:30:33): Well, I think it was encouraging for the enemy, and I think that it was very, very difficult on the troop. It was fighting in those jungles and the common instances of fragging where an enlisted man would throw grenade at an officer, and it was a very volatile situation. There were some units that were much higher performing units, like the Marines, for example, but army draftees. It was a very difficult war for them, and it is a war that they were not prepared to fight. SM (00:31:49): The troops came back to the United States, particularly in the early (19)70s and started the Vietnam veterans against the war, and there were a lot of veterans against the war, I guess, that were serving, especially in that 67 to 71 period when it seemed like chaos was not only in America, but also in Vietnam within the troops. Did you see that as well? Did you actually see troops who were against the war who were actually fighting it? DH (00:32:17): Yes, sure. Yeah, you run into that. As I say, episodes of bragging just were units just would not go out, right? I mean, there was a period during the Christmas bombing offensive over no, where all the B52s stopped flying. They just decided they were not going to get shot down anymore. The North Vietnamese had gotten that down to the science, and they could target those B52s as they would come over the mountains. They were taking them out left and right. At one point, all the B50s in Guam just had a stand down. SM (00:33:15): Did you see all... A lot of the things that were happening in America, not only the protests, but certainly the battles over racism and sexism and the drug culture, the rock music, the sense that government is lying, all these movements that came about in the early (19)70s, were a lot of these things happening within the troops too? The troops were a microcosm of what was going on in America. DH (00:33:47): Yeah, sure. Yeah, especially in 1968, yeah. SM (00:33:52): What was it about (19)68 that made a difference than any other year? DH (00:33:55): Yes, (19)68 was really the crucial year. SM (00:34:01): And could you explain a little further what made it a crucial year or- DH (00:34:07): Everything came together that year. So the war was heavy casualties. The lifestyles of the young people were changing. The Beatles were happening. The Rolling Stones were happening, long hair was happening, drugs were happening. It was the overthrow of what we would think was normal in the society and the general generational conflict. SM (00:34:51): Is there any movie that you feel portrays that era better than any other, because many Vietnam vets have been pretty critical of the movies that have been made on Vietnam. DH (00:35:09): Apocalypse. SM (00:35:11): Apocalypse Now? DH (00:35:14): But that I said, right. From the standpoint of... And if you get the idea, well, this was all just totally nuts. SM (00:35:41): Yeah, also the movie Platoon was one that most Vietnam vets did not like. Why do you think they did not like that film? DH (00:35:51): I think I cannot speak with Vietnam vets. I found Platoon really to be estrin. Platoon is really sort of what we call a TikTok. That is how it was, that is how it was. Emotionally, it has no heft. There are Apocalypse Now. Those crazy people were really there, when all those crazy things, and it was totally out of control. SM (00:36:43): How has the experience in Vietnam differed from any of the other photo experiences you had since that time? What made that unique in itself? DH (00:36:56): Well, first off, Vietnam was "my war". If you talk to most professional journalists who been around for a while, almost all of them have an event that they identify with, and that this was the core event of my life. And for me, Vietnam was that core event. It is what shaped me, it is what shaped all my colleagues. You have to remember, anybody who is anybody or has been anybody in journalism, went through that experience. And rather, Tom broke off. Peter Jennings, Tech Poppel, they all went through Vietnam. They all served their time there, but roughly the same time. And the thing that was unique about Vietnam was that you were very much in control of what you did. In previous wars as World War II, such as Korea, if you were a correspondent or a photographer, you really had no control over where you went. You joined up with some troops and wound up mowing with those troops wherever they went for as long as they were gone. And it was a shared experience with the troops. Vietnam was totally different, Vietnam was covering a fire. Every morning you would read the wires and find out what had happened overnight, and then you would take your car out to [inaudible] and hop on a helicopter and buy off a couple hundred miles and be set down in the middle of a raging battle And cover that battle, and then when you would have enough of that, you would get back on a helicopter and go back to Saigon and go have a beer. And so it was always a matter of personal choice that you did. And so that puts a whole different perspective on it because once you realize that you are making those choices, you are not being forced, you have a much different feeling about the whole process. And it becomes much more of a personal adventure. And I will tell you that I personally ever met a photographer who covered Vietnam, who did not love the experience. Love it, not like it, loved it, did not get enough of it, did not stay away. I was there for two years in (19)65 and (19)66, came back to New York for two years, and from the minute I was back in New York, I wait to get back to Saigon. And I was totally miserable in New York. There was nobody to talk to or everything seemed like total bullshit to me. I had no depth, they did not understand what was going on in the world. And after going back to Vietnam for Time Magazine in 1972, the first morning I woke up and was walking down Main Street in Saigon. It felt like I had gone to bed several years earlier and woke up that next morning in Saigon and nothing else had happened in those three years I was away. It was just a total complete, okay now I am back where I ought to be. SM (00:42:00): Okay. DH (00:42:02): And so very important that you understand, but point of view now, a lot of that point of view was because we were in strand of what we did. We were all accredited by Max V. So you have identification cards allow you to get on any helicopter or plane with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. And I actually could come home at the end of the night. And the press facilities, by the way, were very good. Even in places like Danang with bars and all that stuff. Word since then, have not been that much fun. Places like Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, there is no booze. Where is the fun. There is no fun. It is miserable places where people get dismembered by. IEEs. And there is not a lot of, after going on in those places. Vietnam, we laughed our asses off. SM (00:43:43): What is interesting when you talk about the freedoms that you had in Vietnam, it is almost like that is the culture of that (19)60s generation or that era, that one of the goals of the cultural revolution at that period was that people were in charge of their own lives. They did not have to worry about the corporate, having a corporate image that I am empowered to do, I am empowered to speak up. I am empowered to fight injustice. I am empowered to do these things. There was a feeling, a sense of my voice counts, and basically what you are saying is even in the world of porno journalism in Vietnam and your fellow photojournalist, there was that same cultural feeling of you are in charge. DH (00:44:31): Yeah, well- SM (00:44:33): That was the time. DH (00:44:34): Yeah and after I attribute a lot of this one man, and that is Barry Zorithian. SM (00:44:45): Who? DH (00:44:46): Barry Zorithian. SM (00:44:47): How do you spell that name? DH (00:44:49): Z-O-R-I-T H I A N. Barry Zorithian. SM (00:44:54): Okay. DH (00:44:55): Barry Zorthian was acting Spokeman. He was not a spokeman, he was head of Max V military assistance command Vietnam of the press operation. And he said all the policies, and he was a former time incorporated guy, and his heart was a journalist heart. But he had a very high rank within Max V. He was number two people of organization. And so he is the one who made these decision. Chris could do all that, one of the lessons because the Vietnam people who were in charge in Vietnam after the Vietnam War blamed Zorithian and blamed themselves were losing the war. And their theory was that they lost the war... SM (00:46:22): They lost the war at what? Still there? DH (00:46:30): Yeah, I am here. SM (00:46:30): Oh, okay. SM (00:46:30): Yeah. SM (00:46:38): Are you waiting for another question or... One of the questions that I wanted to ask is, I was looking at one of your videos on the computer and you were talking about when you take pictures, you feel that it' is an educational process and you have a very strong philosophy of responsibility. Could you go into detail on that with, you had mentioned that in the video? DH (00:47:18): Very strong sense of responsibility, people to do all of the things that I have done over my life. My job is to... SM (00:47:51): I think we are getting cut off here. DH (00:47:54): Oh, is really- SM (00:47:56): Want me to call you again? I am getting cut off now. DH (00:47:59): Oh, you better call me back. SM (00:48:00): Okay, thanks, bye. Oh, you teach me any courses or? DH (00:48:12): I do not teach courses currently. SM (00:48:17): So the next few questions are going to be based on a lot on the generation, the boomer generation, and of course Vietnam bets were part of that. When you hear people, especially in recent years, blame all of the problems we have on to have today in our society on the era known as the (19)60s and the (19)70s. And of course they are talking about the drug culture, the welfare state, the divorce rate, some people call it the beginning of the handout society, the lack of respect for authority, the divisive nature in our dealings with people with that we disagree with. In other words, placing the blame on the boomer generation really. What are your feelings when you hear that from politicians or pundits? DH (00:49:05): Well, I laugh because it seems to me that things have reversed itself. The liberals are now the professors and the conservatives of the students, and you see this all over. Right now, a lot of anxiety on a part of the current generation is they are not going to get what they are entitled to. SM (00:49:50): That is interesting because one of the most important things when you learn about what an activist is, an activist never says these words, 'what is in it for me?' It is 'what is in it for we' was the mentality of the many of the college students of the (19)60s and (19)70s. And if you hear the reverse, what is in it for me? They are not an activist. DH (00:50:16): No, they are not, no-no. And I will say one of the big problems I have with students and having taught photojournalism, I find a total lack of curiosity there. When I look into their eyes, there is nothing there. There is lifeless. I do not know if it is too much time spent in front of video games, whether it is not learning to read, but there is nothing there. I did an exercise the first two times I taught my photojournalism class. I would walk around- SM (00:51:17): What year was this? DH (00:51:20): And there would be a dozen kids at the table, and I would walk around and I would get up real close and I would look them in the eye. And about one in four, I would say, okay, you are crazy. And I meant that in a good way because what I was seeing is there was something going on in those eyes. There was life, there was some flickering there, there was some wildness in there. There was something, there was a pulse in that person. The rest of them, if I did not say that, I knew they might as well drop out of that class right then because they were not going to do anything. I find that the greatest problem in teaching journalism today is teaching what a story is. Students have no idea whatsoever of what a story is, what makes up a story. How do you do it? How do you find it? I used to be good at that stuff. I mean very fast, but they are not anymore. SM (00:53:03): Would you say that the students of the (19)60s and the (19)70s had that, whereas the students of the (19)80s, (19)90s, and what we call the 2010s, which is the next two generations, generation X and certainly the millennial students of the day, are they in the latter group? DH (00:53:24): Yeah, I mean, I think the students in the (19)60s and (19)70s were on fire that they could not consume enough experiences or ideas. They were ravish. They wanted to ingest anything and everything, all. They were hungry for experience. They were hungry for drugs, they were hungry for sex, they were hungry. They were raiding maniacs. Look around you today, you do not see it. SM (00:54:11): Back in the (19)90s. I like your thoughts with the generation Xer group that followed the boomer generation. We had a panel of boomers and generation Xers, and they were having some problems with each other. And I found in my programs that I did the university that Generation Xers, and they are people born from (19)65 till about 1982. They either looked at the (19)60s as their sick and tired of the nostalgia that this generation of boomers is always talking about or they regretted that they did not live during that time because there were causes and there was nothing in between either like you or they did not. Did you find that too? DH (00:54:57): Yeah. SM (00:54:58): When you look at the boomer generation, which is those born between (19)46 and (19)64, and I want to preface this statement by saying that I now know that people that were born between (19)35 and (19)45 are as much of boomer as those born in that period because of the sense of spirit and they were kind of the mentors and role models for many boomers. When you look at the boomer generation, are there any basic characteristics or strengths or flaw that you can apply to them as a group? And of course we know there is 74 million people in this generation, but just from the ones you knew. DH (00:55:36): Well, I think that my experience is that people of my generation was stewarded earlier. They were out doing things, talk about me working for my newspaper at the age of 17. I was not drifting around aimlessly. I knew things I wanted to do. And that same thing went for all my friends. I had class reunion that long ago. We were talking about this very thing. People became young adults at the age of 18 and some cases 17. Now, God help us, you are lucky if you find a young adult at 30. SM (00:56:42): So the criticism that some people have of boomers is that they were a generation that never grew up. Some people think, well, again, I am just putting the shoe on the other foot there. Some people just do not like boomers and that they never did grow up. So I do not know if you have any concepts on that. DH (00:57:12): Not really, no. SM (00:57:14): And also the many of the boomers thought they were the most unique generation in American history, particularly when they were young. And again, many felt they were going to be the change agents for the betterment of society by ending racism, sexism, homophobia, ending war, bringing peace and making the world a better place to live. Is the world we live in an indictment of the generation or are we a better nation overall because of their activism? DH (00:57:43): That is the meaning of life question. I do not know. I do not know. SM (00:57:55): Can you give any other strengths or weaknesses of that generation? If you have any other thoughts? DH (00:58:04): Well, everybody has got their idea of the greatest generation. We know We are Tom [inaudible] fan. And I think for me, the most interesting generation was the boomers. Were the greatest or not, I do not know, but [inaudible] info. Well, I think we are in a society today that is just sort of drifting. SM (00:58:47): And again, I am just trying to understand the boomer generation from many different angles. Do you put any blame on that on the parents of today's young people, generation Xers were the children of Boomers. And now if you look on college campuses, only 15 percent of the millennial students of today are the kids of boomers. Most of them are the kids of generation Xers. So do you think this is also a criticism of the parents who maybe did not pass on some of the feelings that they had when they were young. DH (00:59:23): Yeah, I think so. And I think that that is probably a fallout from the boomer generation as far as caring for your young. But I think that as we all know, the basic family structure as we knew it has disappeared. Dinner around the table, the participation of adults and kids' activities, and certainly among minorities, it is- DH (01:00:02): And certainly among minorities, it is a disaster. No place at the table. SM (01:00:13): In your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? DH (01:00:19): (19)60s began with John Kennedy being inaugurated. SM (01:00:27): And when did it end? DH (01:00:38): When was that big concert, San Francisco? Was it the Rolling Stones? SM (01:00:46): Altamont? DH (01:00:47): Altamont, yeah. SM (01:00:48): That is when the violence, yes. Is there a watershed moment that you think that stands out for most boomers? DH (01:01:03): I do not know. I think that is an individual thing. SM (01:01:04): I think you were born in 1936, correct? DH (01:01:05): Correct. SM (01:01:08): Then you have lived through these periods. And just give a couple [inaudible], because these are the periods that boomers have lived. The oldest boomer is now 64, and the youngest is 49. So I think most boomers now realize that they are mortal, like every other group. In your own words, can you describe the America of the following periods as you remember? Just from your growing up, and just what these periods may symbolize to you, because these are all periods in boomers' lives. That period from the end of World War II, 1946, to the inauguration of President Kennedy. DH (01:01:53): I think that was a period of excitement and possibility. We were getting into the space race. And because the space race, there were so many technological changes. Just everything that you had in your house was changing, and becoming high-tech, we are on our way to that. And so I thought that the (19)50s, we still had the [inaudible], but I thought that the (19)50s was an optimistic and innovative time. SM (01:02:53): How about the period 1961 to 1970? DH (01:02:57): Sixty-one to (19)70, of course that is when everything exploded. And the Kennedy, and Kennedy's assassination, and Bobby Kennedy, and rock and roll, and drugs, and Andy Warhol. And total changes in dress, and the way people related to each other. Very casual sex, all those things. SM (01:03:38): How about 1971 to 1980? DH (01:03:43): (19)71to (19)80, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford. First off, you really have to understand that the first two years, we were totally bogged down in Watergate, where I think we were collectively losing our senses. And Nixon was totally out of control. The war went on in Vietnam. And then we had a breather with Gerry Ford, who was a very nice man. And then Jimmy Carter, who has since proven to be one of our better ex-presidents, but who was a total disaster when it came to the concept of protecting presidential authority of power. And the period of malaise. So I do not know if you remember the kind of clothes that Gerry Ford and Jimmy Carter wore, but these real weird plaids. SM (01:05:15): Yeah, and then Jerry Ford is not a very good golfer, and he hit a lot of people. DH (01:05:24): Yeah. But a very nice man. I liked Gerry Ford the whole time. But it was not much doing. And we were limping along with malaise, and everybody just generally not feeling very good. And then we got to (19)80s, and there was Ronnie. SM (01:05:47): Yeah, (19)81 to (19)90 was the next period. DH (01:05:52): Yeah. And as I was concerned, that was a wonderful time, because I got to spend all my time in Santa Barbara. But everybody seemed to feel really good. They liked Ronnie. Nobody took him too seriously, except when he said, "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev." Promptly did exactly that. And so I think the (19)80s was a feel-good period. SM (01:06:31): Do you think it was a period where he was trying to bring back the (19)50s? DH (01:06:32): Not really, no. SM (01:06:39): And bring the military back to power, the way it should be, as opposed to the way it was in the (19)70s? DH (01:06:45): Well, see, I personally always looked at Reagan, I saw this happy-go-lucky warrior, who always seemed to have such a good time. And I personally prospered during the (19)80s. I thought I was just wonderful. And like I say, I spent, out of eight years, I spent a whole year in Santa Barbara. And so that was not hard to say. SM (01:07:22): How about the (19)90s? 1991 to 2000? DH (01:07:29): Now, I am beginning to run into short term memory loss. What happened in the (19)90s? I cannot remember. SM (01:07:40): Well, we had the president of Bush I and Bill Clinton. DH (01:07:42): Yeah. Well, that is the answer. Bill Clinton, I thought was a hoot. He seemed to have a wonderful sense of humor and good time. But I thought, personally, he was a total fraud. I kept watching, as a photographer, I am always watching the eyes of my subject. I am trying to read what is in there. And what I found out very early on in the Clinton administration was for the first front that I covered him, I thought I had never covered anybody as fascinating as Bill Clinton. He could get to the point he could make a smart, a steep statement, his eyes had empathy, sympathy. He knew how to reach out to just the right person. And then I realized, after lunch, I was watching an act. SM (01:09:08): Wow. DH (01:09:14): But he would do the same thing, every single time. And I could tell in advance that he was going to tear up. I could tell what he was going to do. And so, for eight years... Actually seven years. For seven years, I studied Bill Clinton's face from up close, waiting to get him. And I finally did. If you go on my webpage, on the digital journalist and go to the covers, you will see a picture of Bill Clinton. And it was during the middle of the Monica business, and he was at a rally with the First Lady, and she was having absolutely nothing to do with him. And he would sort of reach out, tentatively toward her, and she would bat his hand away. And I soon suddenly started to notice that his right jaw kept clenching. And it went on and on. And his jaw was just clenching. And I have a whole roll of that, the [inaudible] Magazine. And I said, "I got you. I finally got you." After seven years, I finally saw the real Bill Clinton. SM (01:10:56): I know there is a picture on there too of them with masks. DH (01:11:02): Yeah. Yeah. And I consider that a metaphor, because I think they are both the same. I think they are two sides at the same point, that they deserve each other. And I have always thought that. SM (01:11:23): You have covered presidents from Kennedy to Clinton, I think maybe even a little bit above Bush too, but you say you finally got Clinton. What do you have to say about these other presidents in terms of maybe the photographs, and what their personalities were? And maybe even, I have got a question here, which President had the greatest impact on the boomer generation, in your opinion? Because you covered the White House for 29 years, and that is basically the time when the boomers were young, and then going into middle age. So you are dealing with Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I, and Clinton. DH (01:12:05): All right. Let me give you my quick rundown. Kennedy, I covered from his inaugural until he was killed. A totally fascinating character, and very, very similar to Bill Clinton. In fact, they are almost alter-egos. Bill Clinton, the same characteristics I mentioned of Bill Clinton, I talk about John Kennedy. The photographers used to call Kennedy 'Jack the Back'. And the reason for that is Kennedy was very camera conscious. And so whenever he would come into view of the camera, he would immediately turn his back to the lens until he had composed himself. Until he had his face where he wanted it to be, hair was where he wanted it to be, and then he would turn his face to camera. But the first thing was always the turning of the back. SM (01:13:25): Wow. DH (01:13:26): So he was 'Jack the back'. And a fantastic energy to cover, and just a total wild man. Everything you read about him is true, including the midnight trips to the swimming pool. One photographer I knew, he really sort of served as an on the road pimp for him. He would run alongside the car, and as they were going in these motorcades, and they were in the open car, we had all these teenage girls, and Kennedy used to call them leapers. And he would see one that would strike his eye, and he would just look at my friend, Stanley Tretick, who is a photographer, and just point to her. And it was Tretick's job to go over to her and say, "How would you like the come meet the Senator?" SM (01:14:31): Wow. DH (01:14:34): And so, that was bad boy. SM (01:14:41): Always think of him with the older women, not younger women. DH (01:14:43): Oh, no-no. He loved the leapers. And they were just like hors d'oeuvres. I mean, Marilyn Monroe was the main course. SM (01:14:47): Right. DH (01:14:55): And then Lyndon Johnson, totally fascinating. And far bigger than life. Just huge. And he would dominate the room. He would intimidate, physically, anybody he was with. One of the best stories that I have ever heard, and it is apocryphal, is that at Camp David, Johnson was having a meeting with the president of Canada, Lester Pearson. And Lester Pearson, they were talking heatedly about Vietnam, and photographers were able to watch as Kennedy reached forward, grabbed Lester Pearson's [inaudible], and raised him off his feet, and said, loud enough for us to hear, "Boy, you have been fishing on my front lawn." SM (01:16:12): Wow. DH (01:16:15): That was Lyndon Johnson. SM (01:16:19): Wow. DH (01:16:29): And he was obsessively narcissistic. He insisted, for example, that his photographer, Okamoto, photographed him sitting on the bathroom. He wanted every piece of shit recorded. And he was something else. I could tell you stories about Lyndon Johnson [inaudible] and all that. And so then, of course, after Lyndon Johnson, we got Nixon, right? And of course Nixon was my favorite because Nixon was the best subject a photographer to ever have. He was totally crazy. And you could see every emotion. The world's worst poker player. And his face was... Anytime he made an address, his face was like a living contradiction. His eyes would be delivering one message, and his mouth would be delivering another. And there would be this moisture above his mouth, and his little eyes would be darting around the room. And he was nuts, in a word. And in fact, he did a whole bunch of nutty things. For example, during Watergate, he could not stand it. And so, one night, he bolted from the White House, in the middle of the night, called a car, drove to Dulles Airport, and got on a PWA DC-10, fly out the Santa Barbara. All alone. There was one Secret Service agent who was on the plane. And then, of course, then they had the problem, how would they get him back from Santa Barbara? Because he had not officially left. And so he was stuck in Santa Barbara, it was terrible weather. It was raining, and he was stuck there for a week. And fortunately, Henry Kissinger had taken a Jetstar down to see one of his [inaudible] in Mexico. And that plane had come back up to 29 Palm to resurface. So that is how they got him back. They had to put him in the closet of the plane to get him back Washington. Another time, he bolted from the White House and he went to Lincoln Memorial, and stood in the rain in front of Lincoln Memorial, soaking wet, for an hour, just staring at Lincoln. And of course, the more intense that Watergate story got, the better it, got. I mean, I could not wait to get to the White House in the morning. I mean, I would have paid thousands of dollars just for the privilege of going to those briefings. Because with Ron Ziegler up here, and Jerry what was his name dismantling Nixon, and all the craziness that was going on. And of course, during that period, I had, I think 20 of my 50 covers just on Nixon. And my trick was... And the other guys never caught onto it. My trick, from day one, was to use the longest possible lens that I could find. And so where my colleagues were all using 80 to 200-millimeter lenses, from his speeches, I was using eight hundreds. And I was getting in so tight on his face because I wanted to see those eyes. And there is a very famous picture in my covers of, it was taken during the American Legion Convention in New Orleans, and it was toward the end of Watergate. And he was walking into the convention hall, and he was not sleeping at all. There was just this wildness in his face. And as he was going into the hall, a reporter said, " Mr. President, what about the missing eight and a half [inaudible]?" And Nixon turned around and grabbed Ron Ziegler, and just hurled him backwards, yelling, keep those bastards away from me. And then he went on stage and there is this haunted face of Richard Nixon, where it is all there. The whole thing. The whole crazy is all there. So I mean, he was a wonderful story, you could not ask for anything better than that. SM (01:22:37): Was Agnew an important part of that story too? DH (01:22:40): In retrospect, no. Early on, yes. And then, of course, Gerry Ford, who is probably the sweetest guy ever be president. Really very nice man. Never had any desire at all to be president. Perfectly happy up on the house. And loved photographers. He used to come over to the house for drinks. Almost fell off our balcony one night. But just a really nice man. And that gave way to Carter, who was just, as I say, just a mess. I will never forget one time he was at Normandy, visiting the graveside soldiers to [inaudible]. And it was a gorgeous spring day, and he was with Valérie Giscard d'Estaing. And Valérie Giscard d'Estaing was... Hang on a minute. SM (01:24:23): Yep. DH (01:24:23): Are you there? SM (01:24:23): Yep, I am here. DH (01:24:23): Good. I dropped my phone. SM (01:24:23): Okay. DH (01:24:23): Anyway, Valérie Giscard d'Estaing was this very handsome, tall, distinguished looking guy. And he was wearing this bespoke [inaudible] suit. And next to him is this guy, in this Colombo [inaudible], looked like a flasher. And that was Jimmy Carter. And so that is when we started calling him the [inaudible] Flasher. SM (01:24:58): Oh my God. DH (01:25:05): And then after Carter... SM (01:25:07): Reagan. DH (01:25:09): Reagan, and I have already talked about Reagan. And then I have Clinton, and I have talked to you about Clinton. SM (01:25:19): George Bush I. DH (01:25:21): Oh, yeah. George Bush I. How could I forget George Bush I? Again, a very good friend of mine. And a very loosey goosey guy, except when he was deciding to go to war. Basically, a very decent man. And I will never forget, when after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait, and Bush had been up at Kennebunkport, and he came back later that day. And he walked off of Air Force One, and I knew George Bush very well, the face that I saw, I had never seen before. It scared the living shit out of me. And somebody turned to him as he was going in the door of the White House and said, "So what are you going to do about Saddam Hussein?" And he pointed and said, "Wait. Just wait and watch." I said, "Whoa." And of course he did. Yeah. And wait [inaudible] war. But by and large, he was fun to be around. Hilarious. If you look at some of the pictures on my site, there are all these really funny pictures of him. He liked making fun of himself. He was deliberately goofy. And then there is George W. Bush, who I hate. Totally nasty man. Nasty in ways I cannot even calculate. But he is a bully. And he thinks he is too clever by half. And I have no regard for him whatsoever. SM (01:28:05): Yet he has got a really nice wife, Barbara. DH (01:28:09): No, that is George H. SM (01:28:11): Yeah, I mean Laura. DH (01:28:12): Laura. Yeah. SM (01:28:15): And then of course, you have got a really nice picture on your website of President Obama. He is only been in there two years, but I guess your thoughts on him so far. DH (01:28:25): Well, I think he is doing the best he can. I mean, God help you. I mean, who would want to be in that position? The mess he has inherited. And I do not think he has made any big mistakes. I think he has strapped himself with an overwhelming schedule. And I think doing as well as he can. Time will tell. SM (01:29:04): Yeah. It is amazing how people... He says that he tries to not be identified with a (19)60s generation, and he tries to disassociate, yet his critics say he is the epitome of it. That he is farther to the left than in any other president. Which, they may just be critics saying it, but he cannot seem to win no how, no matter what he does. What are your thoughts on the two pictures that were very big during the Vietnam War. And as an observer, as a photographer observing another person's photography, what did you think of the picture, the girl in the pitcher? With Kim Fuchs? And the second picture was the colonel killing the Viet Cong person in, I guess it was Saigon, or whatever it was. DH (01:29:52): Yeah, of course. Both of those were taken by very dear friends of mine. Colonel [inaudible] being killed, that was [inaudible] Eddie Adams. SM (01:30:01): Right. DH (01:30:01): And that- DH (01:30:03): ... [inaudible] Eddie Adams. SM (01:30:01): Right. DH (01:30:01): And that is certainly one of the most influential pictures that is ever been taken. It definitely turned the direction against the war. There is no question about it. And it is a picture that haunted Eddie Adams until he died. He wished he had never taken it. And then the Kim Phúc picture, that is taken by another friend of mine. And I think that is a lesser picture than the Eddie Adams picture, which of course on a scale of one to 10 is 10. But again, that was an influential picture. SM (01:31:03): And of course the other pictures, the My Lai pictures, which seemed to say to Americans that our troops are committing atrocities. And what did you think of all the coverage of My Lai? Because it got a lot of press. It was on the front cover of magazines, and people refer to it all the time. DH (01:31:25): Yeah, exactly. Yeah. SM (01:31:30): Did you think that from... depending on who you talked to, this was happening all the time in Vietnam, or was this just one of those rare happenings? DH (01:31:42): Well, I think it happened a lot more, most people realize. In a war where there are no lines and you have these guys with guns walking through villages, and those guys had been shot at an hour before, that sort of stuff happened. SM (01:32:12): One of the questions that I have asked everybody from the time I started with Senator McCarthy back in (19)96 was the question of healing, this issue of healing. I took a group of students to Washington, D.C. in 1995 to meet former Senator Edmund Muskie, who was the vice presidential candidate in 1968 at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. And the students that went with me came up with this question. They were not born at the time, but they had seen all the videos of that year, 1968, and what happened in Chicago. And their question was this: "Due to all the divisions that were happening in America at the time, 1968, divisions between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who supported the war, those who did not, those who supported the troops and those who did not, do you think the (19)60s generation, the Vietnam generation, will go to its grave, like the Civil War generation, not truly healing, due to the tremendous divisive issues that tore us apart?" I will give you what Senator Muskie's response was after I hear yours. DH (01:33:26): You know what? I do not think so. I think time has passed. I mean, I certainly do not find myself dwelling on it. SM (01:33:39): Do you think we as a nation have a problem with healing? And what has the wall done in Washington, D.C. to help this process? Some people say it has really helped the vets and their families, but the question is, as Jan Scruggs, when he wrote in his book, To Heal a Nation, has it really gone beyond the vets? DH (01:33:59): Yeah. Well, no, I think for the vet, I mean, that is who it is for after all. And so, no, I love the wall. I think it is a beautiful tribute and I think that is great. SM (01:34:15): So you would not put the Vietnam generation in the same league with the divisions that took place during the Civil War? Because it is well documented they did not heal from that war. DH (01:34:30): Yeah. Well, except that was a big difference. It was fought here on our property, on our country. Everybody was involved. SM (01:34:45): Right. The other question is the issue of trust, obviously because of a lot of the leaders lied to members of the boomer generation throughout their youth. Obviously the biggest examples are Watergate with President Nixon, but we also know the Gulf of Tonkin with President Johnson. And more astute young students, and there were many of them, saw the lies that Eisenhower even gave in 1959 on the U-2 incident where he said it was not a spy plane. And then you had all the numbers that McNamara was giving on the troops, and we knew that those were not actual numbers. So there was a sense that no one trusted anybody in a sense of responsibility, whether it be a university president, a corporate leader, a congressman, a senator, a principal. No matter who they were, there was this lack of trust. Do you think that is been a negative quality within the generation? It has been characterized as part of them, or do you see anything positive in that? DH (01:35:52): What concerns me is the divisions that are deepening among citizens. It used to be you could go to a dinner party in Washington and the table would be full of Democrats and Republicans. That would not happen today; one or the other. You are either a Democrat or a Republican. And as somebody who has lived for a long time in Washington and taught people there every day, it is the thing that I think bothers everybody the most. Half of the population is not talking to the other half. And I cannot remember any time that that has happened. And I credit to a large extent the rise of cable pundits who are yelling at each other 24 hours a day, except on Saturdays. They take off on Saturday. But I think they are responsible to a large degree. I think that we are suffering from a breakdown in civility that I think is just going to get worse. And I only know, is now we have got these commissions at work. Everybody is [inaudible] is going to start getting [inaudible] simultaneously. That could be a lot of very pissed off people. SM (01:37:53): Do you see any links there between the divisiveness in the (19)60s? Because a lot of people were not talking to each other back then, they were shouting people down at times and were not listening to the other side. Do you see any kind of link between then and now? DH (01:38:06): Totally different. Totally different. I think that you had a lifestyle conflict which would manifest itself primarily in the long hairs versus the short hairs. And of course, you always had the police on the side of the short hairs. And so I think that that was a lifestyle division. This is a much more ... How do you explain this? This is a division over who gets what. And I think it is going to be very nasty. SM (01:39:09): I have only got three more questions and then I am... One of the things here, and I know you say this in your literature, and I know it was important, regardless of what we say about Richard Nixon, the pros and the cons, we got to give credit for him in terms of his trip to China, and you were- DH (01:39:33): Oh, absolutely. SM (01:39:35): Yeah. I would like to you to talk about in your own words, as a person who not only took pictures and have said that this is one of the most important experiences you have went through, how important that trip was to this country and to this world. DH (01:39:50): Well, as somebody who was chosen to photograph that trip to China, I have always regarded that at the high point of my life. And I certainly think it is at the pinnacle representing what a person of the United States is able to do. This was a... I guess you would call it a Hail Mary pass, that Kissinger and Nixon cooked up one summer. And we were in San Clemente, and Kissinger disappeared for a week and came back and we discovered he had been to China. And that was the beginning of the process of setting that trip up. But there has never been a more important presidential trip. And I do not see how there could ever be, unless maybe we are sitting on the confrontation of World War III. But it changed everything. Because of that trip, China and Russia stopped supporting North Vietnam. And so it was the precursor to ending the Vietnam War, really. Totally realigned world politics, shifted alliances. And it was responsible... Hello? Hello? SM (01:41:54): Yeah, I am here. Yeah. DH (01:41:56): Okay. It was responsible for liberating China from [inaudible] and start them on a path which God only knows how that is going to finally play out. But that one trip changed everything. And there is another trip I want to mention to you because it is along the same lines. And that was the trip to the Soviet Union for the SALT agreement. And I do not know if you remember when that happened, but that was two weeks before Nixon resigned. And he did two trips back-to-back in a 10-day period in that period immediately before he resigned. One was he went to India and Israel, and the other was he went to the Soviet Union. And Nixon and Kissinger were frantic to get the SALT treaty signed the, because they knew time was running out. And so Kissinger went to see... Was it Brezhnev then, I think? I think it was Brezhnev. But Kissinger went to see him and he said, "Listen, we need to have a talk. As you realize, the president is under extraordinary pressure in the United States." Can you hang on just a sec? SM (01:43:59): Yep-yep. DH (01:43:59): Okay. The president is under ordinary pressure in the United States. He has not been sleeping well. I personally am very worried about his mental health. So I would recommend that when you have your discussion, you treat him very carefully, very carefully. And that is how we got the SALT treaty passed. SM (01:44:54): Geez. He did an awful lot toward the end. DH (01:44:57): Yes, he did. SM (01:45:00): Were you in the room when he resigned? DH (01:45:02): Yes, I was. SM (01:45:02): Yeah. I remember watching that on television, and by golly, that was an emotional event with his family right there behind him and his thanking all of his staff. And yeah, I remember he talked about his mom. Would you say of all the presidents we have talked about that really were alive when the boomers in their lives, that he is the most Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? He can have the greatest moments and then he can have the worst moments, extremes, almost like psychosis or something psychologically. DH (01:45:40): Yeah, absolutely. SM (01:45:41): That seemed to be a another really... even though it was a sad moment, he said the right words. DH (01:45:48): Yeah. Well, he was a great president, except he was crazy. SM (01:45:54): Yeah-yeah. Well, Bobby Muller, when he came back from Vietnam, the person who founded Vietnam Veterans of America, this is a famous quote from him. He said, "I knew that when I came back from Vietnam, that America was not always the good guy," because he had been a Marine and he went in there, and of course he was injured. But he saw things that we have discussed in the late (19)60s over in Vietnam, and knew some things. Is that what a lot of veterans were saying around that time, that for the first time... I know in World War II, we did not say that. I do not think in Korea we said that. But a lot of Vietnam vets were saying, "America is not always the good guy." DH (01:46:40): Yeah-yeah. Mm-hmm. SM (01:46:41): Did you sense that from a lot of vets? DH (01:46:42): Not a lot, but some, yeah. SM (01:46:52): And then there was, in The Wounded Generation, which was a book written in 1980, there was a panel with Phil Caputo, James Fallows, Bobby Muller, Jim Webb, who is now Senator Webb. And they talked about the issue of the generation gap between parents and young people. But then Jim Webb said something that changed the discussion. He said the real generation gap, it was not really between father and son or mother and daughter, or whatever; it was between those who went to war and those who did not, those who fought the war and those who did not. And he was very critical in the discussion that this is what we call a service generation, i.e. Kennedy, the Peace Corps and serving your country when your nation calls... that in reality, the boomer generation is not a service-oriented generation. Your thoughts on the generation gap between those who served and those who did not, and the concept of service, which is often linked to the (19)60s generation. DH (01:48:00): Yeah-yeah. SM (01:48:03): Any thoughts? DH (01:48:05): Well, I personally, I told you I had a great job when I was in the Army. I personally benefited enormously from the draft. And I think that when the draft was discontinued, we lost something, lost something as a basis of shared service that we regret today. And the military's got broken. We cannot keep sending the same people back over and over and over again. You cannot keep on doing this. And I think you see the estimate of we are going to be in Afghanistan until 2014. Where are these people going to come from? So I personally am for the draft. It sure did not hurt me any, and I thought it was a very valuable experience. SM (01:49:37): I heard the other night on TV, Eliot Spitzer was talking, the former governor of New York, and he says he is for the draft. And quite a few of the Democrats now are starting to think, in fairness... because we all know about the fairness issue during the Vietnam War; in fairness, all people should be called. And that actually should be even service for everyone. And they went to the point of even people that may not be qualified for military service be required to do other kinds of service for two years. It is across the board, so you are not... just because you physically cannot do it, you still can do two years of service. I will end with this. Two other presidents we did not talk about, and they were the beginning when boomers were very young, and that is President Truman and President Eisenhower. Your thoughts on them? Because Eisenhower was the president that all the boomers saw in the (19)50s, this grandfather figure from (19)52 to (19)60. And of course the boomer generation was just going into 7th grade around the time President Kennedy was coming into office. Your thoughts on Eisenhower and Truman? DH (01:50:45): Yeah, I do not have any. SM (01:50:45): Do not have any? DH (01:50:46): No [inaudible]- SM (01:50:49): Pardon? DH (01:50:50): That is before my time. SM (01:50:52): All right. And the last thing, my very last question is this. I proposed that the (19)60s generation or the Vietnam generation that grew up in the (19)50s, before all these changes happened in the (19)60s, had three qualities. They were fairly naive, they were quiet, and there was a lot of fear within them. Fear, because of course the worry about nuclear annihilation, we all went through the tests at school. Some may have seen the McCarthy hearings, fearing about speaking up, being labeled a communist. Naive, just not really knowing what was going on in the world, certainly in the area of civil rights. You did not see a whole lot on TV in the (19)50s about some of these things. And then a fairly quiet generation. Those are qualities when boomers were very young, and then of course then John Kennedy in the (19)60s, and a lot of things changed. Do you think those qualities of fear, being naive and being quiet is pretty on-target for boomers when they were very young? DH (01:52:08): It is an interesting question. I think there is a pervasive fear right now that things are out of control. I think that fundamentals that we took for granted, that I would be able to always find a job, provide for my family, have a place to live and shelter and food, these fundamentals are now in grave question. And they have never been a question before, that I know, except for the homeless. But now everybody is potentially looking down the same barrel. And so I think people are... I am terrified. I think people are terrified. SM (01:53:37): Are there any questions that I did not ask that you thought I was going to ask? DH (01:53:39): No-no. SM (01:53:43): Do you have any final thoughts or comments on the boomer generation itself? DH (01:53:51): I think I pretty well talked it out. SM (01:53:55): When the best history books are written, it is often 50 years after an event. What do you think, let us say maybe 30, 40 years from now, historians and sociologists will be saying about the Vietnam generation once they have passed on? DH (01:54:20): I am not sure they are going to have much to say. It is already faded. I am glad we have that wall there. It is a reminder, but I do not think... You used to see, for example, lots of Vietnam vets. You do not see many anymore, because they are all dying away. And I think people are more preoccupied with the current crises that are coming down the road than they are thinking about Vietnam. SM (01:55:06): Or any of the stuff in the (19)60s- DH (01:55:13): Right, yeah. SM (01:55:14): ...all the movements. Do you think that is why we do not hear as much about civil rights and women's rights? And we hear a little bit more about gay rights because of the marriage issue, and then in the environmental issues, and the Native American, all the ethnic groups... They were very prevalent in the (19)70s and the (19)80s, but they seem to have waned. DH (01:55:41): Yeah-yeah. SM (01:55:41): By the way, I want to say that Edmund Muskie's response to that question, I did not give you the answer, about the healing issue. He said we have not healed since the Civil War in the area of race. And that is what he went on to talk about, so anyway. DH (01:55:57): Anyway. Well, I think that is probably true. I think it is getting much worse. I think we are basically watching the devastation of Black families. Looking at all the figures, it is an unbelievable thing. I mean, the Black family structure has totally disappeared. SM (01:56:30): When you think about all the things that are happening to the unemployed today, it is up at close to 10 percent, but now they say different parts of the country, it is 18 percent. But we talk about people's pensions are being threatened; in Pennsylvania, they are being threatened right now. And so Social Security can be become... What are people going to live on? I am just amazed at where we are heading. It is really scary. DH (01:56:58): Well, I told you, I am terrified. And I will tell you, there was a statistic I heard just the other day, which shocked me, which was [inaudible] the town that if you were a young white man with a prison record, you stood a better chance of getting a job than being a young Black man with no prison record. SM (01:57:34): That is amazing. That does not shock me. Wow. Well, I thank you very much. DH (01:57:44): Okay. Let me know how it works out. SM (01:57:46): Yeah, you will see the transcript eventually. I am going to be hibernating six months doing my transcripts. I am going to need two pictures of you. DH (01:57:55): Okay. That we can do easy. SM (01:57:57): Yeah. And I love that picture of you with all those book covers in the background. That is a great shot. DH (01:58:02): Okay. I can get that to you. SM (01:58:04): Yeah. And keep doing what you are doing. You are one heck of a photographer. I kept a lot of magazines over the years. I think I have got about seven of your magazine covers, and the one of George Bush I have. I know I have a stack here. I do not ever take the covers off a magazine. I keep the magazine. So I got boxes of magazines that I have kept over the years from my archives. So I have got quite a few of your covers on the original magazine. DH (01:58:31): Well, that is good. SM (01:58:35): Yep. Well, you have a great day, and thank you very much. I really appreciate it. It has been an honor to talk to you. DH (01:58:41): Okay, take care. SM (01:58:41): Take care. Bye. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dirck Halstead Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Halstead, Dirck, 1936-2022 ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Photojournalists; Editors; Publishers; Halstead, Dirck, 1936--Interviews Description An account of the resource <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dirk Halstead is a photojournalist, editor, and publisher of The Digital Journalist. Halstead started photojournalism in high school and at the age of 17, he worked with Life Magazine to cover the Guatemalan Civil War. He worked at United Press International (UPI) for 15 years after attending Haverford College. He has dedicated his life to photography and has created some great pieces of work.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13057,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dirck Halstead (1936-2022) was a photojournalist, editor, and publisher of <em>The Digital Journalist</em>. Halstead started photojournalism in high school and at the age of 17, he worked with <em>Life</em> magazine to cover the Guatemalan Civil War. He worked at United Press International (UPI) for 15 years after attending Haverford College. He has dedicated his life to photography and has created some great pieces of work.</span> Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-11-14 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.124a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.124b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 118:45 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/fb73de6633a9963320ac3615bed66213.jpeg 3b9f7684f0aa08c85ee33747fbb05dd6 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/97d2036245cef32521bc2276bfca6d02.mp3 ab112ae52c0af1fd7167dabd3f68e0ba Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2022-10-27 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Don Lattin Biographical Text Don Lattin is a journalist, educator, consultant, and award-winning author. Lattin published six books, including The Harvard Psychedelic Club and Changing Our Minds: Psychedelic Sacraments and the New Psychotherapy. His work has appeared in many magazines and newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle where he worked as a staff writer. Lattin has been a commentator for numerous television news shows, including Dateline NBC, PrimeTime Live, Good Morning America, Nightline, and Anderson Cooper 360. He specializes in religion, spirituality, and psychology. Lattin also taught as an adjunct faculty member at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley where he earned a Bachelor's degree in Sociology. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1:27:05 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Digital file Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords Psychedelic; Harvard; Book; Drugs; LSD; 60s;&nbsp; Psychedelic experience; Psilocybin; Berkeley University; Counterculture; Talk. