Monday, July 27, 2015


Apologies. On some smart phones 
and perhaps tablets, operation 
of the countdown clock is 
hard to see.
  Linfield 2015 Football season starts 1:30 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 12, 2015, on Legendary Maxwell Field in Homecoming football game vs. Chapman of Orange, Calif. 

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Ooney Gagen strikes again!

Team Durham members are Ray Olson, George Murdock, Bob and Nancy Haack. Bob Ferguson, Terry Durham, Tim Marsh and Pete Dengenis. Providing vital assistance to the team are Debbie Harmon Ferry (Linfield title below) and Dave Ostrander (Linfield Institutional Advancement VP).

Photos with this posting show Ray Olson and a silhouette of Ooney Gagen.

Message on June 29, 2015, to Team Durham ... from Debbie Harmon Ferry (Linfield Class of 1990), Director of Alumni and Parent Relations, Office of Institutional Advancement, Linfield College.

Her message:

I arrived back from vacation today to the most wonderful surprise! Ooney Gagen has made yet another terrific gift to the Paul Durham Endowed Fund.

Ooney asked me to pass along his message:

"I am pleased to contribute $15,000 to the Paul Durham Endowment Fund in recognition of the Alumni Service Award to Ray Olson and of our mentor, Coach Durham. Based on what I understand to be the current market value of the fund (appx. $170,000,) this should bring the fund very close to Ray Olson's goal of $200,000. I am confident that Team Durham will use this gift as an inspiration to help raise the fund prior to Homecoming this September.”

Please share this news with anyone who you think would like to receive it. Looking forward to celebrating with all of you at Homecoming, September 11-12, 2015.


Team Durham member Ray Olson (Linfield Class of 1954) message:

I know it won’t be easy for most of us, since we all reached deep into our pocket for the Coach Durham Statue project but Ooney is challenging us to “reach into our gut bags” and donate some more. Most likely some don’t know that the Bob and Janet Harrison Estate contributed quite a large amount of money to the Paul Durham Endowment Fund which brought the fund to over $170.000, a point where the goal of $200,000 is now indeed reachable. That is when I thought wow! two hundred thousand is within our reach. Then along comes Ooney, bless his soul, who is calling for us to make another donation before this fall’s Homecoming so the fund reaches this new goal.

Team Durham is sending this request to all who have donated to the Durham Statue.

For making a donation, Team Durham member Ray Olson will send you one, two or all three of the following DVDs he produced. Donors need to let Ray know by email ( which of these DVDs they want for their personal collections:
  • APPLES DON'T FALL FAR FROM THE TREE: The Legacy of Linfield's Paul Durham, 82 minutes DVD.
  • LINFIELD’S PAUL DURHAM: Highlights and Interviews of his Students, Athletes and Friends, 71 minutes DVD. (Note: This is similar, but not identical to "Apples Don't Fall Far from the Tree.")
  • FOUR SPECIAL MOMENTS IN LINFIELD SPORTS HISTORY: In 1998,  Ad Rutschman enshrined in College Football Hall of Fame, Scott Brosius named World Series MVP, Linfield beats Willamette and passes Notre Dame and Harvard for consecutive football winning seasons, and Linfield establishes its Athletic Hall of Fame and enshrines its first "class" -- Coaches Henry Lever, Paul Durham, Roy Helser, Ted Wilson, Ad Rutschman and Hal Smith, DVD.
And, if a donor played on a Paul Durham-coached Linfield football team or teams, they'll get copies of photos from an album his son, Terry Durham, recently discovered.

Thanks for your gifts to Paul Durham’s Endowment and statue.

If we can find Ooney’s address we will gladly send this to him!

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Anecdotes from Prof. Emeritus Vince Jacobs about Linfield

Linfield Prof. Emeritus Vincil D. “Vince” Jacobs (photo) joined the Linfield history faculty in 1967. He retired from full time teaching at the college in 2002 and taught online courses for the college until 2014.  Born in Corvallis, Ore., he is a 1954 graduate of Crook County High School (Prineville, Ore.) and received history bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Oregon. He earned his history doctoral degree from the University of Washington.  During his time at Linfield he served as chair of the history department and faculty executive council chair. The Linfield history department inaugurated international travel courses in 1975, when he took a group of students on a tour of Europe. Vince and his wife, Norma, live in McMinnville.

Wildcatville asked Vince for anecdotes of his time with Linfield. They include:

A Linfield grad, Jonas A. (also known as “Stein” and “Steine”) Jonasson was associated with Linfield for more than 60 years before he died in 1997. Holding the unofficial title of Linfield historian, his time at the college included serving as history department chair and dean of administration. At his death, he was history professor emeritus.

==”I was hired at Linfield recruited by Stein Jonasson in the summer of 1967.  I had taught at a Lutheran institution, Augustana College in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 1965-1966 and roundly hated it as it was a bastion of Lutheran orthodoxy in the Midwest and I am at best an agnostic.  I resolved never to teach at a religious institution.  But Georgie, the secretary of the Augustana graduate school of history phoned in a panic because Stein kept phoning and asking her to persuade me to apply to teach at Linfield.  I told her to give him my phone number in Seattle where was working on my Ph.D. at the University of Washington (UDub).  He phoned me right away.  

“Stein's effort to recruit me to teach at Linfield was at times amusing and tested my determination not to teach at another religious institution.  It was a successful effort on Stein's part but at the time I had no notion I would stay at Linfield for nearly 40 years.  

“Stein:  ‘Why don't you come down and visit us and let us show you around the college and the McMinnville community?’

“ ‘I'm just not interested,’ I replied.  ‘I do not want to teach at another religious college.’

“Stein: ‘It is true that we are a religious college but it is loosening up a lot.  Can you be more specific?’

‘Well, I'm not smoking right now but if I do smoke, I don't want to break any rules.’
“Stein: ‘Actually, it is just a few steps to a small cafe  and you can smoke there but if you want to smoke in your office no one is going say anything.’

“So the discussion continued and Stein seemed to have an answer for everything, including special hours and dress codes for women.  Time for the coup de grace, I thought.  ‘Also I drink!’

“Stein: 'While it is true that we had our faculty sign pledges, but we don't mind social drinking."  

“I had pretty much run out of excuses, so I agreed to visit.  I visited Linfield twice; the second time with my family, and after receiving assurances that the reservations I had about teaching at a religious institution were not a problem, I signed on - more in the interest of getting out of Seattle than coming to Linfield.  

“My interview with Harry Dillin, Linfield president, went well; I received the salary I wanted and agreed to start in the fall of 1967.  I had completed my residency at UDub and was preparing a prospectus for my dissertation.  I had the good fortunate to have Dr. David Pinkney as my University of Washington doctoral degree mentor - he was president-elect of the American Historical Association and a giant in the field of French history.   I took my family to Paris during the summer of 1968 and did research at the Archives Nationals and Bibliotech National and wrote my dissertation over the next four years while teaching a full load at Linfield.  My Ph.D. was awarded in 1972 and the Linfield faculty moved me quickly into faculty governance.  My dissertation was published by the University of Michigan Press and an attractive brochure was sent out to modern French historians across North America.

