Skip to main content

Full text of "From plant pathologist to Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, 1947-1986 : oral history transcript / 1987"

See other formats

Regional Oral History Office University of California 

The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California 

University History Series 

James B. Kendrick, Jr. 

From Plant Pathologist to 

Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources 

University of California 


With an Introduction by 
David P. Gardner 

An Interview Conducted by 
Ann Lage 
in 1987 

Underwritten by 

The President's Office 

University of California 

Copyright (c 1989 by The Regents of the University of California 

Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing 
leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the 
development of Northern California, the West, and the Nation. Oral 
history is a modern research technique involving an interviewee and an 
informed interviewer in spontaneous conversation. The taped record is 
transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by 
the interviewee. The resulting manuscript is typed in final form, 
indexed, bound with photographs and illustrative materials, and placed in 
The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley and other 
research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, 
oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete 
narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee 
in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, 
deeply involved, and irreplaceable. 


All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal 
agreement between the University of California and James B. 
Kendrick, Jr. The manuscript is thereby made available for 
research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, 
including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft 
Library of the University of California, Berkeley. No part 
of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the 
written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library 
of the University of California, Berkeley. 

Request for permission to quote for publication should 
be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 
Library, University of California, Berkeley 94720, and 
should include identification of the specific passages to be 
quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification 
of the user. 

It is recommended that this oral history be cited as 

James B. Kendrick, Jr. "From Plant Path 
ologist to Vice President for Agriculture 
and Natural Resources, University of 
California, 1947-1986," an oral history 
conducted in 1987 by Ann Lage , the Regional 
Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, 
University of California, Berkeley, 1989. 

Copy no. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS James B. Kendrick. Jr. 


INTRODUCTION by David Pierpont Gardner iv 



Parents from Farm Families in South Carolina and Iowa 1 

Father's Early Career in Plant Pathology 3 

The Move to Davis, the "University Farm," 1927 4 

Town and Gown Relationships in Davis 7 

Religion and Politics in the Kendrick Family 9 

Schooling: Academics, Athletics, and Evelyn 11 

Entering UC Berkeley, 1938: Bowles Hall Resident 16 

Undergraduate Education from Top Faculty Members 19 
Going to Mecca: Choosing Wisconsin for Graduate Studies 

in Plant Pathology 24 


SERVICE, 1942-1947 28 

Brother's Parallel Path in Plant Pathology 28 

Glenn Pound, Fellow Graduate Student 30 
The Lasting Influence of J. C. Walker and other Wisconsin 

Professors 32 

Trademarks of Wisconsin's Training in Plant Pathology 38 

A Brief Navy Career 40 

Army Training and Assignments: a Waiting Game 42 
Completing the Ph.D.: Research on Bacterial Canker of Tomato 47 

Appointment at the Citrus Experiment Station, Riverside 50 

Work of an Agricultural Researcher 53 
Agricultural Constituency in Southern California 58 
Investigating Vegetable Diseases 60 
Establishment of Air Pollution Research Laboratory 62 
Sabbatical Year at Cambridge and Rothamsted 66 
Promoting Riverside Faculty Unity and Camaraderie 72 



Establishment of the Undergraduate Liberal Arts College 79 
The New Academics: Relations with Agricultural Researchers 

and the Riverside Community 82 

Faculty Organization into an Academic Senate 84 

Development of a Graduate Program 87 

Directing the Design for a Physical Master Plan, 1959 90 

Chairman of the Department of Plant Pathology. 1963 
Academic Senate Work: Educational Policy, Personnel, 

Planning 94 

Statewide Senate Involvement 
The Academic Council 
Organization of the Statewide Agricultural Unit 

A Collection of Specialties 106 
Adding Specialists to the Department's Faculty 

Trend toward Over-Specialization; Need for Redefinition of 

the Field 
Graduate Teaching Program Initiated, 1962 113 

Active in Presbyterian Church 

Town and Gown Tensions: Explaining the University to 

the Community 121 

Free Speech Days at Riverside 124 

Membership in Community Organizations 
Evelyn's School Board Service 
An Unexpected Job Offer from President Hitch 129 

Representing the University-wide Faculty during Years of 

Turbulence 135 

Producing an Academic Plan for Riverside 137 

Value of Shared Governance 139 
The College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences: Pros and 

Cons for Agricultural Research 140 
Administrative Organization of College and Experiment 

Station 142 
Teaching Responsibilities and the Decline of Mission- 
Oriented Research 146 

President Hitch's Call for a Long-Range Academic Plan 147 
Operating a Centralized Unit within the Decentralized 

University System 148 

Reports of Academic and Advisory Group Committees on the 

Division's Direction 149 

Pressure from Farming Community. Legislature, Regents: 

the Division in a Defensive Position 153 

Broadening Representation on the Agricultural Advisory 

Council 157 



Agricultural Mechanization and Farm Labor Opportunities: 

The Vasconcellos Hearings, 1973 159 

Budget and Personnel Problems in Nutrition Education 162 

The University's Development of the Tomato Harvester 166 
Regents' Meetings on Mechanization and Labor Displacement, 

1978 170 
Legal Action Challenging the University's Agricultural 

Program, 1979 174 

U.S. Department of Agriculture's Response to the Lawsuit 176 

The University's Response and Current Status of the Suit 178 

Academic Freedom and the Independence of the Regents 182 

The Fixed Costs of Permanent Academic Staff Salaries 184 
Legislative Protection for Agricultural Research in the 

1967 Reagan Budget 186 
The Field Station System, Tulelake to Imperial Valley: 

Another Fixed Cost 189 

The Statewide Critical Applied Research [SCAR] Fund 193 

Working with the State Department of Finance 196 



Relationship with the Reagan Administration 198 

Reagan Advisors Earl Coke and Allan Grant 198 
Interpreting the University 1 s Mission to the Staff and 

Community 199 
Protection for Philosophical Differences in the Faculty 

Promotion Process 200 

Supportive Oversight during Reagan' s Governorship 203 
Confrontational Regents' Meetings, with Campus 

Administrators on the Defensive 204 

The Jerry Brown-David Saxon Era 207 

Warfare Between the Governor and the Regents 207 

Brown and the Budget 210 

Extension's Budget Cuts Restored by the Legislature 212 

The Budget as a Political Document 214 
Brown's Major Agricultural Appointments: Tim Wallace, 

Rose Bird, Rich Rominger 216 
The Deukmej ian-Gardner Years: Restoring the University's 

Stature and Its Budget 220 



Giannini Foundation for Research in Agricultural Economics 226 

The Original Grant and Organization 226 
Restructuring to Meet the Practical Needs of Commercial 

Agriculture 229 

Agricultural Issues Center 233 

The Idea and the Funding 233 

Choosing a Diverse Advisory Board 239 

Making the West a Force in Agricultural Policy 243 

Developing Support for Agriculture in an Urban Society 244 

Kearney Foundation for Soil Science 246 

Genesis and Direction 246 

Flexible Response to the Kesterson Crisis 2A9 

Slosson Fund for Ornamental Horticulture 251 

Mosquito Research Program: Broadening Decision-Making for 

a Cooperative Effort 252 

San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Research and Extension 

Center 256 

A UC Program for the San Joaquin Valley 256 

Administrative Changes 259 

The Future of Cooperative Extension: Regional Centers? 261 

Integrated Pest Management Program 263 

A New Concept of Disease and Insect Control 263 
Developing Budgetary Support in the Jerry Brown 

Administration 265 

Wildland Resources Center 268 

Sustainable Agriculture Program 270 

Serving Small-Scale and Organic Farmers 270 

Legislative and Public Input to the Program 272 

A Historical Overview 275 
The Link to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 278 
Improving Budgetary Control over "The Provinces" 280 
The Day Committee: Coordinated Planning for Allocation 

of Resources 282 
Resistance to Reallocating Positions between Campuses or 

Departments 28A 
Centrifugal Forces on Cooperative Extension Planning 

Process 285 
Combining the Directorship of the Agricultural Experiment 

Station with the Vice Presidency. 1973 287 

Assuming the Directorship of Cooperative Extension, 1975 290 

Explaining the Division to Farm Bureau Members 291 

New Problems. New Clientele, New Personnel 293 
Inadequate Funding, Staff Reductions, and Charges of 

Discrimination 295 

The Cooperative Extension Assembly for Career Employees 296 
Strong Committee and Kleingartner Evaluations of Accusations 

against Extension 298 
Another Administrative Reorganization: Lowell Lewis and 

Jerry Siebert as Directors 300 
No Conspiracy to Discriminate but Some Unclear Policies 

and Procedures 302 
Continued Tension between an Integrated Program and 

Separatist Tendencies 305 

The Value of Long-Range Academic Planning in the Division 310 


Cultural Conflicts between Traditional Extension Staff and 

New Clientele and Staff 313 

Affirmative Action Workshops to Sensitize Staff 316 

Failings of the Strong Committee Report 316 

Commitment to Excellence and the Work Ethic 317 

Role of the Regents and the President 319 
The Affirmative Action Program in Extension and Its 

Positive Accomplishments 320 
The Division's Exchange Program with Southern University 

in Louisiana 324 

Surviving in Troubled Times 329 



The Water Resources Center and Its Archive 332 

Broadening the Disciplinary and Geographic Bases 334 

Chairing the Interdisciplinary Coordinating Board 335 

Working with an External Advisory Committee 337 

The Printing Plant and the University Relations Office 340 

Regents' Security Officer, 1976 to 1984 342 

UC Retirement System Board: Defining the Board's Role 343 

Issues Debated by the Board 345 

UCRS Changes under President Gardner 347 

Changes in Administrative Responsibilities and Title, 

1952-1983 350 
College of Natural Resources: Attempting to Establish a 

Special Emphasis for the Berkeley Campus 353 

The Natural Reserve System 360 
Defining Goals, Building Campus Support through an 

Academic Planning Process 360 

Publicizing the "Best-Kept Secret" in the University 364 

The Faculty Advisory Committee 367 
Harold Walt, David Gardner, and State Funds for Wildland 

Research 368 

Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee 372 
The National Association of State Universities and Land 

Grant Colleges' Division of Agriculture 374 
Creating the Council of Administrative Heads of Agriculture 

(CAHA) 375 

CAHA' s Leadership in Budget Development for the Division 376 

Foreign Agricultural Programs 379 


Retirement Events 382 

Outlook for the Future 383 


INDEX 388 

University History Series List 393 

Biography 4 00 

Memorial Address by David Gardner 404 


When President Robert Gordon Sproul proposed that the Regents of the 
University of California establish a Regional Oral History Office, he vas 
eager to have the office document both the University's history and its impact 
on the state. The Regents established the office in 1954, "to tape record 
the memoirs of persons who have contributed significantly to the history of 
California and the West," thus embracing President Sproul 's vision and 
expanding its scope. 

Administratively, the new program at Berkeley was placed within the 
library, but the budget line was direct to the Office of the President. An 
Academic Senate committee served as executive. In the more than three decades 
that followed, the program has grown in scope and personnel, and has taken 
its place as a division of The Bancroft Library, the University's manuscript 
and rare books Library. The essential purpose of the office, however, remains 
as it was in the beginning: to document the movers and shakers of California 
and the West, and to give special attention to those who have strong and often 
continuing links to the University of California. 

The Regional Oral History Office at Berkeley is the oldest such entity 
within the University system, and the University History series is the 
Regional Oral History Office's longest established series of memoirs. That 
series documents the institutional history of the University. It captures 
the flavor of incidents, events, personalities, and details that formal 
records cannot reach. It traces the contributions of graduates and faculty 
members, officers and staff in the statewide arena, and reveals the ways the 
University and the community have learned to deal with each other over time. 

The University History series provides background in two areas. First 
is the external setting, the ways the University stimulates, serves, and 
responds to the community through research, publication, and the education 
of generalists and specialists. The other is the internal history that binds 
together University participants from a variety of eras and specialties, and 
reminds them of interests in common. For faculty, staff, and alumni, the 
University History memoirs serve as reminders of the work of predecessors, 
and foster a sense of responsibility toward those who will join the University 
in years to come. For those who are interviewed, the memoirs present a chance 
to express perceptions about the University and its role, and to offer one's 
own legacy of memories to the University itself. 

The University History series over the years has enjoyed financial 
support from a variety of sources. These include alumni groups and individuals, 
members of particular industries and those involved in specific subject fields, 
campus departments, administrative units and special groups, as well as grants 
and private gifts. Some examples follow. 


Professor Walton Bean, with the aid of Verne A. Stadtman, Centennial 
Editor, conducted a number of significant oral history memoirs in cooperation 
with the University's Centennial History Project (1968). More recently, the 
Women's Faculty Club supported a series on the club and its members in order 
to preserve insights into the role of women in the faculty, in research areas, 
and in administrative fields. Guided by Richard Erickson, the Alumni 
Association has supported a variety of interviews, including those with Ida 
Sproul, wife of the President; athletic coaches Clint Evans and Brutus 
Hamilton; and alumnus Jean Carter Witter. 

The California Wine Industry Series reached to the University campus 
by featuring Professors Maynard A. Amerine and William V. Cruess, among 
others. Regent Elinor Heller was interviewed in the series on California 
Women Political Leaders, with support from the National Endowment for the 
Humanities; her oral history included an extensive discussion of her years 
with the University through interviews funded by her family's gift to the 

On campus, the Friends of the East Asiatic Library and the UC Berkeley 
Foundation supported the memoir of Elizabeth Huff, the Library's founder; 
the Water Resources Center provided for the interviews of Professors Percy 
H. McGaughey, Sidney T. Harding, and Wilfred Langelier. Their own academic 
units and friends joined to contribute for such memoirists as Dean Ewald T. 
Grether, Business Administration; Professor Garff Wilson, Public Ceremonies; 
Regents' Secretary Marjorie Woolman; and Dean Morrough P. O'Brien, Engineering, 

As the class gift on their 50th Anniversary, the Class of 1931 endowed 
an oral history series titled "The University of California, Source of 
Community Leaders." These interviews will reflect President Sproul 's vision 
by encompassing leadership both state- and nationwide, as well as in special 
fields, and will include memoirists from the University's alumni, faculty 
members, and administrators. The first oral histories focused on President 
Sproul himself. Interviews with 34 key individuals dealt with his career 
from student years in the early 1900s through his term as the University's 
llth President, from 1930 to 1958. 

More recently, University President David Pierpont Gardner has shown 
his interest in and support for oral histories, as a result of his own views 
and in harmony with President Sproul 's original intent. The University 
History memoirs continue to document the life of the University and to link 
its community more closely Regents, alumni, faculty, staff members, and 
students. Through these oral history interviews, the University keeps its 
own history alive, along with the flavor of irreplaceable personal memories, 
experiences, and perceptions. 

A full list of completed memoirs and those in process in the series is 
included in this volume. 


The Regional Oral History Office is under the administrative supervision 
of Professor James D. Hart, the Director of The Bancroft Library. 

Willa K. Baum 
Division Head 
Regional Oral History Office 

Harriet Nathan 

Project Head 

University History Series 

9 November 1987 
Regional Oral History Office 
Room 486 The Bancroft Library 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 



Compelling* colorful, and abundant in success stories, the history of 
the University's involvement in agriculture from the days of Eugene Hilgard 
to the present is well worth the telling and the reading. The special- 
even unique value of this oral history is that it represents a firsthand 
account of a fascinating chapter in the evolution of the University's role 
in the development of California agriculture during a time of change and 
adaptation, told by someone who was not simply a spectator of those events 
but an active and engaged participant. 

I first met Jim Kendrick in 1971, when I joined the Office of the 
President in Berkeley as the vice president responsible for the Extended 
University, University Extension, and an array of public service programs. 
Among my fellow vice presidents was a friendly and outgoing gentleman whom I 
instantly and instinctively liked. That, of course, was Jim Kendrick, whose 
informal manner and common touch hid a deep acumen about people and a 
formidable knowledge of California agriculture, from Davis to San Diego, 
from Del Norte County to the Mexican border. 

My own early experience working for the California Farm Bureau had 
educated me in the dynamics of California agriculture, and gave me an even 
deeper admiration than I would otherwise have had for the breadth and scope 
of Jim's understanding of agriculture's role in the University and in the 
state and his grasp of its great potential and its equally great 
challenges. Here you will find, distilled in his own characteristic style, 
the rich experiences of a lifetime's involvement with a great university and 
with California's most important economic activity. Few people could match 
his experience and his knowledge; no one could tell it as vividly or as 
well; and few have served the University of California with such unstinting 
devotion, effect, and skill as has Jim Kendrick. I commend this oral 
history to you. 

David Pierpont Gardner 

President, University of California 

January, 1989 


This oral history memoir with James B. Kendrick, Jr., records a 
lifetime involvement with the University of California. It includes 
observations from a close association with three campuses of the University 
and nearly two decades as a leader in the University's statewide 

Kendrick's youth was spent in Davis, California, where his father, 
James Kendrick, Sr., was a prominent plant pathologist and eventually head 
of the Department of Plant Pathology. After graduation from high school, he 
attended the University of California's Berkeley campus, where his major in 
general curriculum brought him in contact with a group of inspiring 
professors and helped him define his interest in following his father's 
career path. After a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and wartime 
service, Kendrick returned to the University of California as a junior plant 
pathologist at the Citrus Experiment Station in Riverside in 1947. 

For the next twenty-one years, his own path from agricultural 
researcher to head of the Department of Plant Pathology, with increasing 
involvement in university governance, paralleled the growth to prominence of 
the Riverside campus. Kendrick's interview provides valuable observations 
on the establishment of the College of Letters and Science and eventual 
expansion to a full UC campus, with the concomitant tensions between town 
and gown and between the agricultural station and the general campus. He 
describes his and others' efforts to promote faculty camaraderie and good 
relations with the community. He also demonstrates how his faculty 
committee work in academic and physical planning, educational policy, and 
personnel evaluation prepared him for his appointment as vice president for 
the statewide Division of Agricultural Sciences in 1968. 

The major part of the oral history is devoted to the nearly two decades 
of leadership of the University's "tenth campus" what is now called the 
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The division is a complex 
collection of diverse units, in every part of California. Because authority 
or funding for most of these units is shared with individual campuses, with 
local counties, and with the federal government, the vice-president at the 
systemwide level places his program in effect only through persuasiveness, 
patience, and good-humored persistance. 

In developing the division's program, Kendrick was obliged to listen to 
a multiplicity of interest groups, including representatives of the diverse 
elements of the agricultural community that the University serves; the 
legislative and executive branches of the state government; federal mandates 
for federally funded programs; and the farm labor and minority communities, 
who were not the traditional constituency of the division's programs and 
who expressed their concerns through protests and lawsuits rather than the 
customary program advisory committees. 


Kendrick's discussion of how he attempted to move the division in the 
direction of serving a broader constituency and meeting new societal 
concerns begins with an explanation of the fixed nature of the program and 
the personnel in his two major units: the Agricultural Experiment Station 
and the Cooperative Extension Service. He then demonstrates how he managed 
to introduce flexibility into the programs and to bring sometimes entrenched 
personnel into line with new division demands. His survey of ongoing 
projects and new directions gives the reader an overview of these two units 
and insights into the difficulty of rapid changes within a complex 
University setting. 

Two other particularly instructive sections of the oral history 
consider, first, the relationship of the division with the legislature and 
with the three gubernatorial administrations in office during Kendrick's 
tenure; and second, the personnel problems and charges of discrimination in 
the Cooperative Extension Service and Kendrick's attempts to reach solutions 
in an tense atmosphere. 

Kendrick's philosophy in meeting these challenges is expressed in this 
passage from his oral history: "I figure if you're going to learn to walk, 
take one step at a time. Pretty soon you'll be running. But if you don't 
start walking, that just delays the end of the race." 

Kendrick's patience, persistance, and good-humored determination have 
been displayed throughout his career. He has also displayed them in 
fighting and living with cancer for the past several years. During the 
course of these interviews for his oral history and during the lengthy and 
demanding editing process, his health was variable, but he continued to 
focus his energies to produce a thorough and thoughtful history of his 
career and of the University's Division of Agriculture and Natural 

The twelve interview sessions took place from September 2. 1987, to 
November 13, 1987, in Mr. Kendrick's home in Berkeley. He reviewed the 
transcipt with care, sometimes rewording passages for greater clarity and 
conciseness. The memoir was funded by the President's Office of the 
University of California. Tapes of the interviews are available in The 
Bancroft Library. 

Ann Lage 

January 31, 1989 
Berkeley, California 

Dr. James B. Kendrick, 
retired UC official, dies at 68 


BERKELEY - Dr. James B. 
Kendrick Jr., formerly vice presi 
dent for Agriculture and Natural 
Resources at the University of Cali 
fornia at Berkeley, died Wednesday 
of cancer. He was 68. 

Dr. Kendrick retired in June 
1986 after nearly 40 years with the 

He took a bachelor of arts degree 
in botany-genetics from DC-Berke 
ley in 1942, and following two years 
of military service he took his doc 
toral degree in plant pathology 
from the University of Wisconsin in 

He joined the staff at UC Riv 
erside in 1947 as a plant pathologist 
at the Citrus Experiment Station, 
and became a professor of plant 
pathology and chairman of the 
Plant Pathology Department. He 
was in 1968 appointed to the new 
job of vice president for agricultur 
al sciences which became vice 
president of Agricultural and Natu 
ral Resources, at UC-Berkeley. 

He was responsible for coordi 
nation of UC's statewide programs 
in agricultural research and educa 
tion, for the Natural Reserve sys 
tem and Cooperative Extension 
and 4-H, and he served 16 years on 
the State Board of Food and Agri 

Dr. Kendrick was a member of 
the executive committee of the Na 
tional Association of State Univer 
sities and Land-Grant Colleges, a 
representative to the Western Re 
gional Council of the Joint Council 
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 
and until recently chairman of the 
Scientific Review Panel on Toxic 
Air Contaminants, a nine-member 
stat* board. 

He was a member of the First 
Congregational Church of Berke 
ley, and a director of Guide Dogs 
for the Blind in San Rafael. 

Dr. Kendrick is survived by his 
wife, Evelyn, of Berkeley; his 
mother, Violet, of Davis; a brother, 
E.L. Kendrick, of Tucson, Ariz; a 
sister, Elizabeth Gale, of Wood 
land; a son, Douglas Kendrick, of 
Berkeley; a daughter, Janet Ken 
drick, of Davis, and two grandchil 
dren, Amber and Shane. 

A memorial service will held 
Wednesday at 2 p.m. in the First 
Congregational Church at 2345 
Channing Way. 

The family asks that no flowers 
be sent, but that donations be made 
to the Alta Bates-Herrick Hospice 
in Berkeley, or to Guide Dogs for 
the Blind in San Rafael. 


The Tribune, Oakland, California 
February 16, 1989 

Mr. Kendrick died on February 15, 1989, as his oral history was 

being readied for binding. The address by President Gardner at 

his memorial service on February 22 has been included in the 


Parents from Farm Families. South Carolina and Iowa 
[Date of Interview: September 2, 1987] ## 

Lage: This is Ann Lage interviewing James B. Kendrick, Jr. Do you 

still use the "junior"? 

Kendrick: Yes, I do. Let me explain the reason for using junior. My 

father and I were in the same profession and employed by the same 
institution at different locations. I felt that in order to be 
identified and prevent confusion, I would preserve the use of 
junior as part of my name. So I've done it all these years, even 
though he was deceased in 1962. 

Lage: That makes sense. You were writing papers in the same field. 

Kendrick: Yes. 

Lage: That's something we'll get into how you followed in your 

father's footsteps. 

Today we're going to start with personal background, 
especially focusing on how it might have influenced your later 
career policies, decisions, and points of view. Let's start 
with your family, your parents. 

Kendrick: Well, my parents had their origin in two rather different 

locations. My father goes back to South Carolina. He was born 
in a rural setting, in a farm setting, in York County near 
Clover, South Carolina, which was very close to the border 
between South Carolina and North Carolina. The largest major 
town where they used to go shopping for major things was 
Gastonia, North Carolina. 

## This symbol indicates that a tape or segment of a tape has 
begun or ended. For a guide to the tapes, see page 386. 

Lage: He was raised on the farm? 

Kendrick: He was raised on a farm. His father died early, and so he was 
raised by an uncle, back in the family home. His mother went 
back to the family home. I have a lot of fond memories of 
visiting that southern rural society, in terms of how they eeked 
out a living on not a very affluent piece of ground. 

Lage: About how large was the farm? 

Kendrick: I don't remember, but it was several hundred acres, and the usual 
kind of cropping of corn and cotton. But my recollections of 
that farm are childhood recollections. I don't have a lot of 
lasting impressions, except those that you get as a seven, eight, 
or ten-year-old because when we moved to California our visiting 
back in that setting of South Carolina was very infrequent. 

My father was born in 1893, and he ultimately went to 
Qemson University. I think there was some delay between getting 
out of high school and enrolling in CLemson, but he graduated 
from CLemson about 1916. 

Lage: And Clemson is in North Carolina? 

Kendrick: Qemson is in South Carolina. It is the state's land grant 

institution. At the time it was a military men's school. It 
should not be confused with the University of South Carolina, but 
it is a state institution. Probably known more today because of 
its football team than anything else. 

After graduating from Clemson, he went to Iowa State. I 
think one of the professors whom he was attracted to, or at least 
had some courses from at Clemson, was a botanist who arranged to 
get him up to Iowa State University for some graduate training. 
I think that was about 1917 or 1918. While up there, he went 
into the service because of his military training. That was in 
World War I, but he never served outside this country. The war 
ended soon after he was taken into service as a second 

At any rate, he moved to Iowa Ames and enrolled in Iowa 
State in a graduate program of applied botany, which led into 
plant pathology and an interest in plant diseases. I think sone 
of his early graduate assistantships involved summer work 
eradicating the barberry, which is an alternate host for wheat 
rust. That was a major program in those days to control wheat 
rust in that big wheat belt of the Midwest. Wheat rust is an 
interesting fungus that requires a different host to complete its 
life cycle, and one of the early techniques of control was to 
interrupt that life cycle by destroying its alternate host. So 

Kendrick: the government employed a lot of young men I think probably 

principally young men at that time to scour the countrysides and 
hoe and cut out the barberries. 

Lage: So it was a natural means of control. 

Kendrick: It was an early biological control system with the emphasis on 

Dad's major professor at Iowa State was I. E. Melhus, who 
was kind of a crusty individual, as I remember. His secretary 
was my mother [Violet McDonald]. 

Lage: Oh I We're getting into the courtship. 

Kendrick: She was born in Iowa. Her parents were also farmers. She was 

born in Washington County, which I think, as far as I recall, is 
down in the southeastern part of the state. But I never knew 
that part of her background. By the time I knew my grandparents, 
they were resident in the town of Ames. Some time earlier they 
had moved from Washington County and were farming property on the 
edge of the Iowa State campus. The university had purchased 
their farm and farm house in the course of needing, I guess, 
additional land to expand. So by the time I was really 
acquainted with them, they had located themselves as residents of 
Ames, with an address that's vividly fixed in my mind as 926 
Grand Avenue. We spent a good deal of time with my mother's 
parents more so than we did with my father's. 

Father's Early Career in Plant Pathology 

Kendrick: They were married in 1919, and then my father was offered a 
position at Purdue University. 

Lage: Had he finished his ? 

Kendrick: He had not finished his doctoral program, but I think he had a 
master's degree by that time. And so he took the position that 
was offered to him at Lafayette, Indiana, at Purdue University. 
It was in Lafayette where I appeared, when I was born on the 21st 
of October, 1920. 

The period of my early life in West Lafayette, where we 
lived, I can recall only in snatches, principally by reflecting 
on conversations with my parents about those days and looking at 
early photographs. My father was, as with most first-born 
children, recording every moment that he could and so there are 
many early photographs of me. 

Kendrick: Most of those early photographs were not taken with a hand-held 

camera like I've got where the focus, shutter speed, and exposure 
are all automatically set. The photographic sessions were 
regular excursions. We would get into a small wagon or walk over 
to the laboratory where Dad worked. He'd set up the still camera 
and set everything in motion. It was like a photographic studio. 
So. it was not just a snapshot. But there were some snapshots, 
too. taken on those early Kodak cameras. 

I was the only sibling of the family until 1926. when my 
sister was born, also in Lafayette. 

Lage: Were there other siblings after that? 

Kendrick: I have a brother who was born in Woodland after we moved to 

During the period that they were in Indiana, Dad sought to 
complete the work for his doctorate degree. So he took a leave, 
I think, about 1924 or '25, and we went to Ames for a year. 
That's why I have more vivid recollections about Ames than some 
of the other places in my early life. He completed his work and 
received his Ph.D. degree about 1925, I think. 


In plant pathology? 

Kendrick: In plant pathology, from Iowa State University. He minored in 

Then we returned to Lafayette. He had an associate whom he 
was working with at Purdue. His name was Max W. Gardner. They 
did a lot of their research work together, but I don't think they 
did much classroom instruction. Dad didn't hold a professorship, 
because his appointment involved mostly full-time research. He 
was primarily handling the vegetable problems. I can't really be 
certain about these impressions at Purdue because I was less than 
seven years old. 

Lage: That's all right. We don't expect you to remember 

Kendrick: You don't form a lot of lasting memories at that age. 

The Move to Davis, the "University Farm", 1927 

Kendrick: In 1927, I remember. Dad had an opportunity, or an offer, to come 
to California and locate at Davis to develop a plant pathology 
group on the Davis campus. Up to that time, the department was 
here at Berkeley in the College of Agriculture. They tried to 

Kendrick: provide the needs for plant pathology on the Davis campus by 

locating one or two people up there from time to time to teach, 
primarily. Ralph E. Smith was chairman of the department at that 
time, and also a significant figure in the development of plant 
pathology in the University of California. Incidentally, Ralph 
Smith was the administrator who really got the Citrus Experiment 
Station started back in the early 1900s. Dean [E. J.] Wickson 
sent Ralph E. Smith to southern California to establish a 
laboratory to take care of lemon rot and a walnut blight problem. 
So Ralph E. Smith, the plant pathologist, was the one who got 
agricultural research laboratories going in southern California, 
but that digresses. 

Lage : He saw the need to develop something more active on the Davis 

campus, it seems. 

Kendrick: Well, he and others, I assume. But it was determined that the 
University wanted a group, an extension of the Department of 
Plant Pathology at Berkeley, on the Davis campus as it was 
developing. And so my father was the one who accepted the 
invitation to do that. He remained as the head and chair of that 
unit throughout his entire career at the University of 
California thirty-three years, which is something you don't do 

Lage: That's right. Longevity that you no longer see very often. 

Kendrick: Well, there were a lot of changes that took place over the years. 

So they packed up bag and baggage in 1927 and by late summer 
of that year, we had moved to Davis to start a new life. I'm 
sure at the time it felt like they were moving to the end of the 

Lage: That's what I'm thinking, even though that pattern of movement 

from Iowa to Calif ornia wasn 1 1 uncommon. 

Kendrick: Well, that's true, but it was a long way from South Carolina. My 
mother's parents were Ohioans, so they had moved from Ohio to 
Nebraska and then back to Iowa. I think they were prospecting 
around trying to find a piece of ground that was productive 
enough that they could farm and survive. 

When we first arrived in Davis we lived for several months 
in a few rooms in a little hotel the University Hotel on 2nd and 
"B" Streets. Later that year we moved across the street to a 
small house that's still there. And then a couple years later to 
a little larger house on "S" Street. In 1930 they built a home 
at 35 College Park, a housing development outside of the city 
limits, where the University faculty and staff were locating. 

Lage : How comfortable could a college professor be at that time or. the 

salary of a professor? 

Kendrick: Well, it was pretty meager. 

Lage: In comparison to others in Davis and surrounding areas? 

Kendrick: Well, in comparison with others. I never detected that we were 
skimping and saving and sacrificing. We never had anything tc 
waste, and the humble origins of their parents instilled a 
frugality in their attitude that watched the spending pattern 
pretty closely. There was a lot of canning of fresh fruit. Both 
of them having a farm background where they canned and preserved 
and stored food to last the year, that was kind of a way of life 
for my mother; she did a lot of preserving and canning. Dad was 
an avid gardener; he always had things growing. 

My folks bought their first automobile while we were there. 
I noted that he bought a Buick; it wasn't a new Buick. but they 
bought a Buick. they didn't buy a Model-T Ford. A 1927 Buick was 
really quite a car. 

So I think that they were living in a style that the rest of 
the academic appointees were. But it was a very happy time, I 
think, because it was a period of growth of the campus. There 
were only five hundred students, and about four hundred and fifty 
were in a two-year program called the non-degree program that the 
University at a later date [1960] gave to Cal Poly arv.' r^l-- 1 .. "You 
take this program because it is not compatible with our long- 
range goal." That created a lot of discussion on the campus 
because the people who were associated with teaching the two-year 
program really felt they were being disadvantaged and disparaged. 
But the view prevailed that because the University of California 
was a degree-granting institution it really shouldn't continue 
the vocational aspect of teaching which characterized the non- 
degree program. The Davis campus was known as the University 
Farm. It wasn't the "University of California, Davis" at that 

Lage: It didn't have the separate status, as I understand. 

Kendrick: No, it certainly didn't. It was tied very, very closely to 

Berkeley. You couldn't wiggle without getting permission from 
people at Berkeley. And that close tie has a lot to do with what 
I have observed over the years as the "Davis attitude," relative 
to Berkeley or relative to the rest of the University. 


Should we elaborate on that, or will that come out ? 

Kendrick: Well, I think that will come out later because until I became the 
vice-president I really didn't detect the characteristics of the 
campuses. Each one is as different and has as much individual 
character as children. But there are some lasting kinds of 
impressions of the Berkeley-Davis relationship, I think, that 
account for a lot of reactions which people have difficulty 
explaining; but if you understand the background and you have 
been around long enough you can understand them. 

Lage: So, whereas maybe you didn't detect it when you were living in 

Davis, I'm sure when you were faced with it, you understood it. 

Kendrick: That's right. You could make allowances for it and not get your 
nose out of joint. 

Lage: Your father must have experienced it directly, with his position. 

Kendrick: Yes, he did. And he's the origin of a lot of my knowledge and 

Town and Gown Relationships in Davis 

Kendrick: The campus, in those late twenties and early thirties, developed 
to a large extent as a family. The leaders of the various 
academic units most of whom have buildings named for them now 
were friends and colleagues of my family, and there was a lot of 
esprit de corps and camaraderie. The faculty liked to play 
together as well as work together. I can recall spirited 
Softball games; they would divide themselves into teams and 
leagues and spend the summer playing softball. When that ran 
out, they'd play volleyball with teams and a league schedule. 
The socializing among the faculty was fairly extensive. One of 
the principal indoor sports was card playing bridge. But the 
town of Davis was really dominated by the University. Other than 
the presence of the University, Davis's main reason for existing 
was that it was the railroad junction between the Southern 
Pacific's main line that went east to Chicago and the coast line 
that went north to Seattle. 

Lage: Nothing else there. 

Kendrick: A little supplying of the farm community there, but not 

extensive. They had a little downtown section. But if you had 
taken the University farm and its activities away from Davis, it 
would have just been a railroad stop, with a small supply and 
trading center for farmers. 


Lage : Were your connections mainly with other university-related people 

as you grew up, rather than with farmers and their children? 

Kendrick: Almost exclusively, because most of my schoolmates whom I can 

recall were children of other people employed by the University. 
However, I had a close chum through grade school who was the 
adopted son of the owner of the principal dry goods and grocery 
store in town. 

Lage: That was the town and gown relationship? 

Kendrick: That was the town and gown relation. [laughter] I used to think 
it was really something special being able to go downtown on 
Sunday when the store was closed and be given store candy or 
other goodies by his mom or grandfather, who would be working 
there. It was sort of a back-stage type of experience. 

Anyway, my primary group of colleagues came from the campus 
community, although I have to modify that statement a bit because 
another close chum who had a lot of influence on my life as a 
colleague was the grandson of a farmer near Winters. They were a 
bright family; the youngsters were very sharp. There were two 
boys and a girl in that family, but Gordon Furth was the oldest 
one and my chum. 

Gordon joined our class, I think, in about the third grade. 
I was in the second grade when I started school in Davis. Class 
sizes averaged thirty-five students. Gordon's grandfather and 
father were farming apricots and walnuts. Even though they were 
in the Winters school district, they weren't happy with the 
Winters school at that time, so the parents gained permission to 
send their children to Davis. That move resulted in a very long- 
lasting and endearing friendship because the group of kids I 
played with most liked to go to the Furth's ranch from time tc 
time and play in that rural setting. But Gordon was a lead horse 
in the sense that he seemed to have no problem getting good 
grades. The competitive spirit in our group was strong because 
we wanted to get better grades than he did. [laughter] So in 
that relationship, friendly as it was, it was always trying to 
outdo Furth; we couldn't understand why he was so much scarter 
than the rest of us. 

Lage: There was a value placed on academic achievement, then. 

Kendrick: We had a pretty straightforward academic program. But I think 

the value system was preserved because so many of the youngsters 
were children of University people. There were about a dozen of 
us who really watched one another and how well we were doing. 

Kendrick: This is kind of a sideline, but back in the third grade it could 
have been the fourth grade I discovered that Gordon was reading 
Time magazine from covei to cover, and I can recall thinking, 
"Why on earth at an age of about nine or ten, in the fourth 
grade, was he reading that magazine from cover to cover?" It 
wasn't until years later I discovered that his uncle was the 
managing editor of Time magazine. [laughter] 

Lage: So he wasn't a typical farmboy. 

Kendrick: I don't know what you mean by typical farmboy, but Gordon was 
certainly far above average in intelligence. 

Lage: Now, what did he go on to do? 

Kendrick: After Gordon graduated from high school at Davis he went to 

Berkeley. He became a certified public accountant and gained an 
M.B.A. He has had a marvelously successful career in managing 
shipping and mining companies. One of his successful 
responsibilities was with Cypress Mining Company. 


Kendrick: Let's skip ahead a little bit. Gordon was the person I selected 
as the best man at our wedding, so it has been a long and 
enduring relationship. 

He has a famous brother, too. Alan Furth, who was about two 
years younger than the two of us, was general counsel for the 
Southern Pacific Company and one of the chief executives of that 
operation. So it was a family of successes. 

Lage: I suppose having a Davis campus there had quite an effect on 

them, too; without it, they may not have achieved 

Kendrick: Well, I'm not sure the Davis campus had that much influence; 
certainly they had enough native intelligence to succeed no 
matter where they were going. The interesting thing was that the 
parents saw that they were receiving less challenging instruction 
in Winters than they would have in Davis. The fact that they 
were thrown in amongst youngsters who were from University 
background parents, I suppose, had some stimulating effect. 

Religion and Politics in the Kendrick Family 

Lage: Are there other things about the Davis setting or the family 

values? We're interested in religion, politics, that kind of 
thing. Does that have a bearing on your course? 


Kendrick: Well, neither one had any real twig-bending influences on my 
points of view about one thing or another. I think I did the 
usual; I went to Sunday school regularly and then youth 
fellowship it was called Christian Endeavor in those days. When 
I got a little older and into the teenage years, Christian 
Endeavor met Sundays evenings, so it provided another opportunity 
for a night out with my teenage friends. The sponsors gave soce 
great parties [chuckles] so we had a lot of fun. It was a small, 
social, Protestant experience. Only a few of my classmates were 
Catholics. The only difference noted was that my Catholic 
classmates wouldn't eat meat on Fridays, and they would sacrifice 
something they ordinarily ate or did during Lent. Aside from 
that, the religious influences were not dominant, and they 
certainly were not a source of discrimination. 

Lage: Was politics a discussed subject? Here we are recalling the 

Depression years as you were growing up. 

Kendrick: Yes. During the Depression years was one of the times I recall 

the University faculty took a salary cut. And that was kir.d of a 
tense time. It ultimately got restored, but I don't think 
anybody ever caught up. I recall overhearing conversations on 
how my parents were really going to have to tighten up. So it 
was a time of real belt tightening. Of course, my folks built 
their home in College Park a four-bedroom, two-bathroom home in 
a choice piece of real estate for about $6,000. They bought the 
property, which amounts to two lots, for five hundred dollars. 
This was in 1930. 

My mother still lives in the house she and Dad built on that 
property. The percentage appreciation that has taken place over 
this period is almost obscene. Similar homes and property in 
College Park are now selling for several hundred thousand 
dollars, presumably because of the choice location. The 
appreciation in most cases is in excess of 3000 percent. 

Lage: Was the New Deal accepted by your family? 

Kendrick: I don't ever recall hearing a lot of discussion. There could 
have been conflict in my family because my mother had a 
conservative Republican background and my father had a Democratic 
background. Mother never seemed to be very assertive in terms of 
her politics. She also came from a strict Methodist family where 
Sunday was a quiet church-dominated day. There were no cards in 
my grandparents' home. My father was a smoker, and so was one of 
my mother's brothers. The use of tobacco was also regarded as a 
sin by my maternal grandmother. I remember times when my father 
and uncle would go down to the basement to smoke. I don't know 
why they thought that was avoiding the obvious because the smoke 
would come ou through the house. 1 guess they felt they could 


Kendrick: get out of "smell-shot" in the basement. At least it had a coal- 
like smell because there was lots of coal stored in the basement, 
which was used to heat the house. 

Although my father was a Democrat, I can't recall whether he 
thought Roosevelt was a real savior or not. His work ethic, I 
think, was such that he was not terribly sympathetic with some of 
the welfare society programs. But I think he generally was a 
supporter of Roosevelt because the country needed a change. 
There was never really a lot of political discussion in our home. 

Lage: One of those things best not discussed at some point. 

Kendrick: I think part of it was my mother's attitude. She just didn't 

care to engage in that kind of a discussion. So their political 
background really didn't have any impact. As a matter of fact, 
my father's politics didn't influence me because I've been a 
registered Republican all my life. I think the reason I 
registered Republican is that by the time I got ready to vote, 
the Republican candidates appealed to me more than the Democratic 
candidates, so I became a Republican. And you couldn't really 
determine from my voting record through the years exactly what 
party I affiliated with. 

Lage: So you were more independent, even though you registered 


Kendrick: I registered Republican just to have a party, but I 
Lage: Just to be contrary in Berkeley, I suspect. [laughs] 

Kendrick: Yes, I feel disenfranchised in Berkeley. Being a Republican is 
probably a useless registration in Berkeley. But my leanings 
tend to be a little more conservative than liberal, although I 
think that it's really a pick-and-choose attitude. No party 
label really satisfies me. It depends on the issue whether I'm a 
conservative or a liberal. I can't buy all the liberal causes, 
and I can't buy all the conservative causes. 

Schooling: Academics, Athletics, and Evelyn 



You talked a little bit about schooling- 
there any early interest in academics? 

-not in depth but was 

In elementary school in Davis, I recall that I was just a little 
better than average as a student. I worked like a demon to try 
and match Gordon, but I was never able to do so. There were a 
couple of smart girls in my class also, and I couldn't catch up 


Kendrick: with them either. They were daughters of University faculty 

fathers. Probably no more than half of the class members were 
from University families, and it was a good, competitive class. 
Ultimately, thirty-eight of us graduated from high school. For 
those interested in numerology, it is interesting to observe that 
the thirty-eight members in the class graduated in the year of 
1938, fifty years ago next year, which seems like a long, long 
time ago. 

I recall that my parents were strict about my paying 
attention to grades, and if I slipped down and got a C or a D in 
a subject, we visited the teacher to find out why. Those were 
not particularly pleasant occasions, and I was subject to 
corporal punishment at home. My mother didn't spank; my father 
believed that a good tanning would straighten out the thinking, 
fairly easily. So I had my share of spankings. 

Lage: This kind of academic achievement was definitely encouraged at 


Kendrick: It certainly was. No excuse for not doing your best, which, I 

would say, left a lasting impression. I came to believe early ir. 
school that if it was worth the time, it was worth giving your 
best to do it. I guess I developed a perfectionist attitude. 

Life really began to open up for me in junior high school 
seventh and eighth grade. My seventh and eighth grade classes 
were in the high school building. We were kind of like a second 
thumb on the hand, but at least we were in the environment of the 
high school. We had a very good physical education instructor 
who was also the high school athletic coach coach of everything. 
His name is Dewey Halden, and he is still living. Dewey would 
spend his time in the gymnasium on the weekends. He made it 
available to all youngsters in Davis who otherwise might be 
running around and getting into trouble. Dewey organized 
basketball games with other schools so from about the seventh 
grade on the world of athletics became more important than 
anything else, as far as I was concerned. His encouragement of 
this early athletic development was not all altruism. He liked 
to win. [laughter] And his high school football and basketball 
teams usually won their conference titles. 

Lage: But he just was working on the junior high level? 

Kendrick: He was working with these kids seventh and eighth graders 

getting them started in a competitive, organized sporting event, 
largely basketball, but also a little touch football. The senior 
minister of our community church was a big, tall fellow, who had 
a more than passing interest in basketball. His name was the 
Reverend Williams, and Pewey asked him to help coach a team of 


Ken d rick : 

Ken d rick: 
Ken d rick: 

junior high school youngsters. I was part of that group. That 
was my earliest exposure to competitive athletics, and I thought 
life was really going to be fun and games. 

So the seventh and eighth grade passed in due course without 
any lasting impression except these years opened up a new world 
other than one which was strictly academic. Even though Davis 
High School then had a relatively small student body and served 
a district outside of the city limits, it offered a wide range of 
extracurricular activities. The school also took great pride in 
the fact that it graduated a significant number of youngsters who 
went on to college and who were automatically accepted into the 
University of California. Since it had a reputation to maintain, 
it conducted a rigorous academic program, too. 

And did the athletics continue in high school? 

They sure did. 

Did you play basketball? 

I felt during most of my high school career that the most 
important part of the day began about two o'clock after I 
finished with my formal classes. I played football and 
basketball, and since we didn't have a baseball team that 
amounted to anything, because Dewey Halden didn't seem to be 
interested in baseball, we had track and field. It was on the 
track field where I developed some degree of individual skill, 
but we'll get to that in a moment. I really enjoyed playing 
football. I played football from the time that I was a freshman 
until I graduated, and managed to get through without doing any 
more damage to myself than breaking a front tooth, I played in 
the back field all of the time, and our teams were quite good. 
We won our league championship most of the time, although we 
couldn't advance very much further than that because the bigger 
schools just beat up on us. But we were kings in our own league. 
I played regularly in the back field on the team from my 
sophomore year on. 

Basketball was fun, and I enjoyed it also. It was easier to 
match comparable skills because our teams were divided into A, B, 
and C groups, depending on the athletes' age, height, and weight. 

In track I seemed to be a reasonably springy runner, so I 
high- jumped and hurdled. My junior year was the best year of my 
track achievement. I had developed a capacity to run the high 
hurdles better than most people in northern California, so I won 
most of the races that year. I can recall coming home from the 
first invitational meet, in my junior year, on a Saturday 
afternoon. "My father said, "Well, how did you do?" And I said, 
"I won two races." "Well, I'll be damned," he said. [laughter] 

Kendrick: I think both of us were surprised that I had any kind of ability 
to do that because I was not physically constructed to run the 
high hurdles very well. In spite of being shorter than most 
hurdlers, I had developed a technique to get over them rapidly 
without much waste motion. Dad and mother were avid followers of 
my high school athletic program. They seldom missed a football 
or a basketball game or a track meet in which I participated. 

It was my junior year when I won the northern California 
high hurdle championship, which qualified me to go to the 
California state meet. This was quite an honor because Davis had 
not qualified more than one or two people for the state meet ever 
before. Dewey Halden and I traveled to Long Beach for the meet, 
and it was a thrill of my young life to go down there with my 
coach. I found out that I was going to be racing with some of 
the same people I had been beating all year. However, I was to 
experience one of life's most humbling lessons. I stumbled on 
the first hurdle in the opening heat and didn't qualify for the 
final race. It was a bitter disappointment that I had to endure 
because the young man who I had been beating in every race all 
year came in second in the finals. 

Lage: So you felt you could have been first 

Kendrick: Well, not first. The winner was clearly much better and more 

outstanding than anybody else. But I figured that I would have a 
cinch second. That was an important event in my life, because I 
had to deal with defeat caused by subpar performance rather than 
losing because of being outclassed. 

Lage: This was in '37? 

Kendrick: In 1937. The athletic program was good, but that was not all of 
the extracurricular offerings. Davis High had a whole range of 
activities; we had a drama program, an orchestra, a chorus, 
student government, and a publications group, which published a 
monthly student paper and the annual. 

Lage: How large would the school have been? 

Kendrick: We had about 150 students. Four classes four grades and about 
150 students. 

Lage: That's small. 

Kendrick: What it meant was that each of us did everything. When football 
season ended, we put away the football uniforms and then we 
became basketball players; and when basketball season ended, we 
put those uniforms away and became the track squad. In addition, 
we squeezed in the extra time for ;lrama, chorus, orchestra, 
student council, student government, and publications. I 


Kendrick: participated in all of these, so I had a high school that was 
busy from morning until night. It was a rich, enjoyable 
experience and a lot of fun. 

Lage: And the academics kept up? 

Kendrick: Well, surprisingly, the academics improved. I got through high 

school with a pretty good record not the best in the class, that 
belonged to Gordon Furth, but it was pretty good. All of the C's 
and D's disappeared, and the A's and B's came back because I 
studied. Good grades didn't come all that easy for me. To 
compensate I would devote my weekends to studying my course work 
a week ahead so that I would have the freedom of the evenings and 
the afternoons to pursue the athletics and other activities. I 
worked during spare times and in the summers by watering people's 
lawns or taking care of their animals when they were on vacation 
to accumulate some spending money. My main source of 
recreational funds was gained by working at the University during 
summers. Dad always provided the basic necessities of food and 
clothing for the children. So all I needed was spending money. 

I have not yet mentioned that the most positive influence in 
my life occurred in high school; Evelyn joined my class in 1934. 
Her maiden name was Evelyn Henle. 

Lage: So Evelyn goes way back, too. 

Kendrick: She goes way back, too. She came from a farming family that 

farmed dryland grain between Winters and Davis, a little closer 
to Davis than Winters, so she automatically qualified for the 
Davis Unified School District. Her father's name was Albert 
Ludwig Henle, and her mother's name was Lura Wicks Henle. Her 
first eight years of school were spent in a one-room, fully 
integrated, multiple-classed school that was named the Fairf ield 
School. The only teacher in this school was the wife of Dewey 
Halden, my high school athletic coach. [laughter] Davis had a 
population of about one thousand when we moved there in 1927, so 
it should not have been surprising to find many close 
relationships among people with whom we came in contact in that 

Lage: It was an interesting community, though, with a population of one 

thousand; but with the presence of a university, it must not have 
been the typical small town. 