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Don Lattin Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Lynn Bijou Date of interview: 27 October 2022 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) DL: 00:00 Six books and they all have something to do with (19)60s, you know, I am kind of fascinated by that era, too. SM: 00:07 Yeah, well, you just wrote one heck of a book. I-I just love it. DL: 00:12 Thank you. That is the one, that is the one that did, did well in terms of sales and all that. SM: 00:18 Well, what, I think I am going to start out the interview. I am interviewing Don Lattin who was the author of, "The Harvard Psychedelic Club." It is how Timothy Leary, Rahm Das, Houston Smith, and Andrew wild killed the (19)50s and ushered in a new age for America. And this is, I am really excited about doing this interview today. Don, I would like you to first start off with a ton about your background. Please describe your early years. Your growing up, where you grew up, your parents' background, your schooling, from high school and college before you became a writer. DL: 00:51 Okay, well, I was born in Suffern, New York, a little town just across the New Jersey border, northern New Jersey border, in the fall of 1953. So, that actually demographically speaking, [chuckles] Steven puts me Smack dab in the middle of the baby boom generation. And, my father was a, kind of a frustrated actor who had to get a job as a salesman to support his family working for Lipton tea, at Thomas J. Lipton Incorporated, and another was your typical (19)60s, (19)50s-(19)60s housewife. My mother was Jewish, and my father was kind of a lukewarm Presbyterian. So, I was, I was raised in the Presbyterian and United Church of Christ, kind of very lukewarm, kind of Protestant upbringing. When I was 12, my father said, "Do you want to keep going to church?" I said, "No," and he said, "Good, and then we do not have to take you anymore." [laughter] So, that was my, that was my religious upbringing. SM: 02:04 Oh wow. DL: 02:05 It was not very serious, but yeah, it was the 1950s and the early (19)60s, when you know, if you did not go to church, you were suspected of being a communist or something. So, but that was my religious upbringing, such as it was. So, I kind of bounced across the country as a child. I lived only for my first three years in New Jersey. And then we moved to Ohio. And I was there for about three or four years. Then we moved to Colorado, outside of Denver, I was there for about four more years, and then we moved to Southern California. I was in junior high school, and spent the rest of my time at home living in Southern California. And, so I went to public school, and I mean, my parents, it was not a particularly happy marriage, I actually write about it quite a bit in one of my other books called, "Distilled Spirits," which is a group biography with three other guys and kind of a recovery memoir. And I write about, you know, my upbringing quite a bit in that book. But it was not a happy marriage for various reasons. I had a brother who died in a tragic accident before I was born, I was what they call a "bereavement baby," I was born 10 months later to replace him. And my, it was a default of the car, my mother was driving, my brother, whose name was Alan and died. And my father basically never forgave my mother for this accident. And, the marriage kind of did not survive that. They stayed together till I was 12, but then they got divorced. So that was, you know, major, major kind of trauma in my childhood, you know, a lot of arguing with my family, and then the divorce was very bitter and left me, you know, feeling kind of alienated and not too much of a believer in the traditional family values [laughs] of America, questioning a lot of that. So, that was that and you know, I started experimenting with drugs and alcohol at a fairly young age, you know, probably around 12. Kind of around the time of my parents’ divorce, I am not sure how much that had to do with it, you know, probably contributed to it a bit. I got in some trouble in high school, marijuana and other drugs. And, but I, you know, always did fairly well in school. I was pretty good student. And I got accepted to go to UC Berkeley, in the fall of 1972. So, I moved up from Southern California, to Berkeley, basically, technically, the day after high school graduation and kind of never looked back, you know, I kind of wanted to get away from what was left of my family. And, and spent four years at Berkeley except for one year I studied abroad in England. So, I went to school at the University of Birmingham, in England, for my junior year, and kind of bummed around Europe, went down to Morocco, you know, kind of, did not do, did not do a lot of studying that year, [laughter] mostly just bombing around Europe. But somehow, I managed to get an undergraduate degree in sociology at UC Berkeley in (19)76. I say my real education was really working at the "Daily Californian," the off-campus student newspaper, which actually had just gone off campus, because of the anniversary of the People's Park riots in Berkeley. The editors at the Daily Cal said, "Let usretake the park," and there was a riot and one guy was killed. And, the university tried to fire the editors of the newspaper. And, they did not, because of the year before I was there, but we, they, they did not agree. And they kind of marched off campus and kept publishing the paper. But, we were basically separate from the university and worked out an agreement with the University. So, it was a really interesting time to be a journalist, then, you know, and it was not your typical college newspaper, because we were, you know, had to survive, you know, financially on our own. And we were also sort of became the paper for the city of Berkeley covering, you know, Berkeley news, what was going on politically, in terms of local politics in Berkeley, then, that was really interesting. And so, I did a lot of writing about, you know, the new left, and politics, and, and drugs, and covered various things like rent control, you know, lobbying campaigns, Berkeley marijuana initiative. Berkeley was the first city to decriminalize marijuana, and I wrote a lot about that. And, and also do a lot of experimentation with psychedelic drugs, which I read about a bit at the end of Harvard Psychedelic Club. [crosstalk] Did you have any interaction with anybody from the free speech movement? That was, what, way before your time in (19)64-(19)65? But, they used to have a lot of remembrances going back to the. Yeah, well, that was, that was, that was in the air. But yeah, that was (19)64. So, you know, that was like, you know, eight years earlier, right. And it is almost like, seemed like another era in some, some ways, you know. I mean, by the time I got to the Bay Area in (19)72, you know, I sort of always wished that I could have been there about, you know, six or seven years earlier, right. [chuckles] In the, the mid (19)60s, and kind of a more hopeful, idealistic era of what we call the (19)60s, you know. SM: 07:58 Did you ever- DL: 07:59 (19)70, by (19)72, you know, there was a much harder edge to the whole scene, you were there, you remember. SM: 08:04 Yep. Yep-yep. DL: 08:04 The drugs were different and it was just a different feeling. I mean, I think a lot of the hope, and the idealism was already gone. You know, and I was always, I fell in with an older group of people, friends, like I was, you know, so I was what I was looking at, in early 20, early 20s. And I fell in with a group of people who were about 15 years older than me, became my best friends for life. You know, and they had, they were mostly people who had come to San Francisco, you know, when you, some, during the beatnik era, the end of the beatnik era and the beginning of the hippie era, like the early 1960s. And they became, became my kind of tribe and my friends, and I was kind of a kid, right. I was, like, 15 years younger. And, and I was, I was kind of trying to keep the party, you know, a lot. [laughter] And they were, they were starting to get older, you know, settle down and have kids and all that. SM: 08:12 I think that (19)72 here was also the period, I think the Angela Davis trial was happening around that time. DL: 09:06 Yeah, that was going on. [crosstalk] The Vietnam War was, was winding down, right. So, the anti, there was a little, it was the tail end of the anti-war movement. There was a lot of, the Angela Davis, the whole, you know, ethnic studies was a big issue, you know, the various liberation movements, you know, African American, we used to say Chicano, you know, though, and, of course, the sexual revolution, and, you know, the gay rights thing was just kind of getting going. So, there were a lot of, you know, liberation movements going on. I mean, on terms of that the campus like one of the big issues then, were there was this debate over the criminology school which had a, kind of, several Marxist professors and they were challenging the whole, some of the ideas. They were, they were not training, you know, law enforcement officers. They were critiquing, you know, law enforcement in America. So there- SM: 10:03 Right. DL: 10:03 -were a lot of big controversies around the criminology school and cracking down on some of the leftist teachers there. So that was, that was a big issue in ethnic studies, that sort of thing. SM: 10:16 Chris Reagan was governor, I believe at that time. DL: 10:18 Reagan was governor. Yeah, you know, there was still, you know, there was still some protests, I did get tear gassed once, you know, [laughs] demonstration. So, that was still going on. But it was nothing like earlier in the, in the late (19)60s, then it kind of, then it kind of died down a bit. SM: 10:23 Did you ever, and we were going to get back into the Harvard Psychedelic Club, did you ever do articles on the Black Panthers? Because they were becoming very big at that time. DL: 10:45 Yeah, they definitely were. That was all going on in Oakland, you know, right next to Berkeley. No, I did not really write too much about the, the Panthers. There are a lot of stories about, remember the Bakke decision? SM: 11:01 Oh, yeah, that was big. DL: 11:02 The controversies about affirmative action. SM: 11:04 Oh, yes. DL: 11:05 That was a, that was a big, that was a big issue. I was also the editorial page editor at, "The Daily Cowl." So, I was involved in editorials around a lot of those, those issues. SM: 11:16 Wow. Okay. Before, I am going to talk about, before we talk about the actual book, was the afterword in the book. It, where you asked yourself, "Why am I writing a book about four people- DL: 11:32 Right. SM: 11:33 -who are involved in drugs? And you talk about on a few pages, your experience, when you were a freshman going to Big Sur? Could you talk about that? DL: 11:43 Sure, sure. Yeah. So, you know, I think I first experimented with LSD in high school, I did it, I do not know, three or four times. I never had, you know, kind of a full-blown mystical experience. Maybe it was something to do with the dose, or the set, or the setting, you know, which is always important. So, I, but when I got to Berkeley, and I actually came in the summer of (19)72. And I had, it was really my first girlfriend in college, her name, Julia, and we had just met, and we both lived in this, the high-rise dorms on the south side of campus. And we ran this experimental program called Hearts Technology and Society, which was, it was kind of the height of that whole, like, a University Without Walls, you know, alternative education movement. Right. SM: 12:41 Right. DL: 12:42 And the idea was that, you, it was for freshmen, and you would live in a dorm with your instructors who were mostly, you know, graduate students and teaching assistants. And, basically, study arts and we had like, video cameras were a new thing. We had some video cameras, we were playing around with those, music and, you know, critiquing society, and it was a very open-ended program, where there were no grades, and there was no kind of, you hung out with your instructors. And in some ways that, also it was kind of a big party. There was a lot of drug taking going on. And then, we lasted one-year university kind of got what was going on and canceled the program. [laughter] Everybody got, everybody, it was like, everybody got A's, which made them suspicious. SM: 13:36 Oh yeah. [laughter] DL: 13:36 So, the university, they could not take the credit away, but they wound up making it so you could not apply the credit to hardly anything, right. So, it was like a whole, basically a whole year of college where it was great for my grade point average, but I could not really apply it much, much to a major. But, so that was, that was kind of environment. You know, it was alternative education. It was like questioning everything, you know, and, and so my girlfriend and I went down. So, this was sometime before Thanksgiving. So, it was fairly early in the school year, we had some blotter, acid, some LSD which we took down to Big Sir, drove down in my 1965 Mustang. And we, we were, you know, camped on a bluff overlooking the Big Sir coast. It is fantastic stretches of coastline, you know, south of Monterey. And anyway, we just had this amazing experience where we kind of melted together and became like one being, and kind of read each other's minds and started out you know, just feeling totally out of love with nature and the environment around us. And it was, you know, it was really turned into what I would call a, full blown mystical experience where, you know, just like white light and coming together as one thing, and it was just the most amazing experience I have ever had. I mean, I just, it just blew me away with this question. My whole idea of what, what, what is reality? What is consciousness? What is what is, what is, what is, what, where, where does my body stop and the rest of the world start? All those, all those boundaries are just kind of blown away. And it was just a beautiful, beautiful experience. And, you know, in my naive, you know, 18-19-year-old mind, I thought, "Well, that is it that this is true love, I found my soulmate, you know, we will be together for the rest of our lives. This is what it means to become in one with someone," and, and we had that experience and went back to school. And then for, for a week or two after that, or actually for about a month, month after that every time we touched. Yeah, we do, do the acid, we were not trippy anymore. But, every time we touched, we physically melt together. It is this amazing thing. It just continued. So, you know, I, I thought that was it. You know, this, she's my soulmate. And I do not know a month or two after that we had another, another trip. In the woods, kind of a dark woods up in northern California. Turned out it was a, with another couple, it turns out it was a hunting lodge, [laughs] where we were actually staying at. So, we were out in the woods, and there were gunshots going off. SM: 16:40 [laughs] DL: 16:40 And they were kind of a lot of rednecks around and they set the setting. It was very important for an LSD trip. But this was like the worst setting- -you can imagine. And so, there was a lot of paranoia and fear. And I basically had another, I had a bad trip from central casting, you know, where I got paranoid, I felt very Small, I felt very alienated. I felt very scared, terrified that I was sort of disappearing or dying. It was very, very difficult, trip. And really, we were at this lodge where the boys and the men and women had to sleep in separate areas. So, I was not sleeping, was not with my girlfriend, hearing voices all night. And just, then after that, the next day, we kind of got an argument, and we roundup splitting up. So, and in some ways, I never completely came down from that trip for a couple of weeks, I would have what we used to call flashbacks. Which I used to think we were just anti-drug propaganda because there was so much ridiculous, you know, anti-drug propaganda, you know, during that era. But this case, flashbacks, they, they can happen, and they do happen with people. So, for a few weeks, maybe even a month or two, I cannot remember exactly after that. I would have these flashbacks, which were very terrifying because I, did not really know what was real. I mean, I, I stopped driving because I was not sure if lights were red or green. And I had a very difficult period, I could not read, I could not concentrate at all. SM: 16:48 [laughs] Wow. DL: 18:19 You know, it was first year student at Cal, it was not, as I said, it was not a rigorous academic program that I was in [laughter]. But I still had to do some reading, right? SM: 18:26 Right. DL: 18:28 I mean, you know, one sentence, I just, I would hit a word and I would go off on a tangent, I had no-no ability to concentrate. And you know, and looking back on it, it was you know, I mean, you would probably call it a psychotic break, right. And if I would have, probably if I would have, and but I was very scared about telling anybody what was going on because I was afraid, I would be you know, locked up in a mental hospital or something and back then that is probably what would have happened. So, I kept it to myself for the most part and struggled with it. And it was a really difficult period, came out of it in a few months. And I think that came out in the long run kind of saner than I went in. I see the other side, right, of sanity, but it was a really difficult period. So, so I mentioned, and I write about it because those two experiences left, left me both, you know, fascinated and, very frightened about the power and the potential of psychedelics. And I, you know, and so for a long time I, not for a long time but for a few, for at least six months or so I did not do any drugs, no marijuana, no alcohol, nothing. Eventually got back into psychedelics, but so yeah, and I looking back on that I used to see it as kind of a good trip and a bad trip. But I actually kind of see it now is kind of one thing, kind of a, growth process, or a process of individuation. You know, I see the whole thing kind of as one event now rather than a good trip and a bad trip. SM: 20:01 That is a, that is a good way, that is a good way to get into talking about the Harvard Psychedelic Club. Could you, what was the Harvard Psychedelic Club? And of course, it is, it is really about four people. And if you could- DL: 20:16 Yeah, well, yeah. SM: 20:18 -you go ahead and [crosstalk] say who those people were? DL: 20:21 Yeah, okay. Well, the Harvard Psychedelic Club, was, there was, there was nothing actually called the Harvard Psychedelic Club. That is just a, a title for my book. And kind of my, my shorthand way of describing it. What I was writing about was something, it was called the Harvard Psilocybin Project. And later, the Harvard Psychedelic Project, which was a, some early research into looking for potential uses, and just understanding the psychedelic experience, with either psilocybin, which was synthesized psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, and then later LSD. And so, the Harvard Psychedelic Club, is a book about four individuals who crossed paths at Harvard in the fall of 1960, which was a really interesting and kind of pivotal time, both at Harvard and in the country. And the, John F. Kennedy, who had been a Harvard man who had just been elected President of the United States, and much, much, much of the hope and the optimism of the (19)60s was kind of personified in Kennedy, and [inaudible] running for president, and then winning over Richard Nixon, in 1960. So that was kind of a backdrop. Anyway, the four individuals in the book are Timothy Larry, who was a lecturer in clinical psychology at Berkeley, one of his colleagues, Richard Alpert, who was an assistant professor in social psychology, clinical psychology in Harvard. And the, the third person in the book is Houston Smith, who was already a renowned scholar of world religions. He already had a show on the early public television network, before PBS, but early public television network about the world's religions, Houston Smith, he was not actually at Harvard, he was teaching, nearby MIT, but it was very close to the Harvard Cooke group. And then the fourth character in that book is Andrew Weil, who was a bit younger, all four of these guys are kind of pre-baby boom themselves. But Weil, Weil was a, was a, was a bit younger, he was a freshman, brilliant, very ambitious freshman at Harvard. So, the book looks at, it is, the book is a group biography of these four guys, how they crossed paths at Harvard, and kind of, what happened with this grand experiment in psychedelic research at Harvard. And in 1960, which resulted in Larry and Alpert being kicked out of the university and going on to become kind of the pied pipers of the psychedelic counterculture in the mid-1960s. [crosstalk] Go ahead. SM: 23:20 These four are so historic in so many ways, and it is almost like the perfect storm, you know, the, how they all ended up together in some way over that period between (19)60 and (19)63. And, and you do a really good job of giving us a little brief description of each of their backgrounds prior to Harvard. Could you talk a little bit about Leary and Alpert and Smith and while, it, before they get to Harvard, because I think it is important that you get a feel for who they are even before they get there. DL: 23:55 Yeah-yeah. Well, I mean, Leary, you know, who became a very divisive figure, you know, Richard Nixon called the most, he would later call him, in the decade, would call him the most dangerous man in America and helped fuel a backlash against, certainly against psychedelics, or specifically against psychedelic research in university settings. But anyway, before. So, Leary was already, he was a rising star in clinical psychology. He had written a, in the 1950s, he had written a book about, he was an expert in personality assessment. And, he had written a very well received, kind of award-winning book, which stayed in print for many-many, many years longer than later books about psychedelics. So, he was, you know, he was kind of a rising star in psychology in the post war era. But even before he first experienced psychedelics, which was on a halt on a vacation in Mexico, in the summer of 1960, when he first took magic mushrooms. But even before that he was questioning, you know, the conventional wisdom in psychology and psychiatry, he did not think talk therapy was really effective. He was doing a fairly radical critique of the power dynamics between, you know, like patient and doctor, and researcher and research subject in like a, psychological testing. So, he was, he was kind of radical in some ways and kind of questioning authority even before he had his psychedelic trip, which totally transformed him and convinced him that psychedelics were going to not only change psychology, but change the world. So that was kind of his background. And Alpert, Richard Alpert grew up in a fairly wealthy Jewish family in Boston. [inaudible] was, helped found Brandeis University. And, so, kind of a railroad executive, lawyer, very pretty, rough, really successful guy. And so, Alpert grew up in this family, he was very bright, very charismatic, young, ambitious. Kind of on the fast track, kind of on tenure track at-at Harvard, much more, you know, identified with the Harvard CNN delivery ever was, where he was just actually on a three-year kind of temporary contract with Harvard. But Alpert was, was on tenure track. And very brilliant-brilliant authority. He was very charismatic, great lecturer, he is very popular with the students. And he was, he was also struggling with his sexuality. He was basically a gay man in the closet you know, and struggling with that, some of that would have something to do with how he got in trouble later on at Harvard. S, that was basically Alpert's background. Houston Smith, you know, was a child of Methodist missionaries, he was born and grew up in, in China. And, so was exposed, you know, grew up, you know, in a hoarder culture, and climate, and came to the States, thinking he would be in a training, become a minister, which he did, he was a, became ordained Methodist minister, but he was more interested in teaching than in preaching, and really became one of the early authority on world religions. And, he wrote a book called, "The Religions Of," was originally called, "The Religions of Man," and later called "The World's Religions," which for many years, maybe still is used as a textbook, you know, in comparative religion. And, but he has never really had a mystical experience himself. And he had been reading about psychedelics and he would read, you know, of course, Aldous Huxley wrote a book published in 1554, about the doors of perception. And so, Houston actually had sought out Aldous Huxley and became friends with Aldous Huxley, and had something to do with Huxley coming to MIT to deliver some guest lectures at this very same time, right- SM: 23:58 Wow. DL: 24:36 -in the fall of 1960. So, that was the other sort of piece of the puzzle. I mean, Aldous Huxley, who at the time, you know, was probably one of the best known, you know, writers in English language, right, and public intellectual and towards the end of his career. So, Huxley was kind of part of the mix. And this, this was at Harvard, and MIT too. And, and Andy Weil was, you know, he was just a very-very, very bright, ambitious freshman who was interested in, he grew up in. Well, you know, it has been like 12 or 13-14 years since I did, reporting on this book. I cannot remember anything, but I think he grew up in Philadelphia. SM: 29:16 Yep, he did. Yep. DL: 29:17 Yeah. Yeah. What is on the top of my head right now? [laughs] But yeah, he grew up in Philadelphia, I think his parents ran a millinery shop. He, just a really bright, young bright kid, and was interested in-in psychedelic research and tried to get involved with the, the Harvard Psilocybin Project and we can talk about that if you want but that is kind of, that story in the book. [crosstalk] And, and went on to go to medical school and become a real leader in the holistic health and integrative- SM: 29:50 Right. DL: 29:50 -medicine scene. But, but so yeah, he was, he was, I do not know like 10-15 years younger than these guys. SM: 29:59 Can you discuss what happened in that period, (19)60s, (19)63? I know that, Alpert and Leary had a home off campus. And, that is where the, you know, they, they would have the experimentations with drugs, with the, I guess, the mushrooms and then eventually LSD, could, could you describe, like you do so well in the book itself, it, well who they were trying to reach, they were not trying to reach undergraduate students, which was not, they would never be allowed to do that. And according to Harvard, but graduate students- DL: 30:39 Right. SM: 30:39 -or people off, that are not students, or could you talk about the whole process where people came to their home? And they had to, you know, have, they would be there themselves and guide them through a trip and just, just that kind of information? DL: 30:57 Okay, right. Well, there were, what was, what was called the Harbin Psilocybin Project, there are a couple of different aspects to it. I mean, there were really two kind of formal studies, research projects that came out of that. One was called the Concord Prison Project, which was giving psilocybin to prisoners, along with some kind of support and therapy, mostly with graduate students working with the, the prisoners to see if they could reduce recidivism rates. Psychedelic therapy, could reduce recidivism rates. But again, this what was very radical about that was not that they were using prisoners for drug tests, that was actually done quite a bit in some very unethical ways, with other drugs in that era, but what was interesting about that is, you know, something that the graduate students would trip with the prisoners, they would experience this, this psychedelic state together, or sometimes the prisoners would sit as guides and the graduate students would be taking the drugs, right. [chuckles] And so that, that was in line with Leary's kind of radical critique of power dynamics between research subjects and, and, and you know, and, and, and researchers or between patient and doctor, right, so, so that was an interest. So, that was one thing. And then there was another thing called the Good Friday experiment, which I can talk about if you want later. So that was, those were the two kind of formal sort of studies that came out of this, this project. But, but the other thing, and in some ways, the main thing that Leary was doing, and Alpert was doing, is they were just basically doing kind of basic research, I guess, you could say, in terms of psychedelics, and they would give, first it was psilocybin or the synthesized psilocybin, they were actually taking mushrooms, so it is like the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. So, they would give these to graduate students, but also to like, they are interested in giving it to artists, you know, painters, musicians, philosophers, other professors, you know, basically anybody who would agree to come over to, you know, Leary's house and have an experience, you know, four or five hour experience on, on psilocybin, and then write up, you know, reports about their experiences. So, it is kind of just raw research into, you know, people describing what happens in a psychedelic experience. And then, you know, and they were also interested in seeing if it could, you know, spawn that creativity among musicians or artists or, so all kinds of people, you know, famous jazz, semi famous jazz musician showed up and people like, you know, Allen Ginsberg, who was, you know, very well known, the beat poet. Folks like that kind of showed up. And, you know, in some ways, this, lot of times these research sessions kind of seemed more like parties [chuckles] than the research, you know. There was a lot of that going on. And, the, Leary and Alpert had agreed to not let undergraduates participate in this, because there are some dangerous psychological dangers as evidenced by the story I told, right. They are taking these substances. They had agreed to not let undergraduates participate. Andy Weil was an undergraduate and he had a friend and a dorm mate named Ron Winston who was the son of a famous jewelry, ran a jewelry business and, Alpert admitted that he also had kind of a romantic attraction to Ronnie Winston and well, they did not formally bring him in to the Harvard Psilocybin Project. Privately, you know, he would- gave, gave Ronnie Winston, psychedelics and kind of led him on some trips and got in trouble for that, right. [crosstalk] SM: 34:20 Yep. Yeah, go ahead. Yep. DL: 35:07 Yeah. And so, Andy Weil had also, Andrew Weil had also wanted to be part of this and was told that he could not. So, there was some jealousy I think involved with, you know, why did Ronnie Winston get to participate in this and not him. And so, Andy Weil was working as a reporter for the Harvard Crimson, the Harvard student newspaper and wound up doing an exposé about Leary. And Alpert had violated their agreement with the University by giving drugs to undergraduates and convinced, in a, fairly underhanded way to convince Ronnie Winston to kind of rat out Richard Alpert, and that-that was the-the incident that got them kicked out of Harvard. But there was a lot of wild stuff going on, you know, a lot of, you know, fairly, I do not know how to characterize it, just kind of fast and loose, was not, it was not a buttoned-down research project by any means. SM: 36:13 I know during those three years that they had their critics on the faculty too, that, there were some well-known names. I think one of them was B.F. Skinner, I think, the well-known names of people that I can remember in the (19)60s and (19)70s, who wrote books, you know, on psychology. DL: 36:31 Yeah, there was a lot of professional, you know, there was a lot of professional jealousy, I think in the, the departments, it was the psychology department. And there is this, their department was, I think called social relations, kind of a social psychology department. And yeah, there was a battle kind of between the behavioral, behaviorists who, Skinner was the leading behaviorists, and other in the Freudians. And then, there was also this whole kind of humanistic psychology was just kind of getting going, right. You there? SM: 37:05 Yes, several-several of the editors over a period of time had been writing articles on this, the, on Leary and Alpert too, even before Weil got there, I believe. And then he, he got into that position and, and one of the things that needs to be known to and, and you bring it up throughout the book or toward the end as well, that, the Harvard administration used Weil as kind of a spy. DL: 37:39 Yeah, well, what happened was, what happened was, they, none of the, there were several undergraduates, I think, who had been, had been given the drugs but, none of them wanted to really, you know, come out and sort of testify against Leary and Alpert because they, they were favor what they were doing. And, and Ronnie Winston, the way Andy Weil got Ronnie Winston to come forward is he, they went to Ronnie Winston's father, his name is Harry Winston who ran this, it was a benefit, I think a university benefactor and you know, fairly prominent businessman and [inaudible]. Anyway, he, they-they basically went-went to Ronnie Winston's father and said, "Your son is taking these, you know, dangerous drugs. And if he does not, if he does not, you know, admit this to the university administration, we are going to name him in the newspaper article," [laughs]. So, in order, and so Harry Winston, his father convinced him to, you know, basically tell the university administration what-what had gone on, he was given drugs by Professor Alpert. And that-that was, how they, you know, cut the goods on-on Alpert. And that was the one particular incident which where they can sort of pin down and use to expel them from the university. But, they were looking for a reason. I mean, and actually, you know, Leary and Alpert, were already ready to move on. I think they needed a bigger stage. And they certainly got, they certainly got one, you know, after they left Harvard, there was a lot of publicity about this, you know, the Harvard drug scandal that was page one of the New York Times, but it was really Andy Weil's story in the Harvard Crimson that started the whole thing, you know. Then, a day or two later, on-on the front page of The New York Times and anywhere with a big article, big exposé, or like magazine, even mentioning, you know, sort of rumors about heterosexual and homosexual affairs, you know, so there was some pretty vicious stuff [chuckles] put out there to get rid of them, to bring them down. Of course, they were not brought down they just moved on and, and became national figures and leaders in the, in the psychedelic counterculture of the (19)60s. SM: 39:59 I know as years went on Weil kind of, felt kind of guilty for what he did, because [crosstalk] DL: 40:08 I mean, he really, you know, the other thing is that through Andy Weil was also, doing, he, he started his own little drug, drug research project in the dorm with other people at this time, he was able to like use some, actually use some Harvard stationery and forged letters to send those labs and got some psilocybin sent to him. And, he's trying to sort of do his own version of, of psychedelic research with his friends in the dorm. So, none of which, of course, he mentions in the article that he wrote, [laughs] which brought down Leary and Alpert. So, yeah, later on in the (19)60s, Andy Weil became, you know, kind of the go to guy on, kind of understanding the psychedelic experience and wrote a book called, " The Natural Mind," about drugs, and human consciousness, and kind of, in some ways, replaced them for a while and kind of the go to guy for the straight story, you know, on what drugs really do and what the, benefits could be, and not exaggerating the dangers. And, you know, he was, he felt very bad about the way he handled the whole thing and sought forgiveness for many years from Leary and Albert. Leary forgave him, Alpert, it took a long time. But in the end, Alpert finally did forgive him for what he did. But, he was very bitter about it for many years. SM: 41:34 This kind of crisis, between (19)60 and (19)63, with Leary and Alpert was not something that Harvard had not seen before. You talk also about the Brook Farm situation, 120 years earlier with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. DL: 41:55 Yeah-yeah. SM: 41:58 And-and, and Emerson was kicked out of, kicked out as well. So, you, any, could you discuss that a little bit if you remember it? DL: 42:06 You know, I do not remember the details to tell you the truth. I am sorry, on that. I have to go back and look at the, look at the book. But Emerson was, was kicked out of Harvard, and Leary often would cite that, you know, as he is in such good standing right, [laughs] in the tradition of Emerson. But, but you know, I am sorry, at the top of my head, I cannot remember the details of what happened. SM: 42:30 What happened after they left? Where did Leary go? Where did Alpert go? And, and, of course, Weil, would continue his education at Harvard. DL: 42:43 Yeah, well, right after they got kicked out of Harvard, they were already had been setting up a kind of a research center or, another party headquarters [chuckles] down in Mexico, in a place called, [inaudible], in the coast of Mexico. And so, they, they just basically continued doing their research and experimenting with psychedelics of various kinds. By this time, LSD was brought into the, had been brought into the mix. So, they were inviting people down to Mexico, and it was the same thing, you know, artists, philosophers, you know, students, academics, were coming down there, psychologists to participate in these sessions, psychedelic sessions and writing up reports and all that. They very quickly got kicked out of there. They bounced around, there were a couple of places in the Caribbean, they tried to set up and eventually a few years later wound up at a place called Millbrook in upstate New York, an old beautiful estate, a mansion where they set up shop and basically continued their psychedelic experimentation research there for, for a few years into the mid, mid (19)60s. SM: 44:07 Yeah, and- DL: 44:08 Leary and Albert were above them. SM: 44:09 -I think they were getting funding from the Andrew Mellon Foundation, or I think one of the, some group was helping them pay for the- DL: 44:20 I am not sure what that is. [crosstalk] Well, it was. Yeah. So, there was a woman named Peggy Hitchcock- You put, you put little character descriptions for each of the four throughout the book, which I really liked. You called Timothy Leary, the trickster, Ram Dass was the seeker, and Houston Smith, the teacher, and Andrew Weil, the healer. -who was a supporter, and she was, one of the, an heiress of the melon fortune. And, and she had a brother named Billy Hitchcock. There are a couple of Hitchcock brothers, any, the, the Hitchcocks had this estate, which they were not using, and they basically just kind of turned it over to Leary and Alpert for a few years, and let them use this, use this beautiful estate. And, you know, the government was still after them. One of the funny ones, J. Gordon Liddy, who would become famous later as one of the Watergate burglar masterminds was a local D.A. in this county in New York and, he was going after Leary and Alpert, they were still on surveillance, and police raids. And you know, Leary by this time, Leary was notorious, so everywhere he went, the government was after him. And, eventually he busted going across the border from Mexico with a tiny little bit of marijuana, which he claims was planted on him and wound up going to prison. That is another part of the story that we can get into if you want to, but, but, you know Leary, by this time had become just notorious. And, and also kind of reveling in his notoriety. You know, he was a real, was a real, I call him a trickster. SM: 44:25 -right. DL: 46:02 Yeah, kind of the archetypal kind of, you know, role that they, that they took on to kind of explain, but. I wondered as I called Alpert the seeker is, you know, he was always, he never really came off as like, you know, all knowing guru or something. You know, he was just another kind of, seeker like so many of us, you know, in that era, we had, of course, you know, gone to India after, well, I mean, so you asked me what happened with them after Harvard, I mean, and after Millbrook. You know, Leary, well they both sort of showed up in San Francisco, you know, for the whole. So, while, there was this whole other scene going out on San Francisco in the early to mid (19)60s, psychedelic revival, you know, with a Grateful Dead, [inaudible] and the Merry Pranksters, you know, Alan Watts, and other things going on out here. In some ways, the scene in San Francisco was much wilder than what was going on in, back in Boston at Harvard. And so, the, the real focus, you know, shifted in like, (19)65-(19)66, out to San Francisco, which was kind of Mecca, for the whole psychedelic counterculture, fueled by the Grateful Dead and that is the whole scene here, the Jefferson Airplane, psychedelic rock, coming of age and the concerts and so, Alpert was out here for a while. He was a big part of that scene. And then went off to India, famously, and became a devotee of a guru named Neem Karoli Baba and became a spiritual teacher, reincarnated themselves as Ram Dass, came back and was very influential in helping, I think people of my generation, you know, kind of make sense of the psychedelic experience, put it in another context, maybe finding you know, kinder, gentler ways to explore their consciousness through say meditation or other spiritual practices, not never, never really renouncing psychedelics or denouncing psychedelics, but maturing and the spiritual search around that. See, that this particular period, is also that period of that you call the tidal wave that was coming, all these people come from all over the country to San Francisco. And, "Are you going to San Francisco," was a very popular song at that time, all on the radio. [sings] And if you go to San Francisco, to be sure to wear flowers in your hair. SM: 48:34 That tidal wave was, a lot of them from the East Coast. DL: 48:37 It was from all over, yeah. SM: 48:39 (19)65 and (19)68. DL: 48:40 Yeah it was eventful. SM: 48:40 What were some of the, I know there were a lot of big events that happened at that, during that, there was a bee-in, there was the trip festival, there was a love pageant rally, I am thinking and then many other things. I know that Alpert also went to work on the Oracle. And he was a writer or among the editors. DL: 49:01 Yeah, he wrote some articles in the Oracle, which was really one of the first, you know, was, underground newspapers. Yeah, they were, I mean, it really began with Ken Kesey, you know, who, Ken Kesey was a, a very well known, young, successful novelist at the time. He wrote two books, "Sometimes a Great Notion," and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," And, so he's, really up and coming writer, and then he, he was exposed to LSD by volunteering in a research project. I think it was at a VA hospital, that Administration Hospital in Menlo Park, which was, turned out later was secretly funded by the CIA, which was doing their own research about psychedelics. [laughter] So, talk about blowback, right? SM: 49:59 [laughs] DL: 49:59 I mean, they did not know what they were getting into and they turned on Kevin Kesey, so, Ken Kesey. [laughs] So Kesey, started this group called, they started having these events called acid tests. And I think this began when was, like I said been awhile since I wrote this but, like (19)63-(19)64 when the first acid tests where they basically had, you know, kind of parties and they put the acid in the punch, and a lot of dancing, and kind of carrying on, and very revelatory, celebratory atmosphere. And so, there were series of these acid tests, which got, which moved up into San Francisco and got bigger and bigger. So, there was that and then there was something called the Trips Festival. There was the human being in Golden Gate Park, which was when Leary I think famously uttered his mantra "Turn on, tune in, drop out." SM: 50:14 Yep. DL: 50:14 So, you know, that was an event in Golden Gate Park with Allen Ginsberg, and Alpert, and Schneider a lot of the beat poets, and of course out of San Francisco bands, Aeroplan, Grateful Dead, they were all playing there. Yeah so that was, and that was (19)66-(19)67. A lot of people were already kind of saying, "Well, it is time to move on." There was something called the, "Death of the Hippie," they had a big, sort of, a march, {inaudible] are enough, because the hippie thing, and trying to become the media, and you know the media had discovered this, right. SM: 50:14 Right. DL: 50:17 But by the-the time that song came out, "If you Come to San Francisco," you know, I mean, a lot of people were already saying it is time to move on, you know, the scene was just getting too crazy and too crowded. And, and the drugs were changing. People were, you know, getting into speed, and heroin, and more harder, dangerous drugs and- SM: 51:55 Yeah, the 19- the 1967, Summer of Love, the next year in (19)68 was a disaster. DL: 52:01 Yeah-yeah. SM: 52:03 And- DL: 52:04 I mean, that was a bit before my time, but you know, yeah. And then, you know, of course, there was, but you know, it was. I do not know, it is hard to say exactly. It all depends on what particular scene you were in, right. I mean, where you were in all this. I mean, when I came in (19)72, it still seemed pretty, some of it still seemed pretty cool, and still pretty, you know, hopeful. But you are talking to old timers, and "No, you should have been here in (19)66 man," you know. SM: 52:30 Well, you in, in the book, you talk about the interview that Leary had with Playboy Magazine. And there is two things that, I, that come out of that interview very clearly. They said, they asked him, "Who you are trying to make love with?" And he says "I am making, I want to make love with God, at the purpose of what I am doing. I want to make love with God, I want to make love with myself. And I want to make love with a woman." [laughs] DL: 52:54 Yeah. SM: 52:54 And then, and then he said, and then, I think Allen Ginsberg confronted him at a panel, and this, you described this, and because they, they were questioning some of the, one of the, some of the things he was saying whether everything was true or not. DL: 53:14 Oh, right. [chuckles] SM: 53:14 And Leary said, "One third of everything I say is bullshit. One third of everything I say is wrong. And the, and one third is, right. So that means it is like a baseball player. I am in the Hall of Fame," [laughs] DL: 53:29 Right? One third of like, brilliant gems of wisdom. Right? Yeah. That was Leary, I mean, you know, that that Playboy interview was, you know, notorious. And he was a, he was a trickster, right. I mean, he would just make shit up, you know. [chuckles] And he was, you know, giving an interview to Playboy, so, of course, he was going to talk a lot about sex. Well, there was a lot of, there was a lot of sex, and a lot of acting out in that whole scene, you know. But, yeah no, I love that, quote, you just started, recited from Leary. That really says it all, you know, he had a real sense of humor, you know, I mean, it was like that, that is kind of one of the things that you kind of miss from the (19)60s there was a sense of irony, and no one was taking ourselves too seriously. And it was all kind of a cosmic joke in some way. You know, there was a lightness to it, that, we do not have any more, political discourse. [crosstalk] There was you know, there was division, there was, people forget that (19)60s were very divisive time too, you know, but it was sort of the whole so called, "generation gap," right and all that. But I mean the divisiveness, it pales in comparison to what we are experiencing now, you know. SM: 53:33 Yes. [laughs] I know that, when Alpert became part of the, the Oracle, the, the- DL: 54:43 He wrote for, the I mean, he, he wrote for the Oracle- he was not like one of the, he did not found it or anything but, it was a guy, Alan Colin who started it and there was a collective started it, but yeah, he did, write, he did write some pieces for it. SM: 54:45 Right. You define the, the evolution of the Oracle it was, it was an idealistic exploration into the personal experience and social implication of mind-mind, I am, I cannot read my writing, mind expansion. And- DL: 55:11 Also, it was just a beauty, just technically it was, it was the whole psychedelic art scene, right. You know, these famous posters from that era. And this is all done, you know, before computers, this is all done by hand, you know, and this is beautiful artwork, very trippy artwork in the Oracle. It was just, you know, it was there was nothing like it [chuckles], it was not just the content. I mean, it started out, it is kind of more, of a political kind of focus, kind of a new, less political focus, but it became more, kind of the journal. And this, was a blossoming psychedelic culture. And just, just you go back and look at some of, the old editions. I mean, there's a, at some point somebody came out with, I think, Alan Colin, the founder of it, came out with a hardcover, facsimile edition, you know, reprint of all those Oracle's, I actually have, this beautiful, beautiful artwork, and just so you know, reminiscent of the time. SM: 56:07 This truly was, when you, when all these things you have been talking about was the Age of Aquarius, that were so, you know, we think of the fifth dimension singing that song and, and that really was the Age of Aquarius. And, you know, some of the things you know, were, eastern mystique, mysticism, utopian revolution, you bring up sexual liberation, the ecological awareness, even Native American spiritual. DL: 56:36 Right, all the different liberation movement in America {crosstalk] women, gay people, young people, it was all, you know, all liberation. Yeah, it was a very, you know, and a lot of this was not all fueled by psychedelics, but a lot of it was, you know, because when you on the psychedelic experience, you tend to like, and appreciate, let us just take the environmental movement, you know, I mean, obviously, there is a lot of other reasons for the [inaudible]. But a lot of people had experiences on psychedelics, where they really felt at one with nature and had a whole new way of looking at sort of nature, and themselves in, in a holistic way, right. So that was, that was, I think, fueling a lot of the interest in environmentalism. Like people think of the (19)60s counterculture as being protesting, and sort of being against everything. But, they were not just against everything. I mean, they were for civil rights. They were for environmental protection. You know, they were for sexual liberation, you know. In a lot of ways, it was a very hopeful movement, there was a lot of divisiveness, of course, but it was basically a lot of hope. SM: 57:46 Toward the latter part of the (19)60s, there was the, Time Magazine wrote an article on, the crisis in, with drugs in America and talking about the crisis of drugs in the (19)60s and the (19)70s. And but then, so there were there was also a crisis of drugs in the (19)50s and (19)80s. And you bring, bring it up in the, in the book. Alcoholism was a big crisis in the 1950s. And, and, and we have drugs today, so that, you know, but there was a lot of criticism of LSD. And what was happening at that time. You go into detail on it in, in your book. Could you talk a little bit about the press and half of the coverage of LSD in the late (19)60s? DL: 58:36 Yeah, well, you know, there was a lot, what people sort of forget is, let us go back a little bit, you know, in the 19- So, LSD was synthesized. It was this, this psychedelic, powerful psychedelic properties of LSD was discovered by Albert Hoffman, the Swiss chemist in 1943-1944. So soon after the war, Sandoz started sending out LSD to psychologists, academics, researchers all over the world. I mean, it, the-the rules were much looser than about you know, how to experiment and deal with new emerging drugs right, than they are now. But, so Sandoz was a chemical company was sending out LSD that people, anybody who would ask for it, basically with any kind of a credential. And basically, trying to, what can we, what can we use this drug for? And so, there was all kinds of research going on. First, they thought it well, it would be the way to understand the psychotic state because in some way the psychedelic experience can sort of mimic psychosis in some ways. So, there was a lot of research into that going on everywhere and looking for beneficial uses of the psychedelics. And so, there was a lot of work around using psychedelics to help treat, for instance, alcoholism in the 1950s, there are studies going on all over the world. And there was a lot of promising results in terms of using it for, to treat depression, alcoholism, things like that, trauma, along with, with psychotherapy. So, there was a lot of positive coverage of psychedelics, including the potential for generating mystical experiences in the 1950s, and 1960s. And it really was not until the drug became associated with the counterculture, and the anti-war movement, and the hippies, and the new left, and all that, that the government really sort of started targeting it. And, you know, the thing about drug prohibition, it is usually, it is not normally not about one particular drug, whether it is alcohol, tobacco, LSD, heroin, whatever, it is more about who's taking it, right. [chuckles] It is an attack on, on, on who's using it as much as on what the drug actually is or how dangerous it is. So, the Nixon administration basically determined that or decided that, well, one way, one way we can go after both the civil rights movement, and the counterculture, hippie, new left movement is to increase penalties of their, you know, their common pleasures, which were marijuana and psychedelics, right, because marijuana was, you know, very big in the African American community and along with other communities. But so, a lot of the, I think the so called, "drug war" of the (19)60s and (19)70s, was really a political war against certain groups in this country. And that is pretty clear now. And even some people in Nixon's administration later kind of totally admitted this. SM: 1:01:54 I think in 1966, it was still legal, LSD was still legal. And in the latter part, it was banned, I believe in California, and then in (19)68, was banned in the United States. DL: 1:02:09 Yeah, it was, it was sort of, it was, kind of, it was getting banned sort of state by state. And then there was something called the, "Controlled Substances, U.S. Controlled Substances Act," which was passed in 1970, which really increased penalties for a lot of drugs. And then these are, and that is the, for the most part still the case. People forget that marijuana under federal law, is still illegal, right. SM: 1:02:33 Right. DL: 1:02:33 I mean, Biden just recently, you know, pardoned, you know, some, some a lot of people but, but the law says that under federal law, marijuana is still a felony, right? So, it is right up there with heroin, right? So, the, the drug laws are just insane, right? There is, there is no sense to them at all. SM: 1:02:53 Some of the press was talking about the flashbacks, and people killing themselves, jumping off buildings, and I can remember back, I remember this because it was on black and white T.V., Art Link letter on one of his shows talking about his death of his daughter. I remember that. DL: 1:03:08 Right. SM: 1:03:08 I remember seeing it. DL: 1:03:09 Yeah no, that got a lot of attention, that got a lot of attention. And, he really went after Leary and he blamed Leary, you know. Yeah, so that is what happened, like the one incident, you know, who knows? Who knows whether, you know, LSD really caused his daughter to commit suicide, or what else was going on there? SM: 1:03:26 Right. DL: 1:03:26 It is a very complicated thing. But, yeah, there were there will be, you know, the scare stories. And so, the media really turned on the whole psychedelic scene, I do not know, like, you know, late (19)60s and into the, into the (19)70s. And, and it was not, and then when the tragedy that it was not just, you know, increasing penalties for possession or sale, it was really caused universities to and medical centers to stop doing research about the potential beneficial, beneficial effects of psychedelics- SM: 1:03:58 That is right. DL: 1:03:58 -which has finally come back now in very big way. You know, it is getting a lot of attention right now. But that was all kind of shut down from basically (19)75 to like, 2005. So, like, you know, 30 years, research into, you know, exactly how these strokes can help us understand the brain and administer to the beneficial uses for alcoholism, depression, trauma, that is all coming back now, in a really big way. The government is even starting to fund it again, just recently, one or two years. But yeah, there was a real dark age of research into psychedelics. And it was not just Timothy Leary, that caused that, I mean he was a factor in it, but there were lots of reasons for that. SM: 1:04:00 Yes, yes. What was called the psychedelic era was turning into the amphetamine era, and I know that, the term, “tune in, turnout, and drop out," that was certainly the code for Leary but it was not the code for the other three. And that is something and because they were in the turn, they could tune in, turn on, but they were not going to do drop out, and I am talking about Elbert Smith. And Weil, they went on to do unbelievable things, and, and just your thoughts on now, the downward fall of Leary toward the end of his life, Leary and Alpert going to India and coming back and being the change person because of the guru experience? And certainly, all the things that Weil has done in his life with his enterprises, his books, can you talk about, could you talk about those three? That, what, refused to drop out? That is why- DL: 1:05:42 You know what, let me just stop you for a second. I think my, do you hear me? SM: 1:05:46 Yes. DL: 1:05:48 Okay. I think my-my earbuds are about to die. So, I am going to change my give me a second here, okay. SM: 1:05:54 Yep. DL: 1:05:54 Let us see. [inaudible] Okay, how is that? SM: 1:06:06 Okay, okay. DL: 1:06:08 Okay, man. I am sorry. So, well, yeah- SM: 1:06:12 [crosstalk] If you could just talk about the, you know, after all this stuff with Leary, but certainly, what Ram Dass, Andrew Weil and Houston Smith, what they did with their lives, after all this? DL: 1:06:30 Yeah, you know, yeah. Well, you know, I think Andy Weil, like I said, he went on to, really become a proponent of what was called integrative medicine and holistic healing. And, you know, basically looking at the connection between mind, body, and spirit in terms of health, and wellness. And, you know, that is, it was not just Andy Weil but he was a big part of that. And, you know, just like today, you know, it is pretty well accepted that you know, like, say meditation can be used for like stress reduction, and, you know, the health benefits of meditation and various, you know, mind, body, spirit disciplines. A lot of that came out of the (19)60s, and a lot of that came out of the psychedelic, ritually, people got first kind of, taste of that with the psychedelic experience, then they went on to, to find kinder, gentler ways of doing that with meditation and other spiritual practices. And so, just basically, you know, kind of revolutionizing the way we look at health and wellness, which you see now, like in a mainstream, like medical, like Kaiser Permanente, the big health care provider here with all kinds of focus on, you know, mindfulness, meditation, stress reduction, a lot of that, came, come, came out of the (19)60s in the psychedelic era, and Andy Weil, you know, it was a, it was a big part of that, and continues to have a big center in Arizona, and training doctors in bringing together both, you know, not throwing out traditional mainstream medicine, but combining it with other forms of, other ideas of ,what constitutes health and wellness. So, I think he was influential in that way. And Houston Smith, you know, I think really encouraged a lot of Americans to have a more open-minded attitude towards religion, and people be openness to the wisdom of other religious traditions. With tolerance and understanding in that way, I think Houston was very, very influential there. And, you know, people have psychedelic experiences, they often have deep, profound mystical experiences, which go beyond you know, doctrine, dogma, and denominationalism. We used to look at religion say back in the (19)50s, and (19)60s, and a lot of people of course, still do, but you know, I think that is one of the big shifts in the, the religious landscape is that you know, there's fastest growing religion now are, you know, people who call themselves spiritual, but not religious. They may not be affiliated with, you know, mainstream religion, but they still are interested in personal spiritual experience. And that is, that is what, I think that, that shift towards the experiential way of understanding religion was a lot of that was fueled by, by psychedelics and later by meditation, and other spiritual disciplines who are interested in Buddhism, and Hinduism, and all that even Native American spirituality here. A lot of people got interested in that through the, initially through psychedelics, and that is a huge shift. You know, it is some people even think it is like a new kind of great awakening, like kind of moving away from, word-based religions to experiential based religion, which was far beyond psychedelics, but something psychedelics fuel a lot of that. So, I think we can I think Houston has something to do with that along with long with Alpert. SM: 1:06:32 Well, if I can read something from your book, is that okay? DL: 1:07:04 Sure. SM: 1:07:05 Yeah, this- DL: 1:07:35 You will probably say it much better than I will say it. [laughs] SM: 1:10:09 -this is on page 183. And I think it is really, you talk about how the counterculture became the culture. And it is, it is very well said, I will be really fast here. "Why did Weil's career suddenly take off? Weil had been saying the same thing since the (19)70s. Weil did not change, America changed. Sometime in the 1990s, American culture caught up with the (19)60s counterculture. The counterculture became the culture. Yoga became big business. Meditation is prescribed by the family doctor. Supermarkets stocked organic produce and home, homeopathic cures. The Rolling Stones provide the soundtrack for computer advertisements. Looking back at it all, Weil sees a direct connection between this experience on psychedelic drugs and his later career, in holistic health. Those experiences show me what is inside your head is connected to what is outside your head, and that you change, things, outside change by working on things inside, he said, and there is a clear application to help their state of mind, belief, and expectations absolutely influence health, and the course of illness. And those days, that kind of thinking was pretty much out of the mainstream. Now it has really changed." I think that is beautifully written. DL: 1:11:31 Yeah, well thank you, yeah. SM: 1:11:32 And it describes it perfectly about, you know, how, like, how the counterculture became the culture. DL: 1:11:38 Yeah-yeah. Well, you know, so much of this, yes, Steven was fueled by demographics. You know, I mean, the, what happened, you know, the whole baby boom generation is this, huge group of people who kind of, you know, we have gone through, gone through life and influencing the culture, because there is so many of us, right. And, and so, you know, eventually, you know, people who were a part of the counterculture, were running, you know, were running companies, and were running, you know, becoming politicians. And, and were running corporations, you know, I mean, these people, you know, eventually, assumed kind of positions of power and influence, in the media and elsewhere. So that, I think that is, that is part of it. I think that what Americans do not remember, though, is that, you know, the counterculture was definitely a minority of people, baby boomers. Everyone has an interest, into all this, but it did sort of, the ideas kind of spread in, into mainstream culture over the next few decades for sure. SM: 1:12:41 Yep. Yep. DL: 1:12:44 Sure. SM: 1:12:46 Now, you were talking about the latter parts of their lives for- DL: 1:12:50 Yeah, you know, what I was, I just was looking at, can I read a few paragraphs from the book? SM: 1:12:54 Oh, yes-yes. DL: 1:12:55 Cause, I, I think so there's, this is a quote, this is about Leary. And I told you that Leary kind of, you know, seemed a little lost in some ways in the last few decades of his life. He died in the (19)90s. He was the first of the four in the book to die. There's a guy Robert Forte, who spent a lot of time with Leary towards the end of his life, younger, younger guy. Anyway, so this is, his, this is his take, you know, we asked him, this is Robert Fore, was Tim, is it a quote from Forte, "Was Tim a wise man or was he a psychopath? Psychopathic, egotistical maniac or both? I would hang out with him until three in the morning. Sometimes he would appear like a non-ordinary being. There was this, a tangible aura, he would glow. Sometimes he was just so clear and present and positive. But other times he would just morph into this twisted, angry, fucked up old man," end of the quote. Then I say, "Leary was different things to different people. He was reviled. He was revered. He was a prophet. He was a phony. He was a brilliant, innovative thinker. He was a fool. He captured the irreverent, rebellious spirit of the (19)60s. He was a fame seeking manipulative con artist. Who was he? Perhaps the Trickster said it best when he once quipped, quote, "you get the Timothy Leary you deserve." [laughs] SM: 1:14:17 Wow. [laughs] DL: 1:14:17 That is the end of the quote, so. That, that sort of sums up Leary especially towards the end of life, I think. SM: 1:14:23 Right. [chuckles] And how about Alpert? DL: 1:14:29 You know, how Alpert you know, he-he, he became, you know, he wrote a series of books and continued to lecture. And, you know, he became a devotee of, of an Indian guru Neem Karoli Baba. But, he never really became a guru himself, you know, and that is, I think, what made him relatable to people. He was just another, another seeker. And then you know, in the (19)80s, he got-got very involved with, he started helping to start something called the Seva Foundation, they did a lot of- SM: 1:15:04 Very good, very great. DL: 1:15:05 Charitable work with helping with blindness in Nepal. And then during, he got very interested in the whole, sort of the death and dying movement, you know, Elisabeth Kubler Ross, and the whole move towards re-examining how we deal with death. And the whole rise of the hospice movement, you know, which people forget is a relatively recent thing, you know, and did a lot of work with, during the AIDS crisis, you know, of helping gay people, and other people who are dying, make that transition, you know, writing about it, but also just personally, one on one dealing with a lot of people doing a lot of quiet, you know, work helping people. And then he had a big stroke, Ram Dass had a stroke in the (19)90s, which really inhibited his ability to speak, you know, at the time, he was going to start a kind of a radio show about consciousness. And of course, radio was off the table when you have to spend like 30 seconds between words to find the words, you know, and he struggled. So, he struggled with his speech, and it got a little better over the years. But, you know, he, that the stroke really slowed him down. He moved to Maui and lived the last parts, of part of his life on, on Maui, but continued to teach, and people would come see him and there is a whole online, there is a whole group of his, his kind of friends and followers started a website, which, you know he, he passed away a few years ago, but he's still out there on the internet, you know, there's so much material from his past that can be recycled and enjoyed by people. So, he continues to have an influence even posthumously. And I think, in a very positive, pretty positive way. And how about Smith? [inaudible] I mean, Houston, Houston, also just died a few years back, a few years before, Alpert. He continued to write, continued to teach well into his 90s. I actually did a little work, for a while I was helping on an autobiography that he was trying to put out, which eventually did. He got very involved with the Native American church, and helping them secure the religious freedom to use peyote and their, you know, religious rights. He, you know, he was, he was always kind of skeptical, but also supportive of the psychedelic movement. You know, he called it on its excesses. But was basically supportive. And I think, glad to see that there was a lot of new research and, you know, last decade or so into the beneficial uses of psychedelics and understanding the spiritual and mystical dimensions of it, so he, you know, he tried to stay as involved as he could later in life. You know, he almost made it to 100. You know he, had some, some cognitive problems and memory problems, you know, towards the end, but he continued to hang in there till the end. SM: 1:18:15 Well, I wanted, you, in the conclusion, I have just got some, some things that you wrote, and then we will finish. I think this is very important. You say there's a Rosetta Stone that brings the Harvard psychedelic club together, Leary, Albert, Smith, and Weil did nothing less than inspire a generation of Americans to redefine the nature of reality. And another one here is that people who take LSD and those who do not, people understand, should understand that we should listen to both. Because reality is different things to different people. And so, reality under drugs, do not knock it until you have tried it, and that kind of thing. And that is something that I think, goes into the fact we ought to be listening to each other more, instead of judging each other more. And one very important- DL: 1:19:09 There was, there was kind of a divisiveness in the (19)60s, if you turned on or not. Like are you, remember the Jimmy Hendrix, Are You Experienced? SM: 1:19:17 Right. DL: 1:19:18 They were talking about that, yeah. SM: 1:19:19 Now, one very important part you talk about is the boomers were raised by Dr. Spock. And Dr. Spock's main message was that children need to think that anything is possible. Well that gets right into the counterculture too. Do you have any thoughts on that and Dr. Spock? DL: 1:19:39 Yeah, well, that is, you know, that is part of the whole, the whole it is much bigger than psychedelics and much bigger than really the (19)60s, this is really the whole human potential movement. You know and, and like I said before, this shift towards people focusing on personal, spiritual, mystical experience and, and kind of finding their own way, in some ways, almost kind of growing their own religion. You see that in the whole, spiritual but not religious cohort, which is, which is the fastest growing religion in America right now by far. So yeah, that is all, that is all out there. And what is interesting right now, you know, in 2020, in the, you know, the fall of 2022. You know, there is so much, there has been a huge new wave of interest in psychedelics, both spiritually and therapeutically. Now, there's clinical trials going on, it has been a lot written about it. I mean, I wrote a book, my last, my last book was called, "Changing our Minds, Psychedelic Sacraments and the New Psychotherapy," which was about both the clinical trials that are going on now to, to, to use psilocybin and MDMA to help people with, with, with various mood disorders and behaviors. And, and also the whole spirit, our whole spiritual Renaissance. There's a lot of psychedelic churches forming, underground psychedelic churches are coming above ground now. It is a really interesting time. And about a year after, about a year and a half after my book came out, Michael Pollan, the noted, you know, food writer, came out with a book, very similar title, "How to Change your Mind." Kind of a similar focus to my book, but his was a runaway New York Times bestseller, he had a much bigger publisher. Anyway, his, that, his book was very influential. And then there is a whole Netflix series that came out a few months ago based on his book. Nova just last week did a, did a show on can psychedelic cure. I am writing a series of articles now on, kind of the, psychedelic churches that are coming above ground. So, so this is, there's a whole new wave of this just in the last few years. And more, and more people you know, who have never really thought about this or experienced this are starting to read about it, and want to experiment with it, and laws are changing. There i's probably 20-25 cities around the country have decriminalized psychedelics in various great extent, the entire state of Oregon has basically decriminalized all drugs and is setting up a regulated legal, psilocybin facilitated psilocybin services kind of system. Colorado is going to vote on the same thing next month. So, California was talking about it. There's a lot of changes going on. And this is all kind of, in some ways, an echo of the (19)60s. SM: 1:22:30 Very good. This is the last thing I am going to read. And I am on the last question. This is so beautifully written by you on page 215. And it is this, "None of the men of the Harvard Psychedelic Club officially fall into the demographic, known as the baby boomers: the generation born in the aftermath of World War Two was their primary audience. Many of these kids were "Spock babies," so called because they were raised by parents taking the advice of Dr. Spock, the influential American pediatrician. His main message was that children need to sink that anything, that anything is possible. Those of us boomers who grew up into the countercultures, and are revolutionaries tried to live out that prescription, and many of us turn for a time to psychedelic drugs to broaden their vision of what was possible. We did not always live out our visions, but at least we sought them out. Perhaps the historical importance of Leary, Alpert, Weil, and Smith is not so much any particular vision. But the very process of envisioning for a moment in time we have the experience of expanding our minds. And one of the side effects of that condition is envisioning an alternative way to live." That is beautifully written. DL: 1:23:50 Thank you. I mean that is a good note to end on. [laughs] SM: 1:23:53 I think it is a great note to end and what, what I would like to thank you again, the question I want to ask that I have been asking everyone at the very end of my interviews is what, the people that are going to be listening to this are going to be, could be 15 years, 50 years from now. They could be students, faculty, national scholars listening to this tape, what is your word of advice for them? Any things you might want to say, a lasting message that you would like to deliver to them? DL: 1:24:32 Big of a question for me. [laughs] Just take a deep breath relax and it will be okay. SM: 1:24:41 [laughs] All right, well. DL: 1:24:45 Do not take yourselves, do not take yourself too seriously. SM: 1:24:49 Well, I tell you, I want to thank you for doing this and I had to cut, you know, there is two parts now because I had to turn this off because the battery was low. So, we have got the batteries. But, thank you very much. And- DL: 1:25:03 Sure, happy, to happy to help. It was good talking to you, Steven. SM: 1:25:06 You have a great day and I am going to turn this off and, okay, one last thing is you will get a copy of this that will be through the mail, on email sometime in the next two weeks. And, then you will you can listen to it and if it is okay, I hope they, you know, they have to put it together now because I had to take a break. And then, you will just let them know so that we can put it on site with your picture that you sent me, and a brief biography in the back would be expanded down the road. So, thank you very much. DL: 1:25:42 [inaudible] SM: 1:26:01 Well, it was beautifully- DL: 1:26:02 [inaudible] SM: 1:26:08 Well, you are one of my top 100. But I, you know, I am a bibliophile. I read a lot of books. Your book is one of my top 100, ever. So, I just learned so much from it. I never was a very big fan of Leary. But, I have become a big fan of Ram Dass and, and one of the things that he has done over the years, and I have always knew about Mr. Houston Smith. I knew about him already. And Andrew Weil, we already know a lot about him, so. I do not dislike any of them, but Leary's a different man that is for sure. [laughs] He was a rebel. All right. DL: 1:26:46 [inaudible] SM: 1:26:47 You take care and be safe. Bye. I am recording, still? I am. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Don Lattin https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c8e771633f6eb3269e83e023582fc7b8.jpg 2cbe6671ced709c03b61932f90430dc9 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/6af36a516868bec14de5602f1111fca2.mp3 fd4e61953ba9079b69b4a83fcff342f0 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-01-03 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Adam Green, 1963- Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 115:37 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Civil Rights Movement; Baby boom generation; African Americans; Nineteen sixties; Racial issues; Philadelphia; City government; Communities; Prisons; Women in prison; HIV/AIDS; John F. Kennedy.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:513,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Civil Rights Movement; Baby boom generation; African Americans; Nineteen sixties; Racial issues; Philadelphia; City government; Communities; Prisons; Women in prison; HIV/AIDS; John F. Kennedy.</span> Subject LCSH Historians; College teachers; Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.); Green, Adam, 1963--Interviews Biographical Text <span>Dr. Adam Green is a historian, professor, and son of Ernest Green, who was one of the Little Rock Nine. Dr. Adam Green received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He does research and teaches in a variety of fields, including twentieth-century U.S. history, African American history, urban history, cultural studies, and social movements. He has written and co-written two books,</span>&nbsp;<em>Selling the Race: Culture and Community in Black Chicago 1940-1955</em> and <em>Time Longer than Rope: Studies of African-American Activists 1850-1950</em>. Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Adam Green Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Green, Adam, 1963- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Historians; College teachers; Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.); Green, Adam, 1963--Interviews Description An account of the resource <span>Dr. Adam Green is a historian, professor, and son of Ernest Green, who was one of the Little Rock Nine. Dr. Adam Green received his Bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago and his Ph.D. from Yale University. He does research and teaches in a variety of fields, including twentieth-century U.S. history, African American history, urban history, cultural studies, and social movements. He has written and co-written two books,</span>&nbsp;<em>Selling the Race: Culture and Community in Black Chicago 1940-1955</em> and <em>Time Longer than Rope: Studies of African-American Activists 1850-1950</em>. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-01-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.125a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.125b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 115:37 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/74d17d53bd481eda22765d5272bf70e8.jpg 3d908d792f9feff4fb690993858a8d3f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/4b0a2778cfbab258100cd4318f8f5a68.mp3 5dadf904093f9f091920edb452509500 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 1997-08-13 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Alan Brinkley Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Alan Brinkley is an author, scholar and a professor of American History Columbia University. He specializes in the history of twentieth-century America. Dr. Brinkley has been part of the Columbia University faculty for 27 years where he also served as the University Provost and chair of the Department of History. He previously taught American History at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University. Dr. Brinkley received his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Harvard Univeristy.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15107,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:16777215},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,4995385],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11}">Dr. Alan Brinkley (June 2, 1949 - June 17, 2019) was an author, scholar and professor of American History at Columbia University. He specialized in the history of twentieth-century America. Dr. Brinkley has been part of the Columbia University faculty for 27 years where he also served as the University Provost and chair of the Department of History. He previously taught American History at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University. Dr. Brinkley received his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Harvard University.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University libraries Digital Format ausio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Youth Rebellion; Historian; abortion; Political Correctness; Tolerance; trust; empowerment; Berrigan Brothers; Benjamin Spock; Black Power Activist; Timothy Leary; Martin Luther King Jr.; John F. Kennedy; George McGovern&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:14281427}}">Baby boom generation; Vietnam War; Youth Rebellion; Historian; abortion; Political Correctness; Tolerance; trust; empowerment; Berrigan Brothers; Benjamin Spock; Black Power Activist; Timothy Leary; Martin Luther King Jr.; John F. Kennedy; George McGovern</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 68:21 Subject LCSH Authors; Scholars; College Teachers; Columbia University; Brinkley, Alan--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Alan Brinkley Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 13 August 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:05): ... now to make sure it is coming out okay. The boomer generation is of course individuals who have been born between the years 1946 and 1964. That is the categorization. I would like your comments, Dr. Brinkley, on your thoughts on individuals who try to categorize an entire generation of 70 plus million people for a lot of the ills of American society today in 1997, 1998. I would like just your overall thoughts on what you think the impact of the boomer generation is on America than this year in 1997. AB (00:00:47): Well, I think the only way to answer that question is to try to think about what is distinctive about the boomer generation. And that is made more difficult of course, by this very expansive chronological definition, 1946 to 1964, that is almost 20 years. Which means in theory that two members of the same generation could be parent and child. So, I prefer to think of the boomer generation as the people who were born in the first 10 years or so after World War II. Even though the definition that you are using is a a longer one. I think there are two things that are distinctive about that generation. The first is its size, and that is an obvious distinction. This is the biggest generation in American history. And as it moves through the various stages of life, its experiences will almost inevitably be the dominant experiences in terms of the way the economy performs, and the way the culture behaves. When the boomer generation was young, youth culture was at the center of American culture. As the boomer generation got older, the culture began to focus on its experiences as it moved into later periods of life. So, it has an unusual position of cultural and economic power in our society, simply because of its size. And that makes it more influential, relatively more influential than other generations have been through most of our history. The second thing that I think makes the boomer generation distinctive, is the character of American society when its members, which include me and probably you, were growing up. I think this is a generation that grew up in a time of uniquely high expectations, both for America's future, and for the future of individuals in America. And this is actually true not just of the United States, it is true of most of the Western industrial world. People who grew up in the (19)50s and (19)60s during periods of very rapid economic growth and very high expectations, absorbed a set of expectations for themselves and for the world that in retrospect may seem unrealistic. They came to assume that society was moving in the direction of a much higher level of success of social justice than had been the case in the past. They came to assume that there would be much higher levels of personal freedom and opportunity than there had been in the past. They came to assume, we came to assume, that our lives were likely to be characterized by an unusual level of self-fulfillment and self-realization because the opportunities would be boundless. And of course, those expectations turned out not to be true, or could they ever have been true. And so, a generation of people came of age in the (19)60s with enormously high expectations, suddenly to confront the reality of a world that was not as malleable as they had thought. It was not as easy of changes they had thought. It was not as prosperous as they thought. It was not as just as they thought. And so, the disillusionment I think, of young people who had grown up with one set of expectations, encountering a set of experiences that in effect shattered those expectations, accounts for a great deal of what happened in the (19)60s I think, among young people. Obviously, there were particular events in the (19)60s that hastened this process of disillusion with the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement particularly powerful among them. But I think there is something about... I mean the fact that the youth rebellion of the (19)60s occurred all over the world more or less simultaneously, not just in the United States, suggests I think there is something larger than the particular events that were happening in America. That there is something characteristic of this generation of young people who in the industrialized world, that made for a particularly difficult experience of adjustment to the realities of adult life. SM (00:05:14): Excellent. I am going to follow up on that, but I want to make sure this is working properly. As a follow up to that question, when you look at today's generation, the young people that are in college today, and I guess you do not have to categorize them all as being college. But they are the sons and daughters of the boomers. We see that the children of boomers do not vote. We see that the children of boomers are not really politically... well, have an interest in politics or political matters. There is a tremendous interest in volunteerism. Studies in the chronical higher educational state that as many as 85 percent of the incoming freshmen over the past years in all colleges, have been involved in some sort of volunteerism before their college years. But that generation that you speak of, that 10 years from '46 to (19)56, they came into that era of desiring, of having interest in political issues, social issues, civil rights, ending the war in Vietnam. A lot of the movements developed at that time, the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, even the Hispanic world, the Native American movement, they all kind of were around that timeframe. What happened? If you talk about those young people that were in that first wave of movers, having those kinds of attitudes, and you already reflected on some of it, that some the reality set in as they got older. But how could they... And they do not vote either. I am trying to get to the fact is, boomers do not vote, and their kids do not vote. And yet they were so involved in these things. Just your overall thoughts on what happened as this group is just reaching 50 now. AB (00:06:58): Well, first the question of why people do not vote. I mean, first of all, the decline in voting spans all generations. And young people have always voted in much smaller numbers than their elders. I would assume that at least some of the children of the boomers who are not voting today will vote when they are in their 30s or their 40s, when they are more settled and have families. But 18- to 25-year-olds have always been the lowest voting group in the population, 18- to 21-year-olds have of course have been voters only for a generation. So, I do not think the decline in voting is anything distinctive to the post baby boomer generation. I think that it is simply a broad disillusion of the politics that affects all of society and has reduced voting in all generations. But as for the absence in this generation of the kind of political activism that characterized the (19)60s, I think this generation had a very different experience in its youth. I mean, these are people who grew up in the (19)70s and the (19)80s, in the (19)90s, when political possibilities seemed very constricted. When a whole series of presidents either failed or had very ambiguous legacies, which there were no real political heroes for most people. And it is not surprising, I think, that this generation would not have the same faith in the ability of conventional politics to make a difference in their lives, or to make any major changes in the way we live as a society. That is very different, I think, from the generation that came of age in the (19)60s which saw endless possibilities in politics. And it is the efforts of the (19)60s to make the political system do a series of things that it failed to do well, that is in part responsible for the much lower expectations of the political system today. SM (00:09:12): Would you just list several adjectives to describe the boomers, positive adjectives, or negative adjectives, what would those adjectives be? AB (00:09:24): Well, I hate to generalize in this way about a generation which of course is proposed to people of enormously different experiences, and backgrounds and assumptions. But if there is anything distinctive generally about my generation as opposed to say my parents' generation, or my children's generation, I think it is probably the sense of... how to put it. I think the (19)60s for a lot of people in my generation was an extraordinarily disillusioning experience. Particularly disillusioning as I have said, because our generation grew up with such high expectations. And I think that the legacy of the (19)60s for this generation, for my generation, is a somewhat greater difficulty of feeling wholly a part of the institutions, and the values, and the cultural morays that characterize the traditions of mainstream American life. I think there is a slight sense of detachment, and of ironic detachment perhaps from these institutions. Even though we live within them and work within them and on the surface have more or less the same relationship to them that our parents did. I do not think there is the same passionate conviction that these institutions really work well that our parents had. SM (00:11:17): It is interesting you used that term, passionate. How about a book? When I was home from visiting my parents up in New York, Cornell University, a used bookstore about a couple miles from the camp, it is called the Phoenix. And they had a book called Ferment on Campus, and it was written in 1964. And it was analyzing the silent generation, and the people going into the early (19)60s, and this on rush of new young people with political idealism and activism. And they had a little section in there on passion, and actually a real big section on that. That was a quality that was really parcel of the boomers, but it is not so much... It is kind of looked upon sometimes negatively amongst Generation X and how they look at it, so with the comment. One of the things that I am trying to get at here is the impact that maybe that first wave of the boomers had on some of the major issues at the time. Certainly, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. Just, you cannot define a whole generation again. But when you look at the Vietnam War, how important were the college students on the college campus at that time of ending that war, number one. And number two, how important were the boomers with respects to the civil rights movement? Because some people will basically analyze the movement and say by 1964 and Freedom Summer, many of the civil rights things, successes that had already happened as the boomers are just turning 18, and they got involved in freedom Summer down south some of them. What is your thoughts on those two areas? AB (00:12:58): Well, of course there was a Black baby boom generation too. And they are not quite the generation that was in the vanguard of the civil rights movement in the early (19)60s. People who were in college were born before or during the World War II. But certainly, by the mid and late (19)60s a lot of the African American activists in civil rights and other racial issues were baby boomers. And I think were responding to some of the same forces that white baby boomers we are responding to. As for Vietnam, there is a lot of controversy over the degree to which student demonstrations affected policy in Vietnam, and there is no very good empirical way of answering that question. I do think that the disruption of our culture and the life of our institutions, the attention that student demonstrations drew to the war, the anger, and the polarization that student demonstrations created, helped make the continuation of that war seem politically and socially intolerable to leaders who might otherwise have been inclined to keep it going longer. Now, there were many other things of course that made the continuation of the war seem intolerable too, including an enormous defection in support for the war among older people who were disillusioned with the war. Not because they thought it was immoral, but because they were frustrated that we were not winning it, and it was dragging along so long, and casualties were so high. So, it is very hard to separate the influence of different forces that all worked together to make the political cost of the war seem too high to justify continuing it. But I do think that the student generation, the student demonstrations, played a significant role. Maybe not a decisive role, but a significant role in that process. To get back to the civil rights movement, as far as white baby boomers and the civil rights movement go, I do not think white baby boomers played much of a role in the civil rights movement. People of my generation, by the time we were old enough to be involved in the civil rights movement, the movement was largely over with the form that it had taken in the early (19)60s. It was not any longer as much an interracial movement. There were not as many opportunities for white people to play a role in it. I think there was, for people of my generation, having grown up with the images of the early (19)60s in the civil rights demonstrations in the South, a higher level of awareness and sympathy for at least parts of the Civil Rights movement than earlier generations might have had at a similar age. But as far as actually affecting the movement in a direct way, I think not in an enormous way. SM (00:16:13): Have you changed your thoughts at all over the last 20 years when you were a young boomer in college, and then as you got into maybe five or six years out of college, started a family? And then 15 years, 20 years, 25, 30, you have been pretty consistent in your thoughts on boomers or have you changed your thoughts? AB (00:16:34): Well, I mean, I have an unusual relationship to this generation because I am an historian, and I teach about this period, and I will write to some degree about this period although it is not my principle field of interest. So, I have more reason than most people do to think about these issues on a regular basis. And yes, of course I have changed my views in ways that I cannot... I cannot even tell you what they are. I mean, I think I would hope that nobody goes through life with the entirely unchanging views that we did something wrong. If people did not reassess the past of their own, and their country's past periodically. I think if I had to characterize the changes in my own thinking, I think I am more aware than I was in the (19)60s of how difficult it is to achieve social change quickly and successful. I think I have somewhat more respect for institutions, and somewhat more of a belief in the value of institutional stability in society than I once did. I do not by any means repudiate the politics in the (19)60s, or the ideas that I embraced in the (19)60s. In a large sense there is still many things that I believe in the (19)60s that I still believe today is unfashionable as those things now are. But I think I have a somewhat more sober view of what is possible and what is likely. And I think I have a somewhat less iconoclastic view than I once did about institutions and traditions. And I do not believe now, I do not think I ever fully believed that all institutions and all traditions were obstacles to freedom. But I certainly do not believe that now to whatever degree I once did. SM (00:18:51): One of the terms that was often used when I was in college, I went this school, I am very proud of going there. A lot of who I am was because of my years there, and it was a hotbed of political activism. Those last years in fact, our president. Dr. Deering who resigned about a year and a half after I graduated, because he was physically destroyed but all the... He just could not handle any more. And he went off on a sabbatical and he came back and worked at Upstate Medical Center, and he retired there. Because he just could not... There were a lot of administrators that really almost did not survive that period. But one of the terms that I can always remember, and I have read it in history books and on it was an attitude. I do not know if it was an arrogance, but it was an attitude that we are the most unique generation in American history. We were the boomers of that period, knowing that activism was part and parcel of the people from the (19)30s too. There were students that were activists on campus in the (19)30s. But when you hear that statement, if you had heard that when you were a college student, one the most unique generations because of all the changes that happened, the issues that young people were involved in, just your overall thoughts on that terminology? AB (00:20:07): Well, I mean in some ways it is ridiculous, and in other ways it is a truism. Every generation is unique. No generation is like a previous generation. SM (00:20:16): Okay if I get a drink of water- AB (00:20:19): Of course. As I have said, I think the (19)60s generation was somewhat more distinctive than other generations have been. But to say that it is the most distinctive in American history is ridiculous. I mean, there is the civil war generation, the World War II generation is a very distinctive generation in a completely different way, the depression generation. Almost every period in American history has events that shape a generation's perspective on the world, and make each generation distinctive in a different way. What makes the boomer generation more distinctive than other generations I think, is primarily its size, that is truly unique. It is the biggest generation in American history, both in absolute numbers and in relation to the generations that proceeded and followed it. So that is the first thing. Whether its experiences are more distinctive than the experiences of other generations, I am not sure. They certainly are distinctive. But I do not know that they are any more distinctive or even as distinctive as the civil war generation or the World War I generation or any number of others. SM (00:21:36): I think when we talk about uniqueness, certainly each generation is unique. But there is still the feeling that the boomers are going to be the change agents, the betterment of society. Whether they accomplished that goal, I do not know, did it end the war, end the draft, to assist in the civil rights movement, and then all the other movements. And we are going to make America a more just society. People are treated equally. And I think that is what I am... And I do not know if any other generation, even though they were unique, felt that way. AB (00:22:08): Well, I think they did, certainly the World War II generation, the millions of GIs who came home from World War II, they talked in exactly the same terms. This war was not fought for nothing. We are going to make this world a better place, a different place. We are going to change our country and make it better. They had the same sense of being agents of change that our generation did. Their vision of change was not the same as ours, but they certainly had a passion about their role in history. And that generation has played an incredible role in history, and just as a symbol of it, the fact that every president from Kennedy through Bush was a member of the World War II generation. I mean, there is a whole generation that was basically skipped over as we kept electing these World War II veterans as president. We skipped 20 years or so down to Clinton in (19)92 when the Dole is the candidate again this year. I mean, this generation has had an extraordinary dominance of American life, which is now fading of course, because they are now at an age where they are passing between [inaudible]. I do not think you could say that the (19)60s generation was any more fired with a sense of its own importance than that generation was. SM (00:23:40): That is a real good observation. You are the 41st person I interviewed, and the first person who has really brought that up, and I think that is important. My dad challenged me in a home world because he fought four years in the war, and he is real proud of it. He used the GI Bill, he came back with the whole works. So that silent generation in between the World War II veterans, they never really did have a president. They probably do not regret it too. One of the things that I am trying to get at in this project, and I would like to your thoughts now on the whole issue of healing within America. In the (19)60s there was tremendous divisions, so I do not have to go into detail about them. But I have tried to go to the Vietnam Memorial the last six years, both on a Memorial Day and Veterans Day, to try to get a feel in the ambience. Whether the healing process has really taken place, not only amongst the Vietnam veterans and their families, but amongst those who were for and against the war, and just people who were maybe not the 15 percent who were actively involved in protest or activism of that period. I would like to know your thoughts. Because this is really geared to what Senator Muskie said in our meeting, when I asked him about the fact that we healed. And he had a kind of melodramatic pause, and he almost had tears in his eyes, and he had not been well. And he came back and said, "We have not healed since the Civil War." And he said, "Let us not talk about '68 in the convention, but let us talk about the civil war." Because he had just gotten out of the hospital and seen the Ken Burns series, and the generations of people who were probably killed in the civil war, and how it really affected America. So, your thoughts on, in 1987, as a historian who teaches young people and has taught young people who writes history books, where are we with respect to healing from the divisions of the (19)60s? AB (00:25:40): Well, it depends on what divisions you are talking about. I think the division over the war, which was so polarizing in the (19)60s, is no longer an important fact in American life. People still disagree about whether the Vietnam war was a just war or not. They still disagree about... Excuse me. Give me just a second to get some water. SM (00:26:12): Yeah. AB (00:26:17): As I was saying, I think the divisions over the war, although they have not disappeared, are no longer an active and divisive force in American life. I think as veterans get older and become absorbed into the life of being adults and family group members, their scars on the whole healed to a large degree, not entirely, not everyone certainly. But there are other divisions of the (19)60s that I think have not healed. And I think in a way Senator Muskie was right. Because there are divisions that preceded the (19)60s and long survived the (19)90s, the racial divisions that the (19)60s brought into a much harsher light than they had seen since the civil war. There have been great changes in the push between races in the United States. And I view great progress in some ways. But that problem is still at the center of our existence as a nation and it has been for 300 years. So, there has been no fundamental healing, I think, of the racial divisions of American life. I think that there are periods in which those divisions are particularly searing and difficult, and periods in which they are somewhat less corrosive. But I do not think there is very much variation. And so, I think that those divisions remain. And then there are divisions that the (19)60s did not create, but helped illuminate perhaps for the first time, that are also still very difficult for us to deal with. The division between men and women, between feminists and gay feminists, between supporters of abortion, the opponents of abortion, the divisions between gay men and lesbians and straight society. All of those are things that were not new to the (19)60s, but the (19)60s made an active part of our culture and our politics, and we were very far from having resolved any of those issues. Even though on all of them there has been significant change, and with time significant progress. I think the divisions in American life are more numerous today, and no less acute today than they were in the (19)60s. The way in which those divisions make themselves felt are not quite as destabilizing as they were in the (19)60s, but they are still here. I think there was a period before the (19)60s when these divisions were sort of artificially obscured by politics, and by popular culture, and by other things. The (19)60s brought them to light and they are still in the light. SM (00:29:57): [inaudible] already at... As a follow-up to that observation when you talk about the divisions, one of them is the dialogue that we had between each other. Again, it all depends on the metaphor of an individual's life. What Newt Gingrich's metaphor in life, how he was raised in Georgia may differ with how Bill Clinton was raised in Arkansas, and their perceptions. Some will say that, because the divisions were so strong, because protests were so obvious at that time in so many areas, and pointing of fingers, the reason why we have problems in society today is because of your group, or because of you, not me. And it is almost like the concept of dialogue. What has happened with the dialogue in America today. What I am getting at is this. Do you feel that in the dialogue, the discussions that we have within each other, whether it be between races, whether it be between different lifestyles, that we are living in uncivil times, the dialogue... And then some people will point right back to the (19)60s when for example, college students would go in and would not listen. I know this happened at my school, and I reflected on it all the time with my friends from SUNY Binghamton. When I was then older I would expect more. They would not listen to administration, but they would satisfy a demand but then always had a different demand. There was a really a hostility, an unsettled presence dialogue beyond just the concern of an issue and a cause. And I am wondering if you see any linkages between that time and today and the dialogue we have in each other? AB (00:31:36): Well, I think both the (19)60s and our own time are less civil in the sense that, I think you mean the word, than the (19)50s were, or the (19)40s. I civility is an overrated quality, and there is certainly a value disability, but there is also a value to challenging orthodoxy, and there is a value of conflict, when conflict is needed and civility has often been something that has been used to circumvent or short circuit challenges to authority and institutions. I think the kind of civility in the (19)60s, which you mentioned, was particularly dramatic. And not I think, one of the happy features of (19)60s. The intolerance that students and many others felt not only permitted but almost obliged to show those people that they-they disagreed, the contempt for authority. It is one thing to question authorities, another to reject the authority [inaudible]. I think the late (19)60s, at least in universities, was a particularly uncivil time in which there was a kind of driven orthodoxy among students that both intimidated students who disagreed with it from expressing their views, and encouraged students to try to intimidate faculty, administrators and others. That was a relatively brief period at the height of the passions over the war. But it was a period of quite substantial incivility and intellectual discourse, just as the early (19)50s in the era of McCarthy was a period of great chilling effect of discourse. I think in our time there is certainly a lot of heated language and sharp conflict in our culture and universities and elsewhere. But I do not think of this as an unusually uncivil time. First of all, there are lots of examples that are trotted out all the time of political correctness becoming the source of a really shocking intolerance. And some of those examples are quite right, and they have really not been shocking as an intolerance and discrimination in the name of political correctness. So, they were not nearly as many as there have been in the name of other forces, is what it seems to be. But I think on the whole, character of intellectual discourse today, the character of academic discourse today, and even to some degree the character of general public discourse today is more tolerant of more things than it has ever been before. And that makes for a lot of sort of chafing and a lot of uneasiness. It is not an easy popular culture to live in. It can be very jarring. But at least it is a culture that does more than our culture ever did before, to give voice to all the different cultures that make up the nation. So, I think whatever parts we paid in civility we have gained in democracy. SM (00:35:34): Interesting. Because in the best history books, you have probably heard this 100 times over the years. When the best history books are written, of course 25, 50 years after an incident happens, what will the historians be saying about the boomers. Now, you know, boomers are only 50 now, and so we are talking to still get 15 productive years at least, 15 to 20, and hopefully boomers are going to learn a lot longer and retire later, so they will be confirming the society for longer periods of time. But if you could put your history cap on now, and you could have tremendous revelations right now about your feelings, it might be... AB (00:36:16): I will [inaudible]. SM (00:36:16): What will the history books say about this generation? AB (00:36:17): Well, I cannot predict what historians will say 20 years from now. All I can do is tell you what historians say now. History moves in unpredictable ways, and I do not know what the evaluation will be of the (19)60s from respect from 20 years, or what I will think 20 years from now about the (19)60s. I do not know what other younger historians will think 20 years from now. I think that if I had to predict, I would predict that the (19)60s will be remembered as they already are, as an unusually pivotal decade in the very life, the life of the 60s I mean, basically mid (19)60s to the early (19)70s. I think the (19)60s generation, if there is such a thing, will be remembered as I have already said to you, as a sort of distinctive generation that had a particular relationship to society. What historians will make of all this. Whether they will think the impact of the (19)60s was on the whole a good thing or a bad thing. Whether they will believe that really dramatic changes came on in the (19)60s or just modest changes, I cannot tell you. I tend to think that the (19)60s will be seen as a time that produced quite dramatic changes in the character of American life, whether it would be seen as a really important turning point in our history. But I cannot tell you how the balance sheet will read in terms of whether those changes are thought to be good things or bad things. SM (00:38:08): If there is one specific event that happened in your youth that had an influence on your life, what is that one? AB (00:38:19): Well, I suppose the event that I remember most vividly, the public event that I remember most vividly as opposed to personal events is as, for many other people, the assassination of John Kennedy. I am not sure I would say that that is an event that changed my view of the world in profound ways. But it is certainly an event that left an extraordinary imprint on my sense of the world. I think what had a bigger effect on me was not so much an event as a moment, and that was probably 1968 and the extraordinarily turbulent events in even more extraordinary concentration of jarring events that occurred within a relatively short period. The Tet offensive, the end of the Johnson presidency, the King assassination, the urban arrest, the Kennedy assassination, Chicago. I think 1968 was a year that made everyone who was old enough to be aware of it and young enough to be still unformed in his order of thinking. We consider a lot of assumptions about what we thought about our lives, our world, our country. I think that would be the event, a year could be an event, an event that I would point to as being most influential in my view. SM (00:40:02): There is a brand-new book out from 1968 in memory. I think it is Jules Lichtman. AB (00:40:07): Oh, well there is so many books on 1968 now- SM (00:40:09): Yeah, it is really good. AB (00:40:10): It is so good? Oh. SM (00:40:13): It is a good one too. There's one written, I think by [inaudible] Kaiser, what is it called? Kaiser, that came out a couple of years back. And it is my understanding that David Eisenhower and Julie Nixon Eisenhower are supposed to be working on a book from the Nixon presidency from '68 to the time he resigned. So, I am not sure when that is going to out. So, the issue of trust is an issue that faces many boomers today, and it is certainly a quality in America today that is lacking. And it is getting back to this trust in leaders, trust in other people. Psychologists just will say... Because I remember if a psychology course is when you think of it. Psychologists will say that if you cannot trust others, you have got to trust some people to be actually a success in life. Yet so many of the boomers did not trust the elected leaders of that period because of the things... We all know the story about Lyndon Johnson on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, where some people say it was just a way of getting into the war. It was not, I would say, an honest way of getting into the war. It certainly was not what Robert McNamara did as Secretary of Defense with President Nixon and Watergate, and a lot of those things of that era. But this period of trust is a quality that many boomers do not have. How prevalent do you feel this quality of lack of trust is within this generation that is now reaching 50, and it is passing onto its children, who I work with day in and day out in the university. And I have sense there is a lot of distrust amongst young people, authority people, and distrust of authority too today. AB (00:41:54): Well, I mean this is one of the most commented upon phenomena of our time. We decline in trust in almost every kind of institution in American life. Starting with government, but extending throughout the spectrum, including lawyers, doctors, clergy and academics, understanding group [inaudible]. What has caused it? I think in part it has been the failure of government and of many other institutions to deliver on the promises that they made in times. But I think it is also been more importantly, a displacement onto institutions of an anger and disillusionment that many people feel about what has happened to the economy. Obviously, the economy has been quite good for many people, but for most people, at least until quite recently and probably still, the economy has been something that has made their lives much more anxious, much less secure, and in some ways much less affluent than they had expected it to be. And I think there is a great sense of disappointment among many Americans about the way their lives have turned out, their economic lives have turned out. And I think a lot of the loyalty towards, and trust in institutions that was so characteristic of the (19)50s and (19)60s was a result of the extraordinary successes that so many Americans were enjoying as their lives got better and better and better. And in the 20 some years since the early (19)70s, that has not been experienced in those people. And so, the same institutions, the accumulated trust and loyalty on the basis of successes in the (19)50s and (19)60s have forfeited it, because of basic structural changes in our economy works that are not necessarily a fault of these institutions, but they are blamed for it any less. SM (00:44:37): Exacerbation, because when I interviewed Congressman Gunderson two weeks ago in Washington, former Congressman Gunderson, he said that he felt that when boomers age then reach the age of 65 and go into retirement, one third will be well off, one third will be in very bad dire straits financially and saved or whatever. And then one third will make it okay, but they are not going to be able to really enjoy themselves in a retirement, it will be just like a struggle day in and day out. And it is interesting, because we Congressman Ken [inaudible] on our campus, it was a year and a half ago talking about a book Common Sense. And in his lecture, he said one of the biggest negatives of the boomers is they have not saved, and they were going to pay a heavy price... I have two more questions for you. I will just ask you some names just to reflect upon. Then we will be done with the interview. These are names of the period. But, one of the concepts of the (19)60s, and again boomers had it in the first wave of boomers you were talking about, was this sense of empowerment. We teach students day in and day out when they come to school to feel empowered, idea of the students in leadership positions, but that their voice counts. And we are always dealing with issues of self-esteem. I hope a few people feel comfortable with who they are and what they are all about, and then they will speak their thoughts earlier. But I like your thoughts on the sense of empowerment amongst today's young people that you teach. Whether it be a peer [inaudible] or the history of reflection of young people today, whether they feel empowered because they are the sons and daughters of boomers. And whether you feel that boomers as they have gotten into adulthood and now hit rushing 50, feel a sense of empowerment that their voice counts. Maybe they do not vote, but where they work, involved in the local PTA, get involved in the local government or whatever. Just your overall thoughts on the concept of empowerment amongst boomers and their kids. AB (00:46:40): Well, my experience of the college generation of power era is skewed by the fact that I have never taught anything but elite Ivy League institutions. So, the young people that I encountered are on the whole quite privileged people. And I am not sure that any generalization I can think about them would be meaningful for the public as a whole. But I will say that comparing the students that I encountered today from my own generation, comparable students in the higher pool institutions, I think there is a much lower degree of engagement with politics, conventional mainstream politics. My generation had a higher degree of career and economic anxiety, and a much more pragmatic view of education than this case when I was in college. But I have to say also that I find among students today, a much larger level of commitment to, I guess what I would call, community-oriented activities that most people I knew in my generation ever had. You mentioned volunteerism, and there has been a tremendous increase in volunteerism. High schools all over the country have incorporated volunteerism now as opposed... They are part of the curriculum. It is becoming almost unusual for people in any reasonably good high school not to have some experience with volunteering activities. And I think that is a kind of social commitment that we undervalue when we talk about this generation. And in many ways, it puts our generation to shame. We may have been deeply involved in movements to end the war and demonstrations on behalf of this or that. But not many of us have worked in homeless shelters, or worked in AIDS clinics or different kinds of things that so many students today are doing without any recognition, without trumpeting it in any way. So, I do not consider this generation an uncommitted generation. I think their commitments are different from ours. They might take a different form from what once ours did. They are perhaps less hopeful than we were or where we were at. SM (00:50:00): I am going to list a couple of names here of individuals that anybody who they were alive in the (19)60s will remember these names. Maybe not to give a dissertation on each one, but just to simply give a few comments and your thoughts on their overall impact then, and their significance in the history of the times. First two would be Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden. AB (00:50:26): Well, I would have to talk about them separately, because I think their years together are less important in both their lives than the years before they were together. Tom Hayden was probably the most single, most influential person who has left a somewhat more pragmatic figure in the left than others, but was very committed to radical. And in the years since then, he is tried, and I am not sure how well has succeeded, to find a way to fuse his radical commitments to mainstream politics, which is what a lot of formalists have tried to do with varied degrees of success. Jane Fonda, I think was a young, fiery, famous privileged woman with a lot of unearned political power, who felt very strongly about the war and did not have very good judgment with how to express it, as in consequences with 30 years. SM (00:51:37): You still think part of the Vietnam veterans... See those badges, you are going to watch them. But then there is some with a wall [inaudible]. Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman. AB (00:51:52): Well, in a way I find them hilarious figures. Because they both had very well developed yet somewhat bizarre sensitive humor. And also, because they were such, in a way, they were almost the clowns of the new left. And they made political farce a part of the political process in a way. I do not have great admiration for them, I think they were very intelligent. I do not think they had much political sense. But when I think of them, I think of them as dark figures from our past. I think of them as sort of Atlantis figures in both senses of the word. SM (00:52:53): Berrigan brothers, they just did a segment on Philip Berrigan on Sunday morning. AB (00:52:56): Well, I admired the Berrigans at the time. And I am somewhat uneasy with the kind of passionate extremism they ultimately embraced. But I think that they had commitments that were based on a real moral sense of what was right. And although I do not admire everything they did, I admire their commitment. SM (00:53:40): What about Benjamin Spock? AB (00:53:41): Well, I am not sure that I admire Benjamin Spock's ideas about child rearing. SM (00:53:49): He sees the challenges softly. AB (00:53:49): Nor does he still subscribe to the ones that he was famous for in the (19)50s, But, you know, I think he was a decent man. He tried to use the power and the wealth that he had gained to do some good. I am not sure that he had much impact, but I admired him for his efforts. SM (00:54:14): How about... There is so many people here. The black power advocates, the Bobby Seales, Huey Newtons, Eldridge Cleavers. They were kind of very impacting. Sophie Carmichael, Taggart. AB (00:54:26): Well, I am not a great sympathizer with the idea of racial separatism, and so I am not very sympathetic to the ideas that they espoused. But on the other hand, I certainly can understand how black people, male strip of the (19)60s, would come to those conclusions. I think they helped create an unhappy tradition of Black politics that I think has done African Americans more than good over time. But I do not think I would attribute it to them personally. I think they would prove it was inevitable that these ideas would start to emerge, parts of the African American world, several reflections if it had not been with somebody else. SM (00:55:41): What about Malcolm X? AB (00:55:41): Malcolm X is really an enormous figure I think in African American history, and American history. I do not subscribe to the idea that he started out as a man filled with hate, and then came to a greater understanding and became more moderate and benign as he grew older. I think from the time he became engaged in politics, he was a deeply committed radical, who over time redefined his radicalism to embrace class issues somewhat more than they had at first, and racial issues somewhat less than they had at first. But I do not think he became any less radical. SM (00:56:24): Timothy Leary. AB (00:56:25): You know, this issue I suppose I am somewhat in accord with the right, which is that, I think the romanticization of drug use in the (19)60s was one of the most damaging legacies that our generation left for our children. And I think the romanticization was probably ignorance to a large degree. I do not think most of us... I was never aptly crossing them. But most of our generation used and celebrated drugs, understood the damage that they would do, both to them and to the society, but they probably should have. And Leary, it seems to me as he became a celebrated figure, he was someone who just was [inaudible] of this issue. SM (00:58:14): Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. AB (00:58:14): It has been said a million times. I think I probably admire him more than any other figure of the (19)60s. You are all aware of set of limitations that critics have attributed to him. He was a truly great man. SM (00:58:18): Do you admire the fact of the stand that he took against the Vietnam War, and all the criticism he took at that time by even his fellow civil rights leaders. AB (00:58:24): Well, I think it was probably a tactical error. But I think it was a morally defensible position. So, I guess I do admire him. SM (00:58:42): Let me just change this. I have just got a couple more names. Some of the presence of this period, you have already made reference to John Kennedy, but just your thoughts on John Kennedy itself. AB (00:58:50): Well, I think Kennedy is in many ways more important in death than he was in life. And he was, as a president, an interesting president with some accomplishments, but not great accomplishments. He has not had many great accomplishments. He may have had more if he had lived. But I think he became, almost despite himself, a symbol of a kind of energy, and activism, and vigor, and idealism that has had and continues to have an enormous impact on American culture and on American aspirations for people in my generation, the next generation. He is an extraordinary phenomenon, and much more extraordinary a phenomenon in death than he ever was in life. SM (00:59:41): I shook his hand when I was a kid at Hyde Park, and I was there the day that Eleanor Roosevelt was trying to get the... It was a Sunday, and the parents were going back on a trip, and we just lucked out. We did not know what all commotion was. And he was there in the FDR Library talking to her about... I guess, at that time I did not know why he was there. I just know he was a candidate. And he came out and I shook his hand as he was getting into the car and left the library. He came out the back entrance. I was a young kid, so I will never forget that. The tan, the thin striped suit and the smile and everything. Robert Kennedy. AB (01:00:18): Robert Kennedy, I had a real passion and devotion to, which I also had to his brother. My admiration for his brother has faded in the 30 some years since. My admiration for Bobby has not faded as much. I think he, coming out of a family situation that in many ways was sort of traumatic and destabilizing for all of those kids, found a power in himself in his last year's that was just extraordinary. SM (01:01:09): George McGovern. AB (01:01:10): Well, George McGovern I think was a smart, interesting man. A lot of the stature of many of the other major political figures of that age. I think he did not... The political imagination of the more successful figures of his time had spread this time. SM (01:01:44): Eugene McCarthy. AB (01:01:48): Eugene McCarthy is someone who never quite fit in a political world, who could not quite fit in it at the level that he maintained as a presidential candidate. I think he was a decent senator, a little more cerebral than most. And I think he was an effective voice in 1968, legitimizing opposition of the war. After 1968 I think he became kind of an embittered man who spent the rest of his public life angry about what he thought had been done to him, that he had been cheated somehow. SM (01:02:34): Richard Nixon. AB (01:02:37): Oh. SM (01:02:39): You can write a book on that. AB (01:02:49): I can write hundreds of books as people have. He is a brilliant man, great politician, very important figure in our history, very important president. And I think his great flaw... The flaws were kind of resentment and bitterness towards the part of the world that he believed had rejected him, but never left him even that he is a pinnacle of success. And also, I think a basic... I do not think he had very many core convictions. I think there was a moral compass in his political view. And he was such a realist, such a devotee rail politic, that he lost sight of any role center that might have reigned again as he was busy doing or tolerating things that finally destroyed him. SM (01:03:55): Was not that one of the criticisms of John Kennedy, that he was more of a pragmatist, and if it was not for his brother who really had a conscience and developed a conscience? AB (01:04:04): No, I do not know. That is something that could be said about a lot of politicians. I do not think there is anything wrong with being a pragmatist. But I think there has to be something at the core of it. This is one of the [inaudible] of Clinton too, is that there is nothing at the core. I do not know that I believe that. But I do believe that in Nixon. SM (01:04:26): George Wallace. I am trying to get all these boomer names. AB (01:04:33): Well, I think Wallace helped launch a new kind of politics that eventually became, at least for a time, a dominant politics in this country. But Wallace was too crude and too racist and too reckless to profit from it at the end. SM (01:04:53): Spiro Agnew. AB (01:04:55): Oh, slippery crook. SM (01:05:03): [inaudible]. Muhammad Ali. AB (01:05:05): Oh, I am a great fan of Muhammad Ali. And I think he was treated very badly by his country, or at least by his government. But a man of great courage, great spirit. SM (01:05:30): Herbert McNamara. AB (01:05:34): I do not think he is a bad man. He is a very smart man. But his intelligence is a throwaway that made him inappropriate for the kind roles that he played in the public wise. SM (01:05:49): Barry Goldwater. AB (01:05:52): Well, Barry Goldwater is the last voice of a bolder conservatism unconnected to the cultural politics that was dominating. He was a conservative, sort of rock-hard convictions about communism, the cold war, government, individual freedom. And there was a kind of icy certainty about him that made him somewhat unpalatable to the electorate in a way that Reagan, who shared many of those beliefs, but also managed to identify himself with a lot of fuzzy cultural issues, was not. SM (01:06:43): Three more and we are done. AB (01:06:45): Okay. Actually, I think we have to be done with maybe one more, because is 3:00 now. SM (01:06:49): Okay. Just your overall impression of the musicians of the year and the impact that the music of that era had on boomers. It will be Bob Dylan, just a general analysis of all the music from that period. AB (01:07:03): I do not know that I can do that with the time that I have. Clearly both rock music and folk music were both the defining cultural products of those generations. I am sorry. SM (01:07:17): That is okay. I will like to just take three pictures of you. AB (01:07:20): Okay. SM (01:07:22): Thank you very much for taking this time. AB (01:07:25): Oh, it was my pleasure. Very interesting project. SM (01:07:28): Do you know Dr. [inaudible] at- AB (01:07:30): Yes, he is a good friend of mine. Have you talked to him? Or... SM (01:07:33): Yes. He came to our campus and spoke about his latest book. AB (01:07:36): About the Parchment book. SM (01:07:38): Yes. AB (01:07:38): Yeah. SM (01:07:41): Gave in to the development project too. Because he came to our campus last year in the middle of [inaudible] to begin, the conspiracy, so the mental degree, so that is [inaudible]. Just one more, just one more. AB (01:07:55): Make it quick. SM (01:07:58): Yeah. We have a light... Do you mind if I just put the wide angle on here? AB (01:08:00): I do not have time really. I am sorry. SM (01:08:05): Okay. AB (01:08:06): I am sorry to rush you out. SM (01:08:07): That is okay. Thank you for being able to have an hour with you, I really want to thank you. And... (End of Interview) Description 2 Microcassettes Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Alan Brinkley Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Brinkley, Alan ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/mp4 Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Scholars; College Teachers; Columbia University; Brinkley, Alan--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Alan Brinkley (June 2, 1949 - June 17, 2019) was an author, scholar and professor of American History at Columbia University. He specialized in the history of twentieth-century America. Dr. Brinkley has been part of the Columbia University faculty for 27 years where he also served as the University Provost and chair of the Department of History. He previously taught American History at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University. Dr. Brinkley received his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-08-13 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.27a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.27b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 68:21 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/668a240a08c81e5b4462be9397f98827.jpg 347bc88afcf669ad5a2569f444b92663 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/eecac2e5585aa4d596805f7306a9a000.mp3 998e3975f4849bd0f468415fbb940363 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-07-30 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Alan Wolfe, 1942- Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Alan Wolfe is a political scientist, scholar, and a sociologist. Dr. Wolfe is a professor of Political Science and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Future of American Democracy Foundation. Wolfe received his Ph.D. from Temple University and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania. He also has honorary degrees from Loyola College in Maryland and St. Joseph's University.