“The Linfield which hired me was mired in the old policies and I had to move quickly to help modernize it.”

== “When I first came to Linfield I quickly realized that Linfield was still anchored in the past with the policies and flavors that were very much like Augustana.  Perhaps the worst situation was the place of the faculty in the governance of the institution.  The College seemed to me to be run by various "empires" where people who were close to Harry Dillin were making decisions that were often contrary to the interests of the faculty and who used their influence to decide issues that should have been made primarily by the faculty in the best interests of a modern educational institution.  My wife and I rented an apartment from the College in Dana Hall and discovered that the carpets in the apartment were very dirty.  I went over to Cozine to request that the apartment be cleaned and was told that they wouldn't do it - that we would have to do it ourselves.  It was made clear to me that in order to get any attention on any issue I would have to learn how to get along with the power brokers of the College.

“We were just out of grad school and didn't have any money to do that but somehow managed to put aside enough to rent a carpet cleaner and so the job.  That and a host of other circumstances convinced me that I should plan on leaving after that first year, but instead I resolved to do what I could to change things.  I learned of one situation that gave me hope:  the year before the faculty bowed its neck and demanded that some men’s basketball players be dismissed from the program for shoplifting while on a trip to Alaska to play in games.  They were dismissed. This suggested to me that there was momentum to change the priorities of the College and put the faculty in charge of the governing of the institution.  With the help of Levi Carlile (now Linfield economics professor emeritus), I managed to move into a position of leadership for the faculty and was able, with cooperation of President Bjork, to bring Linfield into the modern world.”  

Cornelius H. Siemens was president of California’s Humboldt State University, 1950-1973. He served as interim Linifeld president, 1974-1975, after the presidency (1968-1974) of Gordon C. Bjork and before the (1975-1992) presidency of Charles U. Walker.  Siemens died in 1978 in California.

==“Corney Siemens was immensely popular with the Linfield faculty during the one year he served as interim president following the resignation of Gordon Bjork.

“I was chair of the Faculty Executive Council for that year and he consulted with me regularly as the College faced important decisions regarding who would be hired as the full time president.  He discussed every decision with me and relied on me to pass the word on to the faculty.  We tried to convince him to stay on as a regular appointee to the presidency but he declined, saying that he was dying of cancer.  He discussed Charlie Walker's credentials and gave him a very high rating for his hire.  We interviewed Charlie and partly on the basis of Corney's recommendation recommended to the Linfield Board of Trustees that he be hired. Charlie proved to be exactly what Linfield needed and was a great president.  After Corney died in California, we mourned his death.”

Photo of Vince Jacobs from 1972 Oak Leaves.

Gordon Bjork’s Linfield presidency ended May 31, 1974

Gordon Carl Bjork was Linfield College president, 1968-1974. His presidency ended May 31, 1974.

A Rhodes Scholar, Bjork was 32-years-old when he came to Linfield as president after serving as a “distinguished” economist at the Columbia University School of Business, according to the book, Inspired Pragmatism: An Illustrated History of Linfield College (2007).

When Bjork graduated in 1953 from Franklin High School in Seattle, Linfield offered him a $100 scholarship. But, Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth offered full scholarships. He chose Dartmouth, Bjork said in a Jan. 31, 1969, talk to the Rotary Club of McMinnville, according to club records.

A history graduate of Dartmouth, Bjork has a master’s degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford and a doctoral degree in economics from the University of Washington.

A great-nephew of Elam J. Anderson, Linfield’s president, 1932-1938, Bjork succeed Harry Dillin, a former Linfield faculty member who served as president 1943-1968.

Vince Jacobs, Linfield history professor emeritus, was chair of the Linfield Faculty Senate Executive Council. He presided at a Linfield faculty meeting on March 7, 1974, during which a resolution by motion saying the faculty had “no confidence” in Bjork’s presidential leadership passed.

Bjork submitted two letters resigning as Linfield president. The first followed the March 7, 1974, “no confidence” vote. The second was on April 1, 1974. Both were submitted to the Linfield Board of Trustees. The first was rejected, said Jacobs to “show that the board, not the faculty, was in control.” The second was accepted “apparently to avoid further polarization of the faculty,” said the McMinnville News-Register/N-R.

The last Linfield Commencement in which Bjork took part was Sunday May 12, 1974, in the Linfield oak grove. He did not speak at the event, but shook hands with each member of the Class of 1974 after they received their diploma.

After leaving Linfield, Bjork went on to a “distinguished” academic career at Claremont McKenna College (CMC) in California, where he was the first Jonathan B. Lovelace Professor of Economics and taught until his retirement in 2003, said Linfield Magazine (winter 2006). He is now an emeritus professor of CMC.

An article in CMC Magazine (winter 2015) is about Bjork welcoming generations of Claremont McKenna College students into his office and home and how they’re showing thanks to him with a named scholarship fund, professorship. Link to article here:



Bjork’s last speech as Linfield president was delivered on the University of Oregon (UO) campus in Eugene, Ore., Friday March 8, 1974, during the UO Winter Graduation Convocation. The speech was titled “1974-1984: the Challenge of Change”

While serving as Linfield president Bjork tried to land a president’s job at another college or university, Jacobs said in December 2016.

According to Jacobs, Bjork’s speech at the UO was related to Bjork being a finalist for the UO presidency. It was a “bizarre coincidence,” said Jacobs, that the speech came the day after the Linfield “no confidence” vote. Because of that vote Bjork withdrew as a UO presidential candidate, Jacobs said.

Thanks to University of Oregon Libraries Special Collections & University Archives, below is text of speech notes Bjork prepared and used and text of a news release about the speech issued by the University of Oregon News Bureau. While these are Bjork’s speech notes, they do not necessarily reflect exactly what Bjork said in his address.

===Speech notes used by Gordon C. Bjork, President, Linfield College in his University of Oregon Winter Graduation Convocation address on March 8, 1974===

1984 is a decade away. When George Orwell wrote his horrific predictions of social change forty years ago, his readers did not have to regard his prophesies with any sense of imminence. The observations I will share with you today about 1984 are not Orwellian in their scope, but their imminence comes from an explanation and extrapolation of current economic and demographic trends. We do not need to acquiesce in Orwell’s predictions for our society in 1984. We can choose otherwise. I want to suggest to you, however, that there are certain basic forces operative in our world which will make 1984 much different from 1974. We need to understand the nature of those forces and their implications on our future.

It is becoming commonplace among educated people to remark that we live in a world of accelerating change – not just change, but accelerating change. I want to suggest that we are living during one of those periods of discontinuity that historians use to mark the passage of one age of civilization to another. The changes do not have their source in the interaction of man with his environment.

