Battalion/Page 7
June 30, 1982
. Hubert
1 Chancellorship today
'm$0, 1982
llment.
le on that
n in prog.
' I arrived
“Both the
> and the
>rt of con-
period of
dents who
nit that a
Ition in the Corps
)|- they thought to
1 the Corps and the
he enrollment had to
nd all-male,” Hubert
[g enrollment soon
lat changes would
after World War II,
pities across the na-
'mM
rch fellomUniversity of
;, 1948-M
nistrativ |e director,
uim fouMrogram act
m, state Jb Austin,
1950 I
or, divisiiwMl standards,
Educatmp-1955
intendeiiWnge, Texas,
1959 §
Arts and® 5 A&M,
1965
Liberal fK 1965-1969
r Dean oi'fTexas A&M,
1970
CollegeW exas A&M,
1979
ellor, f§^sity System,
1982
■
■
ht at a'
iii
f Regents Meeting.
tion had been having tremendous in
creases in enrollment — except at the
A&M College of Texas,” Hubert said.
“Its enrollment had increased to an all-
time high in 1948 to something above
8,000 students and it declined after
that to under 7,000. And it stayed at
that level throughout the rest of the
1950s.
“I recall during my first registration
period for the fall of 1959 ... there was
great anxiety over whether we’d reach
7,000. And we didn’t.”
The Association of Former Students
then commissioned a study asking high
school students about Texas A&M as a
college choice. When the results were
analyzed, it was obvious that students
were not interested in a college that was
all-male and in which military partici
pation was mandatory.
“That one study by the Association
of Former Students probably had more
to do with the dissolution of the re
quirement for military training than
anything else. And it also became clear
that this institution could no longerjus-
tify excluding women on the grounds
of sex alone.”
The first women admitted to Texas
A&M during a regular session were
family members of faculty. However,
this policy gradually changed until all
women who met entrance standards
were admitted.
“After the study, I think it became
apparent that A&M could admit
women without changing too much of
the curriculum and very little of the
plumbing,” Hubert said. “They could
go to school here and be welcomed and
survive.
“Over a period of time, these two
issues — a non-mandatory military and
the admission of women — were emo
tional, very emotional. I’ve heard the
Hilton Hotel issue described as emo
tional, but it was mild, supermild, com
pared to the relaxing of the require
ments for the admission of women.
“Unquestionably, the admission of
women was the most important single
policy decision made by this University
in its history. It changed the entire che
mistry of the University and ... from the
moment women were admitted enroll
ment just flourished.
“I would guess today if you would
take away the 13,000-plus women who
are on campus, 13,000-plus men would
follow them very quickly.”
Hubert said there were few low
points during his tenure at the Univer
sity.
“One low point that lasted just for a
matter of days or weeks was the dissolu
tion of the College of Arts and Sciences
and creating out of it a College of Li
beral Arts, a College of Science and a
College of Geosciences.
“That low point was related to ... an
academic desire to keep the basic disci
plines together in one family. I looked
upon that as a frustrating experience at
the time but really, it became obvious,
just within a few months after the orga
nization took place, that the real be
nefactors were the programs in those
areas.
“It gave the liberal arts the oppor
tunity to address its own needs and
aspirations without being fettered by
the strong dominance that prevailed on
campus for the sciences and technolo
gy. It gave the liberal arts their own
place in the sun.”
Hubert continued: “Beyond that, I
really haven’t had any low points.
There have been a few occasions where
frustration has been at a high peak be
cause of an inability to move a program
forward as fast as one would have liked
to have moved it.
“It took years to get a theater arts
program; likewise, it’s taking a long
time to get the fine arts onto the cam
pus. But there are some restraints
beyond the boundaries of the campus
that oppose those aspects of the Uni
versity’s growth and development.
“The Coordinating Board ... has for
some unexplainable reason the feeling
that at a land grant type university,
there is not the need for a fine arts
program. My own strong feeling on the
subject is that a university is an ensem
ble, which has in its repertoire all the
voices of its professional schools and
basic fields of knowledge. Without a
program of fine arts, the University is
lacking.”
In addition to a fine arts program,
Hubert said he feels the University is in
need of a law school.
“I believe with the addition of a basic
program of fine arts and the addition
of a law school, the University would
have a complete ensemble and all the
voices of the choir would be present,”
he said.
After Hubert became chancellor in
October 1979, the Regents asked that
he examine System organization and
prepare recommendations for any
changes thought necessary. Hubert de
veloped a reorganization plan which
called for the heads of the research and
service organizations to report directly
to the System chancellor, rather than
the University president, and delivered
it by the January 1980 deadline. The
Regents approved the proposal unani
mously.
University President Jarvis Miller
did not approve of the plan, though,
and objected strongly enough that, by
the middle of the summer of 1980, he
was no longer president of the Univer
sity.
“This reorganization caused great con
sternation, but it wasn’t a new idea at
all,” Hubert said. “The rationale be
hind it was very simple — the adminis
tration of a complex and diverse uni
versity was such an extensive extension
program as A&M has and the adminis
tration of 35,000 real live energetic stu
dents on campus is more than a job for
one person.”
After his retirement, Hubert said he
would work under another title until
August 31 with Dr. Arthur G. Hansen
and be available for help or advice
when needed.
Then, Hubert said, he will take time
out just to relax.
“We have a small farm west of town
where we’ve started trying to grow
grapes,” he said. “It’s not a friendly
environment for grapes but if it works
out, I may try to make a little wine.”
But, Hubert said he will not sever all
ties with the system.
“I may continue to work with indi
vidual committees (of the system),” he
said, “but that decision will be made by
Dr. Hansen and the Regents.”
