CWU LIVING HISTORY PROJECT

GLENN MADSEN

INTERVIEWER: MILO SMITH

CAMERA PERSON: JEAN PUTNAM

Smith: Our interview today for the Living History Project is Glenn Madsen of the Education Department. The interviewer is Milo Smith and the camera and audio-tape operator is Jean Putnam. It is March 12, 1997. We are in the Teacup Room of the Alumni Offices in Barge Hall. Good afternoon Glenn.

Madsen: Hi.

Smith: Would you please start our interview with a thumbnail sketch of, or auto-biography of your life before coming to Central.

Madsen: Well, I note in the questions it says first and all that stuff, so I’m not saying it’d be important that 1 am from Montana, lived on the Indian Reservation, brought into this

World on the Indian Reservation with a mid-wife. I’m the fifth child of eight and there were two (?) in other positions.

Smith: Crow Reservation?

Madsen: No, the Sioux Reservation, and from there, that’s where everything began. My hometown is a little town called Reserve. It means DaWaulka in Indian, in the Indian

Language, it means Medicine Water. Little bit of my background is Native American But Tadsen is my family name. My parents are immigrants from Denmark. So we grew up

in a bi-lingual family, but we didn’t have a bi-lingual education or anything like that. You either learned English, or you didn’t make it, wherever you were. And I went to

eight grades in a rural school, and a small high school in Montana, and spent four years

in the Navy. Got out of the Navy during the Korean War, decided that education was not for me. I’m going to make a lot of money. I didn’t have any trade, any skill, or nothing. I wound up in College in a small liberal university in Montana, and been there ever since, until I retired.

Smith: What did you do in the Navy, Glen?

Madsen: I was a Yeoman. Worked in the office.

Smith: I know lots of stories about yeomen, and we’ll skip all of them.

Madsen: I spent four years in the Navy. But because of that experience, I was able to go on to College, afterwards, because of GI Bill. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to go on.

Smith: Was any of your duty aboard ship?

Madsen: No, none of it aboard ship. Being a yeoman, I didn’t have to do that. (?)

Smith: Were you totally Stateside?

Madsen: I was with the Navy Air Corps and I flew transfer squadron as a crew member for part of my stint in the Navy. I was on all the Islands and Japan.

Smith: Good, good. After the War, right? You’re a young man.

Madsen: After the War.

Smith: Two.

Madsen: Oh, Korean War.

Smith: I spent time in both of them.

Madsen: (?)

Smith: OK, what were the years of your arrival and your retirement from Central?

Madsen: OK, I arrived here, at Central, in September of 197 I, and I retired in July of 1995.

Smith: You did officially retire.

Madsen: Officially retired.

Smith: And what was your academic assignment while you were teaching here, Glen?

Madsen: I was in the Education Department. My background was in school administration and special education. And I was assigned to the Special Ed. Division, though I taught courses at the graduate level within the Department. Not only in Special Education, but in regular education, arid 1 taught some of the research classes and was assisted by Sam.

Smith: Would you identify at random, some of the classes that you taught? People in the future might like to know what classes were available then.

Madsen: assisted in the General Education, some research and design classes and same research projects and the statistics that come with it. And over in the Special Ed. side I was teaching some school administration courses at the graduate level. Particularly in Education everybody specializes. And we have fourteen different disabilities when we deal with the public schools, so my area was the mentally handicapped, and the behavior disabled, so I taught classes at the graduate level in those areas. On the undergraduate level, I spent most of my time dealing with courses that involve technology and also, I guess what I call the end product, I worked with, assisting people to understand what kind of education program we should have at the secondary level for the disabled (?). Many of the disabled kids don’t go on to higher education, or community colleges. They wind up at some kind of a training program of some kind, if they’re lucky.

Putnam: Before we go too far, what was your contact? How did you get here, to this place?

Madsen: That’s an interesting point. I think a lot of folks who live within Central, particularly the academicians, are not aware that probably this University is better known away from the State of Washington than it is within the State of Washington. So we knew about Central in Oregon, and Montana long before we heard about Eastern, or Western. We could never separate, what we call, WSLJ and what we call the University of Washington. We thought they were all the same, but Central had its own identity. It’s, surprisingly, one of the strong programs in general education at that time, was the Media Program. I forget the gentleman who was in charge of that. He passed away of a heart attack. And then Charlie Vlcek took over.

Smith: And before that was Ham Howard.

Madsen: It was the Media Program that was really well-known here at Central. Plus its athletics. And also teacher education. (?)

Smith: Now other than the small college that you started at in Montana, where all did you go to school, and what degrees did you earn?

