1 Forbes, Stephen A. 1916. This quote was reprinted in, “Dedication of Burrill Hall” (Urbana: University of Illinois, 8 September, 1959). Burrill, Thomas J. Papers, University of Illinois Archives, [hereafter, TJB Papers, UIA].Google Scholar

2 In its early history, the University of Illinois referred to the president as “regent” although it changed the title with the election of Draper, Andrew in 1894. The tendency to change the title of the vice president was even more pronounced in these early institutions, with these officers known as Dean of the Faculty, Dean of the Senate, and Vice President of the Faculty, among others. To avoid confusion, we use the term “vice president” to describe the men who functioned as second to the president in administrative matters central to the academic mission.Google Scholar

3 The “University Movement” is a broad term applied to an approximately 40 year period when a group of American institutions became universities. In 1900, a handful of these universities formed the Association of American Universities (AAU) which, as historian Geiger, Roger noted, “signified that the research universities had became a self conscious group.” See Geiger, Roger L. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of the American Research Universities, 1900–1940 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), v.Google Scholar

4 Duryea, E. D. “Evolution of University Organization,” in The University as an Organization ed. Perkins, James A. (New York: McGraw Hill Book, Co., 1973); Duryea implies that Gurney and Russel were both appointed in 1869, but our research indicates that Russel actually took the title in 1870, but functioned as a vice president to Andrew White as early as 1868.Google Scholar

5 In the modern university, the academic vice president or provost is often a very influential administrator, sometimes referred to as the “internal president” because of the enormous off-campus demands and external responsibilities of the modern university president. Yet, there is almost no information on the history of this position except to mention that Ephraim Gurney of Harvard was perhaps the first man in the role (as noted, for example in Brubacher, John S. and Rudy, Willis Higher Education in Transition, A History of American Colleges and Universities, 3rd rev. ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1976) and Duryea's, “Evolution of University Organization,” 1973). A detailed listing of the primary and secondary historical literature on university administration is in “Elder Brothers of the University:” A Bibliographic Essay available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nidiffer Google Scholar

6 Whether higher education is, or should be, managed as if it is an industry is a topic that inspires rancorous debate and a full discussion of it is beyond the scope of this work. Although this debate is still raging, it is at least a century old. Probably the most famous and scathing critique of higher education for its tendency to look to the corporate sector for management models is Thorstein Veblen's, The Higher Learning in America: A Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men (New York: Huebsch, B.W. Inc., 1918). However, Veysey, Laurence R. The Emergence of the American University (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), states much of the text was written before 1910. A second work written during the University Movements is Cooke's Morris Llewellyn Academic and Industrial Efficiency: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bulletin no. 5 (New York: Carnegie Foundation of New York, 1910).Google Scholar

7 Veysey, The Emergence of the American University, 356 n51.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., 339.Google Scholar

9 These are: Cornell, and Harvard Universities, and the Universities of Chicago, Michigan, and Wisconsin.Google Scholar

10 Veysey notes that “the administration” – as an entity – was a new phenomenon in this era (The Emergence of the American University, 302, 305). The term also began appearing in article and book titles. See for example, Clarke, Franklin W. “The Appointment of College Officers,” Popular Science Monthly 21 (June 1882): 171–178; Hewett, W. T. “University Administration,” Atlantic Monthly 50:300 (October, 1882): 505–518; and Thwing, Charles F. College Administration (New York: The Century Company, 1900). After 1900, such titles were slightly more common such as Joseph Jastrow, “The Academic Career as Affected by Administration,” Science, 23 (589), April 3, 1906, 561–574; George, E. Fellows, “College Methods and Administration,” Education, 27:1 (September, 1906): 1–9; and Eliot, Charles University Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1908). A detailed listing of the primary literature on university administration is in “‘Elder Brothers of the University:’ A Bibliographic Essay” available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nidiffer Google Scholar

11 As mentioned earlier, there is only a small body of scholarship on early administrators other than presidents. See, “Elder Brothers of the University: A Bibliographic Essay” available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nidiffer Google Scholar

12 A full discussion of the criteria used to select our nine institutional case studies and literature on various institutions that were not selected is in “Elder Brothers of the University: A Bibliographic Essay” available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nidiffer Google Scholar

