Category: Uncategorized Page 3 of 6

“Title IX has never been about reducing opportunities for men. Title IX is simply about creating and maintaining opportunities for women.” [1] Through his participation in the local summer league as a child, Paul Richards discovered a passion for the sport of swimming. Joining the Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania men’s swim team in 1972, Richards quickly found success in the pool, going on to break the school records in the 200 individual medley and 400 freestyle relay. [2] Crafting dedication to the sport, Richards quickly turned his passion into a coaching career spanning more than four decades. Leading teams at Hartwick College, Mary Washington College, and eventually Dickinson College, Richards is celebrated for his humble demeanor, competitive coaching style, and ability to create meaningful interpersonal relationships. Retiring from his coaching position last year, Richards persisted through times of change. As he had witnessed, the efforts made to overcome prejudice based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion helped to define the twentieth century. [3] Soulful in his words, Richards experienced the introduction, the reaction, and the consequences of Title IX on the athletic progression of women in collegiate competitive swimming. His anecdotal recollections illustrate the ways in which Title IX created a platform for women in collegiate sports that helped to dismantle the negative societal expectations of women, further advancing the fight against gender inequality. The devotion to which the American Yawp authors analyze the civil rights advancements, focusing on the help of organizational-led efforts, throughout the 20th century are in-depth and written with care. However, the text lacked an explanation of the societal and cultural shifts generated through the passing of Title IX. Title IX provided American citizens with the appropriate tools needed to combat gender inequality in our country.

Coined the Godmother of Title IX, Bernice Sandler was told that she “came on too strong for a woman” [4] when interviewing as a new hire in 1969. Overcome with frustration, she joined the efforts of the Women’s Equity Action League [5] to continue to fight towards gender equality. Title IX was conceived in 1972 in part by the education amendment under the federal civil rights act following the persistence of Ms. Sandler. Designed to eradicate the gender-based dissimilarities of any program receiving government funding, Title IX states that  “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” [6] Signed under the presidency of Richard Nixon, Title IX is responsible for the creation of societal paradigmatic shifts that allowed for the forceful redefining of female expectations, magnified through athletic competition. [7] Following the commencement of Title IX, Coach Richards recollects how it was “ it was a slow cultural change of what we thought was safe for women to do and what was culturally acceptable.” [8] The interview with Paul Richards helps to illustrate the ways in which Title IX has created groundbreaking advancements for the equality of women in which no legislature has mimicked before. 

“No. I don’t actually. I think people were scared, and that was the unfortunate part,” [9] Richards responded when asked if Title IX was well received. According to the American Yawp authors, “women were active in both the civil rights movement and the labor movement, but their increasing awareness of gender inequality did not find a receptive audience among male leaders in those movements.” [10] Undeniably, the initial response to the passing of the bill brought fear and discomfort. Richards remembers how there was a misconception that women did not have the physical capabilities to successfully participate in collegiate sports. Used as reasoning to continue the exclusion of women in college athletics, Richards humbly recollected that “there are all kinds of misconceptions… it all comes back to culture where they say ‘I can’t push the women as hard as I push the men.’ People were scared, and that was the unfortunate part.” [11] However, such sentiment did not overwhelm the immediate action taken towards change. According to the Women’s Sports Foundation, less than thirty thousand women participated in college athletics prior to Title IX. [12] Shortly after in 1980, more than one hundred twenty-five thousand women were in participation. [13] The American Yawp attributes the societal progress to the success through “the formation of consciousness-raising groups” [14] that “crafted networks of women from which activists could mobilize support for protests” [15] in chapter 27, mimicking the recollections of Richards.  

Previous organizations, while also fueled through inequality-driven pressures, set the stage for the emerging societal nonconformists behind Title IX. Prior to the passing of the bill, a lack of women sponsorships allowed for the creation of organizations such as the AIAW, Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, [16] Richards explains. The AIAW was an institution “ that was created to develop and administer championship-style opportunities for women in collegiate competition.” [17] Their presence communicated and revealed to collegiate institutions the competence and dedication women exhibited to sports. While impactful, the AIAW lacked the power to spotlight and acknowledge women’s athletics. Jill Sterkel, a devoted member of the AIAW, strove for excellence in the pool. [18] As she acted as an example of a strong, victorious, and hard-working woman in collegiate swimming, her talents have not dwindled under the direction of the AIAW. However, the acknowledgment of her athletic abilities was unfortunately undermined. 

Through the momentum gained in the fight for equality, the passing of Title IX allowed for the NCAA to begin representing women in 1981. [19] While the American Yawp claims that “no longer would women allow society to blame the “problem that has no name” on a loss of femininity, too much education, or too much female independence,” [20] they neglect to discuss how the social advancements were directed through the formation of Title IX. While coaching the second-ever NCAA women-sponsored event, Richards remembers how “when the NCAA took over most of women’s sports, and started adding them as championship events…it was good for women’s sport because it gave them a bigger platform..” [21] An athletic establishment singularity represented by men for more than one hundred years, the NCAA’s decision to sponsor women’s sport illustrated that ever-so-changing societal climate. 

Fear and discomfort transformed into understanding and unity. The success of women in athletics, magnified through their acceptance in the NCAA, catalyzed furthering gender equality efforts. After winning the national championship in 50 free, Jill Sterkel’s acceptance into the NCAA propelled her to go on and successfully compete in both the 1984 and 1988 summer Olympics. [22] The pressures created through the passing of Title IX helped to advance the involvement of women in larger, more powerful athletic organizations. Richards humbly recollected that “Title IX has helped build community. Although some think it may be divisive, I think when we lift each other up, all others in the community are lifted up as well. We instill a sense of responsibility for each other.” [23] Interestingly, Title IX “also created employment opportunities and professional career paths for women that may not have been there previously,” Richards explains. While the  initial impact of Title IX was focused on athletics, the effect of the legislation has evolved to beneficially impact women in both the workforce and education system, illustrating the platform it had created on American society; a platform that was built on equality and integrity. 