Madsen: OK. After Montana, I’ve been told I have a little bit of distinction here, I wound up at Wapato, in Washington. (?) And Superintendent there and I taught special Ed., and I’ve been told a number of times, that was the first public school special education program in the State of Montana, or the State of Washington. So I taught there for three years and then somebody called me from Olympia, I remember her name, Helena- Helena Adams- and she said I have a scholarship for you. I said, “I don’t want a scholarship(?), I don’t want to go to San Francisco.” Well we may not have it next year, so she called me back again next year, the following year, in 1960. She said, “I have a scholarship for you.” And I said, “I’ll take it.” So I went to San Francisco State. Garrity was not famous or well-known at that time, no one had ever heard of him, I don’t think. Anyway, that’s where I did my Master’s. And I came back to Wapato, because I left Wapato, stayed there a year, and was thoroughly disgusted with the State of Washington. Went to Oregon. And I was a teacher there in Special Education for two years. I was an administrator for two years, then the University of Oregon hired me to teach for their Teacher Education Program. And I’d work on my Doctoral Degree. So I taught there five years, and it took four years to complete my Doctorate Degree in School Administration.

Smith: Now what rank did you start at here at Central and what rank did you hold at the time of retirement?

Madsen: I came in at Central as an Associate, and left as a full Prof.

Smith: Good. Did you ever teach any classes in any other Department other than The Ed. Department?

Madsen: No, just the Ed. Department.

Smith: OK. Do you recall any problems during your teaching years that you would classify as significant during your time here at Central?

Madsen: Well, yes, I thought long and hard about that question and I spent twenty-four years here. Probably, and I don’t know if it will appear later on, but we can ignore it if it does, is the loss of NCATE. And I (?) part of that in a sense that I had to help put the document together. and I think the loss of anything, in my opinion, didn’t start with

NCATE.

Smith: Would you spell that out.

Madsen: That’s the National Crediting Association of Teacher Education. And there are many different types of programs on campus that give professional accreditation. That’s the teacher one. But I think, my own view, it didn’t just start with the year the team came. I think it started long before that, and I think Ed Harrington was part of that. And I cn use some examples for that. When, we recall, there’s a time in there when it’s not fashionable to go to the University, you didn’t need a college education to make a living in this world, and our institution was suffering from that downward trend in enrollment. They said, I think teacher education was doing pretty good, and we, as a professor would retire, or a professor would leave, we would not get a replacement. Now Ed had to look at the total university. He was using some of those positions, I think, to feed the other Departments on campus. Consequently, the Education Department suffered from that because (?). And I think that was part of the NCATE failure, too. When they came in, they saw the enormous loads that folks were carrying. Plus the other factor was that this mind set on the campus that Teacher Education is everybody’s business. It was everybody’s business until the NCATE thing showed up. Then nobody was involved with Teacher Education, and I recall...Well, along with that thing comes our being put on probation by the State Department. That, I think, the Teacher, the Ed. Department brought upon themselves. Now other than naming names here, but there were three people involved that put that report together, (?) NCATE, lost that, then the State Department takes a look at us for their accreditation. And those three gentlemen put that together, but they cut one Division within the Teacher Education Program, and that was the Administration Division, and I happened to be on that. We put (it) together, based on the 90 Guideline. Those three gentlemen put it together based on the 88 Guideline. Had they put it together based on the 90 Guideline, the only program that was a problem for the state was Administration as long as they put it under the right guideline. So, therefore, we were put on probation by the State Department, and then, of course, the Press. And the most humiliating experience, (?) and the whole Education Department over to the Board meeting and lectured us on children. (?)...because Teacher Education is everybody’s business including Ed Harrington, including Garrity, including (?). So, therefore, I think, if we look at something that’s kind of hard and down, probably the biggest one in my twenty-four years experience. There’re others in there, but you tend to forget them once they’re over. You do your vows (?), that kind of thing. (?)...Quick turn around withDan Unruh leading, we were able to get off probation, and within two years, with neat leadership, within that Department, we were able to get our NCATE back, and it’s the only University in the United States that did within a two year period. So you go back to what other’s were doing, to what Garrity was doing and what Edington was doing, and I think all that came to bear on (?), and I think it must end for some reason because the Nicholson affair and loss of NCATE, and Garrity was history.

Putnam: Do you remember the years, Glenn, was that in the late eighties?

Madsen: It was the late eighties, about eighty-nine, nineteen ninety something.

