1
CHAPTER TWO
The Birth of the American Community College
For two hundred years, the university was the primary institution
for American higher education. Attending college was a contributing
factor in the rising standards of living and not to attend was to undergo a
social deprivation as well as to suffer a professional handicap (Chase 33).
But like other social institutions, colleges underwent certain changes
with the passing of time and the variations of environment. Change in
American education usually occurred in response to the external
pressures of society, environment, and technology, rather than from
within. Dissatisfaction with elitist higher education and Latin grammar
schools gave rise to academies and public school concepts during the
eighteenth century. Because of organizational problems, even the
academy came to be challenged by growing support for the public high
school. In time, the junior high school was to evolve as a response to
inadequate education for the period between the primary grades and the
high school (Palinchak 9). In 1862, land grant colleges were established
as a result of the passage of the Morrill Act which called for the
establishment in each state of higher education institutions dedicated to
instruction in agriculture, the mechanic arts, scientific farming,
engineering and military science (Ratcliff 27).
7
8
Late in the nineteenth century, questions over the definition,
nature, and scope of secondary education were being asked. Several
decades into the twentieth century as colleges were eliminating some of
their years of instruction, high schools were adding the thirteenth and
fourteenth years. Technical or vocational schools were also attempting
some collegiate-level instruction, and a few major universities had
redesigned their undergraduate programs to draw distinctions between
the “junior college”, or the first two years, and the “senior college,” or the
last two years of a four-year liberal arts baccalaureate program (Diener
7).
The emergence of the Community/junior College and its rapid
growth can be attributed to three main factors. First, there was the idea,
born as a result of a number of university presidents and deans who
advocated removing the first two years of higher education from the
university and placing them in a separate institution. These ideas
became a reality because of the constant increase in economic wealth in
the United States. Next, the rising productivity, which enabled the
country to support more students in college, required at the same time a
constantly increasing supply of workers with the education to control
and to improve the productive apparatus (Thornton 46). Finally, these
factors might never have come to pass had it not been for the belief,
inbred in every aspect of society, that education is a social and individual
9
good and that society is obligated to provide as much of it as any
individual desires and can profit from.
According to Thornton, the Community/junior College evolved in
four major stages. The first and longest lasted from 1850 to 1920.
During that period the idea and the acceptable practice of the junior
college, a separate institution offering the first two years of baccalaureate
curriculums, were achieved. Next, the concepts of terminal and
semiprofessional education in the junior college gained widespread
currency with the foundation of the American Association of Junior
Colleges in 1920. The changes in post-high school education brought by
World War II emphasized a third element of responsibility: service to the
adults of the community. The period after 1945 witnessed the
development of the operative definition of the Community/junior College.
Finally, the period after 1965 marked the beginning of a movement
toward the full realization of the open-door concept, with the spread of
colleges into the inner city and their emphasis on seeking ways to
provide for all the educational needs of that community. Some early
junior colleges began their work as technical and vocational colleges, and
institutions beginning as junior colleges would likely add vocational
programs to their existing transfer programs. By the 1930’s, the
vocational or job training function became an important portion of the
mission of many junior colleges (Blocker 24). Typically a community
college had a transfer or liberal arts program containing the same
10
balance among the social sciences, the sciences, and the humanities that
one would find in the first two years of a Liberal Arts College or
university. It also had a variety of specialized programs, often called
career or occupational or terminal programs. Early two-year colleges
grew out of circumstances and accident; later ones grew out of design
and planning. The beginnings of the junior college movement reflect the
strength of the private sector of American education as well as the
educational diversity that has since become a national trademark
(Palinchak 21).
How does the two-year college fit into the functional framework of
education? The first function that may be ascribed to education in
general is that of defining the state of being uneducated as undesirable.
Because education serves as a social mechanism to cope with the
deficiencies of members of the society, it is by definition undesirable to
be uneducated. At the turn of the century, for most purposes, an eighthgrade education was satisfactory to remove one from the category of the
uneducated. As uneducated increasingly came to be associated with
unemployable, the high school diploma assumed importance as the line
of demarcation between educated and uneducated. With automation,
the college degree has the significance once accorded the high school
diploma (Brawer 1).
The two-year college was caught in the middle of the drive to
increase the educational level of the population. The four-year college
11
and the university were ill equipped to cope with the increasing numbers
of education-minded individuals, particularly when so many of them
lacked even the most rudimentary requirements for baccalaureate
courses. The community college sought to provide access to higher
education for people who might not otherwise attend. It accepted the
diverse students and shaped itself to their needs. Occupational
programs were organized for students seeking job entry. Massive
remedial programs were installed for students who could not read.