Kendrick: You are right, it gave it a special character. During most of my 
high school period, Evelyn was merely a classmate. It was about 
the end of our senior year when we began to see one another with 
a little more serious intent than just dating for a party. I 
liked many of the girls and wasn't about to be serious about any 


Kendrick: particular one for a while. By the time that we had graduated I 
stopped dating other girls, and we had a steady relationship from 
then on. 

The spring of 1938 the year we graduated from high school 
her father had a farm accident. A disc rolled back on his leg, 
and it had to be amputated. That event disrupted her plans to go 
on to college; she had to go to work and provide some 
remuneration for herself as well as for her family. She went to 
work in the Bank of Davis as a teller/ clerk. So, during the 
period that I was an undergraduate student at Berkeley, she was 
working in Davis at the Bank of Davis. 

Lage : Had she intended to go on to Berkeley, also? 

Kendrick: I don't know. She probably had intended to go on to school in 
Davis where her older sister, Lura Alleyne, had gone. 

I can't recall any particular occasion when we reached a 
decision to marry each other, but we sort of knew it would work 
into that relationship eventually. We were married about a week 
after I graduated from Berkeley, on May 17, 1942, in a lovely 
ceremony held in the yard of her family home on the farm. Guess 
who was my best man? Gordon Furth was again an important part of 
my life. However, this time I came out ahead of him. Gordon had 
also been a student at Berkeley. 

Entering UC Berkeley. 1938; Bowles Hall Resident 



Let's turn now to your experience at Berkeley. 
choose Berkeley? 

Why did you 

Well, my choice for Berkeley really was made on the basis of 
looking briefly at three schools: one was Davis, and there was 
Stanford and Berkeley. I w as attracted to Stanford but realized 
it was pretty impractical because of the expense. I was not 
offered any scholarships, so it looked like a little too much of 
a financial obligation for my parents. Berkeley was the choice 
because I didn't want to go to Davis. I felt that the close 
friendships that existed between faculty members and my high 
school notoriety was not going to allow me to stand on my own 
feet, so I chose Berkeley. I also recognized the fact that it 
was regarded as an achievement to get into Berkeley. I had 
managed to pass the Subject A examination, which was a surprise 
to some people, including me, but nevertheless gratefully 



Ker.drick: The other thing that made coming to Berkeley attractive was my 
acceptance as a resident of Bowles Hall as a freshman. There 
were only a few freshmen admitted to Bowles at that time. The 
policy in those days was different than it is today because once 
you were admitted, you stayed as long as you were enrolled as an 
undergraduate if you wanted to. Bowles was a living arrangement 
that had no rival, in my judgment. 

Lage: Did you know about it in advance? 

Kendrick: Yes, I did, because Rose Gilmore was the resident manager. Her 
husband w as a professor on the Davis campus. I think that fact 
helped a bit in being selected, because there was lots of 
competition for acceptance. It was almost like applying for a 
scholarship. It was necessary to secure recommendations from 
reliable people. That first year my roommate was Gene Ireland. 
There was a bit of irony in this situation because Gene went to 
school in Winters. I knew him slightly in high school because we 
opposed one another in our athletic contests. 

At Berkeley, I enrolled in the premed major, as did Gene, so 
we started down the same academic path in Bowles Hall as 
roommates. Bowles was constructed so each resident had a private 
bedroom with a larger room between the two private bedrooms which 
was used as a common living room. So, two of us had three rooms. 
All of the rooms on the front of the building had fabulous views 
of the Bay Area and San Francisco. As freshmen, however, we had 
back rooms, and we had to wait for our seniority to grow before 
we could progress to the view-rooms. 

Lage: The living arrangements were luxurious compared to today's 



Lage : 


You could never find that kind of living accommodations from 
University housing today. The other thing that made it 
attractive was the food service. All the meals were prepared in 
the hall's own kitchen, and they were fabulous, good as well as 

The hall was relatively new then, wasn't it? 
built in the thirties. 

I thought it was 

I think it was relatively new. 
shape than it is today. 

It was certainly in much better 

Professor [James D.] Hart donated money to build a library 
as a memorial to his parents while I was there. He also stocked 
it with a basic collection of representative literature. It was 
a magnificent addition to the living quarters. Another 
remembrance of Bowles was the quality of the student residents, 
who later became quite well known and successful. At the time, 


Kendrick: however, they were just ordinary classmates, or at least that was 
the way it seemed to me. I knew very little about most of their 
backgrounds, although I knew there were a lot of San Franciscans 
in various classes. My Bowles classmates included Peter Kaas, 
Eugene Kilgore, Bill Coblentz, Dan Koshland, Dick Goldman, Stan 
McCaffrey, and Jim Schwabacher, to name only a very few who 
became prominent in later life. 

Lage: What was the line between Bowles people and fraternity people? 

Kendrick: There was no line. We were part of the "non-org's" organized 
non-org's. We engaged in a fair amount of campus politics. We 
had some campus politicians among us, but none, following Stan 
McCaffrey, during my years at Bowles succeeded in being elected 
to the presidency [of the Associated Students]. We ran 
candidates for the student council and various other elective 
offices. Our candidates tended to affiliate with the 
fraternities' candidates. We would canvas the frats and try to 
make alliances so that we were treated a bit like a fraternity. 
However, we were never really accepted as a fraternity. For ore 
thing, there were 108 of us; we were larger than all of the 
frats. Secondly, the Bowles students did not participate 1 . 
selecting the members of the hall. I visited 
fraternities and had friends in a few houses, but I was never 
seriously tempted to move from Bowles. No physical living 
situation could match that of Bowles Hall, and the companionship 
at Bowles seemed as good as the alternatives. The environment at 
Bowles also encouraged good scholarship, to which by that time I 
was committed. Another thing that changed my attitude about 
fraternity life was my interest in Evelyn. I wasn't really 
looking for opportunities for a heavy social life. The social 
program at Bowles Hall was active enough for most of us. Evelyn 
would come to Berkeley for the appropriate events, so I always 
had a date when I wanted one. 

Lage: How did you choose the premed program? 

Kendrick: I really don't know. I think the attractiveness of practicing 
medicine seemed glamorous to me. I realized also that it was a 
respected and rewarding profession, both monetarily and self- 
satisfying. I think I saw it as a means of establishing a 
successful relationship with members of a small community. So 
medicine seemed to be where I wanted to dedicate my life. 

Eugene Ireland, my first roommate, became a pediatrician. 
He established his practice in Santa Monica. I had four 
different roommates during my residency in Bowles. One of them 
was another premed named Jack Dykes, now deceased, who was a 
thoracic surgeon who practiced in Bakersf ield. He went to 
medical school at Northwestern University. I roomed with him 
during our sophomore year. Then I roomed one year with Bob Crum, 


Kendrick: one of my Davis High School classmates, who came from a farm 

family near Winters. My senior year I roomed with another farm 
boy named Latane Sale, pronounced "Latnee." He was from a farm 
near Red Bluff. 

Undergraduate Education from Top Faculty Members 

Kendrick: I stuck with the premed program for two years. Premeds generally 
took the same courses, and class sections tended to group 
students depending on where they ranked in the class. I found 
myself generally grouped with the top-ranked students. 
I seemed to have caught the fire of academic stick-to-itiveness 
by that time, so I spent a lot of time studying very diligently; 
the grades responded correspondingly. My undergraduate education 
was really quite good. For a general science background, the 
premed program couldn't have been better suited. I was in the 
College of Letters and Science, which gave me an opportunity to 
pursue a bachelor of arts degree. It also gave me a chance to 
take history and English and a number of electives. My 
undergraduate instructors were all well known members of 
Berkeley's faculty in later years, just the way it ought to be 
nowadays, but it isn't. I had chemistry 1A-B from Professor 
[Joel] Hildebrand and organic chemistry from Professor [C. W.] 
Porter, quantitative analysis from Professor [Wendell M.] Latimer 
and English was from Professor James D. Hart, now with The 
Bancroft Library. He was just starting out on his faculty 
career. He is the Professor Hart who gave the memorial library 
to Bowles Hall while I was a resident there. 

My zoology 1A instructor was Professor [Sol] Light, and then 
in spring of that year there was a brand new assistant professor 
by the name of Richard Eakin, who taught my zoology IB. I took 
plant physiology from Professor A. R. Davis, and history of 
western civilization from Professor Herbert Bolton. 

Lage : You had quite a background. 

Kendrick: In zoology I took a course from the famous geneticist Professor 
[Richard] Goldschmidt, and in botany I had a good course in 
genetics from Professor [T. Harper] Goodspeed. By the beginning 
of my junior year I was becoming disillusioned not with 
medicine, but with my student colleagues who were headed into 
medicine. Even in those days, it was a cut-throat operation. I 
said if these are the kinds of people who are going into 
medicine, I'm not so sure that I want to continue in medicine. I 
was really disillusioned about what you had to do to get the 
grades to get into med school. 



Highly competitive. 

Kendrick: Yes. And I didn't feel that it ought to be that way. 


Even though you, yourself, were getting good grades. 

Kendrick: Oh, I was getting adequate grades, I think they would have been 
considered as acceptable. I just didn't like what I saw. 

At about this same period of disillusionment with the pretned 
"crowd," my father said to me one day, "I think that any well 
educated person should have at least a minimal knowledge of 
botany plants." And I said to myself, "Well, he's supporting me 
in school, the least I can do is take one or two courses that he 
thinks are important." I think I showed a certain amount of 
maturity and wisdom. [laughter] So I took a botany course in my 
j unior year. 

Lage: Who was the professor then? 

Kendrick: I don't remember who gave that beginning botany course. I can 

remember plant physiology being taught by Professor A. R. Davis, 
and it may have been that Davis was the first teacher I had for 
botany. There was a laboratory that went with it, and even 
though it wasn't a piece of cake, it was no problem. The grades 
came easily. And then I became attracted to genetics, so I 
started taking all the genetics courses I could find. 

Lage: Was this plant genetics, or just ? 

Kendrick: Just any genetics. There weren't all that many courses offered 
in those years, anyway. 

Lage: Genetics must have been a very different thing from what it is 


Kendrick: Oh, indeed it was. Then it was mating plants and figuring out 
the characteristics of inheritance, studying the phases of cell 
division, and observing the actions of chromosomes. It was still 
a young science, so it didn't have a lot of background 
information relative to other fields of botany. The genetics 
department was in the College of Agriculture, and it was there I 
came in contact with Professor [Ernest E.] Babcock, Professor 
[Roy] Clausen. Dr. [Everett] Dempster, and another beginning 
assistant professor, G. Ledyard Stebbins, who later moved to 
Davis. His specialty was the study of evolution of plants. 
There are a lot of interesting stories about him. He was just as 
eccentric as an assistant professor as he continued to be all the 
rest of his career. He was fun. We never really knew where we 
were in his course because he never gave us an examination until 
the final. [laughter] So he was a mystery. 


Kendrick: I took all the genetics courses that were offered by that 

department. It was a field that really interested me. Now. when 
I decided as a junior that I was not going to go on to premed, I 
began looking around at majors which would allow me to graduate 
in the four years that I had thought I was going to devote to my 
undergraduate career. I was also getting fairly serious about 
wanting to get married at the end of this period, and I really 
didn't see my pursuit of medicine as offering a lot of 
opportunity to be married while attending med school. That also 
had a certain amount of influence on my decision to change 
majors. I discovered, with the help of Professor Adriance 
Foster, who was a botanist and my advisor, that there was a major 
called general curriculum, which seemed to fit what I needed. 
General curriculum was a major which required thirty-six upper 
division units spread among three subjects with a limit of no 
more than twenty units in any one subject. I had taken or 
planned to take a number of courses in botany, zoology and 
genetics, in following my interest in genetics, so I spread my 
general curriculum program among those three subjects. 

In later years it was always a little difficult to explain 
when I was asked what my major was. When I replied, "general 
curriculum," the reply generally was, "Well, what's that?" 
[laughter] We'll get into another interesting episode as we get 
into my military career, which is related to my undergraduate 
major. But it fit what I needed to a tee, so I filled out my 
undergraduate years with courses in botany, zoology, and 
genetics, having already satisfied the English and history 
requirements for the Letters and Science general education 
requirement, I devoted the rest of my undergraduate years to 
getting a good education. During this time I also took some 
entomology and mycology, in anticipation of my graduate school 

Lage: Were many of these subjects in the College of Agriculture? 

Kendrick: The mycology and the genetics courses were. I also was 

stimulated into good performance by the fact that a few courses I 
took were heavily dominated by graduate students. 

Let's digress a little bit. In the late thirties, graduate 
students began to enroll at Davis in plant pathology and my 
father, characteristic of his relationship with his faculty and 
staff, treated them like family. In those early days, plant 
pathology at Davis had only one or two graduate students, and 
they were incorporated into the department as part of the family. 
One of those early graduate students was Jack Oswald, who came to 
Davis from De Pauw University in Indiana. Jack didn't work 
directly with my father, but he had a close relationship with him 
because Dad was the grand patron of that department. Jack was a 
very smart and talented young man who had had an illustrious 


Kendrick: career as an undergraduate. He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, 
selected to the academic Ail-American football team, full of fun 
and very naive. So he was the brunt of a lot of practical jokes. 
In those days you could not get all of the courses you needed for 
the Ph.D. degree majors at Davis; you had to enroll at Berkeley 
to take some courses. One of the years that Jack was in Berkeley 
was my junior year. Because I had not yet completed Botany 1A. 
which was a prerequisite for all courses in botany except one 
course, I wound up that year taking Botany 1A and a plant 
biochemistry course offered by Professor [Dennis R.] Hoagland, 
whose lab instructor was Dr. [William Z.] Hassid another famous 
name in the annals of plant physiology and plant biochemistry. 
Jack Oswald and Bob [Robert N.] Colwell. who was ultimately a UC 
Berkeley professor in the School of Forestry, were in that plant 
biochemistry course. 

I worked closely with Jack Oswald in later years, so let me 
elaborate on his career for a minute. Jack Oswald finished his 
degree program at the University of California about 1942; he got 
his Ph.D. and immediately enlisted in the navy. He became an 
officer in the navy, ultimately assigned to the PT boats. In the 
later years of his service career he was commander of a squadron 
of PT boats and had a pretty harrowing experience in the war. 
He came back after the war and joined the faculty of the plant 
pathology department at Davis. After Max Gardner's retirement, 
my father became the chairman of the department when the chair 
moved to Davis. Nobody exchanged positions, but the chairmanship 
did. My father asked Jack Oswald if he would move to Berkeley 
and become the assistant chair for the Berkeley campus, which he 
did; and he then began to exert a certain amount of independence, 
somewhat to the consternation of my father. But therein lies 
this Berkeley-Davis relationship that we will get into later. 

Jack, being a self-starter and a participant, became noticed 
by the dean and then by the Chancellor's Office. He subsequently 
was asked to assist dark Kerr as one of the assistant chancell 
ors. Then when Clark became the president of the University, 
Jack moved with Clark as a special assistant to the president and 
handled the Regents' meetings' agenda, etc. Jack then moved from 
the University of California to the University of Kentucky as 
president, where he served for about eight or ten years. He got 
a little tired of Kentucky politics and rejoined the University 
of California with President Charles Hitch, who appointed me as 
the vice-president of Agricultural Sciences, as it was known at 
the time, and Jack Oswald as his executive vice-president. Jack 
was in that position for only about a year or year and a half and 
then went to Penn State University as its president, where he 
served a good fifteen years. He retired as president a couple of 
years ago. He has been a recognized success in academic 
leadership in university circles. Jack has been a close 
colleague and family friend throughout our respective careers. 


Ker.drick: Now, back to college. I was able, through a little influence by 
my father and Dr. Max Gardner, to take that plant biochemistry 
course, which I really had no business taking at that point, but 
I needed a botany course and that was the only one available to 
me which didn't have a botany prerequisite. So I found myself 
with about twenty graduate students. I think I was the only 
undergraduate in the course, and I worked like a beaver. 

Professor Hoagland used to come in at twelve o'clock. It 
was a one-to-two o'clock lecture and a two-to-five o'clock lab, 
two or three times a week. Hoagland used to come to the 
classroom and begin to cover the blackboards with data, tables, 
and figures, and during his lecture he would refer to them. It 
soon occurred to both Jack Oswald and me that if we wanted to 
make any sense out of our lecture notes, we had to get to the 
class about the same time as Professor Hoagland and start copying 
all of the information as he was writing it on the blackboards. 
Well, I worked hard, survived, and got an A out of the course; so 
it was a worthwhile experience. But it was another one of the 
challenges to stay up with my colleagues, and I never really was 
comfortable coming in second. 

Lage: [laughs] I can see this competitive streak in you coming out. 

Kendrick: I really liked to be up front. 

My undergraduate education at Berkeley was first class, 
offered by giants in their field. They will remain lasting 
impressions on me as well as, apparently, lasting impressions on 
their colleagues because they were all honored and identified as 
significant figures. I felt that my four years in that program 
in the College of Letters and Science was really a gift. 

Another thing I liked about my undergraduate years was the 
old Berkeley semester schedule which Berkeley has returned to. I 
liked that schedule because if your finals fell right in the fall 
semester, there were six weeks beween semesters which were 
available for work. One year I swept the library at the Davis 
campus. I had all kinds of odd jobs during my undergraduate 
years which provided me with enough cash for my social schedule 
needs during the spring. 

Lage: It does make sense. I guess other people think so, too, since 

the campus has returned to that schedule. 

Kendrick: It's easier to organize a course of instruction in the longer 
term than the shorter quarter term. I participated in the 
conversion from the semester to the quarter system at Riverside 
and saw many courses abused when their instructors modified the 
schedule of presentation rather than changing the course to fit 
the quarter term schedule. 


Kendrick: The one big surprise of my last undergraduate year occurred when 
I returned to Bowles Hall one spring afternoon and found a notice 
in my mailbox informing me that I had been elected to Phi Beta 
Kappa. I hadn't the foggiest notion that I had qualified or 
whether I was even being considered for membership. But it was & 
thrill. It made all the hard work, study, and competitiveness 
worth it. 

Going to Mecca: 

Plant Pathology 

Choosing Wisconsin for Graduate Studies in 

Kendrick: I went to Wisconsin the fall of 1942. I had earlier determined 
that Wisconsin was where I wanted to go to school and that was 
largely through the influence of my father, who knew where the 
outstanding departments of plant pathology were. 

Lage: We haven't really talked about how you decided on plant 


Kendrick: No, we haven't. It was not really a very sudden decision on my 
part because I had had a fair amount of exposure to the subject 
in my Davis school years when I would go to the field with my 
father and see the kinds of things that he was doing. Then while 
wondering what I might do with the major in general curriculum, I 
figured that Dad's life had been pretty rewarding and 
satisfactory, and since I was interested in genetics and plant 
breeding and diseases, I thought I might as well pursue plant 
pathology too. 

Lage: What about the decision to go on to graduate school? 

Kendrick: There was never a doubt. 

Lage: Never a doubt? You had been thinking about it with medicine, of 


Kendrick: No, there was never a question about stopping with a bachelor's 
program. I seemed destined to go as far as the academic 
offerings were available, whether it was in medicine or a Ph.D. 
program. I had determined that what I really wanted to do was 
affiliate with a university, once I had made the decision not to 
go into medicine. You're not going to do that with only a 
bachelor's degree; you are going to do it with an advanced 


Kendrick: There is another event that had a major influence on my career. 
I mentioned that my father went to Purdue to work with Max 
Gardner, and they became collaborators and colleagues. Bad was 
looking ahead in the early 1930s to when Ralph Smith would retire 
from the University as chairman of the plant pathology 
department, which included Davis at the time. I know Dad was 
instrumental in getting Max to move to Berkeley in 1932 in the 
Department of Plant Pathology, where they resumed their 
collaborative relationship. When Professor Smith retired in 
1936, Dad supported Max Gardner as the logical candidate for that 
chairmanship. I guess he was able to get Max's name into 
consideration because the man who ultimately made all the 
decisions in those days, Dean Claude B. Hutchison, made the 
appointment in 1936. Max Gardner held that chairmanship until he 
retired in 1954. 


Well, my dad and Max continued this very close personal 
friendship and relationship the rest of their lives. I didn't 
have a godfather, but if there had been anybody who was my 
godfather. Max Gardner would have been the one. He often told of 
"hand-holding" my father during the night of my birth, so that 
goes back a long way. Margaret Gardner, Max's widow, still lives 
in their home here on Hawthorne Terrace. She is hard of hearing 
and cannot see well, but she is a spry ninety- two-year- old person 
who is a marvel. They raised two children, and they both became 
physicians. Murray H. Gardner is at Davis now in the department 
of medicine and veterinary medicine working on AIDS of rhesus 
monkeys. Mary Frances is in San Antonio, I think. She and her 
husband, also a physician, raised a family, most of whom became 
doctors too. 

But the close relationship that my father and Max maintained 
all their life there is a picture of the two of them right there 
[indicating a photograph] in front of Hilgard was one that I 
felt very warm about. Whenever Dad would come to Berkeley for 
his business I would make arrangements to get down and visit with 
him briefly in Max's office. So plant pathology sort of wrapped 
itself around me by osmosis as much as any calculated decision to 
pursue it as a profession. 

But your interest definitely lay there, in related fields, at 

Kendrick: Well, I felt comfortable working with plants. I spent my summers 
assisting the plant breeders in the agronomy and pomology 
departments at Davis and that gave me a boost in genetics, too. 
I liked seeing what would happen when you made crosses and then 
analyzed the progeny data. This gave me an early statistical 
exposure. We had to analyze the data to see if we were dealing 
with something real or imagined. So, almost from the time I 
entered high school I was familiar with plant experiments. It 


Kendrick : may have been different if my father had been an animal 

scientist I may have gone on in animal science; but it was 
plants that I was interested in and felt a certain degree of 
confidence dealing with. 

Max Gardner and my father were quite familiar with the 
graduate program in plant pathology of Wisconsin and thought 
highly of it. In plant pathology there was Cornell and Minnesota 
or Wisconsin, and after those three, well, the rest of then were 
in a different rank order. 

Lage: What about UC? 

Kendrick: Not at that time. It was not that eminent. 

Cornell, Wisconsin, and Minnesota had three giants that 
stood out as patriarchs in the field. At Wisconsin it was L. R. 
Jones, at Minnesota it was E. C. Stakeman, and at Cornell it was 
H. H. Whetzel. L. R. Jones had a number of students who went or. 
to become pioneers in plant pathology in various departments in 
the U.S. One thing Wisconsin did well was place their students 
all over the U.S. and these graduates would send their good 
students to Wisconsin; for these students was sort of like going 
to Mecca. Minnesota graduates did the same thing for Minnesota, 
and Cornell graduates were equally loyal to Cornell. But L. R. 
Jones was the patriarch of four eminent people in their own 
right: James Dickson, George Keitt, J. C. Walker, and Joyce 
Riker. These four men split their plant pathology interests by 
commodities. Keitt was a fruit tree pathologist, Riker was a 
bacteriologist and a forest pathologist, Dickson was a cereal and 
forage crop specialist, and J. C. Walker was a vegetable 

My father and Max Gardner recommended that I study with J. 
C. Walker, so that's where I wound up. I was offered a Wisconsin 
Alumni Research Foundation [WARF] fellowship amounting to six 
hundred dollars for the year; but all of the fees were included, 
so it was worth more than just the six hundred dollars. The six 
hundred dollars just paid the rent. 

Lage: Did you get married on that? 

Kendrick: Oh, yes. The pioneer spirit. [laughter] We had planned that 
Evelyn, with her banking experience, would go to work, but her 
full-time job paid her the magnificent sum of seventy-five 
dollars a month. On that, with my sixty dollars a month and with 
all the fees taken care of, we managed to survive pretty well. 
Our rent was about fifty dollars a month. 

Lage: You could get by on a lot less then. 


Kendrick: We didn't indulge in any extravagances, but we didn't feel that 
we were suffering or sacrificing. I have to mention that the 
board and room fee at Bowles Hall, during the four years that I 
was there, started out as fifty dollars a month. During the last 
year I think it got up to fifty-five. 

So the fall of '42, with gas rationing and tires 
unavailable after being married in May and working during the 
summer, saving as much as we could in order to pay the apartment 
rent in Davis for three months, scrounging as many old tires 
(that still had a little tread left on them) as we could we 
bundled ourselves and possessions into Evelyn's 1937 Dodge coupe 
and headed for Wisconsin. 

Lage: That must have been an adventure in itself. [laughter] 

Kendrick: It was. Good thing we didn't know what was ahead of us or we 
would not have had enough gumption to go. Life has been an 
adventure ever since. 



SERVICE, 1942-1947 

Brother's Parallel Path in Plant Pathology 

Kendrick: Well. I've got some things that I think we overlooked in our 
first session. I need to comment a little bit more about my 
sister and brother. My brother and I had some uniqueness in our 
careers that I think is worth putting in the record. Elizabeth, 
my sister, is the second oldest child of the marriage of my 
father and mother. She was born July 11, 1926, in Lafayette, 
Indiana. So she and I are Hoosiers. She finished grade and high 
school in Davis and spent a few years at Oregon State University 
but did not finish there. She married a graduate from the 
University of California at Davis, Donald Gale, and they have had 
a career located in Davis and Woodland. Don is a building 
contractor who worked with his father, also a contractor from 
Winters, before he developed his own ousir.ess and became a 
contractor in his own right. He and my sister have three beys. 
They lived in Davis until Don got disillusioned with the Davis 
city council's slow-growth, no-growth attitude. And because his 
business was not thriving under that kind of an environment, he 
moved to Woodland. That is where they are presently and have 
been for a number of years. 

Edgar, my brother, was born in Woodland on March 23, 1928. 
His education through high school was in Davis and interestingly 
enough I don't know the reasons why he had an education that 
duplicated mine. He went to Berkeley as an undergraduate. I 
don't recall what his major was but it was in the botanical 
sciences, I'm sure, because he also went back to the University 
of Wisconsin after graduating from Berkeley in 1950 for his Ph.D. 
training in plant pathology. 

His major professor was one of those big-four successors to 
L. R. Jones, Professor Jim Dickson. So in his early career in 
plant pathology he dealt with ce'real crops. When it came time 
for him to get a professional position, he found one in Pullman. 

With parents, James B. , Senior, and 
Violet Kendrick in Ames, Iowa, 1925. 

University of Wisconsin Professor J.C, 
Walker, August 1961. 

Above: Professors Max Gardner 

(left) and J.B. Kendrick, 

Senior, ca 1940. 

Right: James B. Kendrick, Jr., 



Kendrick: Washington, at Washington State University, but it was with the 
USDA in a laboratory established to study cereal diseases, and 
more particularly it was cauled the "smut" lab. Smut is a 
disease of cereals that is quite devastating, so this laboratory 
was set up with three or four professionals to deal with smut 
diseases of wheat. 

Lage : So he was employed by the USDA rather than the university. 

Kendrick: That is correct. And he spent his entire career with the USDA. 
His career was very similar to mine with the University of 
California because he ultimately was transfered to Beltsville, 
Maryland, the early headquarters for many of the Agriculture 
Research Service programs, as an administrator. From there he 
progressed through various administrative assignments. At one 
time, he was located in Tucson, where he presently has retired 
and is now living. His administrative assignments took him to 
Washington, D. C., Tucson, New Orleans, and again to Washington, 
D. C. While in New Orleans he had the responsibility for all the 
Agriculture Research Service workers in the southern region of 
the U.S. With the establishment of the assistant secretaryship 
for science and education in the USDA about six years ago, he was 
able to serve as the acting deputy assistant secretary for 
science and education with a very good friend of mine, Orville 
Bentley. So his career in the USDA was not unlike mine with the 
University of California, except that mine did not take me all 
over the United States. 

The uniqueness, and why I wanted to get it in the record, is 
that in plant pathology it is not a large profession I don't 
think there are many families with a father and two sons actively 
engaged in plant pathology at the same time. Of course, my 
father retired in 1960. 

Lage: That is an amazing record. 

Kendrick: So we were active, but not collaborators at the same time. 

Lage: You don't have an explanation for your parallel paths? 

Kendrick: I really do not. Except that I would guess that my father's 
career was attractive enough to the two of us that we saw the 
opportunities were there for anyone who wanted to work hard and 
get a good education and could follow it. My father certainly 
did nothing to discourage us from following him into that kind of 
an activity. 

Lage: But it wasn't an expectation. 

Kendrick: No. He never laid down any kind of entreating requests that we 
follow him [laughter] and perpetuate his interest in the field. 


Lage: It's not like taking over the family business or anything. 

Kendrick: No. It's not like expecting as a physician that you would come 
back and take over the practice or, as you indicated, take over 
the business and keep that running. I think it was more of a 
feeling that it was a good life, as well as one that contributed 
positive benefits to others and provided a good deal of happiness 
in pursuing that kind of activity. There were too many years 
between my brother and me to have anything in common while we 
were growing youngsters. In subsequent years we have become 
close and have followed each other's activities very closely. 

He retired before I did. He had his thirty years of service 
when he reached age fifty-five and was a little tired of the 
administrative life that he was leading. Washington, B.C., gets 
under many people's skin, and they get Potomac fever; Potomac 
fever describes an attitude of people in the federal government 
who become impressed with their own importance because of the 
positions they occupy and the renown of their associates. But 
there is no question about the exciting environment of 
Washington, D.C. I think there are a lot of good people in 
Washington, D.C. I am continually impressed with the quality of 
people in government in certain areas, but you encounter the 
other kind also, frequently enough to make it unattractive to 
those of us who live in the "provinces." 

Lage: Well, your brother retired to Tucson, so that must say something 

about his experiences in Washington, B.C. 

Kendrick: Perhaps. 

Glenn Pound, Fellow Gradua te Student 

Kendrick: Let us get back to my own education. Shortly after Evelyn and I 
arrived in Madison in the fall of 1942 and had located the third 
floor turret apartment that would be our home for about nine 
months, we drove to the campus to try and make contact with 
Professor Walker. We pulled into the parking lot next to Moore 
Hall, which housed the agronomy and plant pathology departments, 
and sat for a few minutes looking bewilderedly at one another 
wondering, "What next?" We then saw a person walking toward us 
with a jaunty step and whistling a merry tune. He stopped and 
said, "May I help you?" "Well," we said, "You certainly can," 
because at that point I did not know where I was to go next as 
far as locating people was concerned.. That person turned out to 
be Glenn Pound, and that was the beginning of a long and fruitful 
friendship with him and his wife, Daisy. 




Kendrick : 


Glenn was a graduate student in plant pathology and was about 
finished with his program of training at that point. He got his 
Ph.D. degree in mid 1943. Glenn's career led ultimately to the 
chairmanship of the Department of Plant Pathology at Wisconsin 
and dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at 
Wisconsin, from which position he retired. He is now living in 
La Jolla. He had an Arkansas twang and an unlimited supply of 
jokes good jokes that were not obscene and always had a story 
that was appropriate for the occasion. He has a great sense of 
humor and is just fun to be with, but he also possesses a keen 
mind and was a good leader. We continue to cherish the warm 
friendship that started forty-six years ago in a parking lot in 
Wisconsin with that, "May I help you?". 

His career has certain parallels with yours also. 

Well, to some extent. He's participated in national affairs like 
I have and chaired some rather significant national committees. 
One committee which he chaired brought him considerable 
notoriety. It was a committee sponsored by the National Academy 
of Science to study and evaluate the research program of the 
Agriculture Research Service (ARS) of the USDA. The committee's 
report was very critical of the quality and creativeness of ARS 
research. It received a lot of attention in the scientific press 
and Congress where it became known as the Pound Report. That is 
the fate of any chair of a committee which issues a report which 
has an impact. If it doesn't have an impact, you never hear 
about it anymore; but this was one of the early evaluations of 
agriculture research which pointed out that it could be very much 
better than it had become. Needless to say, it was controversial, 
and caused a certain amount of embarrassment for the USDA 
administration and the research participants. It was an 
evaluation by people external to the USDA, some of whom were not 
agricultural scientists. They were, however, experienced in 
basic biology and chemistry, and they pointed out rather 
forcefully that the lack of peer review and competitiveness in 
the system was detrimental to its quality. 

So the academic model did not prevail. 

No, not in the USDA, And ultimately, the USDA did develop a 
competitive grant system and one of the agencies that my brother 
headed for the assistant secretary just before his retirement was 
the Office of Competitive Grants and Special Projects. I like to 
think that I had a certain amount of influence in trying to get 
the USDA to accept the competitiveness of grants, and certainly 
my brother was an enthusiastic administrator of that program so 
we were not without our hand in the pie, in a way. 


When was that Pound Report? 

Did you give us a general date on 


Kendrick: Well, it goes back to probably the early 1970s, in that period, 
because I was vice president at that time, and it came along 
fairly early in my administrative career. We will get into some 
other things that followed it because I participated in a couple 
of evaluations myself, but that really is part of the 
administrative story downstream a little bit. 

Lage: What else did you find at Wisconsin? I know you had some things 

on your mind that you wanted to cover. 

Kendrick: As I mentioned earlier, I was fortunate, I felt, in receiving a 
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation fellowship amounting to six 
hundred dollars a year. 

Lage: That would not take you too far today. 

Kendrick: That fifty dollars a month paid our rent. But in addition, the 
fellowship paid my tuition and fees, so the actual cost of going 
to school was taken care of by the fellowship. The Wisconsin 
Alumni Research Foundation was developed from the proceeds of 
patents on inventions developed from Wisconsin research. One of 
the most lucrative early patents covered the irradiation of milk 
which caused the enhancement of vitamin D. Then the subsequent 
big money item was a patent on the development of warfarin 
[Wisconsin Alumni Research foundation + coumarin] , which is an 
anti-blood-clottir.g factor that came out of moldy hay. It was 
isolated by the biochemistry group there. It had been developed 
as a rat poison and is also used in medicine as an anti 

We really survived by Evelyn working as a bank teller at a 
downtown bank in Madison for seventy-five dollars a month. We 
lived on that plus the savings we had made through my own 
activities working summers and holidays and her accumulated 
wealth as a bank teller in Davis, which was meager. [laughter] 
We really did not feel that we were suffering much, but we did 
not splurge either. 

The Lasting Influence of J. C. Walker and other Wisconsin 

Kendrick: I want to say a little bit about J. C. Walker, the man who was my 
mentor. His influence has been everlasting. I think most major 
professors of hard-working graduate students leave some kind of 
impression, either good or bad; fortunately Dr. Walker's 
impression, on me at least, was good. But he has had a 
reputation of being cool, cdd, distant, hard-driving, not 
terribly communicative not a person that you could warm up to. 


Kendrick: Just the opposite of my father. My father treated his graduate 
students like members of the family. Dr. Walker had so many 
students that he could not really treat them that way. But his 
nature was not one of warmth, at least at that stage of his life. 

His technique of training was to test you initially to see 
if you had enough initiative and ingenuity to survive all the 
hard work of graduate school. He was the kind of person who puts 
you blindfolded into a room and says, "Find your way out." He 
didn't tell you where the obstacles were or where the door was; 
he just wanted to see how well you would solve the puzzle on your 

Lage: Is this on your research projects? 

Kendrick: Yes, it was in the research area, primarily. The selection of 

the courses that I needed to take was not solely my own decision; 
the courses were pretty well prescribed by Dr. Walker. I did not 
have many courses that I had to take, but there were some 
graduate courses that were necessary. Fortunately, my botany, 
genetics, and zoology had provided a pretty good base training. 
I did not have any major gaps in my training except for 
systematic botany, which I did not have before I went into the 
graduate training. My minor was in plant physiology. Dr. Walker 
had a very close colleague, Dr. Benjamin M. Bugger, an eminent 
plant physiologist who after retiring went to the Lederle Drug 
Company and had another career in developing antibiotics. I 
think it was his laboratory at Lederle that discovered 
aureomycin. It was a given that if you were Dr. Walker's student 
during those years that you were going to minor in plant 
physiology, and that Dr. Dugger was going to be your minor 

Lage: So how did it feel to be thrown into this? 

Kendrick: Well, it was a little strange, although I would say that I was 
not exactly hand-fed going through Berkeley. Berkeley provides 
another experience where no one takes you by the hand and leads 
you through it. You get through Berkeley mostly by your own 
ingenuity and persistence. So Wisconsin was not all that 
different to me. My own self-starting attitude was enough for me 
to decide that, if that was the way to survive, then I would do 
what was needed to be done. But I must admit that I did not have 
much training in how you pursue a research program. 

I recall that Dr. Walker called me into his office after I 
had been around about a month, and he had a little paper sack. 
He opened it up and pulled out a couple of tomatoes. He said, 
"Here, Jim, what do you observe about these tomatoes?" I said, 
"Well, they appear to have a couple of rots." He said, "Yes, 
they do. Why don't you go find out what is known about them." 


Kendrick: And that was my introduction to an early research program. It 
turned out that the rot was tomato ar.thracnose [spells]. I 
hesitate to tell you what it was caused by Colletotrichum 
phomoides [spells]. 

Lage : [laughs] We'll have to run this as a test for our transcribers 

Kendrick: You can imagine the exercise I put my wife through. She typed 
all of my reports, including my thesis. By the time we had 
finished three years of association of this kind, she got to the 
point where she was pretty good with the Latin. The best thing 
about these long, complicated words is that they are spelled just 
about like they sound. There are not a lot of silent letters so 
that if you can sort your way through the phonetics, you can come 
pretty close to the spelling. 

Lage: When you took the tomatoes back to the lab, was there anyone 

there to guide you along? 

Kendrick: Well, in research, the first thing you have to find out is what 
people already know about the topic you have decided to look at. 
After you reassure yourself of what the disease is, then you do a 
library search of the literature to determine what is known about 
the disease and where the gaps of information are. Then you 
begin to design experiments to get information to fill the gaps. 

Doc Walker's technique of research training was to keep his 
suggestions to a minimum and to let his students work through a 
problem pretty much on their own. One of his colleagues would 
have a weekly conference with each of his graduate students, so 
they really didn't have much leeway to stray from the way that 
particular colleague thought the problem should be handled. He 
wanted to guide his students, almost step by step; that was not 
Dr. Walker's technique. He knew that eventually you were going 
to be thrown out into the big, wide world on your own and there 
was not going to be a Doc Walker close at hand to guide you 
through your research. So I think part of his training plan was 
just to see if his students had the basic inquisitive ness to make 
good research workers. 

Lage: Was he very critical in his evaluation of you? 

Kendrick: Well, you can imagine I did not start off like gangbusters as the 
most original researcher that he had ever come in contact with. 
I wanted some verification of what I thought he had given me if 
some of the gaps I had determined existed were correct, and if 
looking into some of the aspects of the disease development were 
the things that he thought were important bearing in mind that 
the ultimate goal of plant pathology is to control the disease 


Kendrick: that you are dealing with. You really need to keep in mind that 
the research in plant pathology, at least in those days, was 
always conducted towards taking care of the problem of disease 
development in the field. So our discussions really developed 
around that point of view. 

And then in order to earn my fellowship, he asked me to work 
with his reprints' filing system. I do not recall specifically 
what I was doing, but I was doing something with his literature 
card-file system to bring it up to date. I think he had two 
things in mind in assigning that task to me: one was to acquaint 
me with the literature, and also to help him keep his filing 
system current. On reflection many years later, I recognized his 
wisdom as a teacher in not spoon-feeding his students. 

He also had a reputation of being able to bawl out students 
who seemed to fall a little short of his expectations. So they 
would tread pretty lightly around him and avoid his presence if 
they felt that he was not feeling up to snuff that day. He was a 
very keen observer, which I didn't realize early on. I didn't 
see him regularly, and in fact I got the feeling that he did not 
know whether I was around or not. 

But in later years I realized what a keen observer he was. 
One episode in particular exemplifies the keenness of his 
observation. Much of the research conducted by Wisconsin's plant 
pathology graduate students was done in temperature-controlled 
greenhouses. And even though there seemed to be plenty of 
greenhouse space, it was always in great demand. The space 
available never quite matched the need. 

Well, the greenhouses were always full of students' research 
programs. One of my colleagues was working on a virus problem 
the host plant doesn't matter and I have forgotten what it was, 
but it was a vegetable of some kind. He got called into Dr. 
Walker's office one Monday morning and was really read the riot 
act. Something had occurred. He soon found that Dr. Walker had 
gone through that greenhouse area on Saturday or Sunday morning 
he was over there every day of the week usually early in the 
morning and observed some aphids infesting these plants. Well, 
that invalidated the test, of course, because aphids are a 
transmitter of virus diseases, and he could not be sure of the 
results of his transmission tests. Doc Walker was really teeing 
off on the student for his sloppiness in his research technique. 
This episode demonstrated to me that Doc Walker was not as 
uninformed about our activities as it appeared. His observation 
of what was going on in those greenhouses was very keen and very 
comprehensive so there was no way of misleading him about the 
progress you were making in your research program. 


Kendrick: In 1946, when I went back to Wisconsin to finish my graduate 
career and I am going to fill in the time-gap later on Dr. 
Walker asked if I would move into the little laboratory adjacent 
to his office. Most of the graduate students were in one of two 
rooms. The advanced graduate students were in one large room and 
the beginning graduate students were in another large room on 
another floor upstairs close to the library. So those rooms were 
always busy; somebody was there all the time, it seemed to me. 
Dr. Walker always had one of his advanced students in the little 
laboratory adjacent to his own office, and I happened to be the 
one in 1946-1947. I occupied almost a gatekeeper role because 
his reputation for moodiness continued even in those days. Often 
when a student inquired, "Is Doc in?", I'd reply "Yes, he is in." 
This would be followed by, "What kind of a mood is he in today?" 
And I would say, "In a terrible mood." The student would almost 
always respond, "Well, I won't go in to see him just new." 

It was amusing to me to be placed in that role. I had never 
experienced a harsh word from Dr. Walker. My colleague, Dr. 
Grogan, who ultimately came to Davis in plant pathology had a 
similar experience. There were a few students who never really 
had angry words from Dr. Walker. Glenn Pound also was a student 
of Dr. Walker, and I never heard him complain about his 
relationship with Doc; the name we all used to greet him and by 
which to refer to him. Doc was as good a student of individual 
personalities as he was a teacher. I think he knew those who 
responded to strong criticism and a dressing-down and those on 
whom that kind of tactic would not work. 

Lage : So it was all very controlled. 

Kendrick: That's a good way to put it. It was a controlled anger at times. 
I think we all have very fond memories of Doc. There are very 
few people even those who were dressed up and down one way or 
another who are not without great fondness for him. He still 
lives. He is ninety-four and lives in Sun City, Arizona. I have 
not seen him in many, many years. But we do hear from him at 
Christmas when we exchange Christmas greetings. 

There was one other episode which stands out and 
characterizes Dr. Walker's relationship with his students that I 
would like to record. In the spring of 1944, two of his grad 
students were in a laboratory adjacent to the one where I was 
ultimately housed during my last graduate year. These two 
students had a reputation of putting off things which needed 
doing. Something triggered Walker one day, and he went into the 
laboratory and cornered the individual who was the source of his 
ire. He was really reading the riot act to him, largely because 
he seemed not to be paying attention to his academic progress. 
He said, after a little drtissir.g-down, "Your qualifying 
examination is scheduled a month from today. Be ready for it." 


Kendrick: He turned or. his heels to the other colleague who was trying to 

make himself as inconspicuous as possible because it was a little 
embarrassing to be there through that tirade. And he said, "And 
yours is scheduled the week following." 

Lage: That was their first notice of the exams? 

Kendrick: That was their first notice of their qualifying examinations, but 
the real problem was that you could not take your qualifying 
examination until you had satisfied your language requirements. 
And neither one of those individuals had satisfied their language 
requirement of French and German. So it meant that one of them 
had a month and the other had five weeks to pass their French and 
German examinations which were given by the respective language 
departments, and then get prepared for this qualifying exam. 
Well, they made it. [laughter] As you can imagine, that news 
got around that graduate student group like the spread of the 

Lage: There was no appeal? 

Kendrick: No, there was no appeal. There was no room for negotiations. It 
was just, "You've been here long enough, and you're going to get 
on with it." It was another one of these Walkerisms that I 
remember because it had its impact. 

Lage: Did this approach influence you as a teacher? 

Kendrick: No. Well, it did to the extent that I didn't feel that it was 
necessary to outline in detail what I wanted my students to do. 
I wanted to do the same thing that Doc Walker did. Test out the 
ability of the students to dig through a problem for themselves. 
So that part of the technique I used. I didn't rant and rave as 
much as Doc did. [laughter] 

Lage: That goes with the personality, I'm sure. 

Kendrick: Some other impressions that I have I didn't have many professors 
at Wisconsin, but of course Walker and Dugger I have mentioned. 
Dugger was a very kindly, soft-spoken individual in the botany 
department, and one who appeared to be terribly unorganized. Ke 
was not a good lecturer; I found it difficult to follow him. He 
would come into the lecture room loaded down with books and 
proceed to quote from various sections of those books, trying to 
emphasize a point that he was making. I recall going to his 
office to visit with him to get some references for a paper that 
I had to write, and it looked like the receiving room of a 
library. Things were stacked all over the place, and he would 
reach into the middle of a stack and pull out something: "Here 
is what I want you to look at." He seemed to know where 


Kendrick: everything was, but it looked like organized chaos. He retired 

when I was in the armed service, so my successor plant physiology 
teacher was Professor Fritz Stauffer. 

Another man who left a lasting impression on me because of 
his work habits was Myron Backus, a professor of botany and later 
a professor of plant pathology. Professor Myron Backus was a 
mycologist, and we had to take a number of courses in 
nomenclature of fungi and make collections of them. Backus also 
was the co-teacher of the beginning course in plant pathology. 
All graduate students had to take it. It was really meant to 
show what was demanded of you if you were serious about going 
into plant pathology: we had to write a minor thesis once a 
week. During the semester we had fifteen diseases to review and 
summarize everything known about them in a written report. This 
required a lot of literature reviewing. Myron Backus left ir.e 
with a practice that I followed through my own teaching career. 
He not only graded on thoroughness and comprehensiveness of the 
reports, but he also corrected the grammar and spelling in them. 

Lage: That's probably unusual in the sciences. 

Kendrick: It's unusual anywhere in my experience. [laughter] I decided 

that I would require correct English expression from my students 
even though I didn't do a lot of teaching. We didn't have much 
opportunity at Riverside to teach until the graduate program came 
into being. I realized that probably one of the most valuable 
experiences I had learned from Professor Backus was how to write 
in a scientifically understandable way. And so I required the 
same thing in the reports which were prepared for me. I would 
not accept student reports until they had improved their grammar 
and their English. I don't recall if Backus ever did that, but 
we got reports back that were well covered with red pencil 
corrections in English and grammar. 

Physiology of plant disease was taught by Professor Paul 
Allen who was the same quality teacher as Backus, Bugger, and 
Walker. My other teachers in plant pathology were Joyce Riker, 
who taught the methods course, and Jim Dickson, who taught a 
cereals' disease course, and George Keitt, who taught a fruit 
disease course. 

Trademarks of Wisconsin's Training in Plant Pathology 

Kendrick: One important impression I gained from this early training period 
with Dr. Walker was that one of the most important aspects of 
plant pathology is the physiology of :he disease development. He 
also was a strong proponent of controlling plant diseases through 


Kendrick: disease resistance and plant breeding. He didn't hold fungi cidal 
treatment in very high regard because I think he thought it was 
of temporary value kind of an expedient, rather than ultimately 
getting at a more lasting control of these problems. 

Lage: That seems like a rather contemporary view. 

Kendrick: Well, his view of plant disease control was a forerunner of what 
we call biological control today, which is responsive to the 
antipesticide movement. An opposing view in the early forties 
was expressed by a man who felt that the study and use of 
fungicides was where he wanted to spend his career. He was the 
widely renown plant pathologist in Connecticut, James Horsfall. 
Because he built his reputation on the fungi cidal control of 
diseases, there was always a little rivalry between these two, 
each of whom felt that his approach probably was better than the 
other one. 

Lage: There wasn't the array of pesticides that came later, though. 

Kendrick: No. Pesticides used for the control of diseases in plants 

certainly fell far short in number of the array of chemicals that 
were available to control insects. So plant pathology really did 
not have at its disposal a lot of magic bullets. We really had 
to look at a lot of other means of controlling diseases. That 
was good basic training to have in terms of trying to deal with 
diseases of plants. 

Professor George Keitt was the epitome of a southern 
gentleman who was a GLemson University graduate, as was my 
father. He left a lasting impression on students who would 
listen to him because he was an early exponent of the 
epidemiology of disease inception and occurrence. He was working 
with fruit tree diseases cherries and apples. Apple scab was a 
particularly tough disease to understand and control. The only 
way to control it was with fungi cidal sprays. But Dr. Keitt was 
interested in what influences in the environment triggered the 
early infections and the subsequent development, or lack of 
development, of the disease itself. So he and his students 
conducted experiments to measure all the environmental elements 
through the life cycle of the pathogens and their hosts. That 
was a very fundamental contribution to the understanding of 
disease development which demonstrated to me the importance of 
the environment in plant pathology. This early research also 
contained the same basic elements of investigation as are 
contained in the pest management program presently under way in 
the University of California. 

Lage: Integrated pest management? 


Kendrick: The integrated pest management program is based upon 

understanding the interaction between a host and its pest and 
then applying some intervening technique to disrupt the 
progression of the interaction. Today we call this kind of study 
"modeling the host" and "modeling the insect or the parasite." 
The object is to compare them to see if you can find a weak link 
in the life cycle of either the host or the parasite, at which 
point one could intervene and disrupt the progression of the 
disease or insect infestation. 

Dr. Keitt's environmental studies were well underway when I 
went back there in 1942. I think Professor L. R. Jones was 
really the one who realized the importance of these 
epidemiological studies, so their origin goes back into the early 

Lage : So that environmental approach was focused at Wisconsin? 

Kendrick: It was fundamentally a Wisconsin contribution to the 
understanding of plant pathology. 

Lage: That's an interesting point. 

Kendrick: As I've indicated, the two fundamental concepts of pest 

management were contributed by Walker and Keitt: Walker being ar. 
exponent of disease resistance and control through breeding, and 
Keitt's careful measurement of the environmental factors in situ 
in an attempt to relate them to subsequent disease development. 
These were really trademarks of the Wisconsin training in plant 
pathology as it affected me. 