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:5039,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:1},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,5099745],&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;6&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Dr. Alan Wolfe is a political scientist, scholar, and a sociologist. Dr. Wolfe is a professor of Political Science and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Future of American Democracy Foundation. Wolfe received his Ph.D. from Temple University and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania. He also has honorary degrees from Loyola College in Maryland and St. Joseph's University.</span> Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 2 Microcassettes Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Vietnam Veterans; Free speech movement; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Black Panthers; Young Lords; Native American/ American Indian Movement; Vietnam Memorial; Emmett Till; Vietnam War; Baby boom generation.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:5045,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;5&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;7&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;8&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:[{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;5&quot;:[null,2,0]},{&quot;1&quot;:0,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;3&quot;:3},{&quot;1&quot;:1,&quot;2&quot;:0,&quot;4&quot;:1}]},&quot;10&quot;:2,&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;}">Vietnam Veterans; Free speech movement; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Black Panthers; Young Lords; Native American/ American Indian Movement; Vietnam Memorial; Emmett Till; Vietnam War; Baby boom generation.</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 90:46 Subject LCSH Political scientists; Sociologists; College teachers; Boston College; Wolfe, Alan, 1942--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Alan Wolfe Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Wolfe, Alan, 1942- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Political scientists; Sociologists; College teachers; Boston College; Wolfe, Alan, 1942--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Alan Wolfe is a political scientist, scholar, and a sociologist. Dr. Wolfe is a professor of Political Science and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Future of American Democracy Foundation. Wolfe received his Bachelor of Science from Temple University and his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Pennsylvania. He also has honorary degrees from Loyola College in Maryland and St. Joseph's University.ph's University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-07-30 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.174a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.174b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2018-03-29 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 90:46 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/1253bd9a4899545841efd5b0aecf643e.jpg d95cfea19488fda41725b712e0e96211 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/0d6122397365ba1599a944e1214ea348.mp3 e7080e4ba5e91da83fa8987cb544fa66 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-10-15 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Alexander W. Astin Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Alexander Astin is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Higher Education and Organizational Change, at the University of California, Los Angeles and the founding director for the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Dr. Austin has authored 23 books and has been a recipient of awards for his outstanding research. In addition, he was apart of the National Academy of Education.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:8403713,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:4995385},&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11,&quot;26&quot;:400}">Dr. Alexander Astin is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Higher Education and Organizational Change, at the University of California, Los Angeles and the founding director for the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Dr. Austin has authored 23 books and has been a recipient of awards for his outstanding research. In addition, he was a part of the National Academy of Education.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Psychology; Gettysburg College; Television; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Women's Movement; Environmental Movement; Chicano Movement; Jimmy Carter; Activist; Millenials; Political correctness&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:2,&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13689059}}">Psychology; Gettysburg College; Television; Baby boom generation; Civil Rights Movement; Women's Movement; Environmental Movement; Chicano Movement; Jimmy Carter; Activist; Millenials; Political correctness</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 96:20 Subject LCSH College teachers; Authors; Astin, Alexander W.--Interviews Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Alexander Astin Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Benjamin Mehdi So Date of interview: 15 October 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) 0:03 SM: A question that I have been asking everyone that I have been interviewing in the process. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself, your early influences? How did you become who you are? Maybe the people that inspired you as a high school or college student, and how you chose kind of higher education, [inaudible] particular emphasis on studying students and working with them as a career. 0:33 AA: Well, a lot of it was fortuitous I have to say, I guess that I guess not-not a typical answer. I was originally very interested in music and majored in Music in college. But my, my parents represented what I liked to call the-the snows, two cultures family. My father was a physicist, and my mother was into the art, writing and theater and that kind of thing. And so, I was influenced, pretty equally by both of them. I initially wanted to go into music as a, as a career, but I got very interested in Psychology, as well during college and so quite I guess, serendipitously, I decided to go to grad school in my college route. Music, I had minor- 1:45 SM: You are fading away. 1:49 AA: Hang on a sec, let me, let me put my speakerphone on here. And this phone may run out of juice on the speaker, but I have got another phone I can- 2:02 SM: Okay. 2:03 AA: I run out of juice. But anyway, so I, when I graduated college, I decided not to pursue Music as a career and instead went to graduate school in Psychology. Very scientific Psychology, of experimentation and measurement, that kind of thing. Not-not necessarily, Clinical Psychology. Although my first job when I got out of graduate school is I had to do two years in the service. So, I was commissioned as a Clinical Psychologist, US public health service, relief Medical Corps for the Coast Guard. And other than wearing a uniform though, was a relatively painless two years, I did work as a Clinical Psychologist in a federal penitentiary. But I, while I was there, I was doing a lot of research, I was always applying for [inaudible] so pretty much stuck with that the rest of my professional career. 0:3:38 SM: Were there any people that really inspire, were there teachers- were there? Someone out there in the world that, wow, that person really impressed me and inspires me. 03:54 AA: Well, I think certainly in high school, there were, there was a music teacher that was very much a mentor for me, and I was inclined for having a good time partying, not taking school very seriously. And it was- I thought to at least to stay reasonably clean and take me under her wing, and I did have a lot of musical talent. She tried to cultivate that. But so, she was very important influence and really, in college, nobody in particular. Our choir director was very supportive, but it was not until I got into graduate school, and I did a-an internship at a Veterans Hospital that I met I say one of my first major mentor in psychology, that was a psychologist named John Holland, who was [inaudible] but sort of developed a reputation in the field of interest measurement, career development- 5:29 SM: You went to Gettysburg College, which is not far from where I live. 05:34 AA: Where do you live? 5:34 SM: I live in West Chester, Pennsylvania, just outside Philly. I go to Gettysburg four times a year to the battlefield right I know that college really well, in fact, when I worked at West Chester, we took a group of students over there, we had a leadership on the road, we met the president. He has since retired, but very nice college was very good students and what was it like going to college there? Obviously, you went in the (19)50s. 6:02 AA: At the time I went, it was still very firmly connected to the Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church. And I was not a religious child. Although I was very interested in religion, study to attend as many different types of religious services. But I was not a member of particular faith. I went there because of their choir, they have a world class, choir, and I was arranging choral. 6:24 SM: What were or are your views of the students who were in college in the late (19)60s and (19)70s? Yeah, in the following areas, and I will just list these and then you can just comment overall. 6:57 AA: Is it just the late (19)60s and early (19)70s? 6:59 SM: Uh, yeah, I would say from (19)65 till about the late (19)70s. Because when you talk about the boomer generation, they were those born between 1946 and 1964. But by the time they were going to college, it was around 1965 that they started college. So, I am really looking at, you know, that frontline boomers that were in college say from (19)65 to (19)75. And then you had the late-stage Boomers who were (19)75 to (19)83. But I would like your views on the students, the Boomers in these areas, just your thoughts. And I will list them. They, what, where were they with respect to their willingness to challenge faculty and interacting in class, their knowledge of history, keeping up with the news, caring about the social issues, as opposed to having fun events would seem to be very much what the (19)50s were all about with Panty raids, and all that other stuff, awareness of their world, and sensitivity toward people of different colors. How do they differ from the students that were, that preceded them? The students in the (19)50s and late (19)40s, and then the students that came after in 1983? Just your observations? 08:22 AA: Yeah, well, I guess I was a member of the preceding generation, the boomers came after I finished college. But I think the thing to remember about the boomers, and I have given this some thought, since we originally thought since we originally talked s, and I and I, it is impossible to overestimate the effects of elements. And what you see in the boomers, in many respects, the things that the ways in which they differed from previous generations. Many of these things, I think, are the result of television. And the boomers span the period from no exposure, basically, to full immersion in television, if you base it on stuff like the number of homes that had television sets ore the number of homes that have colored television sets, or whatever you want to measure it. They, if you lag it back to when these Boomers were at the most sensitive age in terms of being influenced by that kind of media, say around the age of five or six, then the early Boomers had very little exposure to television, and the late Boomers were fully exposed. And the effects of that, I think, show up clearly, in the data that we collected on the new college freshmen beginning in the in 1966. With the freshmen entering college, that year and they, they would have been born in (19)48, (19)47, (19)48. And the ones who kind of brought up the tail end, which would have been the late (19)70s freshmen entering late (19)70s, the most dramatic changes imaginable occurred in between early and late bloomers in just about every respect. You are really, if you take-take that span of years, you are talking about dramatic changes in the character, values, aspirations, etc., of 18-year-olds. And so, you know, to rump the Boomers into one category, it really kind of masks a lot of that does know these changes were in we have documented them in a number of publications, and so forth. But I do not think we will ever see anything like that, again, that massive change in the really in the population, country and the Boomers were just simply reflecting that because they were the ones, I think who were most influenced by television. 12:28 SM: Yeah, you know the Boomers in my interviews, it has come up over and over again, that people have problems with lumping people in the generation because within a generation, there is so much difference. And for example, those born after the war (19)46 to say (19)56. And the experiences of those born say from (19)57 to (19)64 is totally different. Because those later Boomers were not involved in the antiwar movement. They were they heard about it, they were the young brothers and sisters of the front runners. And so, the experiences are somewhat different. And which is I have had this theory, and I have been asking a lot of my interviewees this question, that what is amazing about the Boomer generation is that you, you have what I consider three criteria that really symbolize what they stood for as elementary school kids, that period between (19)46 and (19)60, when President Kennedy came in, and I liked your thoughts on this, I looked at them and then then you also ask yourself, Well, how did they become so you know, how have they changed so differently in the (19)60s, and the three areas are, number one, the quality of being very quiet. Number two, the quality of fear. And the third one being very naive, which is the case with most young people when they are growing up in elementary school, but the fear centers, you know, the threat of nuclear annihilation, the McCarthy hearings, the fear of speaking up, if you speak up and you were labeled a communist or it was really frowned upon the organization man was what was okay in the (19)50s. And naive because when you saw that television, over and over and over again, you did not see people of color very often, you did not see a whole lot of women, except in roles where they played moms raising kids and stuff. You see him as independent people on the road making decisions. So, there is a lot of things happening here. And then obviously, when we get into the, you do not see a whole lot about the civil rights movement, and then all of a sudden you get to the (19)60s, and things just really change your thoughts on those thoughts about those three qualities in the Boomer generation when they were very young. 15:13 AA: So, I, just to add another comment here about television again with is I think, I think what happened with television was that young people began to become more passive in their, in their recreation. And I think that remained this way ever since. And but most importantly was the message that television was purveying, which was a message of materialism. And not only in the commercial but also in the, in the program, a lot of a lot of the TV series, dialog exposed the world to material wealth, and so forth. And what we saw beginning in the late (19)60s and going on through the talking about 18-year-olds. And continuing through the early (19)80s, there was a dramatic increase in materialism. So, in a sense, the commercial message of television was having was having its intended effect, we were breeding a new generation of people who believe that material wealth was the ultimate goal in life. And whatever form it might take, in the academic, having lots of thoughts, acquiring lots of possession and so forth, so on was, was a very high value. And we were also at the same time, however, running, breeding a generation, a new population, really, of citizens, who were not very reflective. They have done studies on what happens to five- and six-year-olds who watch a lot of television. And the certain circuits in the brain are actually bypassed compared to radios, where-where in listening to the radio, you are these areas of the brain are activated, because we use a lot of you participate in radio with a lot of visual imagery and imagination, and that kind of and, and they are one of the social critics [inaudible] has written several books about this. And his view is that young people are brain damaged today, that their brains are not fully developed, so that we have all the ADD and all this kind of stuff. So, the evidence for the advent of this change in our young people is shown in the Boomers from the early to the late. All of these changes, as each new-new generation a new class, as you will of Boomers, has been more exposed to television as watch more of it. So on to the point where it became saturated, and at which point, all young people were being exposed. And what is interesting is the materialistic values that peaked out in the (19)80 have plateaued in a sense, which you would expect because the degree of exposure has remained high. So that basically the-the Boomers are the guinea pigs for this social experiment of television. They document the effects of this medium on-on our values and attitudes, this sort of thing. Now that there are some confounding factors here and you mentioned some of them, one of them is civil rights movements. So, the early Boomers, I think we were very socially conscious, very, very much more aware of some of these issues than I think the late Boomers were to tell you the truth. And they, they had experienced the Jim Crow bout, and the racist tendencies of the north and the West. And they had to confront that even-even the late Boomers really did not have much exposure to the Jim Crow world. The early ones did, and I think that is why they got so exercised about racial issues. And why civil rights movement really had a lot of white input in the early days, because a lot of thinking, young people suddenly became aware of the growth in equity that they had been exposed to growing up, and that they had taken for granted growing up. And so that began to crack. The early Boomers and so there was a lot of energy, a lot of idealism, a lot of engagement. And I think the antiwar movement was really just the perpetuation of that. The antiwar movement came a little later. But buried in all of this civil rights movement, the antiwar movement was American sexism. You know the- In the antiwar movement, the men provided all the leadership and the women provided sex, or painted signs, or whatever, but they were not really invited into positions of leadership and sharing of power in the, in the civil rights movement, and in the student protests. And so, the woman's movement became a- I think, a-a-an- that, and that really emerged in the late (19)60s that became a competing force for student activism. In fact, a lot of the energy out of the antiwar movement, a lot of it, and on and, and but the Boomers span, all three movements, kind of a tail end of the Civil Rights Movement, which really began in early (19)60s. And is to the kind of culmination of a woman's movement in the city, and in the (19)80s. Now, what, what you’ve got there, are that women were so profoundly influenced by the woman’s movement. And this shows up in the late Boomers. So profoundly influenced that the net result of this was that women and men today, because of this, much more alike than they were at the beginning of the early Boomer day. Basically, feminism effectively come become more right because the women have become much more like the men. Men have changed some, but nowhere near as much as the women. And we have all this is all documented. It is amazing when you compare men and women entering college 18-year-old in the late (19)60s, with their counterparts in years later. It is just a profound change. Even a change in politics. The men used to be to the left of the women, and they have traded places. women now a way to the left of the men. And that is true nationally, not just with college students and women's movements was I think, an impetus for that political change. 25:24 SM: Where would you play saw these other movements that also evolved around in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s. We all know that the gay lesbian bisexual movement was strengthened because of Stonewall in 1969. Then you had the Native American Movement, the American Indian Movement, which was in the took over Alcatraz, and of course, it ended sadly, in 1973. At Wounded Knee, you have Earth Day in 1970, really setting in motion the well, the environmental movement as a whole of course, I interviewed Gaylord Nelson many years back and he said they respected the antiwar movement so much that they met with them before they made the decision to have this protest with respect to the importance of understanding the importance of teaching, and then of course, you have also got the Chicano movement, then you have the Young Lords that follow the [inaudible] the Black Panthers, and you have you have all these groups of black power, all these things are happening in the late (19)60s going into the (19)70s. Is that all part of what was going on with the women's movement? 26:36 AA: So, I, the women's movement was very much of sisterhood. [inaudible] And what is interesting now is that this is a short memory we have in this country, the feminists today or the or the, you know, leading women, thinkers and theorists so forth have really forgotten. They I mean, they and women in general today take for granted the-the status of women today, as if it has always been this way. There is no question in my mind that, that is, by far, the biggest social change in our country was brought by the woman’s movement. I think there is no question about it. And every aspect of life was affected by that family life, community life, the life of the individual woman, the life of the individual man, because now suddenly, men have women as, as peers as work [inaudible]. And in the fields that you see. Nearly exclusively men of engineering, law, medicine, and so forth. You know, we have not really had a men's movement yet. That amounted to much of anything, and we may never have one. But the women have certainly been emancipated slavery [inaudible]. 28:23 SM: Don’t you think some of the African American students today and people overall forget what it was like to be African American is? Back, I mean it is the same thing. It is like it has always been this way, kind of- 28:36 AA: Absolutely. 28:37 SM: And I know it has even been brought up in the gay and lesbian community with the people I have interviewed that, oh, it has always been this way. I mean, all the battles, but an extreme prejudice. 28:52 AA: I-I- My African American Graduate students, when I tell them my experience growing up in Jim Crow, Washington, DC, they cannot believe it. They think I am making it up. 29:04 SM: Wow. What, what are some of the distinctive characteristic characteristics you have seen in this group of 74 million? I will preface this, first, do you like the term the Boomer generation, do you like it? 29:19 AA: Not really, it is a rubric to refer to a particular group of people that came of age in a particular time, but I think it is. It does a lot of violence to reality. [chuckles] And as the sort of main reason is that the early Boomers were so wildly different from the late later one. And, you know, the pundits like to stereotype you know, were the Boomers, you know, the protesters of the (19)60s and (19)70s? And that is really, really not a very good description. 30:17 SM: Right, What? When you look at the generation, what do you think? Are their strengths and weaknesses? And, and what do they contribute to our society as a group that was not here before or after or during, before World War Two and the end of the war. 30:36 AA: Well, I think the certainly the idea that it is possible to have a bad war. And it is patriotic to protest about it. I think that was a tremendous contribution. Now, that value judgment I just made is not shared by everybody in the country, obviously. But you know, given the stakes involved in warfare, at all levels of it, human, the social and economic, the international, etc. The high stakes of any kind of a war would seem to me to be justify, in a democracy, some discussion and debate and dissent about the act of waiting for one thing, to have a defensive war, but to that have an offensive war where you initiate the hostility. It seems to me worthy of some discussion and debate and the Second World War [inaudible] against that, and there probably would have been a lot more of protesting about the Korean War than there was if it had not come so closely on the heels of World War Two. 32:25 SM: very good point. 32:26 AA: So, the Vietnam War. War are longer now that I think the young people did really pave the way in the draft factor I wax and wane on how important the draft was. The Senate failed with the whole reason I do not I do not really do not agree with that. In any case, that that was a, I think, a major contribution. Another one was language, the use of language, the, you know, the 30 words movement at Berkeley was one of the earliest ample this certainly seems to me, began the loosening up of our language, the freeing up of our language, and I think the use of the free or use of language has been a major contribution, that ability to be authentic and honest with each other. 33:54 SM: Good point. 33:55 AA: I think I think that, if you will forget that. You know, I remember my first trip to Europe as a young man, I had to smuggle a couple of Henry Milller books. And my wife smuggled Ulysses. That change in language is another major cont- I think providing the environment in which the woman's movement could take off was very important. In other words, with the atmosphere of questioning and protesting and with the atmosphere of equity and fairness came out of the civil rights movement and in the student protest movement. People forget that the biggest protest movements, by any measure is not civil rights was not the woman was not the antiwar movement. It was the student’s movement for students’ rights. 35:14 SM: Yes. 35:15 AA: That drew more participants, and there were more protests about student’s rights. So that was, again, an issue of fairness, of empowerment, that sort of thing. So that all of that activity provided an environment in which the woman's movements could really take off. And where it was that women felt comfortable, uh- 35:45 SM: Yeah, you know too, it is, to me, the people that I have talked to, and when I-I am in that front group, because (19)47 is when I was born. And I graduated from college in 1970. And I can remember as a young person, this feeling on college campuses, that we are the most unique generation in American history. And there was a feeling and just a feeling that the Boomers were going to make a statement call themselves Boomers either, but the generation and the (19)60 generation was going to make a big difference in the world by ending all the wars, racism, sexism, homophobia, saving the environment, making the world a better place to live. And now, I am always reflecting just like you are, when you when you reflect on the women's movement, did they? Did they make this world a better place to live? Second, was this just the liberal wing of a generation, the new left, as they always talk about and so-called liberals, and was the rise of the conservative neo cons and the new right. They also were there in the (19)60s and became really powerful in the late (19)70s. And they, they became involved due to the reaction to the movement, the civil rights movement, the antiwar, the environmental, the Native Americans, the women's, the gay and lesbian, they have been kind of reacting to it ever since the late (19)70s. So, I am saying a lot here, but [inaudible] what-what has been the overall impact? Or do they? Did they make a difference in the world by ending any of that stuff that I mentioned? 37:32 AA: Oh, they I think they made a tremendous difference. It is tremendous. I do not even think you can question the difference, because- you know, the thing is, is that the-the protests accomplish their objectives. That was really remarkable and-and they, and they have remained in force, ever since. Women were basically allowed to be like men; have the same power and privileges and opportunities as men, then African Americans, almost all the jury of discrimination was removed. In fact, that, to me, that took the gas out of the civil rights movement, because also, affirmative action became an established policy, in the workplace, in the academia, and everywhere, affirmative action was taken for granted. You know, it has been questioned and challenged the last 20 years, but basically, the same in business industry, they took it for granted. And they still do, but it is in their self-interest is to have representation from different racial groups. And so, it seems to me that that, you know, one of the profound changes, changes from the rights of women and the opportunities for women, the changes in our language, the changes in our in our racial relations and in racial- Now, you know, a lot of the cynics say oh well, you know, the situation for African Americans or some African Americans for large numbers, that is true, but that is in spite of the civil rights movement not because but the snake in the woodpile, if you will, is the materialism. I really, I really believe that is the hidden legacy of corporate takeover of our mind. And that is what television is. And we have become a more materialistic society, and we still are. But that is not something you blame the Boomers for something that happened to while the Boomers were growing up. And, and it shows up in their in their values. As a change from the early Boomers as I said. that materialism is still with us. It is what got Reagan elected. It is now going into the realm in political discourse, money, money, money. We have a political establishment, and a citizenry that’s willing to borrow and spend instead of taxing and spending. Because the, the, the appeal of no taxes or low taxes, is the selfish appeal. An appeal to our selfish. The Kennedys, the 1961 inauguration speech would not fly today. But he made that speech in a very different value climate then today's value climate and the Reagan era, for me was just simply a consequence of this change in value. Not-not, not a cause of it. It- of course, reinforced it, but-but you can see these value changes year by year by year leading up to 1980. And it was pretty clear that something was going to happen politically. 42:17 SM: So, when people say that when they talk about the Boomer generation, and they talk about the new left and-and all the groups involved in the movements that the conservative students and the conservatives were kind of never talked about, even though they were probably some say maybe even larger number than those that were main movement protests and so forth. I have had this in some of my interviews that the conservatives have been excluded when you talk about the Boomer generation and-and then of course, there is there was a national, I think Student Association, there was William Buckley's group that met and then of course, the rise your you mentioned the rise of Ronald Reagan, but it kind of started with Barry Goldwater in (19)64. And those ideas really came to fruition, the late (19)70s. That and that is why we see today, the neo cons and the conservatives and their attacks on the (19)60s. And that generation as a breakup of our society, were the conservative students of that era, which some say were more were larger in number than the new left and the liberal students and students of color. 43:34 AA: No-no, now we have now we have done surveys of that, that is a myth that is- the peak time for the left politically, in terms of political identification was in the early (19)70s. When you had the left outnumbering the right, by better than three to one, we would have never seen anything like that since. As far as defining concomitantly with the materialist because let’s face it, the left does not make a very good appeal to your individual read, right? That is not something that the left is very good at. And-and the right, of course, is all about that. And so that, that helps to account for the fact that now the left barely outnumbers the right. And it has been that way for twenty years. That the left-right balances, are pretty much even lean, tilts slightly left. And it always has, but it is- of course if you break it down by gender, the women are still significantly and then the men significantly right today, and that has been that way for- 45:23 SM: In your view what? You have made reference to several of them already materialism. But in your view, what were the main issues of Boomer generation before they reach the age of 30? And-and I asked the same question, again, what has been the main issues of this generation after the age of 30? Since the oldest are now 64? And the youngest are 49. 45:46 AA: I am not sure that-that the issues are any different for the Boomers today than they are for other people today, you know, younger people today. I do not. I do not, I think it is difficult to single out something called the Boomers in contemporary times, as really being very different from anybody else. We have all been sort of swamped by technology and by materialism and by knowledge, distribution of wealth and that has impacted all of us. I do not know. 46:42 SM: How about before the age of 30? 47:43 AA: Well before the age of 30? Certainly, I think there was, there was a legacy of the days of activism of the days of hope, for humanity, that we-we have power to make things better. I think the, you know, Jimmy Carter was a big disappointment to a lot of the Boomers. He was seen as too timid and, in a way, we were sort of seeing the same things today with Obama, I think people are seeing him as too timid, to willing compromise, who willing to sort of cave in to pressure his enemies. And I think that Carter was the same, although the whole Carter thing was so confounded by the- Iranian contraband, you know, that rumble in the desert has been-been successful. Our perception of Jimmy Carter might be entirely different. And Reagan may never have been elected. Oh, yeah, you have that little military adventure in the desert was the- such a damaging thing that Carter's image and he had nothing to do with it. Bad weather. So, you know, I but I, he was, I think, seen as timid and as a disappointment and not having the courage of [inaudible] and by the, and then Reagan pu-put sort of finality to it, that was the [inaudible] for boomers and [inaudible] and then become as popular as he did further disillusion at least to the Boomers on the left. 49:09 SM: One person told me that when they think of the Boomer generation, they think of white men and women, and they had not, they never thought of even thinking of African Americans and people of different orientation. I have only had a few people say that, but people were upfront about it saying, this is not just about white men and women. So, have you heard that before? 49:38 AA: No but I-I do think that there is a tendency for-for white people, at least, in probably maybe people of color as well to think of Boomers as white. I think that-that is what comes to mind. 50:01 SM: What? What is your- I have gotten a lot of questions here. What is your reaction to conservative thinkers who say most of the problems that Americans did to society today are due to the generation that came of age in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s? And I am referring to the drug culture, the sexual freedom, no respect for authority, lawlessness, center, a sense of no moral character or break up the American family, the idea of the welfare state, the rise of special interests, the ugly dressing and clothes that they used to wear rock and roll culture, linked to drugs, that they mocked the IBM mentality of their parents in the (19)50s. And, you know, when I say, you have heard this before, I know that Newt Gingrich, when he came to power (19)94 made commentaries and he is a Boomer. And George Well, over the years has always had articles in his books, shooting at this generation, and of course, you see it today on Fox with Glenn Beck and Mike Huckabee, and even Senator McCain made comments about Hillary Clinton, they are close friends, but made kind of derogatory comments during the campaign a couple years back. So just your thoughts on that? 51:31 AA: Well, it is sort of a revenge thing going on here. I mean, I think that all the attention that the that the activists got during the Boomers, the advent, aggravating people who did not agree with the civil rights movement, or the women's movement or the antiwar movement, or any of that. 51:51 SM: Please speak up to. 51:54 AA: Well, Yeah, I was just going to say that. But there was a lot of attention and a plane that flowed on Boomers on the left, and they did outnumber those on the Right. I think. So, it is important to realize that the psychology of the right, I think, I think, but the psychology of the right is a fear of losing control. It is all about control. And so, now, the right feels better having a big army having a tough belief, tough laws, tough courts, tough judges, you know, we got to maintain control, because we are all flawed center. And so, we need a song, ironically, a strong authoritarian government to keep people under control. And that is a-that is a big part of the psychology of people on the right. And I think, I think they saw the (19)60s and (19)70s as a time of loss of control. people got out of control, so it was very threatening. And so, you know, it is-it is the paradox. Me arguing that we have, you know, the government to say, we got to cut it down, but also to be advocating, this has always been the, the, the contradiction of right wing thought is that, there is theoretical claims of freedom and, and what that really means is freedom to make as much money as you want, and are able to at anybody else's expense is what that really means, which was very narrowly limited to the economic sphere. Right? Because the control is all pervasive on sex life on what you put in your body, so forth. And, and I think that is-that is what we are seeing is just the manifestation of that that dynamic. I think that is why the alliance was the religious right as the and the political right. It is really a pretty new thing. You know it did not exist during the Boomer’s pay day. 54:53 SM: Right. 54:53 AA: That is a relatively and I think that around this whole issue of control. 54:59 SM: You know it is interesting when I lived out in the Bay Area, I am going up to visit a couple days, some old friends, but when I lived out there, there was a minister on the radio. I was I was out there, late (19)83, (19)76 to (19)83. And I will never forget this minister, I was listening to him on a Sunday night, and he said, the world will be a much better place when the last member of the Boomer generation has died. And then he went on his whole sermon was about why because he felt that the not only that those who were the active and protesters, but he said the entire generation, even those that did nothing, were totally subconsciously affected by it. And then it could be nothing, but we create a negativity in our society down the road. It was a I almost threw the radio out the window [laughter] but-but I am. Phyllis Schlafly and David Horowitz and other critics of today's universities say that. Oftentimes they say the troublemakers of the (19)60s now control today's curriculum, and they were referring to obviously the Women's Studies Program, the black studies, gay studies, environmental studies, Asian American, Native American, Chicano, that is what they were referring to. And then, of course, they always say, they are educated. They are indoctrinating, and they are not educating by these things, your thoughts on their thoughts? 56:31 AA: Oh, right. They are, right. They, largely, the curriculum and the faculties are controlled by the troublemakers. And I think the differences in how the troublemakers are perceived and characterized. You know, if these are the people who helped to bring about equality for women, equality for African Americans, the end to an immoral war, the beginning of the end of the suppression of speech. Yeah, they are the troublemakers. And, if that is, you know, that is, that is the group that is in charge of academia right now. Then I am perfectly comfortable with that. 57:34 SM: What did what did universities learn from the students they served in the (19)60s, with particular emphasis on those who protested on campus when activism became the norm? What- I fear that today's universities have forgotten, the lessons that were that they should have learned particularly whether it be in linkage to the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in (19)64, (19)65. And the reasons why it happened. Not being upset with the fact that it did happen but understanding the reasons why it happened. And then all the protests, obviously from babies (19)65, (19)66 through the probably the 1973 time period when activism kind of died on campuses. What-what did universities learn, or do they have amnesia? 58:28 AA: I think the one thing they learned about-about protests was a tactical one. 58:34 SM: Hold on a second. I am going to turn my tape here. Hold on one second. How is your weather out there today? 58:40: AA: Very cloudy. 58:43 SM: We were-we were supposed to have some pretty strong 60 miles- [tape cuts] I do not know where they would be would it be, but I did not really the only reason. I am back. Go right-ahead. 58:59 AA: Okay. Well, I was going to say that. 59:06 SM: Still there? 59:10 AA: Yes, just a second, I dropped my phone. The- let us see what was on my mind, my mind was wondering- 59:35: SM: I was wondering what the universities learned from the students and service of the (19)60s, or do they have amnesia? 59:32 AA: they learned I mean, some tactical ways of dealing with protesters, and that is stop their issues, to have a conversation with-with the protesters. And-and in many cases, they did not do that. We did a major study on that during the (19)70 and the real difficulties on campus that came when the administration refused to stop or negotiate with the protesters. That is that. And also, the other one is bringing police on the campus inventorially. Because that was always an instigator to violence. I think they are much more sophisticated tactically, because they were on the other side of the protests during the during the (19)70s, late (19)60s, early (19)70s. So, they learned that much. Not allowed to negotiate with seemingly unreasonable people. 1:01:04 SM: Yeah, I think their whole experience at Kent State and Jackson State Police and guard coming on campus, when I was in Ohio State, Dr. Philip trippy, you may have known was my well, he was-he was one of the reasons why I went to Ohio State. And then I had a great advisor. In Dr. Roosevelt, Johnson went on to Johns Hopkins University, and they were like, to close the faculty members. And we have a lot of classes dealing with the issue of illegal aspects in higher education, about who can and cannot come on a university campus. And so, you are really right down there with respect to responding to that. Still there? 1:01:46 AA: Yes, I think, I think they-they learned a lot about the tactics. You know, the problem is, is that we do not have these big, weeping social issues, that can galvanize a lot of people. You know, you enumerated all the other much smaller scale protest movements of various sorts. Not only are they not able to galvanize large numbers of students around an issue, but also the ethical and moral issues are not as clear cut. You know, just to take one example, in the American Indian distaste for team mascot name, as you know- 1:02:49 SM: Cleveland Indians, and- 1:02:52 AA: Basically, the main issue that seems to get the attention of activists in the American community, and one of my former doctoral students, devoting pretty much all of her spare time to this issue. And it does not, it does not get any attention from people outside of the community involved. Like racial discrimination got the attention of a lot of white people. And gender discrimination got the attention of a lot of men. And of course, woman was a large enough group. It did not need the men, but it nevertheless, there was a lot of attention. So, these, a lot of these more specialized protests do not seem to get that much attention. And, and also, I think the-the, what is required to deal with it is a fairly minor things like, okay, Stanford, led the way back in the (19)60s, aging, his name from the Indians to the Cardinals. And then, I mean, big deal. And of course, professional sports teams are refusing fraud. Basically, that-that is the problem is it is the issues do not get the attention, get the empathy, empathy of people outside of the group. 1:04:49 SM: Bear with me here I have a question to ask here. And we will read this thing-thing, man, we will read this one. Universities today- This is just me thinking. Universities today emphasize service learning, and really have a push for volunteerism as important goals and preparing students for the world they will face in the future, by giving them the sense of helping and caring for those less fortunate than themselves. However, I feel universities are afraid of the term activism, which is really a 24 to 24/7 mentality as opposed to volunteerism that is oftentimes required, especially in Greek life organizations, and but although others do it on their own, maybe for two hours a week, because they we because they remember a time of disruption in the (19)60s and (19)70s. Where students demand. Where students were making demands that is greater questioning of what money is or accepted or used from corporations linked to war. These are just examples. In my right in my perception that money over ideas and social conscience is the number one thing in higher ed today. Because they are constantly doing fundraising, everybody has a link to it. And if there is a threat to that, these other you know, a lecture, they want to put a lecture because of that speaker is controversial, it could affect the money coming into the university. Are universities afraid activism, the term activism? 1:06:32 AA: That is hard to say? I guess I would put it differently. I think, what the materialism has infected. Is university, far beyond what we could have imagined, back in the (19)60s and (19)70s. And it has been exacerbated by policymakers who starve the institutions. And they find out, they can get away with that, because the institutions have a way of compensating mainly to raise their fees. And so, I think the-the focus on money is-is way too powerful. And it distorts our thoughts, distort our policies. And so, you know, we-we hire fundraisers to lead our institutions rather than educational leaders. And I think that is a huge mistake. 1:08:06 SM: That was what Arthur Chickering said, when I interviewed him, about six months ago, at the end of the interview of a job and revenue, book, education, identity, in depth, comparing about the boom generation, I asked him this. Is there one final thought you would like to give me as we end the interview? Is there anyone concern you have about higher education today? And he said, yes. Corporations have again, taken over. 1:08:34 AA: He is right? 1:08:35 SM: And, and you see, that is what really upsets me as a student, the (19)60s and you think of the Free Speech Movement, you think of Mario Savio, whether you like the guy or not, he is his voice. And if you read his speeches and what he had to say, to universities, about ideas, that is why I went to school, I went to school because I loved to learn about ideas. It is not about corporations taken over. And I know and so I have interviewed quite a few people linked to the Free Speech Movement. And even though they like Clark Kerr, as a human being, and many of them because he got fired by Ronald Reagan, and that was a plus in the eyes of the movement because that was a good thing. They did not because they just did not like Reagan so much that they call that a badge of honor for-for him. But, you know, he talked about the knowledge factory, well knowledge factories, what that upset a lot of students at Berkeley, and I tell you, it worries me today that history has forgotten in the university. And those students back then we were really fighting for the students of the day because the universities of our learning and ideas of education first, will last and forever. That is just me. 1:09:49 AA: I would agree with you. And the tragedies that we seem to have come to the place now where bottom line seems to predominate over everything else. And it is, it is bad. 1:10:13 SM: I want to get this quartered here that you have a tremendous interview that I have read over the web with T. Mills, do you remember this interview? And this is a quote from you, you have already mentioned this, but I want it for the record. This is a quote from you. “The problem is really larger than that, because the society is so different than it was in 1969. Kids grow up with a different set of stimulation, their ability to concentrate, their ability to read to listen well is different. It is different primarily because of TV, and the electronic media.” [chuckles] And that is-that is a beautiful quote [inaudible]. I actually sent this quote to some of my friends on Facebook that are in higher ed, did not. You basically, that was what you have been saying. 1:11:02 AA: Yeah, and, you know, we even tested this out, we-we studied a couple of cohorts of college undergraduates to see how their materialistic values develop during college. And, of course, in general, they tend to decline. And I think that is one of the salutary effects of the college experience is, students began to reassess their values and priorities. And this has been true from the earliest studies back in the (19)30s. That the college experience tends weaken your materialistic values, but there are individual exceptions. And one of the interesting studies we did was to see what-what kinds of experiences during the college years tend to promote materialistic values and guess what it is the television that you watch in your, in strengthening your materialistic values. 1:12:25 SM: You mentioned in that interview with cane Mills that the students today, in 2010, that you stated in the same interview is as much different is a much different clientele than those in the (19)60s and (19)70s. In the year that because their values are different. There is less learning for its own sake. And we learn in order to get credentials, get a job and to make more money. And you are-you are pretty good at saying, this is not a blame game. But it is just the basic fact that our culture is different. When you talk about their values are different. Could you just explain how the Boomer-Boomer generation values are different than say the millennial values of today? 1:13:13 AA: Well, first of all, they are much less politically and gay today. They are more cynical about politics. So of course, that leaves the field to the people who want to manipulate the political world, because the populace is not that interesting. And that is reflected of course in voting patterns and a lot of other things. The- I also think that not having access to print media that you and I were used to, is another factor because I really believe that print media, getting your news, through print media is a different experience. Again, you are more reflective. I think getting it off the internet or on television, which is worst thing is- makes you much more vulnerable to being manipulated, frankly. And so, I think it is easier today to manipulate public opinion than it ever has been. The so-called mainstream media are responsible here, it seems to me again, because they are primarily out to make a buck. And so, you know, if it bleeds, it leads, and the most outrageous things that politicians say and do get the attention. And so, people who are willing to be outrageous who are willing, and the attention really is-is simply look what this person said, rather than this person made up a story or this person lied, or this person to sort of the facts, they do not have that kind of reporting anymore in the mainstream media very much more. And maybe we get a little bit of that on MSNBC. But it is not right-wing propaganda. It is a being a funnel, for right-wing propagandists, I am overstating the case, but the problem is that our brains are being watched. And we do not know it. And there are some people who-who resist it. You know, years ago, Leo Postman used this wonderful metaphor in the sidebar, you know, what education really needs is the capacity to develop our craft detectors. I think he is lifting a line from Ernest Hemingway or somebody earlier. But the idea that, particularly this day, where were barraged with opinions and, and distortions and lies and so forth, is that we need to have the capacity to sort out reality from propaganda. And I think we lacked that kind of critical capacity. People do not have it. 1:17:14 SM: You-you mentioned in-in a lot of your writings that one of the key components of a successful college career is the emphasis on diversity. And I 100 percent agree. I went to Ohio State because I knew in that program, even in early (19)70s, little (19)70s, that multicultural diversity was a very important part of their program. And I was honored to have Dr. Johnson's my advisor who really, you know, made a strong in that particular area. But there, you mentioned in [inaudible] talking about diversity, that there were several ways of talking about it, you felt it was important that if you had to preach it, then do it, you were able to incorporate it into your courses or workshops and speakers on campus. And students that are encouraged to interact between the races. And then you see the very end student outcomes that are not positive come out of this emphasis. Have you-have you again, respond to these critics? And again, I always bring this because I would have to have both sides here, who say that some that all of these activities centered around indoctrination, not education. Because when you say preaching it and incorporating it, I think you have already responded with respect to an earlier question on this, but diversity is important, but for those some students today, and I hate it, I do not like it forced down my throat. And I have had that from some of my conservative students over the past 10 to 15 years. 1:18:51 AA: Well, I do not know exactly what they mean by forced down your throat. You know- 1:18:56 SM: Well, that is, there is nothing wrong with preaching the importance of it in the university environment for its students. That could be from administrators or faculty members? 1:19:08 AA: Well, you know, the, the whole idea of a liberal education is based on this concept of exposing the students to new and different points of view, people, cultures, ideas, and so forth. That is-that is the whole idea behind it. And of course, there are some people who are do not want their kids to be exposed to a liberal learning, and so they will send them to an evangelical college or the Military Academy or something like that. Wonderful aspects of our diversity. But the vast majority of our institutions are committed to liberal learning, and to providing a liberal education. And a good part of that involves exposing the students to new and different people and ideas. And, you know, what is really interesting is that we have just finished in fact, you might want to check out the microsite he developed for the book that is coming out at the end of this month. So, cultivating the spirit, “How college can enhance students’ inner lives,” that is the subtitle. Anyway, you can just go to cultivatingthespirit.com. And the website, indorses the book and so forth. But we were very excited about this. Because what we found is that experiences that expose students to new and different kinds of people and ideas and cultures, so forth. experiences like study abroad, interdisciplinary study, service learning, and even interracial interactions. All these experiences contribute to student's spiritual development and enhances their lives. And when we have defined spirituality as-as a multi-dimensional quality of all traits like equitability and your sense of connectedness to the world, your, your ethic of caring for other stuff like that, these are spiritual qualities that we looked at. And, and, and all of these kinds of liberal learning experiences, enhance spiritual development. And spiritual development, in turn, enhances the college experience in general. Qualities developed in college, they get better grades, they are more likely to be satisfied with college, they become more interested in graduate study and so forth. So, it is a very exciting study, and we had no idea we are going to find something quite-quite exciting. 1:22:28 SM: It is amazing, because as I am reading this question here, where were the students in the (19)60s and (19)70s, with respect to spirituality, the perception is the perception that you read from the books on the (19)60s is as they were reared in large numbers going to church and synagogues in the (19)50s. And that religion was very important then. And, and of course, religion was an issue when John Kennedy was elected president there of all the concerns of the Catholics, the pope would control his thought. But as the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, showed many less organized religions, and became involved in what I call the inner spirituality. We saw it with the Beatles, we saw with rap groups, we felt with entertainers that will the media portrayed Zen Buddhism became very strong. Course people went into communes and so forth. And so, they continue their religion but not in a structured way. are your thoughts on the Boomer generation and their sense of spirituality? 1:23:44 AA: I think it was expressed in their-in their moral outrage about, about the war about racism, both myself I think, I think we are sensitive of meaning and purpose and value and that sort of thing came out in that form. And it was all self-righteousness involved, and no question about that. But I think in general, the run of the mill student protests were motivated by altruism and by concern with social justice and equity and caring about the others. And that is an important aspect of one spirituality is one sense of connectedness, and people. Some-some theorists argue that it is the essence of what spirituality is all about. But, you know, the religious engagement Actually, we found declines during college while your spatial qualities tend to get stronger. Even though spirituality is more often a quality of religious people, and is not always that question about that, but in spite of the fact that the two kinds of qualities are positively associated, one of them decline in college and the other gets stronger. And I think that has a lot to do with the fact that, to a certain extent, the entering college students religious versus a product, a heavily a product of the family experience. They get away from that he is exposed to other religions and other religious perspectives. And then he begins to wonder, well, maybe this is not the one and only fate, and so forth. And I think that because we have a measure of religious struggle and that-that does show a substantial growth during college. 1:26:07 SM: I think it was about eight years ago, at West Chester University at the Student Affairs meeting. I do not know how it came out during the round came along around any news to report and someone said, well, are you aware of the students meeting in the basement of Challenger Hall, and they are meeting at seven o'clock in the morning before classes meet students of color or sexual orientation? Male, female or all ethnic groups. And I said why? Well, because one of their fellow students was killed in an automobile accident, over the Christmas holidays. And when they came back, they were meaning to try to figure out, why did this happen to her? And what is my meaning? Why am I here? And it had nothing to do with whether you are Catholic or Jewish, you know, Muslim, Protest- It had nothing to do with any of that it had to do with the fact of they loved the students. They could not understand why she had been taken away in and acc-. the person was a drunk, that did it. And he was just coming back from Christmas break, and he was killed. And so, they were just sat over there for dinner. they were talking about why are we here? What is our purpose? 1:27:22 AA: Yeah, and that is-that is exactly what-what we call that a spiritual quest. That shows a lot of growth during college, and they begin to attach more importance to exploring questions like that the big quest of life and living, 1:27:39 SM: Right. One of the things that- 1:27:41 AA: I am going to have to take off. So, can we wrap this up in a minute? 1:27:50 Yeah, I ever run another five pages of questions, but I guess I will not be able to get them in. Can I ask two more questions? 1:27:54 AA: Okay. 1:27:55 SM: Maybe; let us see? Which ones do I want to ask you? I guess. One of the questions is that in the in the late (19)80s, and early (19)90s, political correctness was a very, we heard that all the time on college campuses, the PC, and there is a sharp attack on some of the programs we mentioned, and so forth. And then, of course, in the (19)50s, we saw attacks on trying to find communists, you know, behind every wall or whatever. Did you think when you heard all these talks about political correctness in the late (19)80s, and (19)90s. Any comparison with McCarthyism in the (19)50s trying to drown out people that in a university environment that for whatever reason? 