Courses were offered at students’ convenience, day and night, on
campus and off. Past academic inadequacies were forgiven as the college
accepted students who had done poorly in high school or in prior college
studies. Course registration was simplified, and students could drop out
and in at their whim. Adults seeking personal-interest activities,
avocational pursuits, or occupational upgrading were welcomed. It
became the college for everyone.
The first junior colleges perceived the transfer function as their
sole purpose: serve the university and serve it well by careful
preparation of students for study in the junior and senior years. That
purpose was useful but limited. As the junior college concept matured,
so did the view of its mission: to educate persons for jobs, to serve
adults, to enroll part-time students, to provide community services, to be
a “second chance” college, to offer guidance and counseling services, to
be a point of educational access for women and minorities.
12
Consequently, the junior college has become a multi-purpose institution
(Bogue 318).
One of the primary missions of a community college is to serve the
community: to be the educational and cultural focal points in the region;
hence the name “community college.” Two-year colleges have adult
education programs, lecture series, musical programs and plays, short
noncredit courses for special groups to upgrade themselves, and a range
of other educational activities for which there is a perceived need in the
community (Glazer 12).
The Community colleges serve a diverse population of individuals
as well as society as a whole. They are among the frontline institutions
in the war against illiteracy. They stand alongside the public libraries,
museums, youth groups, and other community agencies in transmitting
values and shared understandings. They also protect the universities by
sorting the prospective students and sending on only those who have
passed the various college-level initiatory rites. They assist the
community’s employers by screening their prospective employees
(Diener 7).
There are essentially two groups of students attending a
community college: those who plan to transfer as juniors to four-year
institutions and those who plan to take jobs after just two years of
college.
It is this multi-purpose quality, which accounts in large
measure for the community college’s surging popularity. Another reason
13
for community colleges’ popularity is that they are inexpensive. The first
two years of college are cheaper to operate than the last two because
larger sections are suitable for many introductory courses and because
less specialized equipment is required. A nonresidential college costs
only about half as much per student to build and run as a dormitory
college. Admission to a community college is also less stringent. It may
even have an “open door” admissions policy.
A community college does have definite disadvantages. The
students are usually commuters and are gone at the close of each day
and are completely gone after two years. They do not have the benefit of
more mature upperclassmen to set a tone for them in the informal, outof-class education, which a residential institution offers. Other
shortcomings include the fact that their students tend to come from the
same socio-economic group as well as from the same geographic areas,
so most of the usual college stimulation of interacting with a more
diverse student body is lacking. Nor do the community college students
get the kind of life experience often associated with going to college, that
of going away from home, of being “on their own”. Many feel that two
years of college is not really enough of college for most talented
youngsters, but that is all most of our career students get. Woodrow
Wilson is supposed to have said, “Anyone who thinks two years of college
is enough has never seen a sophomore. The sap has begun to rise but it
has not yet reached the brain.” (O’Connell 6)
14
On the positive side of community colleges, the least that must be
said is better a community college for two years than no college
experience at all. For many people, the advantages of community
colleges far outweigh the disadvantages. Community college teachers
concentrate on their work in the classrooms and on counseling students.
They are not required to “publish or perish”. Also, many of the
community colleges are small. This allows many students to obtain
leadership skills they might otherwise not have. For many students,
attending the first two years of college while living at home is considered
a major advantage. Seventeen is not the right age for everyone to try his
or her hand at being on their own (Bogue 26).
The community college in America is a “coat of many colors.”
Borrowing heavily from the public high school, the private junior college,
and the four-year college and university, the community college not only
possesses characteristics found in all of these but at the same time
maintains an identity of its own (Vaughan 7).
Texas Community College Movement
Decatur Baptist College in Decatur, Texas opened a two-year
program under denominational control in 1897. Decatur is considered
by many to be the nation’s first college founded specifically as a two-year
college. Before then, however, Blinn College in Brenham, Texas taught a
two-year course in business administration (Smith 139). Blinn started
as a Methodist prep-school and high school-level academy. College level
15
work was started when a wealthy Methodist minister, Christian Blinn,
offered to donate money for a college building if the college would admit
women and offer college-level business administration. After much
discussion, the college board of trustees agreed to both requirements and
a two-year college course was started.