Smith: Now, Glenn, we have a couple of interviews already which, and one of them is from a gentleman who was very much involved in the Education Department’s NCATE problem, and these two interviews have suggested that part of the problem for the NCATE loss of accreditation could be found within the Ed. Department because the Ed. Department had developed such a very fine reputation that there were some people who felt that they would just sit on the program, the way it was, that that’s the program by which they won the reputation, and that this particular person said, “We simply did not upgrade what we were doing. We were too satisfied to sit where we were, and we made a big mistake.” What’s your feeling about that?

Madsen: Well, I happen to know the individual. I’ve visited with him. He did it OK though, but he was far removed from the Teacher Education, in the Ed. Department, Teacher Education training program. lie was not involved with, over time. I le had retired. He had not kept pace with the changes, and many, many changes had taken place, since he retired, and before he retired. So, I think his perception is that we were still saying when he put it together and was involved in it in the early fifties and sixties, And that isn’t true because we’re forced to come up to State standards, therefore that makes you mile high, and then the research that’s going on, the technology that comes in, heavens, you can’t sit still and survive. So, therefore, I would tend to disagree with that kind of a reasoning (?), you know, 1 think there were eighteen standards, we did pretty good on some standards, and that was one of the standards we did quite well with.., was that our curriculum, our program was pretty much up to date. (?) that was (?)with the State Department.

Smith: Was the Ed. Department organized, Glenn, so that you as one member of the Department were free to make recommendations for changes in the program? Were you allowed to speak up?

Madsen: Yes. You bet. Within the Department. That was the neat thing in the Department. As large as it was everybody had input in terms of change. I may be over in this division, but I could make recommendations for another division. They could make recommendations for my division. And we would see each other’s recommendations whenever we wanted. Where we did have a problem was when we wanted to make changes and get them processed and into the catalogue so they were recognizable then we would have some difficulty across campus. And part of that, I think, was under the leadership of Garrity because he was a Fine Arts man, a Liberal Arts type man,...

Smith: Social, Social Sciences.

Madsen: Yeah. And some of the faculty across campus picked up on that. And therefore, we would have difficulty getting some of our thoughts through, to get into the catalogue. And, I don’t know, hey, you were involved in some of that, and I was heavily involved with it. (?) Down to the point where we, they didn’t like the proposition that we put up to state. I’ll have to share with you. And this happened in the graduate catalog. I was running two classes through and it makes a pretty good point of what I’m talking about. And I wanted to run it through the committees to get it into the catalogue. (?) And (?) as mentioned, dealt with mentally handicapped, so we wanted to deal with theories. Behind (?) this condition. Another Department on campus stopped us from doing that because we didn’t deal with theory. They dealt with theory, we dealt with (?pedagogy). Well, Good God! You can’t deal with pedagogy without theory. Well, that’s the kind of mind set that was in place, and it was very disturbing to do that.

Putnam: Glenn, I’m going back again, just out of interest, so we have it, you keep mentioning the divisions and that you were in this division, or one of the divisions, and the relationship, could you give us kind of an overview of the divisions from the time you came, do you happen to remember what they were and how they developed into (?)?

Madsen: You know when I came, Psych. just moved down to (?) the new building up there (?) the Education Department in itself So, (?) Jim Brooks (?) Dr. (?Ross) and Dr. Miller, in particular, and Dr. Henderson had just pushed through some real fine student (?). (?A) Special Education Training Program, brand new. And that’s part of the reason why I came. Because I knew that. OK? And they created a Special Ed. Division. Then we had what you call, an Elementary Education Division. Administration Division. C and I, which is Curriculum and Instruction Division. There were about five Divisions within that Department. Then each Department had a Chair., or each Division had a Chair., then you had a Department and an Assistant Department head, and that’s how everything moved in that direction. It worked pretty good. We could have, as the years go along, we could have cross-over, too, from one Division to the next Division, so that I could be getting input from the Elementary Division (?). (?)The Administration Division because that was one of my areas, besides Special Ed. (?) We had great dialogue. We never got along, you know, in terms of our professional beliefs sometimes, but that was healthy, too. It wasn’t a “1 got you” type of debate. It was just a good, healthy type of debate. (?) It was really healthy under Bob Canton.

Smith: Was it convenient for your Chairman to be able to assign people across Divisions? That one quarter you might teach in (?), three Divisions?

Madsen: See, that’s how I got into the business of teaching at a Graduate Research College. (7) There were some (?).

Smith: Now, Glenn, let’s name names. Which administrators and faculty come to mind as important leaders while you were teaching here? Now, you can start with the Ed. Department, or the Ed. Program, and go from there.