Richard’s progression throughout his coaching career ran linear with the progression of societal gender advancements. Title IX created the tools needed to lay the foundational platform needed for the recognition of women. Today, Dickinson has felt the presence of the adoption of Title IX as Coach Katie Wingert McArdle, Richards professors, represents female leadership in athletic competition. Breaking down stereotypes based on gender creates a free-thinking, adaptable society. As Richards illustrates, a culture that promotes gender equality is a culture that can progress. Without the cultural shift originating from the adoption of Title IX, American society would have difficulty detaching from the traditional ideologies that prohibited societal development. 

[1] Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 18, 2021

[2] “Paul Richards,” Luzerne County Sports Hall of Fame – John Louis Popple Chapter, 2020.

[3] The American Yawp. Chapter 20. The Progressive Era

[4] Alexander, Kerri Lee. Bernice Sandler. 2020. 

[5] Ibid.

[6] “What is Title IX,” The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2021.

[7] Howe, William. Title IX Coordinator Roles and Responsibilities Local School District. US Department of Education and Office for Civil Rights, 2021

[8] Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 18, 2021

[9] Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 18, 2021

[10] The American Yawp. Chapter 27. The Sixties

[11] Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 18, 2021

[12] Dusenbery, Maya. Charts: The State of Women’s Athletic, 40 Years After Title IX. 22 June, 2015

[13] Wilson, Amy. 45 Years of Title IX; The Status of Women in intercollegiate Athletics. April, 2017

[14] The American Yawp. Chapter 27. The Sixties

[15] Ibid.

[16] Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 18, 2021

[17] Sougstad, Emma. Recounting the AIAW. 18 September, 2017

[18] Ibid.

[19] Where Are the Women?: An NCAA Champion Feature. December, 2017

[20] American Yawp Chapter 27. The Sixties

[21] Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 18, 2021

[22] Where Are the Women?: An NCAA Champion Feature. December, 2017

[23] Second Interview with Coach Paul Richards, April 27, 2021

 

Selected Transcript with Coach Paul Richards on April 18, 2021 on the Academic Quad at Dickinson College:

Question: From an early age, what experience did you have with women in sport?

Answer: There was a girl’s swim team. I can honestly tell you that I do not remember ever talking about it. My sisters were both on water ballet and I think that swam. I knew they [the women’s swim team] were there, but I do not remember any exposure particularly for them. 

Q. When the Title IX legislature was passed in 1972,  how did people react?

A. The first time I heard in-depth conversation about Title IX was when I was coaching in Virginia. So in the mid to late 80s, we are talking fourteen to fifteen years after the passage of the bill, people were starting to talk about it. It took a long time for people to actually realize that we needed to have conversation [regarding] that we were not really meeting the intent of the legislation in women’s athletics. For example, [they] probably were not getting the same financial support as men’s athletics. And one of the pieces of the bill is proportionality. What that means is that you are supposed to be spending proportionally the same amount of money on women as there are women in the school. So for women’s athletics, that budget should be the same for women and men.

Q.Do you think that Title IX was well received?

A. No. I don’t actually. I think people were scared, and that was the unfortunate part. I think male coaches [and] male athletic programs look at it oftentimes as a threat because they assume that there is this much money in the budget, so where is the money going to come from? Well, if there is not new money, it is going to come from all of our budgets. So, I think initially the response was defensive.

Q.  Do you think that it was defense because they wanted the resources to allocate towards the men, or do you think it was because they were female and they did not respect them as much?

A. That is an interesting point and my guess would be both. But my guess would be originally, you know, financial. Like, where is the money going to come from, and ‘I am not giving any of my money for them to do their thing, cause they are not as important as me anyways.’ But I think it was a financial piece. And unfortunately, the perception sometimes is that men’s programs are being cut to protect women’s programs. And unfavorably, an administrator starts throwing Title IX around as the cause. Title IX has never been about reducing opportunities for men. Title IX is simply about creating and maintaining opportunities for women.

Q. How did your peers perceive you for coaching a women’s team? Did they have any sentiment towards women in sports?

A. Yeah! They never worked with women and they did not want to. There are all kinds of misconceptions, and again, it all comes back to culture where they say ‘I can’t push the women as hard as I push the men.’ Or ‘you can’t yell at the women, they’ll cry,’ those kinds of things. I think there were a lot of misconceptions and there were coaches who were probably concerned that, if I have to coach the women, I do not know how I am going to do this.

Q. Is there any experience that you can remember that made you realize that there is a problem here?

A. I think I might have became more aware of it when I moved to Virginia and I was coaching at Mary Washington College. Mary Washington College originally was a women’s college of the University of Virginia… I think it was a growth over time. Because people talked about it more. You know, when we have a law, like you said, if nobody talks about it and nobody looks at this and makes sure we are in compliance. So what I think happened was, and again, anecdotal, just a guess, but I think what happened was there came a point where women just got tired. They got tired of being nice about it. You know, we always say to people, ‘this is the way it is. We are going to change but we can’t do it right now. It is going to take some time.’ And I think that got tired of hiring that and women started taking actions.

Second Interview with Coach Paul Richards on April 27, 2021 over E-mail:

Q. Are the any anecdotes that you can remember to the way in which Title IX has had impacts here on Dickinson’s campus?

A. Title IX has helped build  ‘community.’ Although some think it may be divisive, I think when we lift one up all others in the community are lifted up as well. We instill a sense of responsibility for each other. I think there could be an argument made that some men’s teams in co-ed sports have benefitted from attention that was paid to the women’s teams.

Karen Edler was a recently transferred college student at Dickinson College when the Three Mile Island Incident occurred on March 28, 1979. Although the American Yawp Textbook mentions that Jimmy Carter was “a nuclear physicist and peanut farmer who represented the rising generation of younger, racially liberal “New South” Democrats,” it does little to display his expertise on nuclear energy when considering the Three Mile Island Incident of 1979, failing to mention the man-made catastrophes of the decade. [1] Edler’s story serves to fulfill its gaps, giving historical context to the crisis that sparked the debate over nuclear energy from the late 1970s to the present day.