In 1900 the first locally controlled public junior college in Texas
was founded in El Paso but was soon discontinued. In 1922, the first
permanent public junior college was founded: Hardin College, organized
by the Wichita Falls Independent School District. Following in Hardin
Colleges footsteps, twenty-four other public junior colleges “grew up”
from high schools in Texas (Smith 140). Hardin College continued to
“grow up” into a senior college and it’s name was changed to Midwestern
University in 1961. Several other junior colleges evolved into senior
colleges causing the state authorities to say that no other junior college
could be permitted to “grow” into a senior college. Instead, junior
colleges should fulfill their function as two-year colleges, enlarging on
their two-year technical training programs and adult education as well as
the traditional two-year academic core (Smith 141).
The earliest junior colleges had no legislative recognition and no
state support. Between the years 1920 and 1928 eighteen junior colleges
were created by independent school districts, with one discontinuing
soon after it was founded. In 1929 the Forty-First Legislature passed a
16
validating act that allowed for the recognition of the seventeen remaining
junior colleges.
By 1940, Texas had twenty-two junior colleges in operation, all of
which were still financed entirely from local funds. State aid came in
1941, when the Forty-Seventh Legislature agreed to pay $50 per full-time
student to the junior colleges. By 1948, state aid had been increased to
$100 per full-time student in the then thirty-three public junior colleges
in the state. Those junior colleges that became senior colleges were
replaced by new junior colleges. By 1963 there were 30,322 full-time
students in the public junior colleges in Texas. The relationship between
the state and it’s junior colleges changed when the organization of the
State Department of Education changed from an elected state
superintendent of schools to an elected state board and an appointed
superintendent. Although state colleges were put under a Texas
Commission for Higher Education, junior colleges were kept under the
newly created Texas Education Agency. Later, the Coordinating
Commission on Higher Education was established. It would be
composed of eighteen members appointed by the governor, which would
have full authority over all higher education in Texas. One division of
this board would be the Committee on Junior Colleges, while others
would be concerned with colleges and universities (Smith 150).
17
Historical Background
In September of 1924, Temple began its bid for securing an
institution of higher learning. The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran
church was interested in establishing a Lutheran college of the
southwest. Dallas, Waco, Marlin, Giddings, Austin, Mexia, and Temple
were contenders in the state of Texas for the honor of landing the
Lutheran college (Temple Daily Telegram (TDT) 1). On Thursday,
September 4, 1924, a committee of the Lutheran church visited Temple
for the purpose of considering it as a site of a proposed college. The
committee told the city officials that a site of not fewer than twenty acres
of land, and a bonus of $20,000 or more would be required to land the
college (TDT 1).
The Chamber of Commerce appointed special Lutheran college
sub-committees to launch a drive for raising funds and locating a site to
offer as Temple’s inducement for the locating of the institution here (TDT
1). Advantages of selecting Temple as the site of the college were
compiled. Climatic and health conditions were felt to be major points.
“Enjoying an altitude equal to that of either Dallas or Fort Worth, but
still more than 150 miles nearer the coast, Temple is “high” enough to be
free of all material troubles and yet is close enough to the Gulf to get the
benefit of the refreshing Gulf breezes, which prevail with the exception of
just a few nights in the peak of summer. In winter the weather is far
more pleasant here than it is even in north Texas; for the northers lose
18
much of their fierceness before they get this far south, yet it stays cold
enough to add zest and pep to life.” The inexhaustible supply of pure
water, the geographically central location in the state, and the fact that
Temple was located on two big trunk line railways were other big features
brought before the locating committee. With the Santa Fe main line to
California sprouting out from this city, if noted lecturers or educators
pass through Texas, they nearly always have to pass through Temple,
and thus it would be an easy matter for an educational institution to
arrange dates for celebrities desired for lectures before the student body
(TDT 1).
In mid September of 1924, the fund raising drive to get monies for
having a college in Temple had only raised about half of the $20,000
needed because “some of our citizens do not seem to realize what a
college would mean to our city”. Also, anyone who owned twenty to
thirty acres of land near the city limits of Temple were asked to make a
written proposition to the sub-committee if they were interested in
offering their land as a site for this college (TDT 1).
On October 1 a committee from Temple, composed of members J.S.
McCelvey, Charles S. Cox, Frank Doering, John Cole, and W.A. Spencer,
met with the Texas Lutheran locating committee in Reisel. They offered
the money, which had been raised, and ten possible sites for location of
the college (TDT 1). Despite the efforts of the Temple committee
19
members, the Lutherans decided to establish the college in Austin (Webb
95).
