15 September
By 1947, the Department of History at the University of Iowa had reached a nadir. It was dysfunctional and staffed by mediocre scholars. Then, Winfred Root, the longtime head of the department, died suddenly on December 9, 1947. Three days later, a revolution in the governance and culture of the department occurred. The details of the revolution are best told by Stow Persons, both in his “Revised Notes Towards a History of the History Department” and his unpublished memoir, “Thirty Years at the University of Iowa, 1950-1980”:
“The department faculty voted unanimously to adopt a rotating chairman elected by secret ballot with limited term of office, and ineligible to succeed himself. His actions were to be in accordance with the will of the majority. There were to be regular meetings of the department faculty with formal minutes kept. These actions were altogether unprecedented in the history of the university. The head of the department was the lowest rung on the administrative ladder, representing the ultimate management of departmental affairs by the administration. Root may well have been relatively progressive in tolerating such departmental activities as he did. In any event, the departmental faculty now proposed to take upon itself the management of its own affairs. The revolutionary heroes who brought about this transformation were George Mowry, Stuart Hoyt, George Mosse, and William O. Aydelotte. It speaks well for the administrative officers, notably Dean McGrath, that they were willing to tolerate this intrusion upon their authority. . . .
The importance of the history department action became apparent to all when the liberal arts faculty in 1950 adopted a Manual of Rules and Regulations, in effect a collegiate constitution, the first in the history of the university. Each department was to have the option of choosing a head or a chairman. . . . Departments choosing a chairman rapidly developed self-governing practices and a sense of individual participation usually lacking under a headship. . . .
The first chairman of history was William O. Aydelotte, who had joined the department in 1947, having previously taught at Smith and Trinity. The prohibition on successive terms of office (usually three year terms) was wisely abandoned, and Aydelotte served from 1948 to 1959. . . .
The principal task confronting the department was to enlarge and strengthen it with instruction in new fields and the addition of new appointees in the established fields. The adoption of rational practices for the recruitment of faculty and graduate students was perhaps the most important outcome of the departmental revolution. The full departmental faculty discussed and determined a priority order for teaching and research. Search committees were then formed which advertised the openings nationally and sought the best available candidates. Publications and dissertations of junior candidates were carefully evaluated. Scholarly achievement or promise were the sole concerns, and other personal characteristics were largely if not wholly ignored. Committee recommendations were submitted to the full department, which was urged to review MMS and publications in reaching its decisions. The same principles of review were applied to the admission of graduate students, who were required to submit examples of research papers or historical essays as evidence of capacity for graduate work.”
“The History department in 1950 consisted of twelve members, five of them appointed in the previous year by the new chairman, William O. Aydelotte. The condition of the department had deteriorated under his predecessor, W.T. Root, and Aydelotte made much of his determination to strengthen it. He told me that I was the department’s fourth choice for the position I had accepted, naming three distinguished historians who had declined his offers. The Provost, Harvey Davis, said of him that Aydelotte always insisted on offering appointments to Jesus Christ, and that when he declined to come, Aydelotte wanted one of the twelve disciples [See “Minutes of History Department Meeting, May 11, 1948” for an example of the kinds of scholars considered for appointment]. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that however ludicrous his ambitions may have seemed to those who were content with mediocrity, his meticulous methods of search and review, his willingness to read endless pages published and unpublished, his nation-wide solicitation of advice and suggestions from historians, but perhaps even more important, in rooting firmly in the department expectations of excellence which will happily long outlive his tenure.
My first years in the department were not particularly happy ones. Shortly after I arrived as a Visiting Professor in the summer of 1950, Aydelotte came down with tuberculosis and was hospitalized for a year at Oakdale, then the State T.B. sanitarium. Because he did not trust the senior members of the department he persuaded the Dean to appoint a three man executive committee consisting of Harrison J. Thornton, the senior member, J. Frank Gilliam, an Assistant Professor, and myself. This was an awkward arrangement, especially since Thornton took it for granted that as the senior member — he would function as chairman. Perhaps by tacit concurrence the Dean sent departmental business to Thornton, with the result that matters were often disposed of without the knowledge of the other two committee members. I found it necessary to threaten to resign from the committee in order to obtain an appropriate procedure for handling departmental business.
Owing primarily to the machinations of Stuart Hoyt, the medievalist, the department became factionalized. An intensely ambitious man with paranoid tendencies, Hoyt had actively promoted Aydelotte for the chairmanship in the expectation that he would be the power behind the throne. When Aydelotte demonstrated his independence Hoyt became bitterly hostile and organized a faction to oppose him. He terrorized George Mosse, an amiable but weak character, and appealed to the frustrated ambitions of Thornton. These three became the nucleus of the faction, with occasional support from Ross Livingston, an embittered man who had abandoned a scholarly career and nursed a general grievance against the University. Aydelotte was supported by the junior members, notably by Nicholas Riasanovsky and Frank Gilliam. I would have much preferred to stay out of these squabbles, but that proved to be impossible. I always supported Aydelotte and thus earned the enmity of Hoyt.
An amusing episode will illustrate the contrast between the old methods and the new. The department was assembled in the chairman’s office one day to discuss the specifications of a new position in American history, prior to initiating the national survey of candidates, which had been established as routine procedure. Professor Thornton proposed the appointment of one of his doctoral students, a man known to several of us as wholly without the ability or qualifications we took for granted in the appointee. Mosse brushed aside the proposal as frivolous, but Thornton persisted. He praised the virtues of his candidate, which appeared to consist chiefly in his great need for the position and in his sincere desire to be of service to us. Finally, Thornton begged us to delay no further, because the candidate was waiting just outside the door, and it was cruel to keep him there in suspense!
The heart of the reforms of 1947 was the principle that the department should be a self-governing body. Sometimes referred to as government by the “Committee of the Whole,” the principle has had lasting effects not only on the conduct of business but on several basic characteristics of the department. By insisting on inclusiveness — attendance at department meetings eventually became mandatory — the department insured that junior members would not only be privy to but active participants in the formation of policy. Newcomers observed first had how business was being done, and benefited from exposure to the wisdom of elders — the Spitzers and the Jameses. Strangely enough, self-government confirmed the strength of inertia and discouraged radical experimentation. There have been no significant changes in departmental policies in the last half century. It has also inhibited the emergence of aggressive and potentially innovative leadership. The firm initiatives often taken by Aydelotte would not have been tolerated in his successors . . .
Government by the Committee of the Whole also inhibited the emergence of other decision making forces such as standing committees. Determination to recruit the best available scholars, once an oddity at the University of Iowa, became the paramount object of the department to the extent that skill in teaching the introductory courses was not an appreciable factor in faculty recruitment. Exclusive preoccupation with scholarship received full expression in Sydney James’s recommendation that when making appointments the department should seek the best available scholar regardless of field. It also seems clear that its form of government has been a significant factor in the department’s inability to formulate long-range plans. This is most apparent in the frequent changes in the priority order for introducing new fields, and indeed in the inability to think beyond the next appointment. . . . Eventually, the need to grow, if realized, will come into conflict with government by the Committee of the Whole.”
In recent years, this longstanding Committee of the Whole tradition has been eroded. Although major decisions continue to be made by deliberation of the whole department, the complexity and workload of higher education has necessitated the formation of standing committees (e.g. Undergraduate, Graduate, Diversity, etc.). While the department had honored the tradition of seeking the “best available scholar,” teaching experience and prowess also factor into recruitment. And long-range planning has become an integral part of department deliberations.