Thursday, March 28, 1979, marked the first day of the crisis. According to Dickinson College archives, at 4:00 am, “a false valve went open unnoticed and allowed thousands of gallons of coolant water to flow from one of the plant’s reactors.[2] This caused temperatures within the unit (Reactor 2) to rise to over 5000 degrees, causing the fuel core to begin to melt.”[3] As conflicting information by the Metropolitan Edison utilities and plant officials ran rampant, Edler recounts the lack of information concerning the Three Mile Incident when it occurred. “I think it took at least a day for it to spread around campus. When you were in class, professors would briefly mention it, but we didn’t have a lot of information about exactly what happened or how it would affect us.”[4] Edler reflected how many Dickinson students had little understanding of the direness of the situation or the existence of the plant itself. “I knew that there was some kind of a plant. I did not know it harnessed nuclear energy at the time. It was clear since we used to see it when my parents drove me to or from Dickinson because of the huge stacks and the smoke coming out from them.”[5] It would lead to a score of confusion within the student body, as many awaited the response of the college president and local governmental officials.

_{Edler recounts Dickinson’s response to the crisis on the following day of the incident. “Dickinson asked us to voluntarily leave campus if possible on the first weekend after three-mile island. They asked people to leave by that Friday because they were going to be an evacuation center. No one was quite sure when these things were going to happen or how international students would be affected.” [6] She also mentions that “the school didn’t shut down until the end of that weekend. Still, college President Samuel Banks decided to close the college for a full week.” [7] She notes how the swift action of the college reflected the growing concerns of parents at the time, who had been listening to the conflicting reports of the situation in both the local and national media. The power of television in adding to nuclear hysteria was also clear in the student body. “It was common to see students in their respective dorms gathered around a single silver screen. It brought fast information on the rising crisis, especially through the local ABC Action News 27.” [8] Newspaper articles like the Dickinsonian further disseminated the details of the crisis in the days following. Reflecting on the heightened emotions on campus in the face of a rising student exodus, “parental inquiries flooded the College switchboard, necessitating that it remains open round the clock throughout the weekend,”  as a United Telephone Company shift supervisor reported that “it’s a mess.” [9]}

_{The rising crisis at Three Mile Island soon enveloped the White House and the national media. According to the American Experience site at PBS, President Jimmy Carter ordered that “phone lines be connected between the White House, the NRC, and the State House at Harrisburg” with Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh.[10] A former nuclear engineer for the Navy, Carter inspected the embattled plant on April 1, 1979. In a show of presidential support for Pennsylvanians and the surrounding Harrisburg area, Carter’s visit gave a “much-needed morale boost,” according to former Mayor Robert Reid of Middletown, Pennsylvania.” People weren’t talking to one another. They were cooped up in their homes, and when he came, it seemed like everyone came out to see the president, and it was really a shot in the arm.” [11] The wave of optimism Carter brought to the growing crisis reflected a change in tone from the national media, as the highly influential CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite stressed that the incident was “a “horror” that “could get much worse.” [12]}

 CBS News coverage of the crisis

The ongoing effects of the Three Mile Island Incident met that Dickinson College would have to serve a more significant role in the Cumberland and Dauphin County area. Edler reflects how Dickinson College would serve as an evacuation site and a command center on the crisis for the local area. “I understood that Dickinson was going to be used for evacuated residents of a nursing home and for a staging area for what we would call first responders today, fire companies, and others that were there to assist” as “It was a time of real uncertainty, and no one really understood what would happen exactly.”[13] According to the Three Mile Island archives at Dickinson College, “physicists on campus, including John Luetzelschwab and Priscilla Laws, brought together a student group to

monitor radiation levels, and found that there was no detectable radiation from the TMI accident in the Carlisle,” advising “local emergency management authorities on radiation monitoring and safety.[14]” Edler notes that “I did not learn later that Dickinson used some of the professors and international students who could not leave campus at the time to interview and create archives of information about people’s experiences surrounding the incident,” but pointed to the role of the WDCV radio station amid the crisis.[15] According to an article by the Dickinsonian on April 12, 1979, the “WDCV provided special news shows every hour and released statements from the college. The station also provided the community with reports from the Physics department, and broadcast live the informational meetings that were held evenings.”[16] The WDCV broadcastings that would spark a debate on nuclear energy when students returned to campus reflected a national anti-nuclear energy movement that was quickly rising.

The Three Mile Island Incident made many Americans aware of the dangers of nuclear energy, leading to the explosion of anti-nuclear energy movements across the country. In a comparing anti-nuclear energy and anti-nuclear weapons protests, anti-nuclear energy protests rose from 25 protests in 1978 to around 32 protests in 1979 after the Three Mile Incident, a 28% increase.[17] Anti-nuclear energy movements found solace on college campuses like Dickinson. Edler portrays, “There were definitely more people on campus who became more interested in the anti-nuclear movement, as the accident at Three-Mile Island really kicked conversations about the safety of nuclear energy into gear. Many people were worried, predicting there could be another nuclear accident in the future that could affect even more people in the country.”[18] Edler remembers her own uneasiness returning to campus, reflecting on the mood of the student body at the time. “I remember my mother driving along the Pennsylvania Turnpike when we returned to Dickinson College the following week, and you could still see quite an ominous cloud over the three-mile island. It left me with a sense of uneasiness initially, as I gauged my trust with local authorities who felt they contained the situation.”[19]

In the immediate aftermath of the Three Mile Island Incident, there was an anti-nuclear energy protest in Harrisburg on April 8, 1979, that called for the plant’s closure. Only “1,000 people marched on the Pennsylvania State Capitol to protest the weekend after the crisis.”[20] However, according to student Jenny Jordan of The Dickinsonian, “3000 people showed up for a rally in Groton, Connecticut and 5000 showed up for one in San Francisco. In Germany, demonstrators yelled, “We all live in Pennsylvania.”[21]According to the Atlanta Constitution, it foreshadows the “largest anti-nuclear-energy crowd to assemble in the United States – upwards of 70,000 by official estimates” on May 7, 1979.[22] Demonstrators marched on the Capitol building to “protest the nation’s growing dependence on nuclear energy,” chanting “No more nukes- No more Harrisburgs.”[23] Many began to realize the long-term health and environmental effects of the incident on the Harrisburg area.