Madsen: OK, Well, the two (?), I think, with the Ed. Department. That’s what I’m most familiar with. I think there are other Departments across campus with really strong, a group of strong faculty members. Yours was one of’ them, the Drama, and Theater. (?) Music (7). And the School of Business is very strong. I think the Teacher Education Program, in the Ed. Department is very strong, or it wouldn’t exist. So, some of the two names, well, one name is going to be the total faculty. (?) You know, we have our weak areas, every institution does, but this is a very strong faculty and has been all the years I have been here. It’s the reason that I think this University still exists. It sure as hell doesn’t exist because of the strength of our administrators that we’ve had in the past. But it’s the faculty that has kept this institution on the road map. One (?), and it had nothing to do with academia, and that’s Courtney Jones. I think he did more in his own conservative reign for this university than probably any other administrator on campus. Re was very respected by all. Sometimes that conservatism got in his way, you know, and we argued that all over Black Hall. I hope, (?) no question there, but because of his respect, and he developed through the years, 1 think, and when we see a beautiful facility, and we as a faculty have an opportunity to work in this facility. Brooks, maybe, had a part in that. Before Courtney, but after them, it was not Garrity. It was not Edington. It was not Harrington, who were in (?). It was Courtney, who, I think, enhanced this facility more than anybody.

Smith: Now let me run this by you. At Dr. Brooks’ first meeting of the faculty and speaking to us as a unit, over in Hebeler Elementary auditorium, almost his first words, and it’s almost a quotation, almost his first words to the joint faculty were these, “1 do not want to be the President of a Teacher’s College. I want to be the President of a Liberal Arts University in which there is a strong teaching program, teacher education program.” Now there are some friends of mine who are colleagues of yours who felt that that’s when the Ed. Department started getting a second-class treatment. The problem was this, Glenn, and I lived through a nice long happening, there’s no question about it. The Ed. Department was the reason why we all existed for quite a few years. Those people who went Out to teach were doing fine jobs, and they were building our reputation, so there’s no doubt about the importance of the Ed Department, and as a consequence when Maury Pettit was Chairman of the Unified Psychology and Education Department, Maury was able to get an awful lot of money for the Ed. Program, and sometimes to the expense of other programs in the college, and many of us were very, very jealous that the Ed. Department was getting a new building, and they were getting more faculty, and they were getting more of this that and the other, and yet at the same time that we were jealous of it, we also recognized that we were really shirt-tailing on their prominence, over there in the Ed. Department. That’s why we had our jobs. Now, there came a time when money was no longer readily available, and we went through a very dark period that we usually refer to as the “RIF” period, Reduction In Force. Did that hit the Ed. Department, Glenn?

Madsen: Yeah, we took a reduction in credit-hours, so as people retired, or left)we did not replace them. Then it bottomed out, and when that bottomed out, (?), then that’s when the load began to increase (?),yes. But, you know, I as a member of the Ed. Department, I have to agree with what Dr. Brooks was saying in that statement. A Liberal Arts College (?) Education program. I taught at the University of Oregon. When I first went there, and for four years, Fleming was the President of the University of Oregon. Fleming a Liberal Arts man, and the University of Oregon (?) Med. School, Law School, but he was a strong proponent of the Teacher Education Program to the point where he brought in quite a few millions of dollars to create a new structure for the School of Education. But I think what happened, with our good friend Garrity, he forgot that you could have a strong Liberal Arts College with a strong Business School, with a strong Teacher Education Program, with a strong Industrial Arts Program, or a strong School of Professional Studies. He forgot that. He said some things to us that were not col7ect, and they were repeated.

Smith: Well, you know, I can think of people in the Ed. Department who really, really felt that Jim Brooks was the enemy because the Ed. Department no longer held the sway that it did have under Maury Pettit when we were a smaller school being led by the Ed. Department, and in order to allow other units of the University to grow, and develop their reputations grow, something had to give. And there’s no doubt about it, the Ed. Department did have to give.

Madsen: But see, you’re not going to get that out of an old Special Ed. Prof and my Professional colleagues because Jim Brooks was the reason why we (?)

Smith: Yes.

Madsen: In our special Ed. Program because he met with the student leader, named Dianne Barr Cole, who was leading the student push, and it was he who did push the Faculty Senate in terms of not approving that approach, and that happened the year before I came. So the Special Ed. folks (?) will not criticize Dr. Brooks in terms of his leadership. There may be people in the Department who would, but I think if they look back, they will find that he did pretty good.