13 While we are examining the new vice presidencies of the emerging universities, several institutions had vice presidents before this period. For example, Potter, Alonzo and Hickok, Laurens Perseus served as Vice President under Eliphalet Nott at Union College, president from 1804–1866. While each man took the position expecting to replace Nott, Potter particularly served in a period in which the aging president was distracted from his campus duties. See Codman Hislop, Eliphalet Nott (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971). At Princeton in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, four men held the title Vice President, including Samuel Stanhope Smith (the president's son-in-law) who became what institutional historian Alexander Leitch termed as “the first vice president in the usual sense.” His duties consisted of serving as acting executive when President John Witherspoon (1767–1794) was out of the country, which would become a common duty of many of the vice presidents in our study. Perhaps more significantly, John Maclean, Jr. served more fully in the role, including assuming responsibility for hiring significant faculty members and overseeing student discipline. The position was not, however, continuously filled and, when Maclean ascended to the presidency in 1854, the role remained unfilled for almost thirty years and the title disappeared for more than a half-century. See Alexander Leitch, A Princeton Companion (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1978), available at: http://etc.princeton.edu/CampusWWW/Companion/vice_president.html. While these men served important roles in their institutions, especially during difficult times, their efforts on behalf of their old-time colleges yields little information about the rise in academic administration during the University Movement and is beyond the scope of this study.Google Scholar

14 Our study does discuss two early vice presidents, Theophilus Wylie of Indiana University and Sterling, John of the University of Wisconsin, who began vice presidential service before 1868. These two examples were included because both men ended their careers well after 1868 and, as such, provide good evidence about the evolution of the office.Google Scholar

15 Veysey, The Emergence of the American University, discusses the notion of administrative accretion; Nidiffer, Jana Pioneering Deans of Women: More Than Wise and Pious Matrons (New York: Teachers College Press, 2000) describes the origins of what will become student affairs which assumes primary responsibility for student discipline.Google Scholar

16 As stipulated by its charter, Harvard has two governing boards. The Corporation, whose official title is, “The President and Fellows of Harvard College,” consists of the president, the treasurer, and five other fellows. The Corporation is self-perpetuating and acts as the principal governing body, much like a board of trustees at other institutions. “The Honorable and Reverend Board of Overseers” consists of the “President of the College, the Governor, Deputy-Governor and Assistants of the Colony, and the ministers of Boston, Cambridge, and four adjoining towns.” Although the composition changed slightly, over most of the nineteenth century it maintained an organic connection to both the state government and the Congregational Church. See Morison, Samuel E. ed., The Development of Harvard University (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930).Google Scholar

17 Stadtman, Vernon The University of California, 1868–1968 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970), 53.Google Scholar

18 Wylie of Indiana University was trained as minister in the classical tradition and taught several courses over his long career, but never published scholarly work. Frieze, of the University of Michigan, graduated from Brown University in 1841 and served as a classics professor, but was recognized only for his editions of Vergil (1860) and Quintilian (1867). After 1869, the preponderance of his time was spent on administrative matters and teaching rather than scholarship.Google Scholar

19 Hawkins, Hugh Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

20 Solberg, Winton U. The University of Illinois, 1867–1894: An Intellectual and Cultural History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1968).Google Scholar

21 Several secondary histories of Harvard note this. See, James, Henry Charles W. Eliot: President of Harvard University, 1869–1909, 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930); Morison, Samuel E. Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936); and Hugh Hawkins, Between Harvard and America: The Educational Leadership of Charles W. Eliot (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972).Google Scholar

22 See White, Andrew Dickson Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White, Volume I (New York: The Century Co., 1905), 436–438.Google Scholar

23 Second Report of the Board of Regents, 1850, printed in Madison by Dickson, David T. State Printer, 67.Google Scholar

24 See Ogren, Christine “Sterling, John Whalen,” in American National Biography, 24 vols. ed. Garraty, John A. and Carnes, Mark C. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) access through American National Biography On-line at http://www.anb.org/articles/09/09-00715.html; May 16, 2004.Google Scholar

25 For almost all of Barnard's Henry tenure (1858–1861) as president, for example, Sterling served as the chief administrator because the ill Barnard was rarely in Madison.Google Scholar

26 Curti, Merle and Carstensen, Vernon The University of Wisconsin: A History, 1848–1925, 2 vols. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949), especially Volume 1, chs. 2–9 and Ogren, “Sterling, John Whalen “ in American National Biography.Google Scholar

27 The sum of his duties was collected from various sources, but the most complete account is in Curti, and Carstensen, The University of Wisconsin, vol. 1 150, and Barton, Albert O. “Whelan, John [sic] Sterling,” in Wisconsin Alumnus, April 1940, 219–227. This article was commissioned by Arthur Beatty and later published in house.Google Scholar