According to the York Daily Record, in 1980, it “may be 12-15 years” before the TMI cleanup happens, as almost “700,000 gallons of accident water” had seeped into the soil surrounding the Susquehanna River.[24] The Pane (People Against Nuclear Energy) Report of 1979 sought a departure from nuclear power. “To use coal we must demand the safest, cleanest coal possible, even though it means lower profits for the coal industry. With proper mine safety and miners rights, with adequate pollution controls and a strict program of land restoration, coal can continue to serve as an interim source of energy.”[25] Coal plants produced pollution that was easier to manage through desulfurization units that trapped the particles away from the atmosphere, versus nuclear plants that used uranium, resulting in “hundreds of dangerous radioactive elements with half-lives,” being stored at TMI.[26] As the protests became more widespread, the nation debated the Pane Report’s suggestions, suffering in the midst of a growing energy crisis.

Although the American Yawp textbook failed to include the Three Mile Island Incident of 1979, it leaves behind a complicated history that served as “a spark that ignited the funeral pyre for a once-promising energy source.” [27] It is important for history textbooks to mention the historical debate over nuclear energy that is rooted in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island Incident, holding corporations and government officials accountable for man-made disasters. The American public must be informed of nuclear energy’s long-term health and environmental effects on their fellow citizens to mark a return to more conventional nonrenewable energy resources in the future.

________________
[1] Seth Anziska et al., “The Unraveling,” Edwin Breeden, ed., in The American Yawp, eds. Joseph Locke and Ben Wright (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018).
[2] “Three Mile Island,” Dickinson.edu, 2019, http://tmi.dickinson.edu/.
[3] “Three Mile Island,” Dickinson.edu, 2019, http://tmi.dickinson.edu/.
[4] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[5] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[6] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[7] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[8] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[9] Jefferey Blinn and Sarah Snyder, “College Responds to Three Mile Island Nuke Accident: Coping Student Exodus,” Three Mile Island Website (The Dickinsonian, April 12, 1979), http://tmi.dickinson.edu/index.php/category/item-type/newspapers/.
[10] “President Carter: Meltdown at Three Mile Island,” | American Experience | PBS (WGBH Educational Foundation), accessed May 4, 2021, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/three-president-carter/.
[11] “March 28, 1979: Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant Accident,” cbsnews.com (CBS Interactive Inc, March 28, 2019), https://www.cbsnews.com/video/march-28-1979-three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-accident/.
[12] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[13] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[14] “Three Mile Island,” Dickinson.edu, 2019, http://tmi.dickinson.edu/.
[15] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[16] Peggy Collins, “Small Crew Keeps WDCV Broadcasting,” Three Mile Island Website (The Dickinsonian, April 12, 1979), http://tmi.dickinson.edu/index.php/category/item-type/newspapers/.
[17] Victoria Daubert and Sue Moran, “Origins, Goals, and Tactics of the U.S. Anti-Nuclear Protest Movement,” March 1985, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2005/N2192.pdf.
[18] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[19] Audio recording with Karen Edler, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021
[20] Thomas Fortuna, “U.S. Anti-Nuclear Activists Campaign against Restarting Three Mile Island Nuclear Generator, 1979-1985,” The Global Nonviolent Action Database (Swarthmore College, September 18, 2011), https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/us-anti-nuclear-activists-campaign-against-restarting-three-mile-island-nuclear-generator-19.
[21] Jenny Jordan, “Student Participates in Protest,” Three Mile Island Website (The Dickinsonian, April 12, 1979), http://tmi.dickinson.edu/index.php/category/item-type/newspapers/.
[22] “70,000 Stage Anti-Nuclear Rally in D.C,” The Atlanta Constitution (1946-1984), May 07, 1979, 2. https://envoy.dickinson.edu/loginqurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fhistorical-newspapers%2F70-000-stage-anti-nuclear-rally-d-c%2Fdocview%2F1614163941%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D10506.
[23] “70,000 Stage Anti-Nuclear Rally in D.C,” 2. https://envoy.dickinson.edu/loginqurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fhistorical-newspapers
[24] Patrice Flinchbaugh, “Nuclear Wastes from TMI2 Could Stay on Island for 25 Yeaes,” York Daily Record, August 26, 1980, http://tmi.dickinson.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Article7.pdf.
[25] “PANE Newsletters,” (Dickinson College Archives & Special Collections, 1979), http://archives.dickinson.edu/sites/all/files/files_tmi/PANE_1979.pdf.
[26] “PANE Newsletters.”
[27] Kiyosh Kurokawai and Meshkati Najmedin, “10 Years After Fukushima, Safety is Still Nuclear Power’s Greatest Challenge,” The Conversation : Environment + Energy, March 5, 2021, 1https://envoy.dickinson.edu/loginqurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fnewspapers%2F10-years-after-fukushima-safety-is-still-nuclear%2Fdocview%2F2497315252%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D10506.

Selected Transcript

• Audio recording, Mahwah, NJ, April 20, 2021

Question: Where were you when you heard of the Three Mile Island incident? What was the reaction when the news first broke out?

Answer: When I first heard about the incident, I was in the now Global Community house, sometimes referred to as Todd House. It was early dawn on March, 28th 1979, and I had transferred into Dickinson College as a sophomore from the University of Delaware freshman honors program.  

Q: Since social media, referring to Twitter, Instagram, and other various outlets, did not exist at the time, how fast did information spread around campus?

A: I think it took at least a day for it to spread around campus. When you were in class, professors would briefly mention it, but we didn’t have a lot of information about exactly what happened or how it would affect us.

Q: Did you have any previous conception of nuclear energy and its uses? Or were you mostly indifferent?

A: While I certainly knew nuclear energy existed, I didn’t have any negative feelings about it. To me, it was just a source of energy for the country. It was only after the three mile island accident occurred that I learned the dangers of nuclear energy and strict safety protocols that need to be in place. However, even with the safety protocols, I realized it could still endanger a large portion of our country.

Q: Were most students even aware of the existence of 3 Mile Island at the time? Did you have any prior knowledge?