The first two years that I was there, I pursued anthracnose 
of tomato, studying the fungus the apparent cause of the 
disease and trying to find out how it existed in the field and 
how it over-wintered. 

Lage: So your interest in this assignment that he gave you in the 

beginning continued. 

Kendrick: It did. 

A Brief Navy Career 

Kendrick: Let me digress a little to show another activity of mine while at 
Wisconsin. I am going to describe the chronology of my United 
States armed service experience. 

Lage: It came in the middle of graduate school? 


Kendrick: Yes. In the fall of 1942, some of my graduate colleagues and I 
were a little nervous about being in school while some of our 
colleagues were in the armed service. Bear in mind that the U.S. 
was engaged in World War II, and things were pretty furious in 
the fall of 1942. So we decided to go to Milwaukee and enlist in 
the navy. The navy had an attractive program called V-7. 
Graduates of this program were sort of ninety-day wonders, who 
emerged as ensigns in the officer corps of the United States 

Ray Grogan whom I mentioned earlier and who has just 
retired as a professor of plant pathology at the Davis campus 
where he spent his career and I together with several others 
decided to enroll in the V-7 program. Ray was inducted into the 
V-7 program after passing the physical examination, and I was 
inducted into what was described as the V-7S program. They told 
me that I was put inV-7S because my eyesight wouldn't allow them 
to qualify me for the regular V-7 program. Well, I didn't have 
very poor eyesight, but I was wearing glasses. I have 
astigmatism, which doesn't permit me to read very well without 
correction. So I said, "Well, that sounds ok to me. What is the 
V-7S?" They said, "Oh, it's a special program for developing 
meteorologists and weather forecasters." And that sounded fine. 
But they also said, "You don't have enough college math to 
qualify for that program." "Oh, I don't? What do you suggest?" 
"Well, go back and enroll in a college math program and get some 
more math." 

Kendrick: We were inducted into the navy that afternoon as inactive 

apprentice seamen. My friend Grogan, however, was activated at 
the end of that fall term, and he went into regular service then. 
Since I was asked to take an additional course in math, I 
enrolled in a course in the spring of 1943 while I was in this 
inactive status. 

At the end of the spring semester I got a notice from the 
naval district in Chicago that merely stated I had failed to 
qualify for the V-7S program. I was a little flabbergasted and I 
wondered if something had happened with my grade in the math 
course that I was unaware of. I had not been a diligent attender 
of the math course, but I took all the examinations, and based on 
my performance in them, I did not expect to fail that course. 
Well, I quickly checked on my grade and found that I had gotten a 
B so I was reassured about that. It then took me about three 
weeks to find out precisely why I had failed. 

You will recall I mentioned in the previous session that 
majoring in botany, zoology, and genetics was a bit difficult to 
explain throughout my career. They navy replied that they didn't 


Kendrick: have a place in the navy officer V-7S program for someone who had 
majored in botany, zoology, and genetics. They gave me two 
options: one was to activate me as an apprentice seaman and 
assign me to wherever I seemed to be qualified, and the other was 
to return me to selective service status, in which case they 
would give me an honorable discharge. I wasn't attracted to 
being an apprentice seaman, so I selected the option to have an 
honorable discharge. I got one. 

I then noted that after going back to selective service 
status my draft number was slow to come up. So I continued in 
school, working very hard to finish the required courses, to get 
the language examinations taken care of, and to get the 
qualifying oral examination out of the way. I did all of that in 
the fall of '43 and the spring of '44. By early spring of '44, I 
decided that I had had enough of being a civilian while all hell 
was breaking loose around us. And so when I had finished my 
qualifying examination, I was determined that I would ask for 

Army Training and Assignments; A Waiting Game 

Kendrick: Once again, Evelyn and I packed up our 1937 Dodge coupe, mustered 
all the gas coupons we could find, and on tires that looked like 
they couldn't make it across the country, came back to 
California. I was inducted into the U.S. Army at the Presidio in 
Monterey in June of 1944. 

I was sent to Camp Barkley, Texas, which was located near 
Abilene, for basic training in a medical unit field medics. It 
was one of the most miserable hot summers that I have ever 
experienced. It was that experience where I probably lost any 
enthusiasm for camping that might have been latent in my plans 
for future recreational activities. 

Lage: Made you wished you'd stayed in the navy, probably. 

Kendrick: [laughs] No, I never reflected back on having made that choice. 
I realize that basic training is basic training no matter where 
you go, but when you're experiencing it, it's like a toothache. 
You wish it would go away. 

I might say that my army experience as an enlisted person 
left another lasting impression that upon reflection I think was 
good for me. Because associations were determined by the first 
letter of your last name, the alphabet had more to do with 
arranging your living groups than anything else. You live in a 
communal relationship, so if somebody snored loudly or was 


Kendrick: particularly obnoxious, you couldn't exclude him from your group 
because his last name placed him with the "Ks". You had to 
somehow get along, and try to subjugate your own peculiarities to 
an extent that you were not obnoxious yourself. You had to 
develop a tolerance for other people's individualities that I 
think did me a lot of good. 

Lage: You meet a lot of types you probably wouldn't have met. 

Kendrick: You meet a lot of types, all right, that open up your eyes a good 

Having been assigned to a medical unit I confess was 
somewhat of a self-selection process because the basic education 
of a lot of these inductees was pretty good. There were some 
college graduates along with me, so the process of grouping was 
not completely random among all inductees. Even so, there were 
some very different individuals in my group. 

Following basic training, we all were advanced to some 
specialized training where selection was based on background and 
aptitude. I was selected for special training as a medical 
laboratory technician and sent to Fort Benjamin Harrison, near 
Indianapolis, Indiana, for three months. That was late fall and 
winter of 1944. Evelyn came back and spent a couple of months 
living in a room in a house in a small community near the base. 
So during what time I did get off from training, we had some time 
together to become acquainted with Indianapolis. There are not a 
lot of things I remember about Indianapolis, except the winter 
was very cold, and we tired of eating in restaurants. 

After finishing that program to become a laboratory 
technician which provided me with training in parasitology, 
serology, blood chemistry, and urinalysis I felt constructively 
trained, and I enjoyed the expanded knowledge I had received. 
But then began a long frustrating period waiting for an 
assignment as a medical laboratory technician. I was really 
disillusioned when I didn't go right out into a medical 
laboratory, either in a field unit or in an established hospital. 

Lage: They must have needed lab technicians. 

Kendrick: Well, I thought so, but the way my training was wasted you would 
have never guessed it. 

After my Indianapolis training I was sent to Camp Crowder, 
Missouri, where I waited about a month for an assignment and was 
eventually assigned as a medical orderly in a hospital-train unit 
operating out of Stater. Island, New York. For about four 
months which turned out to be pretty good duty I rode hospital 
trains across the country. This was the time when we were 

Kendrick: engaged in the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, which resulted ir. a 
lot of casualties to our troops. Our unit was receiving these 
returning casualties and distributing them to army hospitals 
across the country. We would be on constant duty for quite a 
while on those hospital trains, so when we returned to Stater. 
Island, we would have several consecutive days off duty. That 
gave us ample time to explore the Big Apple. New York City was a 
marvelous city for service personnel in those days. You could 
get free tickets to Broadway plays and almost any entertainment 
event scheduled. So I saw a lot of New York City at that time. 

But I still was not doing what I thought I was going to be 
able to do, and that was working in the laboratory. I suddenly 
was sent I think to some camp in Arkansas, I don't recall which 
one that was now, where I waited yet another period for an 
assignment. This time I was sent to an army hospital in Daytona 
Beach, Florida. That was in the summer of 1945. They sent me 
down there to a hospital, finally, as a laboratory techni car- 
Hooray I I thought I was finally going to get to do something for 
which I was trained. 

So I showed up at the hospital, and the doctor in charge 
took one look at me and said, "You're here to do what?", or words 
to that effect. He was less than cordial in his welcome. I 
didn't learn until later that the reason he was not cordial was 
that they had been transferring existing personnel with some 
disabilities from his hospital laboratory. They were sending 
them overseas to field hospitals. Then I showed up able-bodied 
and brand new, and he was furious that the army would take an 
experienced technician who really wasn't in 1A physical condition 
and send as a replacement someone who was physically able and 
inexperienced and [laughs] who ought to have been relocated to 
the war zone. 

So I lasted one day. The officer in charge said he wouldn't 
have anything to do with me. I spent another week or so waiting 
for new orders. Those came in due course, and I was reassigned 
to the army transportation unit at Fort Lawton, Seattle, 

Lage : Well, you got all about the country, then. 

Kendrick: I boarded the train in Daytona Beach and headed for Seattle, 

Washington. You can't design a train trip much longer than that 
in the United States. I don't recall just how long it took to 
get there, but it was a long trek. 

In the late summer of 1945, I was working in the base 
hospital in the serology laboratory at Fort Lawton, my first 
laboratory assignment after being trained the previous year as a 


Kendrick: laboratory technician. That's when I really learned how to draw 
blood from people's arms. We were doing a lot of serological 
surveys of service personnel, mostly for malaria. 

That assignment was another holding operation for me until 
medical units were formed and assigned to hospital units aboard 
troop-ship carriers. I was assigned to a medical complement unit 
aboard the army troop transport called the SS Marine Flasher. 
(Flasher is the name of a fish.) These were C-4 transports that 
had the capacity for about 3,500 troops. We had a small hospital 
on board with 125 bed capacity. The unit's personnel consisted 
of a physician who was the medical unit's commander and the 
enlisted personnel who provided the support. There were about 
twelve of us, and I was the laboratory technician, another person 
was the pharmacist, several others were the surgical assistants, 
and then there were some medical assistants and male nurses. 

The ship was brand-new, still receiving some finishing 
touches in San Francisco when I was sent from Seattle to San 
Francisco in the late fall to join the ship's complement. The 
interesting thing about that particular ship was the mixture of 
units which composed its crew. The army was in charge of the 
ship in terms of its command. The merchant marines were in 
charge of operating the ship, so the captain of the ship was a 
civilian in the merchant marines, as were his crew. We also had 
a small navy complement on it to handle the few guns and what 
little other armament that we had for our protection. So we had 
a mixture of army, navy, and merchant marine personnel aboard 
this ship. 

This assignment came after Hiroshima. The Marine Flasher 
was one of many ships which at that time were being assembled for 
the invasion of Japan. So when the war came to an end in August 
after we dropped the atomic bomb, there were a lot of 
reassignments and redirections. As I recall, we sailed on 
Christmas Eve with replacement troops and civilian personnel on 
board. Our destination was Jinsan (now called Inchon), Korea, by 
way of Two Jim a, Okinawa, and Shanghai. 

We had a very rough crossing. We just missed the tail end 
of a devastating typhoon but experienced a lot of rough sea near 
Okinawa. There wasn't much left of Okinawa when we pulled into 
one of the bays there. As the sole laboratory technician, I had 
a lot of experience helping with the diagnosis of venereal 
diseases, and on the return trip with the war veterans there were 
interesting diseases involving parasites causing intestinal 
problems and a lot of malaria. I really enjoyed the microscopic 
search and identification of parasites in the blood and in the 
intestinal tract. 


Kendrick: We had a good stop in Shanghai for three or four days. I dor.'t 
know just why we were there, but we were. In Korea we loaded up 
the vets who had been through Okinawa and returned them to Long 
Beach, California. It was many years later that I discovered a 
close colleague of mine, Ivan Thomason, was among those 3,500 
troops on board the Marine Flasher on that trip to Long Beach. 
Ivan grew up in Davis and is about the age of my brother. Ke is 
now a professor of hematology on the Riverside campus, is also a 
Wisconsin plant pathology graduate, and another Calif orr.iar. who 
was sent back to Mecca for training he did his undergraduate 
work on the Davis campus. 

Lage : Interesting that you even discovered it. 

Kendrick: I don't know how we did, but we've been close friends for a long, 
long time, and I think we were probably reminiscing about our 
respective experiences in the war. He reminded me that the 
troops referred, not so affectionately, to the Marine Flasher as 
the "Latrine Splasher." [laughter] I think it was probably more 
accurately described by them than by us. We had good duty on board 
ship. Our quarters were on the top deck, in the high-rent district 
of present-day cruise ships. I was nevertheless anxious to termin 
ate my service career as soon as possible because the war was 
over. I was anxious to get on with my graduate school program. 

We docked in Long Beach in about February of 1946. The war 
was over, and as I indicated, even though I enjoyed the ship 
duty, I was not anxious to continue it much longer. I stayed out 
of the officer training program because I decided that my non- 
officer status would shorten my obligation to stay in the 
service. I decided to petition for a discharge to return to 
school, and it was eventually granted. I was sent to the Oakland 
Army Base and then to Camp Beale near Marysville where I was 
discharged. So after those two years, because of all the changed 
assignments and waiting which prevented me from being in one spot 
long enough to accumulate any kind of a record, I was separated 
at the rank of private first class. I made one advancement in 
the spring of 1946. 

Well, my time in the armed service is a period that I 
cherish because it was a broadening experience. I think it 
influenced my subsequent dealing with people which would have 
been different if I hadn't had that kind of experience. And one 
of the unique things about my experience in the service is that I 
possess an honorable discharge from both the army and the navy in 
World War II, with eight months of inactive service in the navy 
and about twenty-three months of active service in the army. 
During the period I was in the service, with the exception of the 
three months I was in Indiana, Evelyn lived with her parents on 
the farm between Winters and Davis and worked in the Bank of 
America in Davis. 


Completing the Ph.D. ; Research on Bacterial Canker of Tomato 

Kendrick: Evelyn and I bundled up our meager belongings and again trekked 
back across the country in our 1937 Dodge coupe, which by that 
time was getting close to being worn out, but it was all we had. 
We returned to the same apartment at 204 North Mills Street, 
which had become a plant pathology apartment by that time, 
because when it became vacant the landlady would rent it to 
another graduate student from plant pathology. My brother and 
his first wife lived in the same apartment we occupied when they 
went back to school in subsequent years. So in May of 1946 I 
went back to Wisconsin for my final year of graduate work. 

Because there had been so much time elapsed between the 
anthracnose work and getting back into the swing of things in 
1946, I was assigned a new research project. This time Doc 
Walker didn't start me out like he did with the tomato 
anthracnose problem. He said, "I'd like to have you take over 
the drip system." The drip system consisted of a greenhouse full 
of tubing and crocks where various mixtures and concentrations of 
nutrients were dripped constantly into pots of sand in which we 
grew plants. It was like hydroponics with sand added for support 
of the plants. 

He said, "I think we ought to follow the study that Foster," 
another of his graduate students, "has done on fusarium wilt of 
tomato with a bacterial problem of tomato. So why don't you do a 
study on bacterial canker of tomato?" "Fine with me, Doc," I 

Lage : Was that the usual thing, that the professor would more or less 

assign a research topic? 

Kendrick: It was the usual thing with Walker. I don't know that that was 

necessarily true for all of his students, but he usually laid out 
the general outline of the research problem. That was the way he 
operated and was reason enough for him to share the authorship 
with his students of the journal papers which arose from the 

So my thesis problem involved a study of nutritional and 
environmental influences on the development of bacterial canker 
of tomato. The causal organism of this disease is a mouthful, 
which I've written here, Corynebacterium michiganense. It was a 
disease with which I was familiar because my father had worked 
with it in California, and it was a particularly destructive 
disease for tomatoes. It's highly contagious and easy to pass on 
to other plants by handling them. At that time field-grown 
tomatoes were seeded first in nursery beds. When the seedling 
plants were several months old, they were pulled and then 


Kendrick: transplanted into the field. They don't do that any more; they 
seed them directly into the field and this is the best way to 
control this particular disease. But when tomato seedlings were 
grown in those nurseries, and an infection occurred in a dense 
population of plants, it was easy to infect a lot of plants, and 
it's fatal. You don't get any tomatoes from a plant that's 
infected by Corynebacterium. 

The results of my nutritional study were published in the 
American Journal f Botany in 1948, Volume 35, under the title 
"Plant Nutrition in Relation to Disease Development, IV: 
Bacterial Canker of Tomato." Walker and his students developed a 
series of nutritional studies of various diseases. I had also 
taken advantage of the environmentally controlled facilities that 
existed at Wisconsin in the plant pathology greenhouse to study 
the effect of soil and air temperatures on predisposing the 
tomato to subsequent development of bacterial canker. So I got 
another research paper out of the thesis that was entitled 
"Predisposition of Tomato to Bacterial Canker." That one was 
published in the Journal of Agricultural Research, Volume 77, 

To show that none of the time I spent studying tomato 
anthracnose was wasted, I also published a paper on anthracnose 
of tomato. So out of the three years I spent in Wisconsin, three 
early papers resulted from my professional activity and from 
Walker's overall guidance and advice. 

Lage: How was it decided to publish one in the Journal ^f Agricultural 

Research and one in the American Journal ^f Botany? Were they of 
a different nature? 

Kendrick: Well, the Journal jaf Agricultural Research ceased publication in 
1949. The reason that the American Journal _of Botany was 
selected for the nutrition study was because that's where the 
series had started. The Journal _of Agricultural Research was 
also a highly respected journal. 

Lage: Did they have different orientations? 

Kendrick: The paper and the series I think probably would have been more 
appropriately published in the Journal of Agricultural Research 
or in Phytopathology, which is the journal of the plant pathology 
profession. But authors who published the first paper of this 
series chose the American Journal of Botany for whatever reason, 
and maybe Walker just wanted to spread his papers around a little 
bit. It was a respected journal and had a good review policy, so 
that's where it went. 


Kendrick : The Journal of Agricultural Research was published by the United 
States Department of Agriculture, and as its name implied, it was 
intended that a wide variety of research related to agriculture 
be published in that journal. It had a good and rigorous review 
policy. The plant pathologists discovered that it was a 
prestigious place to publish their own research, and in the 
latter part of its existence, it became more of a plant pathology 
journal than a general agricultural research journal. I think 
the USDA, seeking some economy, decided that they really couldn't 
support a journal publication which was used almost exclusively 
by one segment of the agricultural scientists. So it was 
terminated about two volumes after the one which I published in. 
We were sorry to see it go because it was a good publication and 
had good circulation. So it was a real loss as far as plant 
pathologists were concerned. 

Well, the best thing about finishing my work at Wisconsin is 
that Walker wouldn't let you get away with just an unpublishable 
thesis. You had to almost immediately prepare your thesis for 
journal publication. As you can see, within a period of a year 
following the granting of my doctor's degree, we had some 
publications to show for my research efforts. 

When I returned to Wisconsin in 1946, I was given another 
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation assistant ship. In addition 
I had my GI benefits, so we felt that we were living on easy 
street. I recall I was paid about $250 a month. Since the WARF 
assistantship took care of the tuition, and the GI Bill took care 
of the books and all the other fees associated with school, we 
determined that Evelyn didn't need to work, and she didn't. She 
spent her time typing my reports and my thesis. She earned every 
bit of the remuneration that was coming our way. Our recreation 
was modest; it consisted mostly of bridge games with our 
colleagues, an occasional show, but most of the time was pretty 
much involved in the research program. I had to do a thorough 
job of the research, accumulate and analyze the data, and then 
write about it, and all that was done within a year. We figured 
that if you spent much more time than three years in the program 
to get a Ph.D., something was wrong. That certainly is not the 
case nowadays. 


Kendrick: Oh, five or six years. 

In your field, plant pathology, how long would you say people 
spend now? 

Lage: But three was the average then? 

Kendrick: It was not just in plant pathology. Three was about average. 
They wanted you in and out of the place as soon as possible, 
[laughter] They didn't want you to hang around. One of the 


Kendrick: reasons that these two colleagues whom I spoke about earlier 
incurred Dr. Walker's displeasure was that they were taking 
longer than he felt was necessary. They did not go into the 
service; they were doing some assistar.tship work, not necessarily 
associated with their thesis work. But they were very leisurely 
about getting things done, and they were stretching it out too 
long in his judgment, and he wanted to put the fire under their 
feet to get them moving. 

Appointment at the Citrus Experiment Station, Riverside 

Kendrick: Well, I took my oral examination, the final examination, in May 
of 1947. I had negotiated for a position at the University of 
California's Citrus Experiment Station during that spring of 
1947. This opportunity came to my attention through an inquiry 
to Dr. Walker, who seemed to be on the inside circuit for any 
position which was available anywhere for plant pathologists. 
His students, if not in demand, at least had a good running start 
on positions just because they were Dr. Walker's students. His 
reputation for training was not confined to just Wisconsin. 

So it was to our benefit to be one of Walker's students. Ke 
brought to my attention that the Department of Plant Pathology at 
Riverside was looking for someone to work in the area of 
vegetable pathology at the Citrus Experiment Station, in 
collaboration with John Middleton. John was the only plant 
pathologist in southern California working with vegetables, and 
it was a little overwhelming for one person to cover. 

Dr. L. J. Klotz had just assumed the headship of that 
department, following the retirement of Howard [S.] Fawcett, who 
was the longtime previous head of plant pathology at Riverside. 
Fawcett was a very famous citrus pathologist who came from 
Florida and had made a tremendous reputation for himself. I 
never really got to know Dr. Fawcett; I was acquainted with him, 
but he had retired by the time I showed up. So my negotiation 
was with Dr. Klotz. 

He was negotiating at the time with two of us. One was Dr. 
Baines, who was at Purdue University at the time, whom he was 
anxious to have join the department to pursue nematology problems 
in citrus, and I was the other. 

Drs. Klotz and Middleton finally agreed that I was the 
person they wanted, and I wasted no time in agreeing to return to 
California, which was really a lucky circumstance. I did not have 
my heart set on returning to California when I went into graduate 
training. I was prepared to go wherever the opportunity seemed 


Kendrick: to present itself. I participated in the formal graduation 

ceremonies at the University of Wisconsin and received my Ph.D. 
degree on May 24, 1947. It is interesting to note the relative 
size between the undergraduate bachelor of arts degree from the 
University of California and the Ph,D. underneath it [points to 
framed degrees on wall laughter] 

Lage: The University of California degree must be three times the size. 

Kendrick: I think the importance of the two bear little relationship to 
their size. But anyway, it was a happy day in Evelyn's and my 
life. My father and mother came from Davis to attend the 
graduation. I felt I was on top of the world because the dean of 
the graduate school at Wisconsin was presenting the candidates 
for graduate degrees to the president of the university. He 
saved the Ph.D.'s until the last group on the program. There 
were some M.D.'s awarded at the ceremony and they honored the 
medical graduates adequately. But when the dear, came to the 
Ph.D.'s, he had nothing but praise for the people who were being 
awarded the highest academic degree universities could give. He 
really laid it on about the tremendous accomplishments and 
promise of these graduates and how much the people of the world 
would benefit from the work of these scholars in the future. You 
sort of felt like you walked across the platform with a cloud 
under your feet. I think he laid it on a little strong, but he 
was making sure that the M.D.'s realized that they were just 
practitioners, and the PKD.'s were the creative scholars. 

Anyway, we quickly packed up and headed back to California 
in our 1937 Dodge coupe once again and arrived in Riverside the 
second week of June in 1947. My appointment had begun on June 1 
as a junior plant pathologist in the Agricultural Experiment 

Lage: So this was a pure research position? 

Kendrick: Yes, and the salary was the magnificent sum of $3,700 a year. 

Lage: Well, it was magnificent compared to what you had. 

Kendrick: It was sure a lot more than I was getting as a graduate student. 

Lage: Was that competitive with salaries at other institutions? 

Kendrick: Yes. 

Lage: Were there very many openings at the time? 

Kendrick: As I recall, there were not a lot of openings, but I didn't make 
this choice completely on my own. I was encouraged by Dr. 
Walker, who knew a little bit about what was at Riverside, to 


Kendrick: accept that position. I had a little advantage for the position 
at Riverside because of my father and his colleague, Dr. Gardner, 
who knew people at Riverside. Also, some of their colleagues had 
been a part of Riverside's early staff and had returned to 
Berkeley. Dr. Barrett, who was back in the Plant Pathology 
Department at Berkeley, was one of the early staff members at 

Riverside had a reputation at that point as a place without 
a lot of rigor. I think the reason that it got that reputation 
was because it was solely research-oriented. It did not have any 
formal student instruction at that point. I think the reputation 
wasn't deserved because they had many highly qualified and 
productive staff members, but I can recall hearing the comment, 
XDh, you're going to go to Riverside to retire?" about a senior 
colleague who was moving to Riverside. 

Lage: That's a bit hard to take. 

Kendrick: Certainly at twenty-seven, I wasn't ready to think about 

retiring. And it had an exciting new program. Middleton was a 
vigorous young man, and the Citrus Experiment Station was 
beginning to add staff to its program to broaden its attention to 
things. Some of it you will see in reading Al Boyce's 
autobiography.* I ought to say that he certainly didn't regard 
Riverside as a place to retire because he had a lot of rigor and 
activity. I think it was a case of being a place where the sole 
attention was research; it didn't have the distractions of 
academic life at a regular campus with its committees, the 
academic senate, and students' schedules to interfere with doing 
research in the field. Some of that criticism, I think, was 

* Alfred M. Boyce, Odyssey ol an Entomologist. UC Riverside 
Foundation, 1987. Boyce had a leading role in the Citrus 
Experiment Station from 1952 to 1968. 



Work of an Agricultural Researcher 
[Date of Interview: 9/15/87] ## 

Lage: Today we're going to focus on Riverside, your Riverside 


Kendrick: Last time I described finishing our stay at Madison, the 

graduation ceremonies, bundling up what meager possessions we 
had, and once again getting that much worn-out 1937 Dodge coupe 
back across the country. 

We didn't quite make it to Riverside on the date of my 
official appointment, which was June 1, 19A7, but we did arrive 
in town on the 6th of June. I had obtained permission from Dr. 
KLotz to delay my arrival by stopping briefly in Davis and 
consulting about some of the disease problems associated with 
California's agriculture. 

The impression we had coming over Caj on Pass was really a 
thrilling one. We arrived in the early evening when it was still 
daylight. In 1947, of course, smog had not taken over the 
environment, and you could see forever. Riverside was located in 
an inland valley, and as we drove in we could see the many palm 
trees and the citrus groves and smelled the fragrance of the 
orange blossoms. It just looked like an ideal place to begin our 
life and to settle down and realize that this was a bit close to 
pa radi se . 

We enjoyed Riverside. In those days, it was a city of about 
45,000 people: large enough to provide you with some degree of 
anonymity if you wanted it, but small enough to acquire friends 
and recognition if that was what you wanted. We felt 
particularly fortunate in being able to settle in Riverside 
because it seemed to be only one hour away from everything that 
was fun to do. It was an hour from Los Angeles; it was about an 






hour from the beaches of the Pacific Ocean; it was an hour away 
from Lake Arrowhead and the mountains; it was an hour away from 
the desert and Palm Springs. It seemed to be just about an 
hour's drive from a whole array of attractive extracurricular 
kinds of activities, which we participated in in due course. 

Dr. L. J. KLotz was the chairman of the Department of Plant 
Pathology at that time. He was the person with whom I negotiated 
the employment in the first place. He was a newly appointed 
department chairman succeeding Dr. Howard Fawcett who had been 
the previous chairman for many years. (I think at that stage of 
the development of leadership in departments they were called 
department heads which was later changed to chairmanships.) 

My association was to be with Dr. John T. Middleton, who was 
working with the diseases of vegetables in southern California. 
The position I occupied was a new position, created for the 
specific purpose of working with John and expanding the efforts 
of the department into a study of diseases of vegetables in that 
part of the state. 

Was this a new direction for the station? 
name "Citrus Experiment Station." How 

I'm thinking of the 

Yes. We spent a good deal of time trying to explain to the 
community that the Citrus Experiment Station contained people 
working on crops in addition to citrus and subtropical plants. 
The use of the name. Citrus Experiment Station, was legitimate 
because the station was established originally to work on citrus 
problems primarily. The Department of Plant Pathology at 
Riverside took on crops other than citrus and dates with the 
appointment of George Zentmyer and John Middleton. Both of those 
men were appointed, I believe, about 1944. John may have been 
appointed a little earlier, but not much. John's addition to the 
staff was solely for the purpose of addressing the problems of 
vegetables. Dr. Zentmyer was given the responsibility of 
pursuing avocado diseases, primarily. 

So it was a fairly new expansion. 

That's true. I would say in the early forties. Date problems 
had always been handled by Dr. Donald Bliss, another member of 
the department, in addition to his citrus studies. The date 
plantings were in the Palm Springs and Indio areas. So prior to 
the early 1940s nearly everybody else in the department was 
working on citrus problems. 

Southern California, or our area of jurisdiction, covered 
San Luis Obispo County and all counties south of that. So we had 
a lot of geography to handle and felt relatively uninhibited in 
pursuing the probltms. 


Kendrick: I was appointed as a junior plant pathologist at the annual 

salary of $3,700. At a reception for my retirement, the present 
dean, Dean Sherman, had gone back into the files and had 
retrieved a copy of my appointment document. He had it framed 
and gave it to me. I said, "I thought there was a directive 
covering the purging of files to eliminate documents which were 
beyond their useful lifetime." [laughs] It was not until I got 
this particular copy of my appointment that I discovered that the 
position had been authorized at $3,900 a year. So somebody had 
decided to save some money. 

Lage: And see if they could get you for less. 

Kendrick: And got me for $3,700 a year. 

Lage: I think it's amazing that you remember. 

Kendrick: Well, what I do remember was that during the first year and a 

half, there were some unexpected salary adjustments. That was a 
period when the University was providing regular salary 
adjustments because their salaries had fallen behind those in 
other comparable educational positions. I felt that I had really 
stumbled into a great opportunity for salary growth. 

The fact that the position was newly created and I was not 
occupying a vacated position meant that I had an opportunity to 
kind of establish my own program of work. The justification for 
the position provided, however, some restriction in the areas in 
which I began my research career. Dr. Middleton and I did quite 
a bit of traveling to begin with, so that I could become 
acquainted with the vegetables in southern California, which were 
quite extensive and varied. And also to gain some appreciation 
for the diseases that were affecting them. 

I recall a meeting with the then director of the Citrus 
Experiment Station which was little more than a courtesy visit. 
Dr. Leon Batchelor was the director at that time. A very stern 
and proper New England gentleman, he seemed not to smile very 
much. I noticed Al Boyce described him in his book as on the 
face of things pretty stern and strict, but if you got to know 
him, quite warm and concerned. He, nevertheless, fit my mental 
image of a director. He welcomed me to the staff at the Citrus 
Experiment Station. He did use the occasion to point out that 
the staff was there to solve problems for the grower and wished 
me well. But I didn't see a lot of him after that. 

Dr. Klotz was a warm and very informal person. Very 
supportive, but not one that really had a lot of advice to give 
on how to get my program underway. My guide through all this was 
really John Middleton. 


Lage: They said you're there to solve problems for the grower, but did 

they give any further direction on how to relate to the grower? 

Kendrick: No, it was pointed out that the Citrus Experiment Station could 
be asked about field problems, and we were there to solve those 

Lage: To find out what they were? 

Kendrick: Yes. So the early experiments with John and our travels 

throughout most of that region in southern California was a 
gigantic learning experience for me. Although at Wisconsin I had 
done a little traveling, it was in this first assignment that I 
got some appreciation of the real world in terms of plant 
pathology and the problems associated with growing plants in 
large commercial areas. The agriculture of Wisconsin and 
California aren't even close to being similar: the diseases were 
different; the magnitude and size of the operations were 
different. So it was really like starting all over again. 

One of the things I noticed most was the gap between 
instruction, where we were mostly looking at pure cultures and 
single diseases, to a natural situation, where we were dealing 
with complexes and multiple infections by various pathogens. It 
is really very different. I didn't have much experience and 
formal training in how you begin to sort out those complexes and 
isolate the causes. So that knowledge came from learning by the 
"seat of the pants" mostly. 

John and I had formed a pretty good team, and we were very 
compatible. Some things we did together, and other things we did 
separately. He suggested that I take on the responsibility of 
looking after the lima bean industry of southern California, 
which was fairly extensive at that time, concentrated some in San 
Luis Obispo County but mostly in Ventura, Orange, Los Angeles, 
and San Diego Counties. Also, to look at pepper diseases, both 
of sweet pepper and of chili pepper. 

I found that the peppers were infected mostly with virus 
diseases of various kinds that needed to be identified and 
catalogued. The lima bean problems were mostly root rets 
complicated with some infestations by a worm called the wire 

Lage: Would there have been a growers association that came to the 

Experiment Station and asked for help on these problems? 

Kendrick: There was a lima bean growers association, yes, but they really 
had not come to the Experiment Station as an association. The 
organization in the southern part of the state that looked after 
all vegetables was called the Western Growers and Shippers 


Kendrick: Association. It is now known as the Western Growers Association, 
and is an organization of vegetable growers in Arizona and 
California, a fairly significant and powerful growers-supported 
organization. That was the association where we made contact if 
we needed to. 

I would say that the most significant grower contact was 
through the [Agricultural] Extension Service at that time. It 
was really in response to some of the extension staff in Ventura 
County that I started my field associations with extension and 
with the field problems. It was through extension that I was 
introduced to and became acquainted with a number of growers with 
whom I worked and had field experiments on their properties. 

So rather than working with the commodity associations per 
se, even though I w as acquainted with them, extension personnel 
played a more prominent role in my field work. In this regard it 
was the extension personnel who stayed in touch with commodity 
and grower associations, so it was only natural to cooperate with 
the extension people in dealing with field problems. 

Lage: It seems like the crops and the problems must have been multiple, 

and how you choose 

Kendrick: Well they were. I've mentioned that I started with those two 
crops, but I quickly found myself working with tomato blight, 
celery pink rot, cantaloupe crown blight, and smog damage to 
leafy vegetables. I worked also with carrot blight. There 
seemed to be no limitation to the work. At one point I was 
dealing with a problem of cucumbers that were being grown for 
pickles in the El Monte region. 

Most of the rural area where I spent much of my time in 
those early days is now, of course, composed of incorporated 
cities of Los Angeles County. But in the days when we started 
our work, Los Angeles County was the leading agricultural county 
in the nation, as far as the value of the commodities that were 
being produced there was concerned. The major reason for that 
ranking was due to the concentration of dairies in Los Angeles 
County to supply the milk needed for that large population. 
Those dairies subsequently were forced to move, and moved in two 
directions. They moved to western San Bernardino County and 
concentrated in the Chino area. The rest of them sold out and 
moved into the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Lage: So you were there during the period of the transformation of Los 

Angeles County? 

Kendrick: Yes. Long Beach and Lakewood Long Beach of course was a city at 
the time, but Lakewood was to some extent a bean patch. Orange 
County was still Orange County when we were there, and the El 


Kendrick: Monte- Covina-Puente area produced vegetables, citrus, and some 
ornamentals. Carrots were concentrated in Chino and El Monte, 
but the El Monte-Covina area was an important cauliflower and 
cucumber area, grown for gherkins, little pickles. Cabbage, 
celery was produced in Venice. So it was really quite 
agricultural. The San Fernando Valley was full of walnuts and 
citrus, mainly tree crops. 

The rapidity with which all those regions were developed 
into urban settlements accounts for the rapid development of 
smog, as well as leaving nostalgic memories of what it used to 

Lage: It's a beautiful setting. You have to remind yourself now when 

you go down there and can hardly see through the smog. 

Kendrick: There was never really any doubt in my mind as what my Experiment 
Station responsibility was. The job, as I indicated, was 
justified on the basis that Middleton needed assistance in 
addressing the multitude of problems associated with the great 
variety of vegetables in that part of the country. They were a 
valuable part of the total agriculture. 

Agricultural Constituency in Southern California 

Kendrick: The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce was a very influential 

organization in the agricultural circle. It had a subcommittee, 
an agricultural committee, which was the organization that had 
more than j ust a casual interest and influence in the development 
of the program in southern California to address agricultural 
problems of citrus, avocadoes, and vegetables. 

This agricultural committee's chair was Doc Clements, who 
when I first became acquainted with him was about eighty-five 
years old. He was really recognized as the patriarch of the 
organized influence on the University of California to focus 
attention on agricultural problems in that part of the state. 

He also was the organizer of what was called the San Andreas 
Group. Les Remmers, one of my farmer-cooperators with whom I 
worked in the San Juan Capistrano area, introduced me to this 
group and invited me to several of their social events. San 
Andreas Canyon, close to Palm Springs, was an area where they 
used to retreat to, and a number of them had built desert homes 
there. They would meet there on a semiannual basis for bull 
sessions, discussions, poker playing and camaraderie. 


Kendrick: You felt privileged if you were a part of that San Andreas Group, 
because they were the movers and shakers of the agricultural 
scene in southern California. They had no reluctance to invite 
President Robert Gordon Sproul or Dean Claude Hutchison to meet 
with them in order to arm-twist them into allocating resources to 
augment the efforts in agriculture in southern California. The 
leaders involved with major citrus holdings, such as the Limonera 
Ranch, the Sespe Ranch, and Sunkist and Blue Anchor were all part 
of that power structure. 

Lage: Was that part of the power structure that got the station 

established in the first place, which I guess goes way back? 

Kendrick: Well, I think their forerunners were certainly instrumental in 

doing so, although I don't know. The history that I read is not 
that clear on that subject. But there were individuals who 
ultimately were a part of that structure that were instrumental 
in capturing the attention of the University's Agriculture 
Experiment Station and they devoted their effort to getting a 
station established. The station really owes its origin to a 
pathological problem in walnuts, which is why I think the first 
person sent down to southern California to establish the Whittier 
lab was Ralph E. Smith, who was the chairman of the Department of 
Plant Pathology here at Berkeley. 

He was the first director of the Citrus Experiment Station, 
but it was really not the Citrus Experiment Station at that time. 
It was the Whittier Laboratory, which was a pathological 
laboratory established to address the problems of walnuts. When 
it looked like there was going to be a bigger commitment than 
just to walnuts, several communities vied for the location of an 
experiment station. They were Pomona, the San Fernando Valley 
interests, and the Riverside interests. There is a history of 
Board of Regents' action, resulting somewhat surprisingly in 
selecting Riverside, but they were heavily lobbied to do that. 

There might be confusion about the name "Citrus Experiment 
Station" when the initial problem bringing Ralph Smith to 
southern California was a walnut disease problem. However, there 
was so much more citrus acreage than walnut acreage in southern 
California, and so many problems with citrus, that the southern 
California agricultural interests were determined to have an 
experiment station devoted to citrus problems too. I think it 
was foreordained that the University's agricultural research 
effort in southern California be named the Citrus Experiment 
Station, because of the prominence of citrus in the region at 
that time. 

I don't have my hands on it I think it's in the hands of 
Loy Sammet but there's a history that Ralph E. Smith wrote about 
his own involvement in plant pathology development in the 


Kendrick: University of California, which includes a lot of the early 

activity in the southland. It is valuable in terms of filling in 
the record and the early activities as far as the Citrus 
Experiment Station is concerned. I know that there's a copy of 
it in the plant pathology department at Berkeley. So the 
record's not lost. 

Lage: I think that it's important just to refer to its existence here. 

Kendrick: The successor to Doc Clements, who was a physician and had a 

special interest in plants and their problems, was Calvin Bream, 
an employee at the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. He took over 
the responsibility for this subcommittee in agriculture. I 
believe that the agricultural subcommittee of the Los Angeles 
Chamber of Commerce still exists today. While they don't have an 
activity and interest in farms that they had in the thirties and 
forties and fifties, they have maintained themselves as an 
interested unit. But during those years of Clements and Calvin 
Bream, it was a source of support and contact with the community. 
You always made certain that they knew what you were doing and 
what your needs were. As I said, my assignment with the 
Agricultural Experiment Station was never in doubt: the position 
was justified and created on the basis that whoever occupied it 
would address the problems of vegetables in southern California. 

Investigating Vegetable Diseases 

Kendrick: The experiment station operates on a project system. Everyone 

who is a member of the regular staff works on approved projects. 
To have a project approved, you conceived of how and what you 
wanted to work on, and gave it to the department chairman for 
review and approval. The chairman would sign off and send it to 
the associate director of the experiment station, who would sign 
off and then send it on to the director, and then the director 
would sign off. It was really the first introduction to the 
bureaucracy that I was ultimately to become a part of. And then 
we were expected to file annual reports on those projects, on 
what was accomplished, what had been published, what we proposed 
to do in the future, how we were proposing to go about it, and a 
modest literature review. 

The project that I was associated with most of the time that 
I was at Riverside was really conceived, I thought, with a great 
deal of wisdom. It was not very satisfying to the administration, 
but it was extremely satisfying to John and me. It was Project 
1085, and the title was "An Investigation of Vegetable Diseases 
in Southern California," which meant that we did net have to 
revise that project. It had no termination date. We kept it 


Kendrick: current by identifying subunits under the project, as we would 
change our work schedule to address different problems with 
different diseases and different host plants. It was a 
constantly changing saga, but as far as the title was concerned, 
it never changed. 

In later years, that became somewhat of an embarrassment 
this was much much later, when I was administratively responsible 
for this business. State auditors would look at the titles of 
these old projects and find that they had been in force since the 
early days early twenties, thirties, and forties and say, "This 
is evidence that you never change. You're still working on the 
same problems as you were twenty or thirty years ago. We have to 
do something about this; we can't put up with such an obsolete, 
in-the-rut kind of activity." Well of course, if you just look 
at titles, that was the case. 

So I spent a good deal of my time in later years explaining 
to interested parties who were not inclined to want to support 
the agricultural research program in the first place that we 
really had a dynamic system that wasn't stuck in a rut. It was 
changing with the times. But the evidence summarized evidence 
and aggregate evidence was not very supportive of that point of 
view, so it was difficult to get that point across. (That's 
looking forward a little bit, because that leads into some of my 
administrative frustrations that I encountered in later years. 
So I inadvertantly contributed to some of my administrative 
problems in later years. Faculty were/are generally 
unsympathetic to revising projects on a timely basis, because it 
seems to them to be an unproductive activity. I agreed because 
it is primarily an administrative need and exercise.) 

The evolution of my activities as a plant pathologist was 
somewhat gradual. While I spent most of the early years setting 
out field plots and trying to address the solution of these 
problems in the field, it gradually became apparent to me that I 
was not making very much progress in field experimentation and 
that we needed to back up and look at a less complex situation. 
So that is when I began to become more concerned about the 
dynamics of an infection in more controlled situations, in the 
greenhouse and laboratory, to study the pathogens involved. And 
also the same thing for the viruses; we needed to isolate them in 
more pure form without so many complex complications, so we knew 
what we were dealing with, 

My interests gradually turned then into the study of 
epidemiology and population dynamics of the lima bean root rot, 
where the pathogens involved were primary Rhizoctor.ia solani, 
pythium ultimum, and Fusarium solani, the three maj or fungi 
causing foot distress in quite a number of vegetables, although 
the bean plant was a good host to study their actions on. 


Lage : So you studied them in the controlled lab or greenhouse? 

Kendrick: We began to turn to the laboratory and the greenhouse. 

Lage: Was that happening in other areas of the experiment station, or 

just your project? Was this kind of a trend? 

Kendrick: I think it was a trend, although the staff of the experiment 

station, even those working with citrus and avocadoes and lemons 
and dates, were field- oriented. The experiment station, because 
it didn't have any teaching obligations, I think spent more time 
in the field with the field problems than perhaps our northern 
California colleagues. The activities of the experiment station 
people at Berkeley and Davis, at least to the extent that I 
followed my father and his colleagues, were also field-oriented. 
The gradual evolution, which I will get into a little bit later, 
of becoming more laboratory- and greenhouse-oriented, was really 
a consequence of the evolution of how you approached the solution 
to the problems. 

Establishment of the Air Pollution Research Laboratory 

Kendrick: One of the great digressions as far as the citrus research was 

concerned was the onset of air pollution damage to vegetables in 
southern California. John Middleton in the mid-forties had noted 
what he thought was air pollution damage, probably due to sulfur 
dioxide, in the Long Beach area with its concentration of oil 
extraction activities, refineries, and related industrial 
activities. I guess I don't know particularly what the host was, 
but celery was grown in that area, and it could have been some 
celery or lettuce on which he noticed what he felt was perhaps 
air pollution damage. 

We had another flurry in the late forties, in 1948-49, of 
calls into El Monte, Puente, and the Long Beach area again, and 
fields that seemed to be blighted. And not just in isolated 
areas but the whole field. We responded to that plea for help by 
looking at them, and finally determined that there was something 
in the atmosphere causing this problem. 

Lage: Was it a difficult realization to make, or was it so different 

from other types of blight ? 

Kendrick: Well, what made it appear to be atmospheric was that the whole 
field would be affected uniformly. The nature of plant disease 
is such that it's rare to get all the plants in the whole field 
of sixty, or twenty-five, or fifteen acres affected similarly. 
You find pockets of disease, because of the nature of the 


Kendrick: distribution of the organism, even with airborne fungal or 

bacterial blights. You don't really find all plants in the field 
affected to the same extent. There are pockets where it's more 
devastating than others. And you can trace that to the origin, 
where the pathogen got started either seedborr.e or in the field 
or it's blown in from one section to another, so that there's a 
gradation of severity. But in air pollution damage, you car. look 
over the whole field and all plants seem to be affected 
similarly. You quickly come to the realization that it's 
something airborne and uniform. 

Well, we were looking for mildews and fungal spore-borne 
diseases, but isolations from the diseased material on the plant 
didn't yield anything that seemed to be pathogenic. We'd get the 
usual contaminants, but nothing that was very pathogenic. 

So without too much scratching of our heads, we suddenly 
realized that we had an air pollution problem, and then we began 
to look at the weather records to see when the first notices had 
come in relation to whether or not they were in the smog attacks. 
And at that time, in the early fifties and late forties, air 
pollution was beginning to become a problem in the Los Angeles, 
Altadena, Pasadena, El Monte region of southern California. 

Lage: There were already records of pollutants in the air? 

Kendrick: Yes. Our department had a position authorized to assist Dr. 

Donald Bliss, who was responsible for date diseases date disease 
investigations and Armillaria root rot of woody plants. That 
position was authorized to aid him in his investigation, and Dr. 
Ellis Darley was employed to occupy that position, but because of 
the severity of the air pollution damage we prevailed upon Dr. 
Klotz and Dr. Batchelor to allow that position to be diverted to 
work on the air pollution problem, because the problem needed 
more help than John and I were able to give it. They allowed 
that to happen. 

So Ellis Darley joined John and me in our air pollution 
studies. Around that time we realized that we were dealing with 
a photochemical reaction way beyond both John's and my training. 
We were interested in getting some controlled environmental 
chamber studies to reproduce the disease. We were also aware 
that Professor Fritz Went, a plant physiologist at CalTech, had 
developed what he called a phytotron. That was at that time, in 
the late forties, the ultimate in controlled environmental 
chamber studies. Everything inside was sterile. The only 
variations were the varied environments created to study plants 
and plant growth. One could only enter the chamber by changing 
clothes and dressing in a sterilized uniform, putting hats on, 
walking through disinfectants. It was quite an ordeal to get in 
and out. 


Kendrick: So. we early collaborated with Went to set up some experiments in 
the phytotron at CalTech. but we needed somebody to pay attention 
to them, and that's where we asked Ellis Darley to join us. 
Ellis spent some time in Pasadena and traveled back and forth to 

It became apparent that we needed to trace what we were 
dealing with and we were aware of the fact that a member of the 
biochemistry department at CalTech. was Dr. A. J. Haagen-Smit. 

Lage: He's mentioned in one of our other interviews as chairman of the 

state Air Resources Board under Governor Reagan. 

Kendrick: That's correct, he was. At the time this was in the late 

forties, '49 he had come to CalTech from the Hawaiian Pineapple 
Institute, where he had been working on the chemistry of aromatic 
flavors. He seemed ideal to seek help from because he knew 
something about volatiles and their chemical reactions. So we 
established a relationship with Haggy, as we called him, and 
engaged his interest in this air pollution problem. He's the one 
that really pushed us a quantum leap ahead. It was through his 
knowledge of aromatic aldehydes and highly unstable oxidar.t 
aldehydes, and their origin, that we realized we were dealing 
with a photochemical reaction between the hydrocarbons from 
gasoline and ozone in the atmosphere, which produced the 
ingredients causing the damage that we were noting in the fields. 

So, John and Ellis and I set up some fumigation chambers ir. 
Riverside and began trying to reproduce some of the damage we 
were seeing in the fields. We spent a good deal of time the next 
two or three years pursuing that, trying to establish some levels 
of concentration and exposures and conditions of predisposition 
that made plants susceptible, and trying to determine what plants 
were not susceptible to air pollution damage. We did that with 
the vegetables; we were not engaged with citrus and tree crop 
studies at that time. 

That ultimately led to quite an established area of research 
at Riverside, and ultimately to the establishment of the 
statewide Air Pollution Research Laboratory, which was headed and 
directed by John Middleton. I determined about the mid-fifties 
that pursuing air pollution damage was kind of a dead-end street 
for me. I was more interested in the pathology of plants and 
realized that I was not trained well enough in biochemistry and 
the physical chemistry required to study and solve air pollution 
damage. I also was not interested in just testing the reaction 
of plants to air pollution damage for the rest of my career. So 
I said to John, "You take the air pollution business, and I'll 
get back into vegetable pathology, and we'll both proceed happily 
beyond that." 


Lage: That's very exciting to be in at the beginning of something. 

Was this a new field? Was this the first time that it had been 
studied, or did you have literature to fall back on? 

Kendrick: This was a new cause of air pollution damage to plants. The main 
literature we had to fall back on was S02 damage studies. There 
was a center of air pollution research in Salt Lake City and in 
Provo, where Moyer D. Thomas was employed by I think it was U.S. 
Steel Company. U.S. Steel had a plant there. They were being 
sued by growers for plant damage associated with steel 
production. They established their own research laboratory to 
sort out how much damage they were responsible for, and how much 
was other kinds of plant damage for which they didn't have any 
responsibility. They were trying to partition out degrees of 
responsibility, so they could sort out the liability. 

You have to realize that the Fontana Steel Mill was in close 
proximity to Riverside, and they were beginning to get all kinds 
of claims against them. They were not a clean industry; they 
were emitting pollutants, pollutants you could see. There is a 
big difference between smoke and the kind of plant damaging 
pollution that comes out of a number of sources. 