Interest had been sparked for a college in Temple and the idea of a
junior college developed (TDT 1). The leader of the movement to obtain a
municipal college was Mr. L.C. Procter, then Superintendent of the
Temple Public Schools. In 1926 Mr. Procter brought before the Board of
Education of the city schools a suggestion for the founding of a junior
college. Members of the educational board expressed the opinion that,
although the group was in favor of the establishment of such a school, it
was not within their power to undertake the raising of the necessary
funds for its maintenance. In January of 1926, Mr. Procter
recommended to the Temple Chamber of Commerce that a Temple Junior
College be established under the auspices of the department of extension
of the University of Texas. Dr. Walter Splawn, President of the University
of Texas, had made known his intent to establish junior colleges at
different points in the state in the interest of economy, convenience, and
relief to the University (Havekost 6). A committee appointed by the
Temple Chamber of Commerce composed of Dr. Procter, Dr. J.S.
McCelvey, Charles S. Cox, and Dr. O. F. Gober, met with Dr. Splawn to
discuss various requirements concerning the securing of junior college
work. On February 13, 1926, the Temple Daily Telegram contained the
following article concerning the success of Temple in securing the college:
Temple will have the full cooperation of the University of Texas in
establishing a junior college that will be recognized by the University and
20
all other colleges and universities of the south, a delegation from the
Temple Chamber of Commerce was assured this afternoon by President
Splawn of the University.
President Splawn received the Temple committee for more than an
hour today, congratulated the city on the move it is making and
announced that within a day or so he will write Superintendent Procter
outlining the conditions on which the University would be willing to
nominate the faculty, supervise entrance requirements and assure full
recognition from the onset.
“You can have the college if you want it”, Dr. Splawn said, “and I
see that you want it and are willing to support it” (TDT 1).
Temple Junior College was founded through the efforts of the
Temple Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trustees of the Temple
Public Schools, to be conducted under the auspices of the University of
Texas. Originally TJC was listed as a municipal junior college, meaning
it was supported by the city of Temple and tuition rates. A sum of
$20,000 was given by private citizens to insure the financial solvency of
the college for it’s first two years. Temple Junior College finally opened
its doors for the first time in September of 1926. Tuition for the first
school year, September through May was $200. At this time no public
tax money was available to the college.
The college operated under a seven member Board of Directors,
who also made up the Board of Education for the Temple Public Schools.
According to the plans set forth by the University of Texas, President
Splawn of the University was to select a director for the Junior College,
and the faculty for the school. Major Joseph S. Cook, (See Fig. 1) a
graduate of Southwestern University at Georgetown, was selected as the
21
first president of the college and the college had a full time faculty of five.
(See Fig. 2)
Fig. 1. J.S. Cook
Fig. 2. Courtesy Dr. H.C. Farrell
22
The college courses were held in the Temple High School building (See
Fig. 3) from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. making Temple Junior College an
afternoon college, not a night college. Courses offered during the first
year of operation were, physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology,
languages, history, education, and English (Havekost 10). Although the
Junior college used the high school buildings and equipment, it paid no
rent for the use of the public school buildings, but paid approximately
half of the utility bills (Havekost 11).
Enrollment did not meet expectations, and after it’s first year of
operation it became evident that the college was not financially solvent.
(See Appendix B) There was the belief that if the college had it’s own
building and could meet during the day then enrollment would increase
and the College would succeed. Over the next eight months debates
followed on whether the college should remain a separate entity or
consolidate with the high school. On November 26, 1927, the citizens of
Temple voted against the establishment of a junior college district and
giving the city the authority to levy a tax for a college building.
On June 22, 1928, the Board of Trustees agreed to consolidate the
college with the public school system. Had it not been for this action, the
college would have undoubtedly died at the end of its second year (Farrell
70). Because of the economy of consolidation, the college was operated
on a daylight basis and supplementary to the Temple High School
23
course. Under the plan of reorganization, specified rooms were set aside
in the high school building for the sole use of the Junior College making
this portion of the building known as the “Junior College wing”. There
were fourteen courses available for freshmen and sophomores for the fall
term of 1928, and the year was on the quarter system, Fall, Winter, and
Spring. During the years of consolidation that lasted until 1959, a board
of directors controlled the College with the same membership as the
Temple Board of Education. The superintendent of the Temple Public
Schools also served as president of the College, and the principal of the
high school served as Dean to the College. Dr. L.C. Procter who was the
superintendent of the Temple schools became the second president of the
College and served in that capacity until 1939. (See Fig. 4) Mr. J.L.
Head, principal of Temple High School, also served as Dean to Temple
Junior College
Fig. 3. Temple High School
24
Fig. 4. Dr. L. C. Procter
After consolidating with the public schools, almost all the original
faculty of the college was lost. Teachers of the public schools began
teaching part-time in the College. There were some definite advantages
that came to the college as a result of the consolidation. A greater faculty
selection was possible and it was easier to expand course offerings and to
meet the needs and interest of the students in regard to activities.