A: I knew that there was some kind of a plant. I did not know it harnessed nuclear energy at the time. It was clear since we used to see it when my parents drove me to or from Dickinson because of the huge stacks and the smoke coming out from them. In fact, visiting Harrisburg with a friend, I drove right by the plant not long before this happened. Most people didn’t realize that it was a big nuclear plant unless you were studying in a physics field at the time. This accident was really what made us the most conscious that its existence wasn’t far from campus.

Q: What were the main modes of communication students used to gain information about the crisis at its initial breaking?

A: The main mode of communication about the three-mile island crisis was initially through television. It was common to see students in their respective dorms gathered around a single silver screen. It brought fast information on the rising crisis, especially through the local ABC Action News 27. It was due to the concerns of a reactor two meltdown, which would have put thousands at risk within the Carlisle area.

Q: When did you mention the incident to family members back home? Was it that Wednesday, or at a later date?

A: I did not initially tell my mother about the incident or the college asking people to voluntarily leave. I had a conversation with her days later when she became aware of it. She demanded that I come home because she was afraid I would not be safe. I called once a week on Sunday, so she became more fully aware of the situation on April 1st.

Q: What was the president’s initial response to the crisis? What did Dickinson do about the international students on campus?

A: I recollect that Dickinson asked us to voluntarily leave campus if possible on the first weekend after three-mile island. They asked people to leave by that Friday because they were going to be an evacuation center. No one was quite sure when these things were going to happen or how international students would be affected. Many international students did not have someplace to go easily, so they were permitted to stay if they lived too far from campus. The school didn’t shut down until the end of that weekend, but college President Samuel Banks decided to close the college for a full week. This was to keep the students safe, as many parents were worried and upset, leading to much nuclear hysteria.

Q: What role did Dickinson serve to those evacuated from the suburbs of Harrisburg and Cumberland County?

A: I understood that Dickinson was going to be used for residents of a nursing home that were evacuated and for a staging area for what we would call first responders today, fire companies, and others that were there to assist. It was a time of real uncertainty, and no one really understood what would happen exactly. Evacuation zones kept expanding as more information was learned about what was actually going on at the plant. I did not learn later that Dickinson used some of the professors and international students who could not leave campus at the time to interview and create archives of information about people’s experiences surrounding the incident.

Q: What part of the 3-mile incident was the average Dickinson student deeply concerned about? Did students think about its potential long-term effects?

A: People were really concerned about health problems as a result of the incident. Once we were past the point where people were concerned about a potential explosion, students knew radioactive gas had been admitted but didn’t understand how far it would go or whether it could reach dangerous levels at the campus. Many were worried about having long health side effects as a result. As a result, there were definitely more people on campus who became more interested in the anti-nuclear movement, as the accident at three-mile island really kicked conversations about the safety of nuclear energy into gear. Many people were worried, predicting there could be another nuclear accident in the future that could affect even more people in the country. What resulted in the aftermath of Three Mile Island was a big anti-nuclear energy protest in Harrisburg on April 8th, 1979, which called for the immediate closure of the plant.

Q: Where did you go when you were first evacuated? And how long did Dickinson keep students off-campus?

A: Initially, I left campus thinking it was just for the weekend. I went to my boyfriend’s dorm at the University of Maryland to stay for the weekend. But then, come Sunday, they announced that the school would be shut down for a week. At that point, my mother was furious that I decided to stay with my boyfriend for the weekend and ordered me to drive home back to northern New Jersey. I remember my mother driving along the Pennsylvania Turnpike when we returned to Dickinson College the following week, and you could still see quite an ominous cloud over the three-mile island. It left me with a sense of uneasiness initially, as I gauged my trust with local authorities who felt they contained the situation.

Q: As I am in the midst of an off-campus learning experience during the COVID-19 crisis, I am wondering did Dickinson students have any communication with professors during the week-long shutdown? Did you get a chance to get ahead on schoolwork?

A: We did not have any communication with our professors while the school was closed, and I recollect that the school made up the classes that we missed throughout the rest of the semester. It is not like today, where you could email and submit assignments through a computer or school portal.

Q: Since Dickinson has been the cornerstone of sustainable education, even in the 1970s, what was the reaction of Dickinson students to the incident when they returned to campus? Was there a shift in tone over nuclear energy?

A: Certainly, everyone was talking about nuclear energy and whether it was safe. The three-mile island incident kind of became a piece of the culture of our time at Dickinson, and many people began to at least look into any nuclear movement and learn more about what nuclear energy was. Many would speak out at the capitol in Harrisburg, questioning why the plant was close to residential neighborhoods.

Q: Reflecting on your time at Dickinson, do you feel the fallout from the Three Mile Incident was one of your most influential experiences? If so, why?

A: The aftermath from the Three Mile Island Incident definitely defined my time in Dickinson. It was certainly the most exciting thing that happened, exciting in a terrifying way. I think it also helped students bond some over a collective sense of fear for the future, similar to what current Dickinson Students are experiencing with the COVID-19 crisis. It opened a debate for how nuclear energy was being used at the time and how it might affect us going forward in our lives.

 

 

_­­

Sarah Whittemore

Oral History Project Interview 

4/29/2021

I asked my Father, Arthur Snow Whittemore III about the 1980’s; which correlates with the American Yawp Chapter 29. At first I asked my father if he would consent to answering my questions and he did.

Q: What was your opinion on Reagan’s political movement the “New Right?”

A: I believe that a focus on conservative values and personal responsibility is an excellent foundation.  I agree with Jefferson that the government that governs best is the government that governs least and with Ford that a government that is able to give you everything you want will take from you everything that you have.

Q: How did the “New Right” affect your life?

A: The reascent of conservative principles, especially with regard to reduced taxation provided a huge economic uplift – a rising tide that lifted all boats.  Perhaps more importantly, though, the engineered demise of communism fundamentally changed the world.  We no longer fear global nuclear war — there are other terrors – but the unthinkable is no longer a threat.  That is thanks to Ronald Reagan more than anyone else.

Q: How did the media portray Jerry Falwell and the moral majority? 

A: I didn’t pay much attention to the Moral Majority or any of their ilk.  They were conservatives for a different reason that I was.  But the evangelicals were necessary to create the voting bloc we needed to slow the tide of progressiism.

Q: Is the religious right more powerful today than in the 1980’s in your opinion?