There are two very powerful factors presently at work in American (and to lesser degrees in other parts of the industrially developed world) which will make 1984 very different from today. Those forces are economic and demographic change. The first factor which will effect a powerful change on the world as we know it is the end of rapid economic growth – the end of a century’s long process of increase in the standard of living. We have experienced a long and spectacular increase in the standard of living in our society, basically by the application of technology to the exploitation of natural resources. We have mined the earth’s crust to produce food and energy and consumed the capital provided us by nature. There is accumulating evidence that this process cannot be sustained at anything like the present rate, let alone increased rates, without the rapid exhaustion of resources. To the old saw, “You never had it so good,” I would add that we are never going to have it so good again, if “goodness” is measured by the conspicuous consumption of material goods.

We are presently facing an energy crisis and a food shortage. Some people regard these as temporary phenomena, and they might be classified as temporary



insofar as they are caused by temporary differential shifts in supply and demand. In a larger sense, however, they are not temporary situations capable of easy long range solution.

The snow pack in the Cascades and the Rockies may be heavier this winter and increase the capacity of the Bonneville power system. The Alaska pipeline may be built, and new refineries may be put “on-line.” We may have bumper harvests. But there are limits to our capacity to exploit the earth’s resources and the application of technology to extend those limits will be increasingly costly in terms of the capital and labor which must be expended to produce an equivalent quantity of thermal units, kilowatts, and calories. The limits I am speaking of will not be broached by turning out the lights, driving VWs, or eating organic vegetables.

Some alterations in consumption patterns are fairly obvious. In 1984 we are not likely to be consuming as much beef or bacon, because the process of converting plant protein to animal protein will have become too expensive. We will have forsaken our gas-glugging automotive juggernauts for mass transportation and personal transportation systems less consumptive in their construction and operation of fossil fuels. We will be well along in the process of abandoning our half-acre, split level ranch houses in suburbia for vertical construction of house room more economical in its use of land, materials, and energy. We may warm ourselves with warmer clothes rather than by heating the spaces we inhabit.

The other implications for our economy caus3ed by shortages of energy are not so obvious. You might be interested to reflect on the economic and technological consequences of a shortage of wood fuel in 18th Century England. As the price of wood for space heaving and iron smelting rose, it became profitable to mine coal. But coal mining necessitated heavy capital investments in the mines and the development of pumps to drain the mines and steam engines to power the pumps and railroad and canal systems to transport the coal, and so forth. The technological consequences of the shortage of wood for fuel were a process later called by economic historians “the Industrial Revolution.” An important element of the Industrial Revolution was the harnessing of fossil fuels to the production of human needs. The exhaustion of a traditional fuel source triggered enormous economic and social consequences.

We are going to have to develop alternative sources of power to replace fossil fuels. We are going to have to develop and implement alternative technologies to produce and use energy. I have no doubts about our scientific and technology capacity to develop alternatives. We will have an energy revolution. We should all be aware, however, that the alternative technologies, at least in the short run, are going to be capital intensive. The most important economic consequence of the energy shortage and the decreasing use of fossil fuels is the demand for capital investment which will result. In economists’ parlance, the ratio of capital to output and capital to labor will have to increase. For the capital output ratio to increase, the ratio of saving to income must increase. For the savings ratio to increase, the consumption ratio must decrease.



In 1974 we are already into a different sort of economic situation than we have known for many years. We face both unemployment and inflation because of difficulties in producing adequate quantities of some raw materials and finished goods. Some of these problems are traceable to natural scarcity, and some of them are due to an inadequate level of capital formation over the last several decades.

One of the reasons we have “never had it so good” has been that we have been consuming capital … natural capital in the form of oil, coal, soil fertility, and forests. When that capital is gone, we must return to consumption levels equal to natural production rates within a stable ecosystem.

A second reason we have “had it so good” is that in the last two decades we have consumed too much and invested too little in productive capital. In part, that is attributable to a set of social and political priorities which has spent large portions of our national treasure on foreign wars, expensive weaponry, domestic boondoggling and other expenditures which have interfered with out long-run ability to provide adequate food, housing, education, medical care, and culture to our population.

There has been much criticism of corporate profits in recent months. May I say, as an economist, that if corporate profits after taxes are the primary source of investment funds for the building of capital in our society, they have been inadequate to maintain, much less increase, the capital output ratio. I am not suggesting necessarily that corporate profits must increase. I am suggesting that some social means of generating an adequate level of real capital formation will be to be instituted to avoided serious declines in production by 1984.

My comments about saving and investment may sound “old fashioned,” but they are going to become new fashioned in the years ahead if we choose to maintain our material well being in the longer run. I predict that most Americans will consume fewer kilowatts and calories and natural resources in 1984 than in 1974.

What are the social and political implications of our changing economic situation? They are cloudy and complex, but let me make some predictions. The decrease in the rate of economic growth and the increase in the saving rate necessary to create alternative energy technologies are going to decrease consumption for some nations and groups within our nation.

The available historical and comparative evidence on the distribution of personal income indicates that economic growth has been accomplished by equalization of personal incomes. Indeed, it has been the promise of growth which has been used both to justify and explain economic inequality. The promise of improvement has helped the poor to accept less in the short run in expectation of more in the long run. What happens in a steady state economy? I believe we will see greater equality. But we should all realize that greater inequality in the future will not be achieved by raising the rate of growth in income of the poor while allowing the



consumption by the well-to-do to increase more slowly. It will come about as some people become absolutely less wealthy to increase the income of the poor. That threatens social confrontation in our society. The rapid inflation we are experiencing is the first chapter in the story of increased social tension which will result from the pressure of rising expectations on natural limits to economic growth. Its political consequences in England at present are an example of what we may expect in our society in the next ten years.

Private property in land and natural resources has been on enormous importance in America for several centuries. It has been a spur to economic development. It has also been a primary determinant of income inequality. I predict that we will see substantial changes in the private control of land and natural resources.

I predict that we will soon see, in Oregon, legislation which prevents the conversion of privately owned agricultural land to purposes other than agricultural production and tax policies which encourage and enforce its productive use. I don’t predict that the nationalization of land and natural resources is a near-term possibility, but I do believe that tax, zone and use regulations will substantially lessen the present perquisites of private ownership before 1984.

The corporation and the labor union are both socially created and sanctioned entities appropriate to an economic system where capital formation and size are social objectives. I believe we have reached a situation in which the power of a small number of individuals to privately control production and distribution in accordance with their great market power is nearing an end.

While the unbridled power of corporations and labor unions may have been a necessary counterpart of rapid economic growth, they are not a necessary part of the difficult adjustments which will be necessary in the no-growth or slow-growth economy of the future. We are becoming increasingly reluctant about allowing social objectives in production in income distribution to be determined by General Motors, Standard Oil, the Teamsters Union, or the American Medical Association. And there will be fewer economic reasons to allow them their present powers in the future. The decline in economic growth and the increasing needs for capital are going to lead to some substantial changes in our major economic institutions – corporations and labor unions.

A second fundamental force of equally far-reaching social consequences of the character of our society in 1984 is demographic change. Those of you graduating today have witnessed more rapid demographic change than perhaps any members of any society have ever experienced. You were part of an expansion in the birthrate, and you have contributed to a decline in the birthrate which is unparalleled in the history of western man for its rapidity. I want to explore two of the many far-reaching social consequences of demographic change.