We were becoming the experts in plant damage due to air 
pollution. I was not terribly comfortable with that because it 
was still a big guessing game as to what degree of responsibility 
was due to Fontana and what might be due to what was blown in 
from Los Angeles. The American automotive industries were not 
particularly accepting of their responsibility for the plant 
damage from gasoline and its incomplete combustion in car 
engines. The Stauffer Chemical Company was quite helpful to us. 
They provided free of charge the chambers that they had given up. 
They had assembled their own research in the Long Beach area when 
they were being pursued because of some claims about sulfur 
dioxide damage to plants, and they made some studies to determine 
what it was they could reasonably accept responsibility for. I 
don't know the outcome of the suit, but it was a subject of 

But the chambers that they gave us, and the set-up to expand 
them into a useful laboratory experience, really was quite a 
development as far as Riverside was concerned. On the basis of 
our studies, we determined that if we were going to do greenhouse 
studies for viruses or other kinds of plant studies, we could 
only do it if we filtered the air through activated carbon filters. 
This eliminated the airborne plant damaging toxicant. That also 
became a requirement for the phytotron in Pasadena because plants 
were being damaged inside the phytotron by some mysterious 
visitor, in spite of requiring people entering the phytotron to 
go through procedures to prevent contamination of the plants 
inside. Nevertheless something was escaping and damaging plants. 


Kendrick: At the time we were doing those studies, Professor [Albert] 

Ullrich, then from the department of soils here on the Berkeley 
campus, was on a sabbatical leave to study environmental 
influences on the growth of sugar beets and sugar production. He 
has always indicated that we kind of came to his rescue by 
studying air pollution in that area and determining that they had 
to filter the air through the deactivated carbon filters, in 
order to provide an atmosphere that did not contain the oxidant 
that would damage plant growth. 

So it was kind of exciting to be in the forefront with these 
air pollution studies, but I was willing and happy to turn it 
over to the chemistry investigations. That was also my first 
association with Jim Pitts, who came to Riverside when the 
college was established. He was a professor of chemistry at the 
time, and his area of expertise was in physical chemistry and in 
photochemistry. It was natural that he would be interested in 
the photochemistry of reactive free radicals in the atmosphere. 

Sabbatical Year at Cambridge and Rothamsted 

Kendrick: That pretty well covers my research. I renewed my interest in 

soil fungi and pepper viruses which led to a sabbatical in 1961- 
62 in Cambridge University, where I sought to spend some time 
getting refreshed in the dynamics of root pathogens. One of the 
pioneers of root disease studies was located at Cambridge 
University. He had published a book or two on the topic, and I 
sought to associate myself with him for a year. His name was Er. 
Dennis Garrett. 

So I applied for a fellowship from the National Science 
Foundation and was fortunate enough to be granted a senior 
postdoctoral fellowship for the year. I had also determined that 
I would like to spend some of the year at the Rothamsted 
Agricultural Experiment Station in Harpenden working with Dr. 
Eric Buxton. 

Rothamsted is in about thirty minutes from London. It is 
quite a famous agricultural experiment station going back several 
hundreds of years. It is really the agricultural experiment 
station in England. 

Lage : Somehow I think of them as being uniquely American. 

Kendrick: No, agricultural experiment stations as such are German. The 
concept that we developed in this country came from the German 
institutes of agriculture. They laid out these experiment 
stations. England augmented and exploited the idea, but some of 


Kendrick: the early work was done in soil chemistry chemistry of 

fertilizers. The Rothamsted Experiment Station has a famous 
field experiment in which they have had the same regime of 
fertilizers and cropping practices for over two hundred years. 
It provides a valuable data base for what will happen, and it's 
produced a lot of information. 

The time at Cambridge proved to be somewhat of a 
disappointing experience as far as my research plans were 
concerned, because when I found what facilities were available to 
study population dynamics of Rhisoctonia rising and falling under 
various kinds of regimes, I found that they didn't have the 
facilities to study in any kind of a statistical way the problem 
that I had outlined. I made these arrangements by letter to 
begin with, and was somewhat misled by Garrett. Although he was 
a marvelous person to discuss things with, I found that his 
experiments were pretty well confined to his laboratory bench 
with one or two plants from which he'd make all his observations 
and draw quite inclusive conclusions. The same characteristic 
existed with his greenhouse experiments. I was accustomed to 
setting up three to four hundred petri dish plates and make 
readings to get some kind of comfortable statistical feeling of 
occurrences or nonoccurrences of the organisms that I was 
studying. I found that if I used 400 petri dishes in this 
laboratory, I'd use up the whole week's supply for the entire 
department. [laughter] 

So I had to readjust my expectations relative to the kind of 
study I could make, and I found that what I gained most from that 
experience of nine months was an exposure to the kind of 
analytical thought process of the Cambridge scientist and the 
companionship of the research students who were a part of that 
botany department. Plant pathology was not a department at 
Cambridge; it was part of the botany department. Our family 
formed a very close personal relationship with three advanced 
graduate students during that period. I really cherish those 
relationships, one of which we carry on pretty closely even 
today the Robert Witbread family. They are in Wales. He is a 
member of the University of Wales, located at Bangor. 

There were three of these young men (Bob Witbread, David 
Punter and Roger Waistie), who were not married at the time, and 
they ultimately became more than j ust acquaintances because they 
looked after us. Through them we experienced university life in 
Cambridge in all its broad aspects, and they experienced American 
family life in our home. (It was at least what we called home, 
and what the English call a semi-detached duplex, which was two 
dwellings with a common wall. That's why it was semi-detached. 
Detached on three sides, but with a common wall in the center.) 


Kendrick: They would come to our home periodically to visit, to have meals, 
and we'd travel some together. That was an unheard of 
opportunity for English students because with their own research 
advisors at Cambridge, the relationship between the advisor and 
his student was very formal and somewhat distant. We, being the 
visiting Americans, were much more informal, and there was less 
of a gulf between teacher and student. 

David Punter is now in Canada at the University of Toronto, 
and Roger Waistie is back in England at an experiment station 
near Scotland after a number of years at a research station ir. 
Indonesia. It may actually be in Scotland. 

This was quite an impressionable year. It gave me renewed 
confidence and experience in dealing with soil-borne fungal 
pathogens, and I came home from that experience with the feeling 
that I was really going to get into the population dynamics of 
root-rotting organisms that were borne in the soil. This was 
kind of an expanding field at the time. I also had a similar 
experience of stimulation in Harpenden at the Rothamsted 
Experiment Station. The thing I was appreciative of ir. that 
opportunity was that it placed me in the company of stimulating 
minds. We didn't always talk shop, and the topics ranged from 
foreign policy to politics and sports. At Cambridge, through 
another contact I had from Riverside in the chemistry departnent, 
I was introduced to a physical chemist (Howard Purnell) who was a 
fellow at Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He arranged to have me 
accepted as a visiting fellow at Trinity Hall, which gave me the 
opportunity to experience some Cambridge college life such as 
dining at the high table with the fellows, and having 
conversation and sherry or port in the commons room with the 
fellows after dinner. I could easily understand how that 
stratified life of Cambridge and Oxford perpetuates itself, 
because it is a very pampered life for the faculty who are "in," 
but not necessarily so for those who are students. 

A lasting experience for me was that I was often challenged 
to explain American foreign policy or American attitudes. I was 
the only American who was a fellow at this small college at that 
time. Trinity Hall was primarily oriented towards the field of 
law. The master of the college had had something to do with 
writing the constitution of several of the former colonies of 
England. So the American really was fair game for a lot of 
challenges not necessarily criticism, and I at least was asked 
to explain and justify the stance of the United States 
government. I felt at times like I was defending something I 
didn't have my heart into. 

Lage : Sounds like an unfair advantage, with all these people schooled 

in the 1 aw. 


Kendrick: That's true, but as I reflected back on those encounters, it was 
a great experience, because I'm not really comfortable just being 
a passive observer of current events, and I'm not shy about 
debating a point wtih somebody, particularly if I've got the 
knowledge and a basis to support the argument. 

Then, when I went to Harpenden. to Rothamsted, I was thrown 
in amongst another group of challenging people. We used to have 
lunch together, brown-bagging it, either at a local pub in 
Harpenden or else in the laboratory. My experience there 
occurred during the period of the Bay of Pigs. The English were 
very critical of the United States action in the Bay of Pigs, 
particularly in remembering how their attempt at controlling the 
Suez Canal early on was condemned by the United States, as an act 
of unf or give able ness. They wondered how come we (the United 
States) had a double standard. Well, defending the Bay of Pigs 
was not very easy to do, particularly since I didn't know 
anything about it. 

Lage: I've heard other people say that they were put into that 

defensive position, whereas if you were here, you might be 
leading the criticism. 

Kendrick: That's quite correct. But it placed me in a position of the 

lawyer who has to defend someone because they come to you and you 
know they're guilty but you've got to see that their rights are 
protected, and not condemned through prejudice. 

But we hit it off quite well. When I finished my leave 
there, my colleagues at Rothamsted gave me a hand-written 
pictorial scroll that was described as an honorary degree in 
debating. [laughter] I've got it hanging in the other room. I 
thought it was a nice tribute. They respected me for defending 
things that were almost indefensible and admired the fact that I 
could hold my own they were all graduates of Cambridge or 
Oxford, with no lack of ability to engage in that kind of debate. 

Lage: Where did all this social life leave your wife, or did she have a 

stock in all this? Sounds very male. 

Kendrick: You're quite right; it was very male. England then was very 

male. Our children were nine and eleven, and we were determined 
that we would have them experience the English school system. 
Janet was the eleven-year-old, and Douglas was the nine-year-old. 
Evelyn spent most of her time taking care of shopping, and being 
sure that she was there when the children needed her. The period 
when I was in Rothamsted, which was the last three months of our 
stay in England, we did not want to change schools for that time. 
So we left her in Cambridge and I took our little right-hand drive 
Opel (and a right-hand driving country is a thrill in itself). I 
would go down on a Monday morning and come back on a Friday 


Kendrick: afternoon. And while at Rothamsted, I stayed in what they called 
the Manor House. Rothamsted really was an expansion of an old 
estate, a major estate. The Manor House was the original owner's 
home, and it was quite a large home. It had been modified to 
take care of visitors who were there for periods of time. I was 
fortunate enough to get a room for the three months that I was at 

That also provided another opportunity to become acquainted 
with visiting West Indians, Australians and Jamaicans. Rothamsted 
was a magnet for visitors from all over the world who would come 
through and want to see the renowned staff of the experiment sta 
tion, as well as some of the famous plots. It has an illustrious 
good history of early work in the agricultural research field. 

One of the things I remember not too fondly are the meals 
that we had at Rothamsted. Evelyn will remind me of this every 
time we have brussels sprouts. I was there during the winter 
period, during the season when brussels sprouts seemed to be 
forever available, and they prepared brussels sprouts in the 
Manor House kitchen by boiling them for what seemed to be most of 
the day, before serving them at the evening meal. They were 
absolutely awful. It was the principal vegetable. Brussels 
sprouts and boiled potatoes. It was not a menu that I remember 
with any degree of fondness. On the other hand, the meals at 
Trinity Hall were quite good. 

These graduate students I referred to earlier saw to it that 
we went to the college events, the parties, which had a lot of 
tradition associated with them. The school terms I never could 
get sorted out exactly correctly. At the start of my leave, we 
arrived in March and discovered that the term was ending and 
there was going to be about a three-week recess, when everybody 
disappeared. That period was going to be a waste of time, so we 
quickly changed our plans and went touring on the continent for 
three weeks. We did France and Italy and Austria. The students 
advised us of some places to visit, which we appreciated. We 
really felt quite fortunate we'd pop in and out of places and 
did our own tour, in our little Opel with the four of us. We had 
quite an enjoyable three weeks and saw a lot of places that are 
now commonplace stops on most organized tours. 

Later in the year in October we took another three-week 
sojourn onto the continent, and we did the northern half of 
western Europe. We visited Sweden, Denmark, northern Germany, 
and Holland at that period. And that was a delightful time of 
the year, too. In both instances, we were able to travel with 
not too much congestion from other people, so we didn't really 
plan a lot ahead for our accomodations, we just stopped when we 
were ready to stop, although we did do some degree of planning so 
we wouldn't be stranded. 


Kendrick: That gave us a good appreciation for that part of Europe and 

flavored the whole year. We saw a lot of cathedrals, and during 
the period that we were in England we traveled fairly extensively 
on weekends, to cover that country. We got into Wales and to 
Scotland and saw cathedrals and manor houses and were well 
exposed to the magnificent art. We didn't pass up many art 
galleries. I think we gained an appreciation of the exquisite 
nature of the original paintings. Both Evelyn and I had had the 
usual exposure to art history in grade school by looking at the 
pictures in books. But there is nothing that will impress you as 
much as seeing an original. I think that really kind of turned 
us on in that area. 

The kids were a little impatient with us; they were zipping 
in and out of the Louvre when we were there. Their primary stop 
was a souvenir stand. [laughs] I could hardly drag them away 
from a souvenir stand in Pisa. I wanted to go up the Leaning 
Tower, and they wanted to buy something. 

Lage: Typical, that hasn't changed. 

Kendrick: No. But that sabbatical was really a mind-clearer. I had gotten 
so involved with campus committees and one thing and another that 
I needed a separation from all of that business. I really came 
back all charged up to become a good plant pathologist, and 
quickly got diverted. But we'll get into that. 

That sabbatical, it turns out, and subsequently the work 
engaged in after returning was about the end of my research 
career. In 1963, I became chairman of the department. (We'll 
back up a bit, and get into that a little bit later.) As 
chairman of the department it was a fairly large department and 
it was undergoing expansion and growth I found an increasing 
demand on my time to engage in administrative matters and campus 
affairs. While I attempted to carry on research programs with 
research assistants, I really knew that I was fighting a losing 
game. Ultimately, I just gave in and let the research slide. 
But it was not planned that way. 

I wanted to comment on one of the major research efforts 
that I engaged in prior to going on the sabbatical leave. It was 
done in the Imperial Valley where I was pursuing the problem of 
cantaloupe crown blight. Working rather closely with a biochemist, 
a colleague of mine (Randy Wedding), put us into the field a good 
deal of time. We had quite extensive field plots, trying to 
uncover the fate of root development and root destruction under a 
variety of different treatments water regimes, varietal differ 
ences. That was not a very fruitful piece of research. We accumu 
lated a lot of data, but were never able to come to any real 
conclusion as to what the cause was, and ultimately we decided it 
was another one of those complexes that we needed to unravel. 


Promoting Riverside Faculty Unity and Camaraderie 

Kendrick: During my early years at Riverside, the department of plant 
pathology was physically dispersed among four different 
buildings. This made it difficult to operate as a department 
because there wasn't enough in common to bring us together. I 
can't remember ever having a staff meeting, or any kind of event 
that was departmental-oriented, except when we would gather at 
the KLotzes' house once in a while for socials and conversation. 
Dr. and Mrs. KLotz were good about that; they kept that part of 
the operation going pretty well. But in a professional sense, 
there was nothing that brought it together. 

It was not until 1954, when Webber Hall was built and we 
were able to bring the department under one roof in one central 
location, that we began to feel a little bit more like a unit 
with a common purpose, and not a dispersed group of individuals. 
The first place I was housed was in the soil science department 
in Riverside, across the hall from Dan Aldrich. That began 
another association which had a decided influence on my outlook 
and activities. 

That was not my first association with Dan, because we were 
in Professor Benjamin Dugger's plant physiology course at the 
University of Wisconsin, as I have indicated. But Dan had 
finished earlier and had come out to join the Riverside Citrus 
Experiment Station in about 1944. Let me interject here that, 
although the department did not have any kind of common focus, 
the Citrus Experiment Station did. It had a major event which as 
I look back on it appeared to be created by a stroke of genius. 
It brought this large family together and provided an opportunity 
to at least develop for those of us who were really a part of 
that early staff, some esprit de corps in terms of being a part 
of the Citrus Experiment Station, and allowed us to overcome the 
feeling of isolation from the university which the physical 
location promoted. 

And that focus was a regular meeting of what was called the 
Synapsis Club. The origin of that term is genetic and means 
"coming together." It describes one of the phases of cell 
division and cell multiplication, and represents what happens in 
the nucleus with the chromosomes, they come together before they 
are split apart. I don't know who to give credit for that naire 
because by 1947 it seemed to be already a well-established 
meeting of members of the staff and outsiders who wanted to come. 
There was always a single speaker, who would describe some work 
activity that he or she was doing. It was pretty well attended, 
and you were sort of expected to go to a Synapsis Club meeting. 
At least if you were absent, your absence was noted and you were 
asked, "Well, how come you weren't at the Synapsis Club?" 


Lage: And how often did this take place? 

Sendrick: I think it was once a month. I don't think it was any more often 
than that. It certainly was not once a week. But that event was 
really I think rather important to the unification of the 
Experiment Station and provided at least a means of getting 
acquainted with other than your immediate colleagues. There was 
a certain amount of socializing through the Campus CLub. The 
Campus Club was really run by the spouses. 

Lage: When you mention the Campus CLub, are you talking about the 

period after the College of Letters and Science was established? 

Kendrick: No. The campus club was there before. I don't know when it 

first started, but it was in existence when we arrived. It was 
an activity that the wives encouraged, and they were instrumental 
in developing Christmas parties and summer picnics. 

I wanted to talk about my association with Dan Aldrich, who 
was located right across the hallway from the laboratory which I 
shared with Henry Schneider, also a plant pathologist the twc of 
us were in the soils department building. The fact that both Dan 
and I had been at Wisconsin briefly together led us naturally 
into an early association, but he was hard to miss anyway 
friendly, vigorous, and active, just a natural leader, as his 
subsequent career at the University demonstrated.* We found 
commonality in our families and social life. Evelyn and I did 
not have any children at the time; the Aldrichs were just 
starting their family; the Middletons had part of their family. 
The Zentmyers, I believe, had their family started at the time we 
first met them. 

At any rate, in a social sense the Middletons, Zentmyers, 
Aldriches, and Kendricks became a social group who would get 
together at Thanksgiving and at other times of the year. So 
aside from being professional colleagues, our families enjoyed 
each other and participated together in social events. 

The expansion of the Citrus Experiment Station brought to 
the staff younger people who felt that they needed more activity 
than just horseshoes at noontime. 

Lage: Al Boyce talks about the horseshoe game. 

* Aldrich went on to become chairman of the Department of Soils 
and Plant Nutrition, Davis and Berkeley; University Dean of 
Agriculture; Chancellor of the University of California, Irvine; 
and Acting Chancellor of the Riverside and Santa Barbara campuses. 


Kendrick: Yes. It became quite an ongoing game, I'll tell you. I 

participated myself a few times, but I was never in it with those 
old guys who could toss ringers all the time. But we determined 
that we really needed a faculty club. And Dan Aldrich was a 
principal mover. Nothing stood in his way of contacting anybody. 
If he needed to call Dr. Wellman or Dean Hutchison or Bob 
Underbill or whomever, it was just a phone call as far as he was 
concerned. L. C. Cochran who was with the USDA, and another 
plant pathologist at Riverside joined in helping this movement. 
As a graduate student, Cochran was acquainted with my father at 
Purdue. It's a small world when you are dealing with people more 
or less in the same profession. L. C., as we referred to him, 
was placed by the USDA in the Department of Plant Pathology at 
Riverside to pay attention to stone-fruit trees and their 
diseases. Ultimately, he spent a good deal of his time with 
viruses of stone fruits. 

But L. C. had also determined that we needed the physical 
presence of a faculty club. So L. C., Dan and I, and the 
others George Zentmyer, John Middleton conceived of developing 
a faculty clubhouse. To obtain the capital for its development 
we sold bonds to ourselves and the CES staff. We located a 
building at Camp Haan which was available as an army surplus 
building. It had been a nurses' recreation building, with the 
usual single-story barracks-type architecture. Camp Haan was 
located across the highway from March Air Force Base, about five 
miles from the Citrus Experiment Station. We determined 
that if we could get that building moved onto some spot on the 
Riverside campus property, that we would have a physical 
structure, which we could put together and convert into a 
clubhouse. But we needed permission from the Regents to do that 
sort of thing. That's how Aldrich became a prime mover in 
contacting the secretary of the Board of Regents, who was Bob 
Underbill at the time, and getting support from the local 
administration plus Dean Hutchison, who was in Berkeley. Dan 
carried that out with tenacity and effectiveness. 

When the administration discovered that we were really 
serious about doing this sort of thing and had raised the coney 
to buy the building, they said I don't know who "they" were, 
really but they said they would allow us to develop that 
building if there would be an auditorium in it, because the CES 
needed some expanded meeting space. The smaller auditorium in 
the main Citrus Experiment Station building where we were holding 
the Synapsis Club meetings was needed for office space 
expansion so the administration said that if we would allow them 
to have some meeting space in the reconstructed building, they 
would help us move and relocate it in a more convenient place 
than originally planned. We saw a bargain in the making, and we 
accepted the agreement. 


Kendrick: So the present location of what is now called the University dub 
is located centrally on the campus just north of the soils 
building. Well, we arranged to have it moved by a moving 
company; it had to come in in five different sections, moved down 
the highway. The University agreed to pay for the construction 
of the new foundation, which was performed professionally. After 
the sections were lowered onto the new foundation, the staff of 
the experiment station proceeded then to put it back together. 
We'd have work parties to do that in our spare time. We had some 
technical help on how to connect things and how to get the wiring 
done right by the local maintenance man, Henry Meyer, whom Boyce 
referred to in his book. He was really the prime professional 
advisor on this project. But all the manual labor, the hammering 
and the sawing and the like, were provided by the staff on work 
parties primarily on weekends and after working hours. We put it 
back together again. 

We determined that we needed a fireplace, so we bought a 
large iron heatilator and surrounded it with a lot of concrete 
and granite from the western part of Riverside County. The 
heatilator provided the correct drafting which a fireplace should 
have. This fireplace is a monument to perpetuity because we put 
so much granite and cement into it that I expect it will be there 
almost forever. 

Lage: They'll never move it again. 

Kendrick: Because Aldrich was close by he lived just across the highway 
from the experiment station and I was without family we found 
that the two of us from time to time would be the only ones out 
there during a Saturday work schedule. We've been identified as 
the ultimate architects, or workhorses, who put that fireplace 

One Saturday, we were trying to lay brick for the chimney on 
the roof, and we were having difficulty lining it up in a 
perpendicular way. The chimney began to lean a little bit. 

Lage: [laughing] The leaning tower of Pisa. 

Kendrick: And the more we tried to straighten it out, the more it leaned. 
We tried to adjust for the amount of mortar we were putting in 
between the bricks. And finally, it was so frustrating that we 
stopped and Dan said, "Look, we're getting nowhere. I have a 
friend who's a bricklayer. Why don't we ask him to finish this 
off?" I said, "That's the best idea I've heard yet, Dan. Let's 
do that. Let's stop this nonsense because if we're not careful, 
it will just crumble on us." 


Kendrick: So that was what happened, and to this day you can see where we 

left off and a professional took off, because the chimney goes up 
at an angle and then it all of a sudden straightens out. It was 
finished off in a great way. 

Another thing we did for which I have a lot of fond memories 
is that we formed a vocal quartet. Our social events in the 
experiment station were self-motivated, and entertainment was 
provided by our own participation. The chairman of the soils 
department was Homer Chapman, who put himself through school with 
a little dance band for which he was the piano player, playing by 
ear. He could play almost anything that somebody would hum to 
him, or for which he had some kind of a notion of what the melody 
was. He put all kinds of chords to the melody he was a 
marvelous piano player. He's still living. So he was our 

Another colleague, a man in plant pathology, Merrill 
Wallace, had the talent of rhyming almost any subject. (Merrill 
was our principal lyricist of our original songs.) So many of 
our songs were parodies of known events and people. This quartet 
kind of got thrown together with no planning it just sort of 
happened. It consisted of Aldrich, Zentmyer, Bob Harding, now 
deceased and a colleague of Dan Aldrich's in soils and me. 
Zentmyer was a quite capable baritone, could harmonize easily; I 
sang second tenor and had choral experience and knew a little bit 
about harmonizing around a tune; Aldrich was not very musically 
inclined but he could carry a melody so we said, "Dan, you sing 
the melody. Don't worry about us, we'll harmonize around you;" 
and Bob Harding had a good bass voice, knew quite a bit about 
harmony, and could hold his own. So because the three of us knew 
a little bit about and could read music, and had choral 
experience, we just let Dan sort of free-wheel it. 

Lage: He sounds like he was good at that. 

Kendrick: He was fairly adept at it. And surprisingly, we sounded pretty 
good, especially if we could get Homer Chapman playing loudly on 
the piano and covering up mistakes. We also made up for musical 
deficiencies by appearing in costume, so we would depending on 
the subject matter get up in some outlandish costumes, and 
divert people's attention from the choral niceties by the words, 
which were usually appropriately composed by Merrill. Then we 
began to branch out. We appeared to be having so much fun 
singing that we were asked to appear at Christmas affairs, or 
lead the Cal fight song in choral groups, or student groups, or 
at Charter Day banquets and the like. We sort of became known as 
the Faculty Four Plus One, at a number of events which were 
scheduled in town. 


Kendrick: To augment the original parodies, we tried to seek out little 
ballads which were not common or well known. Besides these we 
liked to sing the famous Yale Whiffenpoof Song, which was really 
beyond our capacity level, although we finally became pretty good 
at it. We sang a little ditty that came out of a book of folk 
songs, probably of English origin, called "No More Booze." Our 
repertoire also included "Careless Love," "Cruising Down the 
River," and the usual, other barbershop quartet songs that were 
easy to harmonize. 

Our ultimate experience with this sort of thing occurred at 
a fundraiser put on by the Junior Aid of Riverside, the 
forerunner of the Junior League of Riverside, at an event in that 
city. The Junior Aid engaged a producing company in New York to 
come out and produce a follies in which the local talent was used 
in a whole array of single episodes involving duets and songs, 
comedy skits and chorus lines. The Junior Aid follies needed a 
quartet. So Dan's wife, Jean, who was a member of the 
organization at that time, said, "Well, why don't you get your 
quartet down there and try out for this sort of thing?" 

Well, we said, "Sure, we'll try out," and we did, and were 
selected. So for two years running, we appeared in the Junior 
Aid Follies in the municipal auditorium in Riverside, which for 
two nights running had about 1,200 people in attendance. 

Lage: This was big time! 

Kendrick: It was big time, and we figured we couldn't top that, so we just 
stopped appearing after that. [laughter] 

Lage: Are you the group that Boyce refers to as teaching the new 

undergraduates the various Cal songs? 

Kendrick: Yes. That actually was in the Boyce book, but it is in Dan 

Aldrich's account of the development of Riverside yes, that's 
the group. But we did have a lot of fun, and I think that the 
reason that it stands out in my memory is because of the success 
of those events where your colleagues see you in a different role 
than you're usually performing. I think the success of the 
Faculty (Hub Christmas party here at Berkeley is due to the fact 
that it's a faculty-participation event, and the more you get 
away from the self-developed capacity to entertain yourself, and 
replace it with professional entertainment, the more you lose 
faculty unity. 

All of those events promoted this kind of faculty unity and 
camaraderie that were important in setting a tone of unity beyond 
your department and your own special interests. 


Lage: Now what time period are we talking about? When was the Faculty 

dub built? 

Kendrick: We built that about 1949. Dan left Riverside in the early 

fifties to move to Davis, to become the department chair there, 
so all of this was in the late forties and early fifties. 

Research Studies in Plant Pathology at the Citrus Experiment Station in Riverside. 

Jim Kendrick and John Middleton in 
Chula Vista celery field, 1949. 

Virus studies, 1952, 

Smog chamber studies, 1953. Left to right: Middleton, Kendrick, 
Ellis Darley. 



Establishment of the Undergraduate Liberal Arts College 
[Interview 4: September 17, 1987] //# 

Lage : Today is September 17, and our fourth interview. We're going to 

continue with the University of California at Riverside today. 

Kendrick: The other things besides research that engage and occupy a 

faculty person's time are the committees and special assignments. 
Being a person who, at least, is not reluctant to participate in 
committees of one kind or another, I naturally became involved 
with departmental committees and the like. Those are fairly 
minor; they just give you a flavor of learning to operate in a 
collective sense and addressing issues that affect more than 

The real change in these kinds of activity was really 
associated with talk about expanding Riverside from an experiment 
station into a teaching college. So the latter part of the 1940s 
was when the expansion, potential expansion, of an undergraduate 
teaching program came into being at Riverside. 

Lage: It was talked about that soon, back in the postwar years? 

Kendrick: Yes, in the late forties, '49, '50. As a matter of fact, Provost 
[Gordon] Watkins was appointed to chair a committee that was 
studying the potential establishment of an undergraduate teaching 
program in the southland. Ultimately, the Citizens' University 
Committee a committee that came out of the Riverside Chamber of 
Commerce, composed of interested Riverside citizens was 
instrumental in persuading the Regents that the Riverside campus 
was a likely spot to locate one of the teaching campuses of the 
University. At the time of the activity of the Citizens' 
University Committee, one of the important members of that group 
was Philip L. Boyd, who was a businessman and a former 


Kendrick: assemblyman representing Palm Springs and surrounding area. He 
was a property developer and investment advisor. Phil Boyd was 
later appointed to the Board of Regents and served effectively 
for about twelve or fourteen years. 

But he, like his colleagues who were citizens of the 
community, felt that Riverside had the space to accommodate an 
undergraduate college, and he was quite active in trying to 
persuade not only the legislature but the Regents of the 
University and the administration that that was an obvious place 
to expand the University's offering to undergraduate education. 
That was the period, too, when the University, during the latter 
part of Robert Gordon Sproul's presidency and under succeeding 
President dark Kerr, was planning for rapid expansion. 

As I recall, during the very early fifties when all of this 
talk about the potential expansion into a teaching campus was 
going on, there were mixed feelings among the experiment station 
personnel about whether or not that would be such a good idea or 
not. I had described earlier that it was a fairly comfortable 
research environment. There was not much to interfere with 
working on the problems in which you were engaged. Scheduling 
field experimentation was not complicated by other demands on 
your time, and therefore the experiment station staff had a lot 
of field experimentation underway. 

With the decision by the Regents that the Riverside campus 
would indeed become the site of a college of letters and science, 
things began to change. In the very early fifties, Provost 
Watkins, Gordon Watkins, who I think at the time was dean of the 
College of Letters and Science at UCLA, was appointed provost of 
this new fledgling college. He moved to Riverside to begin to 
assemble the faculty and leaders of the various segments of this 
new college. A number of things began to happen. Facilities had 
to be built for the new college and a wholly new faculty had to 
be recruited and assembled. All of that took time. So the 
influence of that activity was not all that obvious to those of 
us who were relatively young in our associations with the 
University, but nevertheless it had an impact. 

Lage: It didn't affect most of you as far as taking on a teaching 


Kendrick: No, because we were not going to be teaching undergraduates. The 
program design of the undergraduate program under Watkins 1 s 
leadership was to be a small liberal-arts offering, patterned 
much like the Swarthmore of the West or Reed College. It was 
going to be essentially an elite, small, intimate undergraduate 
letters and science offering. They did not envision having a 
graduate program at all. 


Kendrick: So the four or five people who were employed by the University 
under Watkins's direction assembled their faculty with the same 
kind of expectations in mind. You want to recall that 
simultaneously the Davis campus was declared also to be the site 
of another college of letters and science. The same was to 
happen at San Diego, which had been the location for a long time 
of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography's long and illustrious 
activity with the University of California. It had a little more 
graduate training involvement, but it did not have an 
undergraduate program. 

So the three campuses were being developed as undergraduate 
letters and science teaching campuses along about the same time. 
Santa Cruz and Irvine came on slightly later, but not much. It 
was a great period of expansion for the University of California. 
Everyone involved previously with the University was not without 
some effect of that expansion. 

I recall that my own view about the likelihood of developing 
an undergraduate program at Riverside was one of approval and 
enthusiasm. I felt that it would bring a challenge to the 
environment and introduce a broader life of the University than 
we were experiencing as kind of an outpost of the University. 
Part of that, I think, was a holdover of my memories of going to 
Davis and seeing a full-fledged campus, even though it was an 
agriculture campus, and my experience at the University of 
Wisconsin, plus the fact that I had done my undergraduate work at 
Berkeley, although agriculture was a very small part of the 
campus. So I viewed the expansion into liberal arts with some 
degree of enthusiasm. In reflection, I think that there was some 
over expectation, but nevertheless we'll get into that a little 
bit later. 



The undergraduate college at Riverside was to be developed 
within four principal divisions: Ed Coman, the librarian and a 
member of the team of planners, was employed early to begin 
assembling a library; a division head for the physical sciences 
was appointed, Conway Pierce; the life science program was to be 
an integrated program and Herman Spieth was identified as the 
leader for that; the humanities area was to be put together by 
John Olmsted; and the social science program was to be put 
together by Arthur Turner. Overall, with the dean of the 
college, who was Robert Nisbet, they became the principal 
architects of the faculty that was assembled for the college. 

Were they all drawn from the University of California? 

No. Herman Spieth came from New York, I think the City College 
of New York. Conway Pierce came from Pomona; Robert Nisbet came 
from Berkeley; John Olmsted, I think, from UCLA, I'm not sure. 


Kendrick: Arthur Turner was a Scotchman, and I don't really know where he 
came from. There was also a physical education component, and 
Jack Hewitt was asked to develop that program. 

Those men were mature, well-established professionals, and 
they had an opportunity to become pretty well acquainted with the 
existing experiment station staff. They participated socially 
and were incorporated into the life of the campus at the time. 
Provost Watkins was a very charming person, and his wife, Anna, 
was quickly accepted by the community as a great asset, as he 
was. He explained in very articulate terms what he had in mind 
to provide a wonderful experience of undergraduate education. 

The space that was assigned for these people to operate in 
was an abandoned chicken coop up near the original director's 
residence, so they operated under very Spartan circumstances. 
But they proceeded, nevertheless, to develop the concept that 
was well-meaning, but probably, in retrospect, did not have much 
of a chance to succeed with the University's overall program. 

The New Academics; Relations with Agricultural Researchers and 
The Riverside Community 

Kendrick: They did set the pattern for liberal arts education at the 

University of California, Riverside, that has some residues even 
today. The faculty that was assembled by them in these four 
major undergraduate offerings for the most part were assistant 
professors. They did not really plan to set their faculties in 
motion by recruiting professors, associate professors and 
assistant professors with an age spread so that there would be 
varying representations of maturity and experience. So what we 
had in those initial stages was a prominence of beginning 
professionals in various fields associated with the liberal arts 
and the physical and life sciences all assembled with the 
expectation that they were going to offer a very demanding and 
comprehensive liberal arts education at the undergraduate level. 

You can imagine maybe you can't that that group of young 
professionals arriving on a campus where there was a well- 
established agricultural component of faculty and staff, mixed 
about as well as oil and water. The agriculture program was 
regarded by these young idealists in the liberal arts as less 
than worthy of a rigorous academic program, and on the contrary, 
the attitude of a great many of the agricultural experiment 
station people was that these new assistant professors really 
didn't know what life was all about, and that they lived in a 
dream world. They didn't mind criticizing established 
institutions, and this caused a certain amount of stir in the 


Ker.drick: community. They were questioning the establishment, so to speak. 
Therefore, an academic tension really developed, not unlike the 
traditional distance between the sciences and the humanities as 
it exists or. almost any general university campus. 

But in addition, because it was an agricultural group on the 
one hand, all well established, and these 

Lage : And the difference in ages between the two groups played a role? 

Kendrick: That's right, age did make a difference. Also the fact that this 
new teaching activity had invaded some experiment station land 
created a tension between two factions of the campus. 

Although this is, I think, a fair description of the whole, 
it certainly is not an adequate description of individual 
relationships, because some of us were able to see the value of 
social science and humanities in education and were willing to 
accept the notion that others had a point of view that they were 
justified in expressing. And that, in the long run, it would be 
in the best interests of the development of the University's 
offering on the campus to have a broadened program, although it 
did interfere with the sort of single-minded dedication to 
research that was aimed primarily in solving the citrus and 
subtropical problems of southern California. 

With the program which got underway formally with students 
in 1953, a benefit for the experiment station a tangible 
benefit was that Webber Hall was built. It provided for the 
first time adequate physical space for the department of plant 
pathology. It also provided space for the department of 
nematology, and what was then called plant biochemistry. 

Lage: So the experiment station was departmentalized, but the college 

was organized by divisions? 

Kendrick: That's right. The philosophy of that early college instruction 

was an integrated education. It was illustrated by the fact that 
the concept of an undergraduate education was not to be 
compartmentalized; it was to be broad exposure to western 
civilization and the arts and the social sciences, with a flavor 
of the life and physical sciences and the humanities. For 
example, there was no department of botany, and no department of 
zoology or psychology. It was a division of life sciences, with 
those components a part of it. Every undergraduate student had 
to take a course in western civilization, I believe it was 
called. It was basically a humanities course, which was team- 
taught, but led by a couple of humanists. It was really a killer 
of a course because students were expected to cover a massive 
amount of material associated with western civilization or the 


Kendrick: development of western civilization in general. It included the 
languages, as well as the cultural aspects and the political and 
social structures. 

It's interesting that today's reemphasis on undergraduate 
education is restoring the place of humanities and social studies 
in general education curricula. I think that to some extent it 
was too bad that that experiment at Riverside failed. I 
understand, however, that we just could not sustain the kind of 
elitist education for a relatively small segment of students. 

Lage: Why do you call it elitist? 

Kendrick: Well, not financially elitist, but intellectually elitist. The 
expectation of performance was really at the top of the grading 
scale. The workload piled onto the students was massive. You 
can imagine that new graduates, professionals, particularly 
assistant professors, having finished their education in places 
like Reed and Swarthmore and maybe Berkeley and UCLA and 
elsewhere, designed their courses with a very strict yardstick 
for performance. So that Riverside developed an early reputation 
as a tough place to get through. So the elitist reference that 
I'm making is not economic, but intellectual elitism strong in 
culture, philosophy and thoughtful ness, but short on what you 
really call a practical education by which to make a living. 
That may be stretching the term "elitism" a little more than it 
should be, but it certainly was an education for the few and not 
the general. 

One of our most famous early undergraduate students was 
Charles Young [chancellor at UCLA], who was a member of the first 
graduating class. He certainly does not prove my point, however. 
He transferred to UCLA and majored in political science as a 
graduate student a "practical" education in one sense of the 

Fa c ul ty Organization in an Academic Senate 

Kendrick: Well, I already made reference to the fact that physically the 
plant pathologists, biochemists, and nematologists were much 
better off by having that college come to town because we got a 
modern building with adequate space in which to function. That 
was quite a significant benefit as far as we were concerned. The 
intangible development of this program meant that there had to be 
some kind of a faculty organization, so that the Academic Senate 
began to form, with all of its committee structure and apparati 
that went along with that. 




Lage : 

Ken d rick ; 

It strikes me that having all these young faculty members would 
be very difficult in terms of university governance, their not 
having had experience with an academic senate model and faculty 

You would have thought so, but they quickly acclimated themselves 
to a self-governance posture. [laughs] And quickly they became 
typical academic participants in that structure. Even though it 
was small, it was easy to know most of the people who were the 
faculty. And they gradually began to put together the standard 
committees on educational policy, courses, budget, welfare, etc. 

Ken d rick : 

And the experiment station was a part of this? 


Not initially. That's a subject for another small chapter, 
experiment station appointees, except for the chairs of the 
various departments, were not members of the Academic Senate. 
They did not have professorial titles. I mentioned that my 
initial appointment was as a junior plant pathologist. The title 
"junior" was comparable to an instructor rank at that time. The 
next step up was assistant plant pathologist, which was 
comparable to an assistant professor, and so on. 


The heads of experiment station departments were granted 
professional titles because there needed to be some academic 
professorial oversight for the occasional graduate student who 
was farmed out, so to speak, from Berkeley, UCLA, or Davis to 
finish off a thesis program in residence at Riverside. So there 
was a j ustif ication for a professorial representation of the 
department, and that usually was a part of the chair's 

So the department chairs took on a teaching role. 

That's correct. And those chairs participated in the senate 
development. You remember that I indicated that the bulk of the 
faculty in the College of Letters and Science were young 
assistant professors just starting out in their professional 
careers. The majority of our chairs of the experiment station 
departments were old hands, experienced in [laughs] life and 
their profession. So there was some built-in conflicts of points 
of view. 

The zealous enforcement of rigorous academic contributions 
and original work held by the letters and science faculty was not 
exactly compatible with what the experiment station leadership 
felt was the proper contributions from their research programs, 
because a lot of research was field-oriented and of practical 
nature. So there was room for disagreement on justification of 


Kendrick: advancements. I'm just talking about things in general, not any 
specific cases that I remember, but I want to lay the foundation 
of what led to much of the conflict between personnel in the CES 
and the college. The mixing of a small liberal-arts 
undergraduate offering with an established agricultural 
experiment station program sounded like a good idea to the 
citizens of the city and to the administration as they needed tc 
advance and expand the offerings of the University, but it was 
not anything more than a shotgun marriage as far as the people 
who were engaged in this were concerned. And it's important to 
realize that because that element of disagreement between the 
early liberal-arts faculty, some of whom are still at Riverside, 
and the experiment station personnel, some of whom are also still 
active at Riverside, continues to exist even today. As the 
campus grows in size I expect this conflict to become only a 

Lage : Are there more experiment station people now involved in 


Kendrick: Well, yes. And most of the experiment station people have 

academic titles. A lot of the young faculty who were assembled 
in the liberal letters and science department have gone to other 
places. There has been a change, but I could still feel the 
tensions of trying to marry a liberal arts activity with a very 
practical experiment station program when I was vice president. 

Lage: Well, it also seems to go on in the Berkeley campus. Henry Vaux 

talked about problems getting the Academic Senate budget 
committee to recognize the practical needs of the School of 
Forestry as they chose their professors.* 

Kendrick: Absolutely. That's very true. I think it's sort of built into 
the academic traditions of a campus that has professional school 
offerings as well as the letters and science and liberal arts 
education. I think it's unfortunate, but you find that extremism 
exists. I call it academic snobbery expressed symbolically by 
the following bit of academic folklore: "What I'm doing is basic 
research, but what you're doing is applied research." That 
attitude comes to the foreground every once in a while. And it 
gets expressed in peer evaluations, particularly if you are 
operating (as you've said Henry has described it) in a budget 
committee where the representation on a small committee is 
usually overbalanced by academic peers from letters and science 
versus the practical subject matter departments. Well, all that 
existed at Riverside also. 

* Henry J. Vaux, Forestry in the Public I?-terest; Education. 
Economics, State Policy. 1933-1983. 1987. 


Development of a Graduate Program 

Kendrick: Another thing happened that was important in the development of 
the Riverside campus, which changed things. While the early 
years of the letters and science, liberal-arts education was 
steaming along in pretty good shape, there was an undercurrent of 
unhappiness developing with the program in the physical sciences, 
particularly in chemistry and physics, under Conway Pierce. The 
unhappiness stemmed from being limited to only undergraduate 
education. In the sciences they realized that they had to have 
laboratory research to publish in reputable publications, in 
order for them to advance. To do this research, they needed 
help; they needed assistants. 

At the experiment station at Riverside we needed assistants 
too; we couldn't do everything ourselves. So our resources were 
invested by and large in what we would call laboratory 
technicians. They are today referred to as SRAs, scientific 
research assistants. So it became the expected pattern for 
researchers at the CES at Riverside to have resources not only 
for our own salaries, but also for travel and equipment and other 
supplies and expenses. Each member of the experiment station 
located at Riverside had a minimum of one technician and some of 
us had one and a half, two, or more. So we had essentially a 
mini-research laboratory or staff. On those campuses with 
undergraduate and graduate education, those resources went into 
research assistants, and those positions were occupied primarily 
by graduate students. So those support funds contributed to 
teaching. That was a major difference in the way Riverside used 
its support for research, in contrast to Davis and Berkeley, 
which also had components of the experiment station where their 
resources for the most part went into graduate programs with a 
minimum number of technical assistants. 

Well, coming back to the physical sciences, they looked with 
envy at all the lab assistants we had on experiment station funds 
for our research. They [the physical scientists] developed as 
best they could an undergraduate research opportunity, which was 
a marvelous teaching technique. The advanced undergraduates were 
able to get a little bit of money and, at the same time, help a 
senior professor with a research program, and get introduced to 
that kind of activity. It was not only a great teaching aid but 
it was also a stepping stone for their own education and further 
development. But that kind of assistance was not really enough 
to satisfy the demand of the faculty in the physical sciences. 

So, with the help of the life science group, they moved to 
establish a graduate program at Riverside. That was the first 
leak in the dam, as far as a small, undergraduate, exclusively 
liberal arts education was concerned. 


Kendrick: They were helped in their efforts by those of us in the 

experiment station who felt that we also would enhance our own 
program by broadening it and elevating its quality by having 
graduate programs in the agricultural sciences that were 
represented at Riverside. So ultimately, that change was made, 
and a graduate division was established at Riverside. The first 
graduate dean, as I recall, was Ralph March, who was a professor 
of entomology. 

Lage: Was he part of the experiment station? 

Kendrick: Yes. So as I say, that was a break in the concept of 

undergraduate liberal education at Riverside. And it was the 
first instance where there was a joining together of experiment 
station personnel and a portion of the letters and science 
original faculty for a common goal, to establish a graduate 
educational program at Riverside. 

Lage: Do you remember what the date would be? 

Kendrick: Well, it would be in the late fifties or early sixties. I think 
chemistry probably had the first accepted and recognized graduate 
program. It is a major undertaking to develop a graduate 
program. It is not enough to just declare your interest in 
graduate programs. You have to jump through a lot of academic 
hoops in the process. Curricula and courses must be designed and 
developed. They must be accepted by the graduate council. 
Financial support must be sought from the administration. So it 
took a lot of doing to propose what you would offer as a graduate 
program before it was ultimately approved and recognized. 
Finally, the successful departments would be given authority to 
train graduate students for the Ph.D.s and/or masters degrees. 
You had to do more than just declare that you're interested ir a 
graduate program. 

These early graduate proposals had to be fought through the 
local campus educational policy and course approval committees, 
which was not easy because of the committee domination by faculty 
from the social sciences and humanities. Professors in these 
fields were not thrilled with graduate programs coming into being 
to interfere with their emphasis on the undergraduate education. 
But the steamroller was underway, and it ultimately prevailed. 
[The Graduate Division was established in 1961.] 

I had great enthusiasm for the potential development of the 
graduate programs because, from somewhat of a selfish point of 
view, I felt that the quality of research in plant pathology 
would improve immeasurably if we had the stimulating experience 
of training students, particularly graduate students. For one 
thing, I felt that it would prevent the kind of narrcv emphasis 
that a pure research program tends to develop because, when you 


Kendrick: begin to study more and more about less and less, you don't have 
any other challenges. But if you have to offer a course in a 
subject once in a while, you have to get out and find out what 
the rest of your professional world is all about. And I felt, 
and it was shared by a number of my colleagues in the department, 
that our whole program would improve. 

I don't think we realized quite as much at the time just how 
much it would interfere with our devotion of time to the research 
program, but that seemed to me a small consequence to pay for 
improving the quality and academic stature of the program. So I 
was an unqualified endorser of the graduate development. 

The other thing that happened with the development of the 
graduate program in the agricultural sciences was that it 
legitimized the expansion of the professorial titles for 
experiment station people. If you became involved in designing a 
program of instruction or supervising graduate students, then 
that qualified you for an academic title in addition to your 
experiment station title. And that meant, then, that you had 
full license to practice in the other part of academic life, and 
that was participating in the Academic Senate activity. 

Well, that was also a goal. I felt that if we were going to 
be a unified campus, we had to have as much participation in the 
total life of the campus and not carry a we/they those of you up 
on the hill, and we down here in the former walnut orchard 
attitude. So that the senate provided an opportunity under this 
expanded program of graduate instruction to meld together some 
more of the faculty activities. There was a great expansion in 
the early sixties '61, '62. '63 of people in the experiment 
station being granted academic professorial titles. 

Lage : Did that create a problem? Were the personnel at the experiment 

station all suited for this academic title, having been hired 
just for research? Did they then get evaluated again to see if 
the academic title ? 

Kendrick: I don't recall that the academic titles were evaluated by the 

budget committee, but there was an evaluation. It may have beer, 
administrative. It was based not on research as much as whether 
or not one was engaged in instruction, either through supervising 
graduate students or in charge of seminars, or offering formal 
courses. There was no qualification relative to whether or not 
the kind of research you were doing qualified you for a 
professorial title. As a matter of fact, if that criterion had 
been applied to the early assemblage of the letters and science 
faculty, not very many of them would have qualified, because they 
were not research-oriented, and they had a very scant record of 
having had much accomplished. Most of them were just out of 
school and had done a thesis problem, and that's about the extent 


Kendrick: to which they had contributed research. As a matter of fact, 
because it was not a research-oriented group of young faculty, 
they ultimately had difficulties advancing in their professorial 
ranks, and that I'll come to a little bit later because I had 
some personal experience and involvement in that aspect of some 
of the campus life at Riverside. 

Directing the Design for a Physical Master Plan. 1959 

Kendrick: My title as professor came along about 1961. It was at that 

point that I became even more thoroughly exposed and engaged in 
some of the Academic Senate activities. Prior to that, one of 
the major assignments given to me in 1959 was to chair a small 
committee to plan for the expansion of the Riverside campus to a 
student body size of 5,000 in the first phase and to 10,000 
students as a second phase, including both graduate and 
undergraduate education. Chancellor Herman Spieth who succeeded 
Provost Watkins as the chief campus officer asked if I would 
chair that effort. I spent most of 1959 on that assignment, with 
about six other colleagues. Chancellor Spieth appointed me as 
special assistant to the Chancellor for the assignment. 

I accepted that appointment not knowing anything about 
physical master planning, and there was not much history 
available to draw upon, nor was there anybody at Riverside with 
any knowledge about how one goes about drawing up those physical 
master plans. But I quickly determined that I'd better make 
contact with the physical planning office of UCLA and gain as 
much information as I could from that institution. I spent a 
good deal of time associated with George Vernon Russell, who had 
been appointed earlier as the supervising architect for the 
Riverside campus. 

The experience of trying to formulate a basis for how many 
students one might expect to enroll in your graduate program, hew 
many undergraduate students will be there, how many you're going 
to provide a physical residence for, and what offerings might 
expand, was really an education for me. 