Smith: Yes, I believe so, too. Now, Glenn, how do you personally feel about the accusation by much of the faculty outside of the Ed. Department that good grades are too easy to come by in the Ed, Department? Well, year in, year out, you were being attacked for grade inflation, how do you feel about that?

Madsen: Well, as I told my good friends from down on campus, let’s say, for example, I told them that there are a hundred and, one hundred and ninety credits my division, we have them for 45 credits, of which 15 are not graded, so therefore 30 credits are graded. People over in sciences, and arts, and the others, have them many more hours, then we did. Somewhere around a hundred hours, now where does the grade inflation take place? And if we go back and look, I think the grade inflation was not in the Ed. Department, but the grade inflation was within the other Departments that feed into this basic foundation that all Teacher Educators receive.

Smith: Oh, there certainly was a period that I remember very well, when I first came to Central back in ‘56, we were, many of us new people, were chagrined that people were coming here from the University of Washington and from Washington State University who were flunk outs.

Madsen: Yeah.

Smith: And they came here because they knew they could make it. Well, we were embarrassed that that was the case, and I do remember, and I wish I could put a particular year on it, but I do remember, probably someplace about the middle sixties, I met students on campus one summer who had come through school and gotten degrees here, and they were back working on Masters. And I can recall many of them saying, “What’s going on on this campus? This used to be a really easy place to get good grades.”

Madsen: That changed, didn’t it?

Smith: “What are you faculty people doing?” I said, “Well, we’re trying to save face. We’re embarrassed. We don’t want to be the school you go to when you flunk out of the ‘U’.” And so everybody has cooperated, and now an “A” means that you are superior. And a “C” means that you are an average student. And I said that was what had happened, and at least we were proud of what we were doing and sooner or later the students were too.

Madsen: Shortly after I came here the Honor’s College went into operation, and I had an Honor’s College student in my class and she earned a “C” grade. Really, I was chewed out soundly by her. Criticized. And her (?) Honor’s College students don’t earn “C’s”, “C” grades. And I said, “You just did, young lady.” Because she thought she could come down, do her thing, and walk out with a pretty good grade. There were others, too, I understand. There were a lot of athletes used to come down, they started running into grade problems, and they didn’t show up. So I think, but I don’t think that phenomenon is peculiar just to this University.

Smith: That’s very true.

Madsen: (?)

Smith: The grass was always greener in the other fella’s backyard, of course.

Madsen: But on that question on administrators, you know, and faculty, I credit the whole faculty and I think, again, I’ll repeat, I think Courtney Jones was tremendous(?).

Smith: Did you have any especially capable Chairs of your Department?

Madsen: No, none really. It was just average Chairs managed to survive of the length Chairs usually survived.

Smith: Now you mentioned awhile ago some names of people who were instrumental in moving the initiation of the Teacher Ed. Program. would you give those to us again so that we don’t miss them? Dohn Miller, for one.

Madsen: Oh, yeah, Dohn’s one. I’m looking at the Special Ed. side, Dr. Dohn Miller. He’s the gentleman who started the Special Ed. program. Sam Rust is here, Dr. Rust. a fellow named Dr. Hiram Henderson, who has gone to Utah State. (?) then (?) The general Education, there was tremendous movement over Profs. retiring, kind of what we just, faced, and new faculty coming in, and their hiring. They brought in some real quality faculty. But I also knew that same phenomenon across campus.

Smith: Yes.

Madsen: And I see it occurring again in our (?). You know, we don’t have to agree with them, but they’re very strong faculty. They’re strong people.

Smith: Now, Glenn, have you any memories of problems which developed between the teaching faculty and administrators?

Madsen: No, for the... No. I don’t.

Smith: Concerning salaries, concerning rank, concerning leave, concerning travel money.

Madsen: No, because when I look at that question, the Board of Trustees, and I never paid that much attention to them when Garrity was there for (?), you know, but I think a lot of the difficulty stems from promotion, or salaries, which came from the legislative body in the Capitol. It didn’t come from the Board of Trustees. (?) It’s from that particular body that meets over in Olympia. And these folks care, do what they would like to do, in terms of promotion, and (?) until the norm (?), and as I look at that kind of thinking, I think of the sixties when these folks sent their children to the Universities, they weren’t my children, they weren’t my students here, or my kids that came here. They raised hell on the University campuses. They burned some buildings where I was at the University of Oregon. They blew a few up. They invaded my classroom. And that kind of phenomenon was not that strong here at Central. But Central paid the price for it. And the legislators (?), I think, began to think, we’ve got to control that University campus, They weren’t our kids. They were their kids. They began to set more controls on the University. One way to do it was to take care of the money, and part of that then becomes the salary. (?) the money to build programs, to (?). And I think that phenomenon is still there today. (?)