28 There seemed to be genuine affection for Sterling. Such regard was most obvious at his death. Because he was the first man hired and contributed so much to the institution, he was eulogized as the real “father of the university,” an inscription that dons his official portrait. See, NA, “Prof. Sterling, a Jubilee Memory,” Wisconsin Alumni Magazine, 5 (June-July 1904), 303–307; and “Obituary of Sterling, John W. “ Wisconsin State Journal, 9 and 11 March, 1885. Parkinson, John Barber served from 1885 to 1909, after which the title of vice president was no longer used. Although Parkinson was the vice president well into Van Hise's administration, there are few records of his work or administrative duties. The university archives have no official papers for Parkinson, and the papers of the presidents under which he served provided scant evidence. Only the papers of Chamberlain, President Thomas (1887–1892) contained correspondence from Parkinson indicating that he was performing administrative tasks, but no correspondence between Parkinson and the various presidents was found. Instead, Van Hise apparently shared administrative matters with Birge, Edward who became the Dean of the College of Letters and Science (graduate school) in 1892, served as interim president from 1901 to 1903 until Van Hise was appointed, then again as dean until assuming the presidency in 1918 upon Van Hise's death. As a result, Parkinson's contributions and limitations as a vice president are largely unknown. All germane biographical and necrology files and official presidential papers were searched for evidence of Parkinson's work as vice president. The principle institutional history, Curti and Carstensen, The University of Wisconsin, makes only a few references to Parkinson as vice president and speaks more to his skills as a teacher, limited contributions as a scholar, and involvement in state Democratic politics. Some biographical detail may be found in, NA, “Parkinson, John Barber “ The Wisconsin Alumni Magazine, 28 (7), May 1927.Google Scholar

29 Woodburn, James Albert History of Indiana University, 1820–1902, vol. 1 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1940), 343.Google Scholar

30 There are no surviving records in the Indiana University archives explaining why Jordan waited so long before officially appointing another vice president. Jordan was known for his dislike of administrative details and his willingness to delegate so his delay in hiring an assistant is a bit puzzling. Jordan's vice president was Atwater, Amizi former secretary of the faculty, who perhaps acted in a vice presidential capacity between 1885 and 1888. Atwater, a professor of Latin, left few papers pertaining to his administrative work and the only reports to President Jordan that remain discuss his academic department of Latin and Greek. Two surviving letters from Atwater note that it was important to him that he was appointed and not elected, he saw himself as second to the president, and he wanted accommodations to his teaching demands because of his administrative duties. Atwater was vice president until Jordan left in 1891, retired in 1893, and died in 1919. See, Atwater, Amizi – clippings/necrology files, Indiana University Archives, Bloomington, Indiana [hereafter, IUA]; David Starr Jordan – clippings/necrology files, IUA; President's Office Records, President David Starr Jordan, IUA; and Atwater papers, Administrative 3, 1888–1889, letter of 10 Nov., 1888 and second letter, undated. IUA.Google Scholar

31 Oilman, Daniel Coit to Gildersleeve, Basil L. [hereafter, BLG], January 31, 1902, BLG Papers, Johns Hopkins University Archives [hereafter, JHUA].Google Scholar

32 Angell, James “A Memorial Discourse on the Life and Services of Henry Simmons Frieze, LL.D.,” 29 and 32.Google Scholar

33 Success in presidential leadership is very subjective and we do not intend to engage this debate. Nor are we asserting that only these three institutions had successful presidents. Rather, one of our arguments is that the almost mythical presidents of this era, including Charles Eliot and Andrew Dickson White, did not achieve their great successes without the assistance of their vice presidents. For our purposes, we are relying on secondary, historical judgments of the men involved. Within the historical literature, Eliot of Harvard, White of Cornell, and Harper of Chicago are frequently (if not unanimously) hailed as successful, important presidents. This is less true of the various presidents of California, Illinois, and Indiana, although Benjamin Wheeler (California), Draper, Andrew (Illinois), and William Bryan (Indiana) did achieve some renown at the end of the University Movement. It is interesting to note that Daniel Coit Gilman was briefly president of California and David Starr Jordan headed Indiana for a few years, but both were considered successful presidents largely because of their subsequent achievements at Johns Hopkins and Stanford, respectively. Finally, we feel that the fact that our three institutions without consistent leadership are publicly sponsored, and the remaining three are private is mere coincidence.Google Scholar

34 Technically, the position was titled Dean in this period, although it evolved to encompass the duties of a vice president as the century progressed.Google Scholar

35 Kellogg, Martin undated, Regents of the University of California Records [hereafter California Regents Records], University Archives, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley [hereafter, UCBA].Google Scholar

36 Ibid.Google Scholar

37 Stringham, Irving to The Academic Council, 13 October, 1886, California Regents Records, UCBA. A final document provides a bit more evidence as to some of the actual work that the Dean did in administrative areas and implies a growing bureaucracy at the institution. In President Holden's 1888 report to the regents he noted, “…every detail of administration relating to the Academic departments both in the Secretary's office and in that of the Recorder is carried out with thoroughness. I am glad to acknowledge in this the devoted and disinterested assistance of the Dean of the Colleges at Berkeley- Professor Stringham.” See Holden, Edward S. 13 March, 1888, Report of the President, California Regents Records, UCBA.Google Scholar