College classes began meeting during the regular hours observed by
Temple High School, and the college students were allowed to use the
high school cafeteria as a Student Center. The tuition fee was also
reduced from two hundred dollars to one hundred twenty-five dollars per
year, and the Junior College commencement and baccalaureate were
held jointly with the high school (Farrell 192).
25
During these first consolidation years, the everyday routine of the
college continued as usual. Students attended classes and
extracurricular activities. Athletics became a part of college life with the
forming of a boy’s basketball team (See Fig. 5) and a girl’s physical
training class that met at 6:45 every morning in the YMCA gymnasium.
On January 4, 1929, the boy’s basketball team decided to call
themselves the “Leopards”. It was not until October 11, 1929 that the
schools first mascot, an orange kitten, made its debut. On January 10th
of the same year, a girl’s basketball team was organized. (See Fig. 6)
Fig. 5. Boy’s Basketball Team
26
Fig. 6. Girl’s Basketball Team
In the fall of 1928 football became a part of the college program
(Farrell 185). The Leopards opened their season on October 11 at
Woodson Field against Westminster Junior College. (See Fig. 7) Temple
Junior College won the game with a score of thirteen to two (TDT 3).
The 1928 season ended with a record of two wins and two losses. The
following year was successful with a record of six wins and 2 losses. In
October of 1929, TJC won their football game against Hillsboro. Spirits
were so high after this win that the student body decided to have a
bonfire and the city of Temple later enjoyed one of it’s largest ever
parades (Templar 66). The 1930 football season was not successful and
was a financial drain on the college leaving a $400 deficit in the athletic
fund. This deficit, along with the unsuccessful season and the
increasing financial strain of the depression, accounts for the fact that
27
1930-31 were the last years that football was played at Temple Junior
College (Farrell 189).
Fig. 7. 1928 Football Team
Golf was added to the college program during 1934-35 and by
1937 tennis was included in the athletic activities.
The students attended regular chapel and assembly meetings to
learn of college happenings, for the President to set down the rules and
regulations of the institution, and to elect class officers.
Social events were also part of the students’ lives. There was never
an occasion too small to throw a party. On one occasion, the faculty
entertained the entire student body with skits by select students and a
meal. Afterwards, everyone went to the Arcadia, a local theater, to see
“Painted Heels”.
28
At this time, the United States was on the verge of a great
depression, and its effects were being felt by the school system (Farrell
91). The College found itself able to survive only by pinching pennies
and cutting corners. All salaries and expenditures were suffering
reductions but faculty turnover barely existed because one was
considered lucky to have a job.
In the spring of 1936 rumors began to circulate that
President Procter and J.L. Head would be replaced. The Temple Daily
Telegram stated, “It has been authoritatively reported that the school
board stands four to three in favor of letting the axe fall on both Mr.
Procter and Mr. Head (TDT 1). In a mass meeting held in a local
auditorium, the citizens of Temple petitioned the Temple Public School
board to weigh carefully the reported consideration of dismissal of
Superintendent L.C. Procter and High School Principal J.L. Head and
requested not to disturb the school system by dismissing them. The
school board members opposed to the dismissals spoke in favor of the
two men and many citizens voiced their positive opinions of Mr. Procter
and Mr. Head. The chairman of the school board stated, “All I can find
out is that it is personal animosity and dislikes and not inefficiency that
are back of this probable action of the board.” DeWitt Bowmer, a former
board member said, “I am for Mr. Procter and Mr. Head for three good
reasons – my three children. I want to see my children have the best
advantages. I feel I am in position to know that Temple does have the
29
best public school system in Texas. I have no criticism of the present
board. We simply appear in our rights to petition. I know you cannot
please everybody but I believe for a superintendent, Mr. Procter is the
man we need. I feel that no one who has children in the school wants to
see the situation disturbed.” Mr. Bowmer then introduced the petition,
which follows:
WHEREAS, It has come to the attention of the patrons of TEMPLE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS that at the regular monthly meeting of the board of
trustees to be held Tuesday of next week, an effort will likely be made by
certain members of the board to replace Superintendent L. D. Procter
and Principal J. L. Head, of the high school: and
WHEREAS, it does not appear that it is the intention of said board
to replace said members of the faculty because of lack of ability, but for
the probable reason that certain members of said board personally
dislike said school officials; and
WHEREAS, The matter of reducing the length of the term of said
schools has also been discussed by said board of trustees, city officials,
and others, on the theory that the city is not financially able to run the
schools for the usual and customary period of nine months in each year;
and
WHEREAS, We fully realize that the whole country is now in the
throes of the worst depression and the greatest economic revolution
known to any person now living, but notwithstanding all which our
homes, churches, and schools must be guarded, protected and saved at
all hazards:
“THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the citizens of Temple
generally, and the patrons of its schools, in mass meeting assembled on
this the Fourth day of March, A. D., 1933:
“FIRST - that we have the best school system to be found in the
State of Texas and the work being done is most thorough and of the very
highest standard. We attribute this thoroughness of work and the high
rating of our schools largely to the efforts of Masers Procter and Head
and urge that they be retained in their respective capacities. This is no
time to be making radical changes in any institution, and it is dangerous
to attempt to do so and there is no occasion whatever for replacing these
tried and experienced men at the head of our faculty.