When asked about his outlook for
the University and the System, he said:
“Texas A&M is increasingly growing in
quality. With some additional facilities,
I think the University will be ready to
enter an era of unparalleled growth
and quality of life and performance.
“I think that’s where its real future
lies — doing those things better today
than we did yesterday or last year.”
File Photo
Colleagues praise Hubert’s abilities
by Terry Duran
Battalion Staff
Frank W.R. Hubert has left his mark,
in progress, policies — and people.
Hubert steps down today as chancel
lor of the Texas A&M University Sys
tem, ending 23 years of service in sever
al capacities. Hubert will turn the reins
of his office over to Arthur G. Hansen,
former president of Purdue U niversity
in Indiana.
Hubert has seen Texas A&M’s en
rollment triple as it grew into a full-
fledged University, and has overseen
the past three years’ growth of the Sys
tem — four campuses and seven re
search and service agencies — from the
chancellor’s chair.
Hubert first came to Texas A&M in
1959 as dean of the School of Arts and
Sciences, leaving a job as a public school
superintendent. As the A&M College
of Texas grew into a University,
“schools” became “colleges"; by 1968
the College of Arts and Sciences had
spawned the colleges of Science, Geos
ciences and Liberal Arts.
In 1970, the College of Education
was formed from components of the
colleges of Liberal Arts, Agriculture
and Engineering and placed under
Hubert’s leadership.
Dr. Charles McCandless is currently
the acting vice president for academic
affairs, but Hubert hired him in 1961
as director of intramurals and an assis
tant physical education professor. The
Department of Health and Physical
Education came under the umbrella of
arts and sciences at that time. McCand
less later became associate dean of the
college.
“We got along very well,” McCand
less says. “(Dr. Hubert) was and is a very
effective administrator.
“We worked together closely for five
years (when McCandless was associate
dean). If I needed any advice, he was
always available.”
Hubert became chancellor of the
Texas A&M University System in Octo
ber 1979, responsible for operations of
the entire System. Soon after, Hubert
recommended to the regents a reorga
nization of the System: Heads of the
“I’ve enjoyed working with
him. (He’s) kind and gra
cious, yet a very strong admi
nistrator. You need talent to
be a very strong administra
tor and yet cordial and gra
cious at the same time. I think
the world of him.” — Dr.
John J. Koldus
System’s agricultural and engineering
experiment and extension services
would report to the chancellor, rather
than the president of the University.
Then-University President Jarvis Mil
ler disagreed, and, by the summer of
1980, had lost both the fight and his
job.
The University’s current president,
Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, took office in
September 1981 after a year-long
search by the Texas A&M System
Board of Regents. Chancellor Hubert
reportedly had a strong hand in nam
ing Vandiver to the University’s top
slot. Vandiver had this to say about his
boss:
“I’ve enjoyed working with him.
He’s an awfully good boss. He ha!s a
great sense of humor, which I found
especially nice — a very careful, fair
administrator.
“He was always very judicious in the
advice he gave. He gave excellent, ma
ture advice from an administrator who
had been around — with the experi
ence he’s had, I turned to him a lot.
“I’ve had a great time working with
him.”
Dr. John J. Koldus, vice president
for student services, is another veteran
Texas A&M administrator. He de
scribes Hubert as a “strong administra
tor, a super-nice guy.”
He added: “I’ve enjoyed working
with him. (He’s) kind and gracious, yet
a very strong administrator. You need
talent to be a very strong administrator
and yet cordial and gracious at the
same time. I think the world of him.”
As chancellor, Hubert was directly
responsible to the Board of Regents for
System operations, a two-way link be
tween the policy-making regents and
the needs and wants of the System’s
parts.
Robert Cherry, secretary to the re
gents and vice-chancellor for public
affairs, is a long-time employee of the
Texas A&M administration. He has no
thing but praise for Hubert.
“(Hubert) appeared as the right
man at the right time in the history of
the A&M System,” Cherry said. “He
has done a tremendous job as an admi
nistrator and in continuing the prog
ress of all parts of the Texas A&M Uni
versity System.
“He’s remarkably perceptive and
has an uncommon knowledge of the
phenomena of human behavior in a
large organizational structure.
“When Dr. Hubert was appointed,”
Cherry said, “he quickly grasped the
reins of the organization and was able
to manage for an uninterrupted con
tinuum of progress of the vast A&M
System.”
Another veteran administrator is
W.C. “Clyde” Freeman, executive vice
chancellor for administration. He cal
led Hubert’s style “an iron fist in a vel
vet glove.”
The current chairman of the Board
of Regents is Dallas businessman H.R.
“Bum” Bright. As regents’ chairman,
he has worked closely with Chancellor
Hubert since 1980.
“I hold him in extremely high per
sonal regard,” Bright said. “I admired
and respected Dr. Hubert in his posi
tion as chancellor a great deal. I don’t
think he’s ever done anything but give
the utmost of his abilities in his work for
the University and the System.
“He has provided the University
with great leadership, great integrity
and great loyalty. It will be a loss to the
System to lose his leadership and ex
pertise at A&M.”
Clyde H. Wells was regents chair
man from 1958 to 1980 and is still a
member of the Board. He echoes the
“iron fist in a velvet glove” theme:
“Dr. Hubert is a strong administra
tor. He’s tough and he’s fair. He knows
his stuff in higher education. He’s one
of the finest administrators the Texas
A&M University System has ever had,
and we’re very pleased that we had him
when we needed him.
“We’re proud of his record of ser
vice — he’s made a fine contribution.
He had a lot of tough decisions to
make, but he handled them well.
“The Chancellor’s position is a great
big assignment, with terrific responsi
bility. Those kind of assignments are
tough. If it’s done right, the man who
performs is to be commended.”
Photos by
Diana
Sultenfuss