A: I don’t think the religious right has much sway today right now.  So No.

Q: Did you notice the difference between President Carter’s “New Deal” and President Reagan’s “New Right?” If so, what are they?

A:  The New Deal was FDR not Carter.  And the differences between the New Deal (and also the Great Society of the sixties) and the conservative movement of the eighties and nineties is a stark contrast.  The success of the conservative movement changed the democratic party from a new deal / great society mindset to a more business focused type of democrat.  As your article says, the democrats of the nineties looked and talked a lot like the republicans of the sixties.

Q: Do you think that the moral majority is still a force in the Republican Party and have they become more radical?

A: I really don’t think the evangelicals have much sway.  The conservative pundits on FoxNews still defend religious freedom, and point out injustices against christians, but the thought leadership is not there — it’s about economic ideology not religious ideology.

Q: Do Political Action Committies (PAC) have more influence today than they did in the last 1970’s early 1980’s? 

A:  Sure — they didn’t really exist until the eighties when the campaign finance laws changed.

Q: Do you remember the Energy Crisis? How were you and/or anyone you knew affected by the crisis? 

A: Gas prices rose by a factor of five and even then you couldn’t get any.  You sat in line in your car to fill your tank and could only get gas on even or odd days depending on your license plate.  But it went way beyond the energy crisis.  The 70s (despite some good music) was a period of terrible malaise in America — first Watergate, then Stagflation and the Carter Years, including the loss of American exceptionalism around the globe.  We were on the verge of falling apart.  Reagan comes with both good ideas and great optimism.  It really changed the trajectory.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t permanent.

Q: My textbook states: “Americans increasingly embraced racial diversity as a positive value but most often approached the issue through an individualistic—not a systemic—framework.” Do you think race relations were better when Reagan was in office or are they better now? Why do you think this?   

A: Race relations have been on a steady improvement over time.  I think they were better in the 80s than in the 60s and I know they are better today than they were in the 80s.  Forget all the George Floyd riots.  Look at neighborhoods.  Look at mixed marriages.  My son-in-law is black.  My grandchildren are mixed race.  That would not have happened a generation ago.  And certainly not two generations ago.  Things are getting better every day.  The left just doesn’t want us to believe that — perhaps they think the pace of change is not fast enough – but the direction of change is one of constant improvement.

Q: Do you remember what it was like when Democratic candidate Walter Mondale named his running mate Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to ever run in a debate?

A: In my opinion, her gender was irrelevant.  She just wasn’t qualified.  I would have voted for plenty of women for VP if they were qualified.  So her gender wasn’t a factor for me, and I really didn’t think it mattered to most voters.  It was a curiosity but I don’t think her sex affected the election.

Q: How did your life change when the The Apple II computer came out in 1977?  

A: Not much.  My first computer was an IBM PC in 1985.  I’ve had a computer ever since.

Q: What changed in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ‘70s that fueld the rise of conservatism?

A: The fifties were a soft and easy time in America, but with a looming threat from the USSR.  The sixties were a time of radical change (much as now) that left much of middle America uneasy, but unsure where to go.  Nixon called them the silent majority, but they were unable to make a difference.  So in the sixties we saw the Great Society BS and riots and hippies.  It came really fast as a reaction to a failing war in Viet Nam.  Nixon came along and tried to slow it, but then the Watergarte scandal put the conservatives on the run.  But there were no real conservatives thenn.  It was the failure of economic policy and foreign policy under Carter that brought us to the point where conservatism could truly emerge.

 

Email Reflection 4/29 

Sarah Whittemore

 

I decided to reflect upon Sam Drabkin’s article: Fighting the Epidemic- Grass-root HIV suppport groups in the 80’s. This article stood out to me due to the fact that President Ronald Raegan and his administration was very slow to fund the HIV epidemic along with AIDS due to the fact that it was labeled as a “‘gay compromise syndome’” As the article state: “The equivalence of AIDS with the gay community made the conservative Reagan administration sluggish in its response to say the least.” I find it interesting that even though AIDS was around in the 1970’s that the disease itself was not deemed as a disease unitl the 80’s. I find this reckless due to the fact that in 1982, 618 people that had the disease died because of the lack of response and the article states that “By the end of 1983 that number had more than tripled” However, once the Reagan administration “changed its position” on this disease, Reagan “increased the federal budget for AIDS research, to half a billion dollars over 5 years.” The budget that the Reagan administration funded for AIDS research allowed Catherine Drabkin to direct her own support group. I also find it interesting that after one of Reagan’s friends: Rock Hudson died due to AIDS, “marked a turning point”. After movie star Rock Hudson died, “funds were made available for research and treatment.” I find this article fascinating because only after movie star Rock Hudson died of this disease, did the Reagan administration actually take action to attempt to control it. 

 

There are many effective ways to organize an oral history-based essay.  Here is one sample outline:

I.  Introduction

• Narrative vignette (with quotation from interview)
• Thesis statement and interpretive overview

II.  Background

• Personal history (subject’s story)
• General context (focused on secondary sources)

III.  Narrative

• Heart of the story (mix of quotations and sources)

IV.  Analysis

• Explain or interpret significance (address Brands book)

V.  Conclusion

• Return to narrative vignette and deepen insights

Liam Donahue

30 April 2018

“Not until the 1950s, when a critical mass of households first owned televisions, did TV [baseball] games become a regular thing. Once they did, advertisers began paying for commercials to be shown on broadcasts, and the ad money launched baseball on a meteoric rise.”–H.W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States since 1945, Pp. 75.

In 1946, Phil Shevlin, a native of Long Island, went to Brooklyn to visit his aunt and uncle. He was 10 years old. Phil remembers seeing a curious sight: a whole bunch of people were crowded around a storefront, “and there was this little tiny TV set, and they were showing a [baseball] game. And everybody was standing there, looking, with their face pressed against the window. That was my first experience ever seeing a television.”[1] The incident Phil is describing, while it may seem mundane, was actually representative of an important crossroads in American cultural history in the 1950s. Television was just beginning to proliferate in the late 1940s in America, and Baseball would also soon be carried live on TV. Phil had caught these two cultural features at the very beginning of their intersection. Of similar importance to this memory of Phil’s is the time and place it took place in. Jackie Robinson, the second baseman who broke baseball’s color barrier, played for the Brooklyn Dodgers, and 1946 was the year before his debut season. H.W. Brands discusses these things, but condenses them all to a single page (75) of his book American Dreams: the United States since 1945. Phil Shevlin’s experiences supplement Brands’ quick skim over these topics, giving them an immediacy and a sense of life and detail that can only be obtained through a firsthand account.