Smith: Glenn, I think this might be an ideal place for me to ask you for your opinion of the Faculty Code.

Madsen: I never paid any attention to the Faculty Code. Not that it wasn’t interesting, but I discovered a long time ago when I first got here, The Code is only as good, or valid as long as of the Board of Trustees and the present administration of this University wants the Code. And then he can ignore the Code. (?) We have what we call the Super School, and I (?) with this guy standing on a chair, straight up (?). And Super Schools never went through the (?) communities, none of the code, nothing, it just showed up, and we had Super School. It was called College of Letters, Arts, and Science (?). As an individual.

Smith: I can recall a period of time, while I served on the Faculty Senate that there was great concern about “collegiality”. There was a feeling that the Board should work more with the faculty, instead of in competition with the faculty. A lot of the faculty felt that the Code should be accepted by the Board as the policy by which the Institution was run, and the Board said, “No. That’s only the policy as you see it, but we have to look at the ‘big’ picture.” And so there was a great period there of battles between Jim Brooks and the faculty and the board concerning that awful word, “collegiality.” Which really meant, in the mouths of some faculty, “We think we should get our way more often.”

Madsen: Yeah. That’s right. Then came the union. No, I really... Code, or no Code, it never affected me, (?) I don’t know how. I did what I wanted to do. I got my rank.

Smith: You got that partly because the Code spelled it out.

Madsen: Well, that’s true.

Smith: And you got tenure, and you have considerable protection on this campus for academic freedom. I think we were more fortunate here than most schools of which I’m acquainted.

Madsen: See, I never had tenure in institutions where I taught. That was never there. Anyway, I ignored the code. Never paid any attention.

Smith: That’s a shame, because it was partly yours.

Madsen: Yeah.

Smith: Did you ever get involved in naming buildings?

Madsen: No.

Smith: Did you ever get involved with a building committee in planning a building?

Madsen: Yeah. I did. I’m very proud of that one.

Smith: Which one?

Madsen: I chaired the Black Hall building, remodeling.

Smith: Good.

Madsen: Which is going to start, I think bids are going out in April. (?) Two things came out of that. At the beginning of the year I developed another respect for the faculty within the Department, and we put together (?) We’re going to have a building on our campus. This starts with faculty. It used to be the architect designs the building after talking to you once. And then that’s called prospectus. And then the architect takes that prospectus and designs the building. (?)... Well, I Chaired that Committee and then we put that together which I’m told is now used as a model for other construction on this campus and for other prospectuses for other campuses. To use (?)

Smith: Were you informed when you first came here, Glen, that the Ed. Department at one time had an opportunity to build a large facility within Black Hall, for large meetings and rather that building committee decided to build Grupe Conference Center.

Madsen: I wasn’t (?).

Smith: With the assumption that the Education department would have priority use of the Grupe Conference Center.

Madsen: So that’s where that comes from.

Smith: And hardly had we moved into Black Hall and Grupe Conference Center but what everybody on campus started eyeing that as an excellent place for meetings, and the Ed. Department lost its priority, and I can think of a number of people who were on that original committee that said, the biggest mistake we made was to put Grupe Conference Center outside Black Hall

.

Madsen: I remember when that occurred, but not that I remember where anybody told me that that was supposed to be for us. I’ll be darned. But anyway that’s the one I chaired. I’m pleased up to one point. And .. .We get a new science facility. We get, well, supposedly, we’re going to get a new music building. But we get a remodel. This is probably the only place I might like to take Courtney up along side the head. He would not go along with the new building because there are three rooms that are lecture rooms and they really interfere with technology because, on the lower floor, the ceiling is not high enough and it puts limitations on that lower floor of the re-model, what you can do with technology. I have to give the architects credit. They have done everything conceivable to try and enhance those limitations, but that’s what happens when you get into a remodel. Now also the North side of that building.

Smith: Oh, that’s the plan now, isn’t it? To extend the building northward where the railroad tracks used to be.

Madsen: It’ll be two to three times its size, but the North part of the building is it will be laid out so that twenty years from now you can still put new technology in it. That’s not a flexible building. The buildings they look at today and they try to make them flexible so that you can do things twenty years down the road, or twenty-five years down the road.

Smith: Sure.

Madsen: That you don’t even know exist today. That thought was not there ten years ago; came with the design.

Smith: Now during your tenure here, Glenn, were you ever the recipient of any awards, or honors?