38 Kellogg, Martin to the Board of Regents, 18 January, 1888, California Regents Records, UCBA.Google Scholar

39 Stadtman, The University of California. The official title of the position was Dean of the Academic Senate, although it had variously been known as the Dean of the Colleges at Berkeley and the Dean of the Colleges of Letters, Agriculture, Mechanics, Mining, Civil Engineering and Chemistry, UCBA.Google Scholar

40 Gregory, John Milton to Faculty, Faculty Record II, n.p. UIA, 19 September, 1879.Google Scholar

41 Faculty Record III, p. 7, UIA, 11 October 1889. It is due to this provision that Shattuck, Samuel W. is sometimes credited with being the Vice President during Burrill's long acting regency in the early 1890s.Google Scholar

42 Solberg, The University of Illinois, 1894–1904, 8; Horner, Harlan Hoyt The Life and Work of Andrew Sloan Draper (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1934), 107.Google Scholar

43 Solberg, The University of Illinois, 1894–1904.Google Scholar

44 Ibid.Google Scholar

45 See for example, letters from Draper, Burrill to Letterbook: Miscellaneous Sept 1, 1901–May 22, 1905, Provost Office Collection, TJB Papers, UIA; 16 October, 1901; 8 January, 1902; 12 February, 1902; 4 October, 1902; 16 January, 1903; 8, 30–31, 42, 99, 121.Google Scholar

46 Draper, Burrill to Letterbook: Miscellaneous Sept 1, 1901-May 22, 1905, TJB Papers, UIA, 10 June, 1901; 11 June, 1901; 188, 189.Google Scholar

47 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Indiana University, July 24, 1883 – June 16, 1897, 9 April, 1891, 382.Google Scholar

48 In 1900 when Swain hired a dean of women, he made his rationale quite explicit in his president's report to the Board of Trustees. However, Swain's earliest president's reports were lost in a fire early in his administration so there is no analogous published rationale for re-instituting the vice presidency or his choice of Bryan.Google Scholar

49 The resolution read: “Be it resolved by the Board of Trustees, that the office of Vice President of the Faculty… is hereby created. No person not a member of said Faculty shall be eligible to be appointed to said office, and the salary thereof shall be fixed from time to time by the Board of Trustees, and the same shall be in addition to any other salary that the person so elected shall receive for other services and shall be paid to him in like manner. The appointment of said officer is hereby rested in the Board of Trustees by and with the consent of the President of the Faculty, and he shall hold during the pleasure of said Board,” Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Indiana University, July 24, 1883 – June 16, 1897, 9 November, 1893, 435.Google Scholar

50 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Indiana University, July 24, 1883 – June 16, 1897, 9 November, 1893, 435, which stated: “The Vice President shall discharge the duties of the President of the Faculty in the case of death, absence, or inability of that officer from sickness or otherwise to discharge for the same for the time being. There being a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, the Board on motion proceeded to the election of the Vice President. Lowe Bryan, Wm. Prof. received the unanimous vote of the Board and was declared elected to the office of Vice President, which appointment was concurred by the President of the University. Secretary was directed to issue to Bryan, Mr. a certificate of election.”Google Scholar

51 Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Indiana University, July 24, 1883 – June 16, 1897, 11 November, 1893, 461, 464.Google Scholar

52 Bryan, William L. – clippings/necrology files, IUA. The author of this undated material is unknown.Google Scholar

53 These are examples of the types of details they discussed in writing and may be found in President's Office Records, IUA; Swain, Joseph folder marked, “William Lowe Bryan, 1896–1902.”Google Scholar

54 Swain hired the first dean of women for the university, Breed, Mary Bidwell and delegated most problems with women students to her and problems with male students were reviewed by a faculty committee. See Nidiffer, Pioneering Deans of Women, chapter 4, pp. 55–77.Google Scholar

55 President's Office Records, IUA; Swain, Joseph folder marked, “William Lowe Bryan, 1896–1902,” 3 February, 1902. The article was published in Science in 1901 and discussed the recommendations of the Association of American Universities to adopt a “convocation week” so that professors might meet with their learned societies during the academic year.Google Scholar

56 Eliot, Charles W. [hereafter, CWE], Forty-fifth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1869–1870 (Cambridge: [Harvard] University Press, 1871), Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, Massachusetts, [hereafter, HUA], 12. There were apparently some points of contention about the nature of the dean's duties and who had authority to select and appoint him. Walker, James Chairman of the Corporation wrote Eliot in 1870 making sure Eliot understood that the Corporation preferred that the dean to be elected for a prescribed period of time and the appointment was by the Corporation with “the approved consent of the Overseers.” Walker, James to CWE, CWE, Correspondence, 1869–1909, February 2, 1870, HUA.Google Scholar