Lage: So you were concerned with the physical development as well as 

the program development, is that correct? 

Kendrick: Well, the charge of the committee was to design a campus plan to 
physically accommodate a student body of 5,000 students by 1970, 
I guess. And to not ignore the fact that it might go to 10,000 
students in another decade. So our charge was primarily to 
design a physical plant, but we could not design a physical- pie rtt 
without having some sort of notion of what the academic planning 


Kendrick: was to be about. So I would not start with a physical plan 
without an academic plan in hand because you can't plan a 
physical plant without knowing what you're going to put into it. 

Lacking an academic plan that addressed itself to how many 
students were going to be about and where they would be, we had 
to dredge up that information as a forerunner to being able to 
design classrooms and classroom sizes, and whether the physical 
sciences were going to have more students than the social 
sciences or the life sciences or what have you. So we had a lot 
of spade-work, so to speak, to do in consulting with those 
departments and getting their best estimate of where they thought 
they were going to go. The whole plan really was predicated on 
the basis of a lot of wishful thinking, in terms of existing 
faculty and chairs. But we nevertheless produced a plan I've 
still got a copy of it here that I don't think existed very long 
with any great degree of authenticity, but it certainly provided 
a useful education for the seven or eight of us [laughter] who 
spent a great deal of time endeavoring to produce a master plan. 

That particular activity began to introduce me to people in 
the systemwide administration because I had to do a lot of 
consultation away from Riverside to understand how one approached 
the planning effort. It also introduced me to the concept of 
space standards and how much space you develop for a graduate 
student versus a research lab versus a library versus this that 
and the other thing. So all the nomenclature of university 
activity became somewhat familiar to me, with these activities. 

Lage: It sounds like the kind of job that would be given to a 

professional planner, rather than to a group of faculty from 
different fields. 

Kendrick: That is absolutely correct. And I learned and became acquainted 
with a number of professional planners in my travels. 

Lage: Were they put at your disposal? 

Kendrick: No; well, not really put at my disposal, but I was given leeway 
to go and visit with them, and 

Lage: You didn't have a paid professional at your side? 

Kendrick: No paid assistants at all. This was taken right out of the hides 
of I was given essentially half-time relief from my research 
duties to do this sort of thing. The rest of the committee was 
not. They met on call, and we had a lot of called meetings. 

Riverside did not have a professional planning unit. They 
did not have a lot of resources in the administration to do this 
sort of thing, so much of the activities came right out of the 


Kendrick: hides of the faculty whom the leadership could find willing to 
take it on. I must say I did it without really realizing how 
much effort and time I was going to get into and just how 
ignorant I was about that. 

Lage: You must have learned a great deal. 

Kendrick: I emphasize this experience because it was my initial 

introduction into beginning to understand the University as a 
whole, compared with just the Department of Plant Pathology in 
one small unit in an isolated area of the state. 

That activity just about finished me off. I was becoming so 
involved with that as well as some other administrative 
committees that I sought a sabbatical leave. I determined, as I 
indicated, that I wanted to go to England to spend some time with 
Dennis Garrett, a lecturer in plant pathology in the botany 
department at the University of Cambridge, who was an authority 
on root disease pathogens. I had also determined that I would 
like to spend some time at the famous Rothamsted agricultural 
experiment station in England, at Harpenden. 

Lage: So that puts your sabbatical leave in the context of what was 

going on in your life at the time. 

Kendrick: Yes, I expected it to kind of clear the decks and separate me 

from all of those non-research activities. In the latter part of 
1960, I applied for a senior postdoctoral fellowship with the 
National Science Foundation and was granted one. I was quite 
thrilled to receive one because it provided the wherewithal for 
me to take a year off and take my family to England, with the 
subsequent experiences of rambling a bit around England and the 
rest of Europe. That sabbatical was taken in 1961 and '62. and 
was at an odd part of the year. We left in February and came 
home at the end of February in "62. I think that I said I cace 
home with renewed enthusiasm about becoming a plant pathologist 
once again and making some satisfying studies in an area that I 
felt was deficient in knowledge, that being the population 
dynamics of soil-borne pathogens, and trying to understand the 
relationship of microbiological populations to the incidence of 
pathogenesis and the subsequent severity of the root diseases. 

Chairman of the Department of Plant Pathology. 1963 ## 

Kendrick: I returned from England to Riverside in March of 1962. In the 
meantime, my father had become ill and was really not well at 
all. A number of years earlier he had developed cancer of the 


Kendrick: larynx and had radiation treatments, so his voice was somewhat 
raspy. But emphysema was gaining ground on him in early 1962, 
and he ultimately succumbed on May 30, 1962. 

My father's death is still quite vivid in my mind because I 
was with him in the hospital when he expired. We had become very 
close by that time. He was following my career with a great deal 
of interest and encouragement. I had just become a professor of 
plant pathology by that time. He followed my activities, but I 
hadn't yet emerged into any leadership role. 

The chair of the department through this period was John 
Middleton, my colleague of long standing. We continued our close 
consultative type relationship through his chairmanship just as 
we did in our various research programs: some things we did 
together and some things we did apart, but we were always in very 
close communication. So throughout his administration of the 
department, I was kind of unofficially involved in sitting in for 
him when he was absent, representing him on various departmental 
assignments when he had other things to do. We talked a lot 
about how we would like to see the department develop in terms of 
new positions or changed positions which we felt were necessary 
to augment our course offering and research agenda. So I felt 
very close to some of the administrative activities of the 

By that time, John had become almost totally interested in 
the air pollution program and was pursuing that with a great deal 
of vigor. It was in late 1962 or early '63, that the university 
followed his advice and established the statewide Air Pollution 
Research Center at Riverside, with him as director. He perceived 
that he really could not be the director of the statewide Air 
Pollution Research Center and chairman of the Department of Plant 
Pathology simultaneously, so he resigned from his department 
chairship. After Dean Boyce consulted with the departmental 
faculty, he found no serious opposition to my succeeding John, so 
I became the chair of Plant Pathology in the fiscal year 
beginning in July of 1963. 

That, as I think I mentioned, really marked the beginning of 
my withdrawal from a very active research role, but it was not an 
action that withdrew me from teaching. I was able to develop an 
advanced graduate course in plant pathology theory, which I 
enjoyed and felt that I got about as much out of it as the 
students did. But it did introduce me into another phase of 
university activity and administration that proved to be valuable 
later in some of the other responsibilities that I assumed. 


Academic Senate Work; Educational Policy, Personnel, Planning 

Kendrick: With the professorial title and the department chairmanship. 
there were innumerable opportunities to engage in senate 
activity. By that time, the Riverside campus had succeeded in 
separating itself from the paternalism of the UCLA campus and was 
a freestanding division of the Academic Senate in iself. Through 
this time period, the senates on the various campuses had 
undergone an evolution and developed into separate divisions. 

When I first started my activity in this area, there was a 
northern division of the senate and a southern division of the 
senate. The Berkeley campus was the nucleus of the northern 
division, and the UCLA campus was the nucleus of the southern 
division. UCLA, Irvine, San Diego, Riverside, and Santa Barbara 
were part of that southern division, and the rest of the campus 
faculties were part of the northern division. That was a 
necessary first step, I guess, in trying to organize the senate 
so that it could operate with some degree of efficiency. This 
organizational structure was a forerunner to the Academic 
Assembly. The Assembly was established to bring representatives 
from all divisions and University- wide committees into a single 
body, so that a forum for meeting and representing the entire 
faculty of the University of California in matters that were 
appropriate could operate. 

Some of the committees on which I participated were 
educational policy and course approval and something called 
physical planning I was a natural for physical planning w ith all 
the background I had in that earlier study. I did not serve or. 
such committees as welfare, privilege and tenure, or any of that 
nature. But I was active in the Committee on Committees' 
affairs. My CES [Citrus Experiment Station] colleagues early 
determined the importance of that committee for us so we took an 
interest in its work. I had much help among some colleagues, 
both in letters and science as well as the experiment station. 
Randy Wedding, whom I had collaborated with in the cantaloupe 
crown blight study and some other research in the field, was also 
interested in the Academic Senate and its activities. He was one 
of my most ardent colleagues in "senate-watching" (let's put it 
that way). We tried to make sure that we were going to have 
proper representation on the Committee on Committees, which was 
an elected committee 

Lage: When you say "we," do you mean ? 

Kendrick: Colleagues in the experiment station is what I'm really saying. 

Lage: What motivated your interest in the Academic Senate? 


Kendrick: I don't really know, except that my nature I have always been a 
person who participated in the organizations in which I was a 
member. One of the things that motivated my interest in the 
senate was that it was apparent that the senate was involved in 
the personal advancement and welfare of the faculty. I felt that 
if the senate was going to participate to that extent in these 
matters then we ought to be a part of that process. As I've 
indicated, since the Committee on Committees was the unit that 
appointed the memberships of the various committees, we we being 
Randy Wedding and Oliver Johnston, who was a philosophy colleague 
of ours, so to speak from the other camp, and some other allies 
and friends in the physical and social sciences we determined to 
influence the outcome of membership on the Committee on 
Committees. By and large the faculty does not participate very 
actively in senate programs. That's true on any campus. 

Lage: Except in times of crisis. 

Kendrick: In times of threats and crisis, then you have everybody turning 

out. But there aren't very many such occasions; the sixties here 
in Berkeley was a dramatic exception to my statement about 
faculty disinterest. But the senate, nevertheless, is a 
significant factor in the development of the University of 
California, and that becomes obvious if you know what the senate 
organization does. I figured that's where I wanted to spend part 
of my time, in making certain, at least, that if things happen, I 
would have a part in it, or an opportunity to express opposition 
to some of the things that I took exception to. 

So it was not unusual that I would become involved because 
almost in all organization that I got involved in, some way or 
other I found myself coming to the top. That's one way of 
looking at it 

Lage: Doing the dirty work could be another way of looking at it. 


Kendrick: Well, I guess I've always enjoyed being a part of the decision- 
making process, let's put it that way. I'm not totally 
acquiescent in having somebody else make up my mind for me. 

Some of those activities in the senate gave me an 
opportunity to become acquainted with other campus personnel with 
similar assignments in senate activities. I recall being an 
early alternate representative to the University-wide Academic 
Senate Educational Policy Committee, and that exposed me to other 
University campus people. I won't mention all of the activities 
that grew out of those early senate activities, but they opened 
up to me the University's activities in various ways. 


Kendrick: One of the most significant senate activities that I found myself 
involved in was on the Riverside Budget Committee, as it was 
known in those days. It had virtually nothing to do with 
evaluating the budget, but was an academic personnel evaluation 
committee. I served a two-year period on that Budget Committee, 
and the real challenge occurred that first year when all five of 
us were new appointees. We had no holdovers, so we had to 
construct some new ground rules in order to find out how to 
operate and what to do. Service on the Budget Committee was a 
real eye-opener. It's in that kind of committee that you begin 
to see life in its raw state, and not in its glossed-cver state. 
Because when you're dealing with peoples' future and their 
compensation, true characters begin to show. You are able then 
also to see, with not too much difficulty, good performances, 
bluffed performances, and poor performances. 

Lage : How were you evaluating individuals? Through reports of their 

colleagues, or individual observation, or-? 

Kendrick: No, this was a typical personnel evaluation committee that met 
and commented on the justification for advancement or merit 
increases, as well as the decision to move to tenure. There were 
five of us, representing the various activities on the campus. I 
was the experiment station representative to all intents and 
purposes. We had a representative each from the humanities, the 
physical sciences, the social sciences, the life sciences and 

The process starts by going through the roster of faculty, 
including both the experiment station and the college, 
determining those people who are eligible for conside ration, and 
calling notice to that fact to their department chairs. We also 
required the chairs to begin the process of putting together the 
documentation supporting their recommendation if they were going 
to recommend advancement, and putting together a justification of 
why they were not going to recommend advancement, if that was 
their decision. That process is a very complicated one because 
the chair is supposed to consult among the senior members cf the 
department, and together they make an evaluation. The chair is 
free to make independent comments in addition. The routing of 
the comments is through their respective deans, and the deans 
must also make a recommendation and an evaluation of the material 
they receive. If it's a recommendation for promotion, it 
includes all the published work and evidence of activities, both 
in teaching, in public service and in university service, in 
which the individual has been engaged during the period of their 
employment by the University. 

For all significant advancements and promotions an 
additional step was employed. We identified confidential ad-hoc 
personnel committees which were appointed by the vice chancellor. 


Kendrick: These ad-hoc committees received all the documentation concerning 
the individual candidates, evaluated it, then made a positive or 
a negative recommendation. This information was then returned to 
the Budget Committee for another independent evaluation of all 
documentations and recommendations. 

The Budget Committee's recommendation was then directed to 
the academic vice chancellor who acted on the information 
received and his own judgment. The academic vice chancellor whom 
I worked with was Thomas Jenkin, who had been a dean at UCLA. 
He is now deceased, but he was a very beloved administrator who 
came to Riverside with an extensive background in university 
service and competence in political science, which was his field. 
He was with Ivan Hinderaker at the time. During this period of 
activity that I've described, Ivan Hinderaker was the chancellor. 
He succeeded Herman Spieth as chancellor in 1964. 

Well, we got through that first year of Budget Committee 
activities. But that was a time-consuming program; even though 
we didn't have a lot of cases to consider, it was a significant 
load for the size of the campus and the amount of support we had. 
But that experience provided, as I said, a good insight into 
strengths and weaknesses of individuals and departments. We 
passed on all the appointments, the level of appointments, and 
advancements to tenure, as well as denials. 

As I indicated, all that documentation arrives in the office 
of the vice chancellor for academic affairs, and then they sent 
it to the Budget Committee for review. For all promotions, as I 
said earlier, we nominated an ad-hoc peer review committee for 
each individual case, usually consisting of three to five people. 
If we could not get the right mix of professional backgrounds for 
a candidate's particular field locally, we went to the faculties 
at UCLA or San Diego or some other campus in order to get proper 
representation on the committee, so that we'd have somebody on it 
who understood what the candidate's field was all about. Then 
that committee made their report and filed it with the Budget 

Lage: In the comments you made earlier about the Budget Committee and 

'life in its raw state," there seemed to be a lot of emotional 

Kendrick: Well, I indicated that it revealed to me for the first time 

individuals' true characters. It became pretty easy to determine 
when a weak case was before you because it usually was full of 
voluminous extraneous material. 

Lage: This would have been material put forth by the person's 



Kendrick: That's correct. 

Lage: Not by the professor himself. 

Kendrick: No, I didn't mean to imply that the individual was the source of 
the fluff and the bluff. Although [laughs] that certainly 
exists. But at all levels, and particularly at the department 
chair and the dean's levels, it became fairly easy to sort out 
strong cases from weak cases. Weak cases are not necessarily 
characterized by a short synopsis. They are more likely to be 
long and dreary and full of extraneous references, 
overemphasizing the importance of certain kinds of activities 
that had peripheral relationships with academic development. It 
was also a revelation of who were strong chairs and who were weak 
chairs. You could tell by the kind of documentation they would 
let go through their hands whether or not you were dealing with a 
person who really took their job seriously or who just passed it 
on and made no great effort to spend any time supporting or 
exercising any independent evaluation. 

It also displayed another personality character not 
necessarily associated only with university people. There are 
more people than not who really wanted to pass the unpopular 
decisions on to the next level and not make those unpopular 
decisions themselves, where it should be made in the first place. 
So we would be handed the unhappy circumstances of denying 
promotions in cases where the department chair or even a dean had 
said, "I think this is a worthy case, and I recommend it." 

Lage: Probably knowing full well it was full of fluff. 

Kendrick: Knowing that the Budget Committee and the academic vice 

chancellor would ultimately have to come to grips with it. 

The second year of my Budget Committee work, I chaired the 
Budget Committee, so it became my responsibility to organize and 
see that things ran smoothly. Things ran a little smoother the 
second year because we had some holdover members and some 
experience in the process that we had gotten into place in the 
first year. But it just reinforced my point of view of academic 
evaluation. That experience was invaluable for my subsequent 
assignment as the vice president because I could understand where 
the faculty was coming from and how strong administrators ought 
to operate. As I'll get into a little bit later, I spent most of 
my vice presidency trying to introduce a similar academic 
evaluation system into Cooperative Extension. I think I 
succeeded, but it was a long tough pull. We'll get into that a 
little bit later, but the experience I had at Riverside with 
academic evaluation for faculty I thought was valuable enough to 
try and introduce to Cooperative Extension so that it would take 
out the arbitrariness of administrative decision-making. 


Statewide Senate Involvement 

Kendrick: My Budget Committee service exposed me to university-wide budget 
and personnel committees. I became acquainted with other budget 
committee chairs from other campuses. As chair of your division 
budget committee, you were an ex-officio member of the statewide 
budget committee where we considered broader issues of public 
policy. I remember one of the nagging issues that we had to 
consider as a university-wide committee was whether or not to 
approve the inauguration of a special salary scale for lawyers. 
That was sort of the first chink in the armor, so to speak, of 
standardized professorial salaries, irrespective of the 
discipline. The lawyers were chafing at the bit because they 
felt that they were being disadvantaged monetarily and were not 
able to hire qualified people at the level of university 
salaries. There was long and arduous debate in this university- 
wide budget committee on whether or not it was good for the 
university to recognize special needs as far as salary for 
special disciplines was concerned. We had most law school deans 
come and testify before us and try to persuade us to approve the 
special salary scale and as I recall, we ultimately agreed that 
perhaps they had a case. 

Lage: Reluctantly, I'm sure. 

Kendrick: It was very reluctant because it was most difficult for faculty 
from, particularly, letters and science and the nonprofessional 
disciplines to understand why a professor of law was any more 
valuable to the institution than a professor of classics. And it 
was really a hard swallow to recognize that if we wanted a 
competent legal faculty, we had to compete with the outside world 
for that competence and not just the internal academic world. 

Well, it wasn't long before physicians were on our tail, of 
course. To some extent, they already had a special salary scale. 
I'm not going to dwell on this long, but the thing that I 
remember about that early exposure was the fundamental difference 
between the physicians and the lawyers. The lawyers ignored the 
professional ranks of the faculty because they attached less 
significance to rank than they did money. As a matter of fact, 
they appointed all new faculty as acting professors. They didn't 
appoint them acting assistant professors or acting associate 
professors, they were acting professors. The way they achieved 
tenure was to remove the acting after three to four years, and 
then they became a professor at this rather enhanced salary 

As far as the physicians were concerned, they wouldn't have 
anything to do with that concept. They weren't going to appoint 
anybody as an acting professor of medicine; they had to start 


Kendrick: back down at the assistant professor level [laughter] and jump 
through the hoops, and advance through the regular academic 
ladder. On the other hand they didn't mind paying an acting 
assistant professor three times what a regular faculty professor 
might be getting. Money was the most significant factor to the 
physicians, but they held very tightly to the notion that they 
didn't want to disregard the ranks in the professorial series. 
That was an interesting revelation of points of view from two 
significant professions within our institution. 

The Academic Council 

Kendrick: The next step in my administrative education occurred through a 
lucky serendipitous act by the university-wide Academic Senate's 
Committee on Committees. 

I recall that Randy Wedding was the Riverside representative 
to the university-wide Committee on Committees about 1966. Ke 
called me from a meeting that they were having. I was ir. 
Monterey at a professional plant pathology meeting, and he called 
me to see if I would be willing to accept an appointment as a 
member of the Academic Council. 

I knew a bit of what the Academic Council was all about, 
because from my various activities I had become aware that they 
sat as the hierarchy of the Senate. I said, "Well, what does it 
entail?" Ultimately, I said, "Yes, I'll accept that." So in 
1966, I joined the council, and in 1967, with Professor Rcbley 
Williams from the Berkeley campus as the chair, I became vice 
chair of the Academic Council. The officers of the council are 
also the officers of the Academic Assembly. So the chair and the 
vice chair are also the chair and the vice chair of the assembly. 

Lage: Is the council a smaller component of the assembly? 

Kendrick: The council is composed of I don't think this is exactly 
correct but its membership is composed of chairs of the 
significant Academic Senate university-wide committees, such as 
educational policy, welfare, budget, and graduate affairs, as 
well as the division chairs of the campus Academic Senates. 
There are nine divisions, and they each operate with a local 
chairman. Those nine people are automatically members of the 

So the council is about fifteen people, with the chair and 
the vice chair not representing any one of the committees or the 


Lage: Now, what is the council's responsibility? 

Kendrick: The council rieets monthly. It's really the evaluator and 
commentator on senate matters that must have total senate 

Lage: Do they work with the president? 

Kendrick: They work with the president. It's the major contact that the 
President's Office has with the senate. The chair and the vice 
chair attend all Regents' meetings, and have the privilege of 
sitting at the Regents' table, but they do not vote. They're not 
faculty Regents, but they are given the privilege of commenting 
any time on any subject and they participate in all open and 
closed and executive session meetings. The students chose to go 
the other route. They wanted a student Regent. The faculty 
decided that they really didn't want to be placed in a position 
of having a single person represent total faculty point of view 
[as a member of the Board of Regents], realizing that that's a 
very difficult thing to do. So they chose the other alternative, 
and that was to participate in all discussions, without feeling 
that they had to vote. I think it was a wise decision, and I 
think it's been a helpful decision as far as the Regents were 

Well, that was another step in my exposure to University 
life. The chair and the vice chair of the Academic Council also 
participate in defending the University's budget in Sacramento in 
the spring, when the subject matter happens to be a faculty 
topic, such as salary or teaching load. There are a surprising 
number of interesting topics that the legislature gets into, and 
the chair of the Academic Council usually dedicates the entire 
year to being chair. Because during that spring, you could find 
yourself tootling up to Sacramento four days a week for about six 
to eight weeks during the University's legislative budget 

Lage: This takes you out of teaching and research. 

Kendrick: They're provided with relief to do so. 

That was not the case when I was the vice chair and Robley 
was the chair. The involvement had not developed to that extent 
at that time. I'm describing the chair and the vice chair in 
more recent years as we've gotten into more complicated 
relationships with the legislature. But the chair and the vice 
chair were expected to participate in a lot of administrative, 
system-wide committees, one of which was called the Building and 
Campus Development Committee, chaired by Harry Wellmaru This 
committee went from campus to campus to listen to the plea for 
augmenting the budget for physical plant development, as well as 


Kendrick: academic program development. It was sort of a traveling road 
show composed of a number of administrators, plus the Academic 
Council Representation usually Robley and me although we 
attempted to divide up the workload, and I would go to some and 
he would go to others. But that was the first regular assignment 
that put me in touch with the president, but more particularly 
with the vice president, who happened to be Harry Wellman at the 

In 1967-68, that Academic Council that I was a part of was a 
very interesting council. Randy Wedding really caught the 
Committee on Committees without having done their homework, and 
so when it came time to consider chairs of various kinds of 
committees that the university-wide senate was engaged in, he had 
a candidate for each. Some of the other campuses didn't. So we 
wound up that year with about five members from Riverside on the 
Academic Council. This council that was representing the entire 
University of California, had more than its share of members 
including the chair of the graduate council and several other 
representatives from Riverside I'll have to dig out an old 
picture of that council in order to remember just how many and 
who they were. But I do remember Bob Gleckner was on it, and 
George Zentmyer was on it, I was on it. Someone else also. 

The other thing of interest about that council was that Bill 
[William J.] McGill, from San Diego was representing his division 
in San Diego, and Frank [Francis] Sooy was on it from San 
Francisco. Subsequently I'm going to jump ahead a little but 
subsequently President Charlie Hitch ruined that particular 
council by selecting me to be the vice president Agricultural 
Sciences, a little later Bill McGill as chancellor at the San 
Diego campus, and, finally, Frank Sooy as chancellor of the San 
Francisco campus. So it proved to be quite a fertile ground for 
future administrators. With my former colleagues on the council 
occupying significant administrative positions I felt that I w as 
greatly advantaged early on in my relationships with most of the 
campus chancellors. 

The experience on the council and its subsequent linkage to 
the system-wide administrative assignments gave me some 
appreciation and flavor of what the individual campus 
administrations were all about. I have always said that if one 
had set out to design a training course for an administrator who 
ultimately was going to have some system-wide responsibilities 
such as the vice president for agricultural sciences I couldn't 
have been better trained. Coming up through the whole system 
with exposure to physical development, budget development, 
academic development, and campus review of different units of the 
university were important training activities. I had experienced 
the growth and development of Davis through the eyes of my father 
and observed the evolution of the Davis relationship with 


Kendrick : Berkeley. Then I experienced again myself a the similar 

evolution of a relatively small experiment station at Riverside 
undergoing the introduction of instruction and graduate 
development at that institution and our ultimate separation from 
UCLA's oversight of Riverside's development emerging, so to 
speak, from adolescence to adulthood. So I think it was a unique 
and invaluable experience to start off as a vice president with 
that background. In spite of this when I arrived in Berkeley as 
a vice president, I didn't really know what I was getting into. 

Organization of the Statewide Agricultural Unit 

Lage : As you went through these various steps, did you begin to have in 

your mind that you'd like to move more into administration? 

Kendrick: No, I really didn't. I w as really doing what came next. I was 
aware that we had a system-wide administrative unit in 
agriculture. I knew that Harry Wellman had emerged from that 
role into the university's vice presidency role and was a very 
significant administrator not only for agriculture, but for 
campus developments, as President dark Kerr's right-hand person 
in the expansion of the university's physical and academic 

Paul Sharp was the first free-standing director of the 
Agricultural Experiment Station. He was appointed by Wellman, as 
I recall. He traveled around and visited the campuses, and we 
used to turn out like good soldiers and "let the captain review 
his troops" when he would show up. But I was not really aware 
that any of his actions had any really significant influence on 
what I was doing at the time or what we were doing at the 
experiment station. 

We became a bit more aware of the university-wide 
administration when Dan Aldrich moved from his chairman of the 
soils department at Davis into what was then called the 
University dean for agriculture. In Al Boyce's autobiography he 
was mistaken in indicating that Aldrich occupied the resurrection 
of the title. Harry Wellman was the vice president for 
Agricultural Sciences, and when he moved out of that role, the 
title was changed to University dean of agriculture. And at that 
time, the University dean of agriculture really functioned as a 
dean because all the courses and curricula that were developed by 
the respective colleges had to have the dean's approval, had to 
have Aldrich's approval. 


Kendrick: There was also a University dean of extension at the time, so 

there were two University deans. It made a little more sense for 
University Extension to have a centralized dean because there 
really were opportunities for him to be concerned about the 
curricula they were offering. 

Aldrich also, to some extent, participated in determining 
department chairs and new appointments. I remember when 
Hutchison was the dean, he was involved in every aspect of 
appointment, promotion, and department chair designation. But it 
became increasingly difficult to operate as a dean with no 
resident faculty and no resident students from University Hall. 
And that title became somewhat obsolete. But nevertheless it 
continued to exist during Dan Aldrich's tenure, and it also 
existed during Maurice Peterson's tenure. He had been brought to 
University Hall, I think by Dan, to be the director of the 
experiment station, succeeding Paul Sharp. He operated in that 
capacity early on until Dan Aldrich was appointed chancellor of 
the Irvine campus. 

So Peterson, an agronomist from Davis, succeeded Dan about 
1963 or '64 as the University dean for agriculture. He, in due 
course, brought Clarence Kelly, an agricultural engineer, down 
from Davis, to be the director of the experiment station, and the 
two of them functioned for some time as University dean and 
director, respectively. 

I became a bit more aware of the university-wide function 
under that particular regime, although I followed Dan just 
because we were close friends. Then when I was department chair, 
I would see a little more of the university-wide administrative 
unit in agriculture than the ordinary participant would. 

When Pete resigned as the University dean of agriculture in 
the early fall of 1967, Kelly was asked to perform both director 
and dean functions. Those of us in the south sort of lost track 
of the fact that we even had a University dean. 

I am really answering the question that you raised of 
whether, having participated in these other activities, did I 
develop an urge for administrative work. At the time, we knew 
that Al Boyce was going to reach retirement age as director and 
dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences at Riverside. I had 
been chair of the department for five years, and I really had a 
lot of interest in how Riverside was to be developed. At that 
point, while I was not aspiring to be the dean, I felt that I 
ought to be considered strongly for that role, given all of the 
other stuff that I had done at Riverside and my interest in its 
development. There was a period when I was a bit disappointed 
that I didn 1 ': detect any activity jr interest in my being dear. 
down there other than an occasional reference to it. So I was 


Kendrick: somewhat frustrated, not realizing j ust how that was going to go. 
I was interested in who might be dean, if it were not to come my 
way. It wasn't a position that I aspired to, but it was a little 
bit like I had felt about the chairmanship of the department. I 
had enough confidence in my own ability that I felt that I was 
competent to handle the position, at least as much as my 
colleagues, if not more than most of them. And I felt somewhat 
similar about the deanship; I felt that if I weren't given at 
least a chance to be interviewed for it to give some ideas about 
where I thought the college ought to go that that was an 

Well, as it turned out, the chancellor and Harry Wellman had 
other ideas about my future, and I didn't know about them. That 
explains a little the lack of talking to me about the deanship, I 
think. I'm just guessing, because it's never been revealed to me 
just what was going on in that time. But I had sort of lost 
track of the fact that there was a vacancy in the university dean 
position, and furthermore I was not a highly ranked administrator 
nor an obvious candidate for a university-wide administrative 
responsibil ity . 

Lage: It was a big jump. 

Kendrick: And to jump from a department chair to a vice presidency was 

nothing that I contemplated. I thought that a natural evolution 
for that sort of thing would be to take on the next larger unit, 
and that in my case would be a college administration of some 
kind. So we'll leave it at that. 

Lage: That's a good place to stop. 



A Collection of Specialties 

[Date of interview: September 28. 1987] //# 

Lage: We were going to start out today talking about the plant patho 

logy department at Riverside and how you built up the faculty. 

Kendrick: All right. The Department of Plant Pathology at Riverside was 
kind of a traditionally constructed department, as were the 
departments of plant pathology at Berkeley and Davis. What I 
mean by that is that the personnel were traditionally trained 
plant pa thlo gists who had gone to graduate schools in various 
universities of the United States and had degrees in plant 
pathology. Plant pathology is a profession, as I have 
maintained, that is not a pure science. By that I mean that it 
isn't narrowly focused like a chemistry department, which is all 
chemistry, or a physics department, which is all physics 
realizing, of course, that there are various aspects of those 
fundamental sciences that make them quite diverse too. 

But plant pathology really is an amalgamation of a number of 
microbiological departments that deal with the infectious nature 
of the organism on a host plant. So that it's a profession that 
deals with the interaction of parasites and biological organisms 
which host them producing some kind of adverse event as far as 
the plant host is concerned. 

So in the early days, plant pathologists studied the 
reaction of plants to these external organisms and tried to 
prevent their adverse consequences. But as I've already 
indicated, one of the adverse effects we noticed early on was air 
pollution, and that's not an organism, that's a chemical that 
causes a plant reaction which is plant damaging. There are other 
kinds of chemicals that are either administered to a plant in 
excess or they show up being deficient, which also produces a 
plant that looks sick or not normal. 


Kendrick: So plant pathology is really a collection of specialties whose 

common thread is that you deal with a plant that looks sick or at 
least does not look normal. As long as you're studying the plant 
itself in these situations, it's understandable why you would add 
to your faculty people trained mainly in plant pathology. As we 
got into studying more and more of the whys and wherefores of 
these adverse reactions to plants, it became evident that we 
really needed to have people in the department trained in some of 
these more narrowly defined specialties, so that instead of their 
focus being directed to the plant they would pay primary 
attention to the organism or the event that led up to those 
adverse associations in plants. 

So that was the beginning of breaking out of the mold of 
looking for new faculty members only in departments of plant 
pathology. We wanted to add chemists, microbiologists, and plant 
biochemists to our plant pathology staff. This, I would say, 
came into prominent consideration during the late fifties. 

Lage: Was this a trend nationwide? 

Kendrick: Yes. It was kind of a trend nationwide. 

Lage: It wasn' t a controversial issue at Riverside, then? 

Kendrick: No. One of the first people to promote this notion was Director 
Al Boyce. Al was an entomologist dealing with insecticide 
applications to control insects. He early on saw the necessity 
to build up data on the chemistry of the insecticide residues, 
and he sought to add chemists to the Department of Entomology, so 
they developed a residue chemistry section. He ran into a little 
controversy with the Department of Agricultural Chemistry in the 
early days, because they felt that the chemistry associated with 
pesticide application should be done in the Department of 
Agricultural Chemistry; why put a chemist in the Department of 

Al ultimately prevailed and added a chemistry section in the 
Department of Entomology, which became quite renowned and famous. 
He also added a section on the toxicology of insecticides, and 
that was oriented heavily to biochemistry. We had a fungicide 
section in the Department of Plant Pathology, and we saw a need 
to have our chemistry section also, that is, Middleton and some 
of the rest of us saw the need. So we sought a chemist to add to 
the department in the mid-fifties, I think it was, when we were 
dealing with a problem of citrus postharvest decay of the citrus 
fruit. We needed to understand the chemistry involved with the 
fungicides and the residues that might be present on the fruits. 


Kendrick: So the first breakthrough as far as adding faculty members 

outside the tradition of plant pathology came from the chemistry 
group in Entomology when a chemist. Marty [Martin] Kolbezen 
transferred to our department to work as a chemist in our 
postharvest decay program. 

Lage : 

It sounds as if there was a lot of team work. Is that correct? 

Kendrick: Well, that's right. When you begin to branch out. then you need 
to form teams of research efforts and not place all the responsi 
bility on one person. You must have leaders of the team, but it 
becomes a collaborative effort. It was easier to build collabor 
ation teams when the members from these allied professions were 
members of your own department, rather than a member of another 
department where they have different allegiences and different 
motivations in getting their academic work done. 

Adding Specialists to the Department's Faculty 

Kendrick: With that emphasis, then we began thinking about the physiology 
of disease, and the microbiology of the organisms, and the 
emphasis of the interaction of the organism and its host. John 
Middleton and I, with agreement of the other members of our 
departments, sought to add a man by the name of Solomon 
Bartnicki-Garcia. Dr. Bartnicki was occupying a postdoctoral 
position at Rutgers University at the time, working in Dr. 
Waksman's laboratory. Waksman was a famous microbiologist, who 
discovered some of the antibiotics that are in common use. Dr. 
Bartnicki-Garcia seemed to be an outstanding candidate to study 
the microbiology of some of the organisms that we were concerned 
with, and we invited him to join the department. 

That was really the first instance when we began to go into 
the microbiology studies with the emphasis on the organism the 
study of the organism with a specialist who had been trained in 
the biochemistry and biology of the organism, rather than in the 
more generalized training of plant pathology. I don't think Dr. 
Bartnicki-Garcia had had any training in plant pathology per se. 
Dr. Bartnicki was a native of Mexico, and I struggled to get him 
off of student visa status into a regular immigration status. 
There was a lot of activity associated with making him a legal 
immigrant rather than an illegal alien. As a result of much 
maneuvering and pleading and special contact with Immigration 
Service, we finally arranged to have him enter the country 
legally with a visa that had no termination date, by going back 
to Tijuana and coming back through the border in this different 
status. You never know as a department chair what sort of 
problems you're going to have to deal with. 


Kendrick: Anyway, Solomon appeared to be quite an interesting addition to 
the department, he was very sharp and he brought a different 
dimension of thinking to the group. He also was a little 
irreverant of the older people in the department. So it took a 
little doing to get him settled in, but I have always had a great 
fondness for what he added to the department embarking on this 
rather broadened approach to plant pathology. 

In the course of adding competence in our chemistry section 
in the department, we added a person to the department by the 
name of Bill Moj e (now deceased), who came to us from the 
Department of Chemistry at UCF. His specialty was dealing with 
the chemistry of natural products. We felt that it was necessary 
to have an understanding of what the potential antibiotic 
capacity of these natural products were, as well as an 
understanding of potential resistance in natural products through 
their own chemical barriers to infection. 

Lage: You're going to have to tell me what you mean by natural 


Kendrick: Well, a natural product is well, let's just take the orange and 
the orange peel. If you tear apart the orange peel and study the 
chemistry of the volatiles, the vapors you smell, or the juice 
you squeeze out that's natural product chemistry. Natural 
product chemistry is the study of the chemistry of the banana 
peel, or of the banana itself, or the orange, or the orange peel, 
or the grapefruit, or the grapefruit peel, or the roots or the 
leaves of plants, for example. It's not a study of the chemicals 
per se. 

Natural product chemicals have a lot of appeal in use to 
control the bad bugs because they are naturally occurring in the 
fruits and vegetables of plants in the first place. They're not 
additives, and therefore they don't come under the category cf 
additives, fungicides, or pesticides. They are more acceptable 
by the general public because they do occur naturally. The 
problem is that there are some very deadly natural product 
chemicals. Just because they occur naturally does not 
necessarily make them any safer. That's why you have chemists 
who are natural-product chemists, who begin to unravel all that 
kind of stuff so we can understand what we're dealing with. 

Lage: It sounds as if you were concerned early on with something that 

became popular much later. 

Kendrick: Well, I don't want to take too much credit for this move, because 
similar changes were occurring in the outstanding departments of 
plant pathology in the U.S. 


Lage: It seemed like a new concern later on, in the late sixties and 


Kendrick: Correct. But in the late fifties, we were already adding that 
kind of competence to our Department of Plant Pathology. 

We were also interested in the biochemistry of viruses, and 
so we added to our department a young man by the name of Dr. 
Semancik, who. while trained as a plant pathologist, had his 
background pretty much in the biochemistry of virology. In other 
words, he was studying the virus itself rather than the 
interaction. And as you can detect in what I'm describing we 
were adding to our department people who tended to emphasize the 
cause rather than the result of plant infection, and these new 
members were skilled and trained in studying the nature of the 
causal organism. We were probably, unbeknownst to us, backing 
away from control. We felt that if we could understand the cause 
better, we might be able to devise the control 

Lage: So it seems like a less immediately practical focus. 

Kendrick: That's very true. Well, as it's now known and now described, we 
were strengthening the basic research aspect of plant pathology, 
somewhat at the expense of the applied research, which would have 
more emphasis on the controlling part of plant pathology studies. 

Lage: Was this change influenced by the beginning of the teaching 

function also, or was it a separate trend? 

Kendrick: No, I would say teaching had very little to do with it. It was 
more influenced by the feeling of a few of us who were fairly 
senior in the department that what we were doing previously was 
emphasizing stop-gap control measures. They weren't lasting and 
they weren't based upon any fundamental information. We felt 
that, in fact, this move would lead to a more consistent control 
of the diseases that we were concerned with. 

This reemphasis began with Middleton and I followed on John 
and I did a lot of consulting together Dr. Zentmyer, of course, 
was part of this strategy group and subsequently he was the 
department chairman after I left. But there was no real 
resistance in the department to this move, and the departments at 
Davis and Berkeley were moving somewhat in the same direction. 
We could also see that the departments in Wisconsin and Cornell 
had both moved in this general direction, so we weren't as unique 
in this as it appeared locally. We probably had more pure 
chemistry in our department at Riverside than they had in some of 
those other departments, however. 


Kendrick: With the addition of Semancik, the study of virology and the 

study of the viruses itself took a big spurt, and moved forward 
in good order. The last appointment I made which added a 
broadened dimension of research in the department was Noel Keen, 
who came from Wisconsin. He was trained as a plant pathologist, 
but his emphasis was on the physiology of disease, strongly 
oriented towards the laboratory study of what is going on in the 
plant when infected by an organism. He studied the physiological 
changes that occur inside the plant during the courses of infec 
tion and subsequent disease development. So that added another 
competence to this group of chemists, biochemists and virologists. 

Trend Toward Over- Specialization; Need for Redefinition of the 

Kendrick: By 1968, when I had bid adieu to it, the department was a pretty 
broadly based department of competencies and specialties that 
complemented one another and covered a gamut of things involved 
in the diseases of plants. I thought that was a fairly forward 
way of looking at things, but it came at somewhat of a price of 
less emphasis on the applied nature of plant pathology. My 
concern about plant pathology as a profession today is that the 
whole profession has gone that way. 

Lage : Into specialization? 

Kendrick: Into specialization. You go to a professional meeting nowadays, 
and it looks like a collection of an applied biology and 
chemistry sections. The kinds of papers and the thesis research 
are very specific, quite detailed, and very biochemistry- 
oriented. Not very much attention is being given to controlling 
the nature of what is going on in plants after these events get 
initiated. So I think that the profession needs a redefinition 
of what it is that keeps it together in the first place. In my 
view, it is a profession that is uniquely capable of studying the 
interaction of biological systems that result in an adverse 
consequence for the plant, the host plant. If there isn't some 
attention at redefinition of emphasis to this interaction and an 
effort to control, or at least ameliorate, the adversities, then 
there really isn't anything in common to hold the profession 
together. It's just a collection of specialties. 

The departments have an important role in that because if 
they don't emphasize that, the profession can't change it, 
because the profession is a collection of people who like to go 
the meetings and talk to one another. So I really think the 
departments, and particularly those in California, have a real 
challenge to try and restate what plant pathology is about. 


Lage: I've heard from people in other disciplines that team research is 

difficult to sustain. People get involved in their own projects, 
and it's hard to keep a team approach going. Have you heard of 
that in plant pathology? 

Kendrick: Yes. I'm glad you brought me back to that topic. That's one of 
the most difficult evolutionary steps in this whole business. 
The recognition of accomplishment is really what sustains this 
whole academic community. It's not the monetary rewards that 
keep people going in the directions they go; it is recognition. 
There is a certain monetary aspect to that because that 
recognition also results in promotions and movement into tenure 
and the rest of the things that are associated with the academic 
community. So recognition is all- important. 

When you have a team of more than two people three, four, 
five, sometimes six, eight, or more it is difficult to identify 
and partition recognition among that team, as to who did what and 
how important this person was to that team, or somebody else was. 
This is particularly true in California, the University of 
California, where the recognition is evaluated by your peers ir. 
the Academic Senate. Co-authored papers are not given as much 
weight as single-authored papers, where there is no question 
about who is responsible for what has been written or cl aided. 
I've seen a big difference in recognition depending on whom is 
the senior author, and it also makes a big difference whether 
you're at the tail end of that string of authors, or whether you 
are the second or third or fourth person. 

All of that mitigates against team research. That becomes a 
difficult problem for an administrator, to look forward to my 
career as a vice president. The Division of Agricultural 
Sciences, or its successor, the Division of Agriculture and 
Natural Resources, is put together to solve problems, 
agricultural problems, and the problems are not pure single- 
science or single-discipline problems. They cross boundary lines 
of departments; they cross boundary lines of locations; they 
cross boundary lines of subject matter. So the problems don't 
orient themselves in a way that single departments can alone 
solve them. 

What you have in the academic community is a system for 
partitioning recognition and giving credit and identifying 
creativity that becomes very difficult in these team efforts. 
One way of solving that sort of thing is to tackle a big problem 
with a big team, and if you plan it correctly, you partition off 
the resultant descriptions of accomplishments and papers and give 
different members of that team the opportunity to be s nior 


Kendrick: authors. But it's an incompatible system; there's no way around 
it. The bigger the team, the more difficult it is for 
recognition to be granted equally to all the contributors. 

We had a further complication in our department, after 
having gone the route of trying to move out into other 
disciplines and add them to our department. A case in point were 
the two chemists who had, from our perspective, helped us very 
much in our approach to understanding the diseases and the 
organisms causing them. But when it came time to evaluate those 
chemists, in terms of their contributions, if their publications 
were too oriented into plant pathology, the chemists, pure 
chemists, who sat on their ad-hoc committees wouldn't give them 
very much credit for that kind of contribution because they 
weren't really contributing to chemistry. As plant pathologists 
they weren't given all the credit they should be given either, 
because their contributions weren't really very fundamental plant 
pathology; it was more chemically oriented. 

So they were caught in between professions, where the 
chemists either tended to disown them because they weren't 
contributing to fundamental knowledge in chemistry, and the plant 
pathologists wouldn't really claim them because they weren't 
contributing to the fundamental plant pathology. And that was a 
problem. I think they ultimately suffered a little bit in the 
academic progression through the system, although we chairs 
prevailed and they ultimately got along pretty well. 

But it's another irony of the academic system, that it 
really functions best when you are studying a very minute section 
of a very discrete discipline, where your peers can really get in 
and understand what it is you're doing. The broader-based you 
become, the more people are involved in collaborative efforts, 
the more obscure these evaluations become. So it presents a real 
challenge to the system. We were able to get through it, but 
it's not something you can weigh or measure well, any way other 
than in an abstract way. Anyway, I don't mean to imply that 
plant pathology was the only department at Riverside that was 
moving off in that direction, but I think it kind of helped lead 
the way. 

Graduate TeachinR Program Initiated, 1962 

Kendrick: The teaching program, centered largely in the graduate studies, 
was initiated in 1962. That was a significant event for our 
department, one that I promoted with a lot of enthusiasm with the 
help of my colleagues. There was really not any identifiable 
resistance to that of which I was aware. I don't mean to claim 


Kendrick: that I am the only one that really brought it through because in 
the latter part of 1962 I was on sabbatical leave. The 
groundwork was laid with John Middleton during his chairmanship, 
and we were all anxious that we be fairly recognized as a 
teaching department, with the subsequent augmentation of our 
titles into the professorial series, so that we became a part of 
that teaching faculty. 

Lage: Did everybody in the department join the professorial ranks? 

Kendrick: Not at the same time. It was granted rather piecemeal, depending 
on what courses you were offering, how many graduate students you 
were supervising, and whether you had charge of a seminar or 
special studies. So it did not produce blanket recognition with 
augmentation of titles for everyone. A few in the department 
never were offered academic title, within senate professorial 
series, because they didn't ever really engage in the teaching 

But adding graduate students to our portfolio of activities 
was a fairly significant event, as far as the department was 
concerned. It changed the attitude and the focus of the 
research. You couldn't assign a graduate student a problem of 
improving the varietal performance of citrus. You had to give 
them some kind of a research program that had an opportunity to 
come to fruition and conclusion within a reasonable length of 
time a year, year and a half, or two. So the nature of the 
studies necessarily became more fundamental, more circumscribed. 
It also forced those of us who became involved in formal course 
teaching to think beyond our own immediate problem area in my 
case, the vegetable diseases. I had to think in terms of a 
generalized program of pathogenesis and epidemiology and the 
effects of disease development. I was teaching an advanced 
course in plant pathology, one that was designed to cap off the 
training of the students, so that when they were ready to go into 
the field and start operating on their own. they had some 
familiarity, or at least they could remember having discussed how 
you approach these mysterious things you see in the field, and 
what sort of things you begin to unravel and study. 

So the beginning of the graduate program was important for 
the direction and the emphasis of the department and the people 
in it. We had kind of a ready-made market for entering students 
because the international reputation that our citrus pathologists 
had accumulated over the years brought to Riverside students of 
colleagues in Japan, South Africa, South America, Italy, Spain, 
and all of the citrus- grow ing areas of the world. Israel was 
another country with which we collaborated. 

Lage: That must have changed the nature of things at Riverside, too. 


Kendrick: Oh, it certainly did. We had a heavy emphasis on foreign 

students. That kind of internationalized our outlook. It really 
was a delightful exposure for me during the five years that I was 
a department chair. I tried to take a note from my father's way 
of handling graduate students and tried to create opportunities 
to make them feel more at home. So it wasn't just a formal 
teaching experience in which there was a gulf between the faculty 
and the students. 

I probably came to this conclusion with more emphasis 
because my experience at Cambridge during my sabbatical leave in 
'61 and '62 was so fresh in my mind. It was so apparent that the 
graduate students at the Cambridge University did not have a 
close, friendly relationship with the supervisors of their 
research. It was kind of a formal and stiff relationship, in 
spite of the fact that the professor or the senior lecturer would 
have a Sunday tea once in a while for the students and think that 
that was discharging their social duties to them. Socializing 
was more important than I thought in general from another 
standpoint, using my own experience at Wisconsin. As I described 
J. C. Walker, he was kind of a tough, gruff fellow at work, but 
he was very personable on a social basis. His graduate students 
gathered at his home, with Mrs. Walker, rather regularly for 
social events. And we got to see him in a different light than 
the teacher-student relationship. 

Well, not to belabor the point, I attempted to bring that 
kind of camaraderie and social experience to these students in 
plant pathology. And I think it worked out pretty well. We 
entertained in our home regularly a number of times. We would 
try to have departmental events, picnics and the like. The 
barrier between teacher and student was at least lowered, to a 
considerable extent. 

I guess that's about where I'm going to leave it. One of 
the lasting things that I'm pleased to note is still hanging on 
at Riverside is that the department still holds the 
Conversazione. This is an event which is more than a seminar. 
It is an event in which the faculty and the students would gather 
on a regular basis during the academic year and listen to a 
speaker on a topic, on which they could develop some 
conversation. In trying to design an attractive way to describe 
it, I came up with the notion that it ought to be called the 
Conversaz ior.e, Italian spelling. 

It got institutionalized, and we held them regularly enough 
so that it really worked out pretty well, with an informal 
evening meeting for an hour or two, where the students really 
felt that they could come in and meet the faculty in a friendly 
informal atmosphere. We usually served coffee and donuts or 
sweet rolls as refreshments. 


Lage: And this was just graduate students, or would it include 


Kendrick: We really didn't have any undergraduates. We had a graduate 

program, but we didn't have any undergraduate teaching. Plant 
pathology offers in some institutions an undergraduate degree, 
but it doesn't really lend itself to an undergraduate degree 
because you have to get so much background, so much biology 
first. By the time you get all of the botany, the chemistry and 
the microbiology and all you really need before you begin to 
study abnormal botany, you've finished your four years. So 
there's not a lot of room left in an undergraduate curriculum to 
put enough plant pathology into it to get a degree in plant 
pathology. So we didn't pursue the undergraduate degree; 
fundamentally it's a graduate program. 

I notice once in a while when I see the meeting schedule for 
the Department of Plant Pathology at Riverside that they're still 
meeting for the Cor.versaz ione. 

Lage: That's a nice legacy. 

Kendrick: They probably don't know who introduced the idea. 

Lage: How did you happen to pick that name? Where did the Italian 

name come in? 

Kendrick: Cambridge. They had a Conversaz ione. I don't know why they have 
an Italian name, but it was one of the things I brought back from 
there, and I thought it would be a good idea to try it at Riverside. 

