Oregon daily emerald., July 20, 1982, Image 1

Oregon daily
emerald
Thursday, July 20, 1982
Eugene, Oregon
Volume 84, Number 9
Faculty couples
Stanley and Thelma Greenfield
What was once considered nepotism is now
commonplace in University departments
The Greenfields
The Greenfields are both
full professors in the
English department. They
MBaBj came to the University
with their two children in 1959.
Stanley started as an assistant
professor. Thelma taught extension
courses
In 1962 Thelma became a full-time
member of the English department.
According to the recollection of the
provost and the Greenfields, they
were probably the first married
faculty couple within a University
department — certainly the English
department.
“There were laws against it —
hiring a couple full time — the nepo
tism rules were still on the books,”
Thelma remembers. However, Kes
ter Svendsen, department head at
the time, overlooked the rules. Ac
cording to the Greenfields, he was
bent on "solidifying" the depart
ment.
Stanley Greenfield remembers
Pres. Arthur Fleming as the admin
istrator who "abrogated” the
nepotism rule. He said, "I’ll give you
tenure, despite the fact” that you are
married, Stanley recalls.
"I just sort of took what came,"
Thelma says about her appointment.
"I wasn’t going to uproot my hus
band.”
He probably would have gone
elsewhere if his wife had not been
able to work here, Stanley says. In
fact, he was offered a higher paying
position at UCLA, but declined
because of his wife’s position.
"We can think of cases where it —
the hiring of a couple — hasn’t been
good,” the Greenfields say. How
ever, they think it is usually to the
benefit of the University to hire a
couple, as long as both members are
qualified. As an example they point
to Pres. Paul Olum and his wife
Vivian, a psychology professor.
Nevertheless, the Greenfields
realize the problems that can arise
when two members of the same
family are employed in the same
department.
“You wouldn’t recommend your
own wife’s salary,” or be on a per
sonnel committee discussing her,
Stanley says. When she came up for
tenure he left the meeting.
Stanley explains with pride that in
spite of “something of a history of
anti-feminism” in the English
department, Thelma was its first
woman associate professor and full
professor.
The Greenfields find working in
the same discipline a great con
tribution to their marriage. “The
other person wouldn’t have under
stood,” the hours and pressures
quite in the same way, Thelma says.
She can hear other wives asking,
"You've been on that book for five
years, why don’t you give it up?"
They have never collaborated on a
work or class. Even when they teach
the same course with the same text,
they do it differently, each “secretly
thinking" their own method is right,
Thelma says.
They occasionally vote on oppo
site sides at department meetings,
but this doesn’t upset them, they
say. What does upset Thelma is
when her work on a committee is
evaluated in terms of her husband’s
work.
“People assume that I am taking
directions from you," Thelma says to
Stanley.
He laughs at this, "She has the
level committee head.”
This spring both published books.
"Edit is too strong a word. We ad
vise,” Thelma says of the input they
give each other on their work.
“We’ve done a hell of a lot,”
Stanley concludes, smiling at his
wife. "It’s just possible we wouldn't
have gotten so far” if they had been
in different disciplines, Stanley says.
The McFees
The McFees came to the Univer
sity in 1965 because of the leniency
of the nepotism rules. June is head
of the art education department.
Malcolm retired this spring as an
associate professor in anth
ropology.
“Nepotism was a problem. We
were glad to come to a place where
both jobs were secured,” June says.
Then Pres. Arthur Fleming's en
couragement of women applicants
attracted them here.
Previously, the McFees taught at
the University of Arizona in Tucson.
June's position there was never for
malized because Arizona strictly en
forced its nepotism rules.
"We even joked about getting a
divorce (in Mexico)” to stay in Tuc
son, they say.
Both Malcolm and June began
their teaching careers late in life.
In 1954, after 13 years of marriage
and one son, they returned to col
lege — to Stanford.
"We sold out everything and went
back to school. Our friends and
Continued on Page 3
A University proposal
will define nepotism
□
eing related to someone at the University won't
get you or deny you a job at the University if a
proposed rule goes into effect. The “Family
Relationships and Employment Rule" would
prohibit “nepotism” — favortism based on family
relationships. If all goes smoothly, it will be on the books
Oct. 1, according to Muriel Jackson, assistant for
administration in Pres. Paul Olum's office
In addition, the rule would restrict relatives from
making administrative decisions on each other.
"No members of the faculty or administration shall
participate in making recommendations or decisions
involving the employment supervision, salary, promo
tion, leave of absence, grievance adjustment or ter
mination of members of their family," reads Draft II of
the proposed rule.
The rule defines nepotism as, "the exercise of
preferential selection practices based upon family
relationships rather than upon merit. There are excep
tions for special cases of employment without a job
search and tandem (team) projects.”
Classified personnel director Jack Steward
estimates that about 25 classifed positions are filled
with either married couples or relatives.
According to a match of names with addresses
and/or phone numbers in the 1981-82 Student Direc
tory, there are more than 40 professorial couples and
more than 30 faculty-staff couples Matching by sur
names doesn’t take into account marriage in which the
wife has retained her maiden name or family members
who don’t live at the same address.
The current version of the anti-nepotism regulation
is the result of three years of study by the University's
Committee of Equal Employment Opportunity The
committee began working on the rule in 1980 on the
request of then-F’rovost Paul Olum.
Prof. Edna Wooten-Kolan, who chaired the EEO
committee at the time the rule was first being con
sidered, says the committee spent most of that year
working on the rule.
At that time, there was a “sense'' that people were
“almost threatening" not to accept employment unless
their spouses also were hired, Wooten-Kolan says. The
administration felt a need for a policy in writing —
something which said, “You don’t negotiate two con
tracts at once,” she says.
“In the past we were able to attract one spouse by
arranging the employment of the other,” Steward says.
He denies, however, that the University ever created a
position for a spouse.
Wooten-Kolan's committee is not sure there ever
was job creation at the University, but in financially
good times, such as the 1960s, the temptation “was
great” to make room for a spouse.
Traditionally, one member of a family had to leave
the University or other state institutions upon marriage;
only one family member could be hired.
“Almost inevitably the women," were let go, says
Barbara Edwards, the 1981 head of the EEO committee.
To date, the University has relied on a State System
of Higher Education rule dealing with familial em
ployment and on Oregon law dealing with marital
status.
In the 1950s the University allowed two members of
a household to be employed, but one member, usually
the wife, had to be only part-time.
By the mid-1960s, the University changed its prac
tice to allow both partners in a marriage to be employed
full time and was one of the first in the state system to do
this, Richard says.
"It wasn't thought of as proper,” he adds.
“U of O has been more progressive,” Steward says.
"We hire on the basis of qualifications and we don’t
care about anything else."
Stories by Joan Nyland Photo by Mark Pynes