Madsen: Yeah, two. Two that I can think of not even trying. And one had nothing to do with Central. In 1980, that’s seventeen years ago, I received from a group of parents, who have mentally handicapped kids, their association through the State of Washington, Educator of the Year Award. And it came from parents, and that didn’t happen very often to a college prof (?). And then in 1993 1 received an award for Professor of the Year in community service. And I was very pleased then because I was one of the few from the School of Professional Studies that received an award like that. Now, I have to go back to my friend Jim Brooks. He chaired that committee and he said of all people who were up for community service awards (?), I was the most deserving one, although there were people on that committee who didn’t accept that, and Dr. Brooks decided that through his persuasion...

Smith: This is the time, this is a question and a time for you to not be modest, but blow your horn a little bit, what specific contributions do you feel that you made to the progress of your Department, or school, or the Special Education Program’?

Madsen: I think, with, in my twenty-four years here, I would have to say it was within the Department and it was within Special Education Division. We took something that was an idea, and we created it to where it is a very well-known program on a national basis. Not just on a regional basis, or a State basis. So I think, from something that was nothing to something which is recognizable, and we received awards for that. That was partly my contribution.

Smith: Was your Department receptive to the development of new courses?

Madsen: Not always. You know, there were faculty and administrators within the Department who thought that they knew the type of program I was involved with shouldn’t go, but it also, that mentality also carries along with the old, the American attitude toward the disabled, because we were not very kind to the disabled people until the Kennedys and Eisenhower came forward. We were very cruel to them, and I think that mentality shows not only in the public, It shows at the University level. We shouldn’t have to have a law, we shouldn’t need a law that says somebody in a wheelchair has to be accommodated. We should just accommodate them. They are human, and they are citizens and have the same rights as everybody else, but we had to have a law. We had to have a law that said these people can go to the public education system. Well, the Constitution already says they have that right. But we have to have a special law at the federal level that says they can attend public school. And that mentality we had to put up with in the Department, and across the country, and across the state. And that... It’s getting better.

Smith: Did your Department as a whole give Special Education any particular degree of support in developing majors?

Madsen: Oh, yeah. Yes, they were... You know we can criticize Con Potter for his style of administration on campus, but he was tremendous support for special education. He was probably the strongest support from the administration (?). Some would disagree, but I think he was good to us. But I hate to look at that question- Yeah, That’s my contribution. Then out of that I think, I also like to say I affected a lot of students lives, (?) that’s why we’re here.

Smith: Didn’t the Special Education Department become involved with some summer camps for...

Madsen: Well,...

Smith: .. .handicapped kids?

Madsen: When I first came here Dr. Miller was doing that through a thing called (?).

Smith: Did that not continue?

Madsen: (Apparent head shake.)

Smith: Oh, that’s a shame.

Madsen: It’s been taken over by other groups.

Smith: Through other agencies?

Madsen: Yes.

Smith: Oh, I see.

Madsen: He was using it as a training program, and I think the education program (?).

Smith: Now, Glenn, did you ever serve on any major committees on the campus?

Madsen: I served on the Graduate Committee for years. That’s probably one of them.

Smith: How about Faculty Senate?

Madsen: No.

Smith: No? Did you ever have any desire to sit on the Faculty Senate?

Madsen: No, I’m not that type of person.

Smith: You didn’t have a piece you wanted to state?

Madsen: No, maybe that reminds me of government. I don’t know One has to have government, I realize that.

Smith: (?)

Madsen: I just don’t get anything out of it.

Smith: Before the Senate we had a Faculty’ Council. I sat on both of them at various times, and I found two kinds of people on the Senate, those who were seriously interested in trying to improve the quality of Central and its faculty, and the other half that just loved to listen to themselves speak. (Laughter) Now, Glenn, are there programs, or activities on this campus that you feel are not justified on a University campus?

Madsen: No, this is a University.

Smith: Well, we have had some people very critical of a University that has Technical Schools within it.

Madsen: I knew that.

Smith: Because they should be in a Technical School someplace else.

Madsen: No. I think they have a place on the University campus.

Smith: OK. Good.

Madsen: Otherwise let’s shut down all the Agricultural Schools.

Smith: Did you ever have an opportunity to serve, even part-time, as an administrator?

Madsen: No. Well. I was Division Head for two years...

Smith: Division Head of Special Rd. OK.

Madsen Of the Special Ed. Division, couldn’t stand it. Even though my doctoral work was in school administration, I didn’t look to be an administrator.

Smith: Now, I know that your wife has worked on campus for quite a few years, would you, like to identify for the future before we get her on tape, where did your wife work on campus?