“SECOND – that under no circumstances should the present term
of our schools be cut short but the schools should be run for the full
nine months’ period, even though it requires the citizens and patrons of
Temple to have meatless days, as was the rule during the great World
30
war. If our civilization is to be salvaged, it must be done by maintaining
the homes, churches, and schools at the highest standard possible.
“THIRD – We realize that many of our citizens have been unable to
pay their taxes, and we urge that the board of commissioners
immediately fix some plan by which all taxes now delinquent may be
paid in partial payments and to the end that these taxes may be collected
and the schools maintained at the highest possible standard.
“FOURTH – Be it further RESOLVED that the chairman of this
meeting be and he is hereby AUTHORIZED to appoint a committee of
twenty, composed of ten women and ten men, to be selected from those
present tonight, to present these resolutions to the Honorable School
Board of the City of Temple at its regular meeting to be held Tuesday of
next week, or at any subsequent date, and urge that the contemplated
changes in our faculty be not made, and to point out the necessity of
harmonizing all factions in such a period as we are now passing through,
and to the end that Temple Public schools may continue to be looked
upon throughout the vast State of Texas as representing the very highest
type to be found anywhere in the southwest; and that a copy of these
resolutions likewise be furnished the press.” (TDT 1)
This dispute lasted over a year and was carried to the Supreme
Court of Texas where the final decision was in Procter’s favor. As a
result of the Supreme Court decision, Procter was able to remain
Superintendent of schools and President of the College until the
termination of his contract in 1939.
Dr. Joe R. Humphrey (See Fig. 8) became the third president
of Temple Junior College when he was given a two-year contract to serve
both the college and the public schools (Farrell 95). Dr. Humphrey, a
member of the army reserve, explained to the board in May of 1941 that
he fully expected to be called to active service by the end of July (TDT 1).
The board voted that, in the event he should be called to military service,
his contract would be extended two years from the date of his return to
Temple from military duty (Temple Board of Trustee Meeting (TBTM)
31
Minutes 616). George H. Gentry, (See Fig. 9) dean of Temple Junior
College and principal of Temple High School, assumed the position of
acting president of Temple Junior College during Dr. Humphrey’s board
approved leave of absence (Havekost 50).
Fig. 8. Dr. Joe R. Humphrey
Fig. 9. George H. Gentry
Courtesy Dr. H.C. Farrell
32
Until 1941, Temple Junior College had no source of income other
than tuition. In the summer of 1941, the college was approved for
participation in the new state aid fund for public junior colleges. To
qualify for the state aid, the college had to offer at least twenty-four
hours of terminal and vocational courses. The aid money was used to
reduce the school’s tuition charges to thirty-eight dollars per semester for
a full fifteen semester-hour program (Havekost 18).
For the 1942-1943 school year the tuition was ninety dollars for
the full year. There were no changes in tuition rates until in the 19461947 school year; students who did not qualify for state aid were charged
an additional thirty dollars per semester (Wilson 39).
Upon his return from active duty, Dr. Humphrey was re-elected as
superintendent of Temple schools and President of the college (Farrell
239). The Humphrey-Gentry-Humphrey period covered eleven years. As
the war dragged on, the enrollment of the college began to decrease. A
nursing affiliation with Scott & White and King’s Daughters Hospitals
helped to tide the college over these difficult years.
Extra curricular
activities ceased to exist during the latter war years and virtually all
clubs were disbanded (Farrell 224). The years immediately following
World War II brought in a new concept of education. Before that time, it
had been felt that education was only for the young. An awareness was
developing that education was a continuing process for all ages.