The first is in social roles for women. The roles of women and the structure of the family in the United States over the past two centuries have been primarily determined by rapid population growth. As long as the population of a sparsely settled land presented unlimited opportunities for expansion, the role of women and the role of the family developers of an increased labor force shaped a whole set of cultural attitudes. Women had primary responsibility for the production and



rearing of “human capital” and it was an all-important and all-encompassing social role. The pre-1945 decline in the birthrate can be explained as a national response to changes in the economic costs and benefits to the family of having children. The bulge in the birthrate after World War II was accompanied by a temporary return to earlier social attitudes and values appropriate to the role of women in society. It was the complex sociological and economic characteristics of this role which affected the social and economic opportunities open to women in the 1950’s and earlier ‘60’s. The “Women’s Liberation Movement” has been a rational and predictable response to the rapid decline in the birthrate in the 1960’s. Its intensity can be explained in terms of the rapidity with which the birthrate had declined. Low birth rates in the 1970’s will lead to complete social and economic equality for women before 1984.

While I dislike the concept of unisex – “vive la differencelet us hope that this rejection of unisex is neither male nor female chauvinism, but part of a positive affirmation of pluralism and respect for all those aspects of individual identity which give a civilized society its strength and creativity.

I can think of no institution in our society which has been changed more substantially by rapid demographic change over the last two decades than the university. The “baby boom” which followed World War II created a tremendous demand for primary teachers, then secondary school teachers, then university professors. But the demand for elementary and secondary school teachers also created a demand for professors to educate those teachers.

And the demand for university professors created a demand for university teachers to educate the increase in university teachers. Universities had two other forces of similar magnitude hit them concurrently. There was a rapid increase in the percentage of the population enrolling in universities, and after 1958 there was a crash program on the part of the Federal Government to produce more scientists and engineers for government-supported programs in basic research and the space program. The growth of universities caused them to divert much of their attention to educating more professors. There is an equivalent phenomenon in the theory of economic growth called the “acceleration principle” – growth generates growth. (I should add that we are now experiencing a related phenomenon – deceleration leads to decline.)

Rapid growth in the 1960’s did other things to universities than increase their size. I wish to dwell only on the effect of the demand for professors on their values and objectives. Behind all of the rhetoric of the past two decades about higher education, there was one rationale for universities which the public, and consequently, their legislators really “bought.” And that was that higher education was necessary because it provided “trained manpower” for the needs of a rapidly growing society. I believe that is one important function of higher education, but it is only one part of the reason why universities are so important in our society. One of the effects of the demand for professors and the public rhetoric about training manpower is that the general education functions of universities – particularly for undergraduates – were ignored.

Oh, yes, students were still required to meet distribution requirements, and there was public rhetoric about the importance of breath and exposure to the “liberal



arts.” But in many of the academic disciplines traditionally involved in cultivating the liberal arts, the emphasis has shifted to “manpower training.” I speak from experience when I say that in the economics department we tried to teach undergraduates the modes of analysis and the workings of the economic system. But we also fashioned our course requirements about what was needed for graduate school. And our priorities and values were such that we really measured our success in how many of our graduates got jobs at other universities – particularly other universities which were also known for their research and graduate education.

These values and priorities are pervasive in most of the best “senior” institutions in our country, and they are even perversely adopted by many faculty in community colleges who absorbed them from their teachers and try to fashion their students and their institutions in the same mold. It happens in every discipline. In my own college, I continually hear academic requirements and academic programs discussed in terms of “what the students need to get into graduate school.” Demographic change and the rhetoric of manpower training have conspired to distort our educational objectives. Universities don’t just train people for jobs, they educated people for living.

I would like to make a distinction between “educating persons” and “training manpower.” The term “educate” comes from a Latin verb “educo” meaning “to lead out.” Education is the process of leading a person out of his ignorance into an understanding of self and the world. Many members of universities pay lip service to the liberal arts, but when they speak of them, they often are referring to a vaguely defined set of subjects in the arts and humanities. Another way of considering the liberal arts and their place in our society and our educational institutions is to consider them to be a set of skills and attitudes which reflect civility and maturity in our society. I am referring to the habits of disciplined analysis of material and reasoned exposition of ideas, a life style which has form, pattern, and patterns of behavior from the student of art, literature, music, and history. I believe they can also be acquired from the student of accounting, economics, physics, or forestry. What is important to the acquisition of the liberal arts by the leader is not what academic disciplines are studied, but how they are studied. The measure of a person’s acquisition of the liberal arts is his ability to live creatively and responsibly in a world whose spatial and temporal dimensions are wide and complex. Those of you receiving degrees today have acquired, hopefully, some skill in the “liberal arts” as well as professional competence in particular disciplines.

One of the results of the rapid expansion of all levels of education, but particularly universities, over the past two decades has been an overemphasis on “training manpower” to the exclusion of educating persons.

To a large degree the demand for university teachers in recent years has led university professors, particularly, alas, in the humanities and social sciences



to see their role as the reproduction of another generation of university teachers. The university has trained manpower for the university rather than educating persons to live liberated and artful lives in a complex world. The distortion in objectives has partially been a consequence of the effects of demographic change in the labor market requirements of our society. I profoundly hope that one of the beneficial consequences of the depression in university employment will be a reemphasis on the part of universities of their role in educating persons as well as training manpower. One does not study history, music, or physics only to become an historian, musician, or physicist. These, or any other discipline, should contribute to an understanding and enjoyment of living in an age of discontinuity.

What consequence do economic and demographic change have for universities between 1974 and 1984? Their role as reproducers of another generation of academics will continue to decrease in importance. Hopefully, they will help us solve the problems of our age. The development of alternative energy sources and techniques will provide plenty of challenge for our scientists and engineers. The strains on the social fabric created by rapid economic and demographic change pose enormous challenges for our social scientists. I personally see in the necessity for ending the materialistic life styles of the Sixties, the possibilities for a renaissance in arts and humanities in the 1970’s. Let us amuse ourselves with music, art, and drama, rather than jet vacations, gas guzzling automobiles and Saturday strolls in the asphalt deserts and plastic islands of our great suburban shopping centers.

The percentage of 18 to 22-year-olds enrolled in universities is declining and the number of 18 to 22-year-olds will decrease before 1984. I believe that one of the most important thrusts of institutions of higher education in the coming years will be the continuing education of mature adults. I believe that education will increasingly come to the regarded as a lifelong process not to be confined to and concentrated on 18 to 22-years-olds.

There is great anxiety, frustration and conflict in our society. Part of this, I am sure, is an unavoidable consequence of rapid change. But I am sure a great deal of it could be avoided if the American people had a greater understanding of the scope and nature of our problems and the development and functioning of our institutions. Anxiety arises from fear of the unknown. Frustration comes from inability to secure desired responses from the framework in which one lives. And conflict arises from a lack of consensus about means and ends.