Madsen: She, my wife, started in the Counseling Center for students. Then she moved to the Library. Then she went to the Physical Plant, and she was an administrator within the Physical Plant. She has twenty-two years, I think, here on the campus, and she ‘as an administrator (?) for about fifteen years. And she just retired, two years ago.

Smith: And we have her scheduled.

Madsen: Yes she is scheduled (?).

Smith: Now, Glenn, do you have any relatives who attended Central?

Madsen: Yes, I have two daughters that graduated from here.

Smith: Good.

Madsen: One with a Bachelor’s and a Master’s, and the other with Bachelor’s and Master’s in Education.

Smith: And then you raised a fine football player that we could’ve really used here.

Madsen: Yeah, he went to Montana.

Smith: He went to Montana.

Madsen: (?It happened) . . . Those two girls, again received tremendous support from the faculty.

Smith: Good. What are they doing now with their educations?

Madsen: Well, my daughter, (both daughters are Special Ed. teachers,) is in Virginia.

Smith: In Virginia.

Madsen: Yeah, and she has a Master’s Degree in School Administration. And my youngest one is about through her Ph.D.. in Chemistry at the University of Wyoming. She’s done her prelims, and she’s just putting her dissertation together. And there, I thank, Clint Duncan for his tutelage,...

Smith: Good.

Madsen: Direction...

Smith: Good.

Madsen: And over here with my oldest daughter, Dr. Dohn Miller. He was a faculty member taking an interest with a student.

Smith: Good, good. Now, as we come to the end here, Glenn, is there any subject area that you’d like to make comment on, to express an opinion that I haven’t touched on yet? Please feel free.

Madsen: Oh..., Such as any of these that we have here?

Smith: Right.

Madsen: (?)...Town and Gown. (?) I’m gonna’ say this on tape and I hope a town guy sees this. I think they’re very selfish. The town people, the business people. They give the charade of giving the kids hamburgers in the Fall, and that sort of stuff, but what it really boils down to, they only look on this environment up here as dollars and cents. (?) I know of one very large business, the gentleman that owns the business, he draws a tremendous amount of money from this institution, and my good friend Larry Danton and Bob Fraser said, “That sucker only gives a hundred dollars a year to this University.”

And I think that’s selfishness. I think, recently (?), that’s plain selfishness. So... I’m not saying the folks up here on the academic side are innocent, my perception of that is they’re pretty selfish.

Smith: Well, we sometimes get awfully, awfully provincial. We get so involved with our work, and our students, and our faculty, that there probably aren’t enough faculty people who get out and meet the community half-way, and community projects. Many of us do, but many of us don’t. I can understand there is some negativism.

Madsen: And I think, the other part, I’ll comment on, the students of this campus are tremendous. They may not be, you know, the geniuses that you might find on other institutions, but they are very solid people.

Smith: Well, you know, I taught thirty-five years here, and very often I met students that would have been top in classes in my graduate schools. We have our percentage of top students. We have a good, lot of average students. I think probably what is reflected more in our student body than anything else is, we probably do not have a majority of wealthy students. We have poorer students, than middle class, very few students who, very few students who would come from wealthy homes. I can think of a girl that, I was her advisor for a couple of years, she got a teaching, she was getting a teaching degree, she thought. She went out to practice teach and two weeks later she was back here on campus, and in to see me, and I said, “What are you doing? You’re supposed to be teaching.” She said, “I can’t take it. I absolutely can’t take it.” And I said, “Well, are you going to waste your education?” She said, “I don’t care.” I said, “Why don’t you care?” “Well, my dad owns hotels. That’s why I don’t care.” And I think that part of the reason that she couldn’t stand teaching was that she was a very spoiled little girl. She was also hard to advise. Well, we thank you, Glenn.

Madsen: You bet.

Jean Putnam: Did you have any last kind of comment you’d like to make regarding your total experience here at Central. Would you like to say a few words?

Madsen: Oh. Well, you know I had experiences on two other Universities before I came, and I guess its the reason why I stayed here much longer than (?). I never took a sabbatical. I never wanted to take a sabbatical, I didn’t have any interest, you know, out there to do something like that, so that in itself says something in regards to this institution. But I think the two things that kept me here, one is students, two the faculty...

Smith: Good.

Madsen: ...(‘?)...The Board of Directors (?) like that.

Smith: I thought it was the climate that held you here!

Madsen: No, (?), no.

Smith: Well, thank you, Glenn.

Madsen: Yeah, you bet.

Smith: You and I have more in common than I realized.

Madsen: How’s that?

End of tape.