Let me say one more thing about the three departments of 
plant pathology in the University of California. We had a 
practice that started with my father, John Middleton and Dr. 
Gardner at Berkeley, of holding a statewide plant pathology 
conference once a year. That was motivated by a desire of the 
members of the three departments to become better acquainted w ith 
each other, and it was constructed around sessions in which we 
would talk about subjects of interest to the whole group. Since 
this was prior to the time when we at Riverside were engaged in 
teaching, the teaching subjects were not sessions that we would 
participate in, but there would be sessions that were research- 
oriented or policy- orientated, or dealing with budget problems or 
personnel evaluation techniques and policies. 

But the major emphasis was to get better acquainted with one 
another. That continued quite productively. I think it's fallen 
off a little bit nowadays; I don't think they meet more than 
about once every two years, and the attendance tends not to be as 
good as it was in those early years. But during the years that I 
had anything to do with it, we had pretty good attendance. 


Kendrick: We created a small executive group with the three department 

chairs and a representative from each of the three departments. 
This executive committee of six people handled things of common 
interest and need without needing to call everybody together for 
a meeting. So it was an attempt by us, as departments, to 
collaborate and not pursue things that got in one another's way. 
I think it worked out to our advantage that was a 
nonadministratively stimulated effort, although the 
administration at the time certainly didn't discourage us from 
getting together. The entomology department at Berkeley and 
Riverside and Davis also did the same thing, in a little 
different way. 



Active in the Presbyterian Church 

Kendrick: Let's get on to some of the community activities. 
Lage: How large a community was Riverside? 

Kendrick: Well, in 1947 when we arrived in town, the city had a population 
of about 35,000 people. The city boundaries suggested a city 
larger than that, but there was a lot of agriculture inside the 
city limits. It was a long narrow city; distance from the north 
boundary to the southern boundary was nearly eight or ten miles. 
It bordered the Santa Ana River, which is underground most of the 
time, except in flood stages. It's a river that's been sanded up 
through the years of flooding and floodplain activity. The 
channel is perfectly obvious, and it's a fairly wide channel. So 
the city of Riverside was built on the side of the river. 

The community was relatively small, although it was much 
larger than Davis, which was a very small community, not 
exceeding about 1,500 people in those early days when I was 
associated with it. So Riverside was a fairly good-sized 
metropolis when we moved there in 1947. Of course, now it's 
much, much bigger. 

The community activities began for us primarily with our 
association with Calvary Presbyterian Church. When Evelyn and I 
moved to Riverside, we had a difficult time finding a place to 
live. We first lived in a room in the home of the mother of one 
of the subsequent faculty members of Riverside, Mrs. Bingham. 
That gave us a couple of months to look around, and we found a 
two-bedroom duplex in the western part of town about five miles 
from the Citrus Experiment Station. It was very comfortable. 
The other part of it was occupied by Lillian and Bud Bartlett. 
Bud was a member of the entomology department in the Citrus 
Experiment Station so we shared our transportation to work with 
each other. 


Kendrick: Then we decided that we would take the plunge and build our own 

home in 1950. We moved to the eastern part of the city, near the 
city limits. Our property was near the west border of the Citrus 
Experiment Station on a street called Prince Albert Drive. 
That's where we were when we moved to Berkeley in 1968. 

But our beginning association with the city of Riverside 
itself began with our contacts and our attendance at Calvary 
Presbyterian Church, which was a large downtown church, next to 
the community hospital. It was an urban church and had a 
congregation of a large size. Its congregation was made up of a 
pretty good cross-section of Riverside's professional people, 
business persons, doctors, lawyers, bankers, municipal judges, 
county judges, municipal and county school officials. We got 
invited by someone to a group called Mariners, which was a group 
for young couples. That is where we found the various 
professional and business people. 

One of the leaders of that group at that time was the 
secretary of the Riverside Chamber of Commerce, a fellow named 
Chuck [Charles B.] O'Neill. Chuck O'Neill was, like a lot of the 
executive managers of chambers of commerce, a very outgoing 
person, very easy to know and quite friendly. And of course he 
made us feel at home instantly. It's interesting to note that he 
was a vigorous member of the Citizens' University Committee that 
was quite active in the early fifties in trying to persuade the 
Regents to establish the College of Letters and Science at 
Riverside. So he had more than a casual interest in people who 
were from the Citrus Experiment Station. 

And subsequently, Chuck O'Neill was employed by the 
experiment station to be their business manager. 

Lage: Town and gown coming together. 

Kendrick: Town and gown was really coming together quite well. That 
experience of becoming acquainted with a crosssection of 
Riverside very early in our stay introduced us to a number of 
people whom we became friendly with in a social way and led us to 
spend our leisure time with the citizens of Riverside, rather 
than socializing with colleagues whom I was with most of the day. 
I'd have to say that is not the usual way in which the academic 
community relates to one another. They tend to isolate 
themselves among themselves and not mix into the community. 

Well, it wasn't too long, without campaigning for it, that 
Evelyn and I wound up as the chief Mariners. Mariners, I think, 
is a Presbyterian term used to describe the group for young 
married couples. 


Kendrick: You'll also notice how I said it was a group for young married 

couples, which really describes the times of the late forties and 
fifties. It was assumed that most young couples were married, 
not the kind of mixed family relationships which are so common 

But as I had started to say, Evelyn and I found ourselves 
captains of the Mariners I forget what title they called their 
leadership, but within short order, we were the leaders of that 
group. And of course, that gives you a great opportunity to know 
everybody, work with them, and find out what they do and what 
they're interested in. So we quickly became well-known in the 
group, as well as making a lot of friends among a wide array of 
Riverside citizens. 

I became fairly active in the choir. I liked choral wcrk, 
and during most of the years I was in Riverside, I sang in the 
choir. That placed me with another group of people, and I got a 
little better acquainted with the inner workings of a large 
church. This church, as I recall, must have had twelve or 
fifteen hundred members. It was not small. 

I progressed through the various activity groups of the 
church, becoming a deacon and then an elder. I participated in a 
building committee program, and we built the main sanctuary, a 
gothic concrete structure during the time we were there. I 
served on a search committee for the senior minister who presided 
for the significant time that we were in Riverside. The senior 
minister of the church when we joined was Denton Jerow. Denton, 
incidentally, became a neighbor of ours on Prince Albert Drive 
when he retired and built a home just across the street from us; 
we were well-acquainted with him. The minister whom we searched 
for when Denton decided to retire was T. Franklyn Hudson, who was 
the minister of the First Presbyterian Church in Oakland before 
he came to Riverside and spent nearly twenty years as the senior 
minister of the Calvary Presbyterian Church. 

The three choir directors for whom I sang and became well 
acquainted with were Helge Pearson, Roberta Bitgood and Jack 
Schneider, and each one of those added considerably to my musical 

All of this early exposure led to other kinds of activities. 
Evelyn became fairly active, in spite of the fact that we had two 
young adopted children at the time, in Children's League of 
Riverside. That organization was associated with the community 
hospital, Riverside Community Hospital. The primary purpose of 
Children's League was to furnish the children's wing of the 
hospital with amenities to make a hospital stay for children more 
enjoyable and less of a harrowing experience. There were opportu 
nities for social activities for young children, and their mothers. 


Kendrick: We adopted Janet, our daughter, in December of 1949. Her 

birthdate is October 15, 1949. We adopted her brother, Douglas, 
in June of 1952, and his birthdate is March 10, 1952. So by 
1952, when a lot of these activities that I'm describing were 
bubbling along, we had these two- and less than one-year-olds to 
take care of, plus a new home on Prince Albert Drive. We were 
really quite busy and active and happy. It was a good time of 
our lives, to be thoroughly incorporated in the Riverside city, 
its life, and activities. I was busy with my work at the 
experiment station. 

Town and Gown Tensions; Explaining the University to the 

Kendrick: We weren't ignoring our university activities; there was the 

active group called Campus CLub, which I have described earlier 
and in which Evelyn was active. The Campus CLub was important in 
the lives of members of the Citrus Experiment Station because 
through their hospitality committee, Christmas parties, and 
summer picnics the club fostered the family nature of our 
relatively small group of University people. 

Well, Campus Club and the Citizens' University Committee 
were both seeking ways to make the development of the College of 
Letters and Science at Riverside a happy experience. An 
outgrowth of those groups, which didn't replace either one, was 
Town and Gown. We had a Town and Gown organization to develop, 
and that was also a fun experience. The only difficulty was that 
there was a lot of eagerness from the town people to become a 
part of it but not very much participation from the new college 
faculty. There was pretty good participation by the experiment 
station people, but I would say there was meager attendance at 
Town and Gown events by the college faculty. 

Lage: As you've described the new faculty in earlier interviews, I can 

see they might not enter eagerly into the community. 

Kendrick: Well, they were young, and they were oriented towards their own 
academic development and career. I have to say that I think 
there was a little bit of academic snobbery; they felt they were 
a little bit above those town people who were working for a 
living. [laughs] 

Lage: Perhaps they came from a more urban setting 

Kendrick: Well, it was not only that. I think there was an incompatability 
in conversations. It was easy to get angry discourses going 
between someone who felt that they wanted to socialize the city, 


Kendrick: wanted to bay the municipal power supply, buy out Southern 

California Edison and turn over the utilities to a municipally- 
owned organization. I mention that because it became quite an 
issue in the city. One of the early problems that Provost 
Watkins and his administrative colleagues had was to calm down 
some city fathers about what kind of radicalized faculty they 
were assembling on the Riverside campus, who seemed to want to 
bring communism and socialism to this quiet community, which had 
been getting along very comfortably all these years. 

Lage: But at least that does show some interest in community affairs, 

if the faculty was interested 

Kendrick: Well, there were several activists in the sociology department, 
but that's their profession. They search around for these 
opportunities to try and change [laughing] the structures. I 
always chuckled a bit about this because of all the eagerness 
that communities show, usually making a lot of effort to get a 
university or a college campus established in their community 
without realizing the full impact of living with a university as 
a neighbor. Once it's there, it's often an uncomfortable 
relationship because it is the nature of the faculties to be a 
bit disrespectful of traditional institutions. They are a free- 
thinking collection of people; like Judge Bork* in his writings, 
he's provocative and he challenges. Faculties, if they're any 
good, are provocative. They're not necessarily comfortable with 
the status quo unless it involves their own welfare, in which 
case they're well entrenched and defend that status vigorously. 
They don't want any monkeying around with those kinds of changes 
for themselves. But as far as somebody else's situation is 
concerned, or a city government or what-have-you, they (some few 
activists) want to get in and change things so that in their 
minds everybody gets treated fair and equal. 

Lage: Did you find yourself in a role of mediator, or someone who 

explained the 

Kendrick: I found myself in a role of defender of the University, but not 
in the sense that I defended everything it did. What I was 
trying to do was explain what the University was, and that they 
should be glad that they had the academic experience introduced 
into their midst. I was a person who felt that not everything 
that we did in the name of the University or the name of the 
faculty was necessarily correct or right, but I spent a lot of 
time trying to broaden the perspective of my colleagues in the 

* The congressional hearings on the nomination of Robert Bork to 
the IKS. Supreme Court were taking place at the time of this 


Kendrick: community and suggest to them that the members of the faculty had 
every right to express their individual opinions. And that that 
was -i valuable freedom which the citizens ought to cherish. 

A lot of my business and agricultural friends had pretty 
conservative Republican attitudes. It was sort of a "Yes, sir, 
no, sir," attitude about things, and law and order was at the top 
of their list of priorities. Obedience and subservience to 
authority were sort of the order of the day, and you did what the 
boss told you to do. 

Those attitudes are not held in very high regard by a 
faculty. I spent a good deal of my time both socially and in 
other arenas trying to interpret what the faculty was and why it 
was important and proper for them to be questioning traditional 
policies as well as traditional activities. 

Lage: This must have given you great experience for your later work as 

vice president. 

Kendrick: Well, I think it did. I felt rather strongly at Riverside that 
the University was being maligned unnecessarily and that the 
University was more than a football team and a basketball team. 
The Town and Gown did a lot to help in that regard; we had a lot 
of very fun social events. It was not an organization where we 
attempted to hold erudite discussions and meetings, but it was an 
organization which had social events at least twice a year, 
always well attended. The climate of Riverside was such that 
fall gatherings could be held outside in one of the town member's 
large yard. They were looked forward to, particularly by the 
town people, and I always felt it was too bad that more of my 
college faculty colleagues didn't attend so that they could 
engage in informal discourse and arguments. I thought they'd be 
better understood if they would just explain themselves. 

I had a colleague in biochemistry, who tended to be a real 
nonconformist as far as the traditional policies and values in 
society were concerned that is, traditional as far as Riverside 
was concerned. I used to remind him that he lived in a community 
of people who were not all working at the University, and I said, 
"If we could just get the faculty to explain to their neighbors 
why they think what they do is important to them, and begin to 
try and translate what it is that makes the University tick, I 
think we'd be much better understood. Have you ever tried to 
explain to your neighbor why it's important to study the 
translocation of 2,4-D ions across a membrane in a plant? Trying 
to explain, in your neighbor's terms, what it is that drives you 
to have an interest in that kind of investigation?" 


Kendrick: Well, that's only illustrative of the kinds of things that I 
think faculty are not good at. They don't explain why 
professional interests drive them with such dedication into these 
studies. I think they sell short the ability of non-academic 
people to comprehend those sorts of things if they just explain 
to them. Riverside was not unique in having some strained 
relationships with individual members of the faculty, but there 
was a general acceptance of the University as a whole, and 
Provost Watkins was such a lovable person that he could calm 
almost any apprehension that would arise. 

Free Speech Days at Riverside 

Kendrick: You can imagine that when the free speech activities came along, 
in the early and mid-sixties, the events that were happening at 
Berkeley at that time were not solely confined to Berkeley. The 
other campuses began to stir, too. 

[laughs] I recall a request from the Young Communist League 
to hold a meeting on the University campus. I don't recall 
specifically when it was, but I would guess it was in the mid- 
sixties '64, '65 right about the time that Clark Kerr was 
having all kinds of trouble convincing the Regents that denial of 
free speech was going to cause more problems than acquiesing and 
at least trying to control it. 

Well, the event that was proposed at Riverside was a 
particularly controversial event. There was a lot of strong 
feeling about staging this communist speaker to talk about 
whatever was on his mind at the time. I think I was in the 
Kiwanis CLub then. (I joined Kiwanis with some degree of 
reluctance in 1962. I had been approached to join Kiwanis Club 
much earlier than that by one of my closest friends in the 
department, Dr. Merrill Wallace, who had been a member of Kiwanis 
Club for all the years that he was in the department. He was 
another one of these who moved easily in the community. I kind 
of followed Merrill's lead, because I regarded his activities and 
advice rather importantly.) 

I recall spending a lot of time trying to explain to ay 
Kiwanis friends that scheduling a communist talk on the campus 
was not necessarily a bad thing, that it could lead to an 
exposure of the fallacies of communism a lot easier than trying 
to suppress them and keeping them in the dark. I said, "Don't 
overlook the fact that we have a lot of refugees from communist 
countries around here, and they're just dying to undress this 
person. " 


Kendrick: Well, the event was ultimately scheduled over loud protests from 
every quarter, and that's precisely what happened. We had a 
member in our department who was a combination laboratory 
technician-graduate student, who had escaped communist domination 
in World War II. 

Lage: From what country? 

Kendrick: Yugoslavia. He had been captured in World War II and forced to 
serve in the Russian Army. He was the most violent anti- 
communist person I ever saw, and I think he even joined the John 
Birch Society. I said, "Well, I can understand John being a 
member of the John Birch Society because he had had 
excruciatingly difficult experiences with communists and 
communist domination." 

One thing I found out was that those refugees from the 
communist countries came out of the woodwork at that meeting, and 
they really laced into this person who was expounding the virtues 
of communism and the communist way of life. It was a real eye- 
opener, I thought, to the value of free speech, which a lot of 
people had feared would result in a pied piper reaction. So to 
my Kiwanis colleagues I said, "You sell the academic community 
short if you think they're a bunch of pied piper mice and 
children. They don't follow just because somebody says 'Come on 
and I'll lead you.' Their life is spent questioning established 
dogma, and if they're any good as faculty members, they'll study 
the issue very carefully before they arrive at any particular 
commitment. " 

Membership in Community Organizations 

Kendrick: Well, backing up a little bit, Evelyn's activities in Children's 
League and Tick-Tockers (a mothers and daughters organization for 
community service) led to her being asked to join the Junior Aid, 
a young women's group composed of wives and single women 
associated with the active social structure of the community. 
Membership was coveted by many of the young ladies because of its 
social status. That was not true of Evelyn, -however. That 
organization later became affiliated with the national Junior 
League group and changed its name to the Junior League of 
Riverside. It is an organization which raises money for good 
causes. You'll recall I earlier said that it was in one of these 
Junior-Aid-sponsored follies, a fundraiser, that the quartet I 
was a part of appeared. 


Kendrick: Well, that led to further exposure to a little broader-based 

collection of Riverside people and citizens, and placed us cr.ce 
again in another social structure of the town. It broadened our 
acquaintances even further. 

As I had mentioned earlier, I had finally yielded to the 
pressure to join Kiwanis dub in 1962. I had resisted doing it 
because of their attendance requirement. I was out of town a 
good deal with my professional activities, and I felt that I 
wasn't going to be able to maintain their attendance requirements 
easily. But because I had so many friends, both through the 
church and through the Victoria Country Club, which we joined 
primarily for golf and swimming, in the late fifties I gave in 
and joined them in Kiwanis membership. 

My closest friend, Sheldon Pouley, now deceased, who was a 
businessman in Riverside, and Cub Callis, who lived across the 
street from us and worked for the school system, said to ce one 
day, "You don't have to do anything if you join the Kiwanis Club. 
Just attend the luncheons." I mistakenly believed him. Within 
about a month, I was introducing the speaker, and another month I 
was the song leader, aided by Homer Chapman, who was the pianist 
for our quartet, as well as for Kiwanis. He was also a long-time 
Kiwanian, another person who mixed well in town, and a member of 
the Calvary Presbyterian Church. He was chairman of the soils 
department and was Dan Aldrich's chair at the time Dan Aldrich 
was in the department. 

It seemed that my notoriety as a quartet member dictated 
that I should become the song leader at Kiwanis, so with Homer at 
the piano, I felt that would be easy to do; Homer could cover up 
almost any mistake that a person made because he was such a good 
pianist. Anyway, within about six weeks, following the advice 
that I didn't have to do anything in Kiwanis, I found myself more 
than just a little active in the club. That led to a broader 
exposure of acquaintanceship; we had the usual events that 
Kiwanis (Hubs have. I ultimately found myself on the board of 
directors for the club, and at the time I had to resign and move 
to Berkeley as the vice president, I was the first vice president 
of the club, slated to move into the presidency in the following 
year. So 1968 extracted me from that particular commitment, 
which I had been looking forward to. 

When I moved to Berkeley, I checked in with the Kiwanis dub 
at Berkeley and went to one meeting and found that it was not 
anything like the club I had left. It was the last time I've had 
any affiliation with any service club. 


Evelyn's School Board Service 

Kendrick: Back to Riverside. In 1964, there was a vacancy that occurred on 
the Riverside City School Board. On our street, Prince Albert 
Drive, there was a good representation from the school system of 
Riverside. Bill Noble, president of the Riverside City Community 
College lived two doors from us, and a little further down the 
street lived Bruce Miller, who was the superintendent of the city 
schools. Cub Callis, in charge of construction for the school 
system, lived across the street from us. I have already 
mentioned that Denton Jerow, the retired minister of Calvary 
Presbyterian Church, lived across the street from us. A long 
time acquaintance, Robert Metcalf, who was chairman of the 
Department of Entomology at this time, was a next-door neighbor. 
Bob is now at the University of Illinois and is about ready to 
retire. He was the golfer who got me into playing golf. 

Jim Pitts, who was a professor of chemistry and at that time 
the chairman of the Department of Chemistry, also lived on our 
street. The section of Prince Albert Drive where we lived was a 
dead-end street, so it was a self-contained neighborhood. It was 
a street where the people had a strong feeling of community; 
everybody on the street would participate in Fourth of July 
events, when we would close off the street and have a street 
party. Contrary to the kind of busy, involved urban living that 
some people endure, this was not the case on that street. 
Everybody was well acquainted with everybody else. 

In 1964, when a vacancy on the Riverside City School Board 
occurred, Evelyn was asked to fill that vacancy. We were both 
surprised and flattered by the request. Evelyn was a little 
hesitant to accept, but I could see that she was interested in 
serving on the board. I said, "That's a good idea." So she 
accepted the invitation and began to serve as a member of the 
five-person Riverside City School Board. Thus began another 
exposure to a broader aspect of community activities. 

She served with much dedication and gave a lot of time to 
her board duties. Our children were old enough to not need close 
attention. They were still in school and somewhat embarrassed by 
having their mother on the city school board. 

When her term expired in 1966, she was then required to run 
for election, which was a new experience for us, and one that she 
was not really thrilled about, but she did decide to stand for 
election, nevertheless. She ran with the very popular president 
of the board, whose name is Art Littleworth. Art is a lawyer 
with the firm Best, Best, and Kreiger, a leading law firm in 


Kendrick: Arthur Littlew or th was a very compassionate, competent, and 

intelligent leader of that board. It was about 1965 when a de 
facto segregated school in Riverside was burned. It was never 
proven that it was caused by arson, but most people were rather 
certain that it was. That brought to immediate attention 
Riverside's problem with segregation. There were two kinds of 
segregation of schools in Riverside: one was Hispanic, or 
Mexican, and the other was black. These schools were not 
constructed to be segregated, but because they were built in 
neighborhoods that became dominated by either Hispanic or Mexican 
residents, on the one hand, or black, on the other, they became 
de facto segregated schools. It was the black school that got 

Lage: And this was the time of the Watts riot, wasn't it? 

Kendrick: It was about the time of the Watts riots, yes. The school that 
got burned was the one that our youngsters went to. Then the 
question became, what to do? We could rebuild the school as it 
was and go on as if nothing had taken place, or try to do 
something about the segregation. This board, with its leadership 
and the school administration, really moved out ahead of most of 
California at that time and designed a one-way busing system to 
move the students into a more integrated school experience. I 
must admit that it was not all spontaneous on the part of the 
school board; they had a lot of noisy sessions in which the black 
community was saying, "You're not going to force us back into 
this situation again." So there was a lot of acrimony. 

Wilson Riles at the time was a member of the State 
Department of Education, and he came down and helped counsel the 
board in how to handle this problem. The one-way busing system 
was designed to disperse the minorities into the previously 
white-dominated schools, and the school system and the board 
members spent an entire summer counseling with the parents of the 
youngsters in those receiving schools, preparing them for this 
event. It was a tremendous effort. When it came time to get the 
busing underway, it went just as smoothly as it could, with no 
adverse events that we were aware of. 

Lage: Did this solve the problem of the Hispanic schools? 

Kendrick: I was going to come to that. The Mexicans did not really want to 
be dispersed. They were the least enthusiastic about losing 
their sense of community. The two areas where these schools were 
segregated were not close to one another. The Hispanic Mexicans 
lived in an area called Casa Blanca. While it was not an area 
that was very affluent, it had a lot of amenities that they were 
proud of. It did have a feeling of community. I think there was 
some sympathy in trying to preserve that sense of community, but 


Kendrick: of course the commitment to desegregate the segregated schools 

was pretty strong, and to the extent that they could, they bused 
them into a more integrated situation. 

That was a very indelible experience as far as the board 
members and those of us who were living with that situation were 
concerned. Riverside got a lot of publicity over it, and I think 
it was a feather in their caps to be able to say that they faced 
up to an issue and really tried to do something about it. 

Well, Evelyn was re-elected. It was not a very close 
election. And she was embarked upon her first fully elected 
four-year term and really enjoying it quite thoroughly. One year 
she and a school board colleague found themselves active in the 
United Fund drive; they co-chaired the residential campaign. 
That was just another example of the kind of community 
involvement that we've engaged in. 

An Unexpected Job Offer from President Hitch 

Kendrick: Then came the rather unexpected invitation to me to meet with 
President [Charles] Hitch and Harry Wellman one afternoon 
following a meeting of this Capital Outlay Review Board [CORE] 
one of the systemwide administrative committees on which I served 
by virtue of my vice chairmanship of the Academic Council and 
Assembly. The board was chaired by Harry Wellman. 

That meeting, I think, occurred sometime in late February or 
early March. President Hitch asked me if I would consider 
joining his staff as the vice president, agricultural sciences. 

Lage: This actual invitation was not something you were prepared for? 

Kendrick: No. I didn't have any idea why he wanted to meet with me. My 
mind was on, as I think I've said earlier, what was going to 
happen to the College of Agricultural Science at Riverside. 
Knowing that Boyce was going to retire July 1, and in February 
his successor had not been designated, my focus was on that 
position, because I was a department chair with five years' 
experience and a lot of activity on the campus. I really was 
concerned about who might be the next leader, and was fully 
prepared to say, "Yes, I'll do it," if somebody wanted to ask me. 

In those days extreme search committees were not used, and 
they didn't advertise for applicants all over the United States. 
Faculty advisory committees were used to advise the 
administration when they were trying to identify candidates. 
That was pretty standard. But there was not a lot of 


Kendrick: advertising. Candidates generally didn't apply for positions. 

These search and advise committees functioned confidentially and 
quietly assembled a list of potential candidates, made 
evaluations, after looking at the curriculum vitaes, and all 
pertinent information they could gather about each candidate. 
Ultimately, the committee would come to some conclusions and 
report to whomever appointed them in the first place. I 
participated on several of those myself, such as for the vice 
chancellor for Riverside and others. They are very helpful 
committees as far as administration is concerned because they do 
the work for you. They screen and rank the candidates. I 
presume Hitch and Wellman used one of these committees, but I had 
no idea that I was on their list of candidates or even being 
considered for that position. 

What Harry Wellman said to me at the 00 RB meeting was, 
"Charlie Hitch would like to meet with you about four o'clock 
this afternoon." We were meeting here in Berkeley. This was in 
one of these periods when I was all over the state nearly every 
week. The CORB plan of meetings in the winter and early spring 
was to go to every campus and listen to the campus present their 
capital needs for the next budget. 

Well, when Harry said, "President Hitch would like to meet 
you at four o'clock," I thought, "Oh no, what have I done now?" 
[laughter] Hitch had been appointed president in January of 
1968. The previous year Harry Wellman had been acting president 
after dark Kerr had been relieved of his presidency the previous 
January in 1967. That was the period when I was fairly active in 
the Academic Council and on the statewide budget committee. 

Receiving this invitation to join President Hitch's 
administration at that time kind of hit me right between the 
eyes, and I said, "Well, I'd better think about it." It sounded 
terrific at the time; I was so surprised that I had to reflect 
upon it. And of course it meant a major change was being 
proposed in our lives, because we were thoroughly involved in 
our Riverside connections, and I felt badly that it would disrupt 
Evelyn's activities. She was just nicely launched in the 
official activities of the school board and a recognized citizen 
in the community. 

But that will be the next story. It's obvious that I 
decided to accept and moved into that vice presidency the first 
of April of 1968. 

Lage : It's interesting that with this method of selection, there's no 

interview process. 

Kendrick: There wasn't any interview 


Lage: To see what your view of matters were, and what direction you 

wanted to take it in 

Kendrick: You're right. I often reflected and wondered a little bit about 
that. That's certainly not the way you go about appointing 
people now. Now you bring in your final candidates for 
interviews, and let them make their own case. But I've often 
wondered if Charlie Hitch had any real thoughts about where he 
wanted the agricultural program to go, or if he had any 
particular thing that he wanted accomplished. I think he knew 
that it was a fairly large and significant internal organization, 
but he had Harry Wellman to advise him about the agricultural 
needs and how to put its administration together. 

He had also at that time identified whom he wanted as his 
successor to Harry Wellman as the vice president, and that was 
Jack Oswald. Jack Oswald at that time was president of the 
University of Kentucky. Jack, as I related in an earlier 
interview, was one of my father's early graduate students, and 
another plant pathologist. The two of us had had a close, almost 
family, relationship. So as far as Charlie Hitch was concerned, 
by bringing to a very top-level administrative position somebody 
who understood agriculture, he didn't really have to pay personal 
attention to that area of his responsibility. All he needed was 
somebody down at the operational level who came from agriculture 
and, I guess, who was not controversial. I think at that point, 
I was pretty noncontroversial because nobody knew what position I 
would take on agricultural issues. 

Lage: Even yourself? 

Kendrick: I hadn't even thought about it. I described for President Hitch 
what I was trying to do with the department at Riverside to 
broaden its outlook on its immediate problems, to introduce a 
capacity to pursue the basic aspects of research that were 
related to the department, and to pay attention to its mission. 
But I really hadn't given much thought to where I felt the 
University's total agricultural program ought to be headed. 

There was a little discussion about that in the interview 
[laughs], and I suppose if I had been a complete bust in terms of 
not being very articulate, completely devoid of ideas, that he 
could have backed off without saying, "Well, I think you're the 
one we'd like to have run this program." But I have reflected a 
little bit on my experience with CORE and some discussions with 
Harry Wellman 

Lage: Recently? 


Kendrick: No, not recently, but in trying to figure out "why me?" I'm 

really kind of ahead of my Riverside experience here, but not too 
much I wanted to mention that in addition to the Kiwanis dub. 
the church, the Victoria dub, that I was trying to be a good 
father for my son. I was active in the YMCA and the Indian Guide 
Program, which was a father-son program, in Little League 
baseball, in trout fishing, and other activities 

Lage : I don't know how you did it all, frankly. 

Kendrick: that fathers and mothers try to participate in with their 

children. Well, you do it because you're young. You don't run 
out of energy. When I look back on it now, I just don't have the 
energy to put into that sort of thing anymore. But it actually 
was a fun time of our lives. We were totally engaged in useful 
community associations as well as in a lot of fun social events 
and a very satisfying professional career. 

Now, to finish the thought that I had on my reflections on 
some conversations with Harry Wellman. Most of us thought that 
the obvious candidate to succeed Maurice Peterson as the 
University dean of agriculture was the dean at Davis, James 
Meyer. We didn't quite understand why things dragged on so long 
and why his appointment was held up. 

One time during a lunch hour, Harry and I were walking 
somewhere, and he asked me where I thought the headquarters of 
the division ought to be located. Then Harry went on and said, 
"Do you think it could function effectively at Davis?" I said, 
"Well, I suppose it could function " I recall very vividly my 
response. I said, "I expect it could function effectively almost 
anywhere you put it, and certainly could operate well from 
Davis. " 

I said, "I think there is one problem with locating it at 
Davis, and that is that Riverside will feel that they always are 
going to get what's left over. That may not be the case, but the 
appearance and the perception is going to be there. They have 
struggled mightily to try and get out from under the notion that 
Riverside is sort of second-best and it would like to be 
recognized on its own without comparisons. If the headquarters 
for the division were at Davis, there is just no way to avoid the 
fact that it will appear to be disadv ant aged. At least where the 
division's office is now, in the President's Office, Riverside 
feels it has equal standing with Berkeley and Davis when its 
needs are being considered." And, of course, it was well known 
that Al Boyce as the director of the Citrus Experiment Station, 
and the dean of the college, was very persuasive and successful 
in presenting his case for resources, often outbidding the other 
two campuses for support of a program, a position, or a building. 


Kendrick: And then that was the end of the conversation. Harry didn't say, 
"I think you' re right." He was j ust f ishir.g. And I, in 
reflection, think the position of vice president was offered to 
Jim Meyer, who, true to his conviction to this day, felt that the 
headquarters for the division ought to be on the Davis campus, 
and made that a condition of his acceptance of the appointment. 

Lage: But you don't know that for a fact? 

Kendrick: I've never talked to Jim about this, and I'm just speculating 

about that matter. Jim was never very reluctant to express his 
views that the Davis campus ought to house the headquarters of 
the division. And as a matter of fact, at the tail end of my 
activity, we had planned to move parts of the University's 
division administration to the Davis campus, with support from 
President David Gardner. We'd better not get into that today. 

Lage: Harry Wellman apparently didn't want the division to move to 


Kendrick: No. Harry did not want to headquarter it at Davis. And for what 
reason I don't know maybe the same reason that I have indicated. 
I think it's a persuasive reason, and I have always felt that the 
division's leadership, top leadership, needed to be a part of the 
President's Office as long as there was a committment to have it 
led by a vice president. 


On the other hand, Claude Hutchison, the longtime dean of 
agriculture, specifically set out to make Davis the headquarters 
for the agriculture program of the University. They went so far 
as to design the headquarters building for the university dean on 
the Davis campus. The buildings never got built, but all of the 
plans were in motion for it. I think I've read some of the 
history that points that out. There are a lot of long memories 
in Davis, and they have felt they were promised that 
agriculture's management and leadership would be on that campus, 
and that it was blocked or stopped for various reasons. Fart of 
it was financial, part of it was political, and part was 
intrigue, I'm sure. 

But nevertheless, there was a change in plans, and it's 
always been a source of tension between the systemwide 
administration of the agricultural program and the Davis campus 
administration. And there has been an interesting tension also 
in Riverside, as people loyal to that campus strongly advise and 
work diligently to be sure that the headquarters does not move to 
the Davis campus. 

Lage: Where does the Berkeley campus fit into all of this? 


Kendrick: Berkeley tends to support the view that the headquarters ought to 
be in University Hall, but they don't feel nearly as threatened 
by it. I think it's because the agricultural program or. the 
Berkeley campus is a relatively small part of the total campus 
program. At Riverside, it's a significant part of the total 
activity, and if they were to somehow lose their resources, or 
have them cut back, or not have any sympathy towards their needs, 
they'd be in real trouble. 



Representing the University-Wide Faculty during Years of 

[Date of Interview: October 6. 1987] ## 

Kendrick: I want to talk further about that last year or two in Riverside 
to explain why I didn't arrive in the systemwide administration 
with any fixed agenda. In reviewing the record, I find that my 
statewide senate responsibilities were a little more extensive 
than I earlier had indicated. In '66 '67, I was a member of the 
Academic Council. And then in '67-'68, I was the vice chairman 
of the council, expecting during '68- '69 that I would chair the 
council and assume all the responsibilities that the systemwide 
senate chairman had with the President's Office and his 
administration. The duties were often divided between the chair 
and the vice chairman in such a way that they kept both of us 
busy, but not necessarily by simultaneously attending the same 
meetings except for meetings of the Regents, the Academic Council 
and the Academic Assembly. 

Robley Williams was the chairman of the Academic, Council in 
'67-'68. Robley was professor of biochemistry, and a member of 
the faculty in the Virus Laboratory here in Berkeley. Both of us 
were appointed members on the administration's Budget Review 
Committee and the Capital Outlay Review Board. Those bodies were 
busy in the late fall and spring because the University was 
building the record for the next year's budget requests. The 
faculty participated in that process through the appointments of 
the chair and the vice chair to those administrative committees. 
That experience provided me with a good deal of practical exposure 
to just how the University budget was constructed and who made the 
decisions concerning it. I quickly found out that Vice President 
Wellman was the one who had great influence in the outcome of the 
President's decisions. I had known from previous observations 
that he was really a very good administrator and quite competent 
in sorting out the real needs of the entire University. 



Lage: I would like you to make a few comments about your experience 

with the Board of Regents before we get into the vice presidency. 

Kendrick: I was mostly a sideline observer as the vice chairman of the 

Academic Council in '67-'68, which was the year following Clark 
Kerr's dismissal as president, in January, 1967, soon after 
Ronald Reagan took office as governor. 

Lage: Harry Wellman was acting president in 1967, and Charles Hitch 

came as president in January, 1968. 

Kendrick: Yes. Charlie Hitch was at that time vice president for business 
and finance. The Regents initiated a search for a successor to 
Kerr, which took a while to complete. So during that year Harry 
occupied the President's Office, in kind of a dual capacity as 
his own vice president as well as the acting president of the 
University. He never was given the title of President of the 
University, however. The decision to appoint Charlie Hitch 
president was made at a meeting of the Regents at UCLA that I 

Lage: Did the Academic Council have any kind of advisory role in the 


Kendrick: They certainly did. Not the council per se, but the faculty did. 
There was a specially appointed group of faculty who served on 
that selection committee and participated in the review of 
candidates. So faculty participation was strong even at that 
time. After Vice President Charles Hitch was asked to assume the 
presidency on the first of January, 1968, he asked Harry Wellman 
to help him as his vice president until he could identify a more 
permanent appointment. Harry did, but Harry had officially re 
tired by the time, so in a sense he was recalled to active duty. 

All of this took place at the same time that there was a 
vacancy in the university deanship of agriculture, which was the 
period when Harry was the acting president. He wasn't about, I 
guess, to make any permanent commitment to the administration of 
agriculture until the presidency situation was settled. Which 
accounts, as we've said earlier, for why the vacancy just sort of 
disappeared from sight at least in my mind it did. Charlie 
quickly assembled a group of vice presidents to support his 
administration. I don't know whether initially there were seven 
or nine of us; there were quite a few. At one time we had nine 
vice presidents. We used to refer to the fact that we had a 
baseball team of vice presidents. At another time in my career 
we had a basketball team of vice presidents, when we were down to 
five. We never had fewer than five vice presidents during my 
time in the President's Office. 


Lage: These changes were made by the various presidents? 

Kendrick: The changes occurred with the various presidents, to reflect 

their concepts of the kind of vice presidential administration 
they wanted. 

As I said earlier, Jack Oswald was asked by President Hitch 
to return to the University of California as his executive vice 
president. Jack's selection as executive vice president, at the 
time I was invited to become the vice president for agriculture, 
had some persuasive influence in my own decision because I 
looked forward to working with him as a part of the President's 

Lage: You went way back with him. 

Kendrick: Yes, our relationship went back to about 1940, when he arrived to 
enroll in graduate school at Davis. So it was an added 
inducement for me to make up my mind to take the vice presidency. 

Producing an Academic Plan for Riverside 

Kendrick: But before we get into the vice presidency, I want to describe 
another activity at Riverside which kept my attention away from 
the vacancies in the university-wide administration. What was 
happening at Riverside kept my attention focused there because it 
was of more immediate concern and had a greater potential impact 
on my future role on the Riverside campus. 

Within a year or two after Ivan Hinderaker was appointed to 
succeed Herman Spieth as chancellor of the Riverside campus, he 
appointed a committee to draw up an academic plan for Riverside, 
and I was asked to serve on that committee. That committee was 
chaired by Professor [Donald] Sawyer, who was a professor of 
chemistry in the Department of Chemistry, in the Division of 
Physical Sciences. That was an experience that I valued highly 
because it complemented the assignment that Chancellor Spieth had 
given me earlier in 1959 to design a physical development plan 
for the campus which planned to reach a student body size of 
5,000 students, without overlooking the fact that in due course 
it would go to 10,000 students. 

Participating in a committee that was giving attention to 
academic planning, which really should have been completed before 
discussing a plan for physical development, was an opportunity to 
add to my experience. It was also a bonus to me because the 
committee membership was drawn mostly from the faculty of the 
College of Letters and Science. There were one or two of us from 


Kendrick: agriculture; we were called aggie faculty. It also gave me an 
opportunity to think more deeply and more comprehensively about 
undergraduate education. Some of us traveled to other 
institutions to look at some innovative programs. I recall going 
to Wisconsin with a colleague to look at some University 
Extension programs they had back there. We produced what I 
thought was really a challenging and good report, but it didn't 
cause much more than a ripple on the pond. 

Lage: Why was that, do you think? 

Kendrick: I wish I knew. 

Lage: Did you propose anything that was unusual or ? 

Kendrick: No, but I guess we were too early for our times. What we really 
were proposing was some emphasis on general education. And since 
undergraduate education is the hot topic today 

Lage: They might go back to that plan. 

Kendrick: No, the one thing the faculty does not do well is to go back to 
earlier reports. They prefer to look ahead. They think highly 
of libraries, but they don't think very highly of past academic 
plans. The plans are only valuable as historical records. 

Lage: So it was more of a learning experience for you than 

Kendrick: I think the assignment was good for the committee members, but 
the plan didn't have much impact on our colleagues who were 
expected to implement it. That's a peculiarity of plans, and 
it's followed me in all of my experience. Academic plans have a 
brief period of influence, and the biggest influence they have is 
on the people who develop the plan. If the people who were 
engaged in developing the plan wind up with some administrative 
responsibility, then the plan may have an impact. But if you're 
just producing a plan for somebody else who has the 
responsibility for implementation, forget it. I don't think it's 
worth the time it takes to put it all together. 

Lage: And producing an academic plan was your first charge, you said, 

as you came into the vice presidency. 

Kendrick: That's right, and I've got some things to say about that because 
it proves my point. 


Value of Shared Governance 

Kendrick: Well, that committee was followed soon by another committee that 
Chancellor Hinderaker put together to study the reorganization of 
the College of Letters and Science. The College of Letters and 
Science still consisted of the four major divisions, that was put 
together by Provost Watkins and his advisory group. But the 
college seemed overly organized for the numbers of students 
enrolled at that time, so there needed to be some sort of 
amalgamation, and the chancellor instituted the committee to 
study the potential amalgamation of the units. 

That committee came up with a recommendation that I thought 
was brilliant and supported thoroughly. I didn't have any direct 
input to the committee because I was not asked to serve on it. I 
would willingly have done so, if asked, but I was pretty involved 
in university-wide responsibilities then, so it's easy to 
understand why these kinds of assignments were passed around as 
much as possible. I think I recall that we discussed earlier why 
a few of us became so involved in so many things at Riverside. 
It was because the campus was small, the faculty was relatively 
of a small size, the numbers of senior faculty were even smaller, 
but the senate organization and the administrative needs were 
just as complicated and the committees were just as numerous as 
they were on large campuses where they had a lot of people to 
share in those many responsibilities. You would never find 
somebody on the Berkeley campus or the UCLA campus being exposed 
to as many things as I was on the Riverside campus. The fact 
that we didn't have enough people to go around to serve in those 
different capacities at Riverside meant that a few of us had to 
serve in a lot of different capacities from time to time. And in 
the long run, it worked out to my advantage by giving me a 
practical education in most aspects of how the University runs, 
how it's organized, and how decision-making evolves. It was a 
better orientation and practical training ground than I could 
have received in any well-organized managerial workshop, that you 
might find in a business school or another group responsible for 
training administrators. 

Lage : Your background touched on every area in this system of shared 


Kendrick: Yes. It also gave me an understanding and appreciation for the 
value of the faculty, and the role that the faculty can play in 
the shared governance of the administration of the University of 
California. I have always held in high regard faculty 
participation in these kinds of decisions. The faculty doesn't 
make any decisions, but they sure let you know about bum 
decisions you might make, or try to persuade you into making 
decisions that 


Lage: They give a lot of formal advice. 

Kendrick: It's advise and consent, just like the U.S. Senate. It's advice 
you ignore at your peril. They can make life miserable for you 
if you treat them lightly, but there is no reason to do so. You 
recognize the faculty prejudices, and if you give them their 
chance to contribute, they'll respect you for it, and they'll 
understand if you have to make different choices. So I never 
felt that I was disadvantaged by taking things to the faculty and 
asking their participation in helping me administer the 
responsibility that I had. 

The College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences: 
Cons for Agricultural Research 

Pros and 

Kendrick: Well, the reorganization committee came up with a scheme to 
amalgamate all the science units into one college; all the 
science units, that is, except the Department of Psychology, 
which was an experimental psychology department rather than a 
social psychology group. They didn't want to foresake their 
liberal arts origin, I guess. 

Lage: They stayed with social sciences? 

Kendrick: They stayed with social sciences. But the recommendation, and 
ultimately the action, resulted in the formation of the College 
of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, which was euphemistically 
referred to in kind of an uncomplimentary way as the College of 
Nags. The units included in that college were taken both from 
the physical sciences and the life sciences. It included the 
departments of physics, chemistry, statistics, mathematics, 
geology, and since there were no departments in life sciences 
such as zoology, bacteriology, microbiology, or botany, it was 
incorporated as a Department of Biology. 

Lage: Did they departmentalize this later? 

Kendrick: Yes. 

Lage: But that was after your time. 

Kendrick: That was after my time. As a matter of fact, they later created 
a Department of Plant Sciences and moved all the botanists out of 
the biology group into the Department of Plant Sciences, so the 
Department of Plant Sciences at Riverside consists of experiment 
station horticulturalists, agronomists, pure botanists, plant 
physiologists, and the like. It is former Dean W. Mack Bugger's 
home department. 


Kendrick: Well, I'm a little ahead of my story. That amalgamation was to 
take place July 1 of 1968. It's easy to understand why my 
attention was on what was going to happen at Riverside and how 
that was going to affect the Department of Plant Pathology, and 
how that might affect Jim Kendrick, and what role I might have in 
bringing that recommendation into fruition. 

Lage: What effect did the amalgamation eventually have on the 

experiment station? 

Kendrick: One of the assets of the amalgamation was that it involved the 
experiment station members of the College of Agriculture, the 
forerunner of the new college, in a viable undergraduate program 
for the first time. It brought a lot of attention to 
undergraduate education into that unit, because those units which 
were formerly in the life and physical sciences had large 
undergraduate enrollments, while the departments in the College 
of Agricultural Sciences had been largely concerned with graduate 

Well, the viability of the College of Nags Natural and 
Agricultural Sciences was not threatened, but it certainly had 
an effect on its reception by both the agricultural members of 
the unit and the external farmer constituency which were 
accustomed to being served by the agricultural research group in 
the Citrus Experiment Station which by that time had been 
renamed the Citrus Research Center. While this amalgamated 
organization was theoretically sound, in my judgment, it didn't 
result in very many practical accomplishments as far as 
agriculture was concerned, because I'm not aware of very many 
undergraduate students coming out of the College of Natural and 
Agricultural Sciences with a commitment to a career in the 
agricultural sciences. 

Lage: You didn't get many students to go on in graduate school under 

the agricultural program? 

Kendrick: No. There were a few people in agriculture already who did not 
have an undergraduate degree, who enrolled and got the Bachelor 
of Science degree in that college, but I don't think that we 
enticed very many students who had enrolled in that college as 
undergraduates to pursue agricultural subjects. Probably that 
was because the faculty in the agriculture departments didn't 
really participate very much in undergraduate instruction. So it 
was not just a lack of student interest; you can attribute some 
of the failure to reach undergraduates to the lack of 
undergraduate teaching participation by the older, traditional 
agricultural faculty, as well as the fact that those faculty 
members who came from the College of Letters and Science weren't 
about to suggest that their undergraduate students pursue 
agricultural subjects. They wanted the good students to go on in 


Kendrick: their own fields of science. So all in all, the big challenge 
was to try and amalgamate into a productive unit two very 
different kinds of faculties. It was initially an organizational 
marriage of convenience rather than a rich educational 

I thought this reorganized college was going to be first- 
class because it contained the elements of the kind of 
undergraduate preparation that I had had in Berkeley in the 
College of Letters and Science in the magnificent major called 
general curriculum. I never felt that I suffered any in my 
preparation for my career. 

Lage: Your comments remind me a little bit of some of the things Henry 

Vaux said about the College of Natural Resources, the formation 
of that. He had high hopes that the reorganization, restructur 
ing, would lead to a rethinking of subject matter, with more 
interdisciplinary thrusts. 

Kendrick: Didn 1 t work. 

Lage: But people just went on as they had. The changes were 

structural, just an administrative reorganization. 

Kendrick: Exactly, it was an administrative convenience. That's about all 
it was. You're right. Henry is one of the wisest men I ever had 
the good fortune to have as a colleague. He's a keen observer. 

Lage: Yes, he is. 

Administrative Organization of College and Experiment Station 

Kendrick: The next problem facing this amalgamation was to find leadership. 
The traditional agricultural constituency was not all that 
thrilled about this amalgamation. They felt it turns out they 
were right that this would divert the attention of the faculty 
in the experiment station away from their needs. The 
amalgamation had another effect on the program of the experiment 
station in that the addition of new faculty in the experiment 
station took a little different twist because young men and women 
who were more compatible with the goals of College of Letters and 
Science-type faculty than they were with the fully committed 
research faculty that the experiment station had traditionally 
added to its faculty were recruited. 

Also, faculty are quick learners. They learn that they get 
ahea<' almost exclusively by how many good fundamental research 
papers they publish in their professional refereed journals, and 


Kendrick: not how many field plots they put out, from which it is difficult 
to accumulate very many good professional journal articles. It's 
certainly possible to do so, but it takes a longer period of time 
to accomplish. You usually can have only one crop a year, or one 
birth cycle per year if you're working with farm animals. If 
you're a citrus breeder, you have to wait several years to get a 
crop and find out what you've got. That's not the kind of 
research program that gets you ahead in the academic world. 

So that had an influence on the attention that the faculty 
was giving to the citrus, ornamental, vegetable, field crop, and 
soil irrigation problems which characterized the southern 
Californian agriculture scene. 

The man ultimately selected to be the dean was Professor 
Willie Mack Dugger. It's not William; it's Willie. A professor 
of plant physiology, he came to Riverside from Florida to 
investigate the plant physiological disturbances caused by smog. 
So he really was brought there in an agricultural program. 

Lage: Was he part of that air pollution group? 

Kendrick: He was part of the Air Pollution Research Center that was Mack's 
area of affiliation but he also had a faculty appointment in the 
Division of Life Sciences. There again, we return to the small 
orbit that the academic community finds itself in sometimes, 
because Mack Dugger was a member of that plant physiology 
graduate course that Dan Aldrich and Jim Kendrick took in 1942 in 
Madison, Wisconsin. 

And you all ended up at the University in administrative roles. 

Yes. We didn't learn much administration while we were there in 
that particular course [laughter]. His appointment was not 
really received with much enthusiasm by the agricultural 
constituency because he was unknown to them. Even though he had 
as much agriculture background as I had, he wasn't fortunate 
enough to be identified with an agricultural department. He was 
in the Division of Life Sciences, while I was in an aggie 
department called plant pathology. 


Kendrick: By that time the constituency persuaded Hinderaker and Wellman 
that they would be better off, when appointing Dean Boyce's 
successor, to separate the deanship from the associate 
directorship of the Agricultural Experiment Station. It was 
customary to have the dean and the associate director of the 
experiment station one and the same person. One of the 
University of California's confusing anomalies was that there was 
no director of the Citrus Research Center because the center was 

Kendrick : 


Kendrick : merely one of the units of the University-wide Agricultural 

Experiment Station. Deans also carried the titles of associate 
director of the Agricultural Experiment Station serving under the 
director of the AES in a capacity similar to a member of a board 
of directors of the experiment station. 