33
When the war was over, millions of veterans returned home and
were enrolling in colleges under the G.I. Bill. During this period, the
college began employing full-time teachers for the first time since its first
two years of existence. Faculty instability began to develop after the war
as teacher shortages began to occur. The population of Temple had
grown tremendously during the war years, partly because of the building
of Ft. Hood. There had been no public school building program possible
during the war and after the war; material shortages and high costs
prevented the same. The college now found itself faced with rising
enrollments and a school board struggling to solve the more pressing
problems of a public school system that was inadequate to house and
instruct the post-war boom in students. The college was pushed farther
and farther aside as the time of the board was increasingly consumed by
problems confronting the public schools (Farrell 28). The first official
mention of separate facilities for the college was made at a Board meeting
in August of 1944. In 1946, the college had its own commencement in
an attempt to begin drawing away from the public schools. The first
evening program was initiated at the college in January of 1947 with the
offering of four classes that had been requested by the public. The total
enrollment for these first evening classes was twenty-seven and they
were held in the Chamber of Commerce room that first semester. By the
fall of 1950 enrollment in evening classes had grown to 125 students.
34
During the spring of 1950 the public schools secured 32 acres of
surplus property in South Temple, an old prisoner-of-war camp, from the
U.S. Government. This property was mentioned as a site for the Junior
College. It was during these critical times that disagreements again
developed between the board of Education and the Administration.
Failure of the Board to renew the contract of Charles Romine, who was
Dean of the College and Principal of the High School, helped Humphrey
in his decision to resign his position in December of 1950.
S.P. Cowan (See Fig. 10) was unanimously elected president of
Temple Junior College and superintendent of Temple Public Schools on
December 29, 1950 (Farrell 240). At the time he assumed the
Presidency, he stated that housing for Temple Junior College was
needed.
Fig. 10. S.P. Cowan
Courtesy Dr. H.C. Farrell
35
The school system was so tied to the city government it was powerless to
act. Tensions and ill feelings developed among Board members as
varied plans to meet the housing problems of education in Temple were
presented and discussed. Mrs. Jodie Marek, a member of the school
board, suggested in 1952 that the board go on record as favoring an
independent school district. In the fall of 1953, a new city charter
provided for election of school board members by the people of Temple
instead of their appointment by the city commission. This helped to end
some of the problems that had plagued the educational system of Temple
for years.
On February 27, 1954, a bond issue for $1,500,000 was submitted
to the people of Temple. It would provide a new high school building that
would be built on 23 acres purchased from Scott & White Hospital in
South East Temple. There would be a Junior College wing that would
cost $117,000. The bond issue was defeated.
On June 14, 1954, a Citizens Committee suggested to the Board
“that the Junior College be continued, but that it be removed from the
High School” (Farrell 29). On January 18, 1955, a second bond issue
for $1,800,000 was submitted to the voters of Temple. The issue
provided that $1,000,000 would be used for a High School building but
the official board minutes did not mention the $100,000 that would be
used for a Junior College wing. The people of Temple defeated the bond
issue.
36
In 1954, four black students applied for admission to the college
after the Supreme Court ruled that segregation on a basis of race in a
publicly supported school was unconstitutional. On June 14, 1954, the
Board of Trustees voted not to act on these applications and tabled the
requests pending further instructions from the state. The policy of racial
segregation officially ended on May 13, 1957 when the Board made the
decision to award a scholarship to the valedictorian of Bartlett Negro
High School.
In April of 1955 Mr. Cowan resigned as President of the College
and Superintendent of the schools. The sixth president of the College
and superintendent of schools, and the last to serve both posts was Mr.
Newman Smith. (See Fig. 11)
Fig. 11. Mr. Newman Smith
Courtesy Dr. H.C. Farrell
37
In the summer of 1955 the Board was informed that unless a
school was built on the prisoner-of-war property that had been secured
in 1951, it would revert to the federal government. A few months later,
the Board of the Temple Public Schools created, by a simple resolution, a
Temple Junior College district that coincided with the Temple Public
Schools. This would allow for a tax that would provide money for a
Junior College building. In January of 1956, a bond election for
$300,000 and a maintenance tax of seven cents were approved by the
people of Temple for the purpose of a Junior College building that would
be constructed on the old Prisoner-of–war property in South Temple.
The World War II prisoner-of-war camp was in the vicinity of the large
parking lot on the south end of Temple Junior college property. There
was a large barbed wire fence surrounding the compound with guards at
the main gate. Each morning the prisoners were marched to the
McCloskey Army Hospital, now the Olin E. Teague Veterans’ Center,
where they were broken up into work groups, assigned an escort and
distributed over the grounds to work. The prisoners worked outside in
good weather, got three good meals a day, and had medical care. It was
said there was quite a difference between the looks of the German
prisoners of war in their dark blue fatigues with large white POW
stamped over them and the American wounded being brought in on
trains. The Americans were thin and gaunt whereas the German POW’s
were fat and tan and healthy looking (TDT 4) .