Phil Shevlin was born in 1936. He grew up in the town of St. James, on Long Island, where he played a lot of sandlot baseball. He moved to Carlisle in 1954. In 1955, after high school, he joined the Army as a Military Policeman, specializing in transportation. He spent time driving officers back and forth between Washington and the Army War College. Later that same year, Phil went overseas to Paris, where he worked as chauffeur to a two-star General, the Chief of Intelligence at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. He still lives in Carlisle today, working at the information desk in Dickinson College’s Kline Athletic Center.

Baseball had been growing steadily in popularity since the beginning of the 20^th century, however its popularity was transformed significantly through broadcast media. The first game was broadcast in 1939, as a test.[2] By the late forties and early fifties, “radio and TV stations could afford to pay large sums for the privilege of broadcasting games.”[3] Phil remembers listening to radio broadcasts of games, albeit on a slight delay due to the way the radio station received updates about the game. “You got the radio games from a far city, but it was on ticker tape to the station, and then you heard the ticker tape in the background and the guy was announcing what happened.” Phil watched baseball as much as he could, and he also played countless sandlot games with his friends.[4] Baseball was as popular as ever, yet there was another side to the coin. TV broadcasts of games, some thought, were actually taking fans away from the stadiums. “Television,” it was feared, would “consume baseball.”[5] Phil, despite the many sandlot games he played with friends, also vicariously watched baseball on TV “whenever [he] could, as much as possible,” even though at first he “only got the NYC area games on TV, and Philadelphia.”[6] Ticket sales were hurt, however ad revenue from TV more than made up for it. “For instance, the Dodgers’ income from radio and television in 1955 exceeded their player payroll by more than $250,000…interest, as opposed to attendance, never flagged.”[7]

Phil’s family got a TV in 1947, well before most American households did. They were the first family in their town to get one.[8] The TV was “[t]he number one consumer item of the 1950s…in 1947, fourteen thousand families had one, by 1957, ten million families had one.”[9] Phil’s family was one of those fourteen thousand. Luckily, his father had connections. “My dad worked in a hardware store that sold TVs,” he explained, “and I dunno how he afforded it but he got a TV.”[10] Television in Phil’s hometown of St. James, Long island, had “sort of just blossomed in the fifties… you knew who had TV because they had to have an antenna, and by the fifties everybody had an antenna, unless they didn’t have any money.”[11] An item such as this was not a small purchase for a middle class family in the 1950s. Phil remembers that, “they were an expensive item to a family that didn’t have a whole lot of money, but [retailers] made things achievable, different stores…they had to get their merchandise out, so they made credit plans, things of that nature.”[12] Just as TV sucked people away from attending baseball games, it also took people indoors away from other outdoor pursuits. TV “provided a way to spend more leisure time than middle-class families were used to having in the much more Spartan existence of the 1930s and 1940s.”[13] Phil observed this very phenomenon play out, although he noticed a split in who was most affected by it. Some, it was apparent, were spending more of their leisure time indoors. “The kid’s didn’t, the older people [did],” he said. “On the weekends, you didn’t see them travelling around like they did before. A lot of them, especially in New York City, you’d see them walking all over. Once TV came along, it cut that down. But the kids were still outside playing sandlot ball.”[14]  

Race was a hot button issue for baseball around the time that Phil saw his first TV in Brooklyn in 1946. Baseball had been segregated since its beginning, yet the prominence of black men fighting and dying for the United States in the Second World War brought the issue to a head. “Many critics complained of the hypocrisy of requiring black men to fight and die in a war against European racism but denying them the opportunity to play ‘the national pastime.’”[15] Brooklyn Dodgers owner Branch Rickey took note of this growing sentiment, and was “convinced of the ability of black ballplayers, their potential gate attraction, and the injustice of their exclusion from major league baseball.”[16] Rickey decided, in secret, to sign Robinson to play for the 1947 Dodgers. Phil, close as he was to Brooklyn, got the Dodgers on TV. He saw Robinson’s first game, saw baseball’s color barrier come down in real time. “I was off sick [from school] that day,” he grinned. “Fortunately we had the T.V. to watch baseball. It was opening day of the ’47 season.”[17] But Phil also got the chance to go to a Dodger’s game and see Robinson play firsthand. Sometimes, things could get rough. Opposing players “gave him a hard time…he was playing second base, and whenever they slid into second base, the spikes [cleats] were always flying, they’d have their feet up in the air. He got hit with a lot of pitches.”[18] On singing with the Dodgers, Branch Rickey had “extracted from Robinson a promise not to respond to the abuse for his first three years.”[19] After this period was over, Robinson started responding to hecklers, “angrily confront[ing] opposing players who taunted him.”[20] Off the field, he advocated for the NAACP, and fought hard against the continued presence of racism in American society.

Brands flies through all of this on one page of American Dreams, during his chapter on “the golden age of the middle class.”[22] He mentions that “not until the 1950s, when a critical mass of houses first owned televisions, did TV games first become a regular thing.”[23] Phil, watching Jackie play in 1947 from the comfort of his home, was on the cutting edge of the phenomenon Brands describes. TV, Brands writes, “launched baseball on a meteoric rise.”[24] This rise was helped by people like Phil who watched the games on TV, providing the Brooklyn Dodgers with their surplus discussed earlier, despite declining ticket sales. The integration of baseball is described by Brands, who sums up the Dodgers as facing “considerable hostility before eventually being accepted.”[25] Phil’s firsthand witnessing of this hostility adds flavor to Brands’ abbreviation.