57 Gurney, Ephraim W. “Report of the Dean of the Faculties“ in Forty-sixth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1870–1871, 48–56; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Forty-seventh Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1871–1872, 48–54; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Forty-eighth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1872–1873, 45–55; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Forty-ninth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1873–1874, 47–60; and “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Fiftieth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1874–1875, 50–67; (Cambridge: [Harvard] University Press, 1872–1876, respectively), HUA. In his 1872 Report he noted, “Unhappily, all efforts to detect and bring to justice the perpetrators of the gross outrages of the winter of 1871, at a private house and in Stoughton Hall, have thus far proved unsuccessful.” He reported with pleasure that the sophomores of 1874 successfully abandoned the practice of hazing the freshman. In his last report he said this about the good effect of the elective principle on campus, “I must not omit to say that much emancipation from the school boy spirit, though it must long and perhaps ever be partial, would exercise no small influence for good on the teachers as well as on the taught. As the elective system has done much to raise the quality of our instruction by stimulating teachers—in most cases, probably, without their consciousness—to create an interest in their courses, and in turn to enlarge their course to satisfy the interest thus created, – so under an extension of the elective principle, by which the attendance of the best scholars at least would be voluntary, they will again be unconsciously stimulated to make their instruction yet more valuable and indispensable to the student.”Google Scholar

58 In Eliot's incoming correspondence from Gurney, there are several brief references by Gurney, that appear to be answering Eliot's request for a comment on a particular faculty candidate. On 30 August, 1869, before he was officially dean, Gurney commented that Dunbar, Charles then being courted by Eliot, was a hard worker and good manager of boys. (CWE, Correspondence, 1869–1909, February 2, 1870, HUA).Google Scholar

59 Hawkins, Between Harvard and America, 64 ft. 40. See also Eliot (originally published as Anonymous), “The New Education,” Atlantic Monthly, 23:136 (February, 1869): 203–220; and “The New Education,” Atlantic Monthly, 23:137 (March, 1869): 358–367.Google Scholar

60 Dunbar, Charles F. “President Eliot's Administration,” The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine, 2: 8 (June 1894): 474.Google Scholar

61 This quote is from his annual report of 1885–6 where Eliot also adds, “… his natural insight and wide range of knowledge lent singular weight and authority to his opinion. No University body of which he was a member—committee, Faculty, or Corporation—ever felt safe in going against his advice;…” Elsewhere, Eliot wrote, “Throughout his life his conversation was his great means of influence. In a small body, like the Corporation or a committee in the faculty itself (where debate is conversational) his words were always weighty; but it was in private conversation that one best perceived the range of his knowledge and felt the [quickening] acumen, and grasp of his mind” in a year-by-year summary written in Eliot's hand, dated 23 January, 1887, found in his papers under “Harvard Career of Ephraim Gurney,” HUA. Much of it became his annual report, but there are slight variations in the two texts.Google Scholar

62 CWE to Endicott, William C. 17 September, 1886. CWE, Correspondence, 1869–1909, HUA.Google Scholar

63 For his six Reports as Dean of the College, see Dunbar, Charles F. “Report of the Dean of the Faculties“ in Fifty-first Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1876–1877, 51–66; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Fifty-second Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1877–1878, 52–77; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Fifty-third Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1878–1879, 52–79; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Fifty-fourth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1879–1880, 52–74; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Fifty-fifth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1880–1881, 48–73; “Report of the Dean of the Faculties” in Fifty-sixth Annual Report of the President of Harvard College, 1881–1882, 45–61; (Cambridge: [Harvard] University Press, 1878–1883, respectively), HUA.Google Scholar

64 CWE to Dunbar, Charles F. CWE, Correspondence, 1869–1909, 23 May, 1890, HUA.Google Scholar

65 Dunbar, Charles F. “Report of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences“ in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1890–1891; and “Report of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences” in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1891–1892; and “Report of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences” in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1892–1893; and “Report of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences” in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1893–1894; and “Report of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences” in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1894–1895; and “Report of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences” in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1895–1896 (Cambridge: [Harvard] University Press, 1892–1897) HUA.Google Scholar

66 Now student matters are handled by Briggs. See Briggs, LeBaron R. “The College“ in The Annual Report of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1890–1891 (Cambridge: [Harvard] University Press, 1892), HUA.Google Scholar

67 Our observation is consistent with Veysey's assertion that administrative growth proceeded in two distinct phases. The first began with Eliot, White, and Angell in the late 1860s and the second phase began in the 1890s and “has never stopped.” See Veysey, The Emergence of the American University, 305–06.Google Scholar

68 Letters from Russel to White, Dickson, Andrew White Papers, Cornell University Archives (hereafter, ADW Papers, CUA), 22 December, 1866, 1 May, 1867, and 12 July, 1867.Google Scholar