Reference is often made to the “generation gap” as a unique phenomenon of our time. I believe it is a unique phenomenon arising from the perception of youth that the problems and solutions of the past are not those of tomorrow and from a failure on the part of the older generation to see that they did not inherit their institutions as eternal verities engraved in stone.

Our institutions of higher education should be furnishing the cohesion which prevents the fabric of our society from being rent by a generation gap. In the past, universities have supposedly functioned in the difficult and ambiguous role of both conservative upholders of continuity in social institutions and liberal critics of the



status quo. It is my personal observation that our universities have not fulfilled that ambiguous role very well in recent years, and I would assign to education as a whole, and particularly higher education, considerable responsibility for the generally inadequate level of understanding of our problems. The avoidance of an Orwellian 1984 will depend on the success of our universities in giving leadership in the next decade.

There is a long tradition in literature of men finding meaning and purpose and relief from the absurdities of civilization in the wilderness. Locke and Rousseau both speculated on political arrangements in the absence of civilization.

Jefferson saw a simple agrarian society as a bulwark of democracy. Thoreau, Emerson, Whitman, Kerouac and Kesey have all celebrated in different ways that revelations and relevance of the wilderness to the human condition. You may remember that in 1984 Orwell’s protagonist finally escapes the unbearable regimentation and circumscription of his society by escaping to the wilderness.

Last September I went with a group of faculty and students from my college for a six-day sojourn in the Sisters’ Wilderness area in Central Oregon. During one day when my friends were out pitting themselves against the mountain, I stayed behind in the silence of a beautiful alpine meadow. It was my first experience of walking solitude in many years. I listened to the burbling of a brook and felt the brush of an alpine wind cooled by the Collier glacier, warmed by a thin September sun and scented by the noble firs of the mountainside. I remembered Thoreau’s phrase, “In wilderness, the preservation of the world.”

The meaning of that experience for our preservation in the midst of the changes which will take place between 1974 and 1984 came to me in that solitude. It was a realization of the continuity of the natural world and the discontinuities of the human condition. I came down from the mountain with a different perspective. In the discontinuities of the next decade, let us work within the constraints of our natural world to change that which we can and accept that which we can’t. If we keep our perspective, Orwell’s prophesies never need be fulfilled. And if you have found the ramblings of a philosophizing economist hard to take, remember the word of one sage critic of our dismal science: “In economics the problems never change, only the answers.”



Gordon C. Bjork, “1974-1984: The Challenge of Change,” March 8, 1974, in “Commencement Speeches,” University Archives alphabetical subject files, UA Ref 1, Box 5, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon.

==News Release from University of Oregon News Bureau

Eugene Oregon

March 8, 1974 sh

Commencement address

“The avoidance of an Orwellian 1984 will depend on the success of our universities in giving leadership in the next decade,” said Linfield College President Gordon C. Bjork in a commencement address to a standing room-only audience at the University of Oregon Friday (March 8).

A total of 777 candidates were presented for degrees at the UO’s winter term commencement exercises. Some 1200 persons attended the event.

Bjork predicted that as a result of economic and demographic change, the role of universities “as reproducers of another generation of academics” will continue to decrease in importance. “Hopefully, they will help us solve the problems of our age,” he said.

 “I believe that one of the most important thrusts of institutions of higher education in the coming years will be the continuing education of mature adults,” stated the Linfield president.

The thesis of Bjork’s remarks was “we are living during one of those periods of discontinuity that historians use the mark the passage from one age of civilization to another.”

He predicted a decline in economic growth and increasing needs for capital, which he said would lead to “substantial changes in our major economic institutions – corporations and labor unions.”

Bjork commented on “a decline in the birthrate which is unparalleled in the history of western men for its rapidity” and predicted that low birth rates in the 1970’s will lead to “complete social and economic equality of women before 1984.”

News Bureau, 170 Susan Campbell Hall, University of Oregon 97403 (503) 686-3134


“News Release: Commencement address”, March 8, 1974, in “Commencement Speeches,” University Archives alphabetical subject files, UA Ref 1, Box 5, Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Oregon.



Linfield Prof. emeritus Vince Jacobs (of the Linfield History faculty in 1974 and chair of the Linfield Faculty Senate Executive Council in the 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 academic years) said in December 2016, “From my perspective, Gordon was rightly ordered in his commitment to the liberal arts but simply could not raise money to sustain Linfield. The College was nearing bankruptcy by 1974, and Gordon told me that the Phil Renshaw, chair of the Linfield Board of Trustees, told him to either make something of Linfield or shut it down. Gordon also talked of liquidating the Linfield’s property and remaining financial resources and distributing the proceeds to the Linfield faculty. I had come to the conclusion that he wanted to move on and would do so at any cost. I had decided to offer the faculty my resignation as Linfield Faculty Executive Council chair because of my inability to influence Bjork and to suggest that a motion of no confidence in Gordon leadership as president was needed. Several weeks before the March 7, 1974, motion, Profs Bruce Baldwin (Business) and Dave Hansen (Economics) had raised the possibility of a motion in the Business/Accounting department and. That department sent Prof. Levi Carlile (Economics) to talk to me and ask me to support it. Since I was already thinking along that line, I agreed on the condition that total control of the motion and its after effects would be in my hands. They agreed and I laid plans along with Prof Carlyle and Marvin Murphy (Business). I insisted on absolute secrecy until we brought it to the faculty. I put out the word that we would seek an executive session to eliminate everyone but voting faculty members. I also took steps to ensure that supporters of the motion would not debate it with opponents, this on the belief that if we tried to debate it, the session would fall into the fatal “’tis to, ‘taint neither” debate. Having served as chair of the Faculty Executive Council in the academic year prior to the academic 1973-1974, when the vote took place. So, I was quite familiar with faculty voting patterns and thought we would pass the no confidence motion by three votes. It passed by six votes. After the vote I was criticized by newspapers for the faculty’s role in pursuing Gordon’s resignation. I take no pride in my role in bringing about his departure. However, to this day I remain confident that we did the right thing. Linfield has prospered under Presidents Walker and Hellie. Its endowment has risen from a quarter of a million dollars to over $100 million and its future is now assured. It has succeeded by careful management, a devoted faculty and an enthusiastic supporting alumni. Who could ask for anything more?!”