1:28:51 AA: I have not heard that comparison, but I-I understand it, I mean, I can see the parallel and it probably has some validity to it because, like with any-any social movements, they are going to be excesses. And I think some of the political correctness, you know, represents an excess is, you know, inevitable social movement. And I, my sense about it is that is that we just should not take ourselves too seriously. [laughs] That have a bit of a sense of humor about-about that. You know, it is interesting that the phrase political correctness was actually coined by people on the web to and they would use it to joke with each other about-about being too clapper with language or whatever. The right picked it up and ended against it. Last- 1:30:02 SM: We had a-we had a conservative politician in the mid (19)90s. Coming to the university checking to make sure faculty members were in their office. And they were supposed to be looking at liberal [inaudible]. It was unbelievable. And I thought is this McCarthyism all over again? 1:30:18 AA: Listen, I know a guy in the Department of Education when the Reagan administration came in. They sent some guy with a clipboard around to one office after another, classifying people as to their politics. And I would say how they would classify you, and he says, as a communist. 1:30:41 SM: Oh, my God. 1:30:42 AA: Okay. Department of Education. 1:30:45 SM: Oh, my God. My last question here is that data has shown that less than 16 percent, were involved in any sort of activism within the Boomer generation, the (19)60s or (19)70s. And that could be conservative or liberal activism. People that I have interviewed for this book, have said it was much less than 15 percent. Do you have data to verify this? As far as values are concerned. Do you have data to show the impact that this period had on Boomer youth both consciously and subconsciously, as time went by? 1:31:20 AA: You know, it all depends on the, you know, the most widely participated in protest was, of course, first day in 1971, (19)70, (19)71. Whenever they say was, we do a national study of this of this whole issue. In the published in a book called The Power of Protest, it is a jokey book of 19- whenever that was 1980, I cannot remember exactly when it might have been earlier 1977. But a lot of it is in there. I could not dig that out right now. But there is a lot of sorts of normative data on how many participated and what impact that participation had on them and that kind of thing. And so, you might want to check that out. 1:32:16 SM: What is the name of that Book? 1:32:19 AA: The Power of Protest. There were four of us who were authors if I recollect my wife, and I think we had four authors on that. 1:32:36 SM: What do you think the legacy will be in this generation once they are all gone? What will the historians’ educators and-and the sociologists be saying about the generation and secondly, in the current way, you feel this generation will go to its grave, like the Civil War generation, with so much division, that they will not be healed. The reason I asked this question is because I took a group of students to Washington in 1995 and I cannot understand this [inaudible]. And they were very concerned that the Boomer generation that they had seen on film reminded them of the Civil War generation that they had been reading about in their books, where divisions were so strong between black and white male and female gainsay. Those who supported the war and those who were against the war that that they were going to go to their grave like the Civil War generation bitter, feeling hate remorse and not feeling like they did in the Civil War. So basically, it is a two-part question, question of healing and the question of the legacy. 1:33:53 AA: I think if they it depends on who they are going to believe. You know, the right-wing propaganda machine is well oiled and has starting with, I guess, the Nixon and on with [inaudible], with these are books that are being drowned out by the Heritage Foundation and the taser and so forth. If you want to believe those characterizations, when you know, you are going to, you know, feel like you are a failure, nothing happens, but deceit to me. We got to look at the facts. And the facts are the generation initiated a lot of very-very important, positive changes and provided an atmosphere for other social movements to take foothold. And also, they popularize the idea of a value-based approach to public policy and government, so forth, as opposed to a cynical power approach. And so, there is so many positive aspects to it. And the excesses are easy to burlesque like political correctness, like reverse discrimination, and so forth. And but I think in, all in all, it has been very positive force in our society and-and the folks who, who were part of that movement, need to step up and be counted. So, you know, we are proud of what we accomplished, and we think society is better off for it, and it is not drugs and rock and roll. 1:36:16: SM: Much more I thank you; do you have any other final thoughts? 1:36:20 AA: I think that is about it. I really got to run. (End of Interview) Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Description 1 Microcassette Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Alexander Astin Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Astin, Alexander W. ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Authors; Astin, Alexander W.--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Alexander Astin is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Higher Education and Organizational Change, at the University of California, Los Angeles and the founding director for the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. Dr. Austin has authored 23 books and has been a recipient of awards for his outstanding research. In addition, he was a part of the National Academy of Education. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-10-15 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In Copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.35 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 96:20 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/85a2e332ce2c49576b950b114a7eb46c.jpg fa712d46ece6d368ae60c16bec4559fa https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/9b382a7f1e7b21148a47f943cb63898d.mp3 7275b8ce9da1ee7814ddc96ac860a024 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-06-21 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Alice Echols Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Alice Echols is a professor of History and Gender Studies at University of Southern California. She authored four books and several articles. Dr. Echols has a Bachelor's degree in History from Macalester College and a Master's degree and Ph.D. from University of Michigan.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15105,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Alice Echols is a professor of History and Gender Studies at the University of Southern California. She authored four books and several articles. Dr. Echols has a Bachelor's degree in History from Macalester College and a Master's degree and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data MicroCassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;SDS; Racism; Weathermen; Affirmative Action; Women's Studies; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Graduate Employees Organization; Activism; Feminism; Women's Movement; Racial Discrimination; 1960s; 1970s; Environmental Movement; Anti-War Movement; Soul Music; Funk Music; Disco Era; Identity Politics; Sexual Revolution; Janis Joplin; Roe v. Wade; Sexism; Anti-War Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Abortion Rights; Demobilization; John F. Kennedy Assassination; Drug Culture&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:515,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13689059},&quot;12&quot;:0}">SDS; Racism; Weathermen; Affirmative Action; Women's Studies; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Graduate Employees Organization; Activism; Feminism; Women's Movement; Racial Discrimination; 1960s; 1970s; Environmental Movement; Anti-War Movement; Soul Music; Funk Music; Disco Era; Identity Politics; Sexual Revolution; Janis Joplin; Roe v. Wade; Sexism; Anti-War Movement; Civil Rights Movement; Abortion Rights; Demobilization; John F. Kennedy Assassination; Drug Culture</span> Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 145:52 Subject LCSH College teachers; Echols, Alice--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Alice Echols Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 21 June 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:04): Alice Echols. AE (00:00:08): Okay. SM (00:00:09): My first question is, when you were in college during the late (19)60s and early (19)70s as an undergrad and then in graduate school in the late (19)70s through the mid (19)80s, what did you see both socially and culturally? What stood out? I know that you have written in Disco about the music and the movements that were taking place in America in the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, and some of the influences that were happening too, and not only African Americans, but women and gay and lesbian Americans. Just your thoughts on your college years and what you saw. AE (00:00:51): Do you mean on campus? I mean- SM (00:00:54): Yes, on campus. AE (00:00:55): Okay. Okay. Well, I went to, as an undergraduate, I attended Carleton College, which is in Northfield, Minnesota. It is sort of surrounded by cornfields. And yeah, there were not a lot of attractions beyond the campus. There were a few, but there were not very many. In fact, I left Carleton and did my senior, so my last, pretty much last year and a half, I guess I would say, at Macalester College, which was in Saint Paul. I did that for a number of reasons, but certainly, one of the reasons I transferred... Because I had a lot of friends at Carleton and we stayed friends, and they were a big piece of my story. I am still Close to some of them. But I went to Macalester because it was a more politically active campus. As I said, it was in the city. It had, I think, the greatest proportion, the highest proportion, I believe, of EEOC students of any college campus. And it also had, and this is kind of remarkable, it had... The student council or student government had been able to hire an organizer to organize students, and he was a Saul Alinsky trained organizer. And so, how many college campuses could that be set up? Probably none other. Highly unusual. Very much greater population of minorities, especially African Americans at that campus when I was there. And to make it even stranger, this was pretty much underwritten by DeWitt Wallace money, which is to say Reader's Digest money. At a certain point in time, you cannot trust me on this because it is a sort of more hearsay than anything I have actually read, but I think he pulled a good deal of his money from Macalester. But in any case, it was a very different kind of experience. At Carleton, we smoked a lot of dope, and people within my friendship network certainly dropped a good deal of acid. I did not do much of that myself because I never had as well a time, but it was a... Carleton was a college campus, which was pretty intense by virtue of being in the northern frozen tundra. So, there was not a lot of activism happening. We were one of the colleges to go on strike as a result of the invasion of Cambodia. And I have this very, very dear memory, and I may be completely wrong about this, but Kai Bird's name started to cross my radar some years ago. I think that Kai Bird may have also been a student at Carleton. But the long and the short of it was that it was not as politically active a campus as Macalester, which is, again, one of the major reasons that I switched. For me, I mean, college was... I had gone to Sidwell Friends in DC, so I had gone to a prep school. I was fairly well-prepared, I would say, academically. Culturally, socially, well, there was a lot of sex. Not very much of it, for me, very meaningful. And I do think that many of us felt as though men... I should say that among the women with whom I was friends, I certainly think that there were friends of mine who were having more fun sexually than I was probably, but I still think that there was a way in which there was some pressure to be heterosexually active. There was really no overt feminist consciousness at Carleton when I was there. I remember my roommate who became a Wall Street banker turned organic farmer, a wonderful woman. And this is much, much later, obviously, in her life. I remember her showing up with Kate Millett's Sexual Politics, and it was like, "Wow." SM (00:06:05): Wow. Yeah. AE (00:06:08): This was highly... Feminism was not part of the fabric of that school yet. Although I do remember, I think it was after I had already moved to Macalester, Gloria Steinem and Margaret Sloan, who was her sidekick then, African American woman who was very important. They came to campus and there was a huge turnout. SM (00:06:29): Wow. AE (00:06:30): And they were great. I mean, they were just wonderful. That probably would have been, I would imagine (19)73, I suspect, (19)72 or (19)73. But feminism was not a very lively presence. There were rumors. I remember the first transgender person I ever met was at Carleton, but was, again, not somebody who I at least understood as having any kind of feminist... This was SM. And it was rumored that when this person had... Well, I mean, let us just say that I was not really aware of any openly lesbian or gay people on that campus. Now, when I went to Macalester, I was living off campus. It was much less intense. It was much more of a commuter campus. Carleton was not. Everybody who was a student there lived on campus pretty much. And it was not even possible to have a car. I mean, when I was at Carleton, I had one of the few cars that you had to park it off campus and pretend that you did not own it. So, it was a kind of hot house. And I do not mean necessarily altogether intellectually so. It was sort of claustrophobic. We often tended to... It was easy to get involved with your best friend's boyfriend and stuff like that would happen. So, there was a lot of that kind of drama around. Macalester was different. As I said, it was a commuter college. There certainly was the beginnings of a feminist and lesbian feminist community there in Saint Paul. And I got introduced to it a little bit when I was a student there, but it did not... I was still rather nervous about all of that and what that meant. It really did feel like jumping off the cliff sort of to even get involved with any group. Not that I am particularly aware of there being any on-campus groups. I think I left there probably about (19)70... This is when it gets tricky. Probably, I think it was the summer of (19)74, and that is when I moved to Santa Fe. So, just to try to answer your question a little bit better, my sense was... I had been politically active, you have to understand, before I went to college. And I write about that in the introduction to Shaky Ground. I had been involved in a strange, little group outside of DC where I had grown up that was supposed to be fighting racism in the suburbs, and more specifically at University of Maryland stuff. I had done a good deal of... I had read a good deal of stuff that summer of (19)69 of some of the people who we met, because we hung out at the SDS house in DC, and we supported breaking furniture workers and did various things. Taxicab drivers went on strike that summer and we supported them at Union Station. But we were allied with this SDS office in DC that I think was viewed by the national office as rather dysfunctional. I do not know if it was. I do remember Bill Ayers coming here and being there one evening when he told us... He was very provocative, and he told us that we really had to pick up the gun if we were serious about fighting racism and stopping the war. SM (00:10:26): Is that when they were going to the Weatherman? AE (00:10:30): Yeah. This was when Weatherman was developing. Trying to remember when the War Council was in Flint, Michigan. It may have been... I think it was right around that time. You'd have to check, but there was Weather people around that factor. And I remember one of them trying to recruit me to go to David's grave, and it just did not make sense to me, actually. And I cannot really tell you why, except that I think I was probably nervous, made uncomfortable by the violence and also the elitism, I think. But again, this could very much be retrospective because certainly, I have been pretty critical of Weatherman in my hourly work. And let me just say, I was not impressed by Bill Ayers. I thought he was a real prick. So, when I came to Carleton, I thought that there was going to be more political activism. And what I found was some people who indeed had a political consciousness, but it was a pretty... Really, the life at the campus was really organized. I mean, at least among my friends, it was really about partying and keggers, and smoking dope, and the occasional dropping of acid, and having a lot of sex. It was not that... And I am not saying that that does not have a political dimension, but this was not a very strong political campus. Although that said, I did take a class with Paul Wellstone when he was- SM (00:12:26): Oh, yeah, the former senator who died in the plane crash. AE (00:12:29): And he was really incredible. I remember taking the class with him on civil disobedience. And there were indeed some political people there who influenced me. So, I do not know. I was one of those people who I suppose could have gone in the direction of further political activism of that sort. Organized, in other words, some sort of variety of left activism. And what happened to me was I ended up after college... Or again, on both campuses. Although at Macalester, there was less [inaudible]. And oddly enough, even though it was a more political campus, I do not remember being that much more politically involved. But be that as it may, I ended up moving with a bunch [inaudible] to Santa Fe, New Mexico, because I just fell in love with it when I came and visited. And one of my friends had grown up here and had been as an architect in Santa Fe and was just somebody who knew Pen La Farge. I think he was the half-brother of Peter La Farge, a folk singer in The Village and was the son of Oliver La Farge, the writer who was the author of Laughing Boy. And so, we stayed in this wonderful house that had belonged to Oliver La Farge. It was still in the La Farge family while Pen was at graduate school in Boston. We lived there for a year. And during that time, I heard about this interesting program in women's studies at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. And I started to go to their meetings. Again, this is something that I write about again in the introduction to Shaky Ground, but that experience was really pretty life changing because this was not... Even though it was ostensibly meant to be an academic program, this is a pretty wild and wooly one. I mean, this one- SM (00:14:55): It was certainly new. AE (00:15:01): It was new. It was definitely new, and one had the feeling that there was very little out there, actually. And one was really making the curriculum. But it was unusual in the sense that community people like myself, because I had not gotten my BA. But I got my BA from Macalester, not from UNM. I was not doing anything there but working as actually a gardener trainee too eventually. But community people were able, like myself, were able to speak in the program for a period of time, which was really probably not a great thing. But looking back on it, I do not think I had the expertise. I do not think I had the skills to teach effectively. I do not think I knew enough. But nonetheless, being part of that group of mostly graduate students, because there was, I believe, only one faculty member who was married, I think, to someone in the philosophy department, and I think taught as an adjunct at the university. I think she was the only faculty member. Again, very, very telling, working as an adjunct. That would change over time, but when I was involved, which probably would have been about, I think it was probably (19)74, (19)75. Again, my dates here are fairly shaky, but it was a really impressive group. I mean, impressive, yes, a lot of smart women in that group, and it was a group only of women. A lot of political tensions between socialist feminists and those who were more mainstream and those who were lesbian feminists. This was my first real introduction to lesbians, and they both inspired me and terrified me. But I would say that there was probably more in the way of admiration than terror. But they were so super articulate. They were so articulate. They were so sure of themselves. They did not seem like the kind of miserable, dysfunctional losers that they were meant to be. And that really did completely blow my mind. And so, I began to tentatively... I eventually moved to Albuquerque. I started to go to the lesbian bar. And indeed, my first visit there was terrifying because none of those women were there, but it really was life changing. Two of the women who were part of that Women's Studies Collective, as we were called, had ties to Olivia Records. And that was the all-women's record company that recorded only women, people like Cris Williamson, and not Holly Near, but Meg Christian and several others. I mean, it was a pretty accomplished group of women, Lucia Valeska, who would then go on to be one of the heads of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. This is not to romanticize it. I would say that... This was what? Probably, as I said, (19)74, (19)75, and they were all... There was a kind of dogmatism there that I did not like. I have never been a big fan of dogmatism. So, even then, that is certainly in play. I had a kind of uneasy relationship, I think, at first to that group because I was perceived very much and indeed did identify first as bisexual. And that was not a good thing to be in those days. You were not seen as farther along. You might think that lesbian feminists would think, "Oh, well, there is a bisexual. So, at least, she's more open than her heterosexual sisters." But no, it's not that way at all. It was much more the case of people, those folks, regarding you as really lacking conviction. You were seen as wishy-washy. You were seen as being the epitome of the liberal. And as you know in the (19)60s, in the long (19)60s, there was really nothing worse than being a liberal. People would rather deal with, in some sense, at least this was the rhetoric, would rather deal with somebody who was overtly inimical to their aims than somebody who they felt was dodgy in the way that they felt liberals were. So, I think bisexual women were really seen as dodgy characters, sketchy characters. And so, yeah, like many bisexual women, I did come out. And indeed, I suspect that even probably some of the women who were, I am quite sure this is true, who were the most vociferous, fiercest lesbian feminists have since gone back to men. But I did not really. I did not. But I would say that those were both wonderful years and scary years. Being involved, not so much in that collective, but in that first community and going to the bar, going to the lesbian bar, it was a very scary thing to do. It was not in a good neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination. There was sometimes men who would prowl the parking lot in order to beat up guys. That never happened to me. But I remember evening or nights when men were chased away. There were fights inside the bar for sure. There were tensions between Chicanos and Anglos, between working class women and middle-class women, between town and gown. I would not say antagonism but mistrust or distrust. So, it was a pretty... It was also a wonderful place in many ways, although it was a complete [inaudible]. But I would say you really did feel like you were leaving your life behind. And I started to see much less of my friends in Santa Fe when I moved down there, and I came out. Relations with my family became much tenser. They had been a little tense because I had been involved in these political groups. And I can remember calling my mother up to tell her that I was coming out, and she was just so actually relieved that I was not calling to say that I was joining some terrorist group. That actually, her reaction, I would not say that it was great, but it could have been a lot worse. There was definitely, I think, an element of relief. SM (00:23:16): So, your generation gap between your parents was over this issue? AE (00:23:21): Well, I would say my father was a pretty interesting character because he had been a new neoliberal and he subscribed to I. F. Stone weekly, at a point in time when actually it could have hurt him because he ended up, he worked at the Veteran's Administration, and he became the head of the mortgage loan guarantee division. And that was a job, it was a position that required congressional approval, as I understand it. And they could subpoena anything, everything, anything, including what he was subscribing to. So, that was pretty nervy of him. But over time, I will say that he became, and this was a source of a lot of conflict between us, he became a Reagan nut. He ended up moving to the right. For all I know, he voted for Nixon. I am just not sure. But he ended up moving to the right. And we did have fights about racism and about affirmative action, and about the ERA, and abortion. Yeah, we definitely did. Not so much as my mother. My mother was not as politically invested as my father was because he worked at a government agency. I do not doubt that he saw a good deal of abuse and fraud, especially in his workings with HUD because he had [inaudible]. SM (00:25:08): Do you think the McCarthy hearings had anything to do with his fear of what could happen to him if he was a liberal and... AE (00:25:23): Well, no, because he was subscribing to I. F. Stone. And I. F. Stone, as you know, was- SM (00:25:24): Yeah. Pretty much, yeah. AE (00:25:31): Certainly, was judged a dangerous lefty by some people in the administration. And I think by the time that my father... This would have been during Nixon's years when he was going up. So, I do not know. I do not really think so. I think he had every reason to be fearful given Nixon and given that administration about what might happen to his appointment. And it ended up not happening. He ended up being fine, but he was an odd person in that, as I understand it... Again, I have not checked this independently, but as I understand it, he was the first person at the VA in his division to hire an African American. And indeed, I had lunch with my father and this man a number of times. And he was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a man that could be characterized as an Uncle Tom. He really was not. So, my father was odd. I would say he was an interesting mix, who over time, I think mostly goes to the right, turns to the right because of the riots in DC. I think what happened there were friends of his were attacked by Black people in the street, including people who he knew to be very honorable liberals. That really changed him, and it was very hard to see that happen. It was hard to experience that. But we did continue to... So, he goes to the right. And for years, he would send a weekly letter, both of them, both of the parents would. And he would include a page usually, which would deal with current events and his sort of sense. He was forever making disparaging comments about gays and lesbians and feminists, and you name it. And finally, towards the latter part of his life, my mother, finally, because we had a big, serious falling out at some point, I think it was in the (19)90s, and my mother persuaded me to ratchet that down, ratchet that rhetoric down. And in fact, before my mother died, she really became quite wonderful. Now, because father has died, she became much more open to- SM (00:28:22): Did you pick the University of Michigan for your master's and PhD because you wanted to be real competent in your knowledge of the subject matter that you were talking about earlier? AE (00:28:34): I had applied to a number of schools including UCLA, I think Yale, which I did not get into. But I think UCLA was definitely one of them and I did get in there, and Michigan and Yale. I think there was another school that I did not get into, and there was another one that I did, maybe Wisconsin. I ended up going to Michigan because it was meant to be very good in women's history. And Robin Jacoby was then a young and tenured faculty member there and Louise Billie was in European history. And so, it was very strong in social history. And as you know, women's history really grows out of social history. And there was a young urban historian there by the name of Elizabeth Pleck, whose husband Joe Pleck has done a lot of work on sex-role, as they were called, through sex- role socialization as it was involved in at that point in time. So, I really went there because of its reputation as a very strong department, but one that was especially strong, I hope, in women's history. That turned out not to be true. It turned out to be a very conservative department that I was getting into. For instance, Liz Pleck was denied tenure pretty early into my- [inaudible]. Pretty early into my time there, Robin Jacoby did not go up for tenure, knowing she would not get it. And they did not make any replacement. There was no real woman's historian hired there in the US side, which was what I was supposed to be in, until Phil Carlson was hired, which was, I think the year that I was... the year that I was defending or the year before I was defending my decision. So I effectively had the decision. I remember very clearly going and had... I had nobody to work with. I will get back to that interesting problem in a minute. But I went to Michigan also because it was Ann Arbor, it had this whole aura of, and history of radicalism, right? SM (00:30:59): Yes. AE (00:31:00): And so I was very eager to be there. And I knew that women's studies there were meant to be really interesting and it was really interesting. It was so terrific. This is where Gal Rubin was a graduate student and Kathleen Stewart or Katie Stewart was a graduate student there, and there were other people and it was just the most amazing collection of people. Believe me, it was a wonderful, wonderful experience to be part of that program. And that is really where my intellectual life was, it was not in history. History was still very conservative and that changes. Indeed, it is changing by the time I am finishing up, but really much too late to help me. But I was also part of the so called women's community there, which is to say really, basically the lesbian community and the collectives that ran the women's Bookstore in town. And then there were various struggles there, three of the VA nurses who again, we argued wrongly accused of killing people. This was legalized prostitution. Ann Arbor was the home of legalized marijuana and we thought legalized prostitution. So we were sort of the leading edge of the, I would say, the protest front before the sex board actually emerged. And some of it actually was because of the fact that a number of the women who were the most active women in the lesbian family community there also worked as bus drivers at the Unionized Trust company in Ann Arbor and also moonlighted as prostitutes. They worked, they were sex workers at a brothel that were city corner from where I [inaudible] later in the [inaudible]. So politically I was involved in the Graduate Employers Organization too, but that was not really where my heart was as much as it was in the women's community over time as against, over time as those organizations there were fewer of these mobilizations and I became more involved ultimately in writing the dissertation. So I became less politically active, but I was pretty politically active at first in my first years in Ann Arbor. But the person, the people who really saved me back to faculty members, and it was Barbara Fields, the Columbia historian, Barbara [inaudible], who I had done coursework with and had been on my world. And she and I ran into it. But there were a grocery store and she offered to co-chair my committee. And Louis Hilly, who was the Europeanist, was the other co-chair. But it is quite telling that in the dissertation it was really about radical feminism in the recent past. I had no one to work with others in, and they were Louis me. I am not complaining in the sense that they were wonderful to work with, but it was not their field. This was not their field. It was still mean. The history department there, as I said, was still fairly backwards. SM (00:34:32): I got a lot of questions here that are looking at the era. Can you discuss, I just had an interview last week with Susan Brown Miller and some of these questions I asked her too, and though she had some individual questions about her background, but please discuss the movements that evolved in the late (19)60s and (19)70s. And I am talking about the women's movement, the gay and lesbian movement, the environmental movement, the Native American movement, the Chicano movement, but civil rights movement was already taking place. But please discuss the movements that evolved in the late (19)60s and (19)70s and why they seem to have declined once the Reagan era began in the (19)80s. And a lot of people blame Reagan because of the administration, but the movements were, a lot of them were shoot offs from the civil rights and anti-war movement for a variety of reasons. I got questions down the road for that, but your thoughts on why they do not seem to be as visible today that is my perception and they really have not been as visible since the (19)80s. AE (00:35:50): Well, I do think that the (19)70s is a period in which there is a good deal activist biology, and so I do think the (19)70s, the business character, I do think by the time he gets the (19)80s, absolutely, I think it is true. And there was a cultural shift of course, that put him into office as well was inimical to the kind of political organizing that had characterized the (19)60s and into the 1970s. So I think that that was the fast. But I also think that it is very, very hard to maintain movements. Movements by their very nature or some, maybe not seminal, but they are limited. they do not just go on forever. And there shifts and they change and they rarely are, and they usually go through foul periods. Now, I do not know who is to say that there is not going to be some sort of resurgence of feminism tomorrow. Certainly people have thought that that was going to happen any number of times since the (19)70s, but I guess in the (19)80s, I have just been reading this wonderful book by 15 sample called The Feminist [inaudible], which is a history of, for the first and the second place. And one of the things that she points out, and I think this is really key, is that in part because of Reaganism and the tone that Reaganism took on feminist fear. Because faith that you felt if you were a feminist, and I would say if you were a member of a sexual or racial minority as well, or somebody who was elected, it was not one of the things that keeps movement going is a sense that you are gaining, you are actually gaining ground. We have had the experience of losing ground and having to fight and fight and fight, continuing to fight for abortion, for instance, that was getting acquittal away, continuing to fight for the era that was a losing battle. We thought that she had managed to diminish the possibilities of foreign adventures, right? Involvement in the affairs of foreign government, well, no, as Iran. So there were a number of ways in which I think people who were associated with those movements, the challenges to affirmative action, certainly there were a number of programs that had been instituted, especially during the LBJ and even during the Nixon years that were dismantled during the raging years. And I think there was this sensation that many of us had of a total fatigue. And then they are having to gear up around the pornography battle and faith in the first, within the sum movement, but it was also an internally divide movement. So one of the things that Christ stamp points out in her very really brilliant book is that when we are looking at feminism, it is not case that the movement end, which is, I would have to say that I would now revise my argument in daring to be bad. I think that radical feminism does sort of peter out. But feminism as a whole, I think that I was far too harsh on liberal feminism. I think that then becomes the ancient, I mean, as I say in my book, even the radical feminist engine cuts out and it was less liberal feminist. I do not feel as now as gloomy about that. I think an awful lot was accomplished. And I think as a result of what I was going to say that Chris in her book is that as a result of Reaganism, you find American feminists working globally and having great success in working globally. Which is not to say that global feminism has been unproblematic because there has been a tendency, as she points out in her book, to flatten women's experience out and not be yearly as attentive as one should do the sort of local conditions and traditions. But nonetheless, I think that made a huge difference. And so I would not say that feminism totally heated out. And I think there are still conversations that are happening. There are still, I would not say that there is a movement in the way in which there was in the (19)70s, but there is still happening. And I think it is even significant when you have people like Lady Gaga saying quite forthrightly on the Larry King show, that yes, she is a feminist and that she wants to change the way that girls and women think about themselves. SM (00:41:51): You wrote a book on radical feminism, and of course a lot of people I have interviewed are proud to be feminist, but they do not say they are radical feminists. How do you define the difference between a radical feminist and just a feminist or a mainstream feminist, or what is the difference? AE (00:42:08): Well, I think that really defies easy descriptions. I, again I would have to say, I really tried very diligently in that book to give a definition of radical feminism that would be broad enough to include even radical feminists who did not agree with each other. SM (00:42:39): Hold on one second. I have to turn my, okay. AE (00:42:47): But I mean, Susan Brown Miller, I do not know how she identified herself to you in her interview, but for instance, she was involved in a group called New York Radical Feminist. And I would say still that what characterized radical feminism, and this is where I would be more critical of my book now, is that I think that this began to characterize liberal feminists as well over time because it was a very powerful idea. Which is the idea that personal is political, which means this is an idea by the way that I think has been understood, has been used in ways that have not always been productive. But be that as it may, I think that the personal is political was originally an idea that was really put forward by Seawright Neural the radical sociologist, and then popularized somewhat by Hayden and then further picked up on by the woman who begin to form these little groups that become the basis of the Women's liberation Movement. And what the personal is political really means is that there is that personal life, this area of our existence that we usually assume is purely personal, actually has the political dimensions. And so it actually says something about the culture in which we live that, for instance, heterosexual sex at that point in time often was a three-minute affair that did very often was more centered around male pleasure than female. It was significant and said something about the culture that there were certain people who were changing the diapers and cooking the meals and cleaning up, et cetera, et cetera. That was what it was really, I think originally supposed to mean. Not that if you lived with a man or if your hair was long, or if you wore high heels and you were not a feminist, which is very often the way that it was construed, I think. But so a radical feminist was somebody who really felt that the real focus of our political activism needed to be around the personal and needed to be around the psychological. Not to the total dismissal of dealing with and working on employment discrimination or rape laws or violence against women more generally. But that the real meat of this, the real meat of the struggle was psychological and it was relational. And so for me, radical feminism was really about an immense challenge to personal life and to the sort of social organization of private life. And again, in some cases it led to things that I think were unfortunate. The personal political was one of the arguments that was used to by some feminists to supports the impeachment of Clinton. And I myself, could not have cared less. I should not say I could not have cared less, but I did not think that that should be the basis of impeachment. But I do think that the attention to personal life, whereas liberal had been much more tuned to sort of more conventionally understood political realm of employment discrimination laws, legislation. But here is the thing, over time, inevitably the radical feminist's agenda, the sort of focus on the personal, it be very visible and so now begins to organize CR groups now takes up the struggle more effectively than radical feminists does. Abortion rights and rape laws and on and on and on. So the liberal feminist, the liberal feminist, played an incredibly important role, and they were themselves changed and transformed by radical feminists. I would say radical feminism played a role in the women's business, not unlike the role that, for instance, Nixon rights. It pushed the issue it went deeper and sometimes in somewhat wacky ways, but it was still liberal feminism would never have developed as it did without that kind of push for radical feminists. Does that help too? SM (00:47:53): Yes. I have some names here. Would you put Gloria Steinem and Betty Fordam and Sherry Height? Would you put them in the liberal feminist where you have, but you would have Bella Abzug, Robin Morgan, Andrew Derkin, Susan Johnson, Jermaine Greer would be more in the radical. AE (00:48:16): Well, I think one of the things that I really feel at this point in time is that I am very uninterested in making those kinds of distinctions, in part because very often those distinctions were much more meaningful in the very early years of the women's movement. And over time I think became less so. Certainly somebody like Dudy Friedan had no use for radical feminism. On the other hand, she herself, her thinking was to some extent transformed by what was going on within the radical feminist sphere. But I am not comfortable making those kinds of judge, I just do not think it is, it gets us anywhere. Let us just say that at its best, at its most optimal radical feminism and liberal feminism when they worked together, were able to really accomplish a lot, sometimes in a kind of good cop, bad cop way. SM (00:49:24): The (19)60s and early (19)70s are often defined as the era that defined the color culture that includes long hair, unique dress, drugs, rock music, the sexual revolution. And a lot of people say that the (19)60s included goes right up to 1973 and that the real (19)70s began in the mid (19)70s, but the (19)70s were also important. So basically what I am saying is, and I have heard this from other people, that a lot of the things that define the (19)60s, many of them really defined the (19)70s and were more important in the (19)70s. AE (00:50:08): Well, yeah, that is maybe argument that I make in the disco book. I think this notion of the me decade, it was a great essay from Will, but think we have outlived, I think there was an awful lot of, if you want to talk about narcissism, there was an awful lot of narcissism in the (19)60s too. And I think, but to get at the question of the (19)70s, I think that what is distinctive about the (19)70s is that over time, one does have the feelings as a result of the loss of Vietnam, which different parts of the population experience differently right? As a result of that, as a result of the energy crisis, as a result of the shuttering of factories as a result of the recession and stagflation, it is a different kind of consciousness mean you do not have the sense of nearly the same sense, which was very important for the underwriting of protests. This sense of, hey, this is let the good times roll. This is just not going to end. We are going to continue to be able to live for $30 a month in a beautiful, somewhat rundown Victorian in the middle of a city. So that sense of optimism and hopefulness, I think begins to take a beating. And I think, again, more systematic research has to be done on this. And when that sort of sense of pessimism sets in, and I think also the political assassinations take their toll. I think in black communities, certainly the sense that you are able to elect mayors is important, but it is also becomes increasingly undeniable that these are cities that are in pretty bad shape. So I think, again, I think that the periodization is probably going to vary somewhat depending upon the group that one's talking about. But I think if you think about the (19)60s as being a time that did involve actually both collective action and assigned an ethos of individualism, if you think about it at the time, which was pretty hedonistic and pleasure oriented. This goes through, this runs through the threads that run through the (19)70s, and the kind of hedonism that you might have seen at the full auto auditorium becomes much more available to more people in disco culture. And in fact, one of the things that is quite striking about disco culture is that it is not, I do not want to oversell it, I do not want to romanticize it because there was racial discrimination in discos, but it is a much more integrated nightlife than what you found at Hip Ballroom where black people tended to be not typical. Something of a rarity. SM (00:53:59): Hold on. Somebody is calling. I will let it go. My cell phone. I will just let it ring. Yeah, it is interesting because as a student at Ohio State in the early (19)70s, this is before disco, African American students had their own dances and white students had their own dances, and there was this black power thing and there was a lot of intimidation going on. And then disco came about later in the (19)70s itself. Would you say, as some people have told me that some people think that the (19)70s were more about the sexual revolution and drugs was more a (19)70s thing than a (19)60s thing? AE (00:54:42): Well, I think drugs become, drugs had been part of various, if you think about it, if you think about pharmaceuticals, the (19)50s were a drug era. You think about just the very casual use of speed in the 1950s. There was a reason that so many beatniks were so many of the beats were using feed. It was that it was pretty much the drugs that a lot of people were using. And it was easy to get at Carlton, they would hand it out at examination time. And that was way into the (19)60s. So I think it depends on the kinds of drugs that you are talking about. And I certainly would not make the argument that a lot of people do that the (19)60s were good drugs and the (19)70s were bad drugs. I think that is very simplistic. But I do think that drugs in some sense become more available. I think that the sexual revolution affects more people in the 1970s. I think certainly gay liberation really changes the landscape for Williams Samaritans. So I think that it is absolutely true that there is more sexual expressiveness. There is probably, again, do not quote me, but there is certainly a lot of drug use. I think it does permeate the population more fully. And I think some of the biggest protest marches actually happened in the 1970s. I think all of that is true. SM (00:56:38): One of the things I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly, and I know David Horowitz, who you are aware of, a liberal who became very conservative and has attacked the (19)60s generation in many ways. You teach women's studies and well, another areas, how do you respond to the criticism of colleges today that the troublemakers of yesterday now run today's colleges and oversee departments like women's studies, gay studies, Asian studies, and black studies. It is a criticism that some more conservative people make toward the universities today. AE (00:57:21): Well- SM (00:57:22): And it is not only been since 2000. It was all through the (19)90s too, and probably the latter part of the (19)80s. AE (00:57:31): Well, I think that it would be fair to say that the university tend to be places where faculty members tend towards the liberal. I do not think that that is the preserve only of women's studies department. There tend not be, there are departments called things like lesbian and gay, bisexual, transgender studies. I do not know. I am associated, I have taught in many places in women's studies, gender studies, LGBT, I have encountered some dogmatism. But anybody who has read my work knows that I am really not dogmatic. I am not a defender of weatherman. I am not a defender of, I have been known to be critical of the last, I have been known to be critical of other strands of feminism. I am not really a very [inaudible] person. And in fact, that whole term, politically correct or PC was a term that was created that came about within the feminists and sort of larger progressive movement as a way of poking fun at that kind of the more ideologically oriented amongst us. And so I tend to think that actually in the programs that I have been involved with, that there has been a good deal of debate. And these are not places that are characterized by semi-Nazism as some people have alleged. I think I am somebody, and I know I am not alone in this, who when she teaches feminism, will often teach well, I always teach people who are critical of the movement as well. I will teach Camille Pollia, I will teach people who... AE (01:00:03): ... I have taught Phyllis Schlafly. I think it is really important for students to be exposed to something other than simply a certain strand of feminism, a certain kind of let us say, gay and lesbian history writing. So, I have always encouraged people in my classes, and I have seen this a lot among other faculty, encouraged people to question orthodoxies no matter what the orthodoxy, even if it's a political tendency that is represented in the program that I am teaching in. I do think that feminists have been really extraordinarily self-critical, perhaps not in ways that Schlafly and Harwood would agree with, but I think we have certainly taken on board very seriously the criticisms that, for instance, women of color have made of these women's studies programs. So I would say I am very well aware of those criticisms, of course, but somebody like myself, who I really do think of as in many ways, really a free thinker. I have not felt constrained, shall we say, by my involvement in these [inaudible 01:01:47]. SM (01:01:48): You are a cultural historian, and of course the boomers have been alive since 1946. The oldest Boomers are 63 going on 64, and the youngest Boomers are 47 going on 48. So they have all been around a while. So I break it down here, and I have been asking this to all of my interviewees, at least the second half of my interviewees, is, in your words, define the culture of these particular periods. I will do one at a time here, define the culture of the late (19)40s and (19)50s and how the (19)40s shaped the (19)50s and the (19)50s shaped the (19)60s. It does not have to be anything in length, but just general, what it was like to be a kid growing up in America, or a young parent like the Boomers parents or World War II generation raising kids in this era. Just define the culture of the late (19)40s and (19)50s, and then how the (19)40s shaped the (19)50s, and how the (19)50s shaped the (19)60s. AE (01:02:54): Well, I suspect that it goes farther back. I mean, I suspect that certainly the (19)30s did a lot of shaping of the (19)60s in the sense that initially a lot of the people who were (19)60s activists, and by that, I mean people who were involved, not in Young Americans for Freedom, I am talking about the people who were involved in FBS and other left-leaning groups, the liberal groups, what they knew about the (19)30s and the left through the (19)50s was very sobering. So I think that to a great extent, there was a caution about dogmatism and about relying upon a predetermined or any kind of dogma, any kind of Marxist-Leninist thought. There was a real uneasiness about that, which of course was an uneasiness that was encouraged and to a great extent by some of the liberals who were mentoring people like Hayden and others. So I think that, you have to go even further back. When it comes to my own childhood, I think the way that I make sense of it, and I write about this a bit in the Janice book, is that Lord knows Port Arthur was not Chevy Chase, Maryland by a long shot, and her parents were not my parents. But I do think that many of us grew up feeling as though our parents were just completely unreasonably invested in a kind of safe and secure existence. They wanted stability, they wanted safety, they wanted stability, and they did not want excitement. This is what I believe in the Janice book I talk about, I think I quote Peter Coyote about the adventure shortage. SM (01:05:21): I am interviewing him in three weeks. AE (01:05:23): Yes, check it out. I am pretty sure that he's the one who talked about the adventure shortage, and I did not interview him. I could not get to him so more power to you. But I think that that is true. I think many of us growing up did feel as though there was an adventure shortage. I think there was also a sense that a number of the people that I interviewed for the Janice book talked about, which was this sense of potential oblivion. I mean, I had nightmares myself about Soviet troops marching down the street. I mean, those of us who lived through the Cuban missiles crisis and were aware of and worried about the arms buildup, I think did grow up feeling fearful. I suspect that all of that, the sort of enthusiasm that our parents had for stability and for a lack of excitement and the kind of adventure shortage that that resulted in, and these sorts of fears about nuclear destruction, probably made us take risks. It did not make us better, it did not make us more noble. It did not make us the best generation or a better generation. It made us different. I think, again, each of us dealt with us differently, and some people took no risks at all, but a lot of us did take risks, whether it was deciding to come out as a lesbian as I did, which believe me, was not a great career move, although you would not know it now, but for a long time, I did not have a tenured position, and this had to do with the kind of risks that I took in my work and it had to do also with the fact that I was not at all closeted. It was pretty easy to tell from my acknowledgements that I was not exclusively heterosexual. So a lot of us took risks, I think as a result of that, as a result of feeling this kind of claustrophobia. A lot of us grew up in suburbs that did not have a lot happening in them also. So I think in particular, many of us were drawn to African American culture and African American music. Eventually, certainly for me, and I am sure this is true for some others too, from listening to soul music, you started to read Malcolm X and Eldridge Cleaver, and there was for sure some pretty problematical stuff in Eldridge Cleaver. But nonetheless, this stuff changed the way that you understood power and the way that you understood America. So I guess that is what I would say. SM (01:09:05): Yeah. You do not have to go in, because I got quite a few questions here, and your explanation was beautiful there. You have talked about some of these things, but if you could define how the culture of the (19)60s shaped the (19)70s and how the culture of the (19)70s shaped the (19)80s. AE (01:09:24): I do not know if I can really do that. I mean, I think- SM (01:09:33): From a Boomer's perspective. AE (01:09:35): I think that the (19)60s got its best, and there was a worse to the (19)60s, too. I mean, I am not a romantic, I am not somebody who thinks that everything about the (19)60s was just hunky-dory. I do not. I think that there were some real mistakes. I teach the (19)60s, and so some of my favorite books are things like... Oh, what's the name of this? The TC Boyle book about the commune, which is so funny. It is just really a devastating critique. "Drop City," devastating. But at its best, I mean, the (19)60s gave people, and I know this is an overused word, but it gave some people a sense of empowerment. At the same time, it made others feel, who had been used to taking certain privileges for granted, it made them feel angry about the loss of that. But certainly for people like myself, it was an incredibly empowering experience. You really did feel as though the world could be changed, a war was stopped. I am just looking outside because we are having a hailstorm, and I am trying to think if I should call you back in a minute and move my car. SM (01:11:23): You are having a bad storm. AE (01:11:27): Yeah, we are having a hail storm, so I am just looking outside. I think it is okay. SM (01:11:32): Let me know, and then I could call you back in 10 minutes if you want me to. AE (01:11:36): I tell you, why do not you call me back in five? SM (01:11:41): Okay. AE (01:11:41): Okay? SM (01:11:41): Yep. Bye. AE (01:11:41): Okay, great. Okay, bye. SM (01:11:46): You were talking about the (19)60s. I think you were finishing up on the culture of the (19)60s and the influence on the (19)70s, and then the culture of the (19)70s. Basically, what I am really asking here is because we are talking about when Boomers have been alive and the feelings that Boomers have. It is 74 million people so they have experienced all these. So what the (19)70s, the (19)80s, and the (19)90s, and the (20)10s mean to them, just from your perspective. AE (01:12:16): Well, I think that probably the fact that I was involved in the feminist movement and the gay and lesbian movement, these were movements that did have real momentum through a large part of the (19)70s. So I think that for me, and again, this is taking into account the fact that obviously, as I said, look at what's happening as regards to global feminism, had I made that move, then I am sure my feelings would be very different. But the feelings that I had, I would say in the (19)70s, I think that I still had a sense of momentum. I think in the (19)80s, the (19)80s definitely felt like a real break on change. I think that is when I felt, and I am not sure, again, this is hard to know, it is not clear to me to what extent I felt this and to what extent this was what I was reading in at the time. But it did feel as though there was more of a backlash in that decade against feminism. Then of course, there was, in this period, this was when I was teaching, it was the beginning of AIDS, so that really reverberated. So I think there was this sense of, that I was probably not explaining very well, but I think that there was frequently this sense in the (19)80s of not only not momentum, but of having to defend the victories that you had won much, much earlier. It led to a kind of wariness, at least on my part, a kind of fatigue. I was quite pleased when Clinton won. If you were to go beyond that, obviously from the standpoint of 2010, I am almost 60, the way that the culture has changed, it takes your breath away. It's difficult sometimes to comprehend how much it has changed. In the sense of being able to be, at least in my world, pretty openly gay, being able to not have nearly the kinds of impediments that I would have had and that I did have when I first was studying history because I am female. There is just so much that is changed. On the other hand, we have this incredible poverty and we have this environmental disaster and on and on and on. So I do not know quite what else to say. I mean, I think I would say this about the (19)60s though, to go back just for a moment, that my predominant experience of the (19)60s, well into the (19)70s, was this sense of really being able to have agency and feeling a real sense of empowerment and seeing it in other people, and just really how beautiful that was. It is kind of amazing, if you consider how, for instance, the university has changed, now we can look at the fact that the university has changed in all kinds of ways that are agreeable to me, whereas other parts of society a bit more resistant to change or have actually changed in ways that have contributed to greater inequality. You think about banking, you think about the lack of regulation. But if I think about the university, I think one of the reasons that that place has been so transformed is that so many of us from the (19)60s did have the sense of we can really do this. Right? That was such a strong ethos. SM (01:17:33): Yeah, you make a good point here about the fact that in the (19)80s there was this feeling of the gains that had been made, now there was greater challenge, and it is like you are fighting the battle all over again because that is when affirmative action was challenged. So the African Americans, I know about Latinas, Caesar Chavez working with them, of course, the labor unions were set back in those times, the women's movement. I know a lot of attacks on the environmental movement took place then. Certainly, I think just about every movement we have discussed, the anti-war movement was almost nonexistent. There was a small group of anti-war, but then we saw it all over again in the early (19)90s in the Gulf War. So my next question, I am getting into some of the disco questions, which I am kind of excited about. This is Steve McKiernan now. When I think of disco, I think of Barry White, Isaac Hayes, the Bee Gees, Tavares, Thelma Houston, Donna Summer, Sylvester, Chaka Khan, Andy Gibb, Gloria Gainer, and I forget the, again, oh, Love Unlimited Orchestra. However, in this same period, these groups were very popular. And I do not know, I think Mothers and Fathers and Sisters and Brothers would be on that other side. But I think of Earth, Wind and Fire, Cool and the Gang, Eddie Kendricks, Curtis Mayfield, Al Green, the Isley Brothers, Stevie Wonder, Donny Hathaway, Roberta Flack, and Patty LaBelle. Now, I do not know if you categorize them in the same as you would the disco performers. They are all around the same time, though. AE (01:19:30): They are all around the same time, and you will doubtless remember that one of the early big disco hits before a lot of people were really very aware of disco, was Lady Marmalade, which was done by the group Trio LaBelle, and which Patti LaBelle was a member, and certainly Earth Winds and Fire was great. Roberta Flack and Donny Hathaway back together again. I used to play them all the time in [inaudible] where I DJ'ed. Again, I tend not to be particularly driven by the urge to categorize in that way. In the book, one of the arguments that I make very early on, and I am pretty attached to this idea, is that when it comes to rock music, nobody says about heavy metal, "Well, that is heavy metal. That is not really rock." Or nobody says about punk, "Well, that is punk. That is not really rock." Other words, we understand rock as being almost