69 White, Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White, Volume I. White also made a point of delegating specific responsibilities to the Board of Trustees and to the faculty and vowed that neither body would become merely advisory.Google Scholar

70 Ibid., 438.Google Scholar

71 Letter from Russel to White, ADW Papers, CUA, 30 June, 1870.Google Scholar

72 Dorfman, Joseph “Henry Carter Adams: The Harmonizer of Liberty and Reform,” in Relation of the State to Industrial Action and Economics and Jurisprudence, Two Essays by Henry Carter Adams (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), p. 16. Bishop notes that Russel hired and dismissed junior faculty members, addressed and mailed catalogues, answered letters in his own hand, and ran the university while White was away. See Bishop, Morris Early Cornell: 1865–1900 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962). In the Proceedings of the Board of Trustees of Cornell University, Minutes Book (1875–78), 20 June, 1877, 154, CUA. Faculty Minutes, January-May, 1869, n.p., 27 January, 3 February, and 23 March; Faculty Minutes, February-December, 1871, n.p., 24 February and 7 April, CUA. Throughout the Faculty Minutes there are numerous, but very brief, mentions of bureaucratic or student issues to which Russel attends.Google Scholar

73 For courses of study, see Faculty Minutes February-December, 1871, n.p., 7 April, 1871 and January-June 1876, n.p., 21 April, 1876; issues of examinations, see Faculty Minutes January-December 1872, n.p., 1 November, 1872 and September 1877-June 1878, n.p., 15 March, 1878; Faculty Minutes September 1876-June 1877, n.p., 8 June, 1877, CUA.Google Scholar

74 The Faculty Minutes read, “Prof. Russel offered a resolution, that a committee of five be appointed to report upon the expediency of abolishing all courses of study, and of substituting therefor the freedom of choice…” The Minutes also indicate that Russel was the chair of the meeting for much of time he was at Cornell. Faculty Minutes January-May, 1869, n.p., 27 January, 1869, CUA.Google Scholar

75 The Faculty Minutes of May 11, 1877 read, “the Vice President be requested to communicate to the President the opinion of the faculty that the practice of retaining the names of those who do not lecture here in the list of the faculty of the university as unwise and prejudicial to the best interests of the institution.” Faculty Minutes September, 1876-June, 1877, CUA. The Faculty Minutes of September 18, 1874 also note an additional responsibility, “Resolved that the Vice President, Registrar, and Secretary be appointed a committee for the purpose of arranging, classifying and reporting upon the communications addressed by students to the faculty; that it shall be the duty of this committee before the regular session of the faculty to meet and examine the various petitions to refer such as demand it to the appropriate standing committees, and to report to the faculty such action, together with the substance of all other communications received.” See, Faculty Minutes September, 1874-December, 1874, CUA.Google Scholar

76 Russel, William Channing Papers (hereafter, WCR Papers), CUA, 22 July, 1870.Google Scholar

77 Letters from Russel to White, ADW Papers, CUA, 25 February, 1867.Google Scholar

78 For a full discussion of early coeducation at Cornell, see Conable, Charlotte Williams Women at Cornell: The Myth of Equal Education (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977); WCR Papers, CUA, 16 February, 1872 also cited in Conable, Women at Cornell, 75.Google Scholar

79 Conable, Women at Cornell, 75. Google Scholar

80 WCR Papers, CUA, 12 March, 1873. A few days later White replied that he was “tired to death of trying to maintain a fight against tremendous odds, and feeling so utterly insecure as to my backing – tired too of this dependent position” (emphasis in the original). ADW Papers, CUA, 17 March, 1873. Also cited in Bishop, Early Cornell: 1865–1900, 185.Google Scholar

81 Letters from Russel to White, ADW Papers, CUA, 30 June, 1870.Google Scholar

82 Russel did end his letter on a more positive note, “I have however begun the spring with a resolve which brings me more strength to work with. I have been smoking all winter and I have now given it up for the sake of gaining more force for my work. I find that my brain is less irritable, [given] more capable of sustained effort than it was and I expect to get through the term successfully.” WCR Papers, CUA, 26 June, 1876.Google Scholar

83 White, Autobiography of Andrew Dickson White, Volume I 437.Google Scholar

84 In a letter to a friend, however, Russel revealed his belief that two of the reasons for his dismissal were a personal dislike of him and punishment for White's insistence that Russel be acting president during a long absence when the Trustees desired to appoint someone else. See, WCR Papers, CUA, 22 January, 1881.Google Scholar