"As Faculty Senate Executive Council president. I wanted to avoid debate prior to a “no confidence” motion and vote at a faculty meeting because I knew faculty members Frank Nelson and Joe Ban would not be able to restrain themselves,” said Linfield Prof. emeritus Vince Jacobs in December 2016. He was a member of the Linfield History faculty in 1974 and chair of the Linfield Faculty Senate Executive Council in the 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. During a March 7, 1974, faculty meeting on campus, “I had Prof. Jim Duke sit beside Joe Ban to keep him quiet. And, I assigned Prof. Levi Carlyle to monitor Frank Nelson. Frank and Joe very much so did want to speak. Instead we heard Jim and Levi saying "sit down, Joe" and "sit down, Frank." Otherwise, those in our camp maintained discipline. After faculty members Win Dolan, Stephen Beckham, Forrest Blodgett, and Gordon Frazee offered sturdy defenses of Gordon, there was silence. I moved for the meeting go into executive session. That meant faculty members teaching a full load could remain in the room (the Faculty-Trustee Room of Northup Library, now T. J. Day Hall) and could vote. Part time teachers could not vote and, thus, were excluded. As was his usual practice, Gordon presided at the meeting. He heard a no confidence motion was going to be presented at the meeting and packed it with his administrative employees. Plus, his wife, Susan, attended. Because the meeting went into executive session, Susan, administrative employees and part-time teachers left the room. Gordon remained. By the nature of his appointment as president, Gordon was a member of the faculty. After they were gone a few long moments passed. Then, I called for the question and requested a secret ballot. The final vote was 36-30 in favor of the “no confidence” resolution about Gordon’s leadership as Linfield president. All of those defenders of Gordon later told me that they thought that we were doing the right thing but they spoke for Gordon out of a sense of loyalty to Gordon.


Below are December 2016 comments by Linfield Prof. emeritus Vince Jacobs (of the Linfield History faculty in 1974 and chair of the Linfield Faculty Senate Executive Council in the 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 academic years) titled “The college that came in from the cold.”

Here are some of the more important steps we took to move Linfield out of the Bible college identity and transformed it into a modern liberal arts college.

They are not listed in chronological order simply because I cannot remember the sequence of their acceptance by the college.

The best sources for them are the faculty minutes, which are filed in administrative records. I'm not sure that I have listed all of them but will search my memory banks for more info.

Since I came out of public educational institutions, I was not a good fit for the “religiosity” of Linfield (1967). The push for taking the steps were approved in general by Gordon. But, he proceeded gingerly because of the church college he was leading.

Step for Change 1. -- A salary schedule that eliminated salaries based in part on gender and/or degree. I felt Harry Dillin hired women as faculty members on the basis of their vulnerability. Also, Harry would give promotions without increasing pay. One of the consequences was astounding. Prof. Hal Smith in Physical Education had been promoted to full professor by Harry but was paid at the bottom of the salary list. After the new salary schedule was implemented; Hal went from the bottom to the top salary because of his long service to the college and the full professorship he held. For two years after, Hal would bring his salary notice to me and ask if there had been a mistake. I assured him that it was legitimate. For what it is worth, when I asked Prof. Levi Carlile to develop a faculty salary schedule he did so. When I asked Gordon to adopt it he invited me over to the Linfield President’s House to discuss it. After a half dozen beers, Gordon told me that if I could get a consensus on it from the faculty he would adopt it. We got it and I was a hero to a good number of faculty. In fact, Levi deserved the credit for it because he designed it. I think it the salary schedule still in effect in the college today.

Step for Change 2. -- A tenure system based on university standards across the country. This replaced a system where the president of the college awarded tenure as he wished. Suffice to say, faculty members would curry favor to get it and would avoid causing any problems in fear of losing it. We applied the standards of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and set a tenure decision for the sixth year of probationary status. According to those standards, once tenured a faculty could only be fired for malfeasance or failure to perform according to our institutional standards.

Step for Change 3. -- A medical plan that we called a "Cadillac Plan," voted by the faculty in lieu of pay raises one year. It provided superb insurance coverages for almost every conceivable problem.  It has been modified as medical expenses have sky-rocketed.

Step for Change 4. -- An equitable retirement system that all professional employees were covered. Up until the President Vivian Bull administration it was very lucrative. She managed to reduce it to much more modest proportions.

Step for Change 5. -- A sabbatical leave program, that funded faculty for professional activity, especially scholarship endeavors; it was honored as much in the breach as in the observance.
Step for Change 6. -- Faculty governance to replace a system where decisions were made by a cabal. Emoluments tended to flow based on proximity to power. Thus, the football coach, a scientist or so, and the Cozine maintenance bosses ruled the roost. My first committee assignment was on the Library Committee of the Faculty Senate Executive Council. The chair of the committee was a chemistry professor who allocated over half of the library budget for purchasing chemical abstracts. When I first arrived at Linfield in 1967, it was suggested several times that my wife and I have our two children join a choral group because it was essential to me having a successful career at Linfield. The group was organized and directed by the wife of a very influential businessman and Baptist friend of the college. We refused. Another example, the four of us -- my wife and our kids -- lived in a Dana Hall rental apartment on campus. The carpets needed cleaned. I went over to Cozine and requested the cleaning. I was coldly informed I had to do it myself. This was at a time when my wife and I had to stretch to meet expenses. I was told I needed to learn to get along with people if I wanted get things done. Those circumstances and others were sufficient motivation to take steps to get the faculty involved in a meaningful way in governing the college.

Step for Change 7. -- We made Ph.Ds. the standard degree requirement for new hires, with an exception for business administration.

Step for Change 8. -- We eliminated the differential for dorm hours. At the time when I arrived in 1967, women had to be in their rooms by 10 o'clock in the evening; men could stay out until midnight. The hours were reset to the same for everybody.  The dress codes were later relaxed and eventually students were allowed to have beer in their dorm rooms.


This timeline based on newspaper stories and other sources. To converse space, paragraph marks have been removed. Some “stories” are notes related to story content.

=Fri., Jan. 4, 1974 – Story in Oregonian. Committee named to search for a new UO president because current UO President Robert Clark reaches mandatory retirement age June 1975. Oregonian.

= Fri., Jan. 4, 1974 – Story in Oregonian. Committee named to search for a new UO president. “Panel seeks UO leader” first paragraph: EUGENE – A search committee has been named to select a new president for the University of Oregon. Dr. Robert Clark will retire from the post in June, 1975, when he reaches mandatory retirement age. Oregonian.
=Wed., March 6, 1974 – Story in Eugene Register-Guard. Linfield President Gordon C. Bjork will deliver University of Oregon Winter Graduation Convocation address Fri., March 8, 1974, on UO campus in Eugene. “777 to receive degrees.” The University of Oregon’s Winter Graduation Convocation will be held Friday for a class that includes 777 candidates for baccalaureate and advanced degrees. Giving the address will be Gordon C. Bjork, president of Linfield College. Title of his address will be “1975-1984: The Challenge of Change.” University President Robert Clark will confer degrees on the class, which is comprised out 539 candidates for baccalaureate degrees, 174 candidates for masters degrees, and 64 candidates for doctoral degrees. Candidates who complete all requirements for their degrees by the close of winter term on March 15 will receive the official degrees at a later date. The March 8 services will be at 3 p.m. in the ballroom of the Erb Memorial Union.

=Thur., March 7, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. During a Linfield faculty meeting, faculty members voted 36-30 in favor of a “no confidence” resolution about Gordon C. Bjork’s leadership as Linfield president. Point of information based on Wed., April 3, 1974, McMinnville News-Register/N-R story.

=Fri., March 8, 1974 – Linfield President Gordon C. Bjork delivers University of Oregon Winter Graduation Convocation address in Eugene. Point of information based on info from UO.