infinitely malleable. It's a big category that can kind of attach all category. It can contain a lot of different kind of phonics, a lot of different kinds of sounds. But that is not been true of disco. And so there will be people who say, "Oh, well, Michael Jackson was not really a disco artist." "Oh, the Philadelphia International Group, like the OJs, they were not really disco." It just goes on and on and on. SM (01:21:14): Yeah, the Stylistics were another group of that period. And the Delfonics, I mean, there was group after group and they were all great. AE (01:21:22): They were great, and many of them were produced by Tom Bell. So I would argue a couple of things. I would say, first of all, that those distinctions between artists do not mean that much to me. That when I think about disco and when I try to define disco, what my definition of it is, the music that certainly took as its template soul music, but which transformed it in ways that made it much more lush, much more symphonic, was characterized very often by as you know, the four-four thump. But it was music that included anything that really worked on a disco dance floor. That could be Betty Hendrick, and often was, it could be Parliament Funkadelics, One Nation Under A Groove. It could be Patti LaBelle. I mean, to me, it's whatever worked. I think because disco has been so stigmatized, people have been very eager to define disco very narrowly, as really referring to only the most classic disco records in, again, a very narrow and circumscribed period. Now, that said, I do think that there are some differences between funk and disco, although I would say that there is an awful lot of disco dance floors featured funk. And the Isley Brothers, for instance, did a song called "Fight the Power," that was a great song and a very political song just as The Temptations did a song "Papa was a Rolling Stone," that also was a very socially conscious song. These were songs that played in early disco. "Papa was a Rolling Stone," I think was three years before "Fight the Power," but nonetheless, this kind of music, music by Black musicians who sometimes define themselves as more oriented towards funk, sometimes more towards disco, sometimes more towards R and B, sometimes more towards rock, like Chaka Khan or LaBelle, they were all being played for a period of time on disco dance floor until disco became Disco with a capital D and then the sound narrowed somewhat. But phonically funk tended to be more about getting into a groove and finding that groove and digging deep into that groove. Whereas disco phonically, orally, it sounded more obviously constructed because it was. It was music that was remixed an remixed in ways that emphasized its dance ability. It was music whose musical movements often had a kind of arbitrary feel to it. Why do the horns come in there? Why suddenly does the vocal end here? So I think that made it phonically somewhat different from funk. But on a dance floor, I always found that most people were quite eager to dance to the full spectrum of what was danceable. I do not know if I answered your question. SM (01:25:08): A lot of rock musicians, so were really into rock in the (19)60s and early (19)70s, and jazz musicians too, could not stand disco because from what... Hold on. Okay, here we go. A lot of musicians did not like it because of the fact that it took jobs away from people because they were com- AE (01:25:39): Oh, yeah. That is true. I think that there was a whole segment of the rock community that hated disco because of the fact that a lot of rock venues, rock clubs went disco and understandable. But of course, there were a lot of other criticisms made of it too, and that it was boring and predictable. SM (01:26:07): Well, some of the things that I heard around the years when I was at Ohio State, and then of course my years as an administrator at Ohio University through (19)76, is that when you think of disco, well, the (19)60s is over because the (19)60s was about activism, the (19)60s music was messages. The folk musicians, the rock musicians, they had a lot of messages in their music. This was just pure dance. That is one of the criticisms. Another one is that the (19)70s began when disco began, because a lot of people of the (19)60s think that up to 1973, that is still the (19)60s because of the way that is. And that the (19)70s really began around (19)74 and (19)75, and you had "Saturday Night Fever," the movie, and that is when it really began the Disco era. Just your thoughts on all that hodgepodge that I just mentioned. AE (01:27:15): Well, again, I think most music of the (19)60s was not political music. It was music that very often yearned to be meaningful. I would say it very often tried to be meaningful, but I do not think very much of it actually was political. I mean, if you really look at it, if you really look at the most popular. If you look at the very earliest music that was popular on disco dance floors, what's interesting is that a lot of that music actually was not utterly apolitical the way that it has been represented. Again, a song like "Fight the Power," most people would say, "Oh, well that was funk," but it was being played in discos. So I would say that there is a shift over time in disco to a less overtly political register. Now, I think that one of the groups that is most interesting in this respect is Chic, the Bernard Edwards- Nile Rodgers group, because Nile Rodgers had been a member of the Black Panthers. Chaka Khan had been involved with Black Panthers as well. I would say that both of those musicians, both Nile Rodgers and Chaka Khan, and I would say this is true of LaBelle as well, who were popular in the early years of disco, these are musicians who wanted their music to be empowering. So "I am Every Woman," now not everybody will think of that as a political song, but I think Chaka Khan did actually. Not everybody will necessarily think of "We Are Family," as a political song, this is the Chic song, but Nelson Mandela has said that when he was in prison, this was a song when it would come on the radios that the guards were listening to, it kept him going. It was a song that Nile Rodgers claimed to have written at Woodstock. Certainly the vocal Trio LaBelle did a number of songs, which were really pretty overtly political. But I think that what is interesting about disco is that to a great extent, it is music that is not overtly political. It is satisfy- AE (01:30:03): ... political. It is satisfied with getting people dancing. And to the extent that there is a political message in any of it, it is usually rather hidden and obscured. For instance in the song, Good Times by Chic, many people thought that, that was the song that is completely out of touch with America. It seemed, for many people, to be a song celebrating the good life in the midst of a terrible recession, but it was tongue-in-cheek. It is just that nobody expected a disco group to be smart enough to do a song that was tongue-in-cheek. As Nile Rogers said, "If this had been Bob Dylan, everybody would have said, "Check out Bob. Pretty cool."" But because it was a disco group, people took it at face value. So I think that, I do think that disco tended to make its meaning obscure, it tended not to favor the politically explicit. And I think that is really interesting that, that is true. I think to some extent, because disco was really about, to a great extent, about escapism and it was much more about taking evasive action. Again, as I point out in my book, there are songs that do make political points. But this was not really, there was not very much finger pointing music, to use Bob Dylan's expression, in disco. But again, I think partly that the meaning was made on the dance floor. I mean, the meanings were made in the kinds of contacts that happened between people. The ways in which, at its best, racial boundaries were crossed, gender boundaries, sexual boundaries were crossed. So I think that, more often than not, was where the meanings were. SM (01:32:22): I will tell you one thing, going to a disco in downtown Columbus in 1975 was a lot different than going into the Ohio Union in 1972, where there was total separation. AE (01:32:36): Mm-hmm. SM (01:32:37): One of the questions here is disco, you bring this up in your book, was basically performed by Black performers. It is often scorned as a terrible period for music between rock and roll and the Motown sound of the (19)60s and mid-(19)70s that, we already just went over that, to the new wave music in the (19)80s. Does this scorn or attack have anything to do with racism, prejudice, or the lessening of the value of something because it does not come from the majority? AE (01:33:07): Well, I think unfortunately, by the time we get to the attacks on disco, it comes to be understood within the community, within communities of rock, was that rock music is a largely white genre, with the exception of Jimi Hendrix. If you were to tune into classic rock stations in 1977, and I mentioned an article by Bill Marcus who talks about a Bay Area station that does a history of rock that includes precisely one Black artist, and that is Jimi Hendrix. So there is this sense, by the time we get to the mid to late (19)70s, that rock is really... that Black people do not belong in rock music. Which is, of course, such an irony given the fact that you would never have had the rock music without Black musicians, because R&B is the essential backbone to rock. So yeah, I mean, I think there is a sense in which you have to understand the backlash against disco as certainly involving a certain kind of racism. And if you look at the two DJs in Detroit that tried to organize an anti-disco army, they called themselves the Disco Ducks Klan, I think it is. And they hatch this plot to go on stage wearing white robes. I mean, that cannot be accidental, the use of Klan, the use of... The decision is later aborted, but of course it is. I think it has to be understood, within the context of a situation, a moment in which some white heterosexual men feel under attack. They feel as though their music is being shoved off the airways. They feel like they are being shoved out of certain jobs because of affirmative action, because [inaudible]. And so, I do think that disco comes to, it is a lightning rod of sorts for a lot of discontent about racial minorities, and about feminism, and about gay men. Because certainly, even though a lot of people were unaware of the fact that gay men were the, really, disco's early adopters, a lot were not. And a lot of people did know that there were significant numbers of gay men who were among disco's poor constituencies. So I think that, the backlash against disco is inseparable from homophobia and racism, and probably as well from a kind of uneasiness about feminism. I also think, and I argue this in the book, that for some rock and rollers, it was also the case that they felt as though their style, their way of being [inaudible], their masculinity, was threatened by this new style. Which today, we would sort of characterize as metrosexual. This sort fastidiousness, personal fastidiousness, attention to clothing, attention to grooming, attention to looking good, a buff body, and a willingness to dance. And these are all sorts of characteristics that women like in this. And they like their boyfriends and husbands to look good, dress up. To, basically, look like gay men. And the biggest affront to a lot of the disco folks who were white was that, the men who were sort of responsible for these new norms were gay men who had no use for women. So, you know. SM (01:37:20): Wait, you write beautifully... Barry White is one of my favorite artists of all the time. And again, I worked for the university, and most, I know there were some gay and lesbian students at Ohio University in these dances, but obviously, they were not out. But I think when you describe the difference between Barry White and James Brown, it is beautiful. Because you talk about vulnerable masculinity, Barry White pleasuring the ladies. And I have got my notes here, from being a sex machine, James Brown, to a more loving style that was Barry White, and what a difference. And so, I never thought of it that way. But obviously, when you listen to Barry White, there is a respect for women there. And there is a respect, whereas with James Brown, it was all about sex. AE (01:38:23): Yeah. Well, with James Brown, it was all about what he wanted sexually. And I mean, listen, I am a great lover of both of their music, but I think it is really true that Barry White was much more woman friendly. And so I think that, that kind of shift, it is hard. I mean, that is something that becomes more obvious later, as you look back at the era. I think it was harder to see at the time. But I also think that, one of the reasons that rap developed the way that it did was as a backlash against that kind of love man style that was characteristic of White. SM (01:39:10): Yeah. (01:39:11): I have a quote here from your book, and this is, I think, in your introduction. "Throughout Hot Stuff, I placed disco within the discourse of feminism, de-industrialization, globalism, ongoing struggles for racial justice and greater sexual preferences." And you have already gone over most of this in your commentary, but does that really put it in a nutshell? AE (01:39:35): Yeah, I think so. I think so. I mean, I think it is just that disco, I mean, I think it is a great paradox for many. I mean, it is a paradox of sorts because disco was primarily music about getting down, which is not to say that sometimes it was not about something else. But it was, in its essence, about getting down whether on the dance floor or in the bedroom. And much of this music did not strive to be more meaningful. And yet, it nonetheless both expressed and aided and abetted a number of changes that were absolutely central to American culture, in that period. And it is just paradoxical because the music itself did not, for the most part, strain to be meaningful the way that (19)60s music did. And yet, it had such an impact. But it is an impact that, I think, some people, especially boomers, resist learning about. I mean, there was... I opened the book with a great article by Andy Costumes who was the journalist who wrote at the Nation in The Village Voice, and he published this article about disco. And he talked about the contempt that so many of his (19)60s friends had for it. And yet, both of us had a very similar experience. I mean, there were a lot of my friends who were (19)60s people who hated disco because it seemed synthetic, it seemed unnatural, it seemed sleazy. It seemed like a real regression back to the sort of universe of bubblegum. And yet, there was a lot. Because they did not go to disco, they really did not know all the work, all the cultural work, that music was doing. Because Costumes was gay and because I am gay, that gave us a different perspective because we were part of those clubs. And we could see the way that the music was actually being used. And one of the things that I wanted to do in that book was that, I have been very influenced by the work of musicologists and scholars of music, like Susan McClary and Simon Firth. I mean, many of others have been. And they talk about how music is too often seen as a reflection of the culture, and not often enough seen as actually doing cultural work itself. It is not understood as changing us, making us, changing us, socializing us. And one of the things I really came to believe as I wrote this book, it was not something that I understood at all well as I began it. But I came to understand that as I was working on it, was that disco... Everybody always looks at punk and says, "Ah, punk." This was a really transformative moment, you know? And yet, I see... Actually, I do not want to get into a hierarchy here. But, I see a whole lot of change happening in the way that people understand their bodies and the way that they understand their gender, and their sexuality in these years through disco. And so, that was something I really wanted to make manifestly clear in the book. SM (01:43:13): Well, something that really struck me was one of the criticisms of all the movements today, or the issues, was identity politics. You hear that from the more right-side that... they criticized identified politics. And of course, the (19)60s was about that. But you say the (19)70s was a time when numbers of gay men, excuse me, African Americans, women, ditched predictable social scripts. Disco played a central role in the process, which broadened the contours of Blackness, femininity, and male homosexuality. I often wonder where Native Americans and Latinos fall in there. But what I want to comment here before you respond, as a person who has worked 30 plus years with college students, the most important thing we want to see when they walk into university to when they graduate, besides a sense of knowledge about why they were there, is a sense of self-esteem, a feeling of comfortableness with who they are and a sense of belonging. And it seems like everything you talk about, about disco, and particularly in terms of the gay and lesbian community, and women, and African American as a whole, that this helped in that feeling, in our society as a whole. And I know from seeing students dance in the (19)70s that the criticisms that we are seeing today, and actually we have seen since that time, the students that I have worked with, they loved it, so. AE (01:44:54): Well, yeah. I mean, I think that disco did enable, especially gay men and women across the board, who generally like dance better than men. I mean, again, it is a generalization and there're exceptions, but it tends to be true. And I think African Americans as well, it did afford them real kinds of opportunities for changing themselves. And I do think that, you do find people in all those categories, all those identity categories, who do ditch social scripts. I mean, I would say, and this is a kind of thread throughout the book, I do think though that, that was scary just as it was in the (19)60s. I mean, change is scary. And for instance, and it is not... there are losses too. And so when we are talking about disco, and we are talking about women, we are talking about sexual expressiveness, I mean, I think it is significant that Donna Summer and some of the other disco divas end up renouncing that world because on some level it makes them uncomfortable. And I do think that the sexual revolution of (19)70s made a lot of women uncomfortable. I think that, for instance, when you are talking about African Americans, there was a way in which what had been so exciting about disco to so many Black musicians and producers, which was that it allowed them to occupy the kind of sonic territory that had been more the preserve of white musicians, right? Sophisticated, symphonic arrangements, very kind of sweet music, music that was not necessarily gritty and was not recognizably Black. That was all very liberating. But it came to feel, to some African Americans, like a selling out of Black music. And when we come to male homosexuals, I think that the move away from effeminacy to gay macho also meant that certain categories of men who were effeminate really felt sidelined. So one of the things that I tried to express in the book is that, as liberating as all this stuff could feel to these three groups, there were certainly dissenters. There were certainly people who did not buy it or people who came to feel disillusioned. So I think both of those things are true. Change is like that, isn't it? I mean, you know? SM (01:47:47): Yeah. AE (01:47:47): It is obviously, it is dialectical. And so, it makes a lot of sense that you would then have this kind of ambivalence. SM (01:47:55): Yeah. I think that what you are talking about here, when you listen to Barry White and his music from (19)75, Let the Music Play, and then when you hear Marvin Gaye, What's Going On, his album in 1971 is the difference of night and day. One is just really about, I will not say having fun, but just getting out on the dance floor and being free. And Marvin Gaye, that is a very important thing, it's a sensitivity and sensitizing people to the issues that we must all care about. But that there is a difference there, one may be more macho than the other, so to speak. AE (01:48:33): Yeah. And the thing about Marvin Gaye that is interesting is that, then he goes totally into bedroom music himself. I mean, and I think that is a really, really interesting phenomenon and it is one that I write about in the book. And I cannot say that I have cracked the nut here, that I totally understand it. I think it's fascinating that you find R&B going through this shit where there is this period, and I think it really begins early. I mean, it begins as early, I think, as (19)71. And I think it goes through, it sort of peaks in about (19)74. And I think Fight the Power is one of the last instances, I think of (19)75, but do not quote me on it, is this really fascinating period of social commentary. And much of it is not about racial uplift, it is about confusion, it is about feeling sold out, it is about disappointments. And yet, it is like then you have R&B turning on a dime and becoming... You see it with Papa Was a Rollin' Stone from the happy people. I mean, that is a really interesting shift. And I do not know exactly just what to attribute it. I mean, I think it could be that, that kind of music of reflection and social commentary and disappointment got to be almost a cliché. I mean, I think that, that is quite possible that it was just so flooding the airways. And it could be that there was this sense of, enough already. But in any case, it is a very interesting shift that it does turn, and it turns so emphatically towards something else. SM (01:50:31): You mentioned in there that you think that Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes, their song was the first disco song? AE (01:50:40): Well, I say that a lot of people think that it is, The Love I Lost. SM (01:50:45): Yes. AE (01:50:45): I am reluctant to actually name one. I mean, I think there's that, I think, Girl You Need a Change of Mind. I mean, I think there are some contenders out there. I mean, there are certain elements that are beginning to cohere. But I think, yeah, Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes. I think, The Love I Lost is a key moment. Yeah. SM (01:51:18): But you have got to admit one thing, that Saturday Night Fever really awakened this nation to disco with John Travolta dancing. And here's a guy that is not a gay male, he is a macho male, but he is out on the dance floor wearing those clothes and feeling comfortable wearing those clothes and really into dancing. And they had the Bee Gees music in the background, and you had Tavares. Would not you say that, that is a historic moment when that movie came out? AE (01:51:48): Yeah. Yeah, I would. I would not argue against that, no. SM (01:51:56): You wrote a great book that I read a long time ago, I did not reread it, but Janis Joplin. And the question I want to ask you about her, is her life and death an example of the counterculture gone wrong, because drugs killed her? AE (01:52:14): Well, I think, yes. I mean, in some ways, drugs killed Janis, but I think [inaudible] killed Janis. I mean, I think that the disappointments in life, I think, I mean, she could never hold on [inaudible], right? And I mean, who knows? Had she lived in the age of Prozac, I am sure she would have been medicated. And probably her music would, I do not know what her music would be like. People have written about this a lot now. I mean, but we have the kind of works of art that fed off in programmed misery and unhappiness if the writers were medicated people. So I do not know, but I do not think she was... I think that the counterculture... And many of us of the boomer generation were attracted to risks and were reckless. I think that was one of the, it was part of what made it so exciting, and also so dangerous that people played with that. Janis knew what she was doing. Janis knew that she was taking a risk every time. I mean, after all, she was no stranger to ODing. So she knew what she was doing. And I think in her case, I guess I would say that, there is both this element of recklessness that is generational. And in her case, I think also very much driven by the fact that there is a lot of person unhappiness there. SM (01:54:03): Yeah. I interviewed a person who loved Janis, knew her. But she committed a sin in the drug community, she brought alcohol. AE (01:54:13): Yeah-yeah. So she- SM (01:54:14): And she was never forgiven for that by some purists who did not drink, but they were into every other drug you can imagine. AE (01:54:24): Yes, exactly. Yeah, no, it is absolutely true that there were people who really thought that Janis' love of alcohol was just completely, made her kind of beyond the pale. SM (01:54:40): This is a question I ask, because I know... this is Roe v. Wade. And I asked Susan Brownmiller this question last week, and I went to her apartment in New York and it was three hour interview. It was a great... she is a very nice person. AE (01:54:54): Yes, she is a very nice person. SM (01:54:55): Yes. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the most important legal decision since the end of World War II, during the time that boomer women had been alive, so we are talking about the (19)63 years. Is there any other legal decisions that are more important than that one? AE (01:55:12): Well, I think that there was a lot of... I think there were some decisions around equal employment. SM (01:55:27): Brown v. Board of Education. AE (01:55:29): Oh, well, I mean. I think, yeah. Again, I mean, I would say it is very hard to... I would advise against those making any kind of hierarchy. I think that there are some legal decisions that have been very important, that would include Brown and Roe v. Wade. I think some of the stuff that has not been studied very much, but is interesting, are some of the rulings around equal employment, especially their applicability to gender. And so, I think those were important as well. And these happened in the (19)70s. So I think, again, Roe v. Wade was very important. Would I say that it was the most important? I probably would not say it was the most important, but it is important. But of course, it's flawed, and that enabled it to be picked away at. SM (01:56:27): One of the things that is historically documented is the excessive sexism in the other movements at the end of the (19)60s, during the (19)60s and before the (19)70s began. And that would be in the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. I talked to people in every movement, and they said it was in the gay and lesbian movement, it was in the Chicano Movement, it was in the Native American movement, and it was in all the movements. And the question I am asking here is, sexism in the movements of the late (19)60s and early (19)70s played a very important role in stimulating the onset of the second wave. Is that true? And secondly, without the sexism, would the movement have gone in a different direction, because it was so dominated by white men? AE (01:57:16): Well, I mean, I think white men... SM (01:57:22): And Black men, because of the civil rights movement. AE (01:57:24): Well, I think that all men... I mean, in the case of white men, you had men who were accustomed to feeling entitled. They were accustomed to a certain kind of entitlement based upon their skin color and their gender. I think when you are talking about men of color, because of the way in which they were constructed by the dominant white cultures, they often did not necessarily feel that sense of entitlement. But that did not mean that they were any better, at all. I mean, it meant that very often they were, as Fran Beal put it in writing about some Black male activists, I mean, it was like they were trying to... I mean, their idea of what their women should be like was derived from the pages of, might as well have been from Ladies' Home Journal. And they had a very macho kind of aspect as a result of being disempowered. So yeah, I mean, it had a terrible... I mean, it's paradoxical. Because it was for the feminists who... For people like Susan Brownmiller and Ellen Willis, and all of the others who played such an important role, Fran Beal, Margaret Sloan, Marco Jefferson. I mean, all of them. It was crushing to feel how little feminism mattered and how disparaged it often was. It was really terrible. But on the other hand, it did, of course, enable the development of the second wave. I mean, it was so strange that women did begin to organize autonomously. I mean, I guess I would say that, I think I am probably... I guess, the only other thing I would say is that, I think that one of the things, one of many reasons that I have written critically about Weathermen is that- AE (02:00:03): ...that I have written critically about Weatherman is that I think both Weather and ... I think there is certain elements of the Black freedom movement, as well in the sort of fetishizing of revolution, the kind of vanguardism that they assessed, really ensured that women would have to go their own way, and that it would be a painful break. Yeah, I think it could have been different. I mean, I think if people had remained committed to participatory democracy, if people had really listened to one another and been respectful, then yeah, it could have turned out differently, but it did not. SM (02:00:57): What are the major accomplishments of the women's movements in the second wave, and what are the greatest disappointments? AE (02:01:06): Well, I mean, I would say probably the greatest would be the expansion of ... Well, I guess many things, but I mean, at the level of policy, basically, we live in a culture in which discrimination against women, gender discrimination in education and employment is ... it happened, for sure, but it is not, for the most part, seen as a good thing, right? SM (02:01:42): Mm-hmm. AE (02:01:42): So I think it is widely ... Discrimination against women is just ... I am trying to think of a way to say this that sort of takes in the complexity of it. To a great extent, it is no longer tolerated. I think that is the biggest thing. I mean, violence against women, which was just assumed to not exist or exist on the margins and not be very important, and very often was understood as [inaudible] being a woman's fault has been completely reinterpreted. That is an enormous shift. It is not to say that there's not violence against women that happens in this world, and there are not people who turn a blind eye, but it is really significant, a very significant change. Significant change in the understanding of the importance of sexual freedom for women. I mean, again, coming back to the ... too often [inaudible] in a way that none the less seems to ... for some women to have been understood as nothing more than pleasing men, but I still think that there has been significant ... I think we are talking about employment. We are talking about education. We're talking about violence against women. We are talking about right to sexual pleasure. All of those things. Abortion rights, all of those things. There have been major achievements in women's athletics. Again, more can be done, more needs to be done, but there has been considerable achievement. SM (02:03:38): This is just a general question. I have asked this to everybody. Again, we have talked about the (19)60s. When, in your opinion, did the (19)60s begin, and when did it end? And what was the watershed moment in the (19)60s? I ask the same question again. When did the (19)70s begin and end, and what was the watershed moment in the (19)70s? AE (02:04:00): Well, I do not really know. I mean, I am not trying to cop out on this. I think that this is something that is constantly ... that is changing and shifting. I mean, obviously, it just depends on what one's looking at. I mean, the (19)60s do not really begin, in some sense ... I mean, what we know as the (19)60s, a kind of period of protest. They do not really begin, for instance, gay and lesbians, until really late in the game. But if we are looking at African Americans, you can argue that in some sense the (19)60s begin in (19)55. You could go back even further. I mean, you could go back to the demobilization after World War II and the fact that so many Black soldiers had different experiences in other parts of the world and that emboldened them in certain ways. It created a shift in consciousness. It really, I think, depends upon the group in question, so that is why I am sort of reluctant to say. But clearly, you could make the argument that the (19)60s really begin back in the (19)50s. You could put it at (19)54, (19)55. You could similarly make the argument that there was an awful lot, if you're looking at college campuses, that was the same in 1964. That not very much change had actually happened, and you do not begin to really feel those shifts until probably (19)65, (19)66. Still, they really remain the land of ... many of them, many college campuses, the land of the beehive and the crew cut until well into the (19)60s. So I think I am just not ... I am sort of uneasy making those kinds of generalizations, but clearly, shifts do happen and shifts in consciousness over a long period. SM (02:06:16): Do you remember, I know you do, but I have been asking this, when you heard John Kennedy was assassinated? AE (02:06:23): Yeah, I do very, very well because I was in a Quaker meeting. I forget the day of the week, but we were having a Quaker meeting at Sidwell Friends, where I was, I think in the ... Would I have been in the seventh grade? No, no, no. Anyway, I was at Sidwell Friends. Bobby Kennedy's two boys ... two of Robert Kennedy's sons were students there. I am sure everybody at that Quaker meeting remembers it because we did not know what had happened. None of us knew. But what we did know was that in the middle of this meeting, they were ushered out. So, again, we did not know. I did not know. I remember taking the bus home, public transportation, city bus back home. It really was not until I walked into the house that I knew what had ... I knew for sure what had happened. Yeah. SM (02:07:28): Yeah. Were you another one of those that watched four straight days of TV? AE (02:07:32): Watched a lot of it. Yeah. SM (02:07:36): Yep. One of the questions that ... When Newt Gingrich came into power ... I do not want to always refer Newt, but in 1994, and when George Will writes a lot of his articles, and more recently, Huckabee on his TV show and others, they like to take shots at the (19)60s generation as to the reason why we have so many problems in today's society is because it goes right back to that time in the (19)60s and the (19)70s. They are talking about the drug culture, the sexual freedom, the lack of respect for any sort of authority, the challenging that took place, the beginning of all the isms, all these things. They blame some of the problems we have in our society today and the unwillingness to talk to each other on that period. Your thoughts on those individuals who continue to attack the (19)60s generation, which is basically attacking the Boomers. The way they lived. The way they acted. It's not all of them, now, because there is 74 million and only about 10 percent, or maybe even 5 percent, were involved in activism, but blaming them for where we are today. That includes the divorce rate. AE (02:09:06): Well, I think it is a very easy deflection for conservative politicians, many of whom have had their own marital problems, have not they, to continue to bash the-the (19)60s. I mean, when in point of fact it is hardly a problem that ... I do not know how you get from (19)60s protestors to Newt Gingrich having an affair with another woman when his wife is dying of... I do not know how you- SM (02:09:41): Yeah. AE (02:09:43): I mean, I just think it is a kind of scapegoating that these folks have engaged in all along. I think that it is true that the right wing actually... I mean, I think what I would say is more significant is... because I think that marriages are difficult things to make work. Especially when you are in denial, and especially when you are ... I often wonder if those people who are most apt to be pro-family in their rhetoric, and to bash the (19)60s, and gays and lesbians and feminists, I mean, do not really do it in order to be deflective. I mean, not just with their public, but personally deflective. You know? SM (02:10:34): Mm-hmm. AE (02:10:34): I mean, because they cannot really cope with their own indiscretions and transgressions. Because certainly, I mean, there has been such a parade of right-wing politicians who have screwed up. I mean, it is hardly the case that this is ... that the marital woes and the ... What is the word I am looking for when you have relationships outside of marriage? SM (02:11:06): Adultery? AE (02:11:08): Yeah, adultery, but there is another word. Begins with a T and I cannot remember it. But anyway, that liberals and leftists have any kind of monopoly upon whatsoever. I just think it is a kind of case loop that they just constantly run. What I would say is that that lack of ... I mean, it is true that the (19)60s was about challenging authority, and this was a message that I think was picked up on by conservatives. You look at, for instance, the anti-busing protestors in Boston and other places, and they directly borrowed the tactics of (19)60s activists. You look at the anti-abortion movement, and you see the same thing. There is a real borrowing of [inaudible]... that kind of commerce. I mean, there was a real circulation of attitudes and stances and ideas, actually, between the right and the ... I hesitate to say the left because I do not even know if we have a left in this [inaudible], but there has been significant amounts of circulation there. The thing that strikes me is that I am just consistently struck by, if you want to talk about incivility and rudeness, by the extent of which this has been so absorbed and modeled by the right wing. I think that they have become models of incivility in a way that most of us on the left or within liberalism just have not. SM (02:13:03): Well, one of the qualities that is been defined within the generation as a whole is their inability to trust. Obviously, they experienced leaders that lied to them as they were growing up. In the Vietnam War, we all know about the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and certainly Watergate with Richard Nixon. If you were really in tune as a young boomer, you knew that Eisenhower lied about U-2. You see constant... McNamara and the lies about the numbers of people that were being killed over there. The number scheme. So many things. It is a quality that has somehow been aligned with the generation. Of course, we all know about Jerry Rubin and do not trust anyone over 30, and then they switched it to over 40 when they were getting close to it. But also, there is a conflict here too. It is the fact that if you are a political science major, one of the best qualities one can have as a citizen is to not trust your leaders because that shows that democracy is alive and well. So that is a normal thing. But then psychologists will oftentimes say that if you cannot trust someone else, then ... You have got to be able to trust somebody. That is not a good quality either. Would you say, first off, that they ... I think we can say about the generation. Was this a trusting or ... Is this a quality that you see within the generation, they do not trust, and is it a negative or positive? AE (02:14:42): Well, I think that ... I mean, I would say this about the generation as a whole, that, if anything, people trusted too much. I mean, they assumed that America was the country that it said it was. Many of us, we grew up with this Cold War rhetoric. I think many of us assumed it to be true. So I think it was our faith in America being different, and being democratic, and being the beacon of liberty that then caused ... that it helps to explain the philosophy of the anti-war movement and end of some of the other movements. It is that you grew up thinking that you were living in this country, which was a citadel of freedom, and then you discovered that, hold it, it was more complicated. I think as a consequence, people ... I mean, I tend not to be a conspiracy theorist. I think that most of the important left-wing thinkers are not, but are we skeptical? Yeah, probably. I do not think that skepticism is a bad thing. I think conspiracy theories, that can be disabling in its own way, because then it's sort of like, "Well, why bother, if this whole thing is sewn up?" Of course it cannot be sewn up because you would never have really had the (19)60s, and you would never have really ... you would never have had the changes that have taken place. You know? SM (02:16:37): Mm-hmm. AE (02:16:37): That is what I would say. SM (02:16:39): I only got four more questions here, so we are almost- AE (02:16:42): But Steven, you know what? I am going to have to get off in just a few minutes. SM (02:16:48): Okay, yeah. I am going to ask... Let us just cut this down to two questions here then. AE (02:16:52): Okay. SM (02:16:52): This is a big one, because this is the issue of healing. I took a group of students to Washington, D.C. in 1995. Actually, the students that came with me, 14 of them ... It was our Leadership on the Road programs. We met Senator Edmund Muskie before he passed away. The students came up with this question because they saw the films. They were not alive. They saw what happened in Chicago in 1968, of all the divisions. The whole world is watching what happened there. Of course, he was the democratic vice presidential candidate. They thought he would respond to this question based on that experience. The question was basically, "Due to all the divisions that were happening in America in 1968, do you feel we were close to a second civil war? Number one. But most importantly, do you think that the divisions between Black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who supported the war and those who were against the war, those who supported the troops or against the troops as a generation, are going to go to their grave, like the Civil War generation, not healing from the divisions that took place in their lives?" So it was a generational question, because they'd cite the Civil War, and some things had come up with those gatherings in Gettysburg. It was very obvious that no healing had taken place when so many people went to their graves in the Civil War. Muskie answered in a certain way. How would you answer that question? Do we have a problem with healing in the nation? Is it an issue? AE (02:18:31): Do we have a problem with healing in the nation? I do not know. I mean, I tend to think that a lot of ... that the (19)60s are used politically to great effect, and they continue to be. I mean, there was an article recently about this in the New York Times. I cannot recall what it was about, except that... I cannot remember the issue that the author was exploring. But I think it's become a political... People make political hay with it. But honestly, am I able to have conversations with neighbors who I know feel very differently about certain things? Yes. Am I able to have conversations with colleagues who I know think differently about a variety of issues that were hot issues in the (19)60s? Yeah. I mean, I do not know. For me, personally, no, I do not see it as being ... I do not see it as being quite like that. I mean, I guess with the Civil War, though, I mean, eventually you do have a kind of reconciliation that happens between North and South. That is through reconstruction and the denial of rights to Blacks. And this increasing move in the north away from an ideology of equality towards one that stresses separatism indifference. Eventually, that point is reached through unfortunate ways. This would be late in the lives of that generation, for sure. But for our own, no, I guess I do not. You know? SM (02:20:27): Yeah, Senator Muskie responded. He did not even respond to 1968. He made no comment to them. He gave a melodramatic pause for about a minute. It looked like he had a tear in his eye. We have it on videotape. Basically said, "We have not healed since the Civil War due to the issue of race." Because he just saw the Ken Burns series and it had really touched his life, and he said, "When you lose 430,000 men, and you almost lose an entire generation, that is another issue in itself." AE (02:21:00): Yeah. I think he is right about that. I mean, I think that... SM (02:21:08): Others have said to me that ... In response, he said, "You ought to be a little more specific on this question because if you simply say those who fought the war, the three million plus who went to Vietnam, and those who protested the war, you might have some issues there." AE (02:21:24): Yeah. I think that that is possible. Although, I will tell you, I mean, one of the things about my background is, by virtue of going to a prep school, I was in school with Robert McNamara's son. SM (02:21:39): Oh. AE (02:21:39): There were other people who were sons and daughters of policy makers and government leaders who were in that school. SM (02:21:48): The name of the school? AE (02:21:51): Sidwell Friends. SM (02:21:52): Okay. Yep. Yep. AE (02:21:54): It's where the Obama daughters are. It is where many, many presidents put their kids, right? SM (02:21:58): Right. AE (02:21:59): It would seem. So, I mean, I did not know that many people who actually went to Vietnam. I really did not. of course, that was not unusual in the Vietnam War. I mean, there were a lot of people who went to college, especially elite colleges, who did not know anybody who went to war. I have subsequently had contact with people who were military people who went to fight. What struck me, actually ... Maybe this is because I am in Santa Fe part of the year, and that I am in university communities to some extent, but what struck me is the extent of which so many of the people who I met and have met, who did serve in Vietnam, really shared many of the views that I had about that war. That is been quite striking to me. SM (02:23:03): You have been to the wall on Washington, do you think the ... Jan Scruggs wrote the book To Heal A Nation, do you think that wall has helped heal the nation in any way? AE (02:23:13): I do not know. SM (02:23:14): Beyond the veterans. AE (02:23:15): I do not know. I just do not. I mean, I could not say. SM (02:23:21): My last question, very last one, and thank you for going over the time, I truly appreciate it, is that when we're talking about boomers now, who were born in 1946 and beyond, we're talking about a lot of different presidents from Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson. Of course, we had Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Bill Clinton, George Bush the first, George Bush the second, and President Obama. I do not think I have missed anybody in there. Jimmy Carter, of course. What presidents, when you look at them and you look at your life's work, not only with gay and lesbian issues, but with women's issues, which ones are the ones you most admire in terms of those two issues? AE (02:24:27): Well, I think it is too early to say about Obama. I mean, I have been disappointed, as many have, with a lot of what he has not done. So it's too early to say. There was a lot that I admired about Clinton, but I did not admire the Welfare Reform Bill. But this does not ... I mean, a lot of my criticisms about Clinton go to other things beyond the issue of gender and sex discrimination. I have to say that in many respects, I have admired Clinton. It's too early to tell about Obama. I would say that. SM (02:25:29): Are there any questions I did not ask you thought I was going to ask? AE (02:25:32): Oh, well, yeah, I mean, there would be any number of questions that you could have asked. It is not as though I have been sitting here thinking, "Gee, why has not he asked me this?" SM (02:25:43): Right. Okay. AE (02:25:44): I have not. No. I have not. SM (02:25:45): Okay. AE (02:25:47): Now, when is your book coming out? SM (02:25:49): Let me turn this off. One second. (End of Interview) Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Alice Echols Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Echols, Alice ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Echols, Alice--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Alice Echols is a professor of History and Gender Studies at University of Southern California. She authored four books and several articles. Dr. Echols has a bachelor's degree in History from Macalester College and master's and Ph.D. from University of Michagan. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-06-21 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.44a ; McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.44b Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 145:52 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b9b33a4437579d44ddd3de902a02c143.jpg 9651133f94c1340296e38cb6c0b206e6 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/33413b0059b7833680088a92d291c9c9.mp3 16e02ac00b43aba5889a021d17925db5 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2010-03-15 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Alice Kessler-Harris Language English Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Alice Kessler-Harris is Professor Emerita of American History at Columbia University. She is also Professor Emerita in the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. Dr. Kessler-Harris specializes in the history of American labor and the comparative and interdisciplinary exploration of women and gender.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:13057,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Alice Kessler-Harris is Professor Emerita of American History at Columbia University. She is also Professor Emerita in the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. Dr. Kessler-Harris specializes in the history of American labor and the comparative and interdisciplinary exploration of women and gender.</span> Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 89:14 Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;ewish immigrants; Jewish labor movement; Women's equality; Sexism; feminism; Working women; G.I. Bill; Post-war period; Anti-Equal Rights Amendment; Women's Studies; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam Memorial.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:3,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13228792}}">Jewish immigrants; Jewish labor movement; Women's equality; Sexism; feminism; Working women; G.I. Bill; Post-war period; Anti-Equal Rights Amendment; Women's Studies; Civil Rights Movement; Vietnam Memorial.</span> Subject LCSH College teachers; Columbia University; Kessler-Harris, Alice--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Alice Kessler-Harris Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: Kiernan Sullivan Date of interview: 15 March 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM: 00:00 Testing one two [fumbling with mic] and again, you will see, uh, anything. I am going to ask you though about your early years. AH: 00:09 Okay. [laughs] SM: 00:09 Um, could you tell me a little bit about your upbringing? Um, uh-uh- where you were born, and, uh, maybe some professors and teachers that really inspired you. And how did you develop an interest in women's issues, and especially women in labor? AH: 00:34 Okay, those are a lot of questions, all in one. Um, I was born in England, um, in 1941, uh, of, uh, refugee parents who had, uh, just a year before, um, managed to make it out of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and, uh, to England. Uh, I grew up in Wales, in Cardiff, uh, and, uh, lived there until I was 14, when we started the immigration process to the US. Uh, so all of my early memories are, um, British, Welsh. Uh, I, uh, when we came to the States, uh, I spent two years at, uh, Trenton Central High School. SM: 01:30 Mhm. AH: 01:34 Uh, a typical immigration story. My father had a sister in Trenton. My mother was gone already. She died when I was a kid, and, uh, um, so Trenton was where we came and went to school. There was in Trenton, a o-or at Trenton High School, a, um, just a wonderful vice principal, uh, whose name was Sarah Christie, who took me and my brothers, actually two brothers, one older and one younger, on board, and in my case, um, selected the college that she thought would be good for me, and, um, took my father and me down there because I was still fairly young, and he was not comfortable letting his daughter go away- SM: 02:29 It was Goucher, right? AH: 02:30 -to school - right. So she actually drove us down to Goucher, made an appointment with the principal, oh sorry, with the dean of admissions for me and with the Dean of Students for my father. And, um, I ended up getting a scholarship there, and spent four very happy years at Goucher. And there I encountered another really super terrific woman whose name was Rhoda Dorsey, um, who was then a young assistant professor at Goucher, and who then went on to, um, become first dean and then president of the, uh, the college. She is still around, and I still see her, and I am very fond of her, but it was she who, um, probably more than anything else, um, uh, influenced, um, my decision to become a historian, and particularly an American historian, given the fact that that was a new arena for me, uh, and it was she actually who, in, in the end, after many steps in between, uh, suggested Rutgers to me as a place to go to school. And, um, a-and that is why I ended up going to Rutgers and ultimately getting my degree there. SM: 04:04 How did you pick? Uh, why did you care? Was there some experiences you had in college that, uh, turned you toward women's issues? AH: 04:14 No, I cannot say that I was particularly turned towards women's issues until the late 1960s, until the women's movement began. And, um, before that, I had been turned much more towards immigrant and labor issues, and I think that makes you know absolute sense in terms of my own immigrant background. So you know, I was an immigrant and I wanted to be an American [laughing], that was the sort of bottom line, and the best way to do that was to study American history, and particularly to study immigrant American history. So that is what I did. And even more specifically, I did a visitation on Jews in New York in the 1890s so I was particularly interested in Jewish immigrants. And to do that dissertation, I learned Yiddish because that was my family was Hungarian and German speaking, but not Yiddish speaking. So I learned Yiddish to recoup that piece of a past that I shared, and, um, the rest is history, I suppose. The Women's History piece came out of, uh, the women's movement is the honest answer, and, um, it came out of the fact that I finished the dissertation in 1968 I was already married and had a four-year-old child. I have a daughter who was born in 1964 at that point, and, uh, I had t-to get the degree done, as you can imagine. I had sort of buried myself in books and had not been particularly politically active, y-you know, a-a lot of sort of, um, you know, marches and demonstrations, but no leadership of any one kind in any of those things. And then I lifted my head up, as it were, after I finished the dissertation, and I noticed that there was a woman's movement all around me just beginning, but New York was the, uh, you might say, the epicenter of that. SM: 06:31 That is right. AH: 06:33 So I got my first job in September of 1968 started working at Hofstra, where I taught for about 20 years and, uh, joined a consciousness raising group. The same year, uh, met other women who were active in the women's movement, and began to get involved. And it was only after that that I noticed that this dissertation I had written, which was about, you know, the Jewish labor movement in New York in the 1890s had no women in it. You know, that I had systematically just discarded all the women because I was studying the labor movement. And the labor movement was, in those days- SM: 07:19 Male dominated. AH: 07:20 -male dominated. So it was at that point that I started to, um, to work on women. I mean, I, I-I went back to some of the Yiddish materials and so on, to recoup some of the women I had overlooked. And so the first things I ever published were, uh, pieces on women in the labor movement. And...um- SM: 07:48 Do you think, um, we are in the 1960s now, late (19)60s, that the women's movement really came about because of the sexism that took place within all the other movements? Uh, we know that in the civil rights movement, sexism was dominant. Uh, uh, when you leave, when you look at the anti-war movement, it was very dominant. And, um, in talking to some other people, even in the American Indian, American Indian movement, it was dominant. And even to- in the gay lesbian movement, it was very dominant. Um, do you think the women's movement would have happened if the-if they had been treated equal in these movements from the get go? Or, uh, because a lot of people believe it was an offshoot, even though we know civil rights was a, um, role model for the movement. But just your thoughts on the sexism that took place within just about all the other movements. AH: 08:41 I think that that is, um, certainly a chunk of the explanation for the women's movement, but I do not think it is, by any means, the entire explanation. SM: 08:51 Mhm. [mumbling] AH: 08:50 So, uh, you know, I-I would say that, uh, you know, and Sarah Evans first proposed this in personal politics, and I think she is completely right that the sexism within the, um, uh, civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and so on, was an issue, and alerted a lot of women to the, especially a lot of young women, a lot of college aged women, uh, to the fact that here they were fighting for equality for other people, and they themselves were being treated, not only unequally, but unfairly. So, I-I think that that is the case, but I think that after all, limited numbers of women were involved in those movements, and that there is another source of female discontent, if you like, or of the women's movement that should not be overlooked, and that comes out of the- and it is really a long history of, uh, discrimination in the workplace and of the stifling of opportunities for women in those places. So, by the early 1960s it was quite clear that women were going to be earning a living. Large numbers of women were going to be earning a living. And after 1963 after Betty Friedan, uh, the old argument that women were working for pin money, or that they did not really want to be in the labor force and so on, um, I-I think had very little purchase after that point, so that I have called it sometimes incremental changes so women enter the workforce. Uh, they enter the workforce to earn income for their family for the most part, and then they discover that their opportunities as workers are limited. Uh, they their wages are limited. Their wages are unequal, uh, their promotional possibilities are limited. Uh, their capacity to enter certain fields are not only limited, but sometimes denied altogether, and that those things by the mid and late (19)60s are creating - you might call them the fuel for the fire. You know so then perfectly ordinary women who had never marched, you know, had never gone south to, you know, join the civil rights movement. Uh, you know, the mothers of children are, uh, discovering that they are being treated unfairly. And I think that form of sexism, you know, the sort of cultural sexism of who was expected to work and who was expected to, uh, take care of the household just hit home, uh, in about the same period. Now there is a kind of synergy between them that I would certainly agree to. But I do think that there is a strand there that is if you dig deeply, you can find it in the (19)30s. You can find it in the women who were active in the labor movement and would not call themselves feminists. You can find it in the early 1960s in the President's Commission on the Status of Women, where the question of work and family is a major question, you know, unresolved in that, uh, commission, and which spawns, you know, a state commission in every state in the Union, which state commissions are ultimately responsible for creating the National Organization for Women. So, you see, there is another thread there that I think people have perhaps not paid sufficient attention to, and which parallels, um, you know, and energizes, perhaps the younger women, or that the younger women certainly align with. SM: 08:51 T-the, uh, 1950s to me, women, even though they may have been mothers at home raising children, they were still the teachers because, uh, just about my entire school, I did not see a male teacher in my entire school. It was all female in elementary school, obviously nursing professionals and certainly secretarial because my mom was a secretary. Uh, he raised the kids and then went back to work. AH: 08:50 Right. SM: 08:51 So-so [clearing throat] what we saw were people that were in some very responsible positions. Um, what was it about the, the middle-class women of that period in the (19)50s, where they realized, once their kids got a little bit older, that they wanted to go back to work to help raise because, um, my niece is going through this right now? Is it - with a, with a baby - but, uh, she has to do both things to survive, uh, to pay the mortgage. And was this the precursor of the two-income family? Uh, and once the two-income family was present - AH: 09:36 It was not the precursor; it was the two-income family. The two-income family begins, if you look at the data, it begins in the post war period. So-so again, I have written about this, but- SM: 14:18 Mhm. AH: 14:20 -if you look at the trend line, you see that women are entering the workforce at a fairly steady clip and the number but they are mostly single women into the 1930s the Depression period, women continue to enter the [car horn] workforce, and their proportion remains steady. It does not decline, even though there is discrimination against married women. The 1940s women enter at a huge rate, as you know- SM: 14:58 Right. AH: 14:58 -because of the war. And then they were pushed out after the war. But immediately after they have pushed out, if you follow that first trend line, it continues to go up. So if you see, the, the war as a blip, you can see the trend line just increasing slowly but steadily, until by 1952 1953 there are almost as many. The proportion of women in the workforce is almost as many as there were during the war. And the proportion of married women and married women with children is now beginning to increase dramatically. So then you have to say, Well, why do women go back to work in the (19)50s? Some people go back to work because they had a great time during the war. You know- SM: 15:46 Mhm. AH: 15:46 -they learned that they could be economically independent, and that work was very satisfying. So that is some of it. Uh, some of it is that, uh-uh, they, uh, like their husbands, who sometimes benefit from the GI Bill, uh, begin to go to college and to get an education, and then to want to use that education. And that is the group that moves into the teaching and the nursing this, what we sometimes call the semi professions, uh, social work and-and so on and-and it is the, uh, the desire to use the education that they have that pushes them into the workforce. And then there is a whole other group that, um, moves into the workforce because standards of living are changing in the post war period and the