85 Rogers, Walter P. Andrew Dickson White and the Modern University (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1942), 150–163 provides an interesting overview of Russel's dismissal. White used the word “wrench” in a letter to Willard Fiske, ADW Papers, CUA, 27 May, 1881. Russel's resignation prompted supporters to write him with comforting words. One friend and former student (and future Cornell professor), Anna Botsford Comstock, spoke to the unsung nature of vice presidential work, “… my sympathies are all with the university which will sustain such an irremediable loss and my congratulations with you in getting away from a place where you have nearly killed yourself with hard work which has been so little appreciated by the very ones who should prize it most. It will be a day of mourning for all who understand and have the true interests of the University at heart when your resignation is accepted; and the disgrace will not be upon you but upon those who allow prejudices and policy to blind them in their relations to the University. There are those, and plenty of them too who realize the great good your work has wrought in the management of the university affairs…” See, Anna Botsford Comstock to Russel, WCR Papers, CUA, 17 March, 1881.Google Scholar

86 Goodspeed, Thomas Wakefield William Rainey Harper: First President of the University of Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928), 176.Google Scholar

87 Ibid., 184.Google Scholar

88 As cited in Goodspeed, William Rainey Harper, 207–8.Google Scholar

89 Harper, William Rainey “The First Annual Report“ (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1892) 31.Google Scholar

90 The evidence of this advising appears throughout the correspondence between Harper and Judson in the University of Chicago Presidents’ Papers, University of Chicago Archives (hereafter Chicago Presidents’ Papers, UCA). See for example, Judson to Harper, 27 January, 1892; Judson to Harper, 25 December, 1891; Harper, Judson to 27 February, 1892; Harper, Judson to 26 February, 1892; Harper, Judson to 6 March, 1892; Harper, Judson to 28 April 1892; Harper, Judson to 30 April, 1892; Harper, Judson to 28 March, 1895; Harper, Judson to 21 April, 1896; 31 December, 1896; Harper, Judson to 20 May, 1897; 26 February, 1897; 26 February 1904.Google Scholar

91 Judson, Harper to 5 September, 1896, Chicago Presidents’ Papers, UCA. The nature of Harper's concerns and the results of Judson's investigations are unknown, but the fact that Harper turned to Judson to handle this issue is indicative of Harper's trust and reliance on Judson.Google Scholar

92 Judson, Harper to 11 March, 1896; Harper, Judson to 12 February, 1897; Harper, Judson to 23 December, 1898, 4 March, 1902, Chicago Presidents’ Papers, UCA.Google Scholar

93 Judson, Harper to 31 May, 1897, Chicago Presidents’ Papers, UCA.Google Scholar

94 The Regulations of the University of Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1901), 4.Google Scholar

95 Gilman, Daniel Coit to BLG, June 6, 1901, BLG Papers, JHUA.Google Scholar

96 Gilman, Daniel Coit to BLG, May 1, 1900, BLG Papers, JHUA. In a letter the following year, referring to the meeting at which he offered Gildersleeve the position, Gilman continued, “I am sorry to break up the official relations, - but nothing can efface the delightful memories of the past and I hope that nothing will interfere with or interrupt the confidential and friendly relations which you and I have maintained since our memorable interview in Washington!” Daniel Coit Gilman to BLG, June 6, 1901, BLG Papers, JHUA.Google Scholar

97 Gilman, Daniel Coit to BLG, January 31, 1902, BLG Papers, JHUA. While Gilman also relied on Remsen, his counselor “in all things pertaining to science,” the two were not nearly as close. Still Gilman relied on Remsen's advice and benefited from Remsen's leadership while he was away. See, Gilman, Daniel Coit to BLG, June 6, 1901, BLG Papers, JHUA. Interestingly, when Gilman resigned, he made the controversial recommendation that Remsen become the president rather than Gildersleeve.Google Scholar

98 Shaw, Wilfred B. ed., From Vermont to Michigan: Correspondence of James Burrill Angell, 1869–1871 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1936), see especially, 55–58, 60–63, 118–119, 138–140, 175–177, 195–199, 231–232, 259–263, 265–267, 272–276, 278–283, 284–286, and 287–290.Google Scholar

99 Farrand, Elizabeth M. History of the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: Register Publication House, 1885), 215.Google Scholar

100 Angell, James Burrill The Reminiscences of James Burrill Angell (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912), 235.Google Scholar

101 These walks are mentioned twice by Angell in his memorial to Frieze in, Angell, “A Memorial Discourse on the Life and Services of Henry Simmons Frieze, LL.D.,” 28, 35.Google Scholar

102 These were the initiatives specifically mentioned in either Angell's autobiography or his memorial to Frieze. See Angell, The Reminiscences of James Burrill Angell and Angell, “A Memorial Discourse on the Life and Services of Frieze, Henry Simmons LL.D.”Google Scholar

103 James, Charles W. Eliot, v2 34.Google Scholar

104 CWE to Endicott, William C. 17 September, 1886. CWE, Correspondence, 1869–1909, HUA. Also quoted in James, Charles W. Eliot, v2, 35.Google Scholar