=Thur., March 14, 1974 – Story in Eugene Register-Guard. “Linfield president resigns”. AP/Associated Press story in Eugene Register-Guard. (On Thur., March 7, 1974, or some point thereafter Linfield President Gordon C. Bjork submitted a letter of resignation to the Linfield Board of Trustees. The trustees rejected it on Sun., March 31, 1974, or Mon., April 1, 1974). Linfield president resigns. McMINNVILLE (AP) – Gordon Bjork has resigned as president of Linfield College, where last week most of the faculty indicate they lacked confidence in his leadership, but trustees must still act on the resignation. “I have offered my resignation,” he said. “The decision of the board is whether they want to accept that resignation or not.” Bjork said if the trustees refuse his resignation and ask him to stay on, either at a proposed executive board meeting this Saturday or later, he will set certain conditions. He did not specific what they would be. The 36-30 vote of no confidence reportedly was based on faculty dissatisfaction with economy measures taken by Bjork to meet financial pressure at the private college of 1,000 students.

=Tue., April 2, 1974 – Story in Eugene Register-Guard. President of Linfield steps down. UPI/United Press International story in Eugene Register Guard. (On Mon., April 1, 1974, Linfield President Gordon C. Bjork submitted a second resignation to the Linfield Board of Trustees. The trustees accepted it. Point of information based on Wed., April 3, 1974, McMinnville News-Register story.) President of Linfield steps down. McMINNVILLE (UPI) – Trustees of Linfield College Monday accepted the resignation of school President Gordon C. Bjork but rejected a faculty “no confidence” resolution and Bjork’s first offer to quit. The resignation which was accepted was submitted by Bjork Monday. In it effective May 31 and was accepted with “deep regret.” Bjork, 39, a Rhodes scholar and Columbia University economics professor before going to Linfield in 1968 will receive pay and fringe benefits for the remainder of the year. The faculty voted earlier 36-30 for a “no confidence” resolution. Bjork submitted a resignation March 8 effective Dec. 31 or at the trustees pleasure. This was rejected Monday. Then Bjork offered a second resignation, indicating the faculty division would make his position untenable. This was accepted. A search committee will be named to seek a new president. Eugene Register-Guard.

=Wed., April 3, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. Gordon Bjork will leave Linfield Fri., May 31, 1974, Interim president to be appointed April 5, 1974. Gordon Bjork will leave Linfield May 31. Interim president to be appointed April 5. Gordon Bjork will no longer be president of Linfield College May 31. The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees rejected a “no confidence” vote by faculty and Bjork’s resignation. However, the president submitted a second resignation apparently to avoid further polarization of the faculty and it was accepted by the committee. The 10-member committee took the action after deliberations which began Sunday morning (March 31) and went on until Monday afternoon (April 1). They heard Professor (Winthrop) Dolan speaking for faculty members who opposed the no confidence resolution and Professor Vincil Jacobs speaking in favor of it. Also present were former student body president Mike Martinez and Dan Sloss, representing the student body. The action against Bjork began with a petition signed by faculty members opposing his administrative policies and resulted in the 36-30 vote against him at a faculty meeting March 7. Last week a second petition supporting the president of the college was turned in with signatures of some 30 other faculty members. The next action of the executive committee is expected to be appointment of an interim president on April 5. Robert Sutro of Los Angeles, president of the board of trustees, reportedly had indicated that he regretted Bjork’s departure. “We are enormously indebted to President Bjork for the constructive and progressive efforts he has made in furthering the best interests of higher education at Linfield,” Sutro stated to the press. “As we look to the future it is time for us to close ranks and proceed with the important task of providing the financial muscle for Linfield’s future growth. Excellent groundwork has been laid by Dr. Bjork and his staff.” Bjork is expected to make an official statement later in the week.

=Wed., May 8, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. Linfield plans its 1974 commencement on campus to be held Sun., May 12, 1974. Story, headlined “Linfield plans its commencement” says Linfield 1974 Commencement will be held Sunday, May 12, on the Linfield campus. Commencement speaker John Storrs has “received many awards from the American Institute of Architects and is well known for his use of western woods and harmonization of buildings with the landscape.” His recent work in Oregon includes Salishan at the coast Lakeridge High School in Lake Oswego. The story also said Rev. Paul A. Jones is minister of New Hope Baptist Church in Sacramento. “He is the first black man to ever hold the positon of chaplain of the California State Senate.” And, the story said the sisters Emerson are “retired college teachers and McMinnville civic leaders.”