On that day in Brooklyn in 1946 when Phil Shevlin saw his first TV, though he may not have been aware of it, he was witnessing the beginning of a larger shift in postwar American culture. Baseball’s collision with TV would shape the direction the game took, a transition that started even earlier than H.W. Brands mentions. Phil had the good fortune to be one of the first in his area to get a television, and his memories of watching the neighborhood fill up with them at the same time as more people were drawn indoors, as well as of watching baseball on TV right as games started to be televised give his remarks a depth and insight that expand nicely on what Brands covers quickly in his book. Similarly, his experience of watching Jackie Robinson break the color barrier helps bring a milestone in American social and cultural history to life.

 

[1] Interview in person at Kline center, 2 April 2018

[2] H. W. Brands, American Dreams: The United States since 1945 (New York, Penguin Books, 2010). 75.

[3] White, G. Edward. “The Decline of the National Pastime.” In Creating the National Pastime: Baseball Transforms Itself, 1903-1953, 316-30. Princeton University Press, 1996. [JSTOR]. Accessed 4/28/18. 324.

[4] Interview 2 April 2018

[5] William Marshall, “Chapter 21: Baseball then and Now” In Baseball’s Pivotal Era, 1945-1951 (Kentucky, University Press of Kentucky, 1999): pp 426-440. 428. [JSTOR] Accessed 4/29/18.

[6] Interview 2 April 2018.

[7] William 429.

[8] Interview 2 April 2018.

[9]  John Robert Greene. “Comfort and Crisis: The 1950s.” In America in the Sixties, 1-19. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2010. [JSTOR]. Accessed 3/29/18. 2.

[10] Interview 2 April 2018.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Greene 2.

[14] Interview 2 April 2018.

[15] “Robinson, Jackie” American National Biography (http://www.anb.org). Accessed 4/29/18.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Interview 2 April 2018.

[18] Ibid.

[19] American National Biography

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Brands 68.

[23] Ibid 75.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

Selected Transcript:

April 2, 2018 at the Kline Center

Question: You said you watched Jackie Robinson’s First game on TV?

Answer: His first game, it was in April 1947

Q: Where on TV?

A: I watched it at home, Long island, St. James N. Y.

Q: So you guys had a TV at that point?

A: we did.

Q: Did the neighbors have a TV as well?

A; No, we were one of the first in our town to have one, my dad worked in a hardware store that sold TVs, and I dunno how he afforded it but he got a TV. I was off sick that day (JR gameday), I would miss a lot of school, but fortunately we had the TV to watch Baseball. It was opening day of the ’47 season.

Q: you said earlier [a day before, in conversation] that you only got the local games, right?

A: Oh, yeah, they wouldn’t bring any…even on the radio, you got the radio games from a far city, but it was on ticker tape to the station, and then you heard the ticker tape in the background and the guy was announcing what happened…but we only got the NYC area games on TV, and Philadelphia. We got the Philadelphia games.

Q: as time went on in the 50’s, did you experience other families in your area getting TVs as it became more and more prevalent?

A: Oh yeah, it sort of just blossomed in the fifties, like I said we got ours in ’47…In the fiftes, you knew who had TV because they had to have an antenna, and by the 50s everybody had an antenna, unless they didn’t have any money…TVs weren’t expensive…they were an expensive item to a family that didn’t have a whole lot of money, but they made things achievable, different stores…they had to get their merchandise out, so they made credit plans, things of that nature.

I remember the first time I saw a baseball game on television was when I was visiting my uncle and aunt who lived in Brooklyn, and we were going to Madison square garden to see a hockey game, and they had a sporting goods chain in NY called Davega Sporting Goods, and…there was a whole crowd of people standing around the storefront, at night, and there was this little tiny TV set, and they were showing a game. And everybody was standing there, looking, with their face pressed against the window. That was my first experience ever seeing a television. That was probably 1946. I’ll bet it wasn’t more than a ten inch screen, if that. Our first [TV] was a seven inch. Then we had a round set, it had a round screen. That was the one I saw Jackie play on.

Q: You mentioned [a day previously] that you played baseball outside with your friends. As TV grew in popularity, did you notice people spending more time indoors?

A: Yes. The kids didn’t, the older people [did]. On the weekends, you didn’t see them travelling around like they did before. A lot of them, especially in New York City, you’d see them walking all over. Once TV came along, it cut that down. But the kids were still outside playing sandlot ball.

Q: Let’s transition to the culture of the fifties. Do you remember things such as Mcdonald’s, Disneyland, in their early stages?

A: Didn’t have any of that. We didn’t have McDonald’s [in St. James] when I was growing up, didn’t have one when I graduated high school. I know when I came to Carlisle [in 1954] there were no fast food restaurants, we had one but it wasn’t a chain or a conglomerate…We had a place in Mount Holly, called Woody’s Barbeque. I worked there [in the late fifties]. The cars drove up, and the [workers] would come out and take their orders…the food would come out and the [worker] would put the tray on the car window.

Q: Let’s talk about baseball. You saw Jackie Robinson play?

A: That was in ’47. His first season.

Q: was that before or after the team accepted him?

A: Oh, they accepted him in the first year, but it took awhile. When [Team captain] Peewee Reese put his arm around him on the field, that had a big impact.

Q: Do you know if that had the same impact on the fans as well,?

A: Probably some. NYC was a hodgepodge of nationalities, so you didn’t know who he might have offended, but it goes back…I can remember here in Carlisle we had a bus station on Pitt street, and it still had black only water fountains, restrooms for blacks and for whites. I went to military police school in Georgia, right outside of Agusta, and they had signs on the grass…colored not allowed. That was really bad down there, it didn’t start changing until the sixties.

Q: The game you saw Jackie play in…

A: I remember it was a night game. What a feeling to walk from the dark streets, through the turnstile, and there was the field, all lit up like daytime…beautiful. It’s a great feeling.

Q: Was there any violence towards Jackie?

A: they gave him a hard time…He was playing second base, and whenever they slid into second base, the spikes were always flying, they’d have their feet up in the air. He got hit with a lot of pitches. On Jackie Robinson Day, every player wears #42.

They tracked him quite awhile before they signed him and picked him to be the first guy to break the color barrier. He took a lot of heat [at college] where he played football. He was a good football player. He handled himself well as an athlete.