105 James, Charles W. Eliot, v2 122.Google Scholar

106 Hawkins, Between Harvard and America. Google Scholar

107 CWE to James, Mrs. William 6 February, 1900. CWE, Correspondence, 1869–1909, HUA. Also quoted in James, Charles W. Eliot, v2, 122.Google Scholar

108 Swain, Bryan to n.d. President's Office Records, IUA; Bryan, William Lowe folder marked, “Joseph Swain, 1901–1905.”Google Scholar

109 Bryan, Swain to 13 December, 1904, President's Office Records, IUA; William Lowe Bryan, folder marked, “Swain, Joseph 1901–1905.”Google Scholar

110 Letter from ADW to WCR, WCR Papers, CUA, 17 November, 1882.Google Scholar

110 Harper, Judson to 27 April, 1891, William Rainey Harper Papers, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar

112 Judson, Harry Pratt n.d. (1906), Chicago Presidents’ Papers.Google Scholar

113 University of Chicago Board of Trustees Minutes, Volume 5:1904–1907, 16 January, 1906, 342.Google Scholar

114 James, Edward Janes The President's Tribute. Alumni Quarterly and Fortnightly Notes I, No. 15, May, 1916, 336.Google Scholar

115 Faculty Record II, September 13, 1879, John M. Gregory Papers, UIA.Google Scholar

116 Solberg, The University of Illinois, 1867–1894; Horner, The Life and Work of Andrew Sloan Draper.Google Scholar

117 Davenport, Eugene “Notable People I Have Known or Seen,” Agriculture Dean's Office, Eugene Davenport Papers: Autobiography 1936, UIA. See also, Solberg, The University of Illinois, 1894–1904.Google Scholar

118 Draper, Burrill to Letterbook II, Liberal Arts and Sciences, Botany Departmental Correspondence, TJB Papers, UIA, 18 May, 1901, 183. Specifically, Burrill argued, “I will say at the outset that I cannot see the way clear to the appointment of any one man, by whatever title he may be known, who shall be expected to stand officially or otherwise between yourself and the heads of departments. I exclude in this of course anything pertaining properly to the vice president and the deans.”Google Scholar

119 “Amendments to the University Statutes Touching Organization and Administration,” Twenty-First Report of the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 1902, p. 87.Google Scholar

120 Numerous sources were consulted in an effort to illuminate the nature of the personal and collegial relationships between Sterling and the various presidents under whom he served at Wisconsin and Kellogg and Stringham and the presidents under whom they served at California. There is little evidence that they were particularly fond of the presidents, just as there is little evidence that they did not get along. Perhaps the absence of data is data – no where in the surviving personal remembrances of the various presidents, the formal eulogies, or the secondary histories of the institution, is Sterling regarded by the presidents they way he was remembered by the alumni. While Kellogg was valued enough to become president of California in the 1890s, he served more as a buffer between the presidents and the faculty, rather than an intimate to any chief executive. Stringham, however, acknowledged that President Edward Holden made his work “pleasant.” See, Stringham, Irving to The Academic Council, 13 October, 1886, California Regents Records, UCBA. There is no indication that their relationship extended beyond their formal duties.Google Scholar

121 Again, our observation is consistent with Veysey's who noted that the presidents and deans of the era evaded direct discussion of “increasing presidential authority,… the new functions of the deanship,… etc.” See Veysey, The Emergence of the American University, 268.Google Scholar

122 This is the primary explanation for the expanding administrative structure put forward by Veysey, The Emerging University.Google Scholar

123 Howard, George E. “The State University in America,” Atlantic Monthly, 67 (401), 332–342; Howard was a member of Stanford's original faculty and defended Ross, Edward A.’ academic freedom rights when Ross was fired.Google Scholar

124 Thwing, College Administration, 51–52. An example of the phenomenal growth is illustrated by Clark, Burton R. using census data in “Interpretations of Academic Professionalism: Faculty Organization and Authority,” in Hawkins, Hugh ed., The Emerging University and Industrial America (Malabar, Krieger, FL, Robert E. Publishing Company, 1985), 90. In 1870, there were 563 colleges, 5, 553 faculty members, and 52,000 students; the “average” college had 10 faculty members and 92 students. In the forty years of the University Movement, those numbers increased dramatically. In 1910, there were 951 colleges, 36,480 faculty members, and 355,000 students; the “average” college had 38 faculty members and 373 students.Google Scholar

125 Veysey, The Emergence of the American University, 308.Google Scholar

126 Beech, Mark “Professional versus Professorial Control of Higher Education,” Educational Record 49 (Summer, 1968), 263–273. Beech cites: Draper, Andrew “The University President,” Atlantic Monthly, 1906 (97), p. 35.Google Scholar

127 Emerson, Ralph Waldo Essays, First and Second Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1927), 30–63.Google Scholar