The confusion developed because as I said there was no 
director of this Citrus Research Center, but rather an associate 
director University-wide, who was responsible for the local unit 
and who was resident at Riverside. The Citrus Research Center 
and its predecessor the Citrus Experiment Station had gained a 
worldwide reputation of its own. So it was often perceived by 
those outside the University as a separate unit from the 
University's Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Lage: It had more of an identity than just as a local unit of the 

Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Kendrick: It had an identity all its own. That provided confusion as far 
as our internal administration was concerned because we did not 
have multiple experiment stations, we only had units of the 
single University experiment station. The sign on the Citrus 
Research Center door said, "Associate Director of the Citrus 
Research Center and Agricultural Experiment Station." Visitors 
would be confused because they expected to meet the person in 
charge, who presumably was a director. Some would say, "Well, 
we're not really interested in seeing the associate director, 
we'd like to see the director. Where is he?" The answer was, 
"Well, the director is Clarence Kelly, and he's in Berkeley." 

So it was a tough thing for Al Boyce to deal with, and it 
was not really any easier for his successor to deal with. 

Lage: I would think the combination of the two jobs would be difficult, 

the deanship of the college and the associate directorship of the 

Kendrick: The way the responsibility is really discharged is that you have 
an associate dean for research and an associate dean for resident 

Lage: So there's really someone else who's running the Citrus Research 


Kendrick: That's right. The dean and associate director has the overall 

responsibility but does not pay day-to-day attention to the affairs. 
of the experiment station. There is an associate dean to do that. 

Lage: So the Agricultural Experiment Station is a more centralized 

operation than the other units of the University. 


Kendrick: Yes. It's really the only centralized research operation that 
the University maintains. 

Well, to solve the dilemma of the presumed lack of 
agricultural association that was attributed to Mack Bugger, the 
administration decided to ask Boysie Day, also a professor of 
plant physiology, who was a member of the Department of 
Horticulture, however, a fully acknowledged agricultural 
department, and who had a lot of field research experience, to 
assume the associate directorship. It separated the role of dean 
from associate director at Riverside, in contrast, to that which 
existed at Berkeley and Davis. It provided a bit of confusion 
because it was not really all that clear on what issues Associate 
Director Day sought Director Kelly's advice and on what issues he 
sought Mack Dugger's advice, and when he was responsible to 
Dugger and when he was responsible to Kelly. Boysie, being 
pretty much a self-starter and a very capable administrator on 
his own, kind of carved out his own path and made his own 
decisions. We'll get into that much later. 

Lage: These things must have been happening about the time you were 

taking over the statewide division. 

Kendrick: I had already taken over. It was not known who was going to be 
the dean at the time my appointment was made. 

Lage: Did you have a role in making that decision to have Boysie Day be 

associate director? 

Kendrick: No. I don't recall having any role in that, anyway, and I think 
I would remember that. That split responsibility was ultimately 
resolved, as I will describe later. At the time of my 
appointment [E. Gorton] Gort Linsley was the dean and associate 
director at Berkeley. He was a professor of entomology, and 
James Meyer, who later became the chancellor, was the dean and 
associate director of the experiment station at Davis. Jim was a 
professor of, I think, animal physiology, but his degree was in 
biochemistry, also from the University of Wisconsin. He escaped 
taking that same plant physiology course that we did, I think, 
otherwise we would have had a real coup. As a matter of fact, he 
was at Wisconsin after World War II, later than Dan and Mack and I. 

That separation of responsibilities was later solved when 
Director Kelly asked Boysie Day to come to Berkeley to be his 
assistant and to provide some assistance to him in administering 
the systemwide Agricultural Experiment Station. At that time the 
associate directorship of the experiment station returned to the 
dean at Riverside so we resumed the standard way of handling that 
dual responsibility of administration of the respective colleges 
and their respective units of the Agricultural Experiment 


Kendrick: Station. With one person in charge, we didn't have to worry 
about who talked to whom about certain issues. 

Teaching Responsibilities and the Decline of Mission-Oriented 

Kendrick: That separation didn't exist more than two years time, but the 
agricultural constituency nevertheless was right in their 
concerns. The kind of mission orientation of the experiment 
station, I think, began to deteriorate. At that time, the close 
focus and attention to the agricultural field problems became 
more difficult for the faculty to handle because they had 
teaching responsibilities; they knew that their likelihood of 
producing productive research in field experimentation was 
lessened, and they were in a highly competitive environment to 
get their brownie points towards tenure, so that the orientation 
of their own research programs became more basic and more 
laboratory and greenhouse oriented. 

It was restored, to some extent, when Lowell Lewis assumed 
one of the associate deanships, with responsibility for the 
experiment station activities, under Mack Bugger, the dean. Mack 
assembled a good team. There were three of them: Nat [Nathaniel] 
Coleman, who was professor of soils, joined the dean's office, so 
between Mack Bugger, Nat Coleman, and Lowell Lewis, they had a 
real good team. And Lowell Lewis spent a good deal of time with 
the external constituency, trying to keep them, if not happy, at 
least satisfied that we were concerned about their problems. 

Lage: I can foresee a potential problem with the structure of 

Riverside, if the dean of this College of Natural and 
Agricultural Sciences was a physicist or chemist, who really had 
very little connection with agriculture. 

Kendrick: The constituency was really concerned about that. 
Lage: Bugger did have the connection. 

Kendrick: Yes. He was plant-oriented. Riverside does not have an animal 

program of any significance. Certainly not domestic animals. So 
it's a plant science-oriented activity, with heavy emphasis on 
pest management and toxicology and biotechnology. So you are 
quite right. If the dean were a physicist or a pure chemist, or 
a systematic botanist, the constituency would wonder, "What is 
going on now? We've lost agriculture." 

Kendrick: Well, I think that puts ma back to Berkeley, when Br. Wellman 
asked if I would come by and visit with President Hitch, 

Co <-* Co C 

TO 03 - 3 

ft ^ ft H- 

- 3 < 

TO g fX, (B 

" n' s' en 
3*5 H- 
la * <-r 



-tj i-h 


3 O 







Co (D 

3 cn 

(B H- 



?S 13 

(B rr 

CL n 

11 3" 

H* CO 

O 11 

7? M 



03 = 

1-1 H- 

O. rr 


3 cu 
CKJ 3 
- CL 

O H- 

3" O 

3 fB 


(B 1 
I (B 

?r cn 

H- H- 
3 CL 
cn fB 
v. g 


11 C_ 

M C 

n 3 

en m 

ft -. 










President Hitch's Call for a Long-Range Academic Plan 
[Date of interview: October 13, 1987] ## 

Lage : Today's October 13, 1987, and this is our seventh interview with 

James Kendrick. Today we're going to talk about your appointment 
to head up the Division of Agricultural Sciences, and the 
environment that you found yourself in. 

Kendrick: All right. We have, I think, discussed the physical setting in 
which I was first introduced into consideration for the 
systemwide vice presidency. That led me to go home and ponder 
briefly just what that meant in terms of changing my life, 
lifestyle, and career direction which I pondered for about a 
week or so. And as I think I've mentioned, it caused some 
disruption in Evelyn's life, because she at that time was active 
in the school system in Riverside, as a member of the board of 

My discussion with President Hitch about what he really 
expected from a vice president was not very revealing. After I 
agreed to accept his invitation to join his administration as the 
vice president of agricultural sciences (a restoration from the 
university dean title to the title of vice president), he made 
the statement that the division needed a statement of purpose and 
a long-range academic plan. How long? As long as it was prudent 
to forecast. 

So the first thing I worked on with Harry Wellman, Clarence 
Kelly, who was the director of the experiment station, and George 
Alcorn, who was the director of the Agricultural Extension 
Service, was a statement of what the division was, what it 
encompassed, and a little bit about what it intended to do in the 
future. That statement served as a guideline, at least a 
statement of reference, for the division. I don't have a copy of 
it, but it exists in the system. 


Operating a Centralized Unit within the Decentralized University 

Kendrick: The thing to remember about the Division of Agricultural 

Sciences, as it was known then, is that it was the last remaining 
university- wide academic unit, following the decentralization 
that dark Kerr instituted during his regime, in which campuses 
were given the authority and the autonomy to manage campus 
affairs. I had not had much experience with trying to manage I 
didn't have any experience trying to manage a program that 
covered more than one campus, in an environment that was 
dominated by decentralization and campus autonomy expressed ir. 
each campus chancellor's involvement in all things that were 
located on their campus. So that was the first environmental 
difference with which I had to deal. 

Lage: Did this lead to unclear lines of authority? 

Kendrick: Yes. It also led to the fact that I had to work out some 
processes and techniques to deal with shared authority, 
particularly for the experiment station personnel involving 
chancellors and deans. On each campus, the head of the 
agricultural program held two titles dean and associate director 
of the experiment station. When that individual was operating as 
a dean, the authority for his actions was his campus, and his 
chief administrative officer was the chancellor. When that 
individual was functioning as an associate director of the 
experiment station, the authority was the vice president, through 
the director of the experiment station. 

Nearly all the personnel in the experiment station located 
on the campuses were jointly appointed in the professorial series 
and in the experiment station series. And at least on paper, the 
vice president for agricultural sciences had the authority to 
withhold or to allocate authority to fill those FTE [full-time 
equivalent] positions in the experiment station. Approximately 
an average 70 percent of the FTE-ness was funded in the 
experiment station, with an average of about 30 percent funded 
from the instructional budget, which came under the authority of 
the chancellors. It was obvious that the chancellor and the vice 
president had to work out some accommodation to work together, in 
order to be able to administer the program and the personnel 

Lage: It seems as if it would get even more complicated when you think 

of the faculty responsibility for promotion and tenure on the 
Academic Senate Budget Committee. 


Kendrick: Well, that point was clear even before I got the appointment, in 
that the vice president and the director only dealt with resource 
allocation, not with personnel administration. So once the 
position was authorized for filling, and allocated to a 
department or to a college to pursue a particular program, 
authority was given to recruit a person for that position. And 
that is the last that we the director and the vice president- 
had to do with that particular position, except for the resource 
support for it. All the recruitment activities and the oversight 
for ultimate evaluation of merit increases and promotion was a 
campus affair. I had nothing to do with that, and didn't want 
to. It was inappropriate for the vice president to be involved 
at that level of individual detail. So that was always 

On the other hand, in the Agricultural Extension Service, 
the vice president functioned there like a chancellor, because 
the chief administrative officer for the people in extension 
ultimately was the vice president, through the director of 

Lage : They didn't have a tie to a campus anywhere. 

Kendrick: That's correct. Even though the extension specialists were 

residents in departments of their specialty on campuses, they 
were recruited, evaluated for merit increases and promotions 
through the extension line, and ultimately responsible 
administratively to the director and the vice president. So, 
part of the personnel of the division was directly responsible to 
the vice president, and part of it was not. 

In later years of my administration, I did not concern 
myself with individual personnel decisions, only with the 
allocation of vacated positions to particular programs or 
locations. The director acted on all personnel action on behalf 
of the vice president. 

Reports of Academic and Advisory Group Committees on the 
Division's Direction 

Kendrick: These things were not clearly apparent when I first arrived. I 
had to find those things out for myself. I was also unaware of 
the fact that there already was in existence a faculty and 
extension committee working on an academic plan. And they were 
about finished with their work they were aiming towards July of 
'68 as a completion date, and you'll remember I came on board in 
April. They'd been at work nearly nine months already. That 
committee had been appointed by Harry Wellman. 


Kendrick: Now. I assumed that the reason it kind of lost its place in the 
sun was because all the other changes that were going on in the 
University, such as changing presidents, and Harry being the 
acting president for the year while the Regents were searching 
for the successor to Clark Kerr, and a general feeling of 
treading water and waiting for positions to be filled. It seemed 
that the vacancy in the University dean of agriculture position 
was something that was really not going to be pursued with any 
vigor until there was a president on board. 

But that committee worked hard and well, and they produced a 
report that was worthy of their efforts. I took it seriously, 
and as a matter of fact, I welcomed the fact that it was in 
existence because when President Hitch said that we needed an 
academic plan, and when I discovered that this committee was in 
existence, I said, "Hooray 1 We're already almost able to do 

They, in due course, presented me with a plan. I met with 
them once or twice, to share some thoughts of my own with them. 
But they (the thoughts) weren't very profound because I was 
relatively inexperienced and didn't have the background of having 
spent nine months working on the plan. 

I was aware of another report that had been produced by 
Robert Long, who at that time was a senior vice president for 
Bank of America and a member of the Agricultural Advisory 
Committee for the division. It was a report produced by that 
advisory committee and addressed things that the division needed 
to pay attention to. 

Lage : So this was advice coming from outside the University? 

Kendrick: Yes. I was getting some outside advice as well as internal. It 
became known as the Long Report. It also contained some valuable 
information about the directions of things. Well, all these were 
available to me by summer of '68. I had discovered also, not too 
long after I had arrived, that the legislature had requested a 
report of what the division was doing, a kind of justification of 
its existence. And that was the first of many such requests 
which came through from the legislature. I had to put together 
something I didn't know much about [laughter], and that was a 
description of what we were all about, and what marvelous things 
we were doing while paying attention to things the legislators 
were interested in. That was delivered in a rush. The deadline 
was coming down on us in a hurry, related to the budget hearings 
in Sacramento. So those were really the first work assignments 
that I found myself engaged in. 


Kendrick: All of the staffing of the division office was in place. The 
director of the experiment station was Clarence Kelly; the 
director of Agricultural Extension was George Alcorn; and all the 
support staff remained in place. I didn't bring anyone with me. 
Douglas McNeill was the special assistant to the vice president. 

Lage : You mentioned your administrative assistant 

Kendrick: Yes. She was Nona Brown. Nona Brown had served four previous 
administrators in the division, and I was the fifth, and her 
Waterloo. [laughter] 

Lage: Are you going to elaborate on that? 

Kendrick: No. We had a good relationship. I think she just wanted to 

retire. It was not a problem with her; she was very helpful in 
getting me oriented into a lot of things that needed my 
attention, and I needed to know about. And she was quite loyal. 
There was no real problem. It's just, after so long a time you 
get tired where you are, and she was ready to retire. 

Lage: I want to hear more about the advisory committee report. When I 

read through and looked through the California Farmer for this 
period, that is '68-'69, it seemed like things were on fire in 
the farm community, that there was a lot of feeling about the 
agriculture labor situation, and the farmers felt very much on 
the defensive. Now, did this affect that advisory report, or did 
it affect your job in another way? 

Kendrick: It certainly did affect the position. It didn't affect the 

academic plan as much, as I recall the report which the staff 
and faculty committee put together, and that I had high hopes 
for. I read it, and I was somewhat disappointed in it, I guess, 
because it didn't seem to address what I felt were the current 
and future problems; it just alluded to them. It failed to deal 
adequately with labor and management, environmental quality, 
environmental degradation, and the kind of problems that 
agriculture associated with people relationships. It projected 
pretty much standard agricultural needs as were known in the 
past, and how we needed to do more of what we were doing, do it 
better and more efficiently. 

Lage: Did the report from the faculty go in that same direction? 

Kendrick: That's what I'm talking about. 

Lage: Okay I was thinking about that agricultural advisory 

Kendrick: The Long Committee? 

Lage: Yes. 


Kendrick: The Long Committee was more specific. In fact, it identified 

some real problems that needed attention, but most of them were 
economic and marketing problems. Those are persistent problems; 
they're with us today, and they were with us then. It was less 
concerned about needing more pounds, or tons, of agriculture 
products than it was on knowing how to handle what was already 
produced. The report stated that the University's Division of 
Agricultural Sciences didn't seem to be giving the kind of help 
expected, or that growers had received in the past, on how to 
deal with marketing problems. So one of the first challenges I 
met was to pay more attention to these economic and marketing 

Also expressed as a concern was the fact that the 
University's Agricultural Experiment Station seemed to be 
withdrawing from field-oriented problems. There did not seem to 
be as many experiment station individuals out in field plots, or 
as often as growers remembered seeing the individuals' 
predecessors and other people. They wondered whether or not the 
University really had a commitment to agriculture's needs. So 
that was another kind of attitudinal climate I inherited with 
this assignment. 

Lage : Let's go back to that faculty report that you were talking about. 

Kendrick: Okay. I perceived that the faculty report had taken a lot of 

effort to produce, so, as was standard procedure, I bundled it up 
and sent it off to the campuses, to the deans, and said, "Please 
take this document and have it reviewed by your faculty, in order 
to get some comments, agreements or disagreements." I also said 
that I'd like those comments back so that we could discuss what 
we're going to do next. I gave them what I thought was an 
adequate amount of time, but I don't recall how much. But it was 
enough to have faculty input. 

I was disappointed to receive nothing in return. Now, I've 
got to digress to indicate that two of the campuses were 
undergoing changes in their deanships. On July 1 of '68, at 
Riverside, Mack Bugger was appointed dean of agriculture and 
Boysie Day was appointed associate director of the experiment 
station. We discussed earlier the administrative problem this 
change presented, and I think it had something to do with the 
lack of enthusiasm for a report that Kendrick sent down and asked 
for comments. 

At Davis, Chancellor [Emil] Mrak was retiring, and they were 
looking for a successor for him. The dean of agriculture at 
Davis, Jim Meyer, was named Mrak's successsor as chancellor, I 
think in the fall of '68. And Chet McCorkle, who had been the 
executive vice chancellor for the Davis campus, was named by Jim 
Meyer as the dean of agriculture to succeed him. So that was a 


Kendrick: change in the administration at Davis. The only holdover dean 
and associate director was Gort Linsley at Berkeley, not the 
largest segment of the division. So the faculty had other things 
to think about, other tnan a so-called division master academic 
plan. And that explained somewhat the lack of response. 

This led me to the conclusion that if my deans' council, 
which was the administrative council I continued to meet with 
monthly, was persuaded that the plan didn't excite them very 
much, or didn't continue to challenge them to spend much time 
with it, that it wasn't going to go anywhere. This was another 
case where it was something I had no part in initiating, so I 
didn't feel any particular ownership of what was produced, and 
since it contained what I thought were some deficiencies, it 
wound up being a nice exercise without much impact. 

Lage: Went on the shelf. 

Kendrick: And as I think I said earlier, most academic plans have about as 
much impact as dropping a pebble in a pond of water: they cause 
a little ripple, and then everything settles back to the way it 

Pressure from Farming Community, Legislature, Regents; 
The Division in a Defensive Position ## 

Lage: Now, let's talk a little bit about how you developed your agenda, 

since you didn't rely on the academic plan. 

Kendrick: Okay. I'm not quite sure just how I developed what might be 

called my agenda. It probably developed in response to concerns 
which I had resulting from comments that I received from certain 
members of the Board of Regents, and certain members of the 
legislature, in the course of their examining the agriculture 
budget. You mentioned reading California Farmer during the 
period of the sixties and noting that there was a lot of unrest 
in the farming community. There was great concern about Cesar 
Chavez and his labor organizing operations. The use of 
pesticides was also a major concern. Rachel Carson had published 
her book Silent Spring in 1962, and the traditional agricultural 
community resented that book. They thought it was an intrusion 
into their business by someone who ought to know better and 
didn't. They disputed many of her facts, really on very shaky 
grounds because they didn't have the data to do so. 


Did the University have data? 


Kendrick: No, it didn't exist. There were some experiments started when I 
was in Riverside, by some of my colleagues in entomology who were 
beginning to wonder what would happen downstream several years 
from all the insecticides they were putting on the ground. The 
experiments were being set up to answer some of these questions, 
but there was no hard data to suggest that DDT remained in the 
food chain and didn't break down very easily. 

Data was also beginning to accumulate in studies at 
Riverside and a few other places, showing that resistance to DDT 
was showing up in insect populations. So even before it was 
banned from use as a bad, persistent insecticide, its broad use 
was being phased out because it took more quantity to kill fewer 
bugs, and people who were really thinking about that problem 
realized that they were dealing with an obsolete chemical. 

They moved on to the organic phosphates and found out that 
the insects had a marvelous capacity to breed resistance to that 
group of compounds, too. So it became kind of a treadmill 
effect, which was another problem to deal with. Wide use of 
insecticides in agriculture was traditionally accepted as the way 
to produce undamaged crops, and we had to begin thinking of 
different ways to replace the traditional control measure for 
insects and other pests. 

Well, with labor and the quality of the environment which 
encompassed the fungicide-pesticide problem, another concern was 
the consumer. The consumer has never really been very well 
organized, even though there are consumer organizations, because 
everybody is a consumer, in a sense, and that is a hindrance in 
being able to identify what some of the consumer problems were. 
Some of those problems related to marketing which the Long 
Committee had identified as being important. All of these were 
talked about at Regents' meetings by Fred [Frederick G.] Dutton, 
Bill [William M.] Roth, Norton Simon, and several others. I 
would have to review the make-up of the Board of Regents at that 
time to identify all of the concerned individuals, but Fred 
Dutton's constant comments stick in my memory. 

Lage: He was trying to urge the division to address some of these 


Kendrick: Well, what he was saying was that the division was nothing more 
than a publicly supported research and extension activity for 
agribusiness and it cared little for the environment or for farm 
labor. He accentuated the notion that the division was an 
agribusiness adjunct. That same attitude was dominant in our 
legislative hearings, when the budget came into purview, because 
Assemblyman [John] Vasconcellos was, even back in 1968, a very 


Kendrick: vocal critic of the agricultural program in the University. He 
made the same kind of allegations that the division cared little 
for anything other than large, organized agribusiness. 

I may have told you earlier that the term "agribusiness" was 
created by a colleague of mine at least he claimed to be the 
author of it. Guy MacLeod, at the time I arrived in Berkeley, 
was a special assistant in the vice president's office handling a 
program to educate applicators on how to apply pesticides in a 
judicious and safe manner. Guy MacLeod was a Ph.D. research 
entomologist for a while on the faculty at Berkeley. He went to 
Cornell for a while and ultimately wound up back in Fresno as the 
owner- ope rat or of a business called Sunland Chemicals. That 
business was later sold to one of the large chemical concerns. 
Guy was always interested in education and the academic world and 
he was a very powerful and influential person in the San Joaquin 
Valley. He organized a group of people who supported the 
establishment of two agricultural field stations the Kearney 
Field Station and the Westside Field Station. So he was a good 
benefactor as far as the division was concerned, but a strong 
chemical pesticide advocate. 

Lage: When he coined the term, did he mean it as a critical term? 

Kendrick: No, he coined it in good faith. I'm not even sure he did it, but 
he claimed that he did. I didn't spend any time trying to trace 
the origin of that word, so if his claim is valid, that's fine 
with me. 

He coined the word to describe and convey the notion that 
agriculture was a business; it wasn't just a hobby. You had to 
approach farming, the production of the commodity, in a 
businesslike way. That notion was absolutely correct. You could 
not survive in the climate of competition, marketing, 
advertising, borrowing to finance the operation, if you don't 
understand how businesses operate. 

So, in all good faith, he was trying to describe the fact 
that the processors, the transportation industry, the retail 
markets and the production aspects of agriculture were really 
parts of an agribusiness system. But that word was quickly 
captured by proponents of the labor- management conflict to 
indicate one party of the natural conflict between employer and 
employee in agriculture. It was alleged by the non-agribusiness 
proponents that the publicly supported programs were skewed 
towards benefitting agribusiness and that they were not paying 
attention to what the rest of the population really was concerned 
about, such as agriculture's use of an excessive amount of water, 
the contamination of the environment with pesticides, and the 
disregard for quality of their products. 


Kendrick: That climate was perpetuated by this representation on the Board 
of Regents and in the Ways and Means Committee of the assembly, 
all of which wasn't wasted on me. 

Lage : Yes. I can see that. Agriculture was in a defensive position, 

and it looks like your division was as well. 

Kendrick: Well, it was swept up in it because, if our program was accused 

of paying attention only to one aspect of the total enterprise, I 
had to do something about it because I was sensitive to the fact 
that we were a publicly supported institution which needed to 
support a program that really responded to the total needs of the 
state's population. 

Lage: So what the critics said does seem to have a certain amount of 

truth in it, then? 

Kendrick: Oh yes, absolutely, it was correct. It's just the fact that when 
you are accused of something, you are resentful. I had a large 
operating experiment station and Cooperative Extension Service 
people and they didn't like to be told that they were favoring 
one segment of society over another. They said, "We're available 
to advise anybody that wants to seek it. We're not directing our 
activities specifically to agribusiness." The problem with that 
answer is that the people and the groups who were complaining 
about being on the outside were not accustomed to coming and 
knocking on the county agricultural farm advisors' doors and 
asking for help. And the sophisticated, organized, business-like 
agriculture industries knew where to go to get what they wanted. 

Lage: And they had committees set up 

Kendrick: Had parallel committees, and they employed professionals who knew 
how to tap into the system, and they used the system. I've never 
quite accepted the notion that organized labor was so deficient 
that they couldn't have used the system also if they had been a 
little more aggressive, but they didn't. They figured that we 
were so committed to the agricultural industries as they knew 
them that they would be less than welcome if they requested our 
assistance, and therefore they didn't even bother to do so. I'm 
not sure that they may not have had some unhappy experiences that 
sort of cemented that point of view because we had some people 
who didn't sympathize with organized labor. It was a very tense 
time they felt if they had anything to say that helped labor, 
then they would alienate all these owners and agricultural 
enterprises and farmers whom they'd been working with all the 
time, and therefore they'd have the other side condemning them. 
So it was a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't, and 
not knowing how to handle it. 


Broadening Representation on the Agricultural Advisory Council 

Lage : So how did you try to move the institution ? 

Kendrick: It was fun. The first thing I did in trying to make that change 
was to reorganize the Agricultural Advisory Council. That's the 
group of advisors external to the University. When I inherited 
it, the committee was composed of chairs and leaders of organized 
agricultural groups, such as the tomato growers, the canners, the 
citrus growers, the avocado growers, the Agricultural Council of 
California, and the Council of California Growers. We had and 
still do have a lot of organized commodity marketing groups 
raisin growers, walnut growers, almond growers, cotton growers 
you name it, we've got it. 

But that committee as an advisory group, as you can probably 
guess, was concerned mainly about the commodities for which each 
member was responsible, and the problems associated with those 
commodities were mostly production problems, as well as marketing 

I felt that the committee representation needed to be 
broadened, so as the members' terms expired I appointed .people 
from some of the non-agricultural constituencies. I sought 
representation, if not from organized labor, at least from people 
who understood labor problems. I appointed a consumer spokesman 
who was particularly effective and was the food editor for the 
Los Angeles Times. She was not exactly an organizer of consumer 
groups, but at least was effective in dealing with the consumers' 

I added a person who was a well-known newspaper writer on 
environmental matters. He is still writing the same kind of 
columns today Harold Gilliam, who writes a column that appears 
in "This World" in the San Francisco Chronicle on Sundays. He 
called me just the other day with a question about California's 
agriculture. Harold was a marvelous addition to the advisory 
council because he'd ask those embarrassing questions in the most 
polite way. [laughter] 

The person I asked to bring some sensitivity about labor to 
the council was Andy Juvenal. I've lost track of him, but he was 
a minister in San Francisco, but not a minister from one of the 
main-line churches. He was from the Mission District or 
somewhere like that. 

Lage: Did he have a connection with agriculture labor ? 

Kendrick: He had yes and I can't recall just exactly what it was. 
was well informed about agricultural labor. 

But he 


Lage: Did you think of going right to the source and getting somebody 

from the farmworkers' union? 

Kendrick: Yes. I did. I inquired of the farmworkers' union whom they would 
recommend, but they didn't want to participate. They never 
wanted to be included in this organization because they thought 
they would be co-opted, misused. I think they wanted to be able 
to criticise without being made a part of the organization and 
subject to being neutralized or at least making it more difficult 
for them to be publicly critical. I can understand that; it's a 
point of view that I can deal with. But I think that they would 
have been a little better served by being willing to sit down and 
negotiate some programs or opportunities for their own benefit. 



Agricultural Mechanization and Farm Labor Opportunities; 
Vasconcellos Committee Hearings. 1973 




Now, on top of all this social environment, the beginning of the 
long, arduous arguments about mechanization and what it does to 
farm labor opportunities took place. Agriculture was not 
economically all that healthy; it was moving as rapidly as it 
could to reduce labor costs. It wished not only to reduce labor 
costs, but also its dependency on what was perceived to be a 
relatively unstable supply of labor at the time when it was 
needed for harvests. Farmers don't have a lot of time to find 
people to fill positions and negotiate with them when the fruit 
is ripe on the trees or the vines. So to the extent that they 
could overcome the labor unrest that Cesar liked to used as a 
means of organizing, and to reduce the uncertainty and the 
hazards of harvesting, planting, and pruning, the farmers were 
more than ready to move to mechanical aids in their farming 
practices. And the U.S. universities with agricultural programs, 
not just the University of California, and the USDA [U.S. 
Department of Agriculture] had comprehensive programs to develop 
mechanical aids to the agriculture processes. 

How long had those programs been in effect? 
quite a ways? 

Does this go back 

It goes back yes. You go back to the cotton harvester. I don't 
know just exactly when that was, but it was developed before 
World War IL I can recall as a youngster in high school, 
colleagues of my father working on a mechanical sugar beet 
harvester, so that they could raise the sugar beets up onto the 
surface of the ground and pick them up in a big rotating sphere 
of spikes. This machine was designed to replace workers who 
would pull the beets out of the ground, top them, and toss them 
into a truck. So the development of mechanical aids to 
harvesting was not confined to the tomato harvester alone. It 
had progenitors in other produce as well. 


Kendrick: But the tomato harvester had an interesting life of its own. It 
has become the symbol of science-developed mechanical aids 
resulting in field labor positions being reduced. That fact was 
receiving attention in the legislature also; it was perceived 
that the University was paying attention only to farm 
management's problems, the farmer's problems, and not the farm 
laborer's problems. 

Lage : Was it the Agricultural Experiment Station or the Cooperative 

Extension Service that would work on developing these machines? 

Kendrick: The experiment station. Extension was involved, but only to the 

extent of evaluating in the field these developing devices. They 

were developed oy the Department of Agricultural Engineering in 
the experiment station. 

I wanted to relate an incident that sort of characterized my 
life before the legislature. It was a particularly long and 
dreary afternoon of hearings in the early 1970s, in which a 
special session was called by the Assembly Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on the University's budget, to listen to the 
complaintants about agricultural programs. The session was 
chaired by John Vasconcellos, an assemblyman. There was an array 
of witnesses, a pretty good-sized room full of people, to listen 
to all the allegations about how the University's agricultural 
research program was skewed to the right. It was alleged that 
the research was not helpful at all because it resulted in the 
displacement of farm labor and increased unemployment. It was 
stated by the critics that, on the one hand, public funds were 
being used to develop mechanical aids for harvests resulting in 
increased unemployment which, on the other hand, placed increased 
demands on publicly funded welfare programs. You can see that 
that allegation provided much food for discussion. It's the sane 
argument which is used in pointing out the irony of the U.S. 
government supporting programs in tobacco research and, at the 
same time, supporting cancer research and pointing out the 
connection between smoking and lung cancer and heart disease. 

It's not quite as dramatic as the cancer-tobacco situation, 
but a lot of discussion was taking place on how the public 
representatives could allow such a situation to exist where this 
dual activity was counterproductive. Well, we had to listen to a 
lot of allegations that were not exactly true; they were 
exaggerations about the insensitivity of the people who were 
engaged in those kinds of programs. There were allegations also, 
which were untrue, that in fact we had no programs addressing 
labor displacement. Actually, we did have programs that were 
attempting to deal with some of the problems that labor was 
facing. But they were kind of buried in the rhetoric of the day. 


Kendrick: We also had by that time a nutrition education program in 

Cooperative Extension addressing nutrition problems of the poor 
and trying to teach them how to economize in their food purchases 
but at the same time improve the nutritional balance of the meals 
which they prepared. But this program was not acknowledged by 
the Vasconcellos Committee as useful. 

Near the end of the hearing, after listening to all those 
allegations, my turn came to respond. The rhetoric was full of 
acrimony, and feelings were really tense. I asked Assemblyman 
Vasconcellos if I could begin my testimony with a representative 
who was a small farmer, a Mrs. Sally Oliver. He said, "Certainly, 
you can." Sally had been livid all afternoon. She was almost 
beside herself with emotion because she was concerned about what 
she perceived to be much misrepresentation of her situation. 

When she came to the table to testify, she could hardly 
control her voice; she was really emotional. She said she had 
listened to all these allegations against the University's 
program by people who didn't have any idea what farming was all 
about. There wasn't a farmer among all who had testified. They 
were either academics or they were I forget the terms she used; 
they weren't very complimentary. She said she was there as a 
farmer's wife, and furthermore, she was there as a small farmer's 
wife. They had about sixty acres of almonds and walnuts, and she 
said to the members of the subcommittee, "Have you ever tried to 
knock almonds out of a tree with a pole? If you haven't, then 
you ought to try it. And if you've got thirty-five or forty 
acres of almond trees that you have to harvest the nuts from with 
a pole, it is one tough business." 


She went on to say that the only reason they were able to 
sustain themselves in farming at all was because of the help 
they'd gotten from the University of California, and in 
particular in their mechanical harvesting aid program. That 
program had developed a means of harvesting almond nuts from 
trees with a mechanical shaker so that they didn't have to knock 
the nuts from the trees, as they once did, by hand-held poles. 

Well, her emotional support and the fact that she was a 
farmer's wife who obviously did more than just cook in the 
kitchen she was out working in the field changed the atmosphere 
in that hearing almost immediately. We weren't able to change 
their minds at all, but we certainly changed their politeness and 
their receptivity as far as the subsequent testimony was 
concerned, where we tried to set the record straight. But I 
always identify that hearing as symbolic of the environment we 
typically had to deal with in terms of having the University's 
agricultural program accepted and understood generally. 


Lage: It's also interesting, I think, for the purpose of this history 

to see what the forces were that led to change in the program. 
Was this testimony all taking place during the University's 
budget review in the legislature? 

Kendrick: Yes. The annual review. 

Lage: So you'd be called upon to defend your program. 

Kendrick: Any time the agricultural budget was up for legislative review, I 
was the spokesperson for it. And that's the time I had to deal 
with criticism and the critics. If we happened to have budget 
proposals for new programs, I and a few expert witnesses would be 
there to defend them. During this antagonistic climate of 
allegations and criticism of the University's agricultural 
program for lack of attention to the plight of the farm worker, 
and for not doing enough for the small and economically stressed 
farmers, or for underfunding migrant children's education, I gave 
the legislature ample opportunity to augment the budget for these 
programs, by putting in requests in the University's budget. 
These requests were denied; in fact, on several occasions our 
budget was reduced, and it was suggested that I ought to 
reallocate what I already had to these programs if I felt they 
needed augmented support. The only way I could really reallocate 
within the University's budget was to discharge people, and that 
doesn't happen without just cause. Their suggestion just wasn't 
very practical. 

Budget and Personnel Problems in Nutrition Education 

Kendrick: The other two programs that caused problems for the division were 
associated with 4-H and nutrition in Cooperative Extension. 
These two programs were expanding their traditional rural 
homemaker clientele and the rural youth leadership and commodity 
training programs into the inner city, into the poorer segments 
of our society. 

Lage: Now, how did that change occur? 

Kendrick: Well, the nutrition education program developed because of a 

federal appropriation through the USDA to Cooperative Extension 
to establish a nationwide network of expanded nutrition education 
programs. It resulted in an allocation to the University of 
California's Cooperative Extension of three to four million 
dollars a year. It didn't start at that level; it started at 
less than that level, but it grew to be about that much over a 
fifteen-year period. 


Kendrick: But the fundamental problem with that program was that it was not 
indexed for any increase in costs. It took time to get it 
started so initially there was a surplus of funds, but once we 
got it geared up and running, there was no augmentation to take 
care of salary increases and expanded program needs. The federal 
appropriation was fixed by a formula which didn't include a cost 
of living adjustment. That meant in order to accommodate the 
needs for growth in salaries, we had to plan program reductions 
over time. The only way to do that was to eliminate some 
temporary positions in the nutritional education program. 

The program was administered by regular Cooperative 
Extension personnel in the family and consumer science program, 
so their funding and their support was not dependent on this 
special appropriation. Most of the funds were expended in 
employing people half time as "nutrition aides." There were a 
few nutrition aide supervisors also supported by these funds. 
The nutrition aides were recruited from the economically stressed 
communities where they were expected to go back and conduct the 
education program. Their clientele were the people who often 
were very poorly educated and very poverty stricken, and in many 
instances single-parent units. 

Those nutrition aide recruits were given special training in 
the four basic food groups and became a very valuable part of the 
extension employment staff. But when adjustments in our 
personnel employment were needed, they were the ones who we had 
to adjust out of the program. They didn't understand why this 
was taking place for them, when they could see their supervisors 
being retained. 

Lage: Now, why were they the ones that had to go? 

Kendrick: Because they were on the special funds that were not being 

augmented. And those were the funds that I was trying to get the 
State of California to augment so we could take care of the 
situation, but the legislature was totally unresponsive, as was 
Mr. Vasconcellos and that's where the augmentation had to start. 
His committee was totally unresponsive. Their consistent answer 
was, "Well, that's a federal program, and any augmentation should 
come from the federal government." That was certainly an 
insensitive answer as far as I was concerned. 

I could see what was coming: the federal money was going to 
dry up in due course; it was just not going to grow rapidly 
enough to meet the needs, and we were going to be faced 
continually with having to shrink the size of the programs to 
match the dollars available, and we had to provide some kind of 
backstop contingency fund, to meet anticipated obligations. 


Lage: Would it have been possible to reallocate, as the legislature 

told you to? What was the difficulty with that? 

Kendrick: Not unless I discharged staff. 

Lage: You'd be discharging people in other programs. 

Kendrick: Yes. 

Lage: And hiring them in this program. 

Kendrick: Yes. It didn't make sense to me. As long as those other 

programs were meeting some needs too. Reallocation is a popular 
suggestion of budget analysts, but in people-concentrated 
programs it is difficult to achieve without significant layoffs. 
In the Agricultural Experiment Station, about eighty percent of 
the faculty have tenure. You can't discharge those people, 
except for cause. You can separate them if there is a critical 
budget stringency, but not just to reallocate funds. 

Lage: So your hands were not completely free. 

Kendrick: No, I was not free to take what was perceived to be a fairly 

large and significant allocation to the Division of Agriculture 
for programs and reallocate that every year to programs which 
seemed to be surfacing. Although that's really a fundamental 
problem for the University as a whole, it presented me with a 
problem for almost all of the eighteen and a half years I was 
responsible for the agricultural program. The only way I could 
really establish a new program was to get new money because I 
couldn't free up enough existing committed funds to really make a 
difference. That's because the money was primarily tied up in 
the salaries of people. 

Lage: Now, the people you put in charge, or who were put in charge of 

the nutrition education, came from a more traditional program. 
Is that the case? 

Kendrick: That's true. 

Lage: Had they been involved with nutrition education? 

Kendrick: Some of them. 

Lage: But in a more middle-class setting, or ? 

Kendrick: In a different client audience. During the war. World War II, 
there was a big effort made by extension to help in the Victory 
Garden movement by helping people identify things they could grow 
and teaching them how to grow the vegetable crops. They also 
were involved in teaching people how to preserve their produce by 


Kendrick: canning or freezing methods. So extension had the talent for 
that kind of education program. But they weren't dealing with 
migrants; they weren't dealing with farm labor people 

Lage: This must have created problems in personnel, because the 

traditional extension people were supervising aides who came out 
of these communities that the supervisors had very little 
connection with previously. 

Kendrick: That's true. The main problem came when we had to cut back the 
work force and we didn't cut back traditionally longtime 
employees of extension. The ones whom we had to separate were 
the last employed, the least educated, who were most in need of 
employment. I must say the program wasn't a total loss because 
we trained a lot of people along the way who moved on into other 
employment positions and didn't stay with us. They found full- 
time positions elsewhere. So that part of the program was 
completely successful because we helped a number of people gain 
employment elsewhere. 

But I'm kind of critical of the program because to some 
extent it duplicated the programs of some other agencies of 
government where working with the poor was primarily their main 
assignment, and it was not necessarily extension's main 
assignment; it's only one of many programs. I think our program 
has become more of an employment opportunity program than a 
nutritional education program, and that's not what extension is 
all about. It's not primarily a stepping-stone to other 
employment opportunities. 

Lage: It seems in conception like a really good program; extension has 

the mechanism in place for reaching out into the community. 

Kendrick: True. But there is also the county health department, and the 

county welfare department, and food stamps are available. Why do 
you need another agency to address the same target audience? 
That's really the main problem, I think, with extension's 
nutritional education program. I have to say, however, that I 
think California has one of the best nutritional education 
programs in the country, and I don't think it was a loss at all, 
but it certainly caused a lot of personnel problems. 

Lage: I think you were going to lead into some of that, I misdirected 


Kendrick: Well, that's a little ahead of the story, and I'll get into that 
when we spend more time on extension. This social climate did 
not prevail early in the program, but gradually developed after 
the first two or three years of its successful implementation. 


Lage: So this nutrition education program and the mechanization were 

issues early on? 

Kendrick: Yes, relatively early in my tenure. The nutrition education 

program was initiated about 1970 or '71. The mechanization issue 
was an issue almost from the start of my tenure as vice 

The University's Development of the Tomato Harvester 

Kendrick: Let me say a little bit about the tomato harvester because it was 
such a unique case, and it occupied a lot of my time. 

Tomatoes in California, the large fields of tomatoes, are 
grown for processing ketchup and paste and soups. Up until 
about 1964, they were harvested by hand by a labor force that was 
largely transient from Mexico. They were imported legally for 
the period of time needed to harvest the produce, and called 
braceros. About 1964, my predecessor, Dan Aldrich, participated 
on a panel to study farm labor. As a result of the panel's 
study, they recommended phasing out the bracero program, which 
ultimately was done. The bracero program was terminated about 
1965. So Aldrich's activity occurred before 1965. 

Going back even further. Jack Hanna, an experiment station 
employee in the Department of Vegetable Crops at Davis, responded 
to a farmer's question one day about "What would ever happen to 
us if we didn't have the bracero program?" His response was, 
"Well, we've got to find a way to harvest these things 
mechanically. " 

So ten or twelve years before 1964, Jack Hanna was busy 
breeding a variety of tomato with a compact vine with the fruit 
that ripened all at once. This was the key to the concept of a 
mechanical harvester because to harvest the field it is necessary 
to destroy the vine by pulling it from the ground, lifting it 
onto a shaker that shakes the dirt and fruit off the vine and 
carries the fruit onto another conveyer belt where workers riding 
the harvester finish the hand culling. 

Jack Hanna got Coby Lorenzen of the Department of 
Agricultural Engineering of Davis interested in designing this 
mechanical harvester. So by 1964, the two of them had pretty 
well completed the necessary breeding and mechanical design 
necessary for harvesting these tomatoes mechanically. They had 
interested a manufacturing firm in Rio Vista, the Blackwelder 
Manufacturing Finn in putting the machine together as a 


Kendrick: commercial venture, so that they would have something that the 
farmer could use that wasn't just an experimental machine from 
the University. 

So when the bracero program ended 

Lage: Was there any connection between the ending of the program and 

the fact that this harvester was in place, do you think? 

Kendrick: No, that was serendipity. The thoughtful ness of the program was 
that Coby Lorenzen and Jack Hanna had foresight enough back a 
dozen years or so to begin thinking about what they would do in 
case something happened to the labor supply. That was a dramatic 
anticipation of something which eventually did happen. There was 
a lot of money invested in the processing of tomato plants. The 
processing of tomatoes was the backbone of the canning industry 
in California. It supported the peach canning, pear canning, and 
all the rest of the fruit canning operation. Tomato canning 
really was the money-maker. That industry was very nervous about 
the ending of the bracero program because of what it might do to 
tomato production, and to this processing industry. They were 
prepared to move it to Mexico where the labor supply would be 
available if they had to. 

Well, because of these early machines and their 

availability, between 1964 and 1968 fields harvested mechanically 
went from ten or fifteen percent to nearly ninety percent in a 
short four-year period. No other agricultural development really 
has developed quite that rapidly. It was a very dramatic change 
in the way of handling tomatoes: the tomato variety changed and 
the mechanical harvesters were everywhere 

Lage: Did it affect the size of the operation? Did you have to have a 

larger operation to make use of the harvesting machine? 

Kendrick: Acreage was increased. You don't use a tomato harvester en two 
acres of tomatoes. It's a fairly expensive investment. A part 
of the criticism of the University program is that by developing 
the harvester we forced small farmers out of business, and only 
the large farmers could survive. Well, the records show that a 
lot of those who grew tomatoes previously were not growing these 
processing tomatoes following the introduction of the harvester. 
That didn't mean they went out of business; they just changed 
their crop and grew something different, not tomatoes. Or they 
sold their small acreages to larger growers where it was 
economical to use a harvester. 

Also, the critics overlooked the fact that the industry was 
going to move out of California, period. The processors were 
prepared to move. There wouldn't have been any place for the 


Kendrick: small tomato grower to peddle his crop anyway. But that's all 
part of the rhetoric that you have to deal with in any kind of 
testimonial situation when you're dealing with this problem. 

In 1972, a person who is presently the commissioner of 
agriculture for Texas named Jim Hightower published a book 
filled and I'll show my prejudice with half-truths, called Hard 
Tomatoes, Hard Times. 

Lage : Now, you have to admit that the tomatoes are hard. [laughter] 

I'll show my prejudice. 

Kendrick: Yes, I'll show you mine, too. The problem with that book and 
the allegation is that he was condemning the harvester, and the 
thick-skinned tomato that was developed for the mechanical 
harvester, not only thick-skinned, but it was thick- fie shed. The 
locules inside were full of flesh, and not the usual kind of 
tomato with a lot of gelatinous material and openness those in 
the trade call it "high in solids." Less water, and more solids. 

Lage: Is that because it was less easily bruised? 

Kendrick: Yes, well they wanted more solids for carrying it in the harvest 
equipment and the conveyors afterward. You know, you see these 
tomatoes going down the highway in these great big bins? You can 
imagine what the tomato on the bottom would look like if it 
didn't have some sort of solid structure to preserve itself and 
not become a bunch of paste in the bucket. 

The allegation throughout the book was that the agricultural 
scientists had lost sight of the fact that they were dealing with 
quality products, and they were responding to the needs of 
agribusiness again, the canning industry, by developing this 
tasteless, hard tomato they were about like a golf ball at the 
expense of really being concerned with what the consumer wanted. 
The fallacy of that argument was that the tomato industry in 
California utilizing the harvester was the processing tomato. In 
all the years when I was the vice president, no one wrote to me 
and complained about the taste of ketchup or paste. That's where 
those tomatoes go. They were not fresh-market tomatoes. 

Lage: And also the canned? 

Kendrick: Well, even those are a different variety. The reason that we 

have such a lousy tomato in the fresh market is not because they 
were bred for mechanical harvesting; it's because they're grown 
away from the source of the retail market. Even when I was 
working as a plant pathologist trying to control some tomato 
blight diseases in southern California in San Diego County, the 
standard practice of harvesting those tomatoes was to pick them 
when they were what was called "pinks," the shoulder of the 


Kendrick: tomato was just beginning to turn from green to orange. If you 
picked them any later than that, they would destroy themselves 
before they ever got to market. They subsequently found that 
they could make those rocks look like tomatoes by submitting them 
to ethylene gas. a natural product, and they would ripen up and 
look red as they could be, but if you pick a tomato green, it's 
never going to get any better than the day you picked it. It's 
not like a honeydew melon which gets a little sweeter and softer 
after you take it home and let it sit around a while. But not a 

There's plenty of room to condemn the way you handle fresh 
market tomatoes, and I will join the crowd that would criticise 
their taste, but it's because you have to buy a vine-ripened 
tomato pretty close to its source in order to get a good tomato. 
If the Bay Area are buying tomatoes that are produced in Mexico 
or San Diego [laughs], it's not going to be a good quality 

Lage : So that's a separate problem 

Kendrick: That's a separate issue altogether. But Hard Tomatoes, Hard 

Times did not make that distinction. It was used as another bit 
of evidence that agribusiness again had captured the activities 
and the research programs of these publicly supported programs. 
The book was published in 1972 by the Washington D.C.-based 
foundation, the Agribusiness Accountability Project. 


Lage: Did they use California in particular as a case in point? 

Kendrick: They sure did. 

Lage: because you're the ones that developed it. 

Kendrick: Yes. Florida came in for a certain amount of criticism, but the 
harvester was the focal point of the criticism. 

Lage: Now, this man is now commissioner of agriculture? 

Kendrick: Yes, in Texas. He's a Texan. Texas elects its agricultural 

commissioner. He's a politician and aspires to be governor or 
some other elective officer. 

In talks I've given, I've tried to identify what I thought 
were major landmarks that pushed for change in the agricultural 
awareness, at least in the research programs. Each of these was 
kind of resentfully received and caused us a lot of anguish. We 
felt abused by being falsely accused of conspiracies and so 
forth, but they did have an impact, and they were not all wrong. 


Kendrick: The things I've cited the first turning event was Rachel Carson, 
who really drew attention in a dramatic way to the fact that we 
were destroying the environment by not paying attention to what 
any of these pesticides that we were using to kill the bugs was 
doing to the bird populations. This was a first in calling 
attention to the adverse effects of DDT and other insecticides. 
She published her book Silent Spring in 1962. At that time, we 
were, as a land-grant institution, emphasizing production 
agriculture at the expense of the consumer's desires, labor 
needs, and all that. So the two books. Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times 
and Silent Spring, published a decade apart, called attention to 
three concerns: farm labor displacement, quality of produce, and 
effects of pesticides on the environment. Each has had an impact 
on changing the emphasis of agricultural research. 

Now there is another one that we're having to deal with, and 
that's Jeremy Rifkin's concern about what biotechnology is apt to 
do about upsetting the naturalness of things. He sues and 
countersues the testing of the ice-minus microbe in the field and 
claims that we don't know what we're doing sufficiently well by 
introducing these genetically altered strains of microbes into 
the environment. He suggests that they could take over and 
produce adverse consequences that we are not able to handle. 
Rifkin has not written a book on the subject, but he and his 
small enterprise have caused the biotechnology movement 
considerable extra work and resentment. This is the fourth 
impact on changing the way agricultural research is being 
conducted today. If we can swallow our pride and that initial 
reaction to say, "What the hell does he know about it," and 
realize that the general public really doesn't understand what 
these scientists are up to, we can make these changes and be 
better off for doing so. But the public knows that some adverse 
developments have come from science and if it can't be reassured 
that nothing but good can come out of scientific discoveries, it 
is not sure that the risk is worth taking. Science has a 
continual job to inform the public fully about what it is doing 
to benefit society. 

