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:
LAST SPEECH BY GORDON BJORK AS LINFIELD PRESIDENT
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
END PAGE 1
START OF PAGE 2
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.
END PAGE TWO
START PAGE THREE
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
END OF PAGE THREE
START OF PAGE FOUR
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
END PAGE FOUR
START OF PAGE FIVE
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 difference” – let 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
END PAGE FIVE
START PAGE SIX
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
END PAGE SIX
START OF PAGE SEVEN
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
END PAGE SEVEN
START PAGE EIGHT
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.”
END OF PAGE EIGHT/END OF SPEECH NOTES
CITATION:
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
CITATION:
“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.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
WHY THERE WAS A NO CONFIDENCE VOTE
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?!”
THE NO CONFIDENCE VOTE
"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.
‘THE COLLEGE THAT CAME IN FROM THE COLD’
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.
:::::::::::::::::::::::
TIMELINE
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 on page B7 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
::::::::::::::::::::
COLLEGE NAME
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.
SUCCEDING GORDON BJORK AS LINFIELD PRESIDENT
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.
PHOTOS
--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.”
OP-ED ARTICLES BY LINFIELD PRESIDENT GORDON BJORK
==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