38
During the Christmas holidays of 1956, the college moved from the
old Temple High School into the new building that had 30,000 square
feet of floor space. It had ten classrooms, two science laboratories, a
student center, offices for teachers and administrators, a library, and a
combination gym and auditorium (Farrell 31). Classes met in the new
building on January 2, 1957. For the first time in its thirty-one year
history, Temple Junior College courses were held in its own building.
(See Fig. 12)
Fig. 12. Instructional Services Center
In the summer of 1957, the board voted to adopt a five-day class
schedule beginning in the fall of that year. This new schedule was
designed to restructure the prior schedule of Tuesday, Thursday, and
Saturday classes. Those classes that had formerly met for fifty minutes
on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday would now meet for one hour and
fifteen minutes on Tuesday and Thursday.
The Board of Trustees of the Temple Public Schools divested itself
of control of the college on April 13, 1959 and the Board of Regents of the
College held its first meeting on April 23, 1959. Mr. Smith continued as
39
President until the end of August 1959. When school began in
September of 1959, Temple Junior College was completely separate from
the Temple Public Schools. The college was now under its own nine
member Board of Regents, and Dr. Hubert M. Dawson became its
seventh president on September 1. (See Fig. 13) Dr. Dawson had come
to the college as an instructor in 1928; he later served as Assistant
Registrar, then as Associate Dean and Registrar.
Fig. 13. Dr. Hubert M. Dawson
In December of 1959 the College was approved by the Southern
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. By the end of that year,
enrollment had reached 488. The curriculum was greatly expanded and
a departmental system was established. Department heads were
established for each major subject area. The Department heads received
extra pay for their positions, and definite duties and responsibilities were
assigned to them. The term “department” head was not new to the
40
college, but in the past it had no real meaning because the college
usually had only one teacher in each subject-area. In the few areas that
had more than one teacher, the one with the most seniority was called
head of the department. The greatest curriculum changes at this time
occurred in the development of the Technical-Vocational areas and in the
areas of adult and continuing education. As time progressed, a rising
enrollment necessitated additional administrative positions such as
Director of the Evening School, Director of Student Activities, Director of
Guidance, and Assistant Registrar (Farrell 444).
In 1959-60 the College had its first director of guidance who also
taught psychology. In the fall of 1961 the college employed one of its
mathematics and education teachers to also be the director of the
evening school. In this same year the instructor of physics and
engineering was designated as director of student activities. At this time,
the maximum starting salary for a teacher with a Master’s Degree was
$4,830, with no additional money for these added responsibilities. Dr.
H.C. Farrell, Jr. began his collegiate teaching career at Temple Junior
College in 1961. To make himself of more use to the college, Dr. Farrell
prepared himself with 18 graduate hours each in the fields of Economics,
Education, History, Psychology and Government. Early in his career at
TJC, Dr. Farrell taught in five different disciplines at one time. Dr.
Farrell later became the Dean of Temple Junior College (Farrell 2001).
41
A large percentage of the faculty taught evening classes. Those
carrying a full load of five courses in the day were allowed to teach one
three-hour class each semester in the evening. During the 1960-61
school year any evening class teacher received an additional $250 for the
semester. This amount was increased to $300 in the 1961-62 school
year.
Enrollment at the college increased in 1959-60 to 512 and
additional space was needed. Berry Hall, a seven room building costing
$113,000 was opened in 1962. (See Fig. 14) It was named for Bryant
Berry, Director of Counseling & Guidance and teacher of Psychology.
(See Fig. 15) On January 28, 1964, the voters of the college district
approved a $500,000 bond issue for a Science building (See Fig. 16) and
a Library Building. The Science building was named for Dr. Anne Penney
Newton, (See Fig. 17) an instructor and department chair, in the Biology
department, and the Library was named for Dr. Hubert M. Dawson. (See
Fig. 18) By September 1964, the day school had an enrollment of 814
students. Tuition and fees rose during this time. There were a number
of new fees such as student use, student activity and parking fees.
42
Fig. 14. Berry Hall
Fig. 15. Mr. Bryant Berry
43
Fig. 16 Newton Science Building
Fig. 17. Dr. Anne Penney Newton
44
Fig. 18 Hubert M. Dawson Library