male income is simply insufficient to support, a, a middle-class standard of living for most working-class families, but two working class wage earners can live reasonably well. So, the idea that, uh, y-you know, the male does not have to support a family that the woman can go to work to pay college tuition, to provide ballet classes for the kids to, you know, get that second car, or to buy the new refrigerator, or the leather town house. You know, all those things which, you know, the consumer things which are, uh, and which become necessities in that period. That is, you know, houses do not exist anymore without electricity or with outdoor toilets, or, you know, those are and to maintain or sustain that kind of standard of living requires an extra income. Sometimes it requires half an income, and women become two thirds of the people who work part time, for example, or women leave the labor force while their children are small and then go back into the labor force. But whatever it is, however families work it out, people begin slowly the idea begins to break down that men alone support there, and- SM: 18:08 It is interesting, I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly about a month ago, and, uh, she has typified the woman, a woman of the (19)50s, because she would not do anything unless she asked her husband. AH: 18:20 Yes. SM: 18:21 And, uh, sh- he wanted, um, she wanted to run for the Senate or Congress or whatever, and she asked her husband, her husband said no. AH: 18:30 Right. SM: 18:30 So she did not run. AH: 18:31 Right. SM: 18:32 So, and she said she, um, she was interesting, because she said, I- she was against the women's movement, obviously, and she was one of the leaders of the anti-ERA effort. Uh, but she also believes that the troublemakers of the (19)60s are now running today's universities, and she p-pointed that out [inaudible] making comments about women's studies and everything. AH: 18:55 Well, I- SM: 18:55 Yeah. AH: 18:56 I am one of those people. SM: 18:58 [Laughing] AH: 18:58 So, I proudly declare myself to be a troublemaker- SM: 19:00 Right. AH: 19:00 -of the (19)60s- SM: 19:02 Right. AH: 19:02 -in that sense- SM: 19:04 Mhm. AH: 19:04 -because, uh, I mean, y-you know that that she chose to ask her husband, that her husband said no, and that she responded- SM: 19:15 [inaudible] sometimes, Yeah, we are doing fine. AH: 19:18 There was a there was a class issue there. A- that Phyllis Schlafly was of a class status and already involved with a husband who could, in fact, support her and the family, makes her not unique by any means, but relatively speaking, unusual. There were millions of women who, um, they did not even think about running for the Senate, but they did think about becoming school aides, or getting secretarial jobs, or using whatever education they-they had because they needed to. Did they ask their husbands for permission? Probably, but would a husband have said no if he understood that this money could bankroll a kid's education, that you could then send your kid to the State University, because, you know, you would have enough money in the bank to do that, or you could, you know, get that second car for the family, or take vacations every year. So there-there was a class issue that I think people like Phyllis Schlafly often do not, uh, understand. But-but there is another issue too, which is, um, the 1950s 1960s are CUSP years. They are years of transition and transformation. So, uh, you know, it is absolutely the case that many women, particularly many white, middle-class women, benefited from the single income male house holder. You know, they could, as a famous historian named Ivy Pinchbeck once said, uh, they could manage not to have two jobs. So if you consider housework and child rearing one job and going out to work a second job, which most people do, it was a, you know, a great joy and liberation to many women not to have two jobs that is, to be able to stay home with their children, to be able to, you know, make the choice of child rearing, uh, rather than, uh, you know, going out to work and rushing home and you know, so on and, and that is the other piece of this that happens in the (19)50s. So, there is, on the one hand, the pull of income, o-of the need for income, and th-then there on is, on the other hand, an ideology which still says women belong at home, femininity serving the male obedience and so on, are good values. Now I am a great example of that. I grew up in a generation where I firmly believed I would not go to work. I was going to go to college. In fact, I married a medical student in my third year of college, I was set to go. I never intended to spend my life earning a living, and it never occurred to me that that would be but then, uh, you know, I started grad school. Why did I start graduate school? Well, my husband was in medical school. He just finished medical school. He was fairly young. Uh, what was I going to do for a few years? I was going to teach. We were moving from Baltimore to New York. I knew that you could only get a job as a real teacher, not a probationary teacher, if you had a master's degree. So, my initial thought was, all right, I would go get a master's degree, and I would go to graduate school to do that, and then I teach a few years. I get to graduate school. I love graduate school. I do well in graduate school, I think it is, you know, it is just the place I want to be with the conversations I want to have. Now, by now, it is 1962 1963 you know, the word is in the air. You know, there is a civil rights movement. I belong to bits of it. There is an anti-war movement beginning. I am present at that moment at Rutgers where Eugene Genovese bangs the table and says, I do not fear a Viet Cong victory. Indeed, I would welcome one. SM: 23:44 Were you in the room when that happened? AH: 23:45 I was in the room when that happened. So, so you see, I am not a leader of any kind, but I am influenced by all these ideas that are in the air. And then I get pregnant, and I have a baby, I am not sure if the order of this is right, but it all happens around the same time. And once I have a baby, the husband says, “Hey, what is going on around here? Why are you continuing to work? What is- but I am committed by now, so I use my fellowship money. I get deprived of a fellowship because I have a baby, I begin to feel that sense of, you know, it is not the same for me as a, as a woman. And then suddenly, in 1968 I finish my degree, I get a job because there are jobs available then, and I discover that I can construct a life, that I am not dependent, that I want this job, I want to work. And at that point, the marriage freys, it is not his fault, it is my fault, because I am the one who changed. His expectations of a wife and a family were absolutely legitimate given the period- SM: 24:57 Yeah, the time, yeah, the times. AH: 25:04 -that we grew up in. But I am, you know, there is all this stuff going on around me. I am the one who changes. So, when Phyllis Schlafly says, um, you know, my husband told me not to do it, so I did not, you know, that is great, right? My husband told me not to do it too, but I did, right? And there are as many, there are as many people like me out there as there are like Phyllis, Schlafly, maybe more. And if you want to call us troublemakers, because- SM: 25:41 Well she used that term. AH: 25:42 -Right. No, no, I am not- SM: 25:43 Yeah-yeah. Yeah. AH: 25:43 I am not blaming you at all- SM: 25:44 Right, right. AH: 25:45 -for this. All I am saying is, is I see how she could use that term, because she is really talking about a generation of people just like me who, uh, who do not want to follow the traditional patterns and the traditional lines. SM: 26:06 See, that is, that is, you know, you are, you are a mover. I-uh-It is not, it is not really a year. It is an attitude. It is really about an attitude. Because, um, if you talk to a, a study of the Free Speech movement with Mario Savio, the very same thing there. Um, it wa- i-it is about the world of ideas. It was the concept of the world of ideas that was important in the free speech movement. And you are talking about 1962-63 that exactly was when Feminine Mystique was written, yeah, and it came out. And, um, I would have to check this thing to make sure this is doing fine. Um, and I noticed, um, in, in an interview that they had with Betty Friedan, before she passed away, talking about The Feminine Mystique, she said it was, um, about- it was all about equality. It was about equality. And then, uh, the person that followed up said, what about the, the radical women of the late (19)60s and early (19)70s, the ones that burned their bras or would not shave their legs, or, um, you know, those kinds of individuals. And she said, you know, they were radicals. That is not what I was into. That is not what I was into. She was kind of, kind of negative toward that kind of stuff. AH: 27:19 But she is not telling the truth about herself, of course. SM: 27:22 Yeah. AH: 27:23 I mean, if you if you read, um, Daniel Horowitz's biography of Betty Friedan, you discover that, uh, you know, she comes out of the left, she comes out of the labor movement. She herself was a radical for a long time in her life that, while she was writing this book- SM: 27:43 Right. AH: 27:43 -you know, from a, you know, a sort of middling perspective that really is not where she is coming from. And indeed, I think, uh, only a Betty Friedan that is somebody who came out of the left and the labor movement, those are the women, after all, who are also, at this point, creating groups like women strike for peace, you know, and the ban the bomb movement and so on, you know. And they, you know, many of them have a, you know, what you would call a radical background. So, I mean the, the thing, the thing is that what we understand as radical may not have really been so radical at all. I mean, I do not think I was so unusual in that period. Uh, a-and I certainly, you know, if you think about organizations like now, or the Women's Equity Action League and how quickly they took off. You have to believe that there are millions of women who are somehow dissatisfied. You know, they may not be dissatisfied in the way Betty Friedan describes, but they are dissatisfied with that traditional you know, I-I am just an appendage of my husband, um, and I can be happy if he makes a good living being an appendage. Um- SM: 29:07 Betty Friedan says, but part of the result of the women's movement, as I help conceptualize it, is to give it a vision and lead it is an end to such a no-win either-or choice. Women today have choices, and demand choices, choices to have kids or not, and the reproductive technology there too. And it is a fact that most women continue to choose to have children. They, they know it as a choice now, but they do not choose to have too many, and they do not choose it as either-or career or children. That is something that Betty Friedan says [inaudible]. AH: 29:44 Yeah, this says there is something true about that, but there is also something sort of oversimplified about that. I do not know when she actually said that, but if you look at the data now, lots of women are choosing not to get married. Lots of women are choosing to have children even though they have no partner. Lots of people are choosing to have same sex partners and to have children with those same sex partners. So, her sort of the underlying assumption there that marriage between a man and a woman is the basis for the choice to have a child is no longer valid. It is for professional women, for teenage black women, it is not legitimate to have a child. But for professional, 30-year-olds who do not have a husband, it is, you know, the numbers of those women who decide to get pregnant or to adopt children is Legion. I have not counted them, but- SM: 29:45 I know that David Kaiser, who, t-the historian that wrote 68, um, he knows you. I think he knows you. AH: 30:47 Yes. SM: 30:53 He knew about you, and when I interviewed him, he said, do not bring up Betty Friedan to me. She is homophobic and, uh, she is not, er, uh, one of the leaders of really, uh, she, and, uh, Gloria Steinem is another story. Yes, she is fantastic. And so is Bella but Betty Friedan is homophobic, so in the gay community, I guess there is some sensitivity toward her. But, um, Phyllis Schlafly, um, trying to think something else that she said, uh, um, oh my goodness, um, it will come back to me. She said a lot of things [chuckling] that you might well know. Um, what do you mean when you say the gendering of society? Because, uh, you, uh, that is I have read some of the things on the web. And, uh, what does that mean to you? AH: 31:36 I do not know that I ever said the gendering of society. I think I might have said the gendering of the labor force, and I think I have said a shift in the gendered, what I call the gendered imagination. But if I were going to talk about that whole concept of gendering, I would say the following: that we, um, and here I speak as a historian or a social scientist, I guess, uh, that we have often explained, uh, uh, transformation and change in society in terms of class and in terms of race differences. That is, you know, people say, um, uh, the, uh, you know, the industrialization altered people's expectations of work and of their place in society, and that changes how people think about democracy and politics and so on. And we have not often thought of gender as a sort of motivational force. And one of the things I think that we have learned over the last generation, and I think it has really taken 20 or 30 years to learn it, is that gender and gendered tensions might be as important as any other kind of tensions, not more important, but as important. So, you know, you could say, uh, the effort of men and women to, you know, sort of create different kinds of relationships within families, you know, the most intimate level, to create satisfying lives for both of them, then produces a whole bunch of other issues and demands. You know, it produces, well, the demand not only for, uh, equal work for men and women and equal pay for men and women, but also the demand for, um, a more egalitarian view of what work should be and how it should be structured. Uh, it produces a different sense of children and who's responsible for them. It produces a different, uh, perspective on social policy. You know, there is nobody left to take care of the aging parents anymore. We need social security and pensions, not just to be supplements, but to take care of them. It produces a different perspective on the role of the public school system in education. So we note now in New York City that virtually every public school at the elementary level has an afternoon school program which is free and available, and that is a response to shifts in the family. So what I am saying is that the, the gendered tension, uh, produces all kinds of other, uh, incremental kinds of changes that are not easy to deal with. You know, they are, they are very difficult, and sometimes they have backlash effects. And i-if you want me to keep talking, I can say, for example, the thing that comes very painfully to mind is the welfare reform issue. So it used to be that assumptions about women's gender roles meant that poor women who needed support would be supported to stay home with their small children so that they could take care of them and the children would not suffer. Now we have a gendering, a different kind of gendered balance in this society, in which we no longer assume that women with children will stay home. We assume that women with chil- with children will be out to work. And so instead of paying for women to stay home. We pay them to go out to work, but we have not figured out what to do with the children yet. In other words, you know, we have not provided appropriate day care. We have not provided it in appropriate places. We have not given these, you know, women reasonable transportation. We have not figured out what to do when the kids are sick. You know, we...do you see what I mean? So now that requires a whole another set of questions. They have not yet been resolved. SM: 36:14 You see another just came out. My niece told me this, and it was on CNS, uh, CN-NBC, or whatever is that breastfeeding a child in the first six to eight months, they go to work after the you know, they got to go. There is no privacy. AH: 36:28 Right. SM: 36:29 And so that is a big issue. Now, I believe in Obama's, uh, Bill w-was it was not for six months or trying to build something, so they have to build a room for a private area. It was just something there was they were not sensitive at all- AH: 36:39 Yes. SM: 36:40 -to women's, uh- AH: 36:40 Yes. SM: 36:41 -needs. AH: 36:42 Look 50 years ago when I got my first job. So 1961 to 62 I taught for a single year in a Baltimore High School, and I had to sign a contract that said, and that is exactly 50 years ago, right? I had to sign a contract that said that if I got pregnant, I would tell them and I would resign within four months of the beginning of the pregnancy. That was normal. I did not blink twice at signing that contract. It was perfectly normal. So nobody had to think about privacy or extra rooms, or it was assumed that it was not that everybody did resign when they had babies, but the expectation was that you would do so. So, you know, it is a half a century later, and look at the consequences of that. You know, whether it is about breastfeeding, or whether it is about on-site daycare, or whether it is about Chinese menu benefit options and employers finding that it is too expensive to provide healthcare anymore, and now maybe we can have national healthcare. In other words, nothing is isolated in a cocoon, and when you start shifting these what look like very intimate gender relationships, you produce huge consequences for the society as a whole. SM: 38:11 I-I just thought what Phyllis, uh, said, she said, in, uh, she said that one half of all babies born last year were born out of wedlock. That is what she, uh, she had the st-statistic, was a year ago, so, and she was I-I again, I am not sure, we talked about a lot of different things, what she was referencing into, but she put that in as a-a statement that, uh, unwed mothers, and I- AH: 38:33 I-I would like to check out that statistic, and I would, I would bet you dollars to donuts that included in that number, if the number is correct, and I think it is probably exaggerated, but if the number is incorrect, it probably counts as unwed women and men who live together as partners and men and men and women and women who live together. In other words, if out of wedlock means out of traditional marriage, having a marriage ceremony done, that might be correct, but if, but that, of course, that does not mean anything, because the children who are born under many of those circumstances have two parents, you know. SM: 39:15 One, one of the first questions I have asked everyone, uh, on the general questions, not specific ones, is that, um, in 1994 when Newt Gingrich came into power, he made some pretty strong statements against the, um, (19)60s and the (19)70s [mumbling]. He has, he has quoted, he talks about it all the time, in certain ways. He is a boomer himself, but, uh, and then, uh, notice, Mike Huckabee recently has said some things on his TV show about the (19)60s generation. He likes to throw these one liners out there and for church will in his writings over the years, always likes to throw a little jab here, jab there. Um, someone told me, uh, in, in response to his chapters, anybody ever really told you or told you that he worked for Jesse Helms, and that is how he got his start? I said, no, I did not know that well, I do not think he likes the world to know it either, so [laughing] s-so lo-, there is a lot of stuff out there, but basically, what I am saying is that it is, it is a general perception on those that do not like, the, the Liberals from that era, whether they be in the anti-war movement, civil rights, uh, women's movement, uh, the gay and lesbian, uh, the environmental movement, the Native American Chicano, um, is that they are just, um, the breakdown of our society really started then the lot of the issues of the divorce, the divorce rate, the lack of responsibility, lack of respect for authority, the, the beginning of the isms. Um, of course, the welfare state will always be thrown out there. That was an LBJ thing. Um, so I do not know, how do you respond to that? Because, uh, it is, it is, it is really, it is becoming very strong now. It is stronger than I have ever seen it the backlash against that era. I preface this by saying that Barney Frank, I mean, I think I am going to have to turn this, uh, no, I am still good. Barney Frank wrote a very good book in the (19)90s called Speaking Frankly, and he is Mr. Democratic and, uh, but he said that we have to as a party, the Democratic Party, we have to say goodbye to the anti-war people and those-those (19)60s people and the-the people that were around McGovern, because if we were going to survive as a party, people are not going to join us. They are going to think of the radi- radical aspects. Uh, and that is always stuck in my mind, and this is a politician saying it. And, uh, so Mike, the basic question is this, when you see blanket statements made, stating that that period, and we all know what they are talking about, the (19)60s and early (19)70s, um, that all our-uh, just about all our problems started, then, um, how do you respond to that? AH: 42:00 How I respond to that is by saying, some people would call that the breakdown of society, and other people like me would call it the transformation of society, uh, the transformation of society to a more democratic uh, um, uh, ground. In other words, I, I you can look at what happened in the (19)60s from various perspectives. From one perspective, you can see it as an enormous challenge to a variety of traditional value systems. Among them, the, uh, racial segregation, um, gender inequality, um, [car horns] or patriarchy, uh, if you want to put it that way, uh, you know elitist, uh, government, you know, uh, decision making made by political people and so on. So what the 1960s did, from that perspective, is to say, no, we were, uh, we have now moved far enough so that we want to transform the society on more democratic and egalitarian grounds. Uh, now you could say that that is a breakdown in the sense that our forefathers never envisioned such democracy. They did not envision racial equality, they did not envision gender equality, and so look at the terrible things you have done to our society. And that is one way of looking at it. [car horns] But another way of looking at it is to say, you know, this democratic experiment that this country is involved in is an evolving experiment. And the (19)60s and early part of the (19)70s, you know, there was a decade in there when we really tried to push the boundaries a little further. Uh, we got a good way doing that. We did not get as far as some people wanted us to, and we left some problems hanging. But by Jove, you know, we, we created a far greater access for African Americans, for people of color. SM: 44:33 [mumbling] I know it is at the end. [recording pauses] AH: 44:40 Okay, so, no, just the point is that we, we created, uh, access. We the- you know, the New Left view of democratic participation. [recording pauses] SM: 45:04 [inaudible] AH: 45:04 So, I was going to say the-the new left's, um, uh notion of, um, participatory democracy was in some ways, completely nuts. You know, it is, um, you know, in this in the sense that, uh, it is stymied activity. You know, we all spend hours day and night talking about things. But on the other hand, it also fostered the town hall meetings that you now see, where presidential candidates and so on actually think that upon occasion, they can actually go talk to ordinary people, and that ordinary people have things to say so. So that is what I think about that argument. I think that when, uh, Newt Gingrich should know better, because he was trained as a historian. SM: 45:58 Yes. AH: 45:59 You know, change does not come without, um, uh, pain, and, and people will disagree with it, and will, uh, you know, sort of pull in the other direction and try to pull us back in the other direction. But I do not believe that, uh, we-we can or that people will tolerate being moved back, uh, you know, to the sort of pre democratic or and we are certainly not as democratic as we could be, or as egalitarian as we could be, even now, SM: 46:40 I know that, um, his commentary the other day against, uh, President Obama was pretty strong. [mumbling] He is the farthest left president we have ever had. And what is interesting also that President Obama tries to distance himself from the (19)60s, I think, because of the Bill Ayers and the all the other stuff. But also, um, his critics oftentimes say he is the epitome of the (19)60s. He is the reincarnation of the (19)60s. So here we have a man who wants to distance himself from that period, and yet we have his critics saying that he is the, uh, epitome and the, uh, role model of that period. He is- AH: 47:21 But he has got critics on both sides. Right? SM: 47:23 Yeah. AH: 47:24 On the one hand, they say he is the epitome of the (19)60s and he is too far left, and he is a socialist and so on. On the other hand, people like me are saying, wait a minute, he is not far left enough. You know, what has he done? He has not stopped the war in Afghanistan. You know, he has settled for a health care bill, which is half of what we would like to have gotten. In other words, he is getting criticized from the left as well as from the right. And if you read magazines like the nation, what you get are articles saying, you know, hold off. Do not be too disappointed. He is doing as much as he can, you know, even though he is not doing, you know, enough so, so maybe he is doing something right, because [laughing] he is going right down the middle. SM: 48:12 You have taught s-since the middle (19)60s, I guess, on college campuses. So you saw the, uh, the boomers when they were coming. Uh, they are 64 so they, they were in the (19)60s and (19)70s, and then you had the Generation X ers that came in the, uh, (19)80s and, uh, (19)90s, and now you got the millennials. Uh, Generation Y is right around the corner. See, everybody has got these terms for them. But, uh, one of the things that people have written is that the gener- that the boomer generation, were the best educated kids that they had, the best teachers, they had the best school system. They were seen to be more knowledgeable about issues, uh, not only that, often, not all of them active on the, um, uh, issues, but as a teacher, as a professor, as someone, you had good students in all your classes and every year. But did you see, c-can you perceive that that period students may have been more inquisitive, more questioning? Even you as a teacher, uh, how they seem to they seem to have been different and I have had other professors who have told me this. AH: 49:17 I, uh, I think the answer that question is yes, but I think you have to remember that I was closer to their age than I am now, and students are always much more willing to engage and to push a professor who is young and, you know, seen as, uh, responsive, rather than somebody who's been around for, you know, 40 years and- SM: 49:20 Right. AH: 49:21 It is like their grandparents so, but that said, uh, I think it is probably true that the kids of the, of the, uh, late (19)60s, I started teaching in (19)68 and those first four or five years were of course, the heart of the anti-war movement. And so, uh, you know, the kids were active. They were engaged in the learning process. Uh, they, uh, you know, if they disagreed with the book, the challenge was not to get them to not disagree. We wanted them to disagree, but the challenge was to, uh, help them to defend their disagreement, to, um, you know, to articulate and to think about, you know, what the roots and the sources were of it. And so I think that that is true. Nowadays, students tend to be somewhat more passive, although I have to say that in my Women's Studies classes and my women's history classes, Phyllis Schlafly notwithstanding, um, those students tend to be, uh, much more challenging, uh, much less willing to accept authority, uh, you know. So they will repeatedly distinguish themselves, you know, from the second wave, you know, they will identify me almost immediately as a feminist and as a second wave feminist, and identify themselves as, uh, the third, or even now the fourth, fourth wave. And that is very rewarding. That is there. It generates very useful conversations about the differences, which, of course, reveals something to them- SM: 51:48 Mhm. AH: 51:48 -about, you know, what the past was like and what the present is like. Uh, those kinds of, uh, that kind of pushing, that kind of challenging I do not find in my other classes, but I would suspect that others might you know, others of a younger generation, others of different political persuasion might. SM: 52:15 In your opinion, um, when did the (19)60s begin? When did it end, and what was there a watershed moment, um, watershed happening? So, it is a three-part question. Uh, [mumbling]. AH: 52:31 Well, it began and ended - is it all right? SM: 52:35 Yep AH: 52:35 It began and ended at different points for different people. Um, So I do not think there is one answer to that question. For me, I would say, uh, it probably began in 1964 and it probably ended, well, it did not end, uh, because I remained involved actively in the women's movement. For me, perhaps it still continues, but, uh, the at least that piece of it, the women's movement, piece of it still continues. It is still an ongoing struggle. It is changed and transformed, but, uh, I-I would say it began in 1964 for me, because that is when I became active in the civil rights movement, and that is when the civil rights movement became a kind of living part of my life, although even in college, I had become aware of it, though not particularly active in it, um, I would say, um, that the (19)60s ends, uh, in some sort of grassroots way. Um, by the early part of the (19)70s, (19)73 the withdrawal from Vietnam, you might say was, the is a good day to end it. Now, what succeeds that, of course, is just a ton of legislation and policy changes around the issues I care about, including affirmative action, uh, for blacks and whites and for women and so on. SM: 54:20 Yeah, I have, I have a question here. Uh, I have a question here because during the period when boomers were growing up and young, um, we had the Brown versus Board of Education. And then we had the Civil Rights Act. We had the Voting Rights Act (19)64 and (19)65, um, so, and then, of course, Roe v Wade, which was a major, major happening. We actually have we had programs on that before I left school, about the threat that it may try to be changed back. Um, that is why the Stevens Point there, right? [chuckling] That is really big. Um, but getting back to the question, when you are talking about women. And of course, I am talking about the boomers, which are now. The oldest ones are 63 and the youngest ones are 46, um, what laws are the most important that you feel for all women? Uh, in and-and when I break it down here, it is hard to not only in terms of equality, but where, uh, discrimination was present, and where it has been improved, uh where, uh, uh, the whole business of the labor force, uh, equal pay for equal work, uh, the whole issue, I noticed there is so much here, so you cannot talk about all of it. But what would be the key points, the legal issues that you feel have really changed how we look at women today? AH: 55:48 For women? SM: 55:48 Yes. AH: 55:49 Um, I-I would say, uh, e-equal pay. Equal pay is not as important as, um, occupational segregation. Uh, it symbolically is important, but, uh, the bunches of studies now that have demonstrated that pay actually that that equal pay legislation is ineffective unless occupational segregation is simultaneously, uh, eliminated and the shifts in occupational segregation have been, uh, not insignificant, especially at the professional and financial levels, but not very, um, uh, I would say, marginal at the level of the trades and the, um, under crafts, uh, which isn't to say that they have not been there. So, the numbers of carpenters, of female carpenters, have doubled from two to 4 percent, you know, like that. But still the notion that, um, occupational segregation is, um, an invalid, inappropriate, um, uh, you know, claim, which was the claim that, um, both men and women agreed to for years that is gone, and it is gone not through a single law, but through a series of successive changes, starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, uh, with Title Seven of that act, and, uh, through the actions of the EEOC, uh, continuing through the, uh, Labor Department, new labor department regulations and so on. So I would say that is one big change. The second one has to do with reproductive rights, although I agree with you that that is now threatened. Well, I guess we will see how effective it will be, and where I think, uh, the beginning of the challenge to that, I would probably date to Griswold. So that is 1967 that is the Connecticut decision, which makes that illegal for states to limit the distribution of birth control only to married women. You know, women are entitled to birth control whether or not they are married. Uh, and that continues, of course, then through the abortion, uh, protests and demonstrations, and then Roe v Wade, but in there you have to sort of put things the cultural things like Title Nine, you know, women should be able to participate in sports. Um, I do not know quite where that belongs, but I think that was a big one. Uh, and in the reproductive rights thing, there are a whole series of things that sort of tentacles that that leads to including, um, the, uh, court decision on GE which, um, uh, said it was really okay for insurers not to insure pregnancy and childbirth. And then the 1979 government, um, uh, legislation which says nope, and people who provide health insurance for their workers have to include, if you provide any health insurance, then pregnancy has to be so the so-called Pregnancy Disability Act. So, so that whole sequence of things you know, who controls reproduction, who is responsible? How people deal with it, the Hyde Amendment. You know that there are a whole series of we could separate them out, if you like, but if you wanted to summarize it, I would say, uh, the thing that was important in this period was the recognition that, uh, reproductive issues were not were neither wholly private, that is that they were not within the control and purview of women and their husbands, and at the same time they-they were not wholly public either. You know that we, and I think that is what the big debate is about now, but I do not think it takes place just on the yes abortion, no abortion. I think it takes place on all these other fronts too. SM: 1:00:57 Do you, do you feel that when women have to leave work, they get six weeks no pay. Is what happens, is- AH: 1:01:05 12 weeks SM: 1:01:06 I-is it 12? AH: 1:01:06 [inaudible] family medical leave- SM: 1:01:09 My, uh, my niece just, uh, says, in New York State, she could only get, um, a month and a half, six weeks AH: 1:01:17 Family medical leave act. It is a federal act, says 12 weeks. It does not cover some people. Maybe she is in a non-covered job. SM: 1:01:25 They do not get paid either. AH: 1:01:26 But there is no pay- SM: 1:01:27 Yeah. AH: 1:01:27 -for it. SM: 1:01:27 Is that right? AH: 1:01:29 That is right, although many employers now provide, Columbia being one of them, now provide maternity leaves, which they did not. But the difference is, you know, there is a maternity leave and there is a parental leave, so that 12 weeks unpaid anybody can take the maternity leave. Or the, you know, the pregnancy leave is available, often out of sick pay, often for women, at the cost of giving out, you know, a vacation or something else. Not good. Not good. Much better in Europe. SM: 1:02:05 One of the questions I have been asking everyone centers on a question that we, um, asked Senator Evan Muskie (?) when we took a group of students to Washington in the mid (19)90s, before he passed away, he was not well. He had been in the hospital. And this was organized through, uh, arrangements with Senator Gaylord Nelson, who I got to know quite well, senator from Wisconsin. And the question that the students came up with, because they did not grow up in the (19)60s, and, and they had watched the film of 1968 and they saw the students and the police could club each other. They knew that the Kennedy and King had been killed, and, uh, that Johnson had resigned, and Tet and all the other things. So they knew all this. The question they asked is, do you feel that the boomer generation, the generation of 74 million, will go to its grave like the Civil War generation, not truly healing from the really strong divisions that tore the nation apart in that time? They want to know, number one, from Senator muskie, were we close to, uh, breaking apart as a nation because of the burnings in the cities and all the things that are happening, i.e. close to a second civil war? A-and secondly, uh, with all the divisions between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, uh, those who supported the troops, those who did not for the war, against the war and all these divisions, um, you know, the question was, are they going to go to their grave, like many in the Civil War did, uh, that had all these reunions, but they still never truly healed from the Civil War. What are your thoughts? AH: 1:03:48 I think the only people who go to their graves thinking that are people who do not know any history, because it does not take much history to recognize that every decade or so, every generation, uh, certainly has seen equally powerful divisions which have threatened to tear the nation apart, and which, as you know, in the case of the Civil War, sometimes did tear the nation apart. But you know, divisions, not only over the Civil War, but divisions over reconstruction, uh- SM: 1:04:24 Make sure, we are doing okay. Yep! Okay. AH: 1:04:27 Uh, divisions over reconstruction. Divisions over free silver tore the nation apart. Divisions over, um, uh, you know, World War One and whether we should go to war divisions over the New Deal and the Social Security Act of I mean, you could go on and on. And you know, the 1930s certainly saw its, uh, you know, its marches and people in the street and demonstrations and-and attacks. And you know, people thought the political consequences of that would never end, and not only did they end, but they are now some of the most popular programs that we have. So, I do not know how you-you know the divisions over the Vietnam War, to say nothing of the other divisions were powerful and deep. And, you know, we got beaten up by cops on horses. We did not understand why they were wielding clubs at us or-or, you know, pushing us around at the Pentagon, or arresting we, you know, we thought we were doing the right democratic thing. And 20 years later, do we even remember that? No, those are the stories that we tell our children. They are not, you know, sources of division. I do not know, huge divisions over the civil rights marches and-and would anybody say those tore, you know, Brown v Board of Education, Yeah, they tore the nation apart. But the rifts aren't permanent. I think that what we see now is a, um, is a very articulate, uh, right wing made more articulate by the kind of media and sources that are available to them. So when 200 Tea Party people meet in Boston, 200 is almost nothing, but when every television channel and Fox News Features them so that every household gets a sense that people are uncomfortable. They seem more powerful than in fact they are so no, I would say, um, if you know any history, you know that divisions are, are not unhealthy. I, I wish, I wish there were less racial division. I wish I were not seeing these attacks on Obama. You know, as a socialist, is that a euphemism for the N word? Is that a- you know, you, you really that that scares me a little bit. I wish we had a Supreme Court that, you know, would you know restrain the use of weapons or the handling of weapons. I think you know these recent decisions about, um, allowing weapons on the public streets of big cities without, you know, monitoring or checking or I think those are absurd. SM: 1:07:54 Do not know why that is doing it. Here we go. All right, uh, I want to mention that, um, Senator Muskie, when he responded he did not even mention 68 he said he did not even talk about it, um, because they thought he was there at the convention. He would, that is what they were asking. He said, um, I just saw the Ken Burns series in the Civil War, and we lost 430,000 men in that war and the South almost lost their entire generation. So, um, he said, we have not healed since the Civil War. And then he explained why when I am talking about it, uh, and he said, all you need to do is go to get his emergency (?). When you drive on one side, uh, the south just leaves flags. In the north, you do not, you do not see anything. [recording pauses] AH: 1:08:40 Do you have another tape? SM: 1:08:41 Yeah, I do have another tape. I do not know why it is stopping. There you go. Um, anyways, uh, one, one of the other things of during that particular period, um, in the (19)60s- [recording pauses]. Alright. When you think of the (19)60s and the (19)70s, um, three slogans come to mind w-when I think of period different types of people. Number one was the slogan that Malcolm X gave, which is by any means necessary, symbolic of a more radical, violent group. The second one was Bobby Kennedy speech when they are words, when he said, um, some men, some men, sees things as they are, and ask, why? I see things that never were and asked, why not? And that was a Henry David Thoreau quote, but it was more symbolic of the activist mentality, uh, wanting to, uh, do positive things, things for justice and equality, you name it. And then third one was more kind of a hippie mentality, which was, uh, from a peer Max poster, uh, you do your thing. I will do mine. If by chance, we should get together, it will be beautiful. Which was kind of a hippie mentality. Um, and I thought that kind of civilized the, um, boomers when they were young, the (19)60s, the (19)70s, uh, maybe some of the ideas they carried on even into the (19)80s. Are there any slogans or quotes that you feel are important? The only other one that came out from us other people was we shall overcome, which was the Civil Rights- AH: 1:10:13 I like that. SM: 1:10:14 -and the John Kennedy quote, wh-um, uh, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country. Do you have some quotes that you feel, uh, really are symbolic of the period? AH: 1:10:31 The woman's, uh, movement. Uh, the woman's movement line was the personal is political, and that was one that was very influential for me. Um, I have to say that, uh, you do your thing, I will do my thing. Uh, that was the Cultural Revolution. You left thing. And maybe that is what distinguishes me from really, the boomer generation. I could not bear that slogan [laughing]. I could not stand it, and I thought, you know, it is an anti-political slogan. It is, uh, you know, let us just drift apart. Leave me alone and I will, you know, so, so no, that that was not what I thought the (19)60s was about. I thought the (19)60s was about, um, uh, uh, a fairer and I like the word fair better than I like the word, uh, equal, but, but I would say a fairer and more equal society, creating one for everybody. So. And I think to do that, we needed, we need the Robert Kennedy slogan. You know, I think that that is the most. SM: 1:11:46 Uh, I-I have a whole mess of questions here. We are going to cut some of these because we only have 10 more minutes here. Um, uh, all right, uh, w-what were some of the books? Now, we have talked about the feminine mystique. And certainly there were other writers that were important, Betty Friedan and, um, I know Susan Brown Miller has written some major books, uh- AH: 1:12:09 The people we read before we read Susan Brown Miller and Kate Millett and so on. SM: 1:12:14 Right. AH: 1:12:15 We read, um, uh, Herbert Marcuse, Norman O. Brown [Norman Oliver Brown], uh, you know, they were the precursors of this so Marcuse, uh, eros and civilizations. Freud's civilization, and its discontents. Uh, Norman O. Brown, life against death. Those were the books that we, uh-uh Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. So, before we were reading the women's books, we were reading in the late (19)60s, these books, and those were the books I was sometimes teaching. You know, of-of the women's books, uh Shulamith Firestone's [Shulamith Bath Shmuel Ben Ari Feuerstein], uh, Dialectic of Sex [The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution] , uh, was important. Uh, Juliet Mitchell, the Long Revolution or no, I think the book was called Woman's Estate, uh, and then the popular books were Kate Millett, um, Germaine Greer, uh, Betty Friedan was old hat by the late (19)60s. I mean, for people like me, it is probably not for younger people. And then fiction, Marilyn French's the Women's Room. Um, Kathy Davidson, I have forgotten the name of that book, something divisions, sexual divisions or something. Um, Alix Kates Shulman, uh Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen. Uh, there was a lot of that, a lot of fiction going on. And then the, uh, black fiction, the African American women's fiction, beginning to emerge in the mid, uh, (19)70s. So, Toni Cade Bambara, um, uh, Toni Morrison, of course, [SM coughing]. Um, Alice Walker, not till later. But that is what we were. SM: 1:14:23 Was Carol Oaks, one of those? Uh- AH: 1:14:25 No. SM: 1:14:25 No? AH: 1:14:26 Uh, I mean, she was there but she was not from- SM: 1:14:30 [Interrupting and overlapping speech] Simone de Beauvoir- AH: 1:14:32 Simone de Beauvoir was enormously influential. Yes, yes, yeah. We read her early on, in fact, now when I teach that period, I start with Simone de Beauvoir. SM: 1:14:45 In terms of magazines, we all think of Ms., but were there other magazines that were influential? Uh- AH: 1:14:50 There were. SM: 1:14:52 -either underground papers or- AH: 1:14:55 Yeah, there were several of the underground papers. There was a paper called New Directions for Women, which was, which lasted about 15 years, and which was, um, you know, widely read. There was, um, uh, uh, underground paper called red rag. There was another one. There were several underground papers. I cannot remember the names of them all, but, oh, you know, we would get them all and devour them. Is, is, I think there were no, uh, the thing about Ms. was that it was a mass circulation magazine, and that is what made it different. The others had smaller circulations within the feminist, you know, intellectual, but Ms., really, you know, sort of extended beyond that, and that is what made it so important. SM: 1:15:54 I would like, uh, these are some female um, uh, leaders that have been come to the forefront in the last 30 some years. Um, if you just give your thoughts, just quick thoughts, it does not have to be anything in depth. Some are popular, and some are maybe not so popular. AH: 1:16:12 This is a trap, [laughing] SM: 1:16:13 It is not a trap. AH: 1:16:14 This is a Rorschach. SM: 1:16:15 Uh- AH: 1:16:15 [Laughing] SM: 1:16:17 Lynn Cheney. AH: 1:16:17 Yuck. SM: 1:16:17 [chuckling] Okay. Is that - you do not have to go any further. Do you want to say anything more? AH: 1:16:25 Yeah. I mean, I-I think, um, a very conservative woman, uh, somewhat hypocritical, uh, in my judgment, as a as a, um, uh, the chair of the NEH, which was when she first really came to my attention. Uh, she was enormously destructive, uh, both because she, uh, supported and, well, I would say it this way, she limited NEH support to projects which she found politically acceptable and correct, and that seemed to me to be a violation of the NEHS mission she excluded from panels people of varieties of political and social backgrounds and opinions. Uh, so, uh, right. SM: 1:17:22 Eleanor Roosevelt, AH: 1:17:24 Eleanor Roosevelt, one can only have admiration for. I mean, even though you could make positive and negative judgments about her, but she, she was, um, a far sighted and, uh, often a very courageous leader of women, uh, who was limited by her own, you know, politics and class and so on, but, uh, she was a great lady. SM: 1:17:58 Uh, two, uh, do two at a time here, uh, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, because they were the most well-known. Seemed to be. AH: 1:18:07 Well, Condoleezza Rice neither had much to say or do about women's issues, so I cannot really speak to that. I, uh, did not much like her as a secretary of state because she was too war like and, um, uh, too closely tied to Bush administration policies which she supported. And I dislike, uh, Hillary Clinton. Uh, I find, you know, I have a lot of admiration for Hillary Clinton, though I do not always agree with what she says and does, particularly, did not agree with her stance on the welfare issue or its renewal, but on the other hand, she was very smart, she was thoughtful, she was responsive. Uh, she you know when as senator, she took reasonable positions on many issues. So if I had to choose between them, I, you can tell which one I choose. SM: 1:19:10 Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug. AH: 1:19:13 Uh, birds of a different feather, although, uh, very closely tied, Bella Abzug comes out of her radical background, and though she was an impossible person by all accounts, she was a ,uh, political force, and one has to both respect and admire that force. Uh, I wish she was still alive. I would love to hear her voice out there. Uh, Gloria Steinem has been a different kind of leader of women, um, very active on the range of you know, of women's issues per se, uh, Bella was more interested in broader issues. As well as women's issues, issues of human rights, issues of, uh, well, all the issues that came before the Senate, issues of corporate- SM: 1:20:07 [inaudible] Yep. AH: 1:20:12 But, um, whereas Gloria Steinem has a sort of narrower mandate, uh, h-her greatest contributions, it seems to me, uh, were both in the founding of Ms., but then also in the um, uh, the effort to create a kind of inclusionary woman's movement, as opposed to one that was divided so... SM: 1:20:40 Um, Lindy Boggs- AH: 1:20:43 Yeah. SM: 1:20:43 -and Angela Davis [both laughing] Lindy- AH: 1:20:49 I am going to leave Lindy Boggs out, partly because I do not know enough about her to make quick judgments. About Angela Davis, uh, you know, what is there to say? You know, for her moment in time, uh, you know, she was, uh, uh, just an enormous inspiration to large numbers of young people. You know, black, beautiful, a woman, uh, concerned with feminist issues, a pioneer in trying to sort of, um, think about the relationship between race and gender in a constructive way, rather than in a divisive way. Uh, you know, uh...I do not know about the last 20 years. I mean, uh, you know, she seems to me now to have been sort of repeating what she said earlier, so, but that first decade or so, uh, in the (19)70s, early part of the (19)80s, um, she was terrific. SM: 1:22:13 Shirley Chisholm and Phyllis Schlafly. AH: 1:22:15 [laughing] There are two more birds of a very different feather. For, um, Shirley Chisholm, I have only, uh, admiration, um, you know, in all the ways that she broke new ground and did it, uh, um, not in A Bella absent way, not by, you know, pushing forcefully, but by gently opening doors, which opened partly because she was so, you know, she was insistent and yet not strident. I guess is the- I suppose some people would disagree with that, but I think that at the moment that she chose to run for president, for example, and to make a statement. Those were very brave things for a woman to do, and for a black woman to, you know, to take on, to step out, um, know that that is that took some courage. About Phyllis Schlafly, what can I say? I-I disagree with practically every word she has written. I do not know what she is like as a human being. Uh, people seem to like and respect her. Uh, I think, um, uh, she is rooted in an ideology that, um, uh, does not seem to me to be, uh, to work anymore. Uh, she adopts, uh, hypocritical positions with relationship to how she herself lives, you know, she is, she is, uh, you know, argues for particular kinds of lifestyles for women, and then lives a whole another lifestyle herself. Um, I just, I mean, I know she has been an important force and has persuaded a lot of people to move in her direction. But, but I cannot, um- SM: 1:24:23 At the CPAK conference boy, she is popular. AH: 1:24:26 Yeah-yeah. SM: 1:24:26 We are coming up - because she is historic. AH: 1:24:28 So is Sarah Palin. So ask me about Sarah- SM: 1:24:31 Yeah, exactly. Sarah, Sarah is on, Sarah is- AH: 1:24:32 She is on your next- SM: 1:24:34 Actually, I had a co - uh, Sarah Palin and Bernadine Dorn, because, uh, you have got, uh- AH: 1:24:39 Why would you pair them together? Bernie- SM: 1:24:41 Well I got [mumbling] Sarah just happened to be on top of each other. AH: 1:24:45 Oh okay. Um, one at a time [laugh] SM: 1:24:49 Yeah. AH: 1:24:51 Bernadine Dorn, uh, um, you know, she was one of our heroines of the 1970s SM: 1:24:49 [muffled] AH: 1:24:59 Oh I was going to say she was one of our heroines of the 1970s even though, uh, the, you know, the radicalism turned some people off, and uh, you know, the, the sense that she would resort to violence and so on, though both Ed Ayers and Bernadine have since said that they, they never, um, targeted people that they-they targeted buildings or, um, institutions, but not people, and that the damage that was done, and there was damage done was often inadvertent, but still, she was, uh, Bernadine. Bernadine Dorn had a kind of presence among people, a lot of them, like me, who never could have imagined ourselves, um, y-you know, actually committing a violent act, but who were angry enough that we, you know, might have wanted to or wished to. So, um, uh, About Sarah Palin, what can I say? She seems to me to be a sort of inversion of feminism, uh, a kind of person who, uh, would only have been, could only have been possible in the light of a feminist movement, and yet, who undermines everything that feminism has ever stood for. So, so I am, uh, you know? I mean, I-I am only not angry about it, because I do not think, at least, I hope it is that the campaign is not going to go anywhere, but in the sense that, um, you know, her, uh, capacity to be elected governor, her capacity to do that with, uh, several children, her, uh, uh, capacity to have a baby and go right back on the campaign trail and so on. All those freedoms were, uh, freedoms which were, um, produced by an active women's movement. But that active women's movement had a sense of solidarity with other women as women, uh, had a sense of, um, uh, commitment to children, not the, you know, the dragging around of a, of a baby just to demonstrate that she, you know, was big enough to handle this child who had been, you know, born damaged. Uh, of that I, I mean, I think contempt isn't too strong a word. I-I, um, I find it really troubling that, uh, women can, you know, sort of place her in the category of a feminist camp when- SM: 1:28:16 There is another female Twitter. Now, I forget her name. She was a congresswoman. AH: 1:28:19 Yes, from Michigan, Michelle Bachman. AH: 1:28:20 Yeah. SM: 1:28:20 Two peas in a pod. AH: 1:28:27 Yes, and she is another one like that, who you could not imagine getting where they were. And yet, once there, they want to deny other women whatever you know whether it is their reproductive you know they have made their own reproductive choices. Let other women make their- they have made their own marital choices, their own lifestyle choices. SM: 1:28:54 The, the only other names I had here, and we are I had mentioned is Susan Brown Miller, Kate Miller, Charmaine, Erin Helen. Helen Gurley Brown. I, I am actually, uh meeting two weeks the person [mumbling] AH: 1:29:06 She was my student. SM: 1:29:07 Oh she was? AH: 1:29:08 Jennifer Scanlon, yeah. AH: 1:29:09 Yeah. SM: 1:29:09 Yeah. (End of Interview) Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Alice Kessler Harris Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Kessler-Harris, Alice ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource College teachers; Columbia University; Kessler-Harris, Alice--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Alice Kessler-Harris is Professor Emerita of American History at Columbia University. She is also Professor Emerita in the Institute for Research on Women and Gender. Dr. Kessler-Harris specializes in the history of American labor and the comparative and interdisciplinary exploration of women and gender. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-03-15 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.59 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 89:14 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/5837692b27da9cb0fb4d5feb48986684.jpg 2bc7a8ca41d9c7919bb81173026dbc00 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/8fee1262dfe3b647d685daf091227a1c.mp3 762ce4ce473ba39d3e926dc6021a60ec Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player with Transcription This template displays an audio player by Amplitude.js with a scrollable transcription which is loaded from the "Transcription" metadata field. This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Arthur W. Chickering, 1927- Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Arthur W. Chickering is an author, scholar, and researcher. His research is in the field of student affairs and he is known for his contribution to student development theories. He previously taught at George Mason University and Goddard College. Chickering earned awards such as the Outstanding Service Award from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the Distinguished Service Award from the Council for Independent Colleges. He received his B.A. in Modern Comparative Literature from Wesleyan University, M.A. degree in English Education from Harvard University, M.F.A degree in Creative Writing from Goddard College and Ph.D. in School Psychology from Columbia University. \n&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:8403713,&quot;3&quot;:[null,0],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,4995385],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:11,&quot;26&quot;:400}">Dr. Arthur W. Chickering (1927-2020) was an author, scholar, and researcher. His research was in the field of student affairs and he is known for his contribution to student development theories. He previously taught at George Mason University and Goddard College. Chickering earned awards such as the Outstanding Service Award from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the Distinguished Service Award from the Council for Independent Colleges. He received his B.A. in Modern Comparative Literature from Wesleyan University, M.A. degree in English Education from Harvard University, M.F.A degree in Creative Writing from Goddard College and Ph.D. in School Psychology from Columbia University. </span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Harvard University; Students; Black Panthers; Higher education; Existentialism; Racism; Baby boom generation; David Horowitz; Assassination of John F. Kennedy ; Robert F. Kennedy; George McGovern&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:515,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:13689059},&quot;12&quot;:0}">Harvard University; Students; Black Panthers; Higher education; Existentialism; Racism; Baby boom generation; David Horowitz; Assassination of John F. Kennedy; Robert F. Kennedy; George McGovern</span> Date of Interview 2010-03-09 Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 91:09 Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Subject LCSH Authors; Scholars; Chickering, Arthur W., 1927--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound, or alternative text from a visual medium McKiernan Interviews Interview with: Arthur Chickering Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan Transcriber: REV Date of interview: 9 March 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Start of Interview) SM (00:00:04): Arthur Chickering, March 9th, 2010. Phone interview for the book on Boomers. In looking at your biography, I kind of broke it down into three parts at the very beginning. You started your college career at Goddard College as a psychology teacher from 1959 to 1965. Could you describe the students of that era? As the (19)50s came to an end, JFK became president, then of course he was assassinated, and LBJ expanded the war in Vietnam, what were the college students like from (19)59 to (19)65? AC (00:00:50): Well, I cannot really describe college students in general, you have to go to other people or other literature for that. Goddard was very small, when I went there in (19)59, there were 180 students. SM (00:01:07): Okay. AC (00:01:08): And it was a very unique institution based on progressive education principals, on Dewey and Kilpatrick, with whom then President Tim Piston had studied. And it had a work program, during January and February, students went away for a work term. They pursued independent studies. They had to apply for admission to the senior division after their first two years. There was a strong emphasis on independent studies. And so, my basic point is that because of its unique characteristics and because of its small size, it did grow over the years to about 1,000 students, but it attracted a very special kind of student, mainly from the Boston, Washington, DC corridor, the Northeast. So those two, and if you look at the way Goddard is described in education identity or in other of my publication, you will see that students are at the extreme left end, if you will, of the sort of political attitudinal continuum. And those were the students I knew best. When I did that project on student development in small colleges, which involved thirteen small colleges across the country from (19)65 to (19)69, then I encountered a wider range of students. But again, all those colleges had enrollment of fewer than 1,000 students, and they themselves were self-selected. We had evangelical and conservative protestant institution like Bryant College and Messiah College and Westmont College at that end of the continuum. And then there was Goddard and Shimer at the other end of that long continuum. And in the middle, there were the Western New England College, Oberlin, which is Quaker based, that is putting it moderate. So those are the students I grew up with if you will. SM (00:04:07): When you worked with that small number of students from (19)59 to (19)65, and then from (19)65 to (19)69 you worked around development in small colleges, and then you were also a visiting scholar at the American Council on Education, (19)65 to (19)70, did you notice any changes in those students in terms of their political attitudes, from (19)59 to (19)70, because of all the things that were happening in the world? AC (00:04:44): Well, again, I do not think I could make any generalizations. The impact on students of those diverse colleges was fairly substantial, and that is what education identity is anchored in. But that population of institutions certainly was not representative of the bulk of students in state colleges and universities across the country, which then were practically free. And of course, the community college movement hit the streets during the (19)60s, and that brought a whole new sector into higher education. And those students did not really bear any resemblance really to the undergraduates I was studying in these very small residential, highly self-selected. I mean they were not selective in the sense that they were meritocratic, but they were sharply defined image self-selectivity operated in a very powerful way. But again, the little colleges had a major impact on students. And I wrote about that. But in terms of knowing about the kinds of general changes that they are asked about across large research universities or publicly support institutions. SM (00:06:46): Well, the last question in this area is those other timeframes from (19)70 to (19)77 when you were the founding Vice President for Academic Affairs, and you were very poor in the founding of Empire College from that, in that period from (19)70 to (19)77, and then you were a distinguished professor at Memphis State University from (19)77 to (19)86. So, you saw not only students who were boomers, but you saw the beginning of the generation Xers coming in there at that time too. Is there anything you saw within the students during that timeframe that was different from the earlier timeframe? AC (00:07:30): Well, of course, during those years, I was heavily involved with adult learning. Two major things happened from (19)70 to (19)87. One of the most important, of course, was the [inaudible] of higher education with the Pell Grant and student loans and open admission. And so, the diversity among students, traditional college age students increased dramatically. And also, of course, there were sharp increases in the numbers of adult learners. And that is what led to the creation of the Council for Adults and Experiential Learning. The Empire State was created to respond to those adult learners. When I was at Memphis State running the Center for Higher Education, I had to see federally funded grants to help institute [inaudible] of institution respond to the educational needs of adult learners. So, during that time period, I was heavily involved with that particular sub sector, if you will, or subpopulation of college and university students, and not with traditional college age undergraduate. I went to George Mason in my role there as university professor. There I was much more directly involved with traditional college age graduates. But in those particular intervening years from (19)70 or (19)71 to (19)87, (19)88, I was heavily involved with adult learning. SM (00:09:44): Wow. What is interesting is when I look at some of these people like you and the other great student development theorists, how did you become who you are? What led you into higher education? I know you went on and got a psychology degree, but your background, who were your role models and your mentors? Who were the people that inspired you when you were young to go the direction that you went? AC (00:10:14): I have just finished an essay called Learning [inaudible] twenty pages long, which details I kind of educational [inaudible], if you will. And I can email you a copy of that if you want. SM (00:10:35): Okay. AC (00:10:37): But the short answer is that I majored in modern comparative literature at Wesleyan University and graduated in 1950. And I was headed for a doctoral degree in comparative literature, but I had to earn a living, so I went to the Harvard Graduate School of Education for their Master of Art Teaching English program. When I was teaching high school students during teaching, I got interested in the way they were processing problems with peers and with authority and with their parents and so forth. As we discussed Mill on the Floss and Silas Marner, which were two novels that were part of the high school curriculum at the time. And that led me... I found I was more interested in working with a student around those issues than in literary criticism. So, I discovered that there was such a thing in school psychology. So, I went to Columbia and got a PhD degree in school psych, and I worked as a school psychologist for three years. And then I was recruited to create a new teacher education department at Monmouth College in Long Branch, New Jersey. I have had a pretty [inaudible] experience at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and I got fired for-for a variety of reasons, some of which are detailed in this essay that I can email you if you want. But that is what introduced me, that was my first year in higher education. And then I heard about this really interesting little college in Vermont Goddard College and my wife and I, and they had been living in the New York metropolitan area for 10 years or so. We had both grown up in Massachusetts, outside of Boston, and we loved skiing and hiking in Vermont. So, we moved to Goddard. At Goddard I really got introduced to the world of higher education. I was hired to work halftime as Gordon coordinator of evaluation of a fourth foundation supported six-year program in college curriculum organization. And so, I started gathering all that data, a lot of shared and education community. And that is how I migrated over into the world of higher education. Most of what I have built a career on in higher education I learned at Goddess from (19)59 to (19)65 and then with the project of student development in small colleges. The sort of educational principles in terms of learner, student centered learning and contract learning, independent studies, experiential learning, individualized education and the like were really all part of what Goddard was doing back in the early (19)60s when I was evaluating the program. So, I suppose my number one model and mentor was Tim Pitkin, then President of Godard College, but also Forests Davis is academic Vice President, George Becher, another senior faculty member. Those are the people... And I went there in (19)59, so I would have been 32 when I went there. So, I was just very young, naive, professional coming into the world of higher education and they had an enduring impact on my [inaudible] functioning. SM (00:15:11): Very good. How about your parents? How important were your parents when you first went off to college? AC (00:15:20): Well, my folks were divorced when I was nine. My mother was critical. She always wanted me to go to college. The expectation that I would go to college was built into my upbringing. Because I was getting into a lot of trouble in high school and she had to work during the depression and we were poor, she managed to get me a scholarship to Mount Hermann School in northern Massachusetts for my junior and senior year. And I was not a good student. I graduated 103rd in the class of 107. Nobody who knew me then, or none of my teachers certainly would have ever predicted that I would become a distinguished [inaudible] of all things. And when I graduated from Mount Hermann in 44, I was going to be drafted, and instead I enrolled it in Army Specialized Training Reserve program and was sent with 30 other kids from the University of New Hampshire. And I got kicked out of the University of New Hampshire that fall. Went back to live on to my mother, who was then working in Connecticut and went over to Wesleyan University and met with the admissions officer because I knew I would turn 18 in April, that April, after which I knew I would be drafted. So, I managed to... Well, when I met with him, I said, "Here's my situation." I did not tell him I had been kicked out of the University of New Hampshire, but I told him that I wanted to go to college for a semester before I went in the Army. And he said, "Well, send me your transcript and your test scores from Mount Herman and we will see." And at that time, of course, all the eligible men were in the army. But I said, "Well, you do not want to see that Mr. [inaudible]. If you see that you will never let me in here." And he said, "Well, we never let anybody in here without paying that information." I said, "Okay." So, I had it sent to him, he called me up at about 10 days and asked me to come in. And he said, "You're right. We have never let anyone into Wesleyan University with a record like yours." But he said, "I noticed your aptitude scores are very high, even though your grades are terrible, and your achievement test scores are lousy. How do you explain that?" And I said, "Well, I have never studied, I have never been interested in academic stuff. I like sports and parties and cards and so on." And I said, "I am ready to study. I know I need to establish a record before I go in the Army." I said, "I am going to be a commuting student and pay my full semester's tuition upfront. You set any grade point average you want me to meet, according to whatever test schedules you want, and if I do not meet it, you can keep my money and alcohol." So, he said, "Well, let me think about that." So, I left, and in four or five days, he called me up and asked me to come in and he said, "Okay, you got a deal. You give us your tuition; you need to have a B average on your midterm exam or you're out of here." And I said, "Okay." So, I went back and studied and ended up with a B plus average and finished this semester. Went off and spent a couple years in the Army. And of course, while I got back there was highly select institution there. They're only admitting valedictorians and [inaudible], but I went back and got into Wesleyan. And one of the critical things that happened when I went back into Wesleyan, I was back into playing cards and partying and into athletics when I was on probation the first two semesters. And then it came time to decide on a major. And I had enjoyed reading literature, particularly contemporary literature, but at that time, at Wesleyan, you can major in English or Spanish or French, but they all had this historical trajectory starting at the beginning and working their way up. So, I went in and talked with the dean and said, "Isn't there any way I can slice this stuff horizontally? I really enjoy reading contemporary literature and thinking about the relationship between the social context so forth and the literature." And he said, "Well, there is such a thing as comparative literature. We do not have that major here. But if you go talk with Brent Mann was head of French department and Juan Rural who head of Spanish, and Navi Brown, Norman O'Brien, who then was head of the classics department and Fred Miller, head of humanities, and if they all put together a series of courses and if they will write an evaluation for your comprehensive exam," which they did not have then, "You can have that kind of major." So, I walked out of his office at 10:30 and by five o'clock I had talked with all four of those people. And they were very enthusiastic really about doing that. Wesleyan was small. It only had 750 people and because of my gambling and so forth, I was fairly well known on campus. And this is the first sign of any intellectual interest they have seen out of me. SM (00:22:44): What were the students like that you were going to college within the late forties and fifties? What were they like? AC (00:22:51): Well, they were mainly, of course, it was a whole influx of veterans from (19)45, (19)46, (19)47. And so- AC (00:23:03): ... (19)46, (19)47, and so at Wesleyan at that time, it probably was about 50 percent veterans and 50 percent typical graduate from high school. So, the veterans really had a significant influence on the college environment and college cultures during those... In fact, I joined Sigma Nu fraternity, which was started in the South and did not admit Black students. One of the things we did after we tried to change that policy with the national and they would not change. And so, we took Sigma Nu out, we got a loan from the local bank and borrowed enough money to buy the fraternity house and took Sigma Nu out of the national organization, so we were able to admit Black students. SM (00:24:05): Wow. AC (00:24:07): But the influx of veterans during those years, I mean, that was just a bubble. After the war got over and after all of us guys on the GI Bill and so forth went through the system, and everything tried to reverse its fist. SM (00:24:25): Were there many students of color on the campus at that time? AC (00:24:29): Not a lot. There were some and they were terrific. SM (00:24:33): You wrote The Education Identity, which is a classic book on student development of theory, and it's been a major guide for college administrators working with students for a long time. And particularly this came about at the time, in (19)69, when Boomers were in their heyday, because Boomers really started going to college in (19)64, (19)65. So, we are talking about that, particularly the early Boomers, which were the most activist and most involved. Were from (19)64 to about (19)74. How did you come up with the idea, and what was the inspiration to write this great book? AC (00:25:18): Well, I have read everything that was written really about, partly because of my background in school psychology. I read a lot of stuff about adolescent development, and there was not much literature about young adult development. There was not much literature on college’s impact on student learning and development. But I had a file of data from Goddard and from the project, and I had read, as I say, about everything that was to read. My main concern was to have an impact on the quality of undergraduate education. I was not really interested in complex theory development, so I wanted to write something that would be useful, and it would have an impact on practice. I knew from my psychological background that about the largest number of items anybody can remember and work with is five or six or seven. I was determined to try to organize my findings and my orientation toward student development and student learning in a parsimonious way that would fit into that number. As I looked at the literature and so forth, seven vectors as I called them, grew out of that combination of looking at the changes that occurred as the function of the data and the major conceptual framework that [inaudible] and Ted Newcomb and other leaders in that whole arena, for articulate. I was just lucky I happened to right at a level of abstraction that made those ideas pretty broadly accessible and applicable. But I worked hard to try to do that. And underneath each of those seven dimensions, seven vectors, there was possible to create three or four major subheadings and so forth, the kind of Christmas tree on which you could hang a variety of key ornaments. SM (00:28:24): Did you expect it to have the impact that it had, particularly on graduate school education, and why has it been able to withstand the test of time, not only for the Boomer generation, but for Generation X that followed, the Millennials that are in college now, and obviously for Generation Y, which are the really youngsters that will be coming up in 15 years. Your book is now going to be heading toward its fourth generation. AC (00:28:54): It is surprising. Well, I did not expect, in fact, I was very surprised when I got that American Council on Education book award that came out of the blue, because I thought that I was off the scale or off the street in terms of where a higher education was, A, and B, I had no idea that there was such a thing as a student personnel services profession or that there were graduate programs for students. I have been in these little, small colleges. I had never been in any institution that had the kind of array of student services and professionals that larger colleges and universities had. So, when they got picked up by those professionals, I was very surprised. I was frequently embarrassed when folks in Indiana or Michigan or Ohio or other graduate programs could come out and ask me to speak about the implications of my work for their graduate programs, because I did not know anything about those graduate programs. SM (00:30:16): You were big at Ohio State and I know that, did Phil Tripp? AC (00:30:22): No. SM (00:30:23): Yeah, he was Dr. Phil Tripp. He was the head of the program at Ohio State when I was there, along with my advisor, Dr. Roosevelt Johnson. They were unbelievable educators. One of the things that is interesting at that- AC (00:30:38): I am a little surprised. SM (00:30:39): Pardon? AC (00:30:40): I say all of that was a total surprise. And I think when Linda Reisser and I did the (19)95 or (19)96 revision, we were amazed at how all those basic conceptual frameworks still stood up when you looked at research on college impact on student learning and development that had occurred from the mid (19)60s to the early (19)90s that had been preferred that elaborated those. Of course, the gender differences and differences, the function of race and so forth, had emerged dramatically since the (19)60s. SM (00:31:38): I know on our master's exams at Ohio State in the summer of (19)72, the ones we prepared, we had to read 60 books in preparation along with never missing a class. Oh my goodness, you never knew where the questions were coming from, but one of them was on your book. And I remember writing a long essay, in that four-hour exam, writing at least one hour on your book. So it was a very important part of our education. Another thing that was happening during this time in the (19)60s and the early (19)70s was encounter, you probably heard about that. It was- AC (00:32:15): Oh yes. SM (00:32:16): What were your thoughts on encounter? Because I was in encounter classes at Ohio State and a lot of the purpose of encounter was we looked at the seven vectors and the ultimate being integrity at the very end and there was supporting each other. So, there was a combining of the encounter book and then combining of education identity. What was your thought about the whole concept of encounter during that time with college students? AC (00:32:46): Well, I think the whole encounter group movement with the National Training Lab, I have to go get another phone, so I am switching phones here because the battery is running down. Bear with me a sec. Can you hear me? SM (00:33:01): Yes, I can. AC (00:33:01): Still? SM (00:33:01): Yep, I can still hear you. AC (00:33:08): I thought that whole encounter group movement with National Training Lab was extremely helpful. It had a lot of extremists associated with it, but it did call attention to the internal life of people and led people to think about themselves in serious ways. Both my wife and I went to encounter group weekends, and I read a lot of that literature. And by and large, it seemed to me to be a very positive thing. SM (00:33:58): As a graduate student, it was intimidating at time. It was tough to be called, "You sound like a racist," in an encounter class because we had many African American students in our program. And so, it was a great learning experience in the end, but at times it was tough and you needed support. So, a lot of the things you were talking about, about development and theory and everything, a lot of the stuff in the encounter, it was what you were trying to say in your book. AC (00:34:26): Well, it raises that whole movement, raised all those existential issues. I mean, I think another way to think about your earlier question as to why those seven vectors seem to have stood up across generations is that they are really the basic existential areas for human development purposes. I mean, when now we have Goldman's work on emotional intelligence, all the issues of autonomy and interdependence, we have huge literature now on purpose and meaning. Integrity has been an issue in relationships. I mean, those issues do not go away just because there are sort of larger cultural forces that tend to have an impact on particular generation. I think the collision between all the new communication information, social interaction technology and these different vectors is going to be fascinating to observe. SM (00:35:55): I know what- AC (00:35:58): ... and I am not close enough to it or young enough to really get involved with it in detail, but I have grandkids in their 20s and late teens, and they are in professional communication with each other and their high school friends. I went to South Africa with one of my grandsons, to Cape Town, and while we were there every night around 10 o'clock, he would get on, he was a computer guru, had his laptop with him. He would get on his laptop and be interacting with his girlfriend and with his high school friends back here in Vermont. At first, I was put off by that and I thought, well, why cannot you let go of that for a little while? But then as I started about eavesdropping on what he was doing, I realized that he was processing our experiences in the township and with the young people he was meeting with all the race and social and economic dynamics there in Cape Town in South Africa we were encountering. But anyway, the whole interaction and the ways in which current young people and future young people are going to work through those basic human development issues in the context of these new technology and media, I think, are going to be fascinating to try to understand. SM (00:37:54): That is excellent. One of the most important qualities that we try to instill in students is by the time they graduate, that all students have a sense of self-esteem, of comfortableness with who they are as human beings, and obviously, that is one of the goals of integrity in your seventh vector. I will never forget at Ohio State, I really felt comfortable after my years there because I really got what the seventh vector was all about. It is almost like a person standing up in front of an audience, and I said this to students, through my 30 years in higher ed, that these people who come and speak about certain issues really have integrity, whether you like their views or not, because they stand for something, they are willing to be in front of people, to give a... So thus, they have integrity because they are willing to be confronted as well. But the critics of the (19)60s generation, the Boomers, oftentimes attack the Boomers as being one, oh, this self-esteem business is a bunch of baloney. Why do we have to constantly build these people up? It is a criticism that is often been leveled that the era that they do not like, because many critics, political critics in particular, had looked at the (19)60s and the early (19)70s through mid (19)70s as a time when the divorce rate was at an all-time high, the lack of respect for authority, the victim culture started to come about, drugs, sexual revolution, a sense of irresponsibility. "I want it now" type of an attitude without thinking that you have to pay for these things down the road. The question I am asking is what do you think of those people that criticize basically this whole concept of self-esteem and this generation of Boomers that grew up during the (19)60s and (19)70s and putting the blame on them for the issues, the problems, we had today? AC (00:40:06): Well, one reflexive reaction I have is that people who have to support their own self-esteem by knocking others are not in very good shape. I think that that variable has been demonstrated to be critical for career success, for personal mental health. We have the whole positive psychology movement now. The [inaudible] and others have been so instrumental in putting on our screen. We have fortunately migrated away from the mental illness deficit model of thinking about people, and so I think it is highly unfortunate. Now, I think it is important to recognize that narcissism is not very healthy. This is one of the dynamics that occur during that sensitivity training era that you refer to that, if your only focus is on yourself and what is important to you and what makes you feel good and so on, that is pretty unhealthy. But self-esteem linked to purpose and identification, I mean with something larger than yourself, those two things need to go together. An exclusive focus on self can be pretty dysfunctional both for the person and for society, and that is why all the issues of purpose and meaning are important. But you do not have to engage with serious issues of purpose if you feel you are incompetent and inadequate, cannot function with other people, nobody ever pays attention to what you think or what you do, or you are irrelevant to things. You cannot have any impact on anything. So, when those attitudes and feelings are dominant, then there is no way you can invest yourself heavily in something larger than those preoccupations and your own immediate self-interest. SM (00:43:18): That is beautiful. Oh, I can see why you are so great at writing because you are able to put your words and have so much meaning there. You obviously raised... You have grandkids, so you had kids. Did you have a generation gap with your children over issues? AC (00:43:48): I do not think so. We are very lucky. We have a son and four daughters. They are all in their 50s now. They all love each other, they all support each other. They all love us and support us. And as we get into our 80s, they do so in increasing the specific ways. I mean the most difficult dynamic for me particularly, not so much for my wife, was with our oldest child, our son Allen. We have a son and three daughters. So, his movement through adolescence and into young adulthood was complicated in a variety of ways. Partly, I think because he took very seriously the attitudes and values and social concerns that Jo and I actively tried to address and live in terms of. He felt he had to go further and do more. So, he lived a life of intentional poverty for a while, and was draft resistor or not a draft resistor, but tax resistance. SM (00:45:31): Hold that point. I want to just turn my tape. Go right ahead. AC (00:45:41): And he was very interested in teaching, learning, and educational issues. But because of my status in the world of our education, but he was going up and going to college, trying to find his way into higher education. He spent six months at Empire- AC (00:46:03): ... Empire education. He spent six months at Empire State, but it was just created yet. Then he went to University of Wisconsin at Green Bay when it was trying to be [inaudible] U, and finally ended up at the Evergreen State College. His whole relationship with the world of education and higher education was complicated by my status. As often occurs, I guess we had issues around money and stuff like that. So, we had a... I do not know, pick your number, maybe five, eight, 10-year period between his graduation from high school and getting through Evergreen and so forth that were very difficult for him, and challenging for Joe and me to know how to deal with it. Fortunately, we somehow ended of loving each other and supportive of each other. We own a house in Olympia, Washington where he stayed since he graduated from Evergreen, and I have a wonderful relationship. The girls are very supportive of him and us, and they have always had a good relationship with my wife, Joe, and me, and wonderful relationships with each other. SM (00:47:37): Good. AC (00:47:37): So, we are very lucky to have such a wonderful nuclear family, if you will. SM (00:47:47): Because I know that generation gap did tear a lot of families apart. The Boomer generation, my generation, of course, I looked at heroes and I never thought of my parents, although I do now as I have gotten older as my real heroes. But a lot of the heroes of the Boomers were leaders, political leaders, whether it be Dr. King or Bobby Kennedy or someone else, John Kennedy. They looked up to heroes. Whereas I have noticed today, Millennials very rarely if ever say any political leader of any kind, it could be a teacher, it could be a parent, it could be an uncle, it could be a minister. But very rarely any public figures, and I have even noticed in Generation X, the generation that followed Boomers, that there were very few political leaders or national leaders. The Boomers seemed to have them. What made Boomers so different than these others with respect to the people they looked up to? AC (00:48:48): Oh, well, I think the generation that followed the Boomers had a lot of anti-models. Nixon, I mean, whether you look at politics and all the scandals and self-interest and so forth, politics, whether you look at corporate sector and all the greed, and [inaudible] there, whether you look at the international domain and all the of religious and inter- tribal and inter-ethnic conflict, it was very hard to see people functioning in very admirable ways that you would want to identify with. I think that is why you had the whole shift of political and social activism to a much more local level. They were meeting people in their communities and in their states and so forth who they could know and who had a lot of integrity and who were putting their money where their mouth was and walking their talk, and all that, those bumper sticker ideas. So, the context, particularly I think with the Reaganism, is with the whole conservative movement that started with Reagan, had shifted the focus away from social concerns, about the environment, about race, about peace, away from those organizing issues that dominated the (19)60s and early (19)70s. Away from that, the self-interest and capitalism run amongst it. It was a very uninspiring and disillusioning social context to be growing up in. SM (00:51:21): What is interesting is that one of the characteristics of Boomers is that they do not trust because they saw a lot of leaders lie to them, whether it be Lyndon Johnson and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, be it Watergate with Richard Nixon, even there was questions about President Kennedy and whether he had some links to the Diem overthrow in Vietnam, if you were pretty adept at keeping track of things, even President Eisenhower in (19)59 lied about the U-2 incident and of course, McNamara and the numbers. So, a lot of the Boomers just did not trust anybody in position of responsibility, whether it be a President of the United States, a Congressman, a Senator, a minister, a rabbi, a priest, a corporate leader, anyone. And president of a university and administrators. But in the end, they looked at the leaders as their heroes, but then they did not trust them. Do you think that is one of the qualities of the Boomer generation, that they are not a very trusting generation in your experiences with them? AC (00:52:33): Well, I had a lot of experiences with them, but I think as you kick off that litany, they had good reasons to not trust people. I think one of the things that made Obama an appealing was that, and particularly young people felt here was a guy who walked the talk, who could be trusted, and whose background was untarnished, and who we could put some faith in. Unfortunately, the political dynamics now are such that he is thought in politics as usual, and I think maintaining that hope and trust that he ignited is very difficult. SM (00:53:40): When you look at the Boomer generation, again, it is those people born between (19)46 and (19)64, and I know that many of the people born between (19)40, (19)41, and (19)46 are a little sensitive because a lot of them are linked to the Boomers, in many ways. In fact, many of the leaders of the anti-war movement were the age of graduate students. So, they were really in the (19)41, (19)42, (19)43 years. So, there is a link there, but when you look at some of these events, I would like your response to them, because these are the events that the Boomers were involved in when they were young in the (19)60s and through the mid (19)70s. Just your thoughts on the students who were going South for voter registration, the Freedom Summer, and the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in (19)64 and (19)65, and obviously the anti-war movement and the students involved in civil rights and the protests, and then you had the groups like Students for Democratic Society and the Young Americans for Freedom, and the Black Power students. These were all part of those (19)60s, and of course, the students that were involved, that persuaded President Kennedy at the University of Michigan to consider the Peace Corps. Then I am going to list some more later on, but your thoughts on those experiences of students and how important they were, and just your thoughts. AC (00:55:12): Well, I think one of the major points to recognize is that if you look across the population of college and university students during those years, only five to 15 percent of the students, even at the most activist campuses like Berkeley, Michigan, Kent State, so forth, only five to 15 percent of the students were really active and involved. When you look at the research on their background, by and large, their parents were activists during the Depression, during the (19)40s and so forth. But for me, the important point about that is that it demonstrates how a small, active, committed, energetic group of people can define the conversation and present the issue, can enable the creation of things like the Peace Corps. As Margaret Mead said, never underestimate the ability of one person or a small group of persons to change the world. But I think it is important to keep that in mind, and it is important to keep that in mind now as we confront the horrendous global problems that are rushing toward us in terms of global warming and peak oil, and all those issues. Unfortunately, I think what happened with the disillusion that sat in that you had referred to is that we forgot that taking on a small number of people who were willing to take on those issues could really have an impact. Obviously, those set of subcultures created context where people with similar concerns could put their time and energy and emotion and get invested in, and that is what higher education ought to be about in relation to our general culture. It ought to be about helping persons with in fact, on this self-esteem, purpose issue, helping persons connect their own particular attitudes and values, conservative or liberal, but with particular social issues that they can invest themselves in, at the same time they're raising a family and earning a living and so on. SM (00:58:48): During the (19)60s, obviously more minority students were on college campuses than ever before. That is so important. More women were admitted into medical schools and to law schools, and some all-male schools became co-ed. So those were important developments. But you saw in the late (19)60s something that upset a lot of people that cared about coming together as a nation. That was the Black Power Movement, which was in some respects, the Black Panthers, that historic scene of Stokely Carmichael challenging Dr. King in (19)67 and telling him that his time had passed. Then in (19)65 or (19)64, the debate between Malcolm X and Bayard Rustin where he said the very same thing, the non-violent protests, its time has passed. So, what you saw at Kent State University and the protests in 1970 was an all-white protest against the Vietnam War with African American students and students of color concentrating on the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power. Did that upset you at all when you were in college, that you saw the Dr. Kings, you saw affirmative action coming in strong into the universities, and then all of a sudden you had the Black Power, which started a separatist movement again of dividing people? Just your thoughts on that. AC (01:00:15): Well, whenever you have a hugely important social issue that has a direct impact on individuals, specifically those who are subject to the injustice and unfairness and prejudices, it is very hard to address that type of thing without having both significant diversity within the movements that are addressing it and extremes. So that is part of I think the way group processes and social dynamics work. I mean, that is what we are experiencing now with the Muslims. SM (01:01:16): Yes. I have a question later on that, yes. AC (01:01:19): And the extremists tend to drive, for better or worse, the extremist minority tends to drive the conversation, tends to drive the political responses. It is very hard for moderates, if you will, to know how to function within those concepts. we see the polarization within our own Congress, our Senate and Representatives now are between the Democrats as Republicans, are being driven wider and wider apart. So, you have really good moderates like Senator Bayh and others who say, "Well, I guess this is not the way I want to work now." I do not know how to combat that fundamental social dynamic other than increasing education, if you will, increasing everybody's awareness and sensitivity to these dynamics and increasing their capacity to think in more complex ways about the issues. Unfortunately, that is where higher education is failing us, I think. SM (01:03:04): Yeah, and I mean, you had right on target because we did a conference on Islam just before I left. It was packed, yet we had criticism from the Jewish community for even doing it. Would you say the Muslim students are the African American students of the (19)50s? Which would you compare them to what was going on with African American students in the (19)50s? AC (01:03:29): Oh, first I should say, I do not know. I do not know the data and I do not know from personal experience. Having said that, I think the issue of racism was much more broadly based and widespread and affected many, many more people in the United States than the religious prejudices that are operative now, with regard to Muslims. I think a lot of the dynamics are similar, the magnitude of the problem and the numbers of people affected, they were dramatically different. On a global scale, I think it is a much more serious issue obviously with... We did not have Black suicide bombers. We did not have to worry about African Americans or other Blacks from the Caribbean getting the nuclear bombs to blow the rest of us away. So, the issues of scale and potential danger are hugely different. SM (01:05:01): What are your thoughts on of course, in the early (19)70s, the Black Studies programs were under a lot of criticism when they were developed, and I was directly involved in those, actually did an independent study on it when I was at Ohio State. But with the development of the Women's Studies, Native American Studies, Black Studies, Environmental Studies, Asian Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, Chicano Studies, is that good for a university? Because the critics like David Horowitz and Charles Murray and others, and Phyllis Schlafly say that this is nothing but the troublemakers of the (19)60s now controlling universities of today. They have been doing so since the (19)90s, according to these individuals, that we have a politically correct campus. That just is not obvious. Again, just your thoughts and the development of all these studies programs and the criticisms of political correctness on university campuses, particularly with our professors. AC (01:06:04): I think those criticisms are very far-fetched. In the first place, it would be much better from my point of view if the criticism was more accurate. That is to say if issues having to do with racism, with gender equality, with hot button topics like abortion or so on were dealt with throughout the curriculum, but that does not happen. So, in the absence of that, I think it is extremely important and useful to have centers, institutes, whatever for the organization form they take to keep these issues alive, and where students and faculty and others learn about them, but with which they can identify and where they can get involved. If you look at [inaudible], I mean both criticisms have ignore the fact that higher education is dominated now by a market mentality that emphasizes professional and occupational preparation. That has in many colleges and universities driven a whole series of policies and practices with regard to consumers, students and parents and so forth, that are a direct reflection of the worst of our capitalistic practices. SM (01:08:11): That is amazing that you are saying that. I had this down as my last question. This is not my last question because we have got quite a few more, but I got to read this because you hit a button here that was going to be my last question to you. This was, do you believe today's universities are so driven by money, for example, just about everything is linked to fundraising, including out of classroom activities like lectures, forums, debates, conferences, cultural events, that quality out-of-classroom experiences are being denied, eliminated, or allowed with a price tag to the detriment of quality educational experience for students? And i.e., I say, top administration wants to dictate what can or cannot happen, only if it means it can be linked to a fundraising effort during tough economic times. SM (01:09:03): The fundraising effort during tough economic times, did you feel that is happening? AC (01:09:08): Oh, of course. It is happening dramatically, and I am going to have to stop in a bit here. I think what has happened is that, I did the speech at Florida State. I [inaudible] also email you if you want. That addresses a bunch of these problems. And higher education for years was seen as the public good, and that is why we had all state support, why you could go to the California system or New York system, virtually at very little cost. Now it has seen as a private benefit. State support now is, last numbers I saw for public institutions, is in the order of 20 or 25 to 30 or 35 percent. And as state support has dropped, states have authorized tuition increases to cover the cost. We are moving back into a meritocratic, aristocratic orientation for higher education. And that major shift in the last 10 or 20 years is what has driven this whole mentality that you're talking about. So higher education is not something that is seen as a politically important and socially important institution as a public good. And so consequently, our focus is more and more for professional vocational preparation and dollars drive the system. SM (01:11:06): We have got 15 more minutes if that is okay. Still there? AC (01:11:13): What? Say again. SM (01:11:13): We have 15 more minutes. Is that okay? Because that is an hour and a half. AC (01:11:17): Okay. SM (01:11:18): Okay, great. I am glad I got that question in. Kent State University in 1970 and Jackson State was certainly a monumental nightmare for the Boomer generation. Where were you when you heard about it and what do you think the impact of that day, May 4th and two weeks later when two African American students were killed, what impact did that have on not only the generation but on higher education? AC (01:11:56): I just have to say I do not know. I remember when Kennedy was shot, but I do not remember where I was when I got that news. Just thinking off the top of my head, I do not know that those two horrendous events had a major distinctive impact because they were part of the whole continuum of dramatic events and activities that were going on with all the sit-ins and demonstrations. They were an unfortunate, tragic extension of that whole process. So, in and of themselves, they amplified that, but I do not think had any particular distinctive impact. SM (01:13:00): Well, in your opinion, when did the (19)60s begin and when did it end? AC (01:13:07): When did the (19)60s begin and end? SM (01:13:09): Yes. AC (01:13:19): Well, I think it began, the early (19)60s for me and my family and the Goddard community were dominated by Cold War issues and the atomic bomb issue. And when Gorbachev came to power and that whole dynamic, if you will, started to get cooled out, I think that allowed us to turn our attention to other issues like the environment, race and other major social issues. So, for me, I think the dropping away of the Cold War was a major variable in freeing us up to address other issues, economically, politically, socially. SM (01:14:39): And when do you feel it ended? AC (01:14:42): With Reagan's election. SM (01:14:45): Good. That is a good point. I personally felt that when streaking started on the college campuses in (19)73, I knew it was over. If you remember, that happened in the fall of (19)73. AC (01:15:00): Well, you have all these wonderful details. SM (01:15:05): Yeah, this is your interview, but- AC (01:15:07): It is going to be an interesting book. SM (01:15:10): Yeah. The AIDS crisis was obviously a very important thing in the (19)80s and on college campuses, the AIDS quilt. There was a lot of sensitivity toward that particular issue and gay and lesbian students obviously came to the forefront at that particular time. Just your thoughts on the impact that the AIDS crisis had on the higher education community. AC (01:15:38): Well, it is certainly pulled out the whole sexual freedom that burst onto the scene in the late (19)60s, early (19)70s, with the drugs, drink and sex. SM (01:16:02): Right. AC (01:16:12): But it is also in a more healthy way, helped us be more aware of and thoughtful about the whole issue of homosexuality, particularly among men. And I think that was a good thing. SM (01:16:32): Where did the universities fail in the (19)60s and the (19)70s? Are you aware, as obviously as a college administrator has experienced and a professor who has experienced so much, there has been little talk about the loss of a lot of the great professionals in student affairs who just burned out. And I have even read stories of some people became sick, some who died even because they could no longer take the students of the (19)60s and early (19)70s because many of the students had this philosophy, well, if you give into these issues and I will just make another 10. And so there was no, oftentimes criticism of the Boomers is that they were never satisfied even when administrations tried to satisfy them. Just your thoughts of, and certainly Kent State was an example of presidential failure, the President being away, and some of the other examples. Just your perceptions of the universities in the (19)60s. And when I say (19)60s, I mean right up to about (19)73, where did they fail and where did they succeed? AC (01:17:49): Well, I really cannot respond to that question. I was drowning, from (19)71 to (19)77, I was working 70 or 80 hours a week creating Empire State College. As I said earlier, I was focused on adult learners. And I knew about the University Without Walls movement because it started at [inaudible]. Empire State was associated with that, but I was really not tuned into the rest of the world of higher education. SM (01:18:37): Okay. One of the main questions I have asked beyond the question of trust is the question of healing. And everybody has given me a lot of different responses. I took a group of students to Washington, DC when I was working at the University at Westchester. And the students came up with this question because they had seen a film on 1968, and they wanted to ask Senator Muskie this question because they thought that they had gotten the perception that we were close to a second civil war in 1968 with all the divisions. And basically, I am going to read it here, if I can find it. Let us see if I can find, probably not going to be able appointed here. I think the basic thrust was, oh, here it is. Do you feel bloomers are still having a problem with healing due to the extreme divisions that tore the nation apart in their youth, the divisions between black and white, the divisions between those who supported authority and those who criticized it, division between those who supported the troops and those who did not? Do you feel the Boomer generation will go to its grave, like the Civil War generation not truly healing? Am I wrong in thinking this or has 40 years made the following statement true? Time heals all wounds. And so, they asked Senator Muskie that question because of 1968 and his response, he did not even respond in the way we thought. He said we had not healed since the Civil War and went on to give a lecture on why we had not healed since the Civil War. But your thoughts on whether you think the Boomer generation has issues. Well, I know they do not wear it on their sleeve as some people said, but do you think there are some of the divisions and think people care enough that they really have not healed since those times? AC (01:20:36): Well, I am no social historian, but certainly if you look at what is going on politically, we have become, and if you listen to seasoned legislators like [inaudible] and others, the whole culture of Congress in the Senate and the House has changed so that it has become more divisive, more acrimonious, less civil, less collaborative, and our whole culture has become divided. And I think the media, particularly the blogs and social technology media, which give a loud voice to a very small number of people. And so, you have extreme points of view that yes, a level of visibility and attention that unwarranted both by the substance of the basis for their comments and also by their numbers, helped drive these extremes seriously. SM (01:22:15): If you were to give a term to the Boomer Generation, a lot of people say they are the Vietnam generation. Some say they are the Woodstock Generation or the protest generation or the movement generation. What if you were to give them a title, what would it be? AC (01:22:45): Transition, I guess. SM (01:22:47): Transition generation? Do you think that the universities today did not learn from the student activists of the (19)60s and they are afraid of a return of activism? The kind of activism we are seeing in California right now with students protesting against the tuition increases, and there is a fledgling movement against the war in Afghanistan and other issues. But are they afraid of a return? AC (01:23:17): Well, I do not know about afraid of a return, but universities are typically afraid of vigorous activism. Anything that challenges authority or threatens the status quo is scary. And when it gets mobilized, and again, now if it gets mobilized by extremists, it make sense to be concerned. SM (01:23:46): Right. When the best history books are written, sociology books on the legacy of the Boomer Generation, that is those born between (19)46 and (19)64, what do you think the history books, books on higher ed, sociology books will say about this Boomer Generation? AC (01:24:06): They brought a whole range of ideals that went unrealized. SM (01:24:20): Good point. Now, I had this one little segment here, but we may go over. You have to finish right at 1:30? AC (01:24:26): Well, I need to stop in five or 10 minutes, yeah. SM (01:24:31): Okay. What we will do is real fast here is I am just going to give some names. Some of them were the heroes of the generation, and just your thoughts on these individuals that were all well-known during the timeframe. Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda. AC (01:24:52): Oh, they were good models. SM (01:24:55): John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. AC (01:24:58): They were fabulous example, each. Kennedy was flawed by his womanizing some, John. Jack, was. Bobby, in a way was cleaner, but also very aggressive, unbalanced, wonderful. SM (01:25:24): How about Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern? AC (01:25:28): They were my heroes. SM (01:25:30): You liked them both? AC (01:25:31): Yes. SM (01:25:32): How about Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X? AC (01:25:37): Well, certainly Martin Luther King is everybody's hero. Malcolm X played a major important role, I think, in strengthening Black pride and Black activists. SM (01:25:53): Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew? AC (01:25:58): Nixon got what he deserved, and Agnew should have been more severely chastised. SM (01:26:10): LBJ and Hubert Humphrey? AC (01:26:13): Oh, well, they were both wonderful populists and excellent contributors to the public good. SM (01:26:23): Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin? AC (01:26:27): I do not know enough. I recognize the names, but I do not know enough of what actually impact they might have had to make a comment. SM (01:26:37): Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, the women leaders? AC (01:26:43): Well, Friedan and Steinem certainly put the whole gender issues on the public screen, and Bella Abzug was a wonderful feminist political leader. SM (01:26:58): Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford? AC (01:27:03): Well, they were establishment politicians that did not have... Well, I was going to say, have any enduring legacy. Of course, we have Eisenhower to thank for our national highway system, which has become a very unfortunate kind of phenomenon in the degree to which it has totally undercut investment in public transportation. SM (01:27:35): Robert Reagan and Jimmy Carter? AC (01:27:36): Well, as I have said, I think Reagan's conservatism caused major problems. Jimmy Carter, unfortunately, was not a very effective president, but has been a wonderful post-president the person. SM (01:27:59): How about George Bush senior and Bill Clinton? AC (01:28:05): Well, Bush senior was thought of a modest, mediocre President. Clinton was one of our most effective politicians who unfortunately was incapacitated by his sexuality. SM (01:28:29): 1968? AC (01:28:32): 1968? SM (01:28:34): The year. AC (01:28:39): I do not know. I do not have anything I identify with [inaudible]. SM (01:28:42): Was the year of the assassinations and the conventions. AC (01:28:45): Ph, okay. So sorry. SM (01:28:48): The Black Panthers, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, Kathleen Cleaver, and Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, that group? AC (01:29:00): Well, those extreme activist for the Black Power, Black is Beautiful orientation were probably necessary and helpful. SM (01:29:19): Dr. Benjamin Spock and Daniel and Philip Berrigan. AC (01:29:24): Two very different people. We raised our kids on Spock and I admired Berrigan for his activism. SM (01:29:33): How about Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers? AC (01:29:36): Wonderful, wonderful example of conscientious activism. SM (01:29:46): Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali. AC (01:29:50): Well, two wonderful Black athletes who broke a lot of ground, especially Jackie Robinson. SM (01:29:57): How about the original seven astronauts? AC (01:30:02): Well, I think on balance, going to the moon was a good thing, although I do not place a high value on our investments in space exploration. SM (01:30:15): Robert McNamara? AC (01:30:19): Well, bringing a General Motors mentality to the Defense Department I do not think was very helpful. SM (01:30:31): Watergate? AC (01:30:34): Well, it was a wonderful demonstration. In its aftermath, one way it represented the extreme of political self-interest in Woodward and Bernstein revelations, turned out to be a wonderful example of how investigative reporting and democratic processes [inaudible]. (End of Interview) Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Arthur Chickering Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Chickering, Arthur W., 1927- ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Authors; Scholars; Chickering, Arthur W., 1927--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Arthur W. Chickering is an author, scholar, and researcher. His research is in the field of student affairs and he is known for his contribution to student development theories. He previously taught at George Mason University and Goddard College. Chickering earned awards such as the Outstanding Service Award from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the Distinguished Service Award from the Council for Independent Colleges. He received his B.A. in Modern Comparative Literature from Wesleyan University, M.A. degree in English Education from Harvard University, M.F.A degree in Creative Writing from Goddard College and Ph.D. in School Psychology from Columbia University. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010-03-09 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.39 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 91:09 https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/b5c283fccadf7918c75f56bd48fc090a.jpg dbb17fb20fd2552e16d27af3a9d4280f https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/files/original/c66f08ecf1d856579133f47d17b70fff.mp3 b50e4e4333d44609e4021bc361dd7509 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Audio interviews Title A name given to the resource McKiernan Interviews Description An account of the resource Stephen McKiernan's collection of interviews includes more than two hundred interviews with prominent figures of the 1960s, which were collected between the mid-1990s to 2023 The collection provides narratives of people who were actively involved in or witnessed events in the 1960s, an era which spurred profound cultural and political transformation in the twentieth century. Interviewees include politicians, artists, scholars, musicians, authors, and veterans who delve into the decade’s most prominent issues and events, including the civil rights movement, the free speech movement, the anti-war movement, women’s rights, gay rights, segregation, the Vietnam War, Woodstock, Hippies, Yippies, and individualism.<br /><br /> <h3>The McKiernan 22</h3> <div>Stephen McKiernan interviewed legends of the 1960s. When asked in 2021 where one should start when sifting through his vast collection, he provided the following list:</div> <ul> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/854">Julian Bond</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1866">Bobby Muller</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1175">Craig McNamara</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/910">Dr. Arthur Levine</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/837">Diane Carlson Evans</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/942">Dr. Ellen Schrecker</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/876">Dr. Lee Edwards</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/841">Peter Coyote</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1233">Dr. Roosevelt Johnson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/899">Rennie Davis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1222">Kim Phuc</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/917">George McGovern</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/833">Frank Schaeffer</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/840">Rev. Dr. Frank Forrester Church </a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1240">Dr. Marilyn Young</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/842">James Fallows</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/835">Joseph Lee Galloway</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/911">John Lewis</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/839">Paul Critchlow</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/888">Steve Gunderson</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/1159">Charles Kaiser</a></li> <li><a href="https://omeka.binghamton.edu/omeka/items/show/2407">Joseph Lewis</a></li> </ul> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stephen McKiernan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Language A language of the resource English Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright. Template: Simple Audio Player (Amplitude.js) This template displays an audio player with the first attached image file as the 'cover image'. For its audio source, the template looks for the first attached audio file. If additional audio files exist, they should be combined using audio editing software, or a separate Omeka item should be made for each part. Date of Interview 2004-07-23 Interviewer The person(s) performing the interview Stephen McKiernan Interviewee The person(s) being interviewed Arthur Levine Language English Digital Publisher Binghamton University Libraries Digital Format audio/mp4 Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 1 Microcassette Material Type Sound Interview Format Video or Audio Audio Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 65:09 Biographical Text <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;Dr. Arthur Levine is scholar, educator, author and administrator. Dr. Levine is currently the president of of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Previously, he was president and professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bradford College. He is the author of several books and articles. Dr. Levine received his Bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo.&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:15107,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;4&quot;:[null,2,16777215],&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0,&quot;14&quot;:[null,2,0],&quot;15&quot;:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;16&quot;:10}">Dr. Arthur Levine is a scholar, educator, author and administrator. Dr. Levine is currently the president of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Previously, he was president and professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bradford College. He is the author of several books and articles. Dr. Levine received his Bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo.</span> Keywords <span data-sheets-value="{&quot;1&quot;:2,&quot;2&quot;:&quot;College in the Nineteen sixties and Nineteen seventies; Baby boom generation; Generation gap; Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement; Watergate; Vietnam Memorial; Ronald Reagan; Lynden Johnson; Kent State; Jackson State.\n&quot;}" data-sheets-userformat="{&quot;2&quot;:769,&quot;3&quot;:{&quot;1&quot;:0},&quot;11&quot;:4,&quot;12&quot;:0}">College in the Nineteen sixties and Nineteen seventies; Baby boom generation; Generation gap; Vietnam War; Civil Rights Movement; Watergate; Vietnam Memorial; Ronald Reagan; Lynden Johnson; Kent State; Jackson State.<br /></span> Subject LCSH Scholars; Authors; Woodrow Wilson Foundation; Levine, Arthur--Interviews Accessibility Copy/Paste below: Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Binghamton University Libraries is working very hard to create transcriptions of all audio/visual media present on this site. If you require a specific transcription for accessibility purposes, you may contact us at <a href="mailto:orb@binghamton.edu">orb@binghamton.edu</a>. Rights Statement Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Interview with Dr. Arthur Levine Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Levine, Arthur ; McKiernan, Stephen Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio/wav Subject The topic of the resource Scholars; Authors; Woodrow Wilson Foundation; Levine, Arthur--Interviews Description An account of the resource Dr. Arthur Levine is a scholar, educator, author and administrator. Dr. Levine is currently the president of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation. Previously, he was president and professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bradford College. He is the author of several books and articles. Dr. Levine received his Bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Binghamton University Libraries Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004-07-23 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource In copyright Language A language of the resource eng Type The nature or genre of the resource Sound Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context McKiernan.Oral.10.2016.79 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 2017-03-14 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. McKiernan Interviews Extent The size or duration of the resource. 65:09