Page 2


jected to the police-state tactics of intimidation and unfair ostracism on the one hand and to being treated as a kindergartener at the age of 26 on the other. I’m fully aware of the many conclusions one could draw, but, lest I wax didactic, I shall say only that the incident points up what Lubbock “Texas Tech University” may sound like a joke to you, but that strange name is no joking matter here these days. The namechange controversy at Tech is the latest and perhaps one of the most bizarre examples of the conflict between athletic and academic focus in Texas higher education. S. B. 103, which created Texas Technological College in 1923, envisioned it as primarily technological in nature, but from the start the college was more arts-andsciences than technological. Today almost 14,000 students are enrolled in programs leading to bachelor’s degrees in 85 fields, masters in 39, and doctorates in ten. Administrators here have been telling prospective faculty for years that Tech is neither technological nor a college but a multi-purpose university of considerable size, the two largest schools being arts and sciences and business administration. The fight going on now does not involve the switch from “college” to “university,” since nobody balks at the more prestigious name, but many supporters of Tech athletics insist that the word “technological” or the nonword “tech” must be retained in order to justify the continued use of the widely-known “Double T” monogram. Despite the manifest incongruity of “technological” with “university” and the obvious connection between “tech” and “technological,” and despite the example of several other schools which have changed names while retaining popular identification symbols, pressure from sports boosters for “Tech University” continues. Since the middle ’50’s, when Tech had doctoral programs going in several fields, there has been talk of changing the name. Status institutions in the country that have “technology” in their names are specialized schools, not diversified in purpose as Texas Tech is, and none calls itself a university. The new name most often proposed was “Texas State University.” Almost everyone had assumed that the incongruity of “Tech University” would keep the board of di Donald Boyd, a Texan, has degrees from McMurry and Emory colleges, taught in South Carolina a while, and is working now on a Ph.D. and teaching freshman English at Texas Tech. He writes here, of course, as a private ctiizen. 10 The Texas Observer I feel to be the basic problem of present, and past, administrators and directors of Tech. Their values and goals are topsyturvy ; they’re more concerned with the feet than with the head. Marcia Davis Fowler, Box 1444, Austin, Tex. rectors from taking such a name to the legislature, and their decision to recommend “Texas Tech University” to the next session of the legislature was a complete surprise. A committee of alumni, faculty, students, and other friends of the college has been formed to block the misnomer if it can. Thus far it has attracted the support of over 3,000 individuals, including a large majority of the faculty and a variety of student and faculty groups. The “Joint Name-Change Committee” has expressed willingness to work for any suitable alternative to “Tech University,” but the name having almost 90 per cent support among its members is “Texas State University.” Opponents claim that the “State University” pattern sounds land-grantish; of the 69 land-grant colleges in the country, 14 have such names. The committee is distributing a circular describing the situation and arguing that “Tech University” would hamstring the school’s progress both by its absurdity and by its misleading implications. A letter-writing campaign has been aimed at Tech board members and state legislators. In response to the committee’s action, then-board-chairman Manuel DeBusk of Dallas wrote, “I regret that your group has elected to take this position since the Board of Directors has unanimously voted to recommend a name-change to Texas Tech University. “I certainly recognize that those of you not employed by or attending Texas Technological College have a perfect right to actively support whatever position you feel is best for the school. I do feel, however, that persons employed at Texas Technological College should abide by the decision of the Governing Board of that institution. The Board of Directors of Texas Technological College was very patient in listening to and appraising all points of view before a decision was made.” A similar letter, though much longer, from DeBusk’s successor to the chairman also suggests that students and faculty have no right to oppose board decisions of any nature. The committee’s response has been that all citizens, including students and faculty, have a right to differ with the board on matters where it is not the final authority, and only the legislature is empowered to change the name of the school. Despite the board’s apparent intransigence, the committee still hopes for a chance to present its case to the board, still plans to go to the legislature if it has to, and still backs “Texas State” as the best alternative in sight. The most recent move is the distribution of bumper stickers reading “Texas” spelled with a double T”State University.” The campaign is costly, and the committee is already several hundred dollars in debt to a few supporters. About $2,500 would take care of things for now, committee leaders say. If the Tech Board of Directors manages to get the school re-named “Tech University,” it will have done serious harm to a college with a significant potential for becoming a first-class university. But even if the name-change is defeated, Tech still has to face the question whether any true university is governed by persons who respond to opposition with intimidation and who are not willing to engage in open, rational discourse in good spirit about the problems of the school. The Result Is Silence I have read with interest the articles in your recent issues concerning academic freedom and other academiematters at Southern Methodist University and at North Texas State. I had thought of volunteering to do a similar job on Texas Tech it is not worth the effort. I joined the Tech faculty in the fall of 1956 and lasted three years. I was there when three faculty members were fired, including one full professor of sixteen years’ service, for no stated reason whatever. I was dealt with more gently. The late, unlamented president of the school only refused to act favorably upon my department head and dean’s recommendation of my promotion, because I had written an anti-segregation letter to the local and school papers. Not being a native Texan \(a fact of which I was almost constantly reditions, I declined to doom myself, at the age of 30, to someday becoming an assistant professor emeritus at Texas Tech. So I left. . . . It is somewhat ironic that Tech is now integrated. It is not easy to champion an unpopular cause without paying a price if one teaches at a publicly supported institution of higher education. At one time I considered those of my colleagues who never said anything or did anything to be cowardly and contemptible. I have become more like them now and understand them better. I am older now, have family responsibilities, and have already found the same conditions at more than one institution. And so why not conform? Who is interested in quality education at one of the state colleges in Texas? Certainly the board and the public are not ###~##~4s1.#041###############41~###MINNS Block That Misnomer! Donald Boyd