=Wed., May 8, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. Linfield (financial) deficit described. Linfield College has a deficit of $1 million in its current operating budget. Truman Joyner, treasurer of the institution reported the deficit to a meeting of students, faculty and alumni Monday meeting and explained what he thought had to be done. “At present we estimate the school year 1973-74 will result in in a further deficit of about $175,000 --- partly due to the drop in enrollment in the second semester,” he explained. “This will bring the current operating fund deficit to about $992,000 – almost a million – at June 30, 1974. The current bank loans at that date are estimated at $500,000 and the note to the endowment fund at $300,000 – a total of $800,000. Accrued expenses and liabilities, net of current assets, make up the balance of the deficit of $1 million. “It becomes obvious that we cannot afford any further major deficits,” he said. “The limit has been reached.” He went on to explain that the 1974-75 budget – with a proposed 5 percent salary cut and no reduction in academic program – will produce an estimated deficit of about $50,000. Joyner reassured the audience that Linfield was still a “solvent and going corporation.” The solution, he said was simply to restore the current operating fund deficit, reduce the 1974-75 deficit by $75,000 for interest. Enrollment of just 50 new students, he said would wipe out a remaining $75,000 deficit. To balance 1974-75 budget, 100 new students would have to be found. He concluded, “I would challenge the faculty and the students to go out and recruit those 100 new students. I challenge the trustees to raise that million dollars. These things must, and I believe, can be done. There seems to me to be no other alternatives.” At a special meeting earlier Monday, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees moved toward a special effort to “push ahead with a vigorous program” of financial development involving trustees, alumni, churches, and all other college constituencies. Funds are to be raised to reduce the college deficit and to sustain and improve the academic program. There are no plans at present for diminishing the academic program or staff, and the newly imitated year round Linfield Plan, beginning May 19th will be fully implemented. Specific plans concerning academic and financial matters will be made in consultation with the interim president to succeed Gordon C. Bjork, who will leave the post May 31. The entire Board of Trustees will meet June 15. The Executive Committee expressed faith in the future of the college pointing out that “Linfield has tremendous assets in its plant, its faculty, its students, its endowment and to the good will of thousands of alumni and other friends. The Committee acknowledged candidly that Linfield College has a major deficit which must be substantially reduced, but also point out that all colleges and universities are facing increased operating costs, decreasing enrollments and the pressure of inflation. A petition asking that Linfield be “re-established in its traditional role as a disciplined, patriotic Christian College” was signed by forty-six persons in the community and forwarded to Robert Sutro, chairman of the board of trustees. Reported to be represented were financial institutions, an insurance company, contractors, electronics manufacturers, suppliers etc. Included were former officers of the College, two former deans and a number of retired faculty members. The petition supported an earlier offer to head a campaign to raise $1 million to “re-establish Linfield College in its traditional role.” Earlier in the week it was reported that a meeting of the American Baptist Church of Oregon in Eugene had urged its members to renew their close ties with the college with contributions and by asking that it return to its role as a “Christian College.”
=Wed., May 15, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. Story reports on speech delivered by Linfield Sun., May 12, 1974, commencement speaker John Storrs to 1974 Linfield graduates. “Keep your sense of humor” Architect urges grads to creative thinking. “Always ask the question why, maintain a sense of humor, and do your own thing,” was the advice given to 178 Linfield College graduates Sunday afternoon (May 12, 1974) commencement by John Storrs, Portland architect and commencement speaker. Storrs called upon the class to be creative. He said, “The act of creativity is in going there, not in arriving.” Storrs turned to environmental problems and told his audience “get your guard up before this valley is ruined.” He also noted that in the field of architecture that women’s liberation could mean smaller houses in the future plus a great development of nursery schools. The commencement was held in the oak grove on the college campus under threatening but dry skies. In the morning baccalaureate in Melrose Hall auditorium the Rev. Paul A. Jones of Sacramento, Calif., in his sermon said that Christ “remains the same and gives you the power to adapt.” During the commencement Linfield for the first time gave Certificates of Merritt for Community Service to two McMinnville residents. The recipients were retired sisters, the Misses Helen and Sybil Emerson. They were cited for their service to both the college and the community. Storrs received the honorary degree of doctor of humane letters and the Rev. Mr. Jones the honorary degree of doctor of divinity.
=Wed., May 22, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. Winthrop Dolan will take reins at Linfield as interim president until selection of an acting president. “Dolan will take reins at Linfield until selection of new president.” Linfield College Board Chairman Robert Sutro has announced that Winthrop W. Dolan, Vice President, would assume administrative responsibility for Linfield College on June 1 and act in this capacity until an interim president has been named by the board. Dr. Dolan will assume responsibility upon the completion of Gordon Bjork’s current tenure at president May 31. This is the second time Dr. Dolan has served as chief administrator for Linfield College. He was acting president during the summer of 1968 following the retirement of President Harry Dillin and during the search for a new president. Dr. Dolan joined the Linfield faculty in 1948 as professor mathematics and dean of the faculty. He has been a member of the faculty since that time. He is currently professor of mathematics and chairman of the mathematics department and has also served as vice-president Linfield since 1968. Dr. Dolan was closely associated with the Linfield Research Institute during its early years and served as Assistant Director during the years 1956-59. He came to Linfield after teaching experience at the University of Oklahoma, Denison University and Bacone College, Oklahoma.  Dolan holds the B.A. degree from Denison University and received his A.M. degree from Harvard and his Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma in1947. He has authored numerous papers chiefly related to field emission his primary area of concern during his close association with the Linfield Research Institute. Dolan has been active in community affairs in the McMinnville area. Dr. Dolan is married and has three children, a daughter, Mrs. John Huneke, Alameda, Calif.; a son, Edwin G. Dolan, Norwich, Vermont, and a son, John W. Dolan, Davis. Calif.

=June 5, 1974 – Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. Pending board vote, Cornelius Siemens will be named Linfield interim president. Pending board vote - California man named interim Linfield head. The Executive Committee of the Linfield College Board of Trustees announced Monday (June 3, 1974) it is recommending the appointment of Dr. Cornelius H. Siemens as Interim President of Linfield. Subject to the approval of the full board in its annual meeting on June 15, Dr. Siemens will assume the office of Interim President effective August 1 for one year during the board’s search for a new president. Dr. Siemens served as President of Compton College from 1946-1970 and then of Humboldt State University, Arcata, Calif., until his resignation last year. Since then Dr. Siemens has been resident director for International Programs in the United Kingdom for the California State University. He is currently in residence at Oxford, England, and anticipates returning to the United States by July 15 in preparation for work at Linfield.
=Wed., June 19, 1974 –Story in McMinnville News-Register/N-R. “Linfield board gives its approval interim president appointment.” First two paragraphs: At its annual meeting on the campus Saturday, the Linfield College Board of Trustees unanimously confirmed the recommendation of the Executive Committee to appoint Dr. Cornelius Siemens interim president of the college effective August 1. Dr. Siemens, who is currently in England, will return to the U.S. in the middle of July. Sixth and seventh paragraphs: In further action the board named a committee to search for a permanent president. The committee will be chaired by Richard E. Ice of Oakland, Calif., and will begin its work in July. Among other actions by the board, a budget for 1974-75 calling for expenditures of $2, 446,000 was approved.

=Wed., Sept 18, 1974—Story in Eugene Register-Guard. “Michigan man named U of O president.” Story includes -William Beaty Boyd, 51-year-old president of Central Michigan University, today was named Oregon State Board of Higher Education as the 12th president of the University of Oregon. -Boyd will succeed President Robert Clark when Clark retires next July 1. “A U of O presidential search committee spent 5 ½ months reviewing the qualification of some 400 nominees to replace Clark, who has been president since August, 1969. It brought a handful of likely candidates, including Boyd, to the university campus last May for interviews. “The committee then sent the board the names of the four persons it considered the most outstanding of the candidates it
When Gordon Bjork joined the faculty of Claremont McKenna College in California (CMC) in 1974 it was Claremont College. In 1976 the college became coeducational and changed its name to Claremont McKenna College.

Gordon Bjork’s Linfield presidency was followed by acting president Winthrop Dolan (June 1-July 31, 1974) and interim president Cornelius H. Siemens (1974-1975). Charles U. Walker succeeded Siemens, serving as president 1975-1992.


--Gordon C. Bjork photo from Feb. 9, 1970, Oregon Statesman daily newspaper of Salem, Ore.
-- Photo from 1969 Linfield football pressguide of "Linfield president Gordon C. Bjork visited with Ad Rutschman and varsity lettermen during early season workout on Maxwell Field."
-- Article (started on page 1, jumped to page 38) of Sunday Oregonian, July 21, 1968, about appointment of Gordon Bjork as Linfield president. McMinnville News-Register/N-R with banner headline “Gordon Bjork will leave Linfield May 31” and subhead “Interim president to be appointed April 5.”
--President Bjork’s listing included on page 7 of the 1973-1974 Linfield College Lindex campus directory which was issued by “Office of the Dean of the College.”

==Although not speech texts, these op-ed articles written by Gordon C. Bjork as Linfield president may be of interest. These are not linked. If you want to read them, you need to find the articles printed on real newsprint issues of the Oregonian or find scanned copies of the issues:
Nixon economic decisions may rival early New Deal acts’ -- Oregonian - Fri., Aug 20, 1971
Inflation: Who's the culprit? 'Hypocritical' government procedures at fault - Oregonian - Fri., July 6, 1973