Regents' Meeting on Mechanization and Labor Displacement, 1978 

Kendrick: These are all forces that get your attention and you respond. 
You ignore them at your own peril. So here I inherited the 
Rachel Carson concern for environment, and I was right in the 
middle of the Hard Tomatoes, Hard Times mechanical harvest 
controversy that is still in existence. And that concern 
progressed through the legislature to the next big event in the 
mechanical argument, at a Regents' meeting. That resulted in the 









first public session of the Regents devoted to one topic, in 
which external testimony was invited. They were meeting in the 
Convention Center in Los Angeles on February 16, 1978.* 

There was so much pressure about the issue by letters that 
the lieutenant governor, Merv [Mervyn] Dymally, a Regent, 
requested a public hearing at a Regents' meeting. 

So it came through the political officers 


And how about the other regents? 
Button stand? 

Where did people like Fred 

Fred was not on the board at the time. His term expired, or he 
didn't attend that meeting. But this hearing in Los Angeles 
became quite an affair. They moved to a large room to 
accommodate the audience and to listen to about thirty witnesses 
with prepared talks. Tom Hayden was one of the witnesses; he was 
not an assemblyman at the time, but he was at the height of his 
advocacy of his California campaign for Economic Democracy, which 
proposed redistribution of wealth and land ownership. Cesar 
Chavez was the star of the show because he appeared in kind of a 
dramatic march down the center aisle to the table to give his 
statement about what had happened to the farmworkers because of 
the University's program. I also gave a statement, in much less 
dramatic fashion. 

Was it a tough act to follow? 

I didn't think so. I'm not being disrespectful; he had the 
charisma and the following, but 

And sort of the emotional appeal. 

I didn't have to follow him. I was the first to give a 
statement. So they all had to follow my statement. But I had 
arranged for the Regents to hear a balanced presentation. It 
wasn't at all going to be like I had experienced in Sacramento 
where I felt like I was in a kangaroo court. It was really kind 
of an interesting afternoon. Long, and inconclusive, because 
there were sincere representations of a concern expressed by both 

* On deposit in University Archives, The Bancroft Library, are 1) 
the oral statements made and letters received by the Regents' 
Committee on Educational Policy in regard to Farm Mechanization 
Research for the February 16, 1978, hearing; 2) a summary of 
these materials prepared by the Division of Agricultural Sciences. 


Kendrick: pro and con mechanical aids versus labor needs and the like. 
There were a few allegations that were rather unfounded and 
unfactual. I thought, but they were not really significant. They 
were emotional appeals about "I lost my job, and what are you 
going to do about it?" 

The proposed remedy really was not that the University 
researchers cease and desist their work in these areas, but that 
because they were causing labor displacement, it was felt that 
the field workers ought to be compensated in some fashion for 
their loss of jobs. And it was alleged that it was the 
University's obligation to provide that compensation for those 
lost job opportunities. It was my position that that was not the 
University's role; I recognized it as a problem that society had 
to do something about, but not the University. As a matter of 
fact, the University prior to my tenure had received a special 
allocation from the legislature of about $100,000 to pursue a 
research program in developing mechanical aids for harvesting and 
other agriculture programs. So we had on the books a special 
appropriation to foster the development of mechanical aids, and 
we had nothing on the books to support studies that would help 
deal with the problem of labor displacement and retraining 
programs, redirecting labor into other areas of 

Lage: Did you ever apply for that kind of program, do you recall? 

Kendrick: Yes, we had some requests for that. But they got lost in the 
shuffle of budget building. 

I also was not enthusiastic in applying for that kind of 
program, because we did not really have enough competence within 
agriculture to pursue those kinds of problems. The only 
competence in this area existed in our departments of 
agricultural economics and with an extension economist. We have 
a Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences at Davis that gave 
some attention to the problem. I don't think it was as 
thoughtful as it could have been. It was largely a criticism of 
what had been done, and a concern that they were never allocated 
enough money to do what they wanted to do. And the problec was 
that they never were allocated enough money because the programs 
that they applied for support weren't very good as evaluated by 
their colleagues. 

We had a particular critic at the University of California 
at Santa Cruz in the sociology department, William Friedland, who 
had come from Cornell, who continues to be concerned about the 
sociology of agriculture. His criticism is not based too 
strongly on factual information, though it's better than some of 
the other stuff that has come through. 


Kendrick: But there's been this constant current of criticism of the 

traditional agricultural research programs, and it hasn't just 
been Cesar Chavez and the organized labor people like him. but 
it's been colleagues in the sociology department. I've 
maintained all along that to hold the Division of Agriculture 
responsible for this is shortsighted. You need to hold the 
University of California responsible for addressing some of these 
issues, because there we have an Institute of Industrial 
Relations both on the Berkeley campus and the UCLA campus that 
specifically addresses labor- management problems. They've got 
talent and experience that can address those issues. There's 
nothing reassuring by asking only an agricultural engineer to 
understand what labor-management problems are. We do, as I said, 
have two or three experts in our agricultural economics 
department that I think have produced some very useful 
information about labor and handling the labor. And extension 
itself has developed programs with specially employed personnel 
who are trying to acquaint employers with how to handle appropri 
ately agricultural labor. And they've been very good programs. 

We haven't been ignorant of those needs. It's just been 
hard for people to recognize that they're not programs that you 
put millions of dollars into, so that if you compare the numbers 
of dollars going into the ag engineering department, compared 
with the numbers of dollars going into ag economics department, 
there's a vast difference. But you're buying hardware and 
machinery in the engineering departments, and you buy chalk and 
paper and calculators and computers in ag economics. So there is 
a difference in the required support, but we pay the people on 
the same general wage scale. 

Lage : Now, would it have been your job to ask for positions to be 

opened up, or to open up positions to people who had labor 
expertise or economic expertise? 

Kendrick: Yes. It was my job to provide a budget adequate enough to 
address the issues that were 

Lage: But you would also tell them where you wanted people added? 

Kendrick: Yes. 

Lage: Or would each local unit ? 

Kendrick: Well, let me finish the Regents' meeting, and then I'll get into 
that question. 

After this long afternoon, the Regents closed off that 
hearing with, "Thank you very much, we appreciate all of you 
being here today, and we feel better informed about the subject," 
and that dropped it. That was the end of it. 


Lage: No direction? 

Kendrick: No direction to me to change my program one iota. It was not 

business as usual, but I had tried to respond to the fact that we 
were not ignoring the problem, that there was more than the issue 
of just a few jobs of picking tomatoes at stake there were 
cannery workers, who were now employed, and who might not be 
employed without the harvester; there was the processing industry 
that was several hundred million dollars in value that had 
threatened to be displaced and moved to Mexico. So that we had 
retained an industry in California by this development that meant 
much more to the state economically than just a few field worker 
positions. It was wrong to take a snapshot view of the problem, 
in my opinion. 

Without trying to minimize the agony of the people who were 
losing their jobs, we tried to suggest to them that it was a 
state problem, a social problem to deal with, and not the 
University's sole problem. So much for that but that was a much 
better episode than the legislative hearing. 

Legal Action Challenging the University's Agricultural Program. 

Kendrick: We still had criticism from the Agrarian Reform group in Davis. 
lhat group continued to saw away at the notion that our program 
ignored the needs of the working people and was primarily 
associated with making farmers rich. Ultimately, the California 
Rural Legal Assistance [CRLA] joined with this Agrarian Reform 
group at Davis and filed suit in 1979 against a number of named 
individuals, including Regents, the President, me, and others, on 
the basis that we were misusing public funds and violating the 
law: the federal Hatch Act and the federal Smith-Lever Act. The 
Hatch Act is the law that authorized the Agricultural Experiment 
Station expenditure and that includes some appropriations, and 
the Smith-Lever Act is the one that authorizes the existence of 
Cooperative Extension, and allocates for that. 



And when do these acts date from? 

Kendrick: The Hatch Act was passed by Congress in 1887, and the Smith-Lever 
Act in 1914. So they go back. They've been amended in the 
meantime to update them, so they're still in force and still 
current, and the fundamental description of why they were 
instituted is still valid. 

And what did they feel was in violation? 


Kendrick: As far as the Hatch Act was concerned, the plaintiffs felt that 
there was a statement of the intent of the Hatch Act that the 
experiment station's activity should work towards full employment 
in the rural community. Now, there is a statement that says it 
is the goal of the Hatch Act to establish these experiment 
stations in such a way that they will promote the economic 
welfare of agriculture, and establish the rural community on a 
par with the urban community. In 1887, the rural community was 
really disadvantaged. All the wealth was concentrated in the 
urban areas, and cities were favored ground as far as society was 
concerned. So that the act addressed itself to neutralizing some 
of this difference and provide the rural community with attention 
and research that would match research needs for industry. 

And it had a statement that it intended to promote the 
economic welfare of agriculture, and all the other things 
including full employment. It is not clear whether it refers to 
full rural employment or just full employment in general but the 
suit hung itself on this alleged insensitivity and lack of 
attention to full rural employment and farm labor in particular, 
therefore alleging a violation of the intent of that law. 

They also accused us of misusing the public trust. That's a 
state statute which says that it's against the law for any public 
entity to take public funds and grant them to private enterprise 
for private gain. Their assumption was that because we were 
active in developing mechanical aids which machinery 
manufacturers built and large farming interests used, that these 
were the only beneficiaries, and therefore we were taking public 
money for private gain, and that was the violation. 

But that wasn't the main example that they hung their hats 
on mostly it was the fact that experiment station people and 
some extension people were evaluating chemical products from 
chemical companies as to the effectiveness of herbicides and 
pesticides. It was perceived that we were using those publicly 
supported positions to provide information to the chemical 
companies which they otherwise would have to buy for themselves 
at much greater cost than a few modest grants- in- aid. Without 
giving us the benefit of the fact that we were not doing it for 
the benefit of the chemical companies, we were trying to find 
something that would control the diseases and the pests of plants 
and animals. So that was the basis for that argument. 

Lage: So it didn't just focus on mechanization. 

Kendrick: No. They also initially accused a few of us of conflict of 
interest because we had some ties with some other business 
concerns. I did for a while serve as a member of the board of 
directors of the Tej on Agricultural Corporation and found it to 
be one of the most beneficial educational exposures of my life. 


Kendrick: It was hard to translate to the likes of the Agrarian Reform 

group that that was an educational experience [laughter]. It was 
perceived in their eyes as providing Tejon with a special inroad 
into the University. Several Regents were named because they had 
stock in companies that were agriculturally oriented or serviced 
agriculture, or they owned farm property. That part of the suit 
was dropped, very early on. 

The Smith-Lever part of that suit was based on the fact that 
the Smith-Lever Act does not say specifically that extension 
personnel should engage in research. And of course, all the time 
that I was in office, and prior to my being there by a couple of 
years, extension made no bones of the fact that they were engaged 
in an applied, localized research program, and we expected our 
personnel to engage in that kind of program. And the allegation 
was that we were violating the spirit and the language of the 
Smith-Lever Act by diverting Smith-Lever funds into research 
activities and not strictly extension activities. 

We were prepared for a long argument with that because 
research is research is research is research. The act does say 
that education was conducted through meetings, workshops. 
publications, demonstrations, and otherwise. The demonstrations 
are used by our colleagues in other states to satisfy what we say 
is research. We were not joined enthusiastically by our 
colleagues in other states; they just turned their backs and ran 
the other way when the suit was filed. They didn't want to get 
swept up into it. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture's Reaction to the Lawsuit 

Kendrick: We had a very difficult time getting the Department of 

Agriculture to engage in any kind of interest in this suit, and 
in particular the extension unit of USDA. They felt they would 
have a difficult time, and they would lose the battle if they 
recognized the fact that we were engaged in research overlooking 
the fact that we are required to file every year an annual plan 
of work in which we describe what we're going to do and also 
report what we had done. They sign off and approve it each year. 

Lage : But then, when the suit came up, they didn't want to step in to 

support ? 

Kendrick: When the suit came up, they didn't want to have a thing to do 

with providing us with any testimony that the program was a good 
extension program. 



Kendrick: Finally, out of frustration with my federal extension office, I 
resolved it by going to the deputy secretary of agriculture, 
today's secretary of agriculture, Dick Lyng. 

Lage: Now, what administration was this? 

Kendrick: This was under John R. Block, of the Reagan administration. 

Under Bob Bergland of the Carter administration, I didn't have a 
lot of sympathy in the secretary's office. Early in his life as 
the secretary of agriculture he'd been a congressman from 
Minnesota he made a tour in California and had a conference in 
Fresno. And of course, when the secretary of agriculture travels 
around the country, he's got an entourage of people who want to 
talk to him. That's one office that doesn't have any trouble 
drawing a crowd. Although it's not a cabinet office of the 
stature of the secretary of defense or secretary of state, its 
constituency follows that secretary around like a fly does a 
piece of meat. 

Bergland listened to the same kind of allegations that I'd 
been listening to, and he made a statement in Fresno to the press 
that he was going to put a stop to any federal funds going into 
any mechanical aids to harvest. That stimulated me. I wrote an 
editorial about "Is the Department of Agriculture changing its 
policy?" Because it was such a sweeping statement; they were 
indicating that we were going to get the tractors out of the 
field; we weren't going to fund anything that was a mechanical 
aid to agriculture. And I couldn't believe that a person who 
knew anything at all about agriculture would make such a 
sweeping, blanket statement. 

And I began getting calls. "Are your federal funds cut 
off?" "No," I replied, "they were never touched, never in 
j eopardy. " 

Lage: No follow up on that statement? 

Kendrick: Nothing. 

Lage: What percentage of your funds were federal funds? 

Kendrick: About five percent. 

Lage: Oh, that small? 

Kendrick: Five percent Hatch funds. There were a lot of other federal 

funds that go into the total research program, but not through 
the Hatch fund, and that's what he was talking about. 


How about the response from Earl Butz? Was he more ? 


Kendrick: Earl was secretary under Richard Nixon, much earlier than the 
period of the trial. Well. Earl [laughs] was the typical, 
traditional, old-line agriculturalist. His support was 
unshakable. So I had no problem with Earl ever. 

I'd like to say a bit more about Secretary Block's deputy 
secretary of agriculture, Dick Lyng, who is the present secretary 
of agriculture. Dick and I started out life together here in 
California with the Reagan administration as governor. Dick was 
the deputy director of the Department of Agriculture at the time 
when I became the vice president for agricultural sciences. So 
we worked together for a while until he went to Washington to 
become a Washington bureau man. A bureaucrat, in a kind sense of 
the word. 

So I finally, in frustration, went to Dick and said, "You 
know, I'm getting nowhere in the department." It was resclved. 
Not enthusiastically by extension, I might add. They didn't 
provide the kind of testimony that I think they should, but it 
was not damaging. But my problem with the federal department is 
that they were ignoring a potential serious threat to 
Agricultural Extension nationwide. If we were to lose that suit 
on that issue, that meant that extension could not and should not 
engage in any kind of activity that passed as research. And that 
would just take them out of business. I don't think that the 
department and the administrators of the federal extension 
program appreciated that fact whatsoever. They should have been 
following this much more closely than that, and provided some 
kind of aid and assistance, or owned up to the fact that they 
were approving our work plan every year. 

The University's Response and Current Status of the Suit 

Lage: It sounds as if you took quite an active role in responding to 

the legal suit. How did that work within the University? There 
must have been a whole array of lawyers; how much did you have to 
devote to it? 

Kendrick: Well, it didn't take a lot of personal time from me, but I 
obviously was in touch with what going on, was consulted 
regularly about strategy. The people within the University 
pursuing the legal aspect of the suit were in the general 
counsel's office. The thing that's amusing about that is that 
the California Rural Legal Assistance group had about two lawyers. 
They were joined at one stage by Public Advocates, a public 
interest law firm in San Francisco, where there were two lawyers. 
They spent a lot of time taking depositions. Th-.y deposed, or at 
least they had plans to depose, about seventy or eighty people. 


Kendrick: They filed suit in 1979, and they didn't go to trial until about 
'84. All that period was used to depose and collect data and 
look through many files. They would file a brief, and our 
general counsel's group would respond to it. We wore out one 
superior court judge in Alameda County, Judge [Spurgeon] Avakian, 
who got ill in the course of the trial. And so it was declared a 
mistrial, and we had to start all over again with another Alameda 
County Superior Court judge, Judge [Raymond] Marsh. He is a 
sitting judge in Hayward. 

I became pretty well acquainted with a good many members of 
the general counsel's office, and of course I was a colleague of 
the general counsel, the late Don Reidhaar and his successor 
[James E. Hoist], who took more than a casual interest in the 
suit. But Gary Morrison was the member of the general counsel's 
staff who really had the primary responsibility for the suit. 
George Marchand was a colleague; Christine Helwick was another 
one. The names of the others don't come to mind, but there were 
about six lawyers in the general counsel's office who, when the 
CRLA suit was on the docket, were all engaged in this thing. So 
we had numerous conferences over strategy and what to do next. 

The status of the suit now is as follows (then we can kind 
of draw this session to an end): I had hoped that maybe we would 
have this suit resolved before the time I retired, but that was a 
hope beyond fulfillment. On the research issue as far as 
extension was concerned, the judge in Alameda County, Judge 
Marsh, has indicated that he does not agree with the allegation, 
and he is prepared to rule that that's not an issue. He would be 
ruling in favor of the University, on that point. (This is a 
trial before the judge; there's no jury involved.) 

The plaintiffs on their own dropped the conflict of interest 

Lage : Do you know why they did that? 

Kendrick: They didn't have a case. 

Lage: They just couldn't develop anything. 

Kendrick: No. They have also dropped the public trust act violation. We 
were prepared to go to bat on that one because we thought we'd 
win that fairly easily. That leaves just the experiment 

Lage: The Hatch Act. 

Kendrick: The Hatch Act. Now, the judge has indicated that he feels the 

University does not have a process to evaluate proposed research 
projects on whether or not they are going to cause an adverse or 


Kendrick: a beneficial impact on farm labor and small farmers. And, in one 
of these conferences that we had with the general counsel's 
office, at their suggestion, as a strategy, we agreed to accept 
that allegation, accept the judge's ruling. Because, as I said, 
we can't prove that we have a process that evaluates each project 
on the basis of whether or not there will be a benefit or adverse 
effect on agricultural labor and small farmers. And we don't 
think we have to. That's not the way you evaluate projects. 
There's nothing in the law, in the Hatch Act, that says the 
program is developed to aid small farmers, and the judge's 
interpretation was that we were supposed to evaluate each 
research project on its impact on small family farmers and labor. 

Lage: But, not necessarily evaluating impacts on the processing 

industry and other industries? 

Kendrick: No. It's very specific. But the Hatch Act itself says nothing 
about size or ownership of agriculture. It just says develop a 
healthy agricultural economy and aid in the full employment. 

Well, the judge also is asking the University to provide him 
with a proposed process of how we would go about doing this 
evaluation. It's obvious that we've lost that issue at this 
level, which is a very fundamental issue as far as we are 
concerned. And so in the interest of speeding it along and 
getting it into the appellate court, we agreed to the 
stipulation. And that's where it is. 

Lage: Now. when you say "in the interest of speeding it along ?" 

Kendrick: We'll appeal to the District Court of Appeals. Just as soon as 
he makes that ruling, the appeal will be filed. We've read the 
Hatch Act too. 

Lage: How does having this kind of gigantic suit hanging over your head 

and over the entire division how does that affect you? 

Kendrick: Well, there was no punitive action. I wasn't going to go to 

jail, wasn't going to be fined, or anything like that it was an 
annoyance. I felt that, in the first place, it's a social 
argument; it does not belong in courts. When the trial actually 
got activated and started in Alameda County with Judge Avakian. I 
was down there the first day, and it was a media event. I also 
made sure that we were not unilaterally outrepresented by the 
critics, that we had some farm people coming from the local 
areas. It was a small courtroom, filled with more people than 
there was space for. and the media trying to get pictures and 

Lage: It had a lot of public interest. 


Kendrick: But the interesting thing is that the plaintiffs read the initial 
statement, and it went on, and on, and on, and on. It got to be 
past two o'clock, and two-thirty. Well, it was getting past all 
the deadlines, and all the media people were picking up their 
stuff and they were getting out of there by that time [laughs]. 
It was really kind of a lost cause. Well, I had an opportunity 
to make a few comments, so that we were not devoid of at least 
having our difference of opinion expressed. Marjorie Sun from 
Science magazine came out to cover that opening trial, and I 
spent some time with her. I felt that my viewpoint was fairly 
represented by the media; I don't feel that we were roasted 

But the CRLA knows how to use the media very effectively, 
even more so than the academic community that I'm associated with 
does, and their timing in using the media was also very good. I 
think that our public information group needs to tone up a little 
bit and play that game professionally and not just react to it. 

But the problem, as I say, that I had with the trial, is 
that they began to assemble their expert witnesses. One came 
from Cornell, and one came from UC Santa Cruz, and one agricul 
tural economist who had retired from Missouri and was living in 
California. Their testimony was this same kind of theme of 
agrarian reform, that the ownership in agriculture was in the 
hands of business and business-oriented activities and 
enterprises; it was getting bigger and bigger; and the University 
was forcing it into bigger units. The University was charged 
with paying little attention to the sociological displacements 
that were taking place for people engaged in agriculture, and the 
exploitation of labor to the gain of the business community. 

There really was no truth to the allegations. There 
certainly is no conspiracy as far as the University is concerned. 
They were attempting to lay the groundwork to prove that we were 
using public money for private gain; that we were engaged in 
research which we shouldn't pursue; and to demonstrate that large 
farm units caused poorer surrounding communities than small farm 
units. The witnesses compared agricultural development in the 
west side of the San Joaquin Valley with that in the east side 
of the San Joaquin Valley, where there is a lot of difference 
other than just size of the farms. The west side is made up of 
large acreages of primarily cotton and grain. They got 
themselves into trouble with selenium and dust and poor 
economics, and their community support areas are not very good. 
They're younger, for one thing. 

The east side is a much more pleasant side of the San 
Joaquin Valley to live in. There are older established 
communities; there is orchard-type agriculture. They tend to be 
smaller units because you don't generally have a thousand acres 



Lage : 

of tree fruits and nuts under one ownership. Water availability 
is different, and there are just a lot of differences other than 
size of the agricultural units. 

But the discussions were all sociologically-based 
differences of opinion, and it was a little bit like the Bork 
hearings. Do you want to legislate from the bench, or do you 
want to interpret the existing law? I am an unabashed exponent 
I don't want the judicial branch making law. I'm perfectly 
willing to go to Sacramento, to the legislature, and argue and 
agonize and go through this whole process, because they're 
charged with the responsibility of paying attention to societal 
needs. But it does not belong in the court. 

Did the tension, the media tension, subside? 

It evaporated very quickly, 

Lasted twenty- four hours. 

Academic Freedom and the Independence of the Regents 

Lage: Did the suit have the effect of bringing pressure to bear on you 

from the President's Office or from the Regents? 

Kendrick: No. Well, the active part of the suit got started in trial stage 
at the very end of Saxon's presidency, and most of it has been 
taking place under President David Gardner. David is totally 
supportive of hanging in there and proving our point. I had no 
particular pressure from the Board of Regents, other than from 
Regent Vilma Martinez at one point. She was getting a little 
noise from some of the plaintiffs pursuing the suit and hoped 
that we could reach an amicable compromise and give some 
attention to what the complaints were. But there's no room to 

compromise on this issue, as far as I'm concerned, 
of academic freedom and intrusion. 

It's a case 

One of the interesting things about this the constitutional 
independence of the Regents goes back almost to the origin of the 
University itself, but not quite. It goes back probably to the 
1890s. One of the major problems that the Board of Regents faced 
back in those 1880s, 1870s. came from the California Grange. The 
agricultural interests were really getting in there, and they 
were exercising an undue amount of influence, trying to influence 
direction, because they felt that they were going to be 
disadvantaged in the University if it became a University of 
California rather than a college of agriculture, with all its 
resources devoted to their needs. 


Kendrick: And the resulting interference of this aggie group of people 
[laughter] resulted in constitutional independence for the 
Regents. So here we are 115 years later, on the other side of 
the issue, in which the people are trying to influence the 
direction and program through the courts. Now, there are ways 
to do that, but not by mandating through the courts that we do 
specific kinds of things. You ask the legislature to appropriate 
money, and you fight it out. The program in sustainable 
agriculture is a new program responding to a legislative interest 
and a legislative appeal by people who felt that they were being 
neglected by the University's agricultural program people in 
organic fanning and nontraditional farming methods. 

Lage: So that came in through legislative directives and appropriation? 

Kendrick: Yes. So now we have a fairly substantial program centered on the 
Davis campus, with a new director, in sustainable agriculture, 
serving the new clientele that we haven't served before. 

Lage: As we go along, maybe we can talk about some other programs that 

have come along. I think it's a good stopping point; do you 

Kendrick: Okay, good. 



The Fixed Costs of Permanent Academic Staff Salaries 
[Date of interview: October 16. 1987] ## 

Lage : Today is October 16, 1987. This is the eighth session with James 

Kendrick, and today we're going to move into the Agriculture 
Experiment Station: administration, special problems, and new 
research directions. 

Kendrick: Yes. I believe at the last session I talked about modifying the 
agricultural advisory committee and broadening its representation 
beyond commodity agriculture that had been represented almost 
exclusively on the previous committee. That was only the 
beginning of trying to broaden the research program of the 
experiment station, or at least recognize the fact that there 
were other sources who were anxious to be heard from, as well as 
expecting some activity from research conducted by members of the 
experiment station. 

I also had referred to the fact in an earlier session that 
the flexibility of funding the experiment station was really not 
very great even though it had a large budget of state- 
appropriated funds and represented about 60 percent of the state- 
appropriated money for the University's organized research 

Lage: And that's a line item, directed to the experiment station? 

Kendrick: Yes, it was identified for agriculture. And it has always been 

somewhat of a source of envy by other elements of the University. 
If there's a hundred million dollar appropriation for the 
University's organized research, agriculture gets sixty million 
of it. It appears that Jim Kendrick, the vice president, had a 
sixty million dollar freestanding research fund to allocate, and 
that agriculture was particularly favored in the state appropria 
tion over all the other organized research units of the University. 


Kendrick: There are no other organized research units in the University 
that fund as much of the permanent staff as agriculture does. 

Lage: Of the University's permanent staff? 

Kendrick: Of the University's permanent faculty and staff. 

Lage: So that budget pays for part of the faculty salaries of those who 

have a dual appointment in a department and in the experiment 

Kendrick: That's correct. About 500 academic FTE in the experiment 
station, and those 500 academic FTE are experiment station 

Lage: Could you define FTE again? 

Kendrick: Full time equivalent, another budgetary term used to identify 
positions of the experiment station. 

Most members of the experiment station average about 70 
percent FTE in the experiment station- funded portion of their 
salary, which is related to the time that they're expected to 
spend on the experiment station program. The balance of their 
appointment and salary, or 30 percent, comes out of another 
budgetary category called instruction and research [I & R], This 
is the category that funds the general faculty of the University 
of California, and the title series that is associated with it 
contains the professorial ranks. 

It's that mix of FTE between the experiment station FTE, and 
the I & R FTE, where the vice president and the chancellor must 
agree to fund when we are allocating a vacant position to a par 
ticular department and program. So that process drives a coopera 
tive relationship between the President's Office and the chancellor 
in deciding how the allocations of resources are to be made. 

But that 60 percent of the University's organized research 
appropriation is what stands out in the budget. And considering 
how many organized research units there are in the total 
University system, there isn't much money left to go around those 
other units. So what really happens is that these other units 
wind up using that state-appropriated funding to fund their core 
administrative staff. Anybody who comes into those units to 
conduct a research program depends largely on external grants and 
contracts for their supporting funding. So what in essence 
happens is that the state of California is the granting agency 
for agricultural research. Precedent for that goes back in 
history, in the fact that the state and the University in 
partnership set up a research program for agriculture to serve 
agriculture in the state, and it has continued ever since. 


Lage: Is that an obligation under the land grant college legislation? 

Kendrick: Yes. The mandate of the Morrill Act required instruction in 

agriculture, mechanic arts, and military tactics to qualify as a 
land grant institution. That's why we find some land grant 
institutions in the United States still bearing a title like 
Texas A and M Texas Agriculture and Mechanics Institute. That 
also, I believe, is the reason why the Mechanics Institute in San 
Francisco maintained a spot on the Board of Regents for so many 
years, as an ex officio member, because that was a response to 
this same mandate that mechanics be a part of the instructional 
offering of a land grant institution. 

So agriculture was embedded in the formation of the 
University of California as a land grant institution. 

Legislative Protection for Agricultural Research in the 1967 
Reagan Budget 

Lage: Prior to your coming to the vice presidency, in 1966 

reapportionment of the state legislature affected agriculture's 
power in the legislature. How did that affect your 

Kendrick: It didn't affect the appropriation policy as much as it affected 
the environment in which I found our program received in 
Sacramento. Let me not overlook a little incident that I 
inherited that was somewhat difficult to deal with, stemming from 
activities of the legislature. You're quite perceptive in asking 
about the effect of reapportionment of the legislature and the 
adoption of the one-person, one-vote representation on 
agriculture's influence in the legislature. These actions 
changed vastly and forever the kind of legislative influence that 
rural California and rural areas in other states exerted over 
appropriations and programs that were of public interest. 

Prior to that change in reapportionment and the one-person, 
one-vote edict, the legislature was under the control of rural 
California, both in the senate and the assembly. And 
agriculture, being as important as it was in the rural community 
of California, was an important power to deal with. To the 
extent that they voiced opinions about what they thought we ought 
to be paying attention to, the University's agricultural division 
usually responded, and the appropriations were supplied in due 
course to carry those concerns forward. 


Kendrick: I don't mean to imply that these appropriations and programs were 
forced upon the University. Most were conceived and lobbied for 
by interested University people. But success in achieving these 
appropriations was more certain in the rural-dominated 
legislature. Some of the successful programs and special 
appropriations for them were pear decline, agricultural 
mechanization, and the establishment of the departments of 
nematology at both Davis and Riverside. 

About the time I came up here, just a year before, was the 
inauguration of the Reagan years as governor [1967]. He greeted 
the University with a budget cut. Part of the budget cut was due 
to trying to get the bankrupt state back in good financial 
condition, but I think part of it was due to the general 
unhappiness he had with what was going on as far as Vietnam and 
the student activities, the Free Speech Movement, and the whole 
array of protests that were going on. Reagan, representing the 
kind of law and order mentality that he brought into that office, 
was anxious to set things in order. That's a whole other story 
which will be revealed in other people's oral histories. But it 
did result in an action in Sacramento that instituted about an 8 
percent budget cut. 

Lage: For the entire University? 

Kendrick: For the entire University. But what happened as far as 

agriculture was concerned was that some of our friends and I 
don't know just where they came from, but I suspect it was some 
of the organized commodity groups prevailed upon the legislative 
representatives with whom they were dealing to protect the 
organized research appropriation for agriculture. And they had 
written into the law that, while the University overall was going 
to take an 8 percent reduction, agriculture was not to be cut 
more than 3 percent. So the agricultural representatives in the 
legislature had protected the program, at the expense of the rest 
of the programs in the University, and particularly the other 
organized research units. 

If I had been on board prior to that happening, I would have 
never allowed that differential to exist, because I inherited ill 
feelings and ill will within the institution that I didn't need. 
If the institution was going to take a reduction, we should have 
taken our share. But that was another environment that I had to 
deal with in setting subsequent budgets because I was always 
reminded that "Yes, in 1967 you were protected, and we had to 
make up your difference," 

Lage: The organized research units still had the overall 8 percent 






The overall 8 percent was still enforced. So then some of the 
units less capable of absorbing that kind of reduction had to 
take more than 8 percent. 

Now, who did you hear from in matters like this? 
get these messages? 

Where did you 

Well, in the President's budget office and other vice presidents 
dealing with academic programs. The academic vice president 
would remind me from time to time that the organized research 
units that reported to him suffered at the expense of protecting 
agriculture. And in years even President Saxon condoned 
allocating a larger cut into Cooperative Extension than the rest 
of the institution was experiencing, and that resulted in another 
political maneuver in Sacramento which didn't sustain the 
President's recommendation, and the President's Office was forced 
to take another look at allocating reductions. 

What I'm really describing is the fact that agriculture, 
while not in control of the agenda, was still influential enough 
in the political process that it could prevent somebody else frcm 
doing harmful things to them. So their role changed. Instead of 
being proactive, in terms of initiating things, they were being 
reactive and played the role of minority representation. Since 
this state government operates particularly in the appropriation 
process, the budgetary process on the basis of line-item veto by 
the governor, and the legislature's power to override that veto 
requires a two-thirds majority in both houses to do so, in a 
sense, agriculture maintained a kind of protective skin, so to 
speak, over the whole agricultural program in this state. 

Well, sometimes that works to our advantage, and other times 
it is a disadvantage. I found my attitude was one of trying to 
live with the whole and not trying to exploit my differences with 
the rest of the institution. I felt it was important that groups 
other than just the agricultural representation go to bat for 
agriculture. Otherwise, in due course, we'd go downhill as the 
state became increasingly urbanized, and as fewer and fewer units 
in agriculture continued to exist. It just seemed to me the 
long-term interest in agriculture programs resided in broadening 
the program so that it was not just a farming unit service area, 
and that there was some value in offering its program to those 
consumers and urbanites as much as it did to the organized 
agriculture. That was a philosophic point of view that I tried 
to bring to bear throughout all of my administration. And I 
attempted to work closely with my colleagues in the President's 
Office and with the chancellors, to get them to feel some degree 
of comfort and some degree of interest in preserving a program of 
research that was clearly a public service-oriented kind of 


Kendrick: I was reminded of this special favoritism for agriculture by 

several of the chancellors at the time, too, particularly at UCLA 
and Berkeley, and they didn't like it too well. The Davis and 
Riverside chancellors were less condemning of that particular 
thing, because they had a special interest in [laughs] not having 
to deal with that cut in agricultural research. 

Now, let me get back to the research budget for agriculture. 
Of the total amount, about 80 percent is associated with regular 
faculty and staff salaries. And that is not well understood, 
even by members of the budget group in the President's Office. 
It was that 80 percent of the budget that was directly allocated 
to campuses without even coming through my office which went to 
support the salaries of those regular members of the three 
colleges that house most of the personnel engaged in experiment 
station research. So 80 percent of the budget for agricultural 
research was a non-flexible state appropriation. 

Lage: You don't have control over it. 

Kendrick: No control. 

The Field Station System. Tulelake to Imperial Valley; 
Another Fixed Cost 

Kendrick: Now, the remaining 20 percent of the agricultural research budget 
goes out in various ways. There are a number of research units 
that are parts of the experiment station. We have to support our 
field station system, consisting of nine locations in the state 
of California, all the way from Tulelake to the Imperial Valley. 
Tulelake is near KLamath Falls, just across the border from 
Oregon in the very northeast corner of Siskiyou County. The 
Tulelake station is where the ice minus experiment was conducted. 
Tulelake was selected because it is a potato growing area where 
late spring frosts occur, and the test was conducted on potatoes 
to protect them from frost damage. 

There are two large range stations, larger than three 
thousand acres. One is the Sierra Foothill Range Station. It 
was established to study cattle cattle grazing and all the 
problems associated with range-fed cattle. It is located east of 
Marysville, in the foothills of the Sierras, near one branch of 
the Yuba River. 

Then there is a similar range station greater than four 
thousand acres, the Hopland Station. It's located in the Coast 
Range near Hopland. That was established to study sheep grazing 
and all the problems associated with sheep raising. It also was 


Kendrick: a source of wildland studies, and much information was developed 
on that station about deer herds, dealing with deer and their 
native environment and how to keep the size of the herds within 

Lage: Did they do any mountain lion studies there? 

Kendrick: I think they may have. They did a pretty complete coyote study, 
researching the control of coyotes in the process of raising 

There are three field stations in the San Joaquin Valley, 
one called the Kearney Horticultural Field Station, which is our 
major field station in the system of nine. Kearney is near 
Reedley, and Reedley is close to Parlier, which is the post 
office address for the Kearney Field Station. It's about twenty 
miles south and a little east of Fresno. 

Then there is the West Side Field Station, which is located 
at Five Points. It is not close to anything. It is southwest of 
Fresno about forty miles, and is out in that West Side 
agricultural development which was developed with the completion 
of the California water aqueduct. It is devoted largely to the 
field crops and cotton, which are characteristic of the 
agriculture in that region. The Kearney Horticultural Field 
Station, as the name implies, deals with fruits, nuts, vines, as 
well as some of the vegetable crops, and other crops that are 
characteristic of the east side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

And the Lindcove Field Station is a little northeast of 
Visalia, and a little southeast of Kearney. It's within twenty- 
five or thirty miles of the Kearney station, but it is just at 
the beginning of the Sierra foothill area. It's in the area 
where citrus was developed as it moved out of southern California 
into the San Joaquin Valley. Its primary activity is devoted to 
citrus research. 


We have also a station in the middle of the metropolitan 
area of Santa Clara, which at one time was a very intense 
agricultural region. It's not a large station, but it is totally 
surrounded by urban area. It originally was devoted to deciduous 
fruits, and it is called the Deciduous Fruit Field Station. The 
deciduous fruits plums, prunes, and apricots, were once 
prominent in that region's agriculture, and so were strawberries. 
But work at that station now is predominantly related to 
ornamental and urban agriculture. 


Kendrick: Then we have a field station in Orange County, which is fast 

becoming surrounded by urban development. But it was once Irvine 
Company property adjacent to the El Toro Marine Corps Air Base. 
It was established to provide some breathing room for some of the 
horticultural work that was being conducted at UCLA when UCLA 
phased out its agricultural program. One of my predecessors, Dan 
Aldrich, was given the unhappy assignment of closing down all of 
agriculture at UCLA and relocating it at Davis and Riverside. 
One person went back to Berkeley. 

Lage: So there was a precedent to the threat to close it down at 


Kendrick: Yes. That's not my story I didn't have to inherit that. I was 
involved in the results of that because at the time I was 
chairman of the Department of Plant Pathology at Riverside and 
UCLA, and we had four people at UCLA in our department. The 
department was, however, always managed from Riverside. Our 
teaching unit was located at UCLA, where the students were. And 
in the course of the period when I was chair, I had to help 
negotiate what we were going to do with the positions and the 
people at UCLA. In plant pathology, two of the people who were 
at UCLA moved to Riverside and became resident members of our 
department. A third member retired from the position. 

The fourth member of that department did not want to come to 
Riverside, and we ultimately negotiated a spot for him in 
Berkeley. That was all taking place when I was chair of the 

The same thing happened to entomology. They had some people 
move to Riverside into the entomology department. There were 
also three or four people engaged in ornamental horticulture at 
UCLA, all of whom were relocated in the ornamental horticulture 
program at Davis. So eventually the program was phased down, 
although not completely while I was the chairman of the 
department at Riverside, because as a vice president, I recall 
there were a few people still at UCLA, an associate director of 
the experiment station at UCLA, Sid Cameron, who became a part of 
my Agricultural Advisory Council, or Administrative Council. He 
was succeeded in that role by Van Stoutemeyer, a horticultural ist. 
So there were at least three or four people who were sufficiently 
advanced in their careers that moving them just made no human sense. 

Lage: Sounds like it's hard to operate without a department to back you 


Kendrick: Well, there was a little bit of the teaching program remaining so 
they moved into botany and conducted the program. There were, I 
think, three or four people left at UCLA to finish out their 


Kendrick: I guess you could say that the negotiation of the phaseout of 
agriculture at UCLA started under Aldrich, proceeded under 
Peterson, and the final dot at the end of the paragraph wasn't 
completed until I had a little bit to do with it. I recall that 
the negotiations on where some of the supporting resources and 
the vacated positions were going to go were conducted by Mack 
Dugger, the dean and associate director of the experiment station 
at Riverside, and David Saxon. David at the time was the 
executive vice chancellor at UCLA, so we had an early 
relationship with David before he became president. 

Lage: So did we name all the field stations? 

Kendrick: No. we've got one more to go. I digressed a little bit because 
that Orange Coast Field Station, as I indicated, was selected so 
that it could serve the faculty of the experiment station from 
Riverside as well as UCLA, an easy run by the automobile from 
both places. But it ultimately became a place where activity in 
citrus and avocado research were predominant, with a little bit 
of ornamental horticulture and turf research also conducted 
there. We had an important strawberry breeding program also at 
that station. 

Lage: Has that been taken over by urbanization also? 

Kendrick: Well, it's been quite a while since I've been to that station. 
I'm told that there's a lot of urban encroachment. The Irvine 
Company is in the land development business as well as 
agriculture, but I think their agricultural activity is minimal. 

The last the ninth field station is in Imperial County. 
It's called the Meloland Field Station, in the Imperial Valley. 
The proper name is the Imperial Valley Field Station. There's a 
little railroad siding there, and I think it's called Meloland. 
It is about five miles east of El Centre. It, as one would 
expect, is devoted to the kind of crops that are characteristic 
of the Imperial Valley. The Imperial Valley is an interior 
desert valley that has been developed because of water available 
through the Colorado River Compact. There is an aqueduct that 
comes from the Colorado River and irrigates the Imperial Valley. 
It also is the source of most of the water for the Salton Sea. 

Well, that's quite an extensive system of field stations, 
but it certainly is not overwhelming. It's not as large as some 
of the other states that have field stations. The main 
difference is that our University field stations do not conduct 
programs on their own. They are managed as facilities for the 
regular experiment station personnel located on the campuses, and 
for the extension personnel both specialists and farm advisors 
to conduct their field research work on. We had a few 
permanently located research people and some extension people 


Kendrick: located at Imperial and at Kearney. But for the most part, the 
staff located at the field stations were support staff and a 
mixture of field station personnel as well as some department- 
assigned supporting staff. 

Field stations in other states conduct independent research 
and extension programs on their own. I like it the way we manage 
it because it meant we didn't have a lot of independent programs. 
Our field research program was under the management of our 
regular faculty and staff. 

We got off on this topic because the field station system is 
one of the allocations of the 20 percent of the budget remaining 
after the 80 percent nonflexible funding that is part of the 
experiment station appropriation. 

Lage : So field stations were another sort of fixed cost. 

Kendrick: They certainly were. It's a fixed cost in the sense that to 
achieve any flexibility meant closing down a facility or 
discharging people. It is not a source of funds that's available 
for annual reallocation, as grant funds usually are. 

The Statewide Critical Applied Research [SCAR] Fund 

Kendrick: There were about a million dollars worth of these special funds 
composed of several special funds such as the previously 
mentioned pear decline funds. Ultimately we solved the pear 
decline problem, and so the question was, what do you do with 
those funds? 

Lage: Did the appropriation end, or ? 

Kendrick: No, it was fixed into the budget. All those special 

appropriations were part of the general budget. They were 
indexed to inflation so, in due course, they had increased 

Lage: Once the problem's been solved, isn't there some way to say ? 

Kendrick: Well, what I did was say, "I think it's foolish to identify these 
funds as pear decline funds." What we should do is identify them 
as pear research funds. As long as there's a problem in pears, 
it will get first call on those funds, and if there's no critical 
need for pear research, why, as far as I'm concerned, it's fair 
game for allocation to other kinds of general problems. I would 
try to keep it somewhat related, but I wasn't concerned that it 
necessarily go back to pear decline. 


Kendrick: The pear decline funds had lost their identity with anyone other 
than those preparing the budget, and the proponents of the 
special appropriations in the legislature had long since moved 
on. So there was really no watchdog for them. And since we had 
a number of these earmarked original appropriations, what we did 
was ultimately combine them into what was called the Statewide 
Critical Applied Research Fund [SCAR Fund], which was a grant 
fund amounting to about a million dollars. This was helpful 
because it meant we had some degree of flexibility to allocate on 
short notice to activities that were directed towards a crisis. 
We tried to keep the funds strictly within the definition of 
critical applied research to contrast it with the long-term basic 
research activities that were by and large funded through grants 
made by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of 
Health, and other federal agencies. 

We had more money coming into our program from those kinds 
of sources, federal sources, which were the result of the 
individual faculty members' own entrepreneurship and 
gr ant sman ship, than we had from the USDA formula funds. As a 
matter of fact, we had twice as much coming from other federal 
agencies as we had from the Hatch funds. We never felt that the 
Hatch funds were that significant in determining our program, 
which was another reason that I resented the accusations from the 
suit of the California Rural Legal Assistance that implied that 
because our program was unduly influenced by agribusiness and 
private industry, we were misusing Hatch funds. There was no way 
to trace exactly how Hatch funds were being used because they 
were co-mingled with other programs and with other funding. 

Lage: Hatch funds were just sort of a general appropriation? 

Kendrick: Hatch funds arrived at the University on a formula basis. And 
the formula was derived by a ratio of rural population to urban 
population and numbers of farming units. California suffered 
from that ratio, that index, because the numbers of farming units 
in California were not as great as in many southern states, and 
the rural population 

Lage: If there were smaller farms, California would have gotten more 


Kendrick: The rural population in relation to urban population [laughs] was 
also not something that favored California's distribution of 
Hatch money. So our share of Hatch allocations was really not 
very large in relation to the value of our agriculture. A number 
of us always thought that we ought to place in that index the 
value of the product, but we didn't get beyond the talking stages 
in that. It's not easy to reallocate a funding source that has 
become no standard and so traditional that it has really become 
part of your base budget. So you don't take money away from 






Kentucky or Tennessee or North Carolina or Florida and reallocate 
it to California, which already has got one of the largest 
agricultural budgets of any of the land grant institutions in the 
states. We stand out like a sore thumb among all states, but we 
stand out because the state of California has always taken more 
than a modest interest in supporting agriculture, and they have 
appropriated accordingly. 

Now, where were we? 

We've shown how there was not a lot of flexibility in the 
program. This is one of the themes you wanted to discuss, how 
introduce flexibility into the program. 


Yes. And this is one of the techniques, combining some of these 
specialized funds. Another source of those specialized funds was 
the ag mechanization funding. It became a part of the total 
Statewide Critical Applied Research Fund. 

There was one enlightened appropriation early on in my 
tenure supported by Vice President Oswald in spite of the 
terrible environment that I was experiencing. It was a 
designated appropriation requested through the regular budgetary 
process. It was not difficult to convince the State Department 
of Finance representatives and the Assembly's Ways and Means 
Committee representatives, after they understood the fixed nature 
of the total appropriation, that we could improve our ability to 
respond quickly, if there was some undesignated funding. So a 
modest amount of funding at our request, something like $250,000, 
was appropriated, and it ended up in this unrestricted funding 
source. I had help from the President's budget office; Loren 
Furtado was instrumental in shaping the budget in those years. 
He saw the need and was somewhat sympathetic and helped shape the 
request and justification. 

He was a University employee? 

He was from the University budget office. Vice President Oswald 
and Loren Furtado were also helpful in my securing $100,000 of 
Regents' controlled funds to support agricultural research which 
was focused on innovation and change in direction. While these 
funds did not fit precisely our SCAR Fund purpose, they were 
welcome additions to our flexible funding sources. We continued 
to identify them as "Regents' Funds." The amount of allocatable 
funds available on an annual basis really was very modest, 
however, in relation to the size of the research effort of the 
experiment station. 


Working with the State Department of Finance 

Lage: And how about the staff of these legislative committees that you 

mentioned? Did you work well with them? 

Kendrick: We worked with the Department of Finance, initially, in putting 
the budget together. That's the most critical stage of 
budgeting, as far as the state portion of our total operating 
budget was concerned. The summer and fall of the year is when 
the President's Office budget office group works almost daily 
with the Department of Finance, going through the budget item by 
item, justifying the allocations that the University is 
requesting, and providing arguments in support of what we think 
we need to run the institution. It's so critical to get items 
included in the governor's budget, because if it does not appear 
in the governor's budget, it is unlikely to be funded. 

Lage: So your first job is with the governor's people. 

Kendrick: The first job is with the Department of Finance, to get into the 
budget proposal the things that are needed because they, of 
course, are charged with the responsibility of putting the 
governor's budget together. That doesn't mean that the governor 
doesn't have a mind of his own and couldn't ask for things or ask 
that things be eliminated. But it is really the Department of 
Finance that is critical in putting this together. 

Lage: Would this be a time where you could perhaps compare the 

different governors' departments of finance and how they were to 
work with? 

Kendrick: Well, I can, yes. Let me finish the story of budgeting because I 
don't know if it's in Harry Wellman's oral history, or if it will 
be in dark Kerr's autobiography. The manner in which the 
budgeting process is carried forth is unique to California, and 
it's due to the fact that there's a line-item veto available to 
the governor. 

Lage: So if something is added by the legislature that wasn't in the 

governor's budget, it's likely to be vetoed. 

Kendrick: That's precisely the case. And that's why it's so critical to 
have desired items included in the budget as presented to the 
legislature by the governor. The legislature doesn't have to 
appropriate everything that the governor asks for. Often they 
don't. That most often results in us not getting that item 
because the governor, while permitted to veto, is not permitted 
to add items back that the legislature has eliminated. So the 
process after the ' udget is put before the legislature is all 


Lage: I see. It's a defensive action. 

Kendrick: It's a defensive action. If the legislature wants special items 
funded that they think are important and the governor didn't put 
in the budget, unless he (or she, as the case may someday be) 
feels that it's important, or is an oversight, or they're able to 
convince him otherwise, it will wind up on the cutting room floor 
and be vetoed as breaking his or her stated goal for the budget. 
And if the legislature doesn't like some of the governor's pet 
ideas, or some of the things that are put into it by the 
Department of Finance, they can refuse to appropriate money for 
them, and so we don't get those items either. So it's a no-win 
situation once the budget is in the hands of legislature, it's 
fight for what you've got. And that characterizes a lot of our 
testimony before the legislature in support of budgets. We wind 
up for the most part supporting the governor's budget, regardless 
of party and relationships with the budget. 




Relationships with the Reagan Administration 
Reagan Advisors Earl Coke and Allan Grant 

Kendrick: During the Reagan administration, our relationship in agriculture 
was pretty good, better than the rest of the University. Part cf 
that, and maybe even a major share of that, in my opinion, was 
due to the fact that Governor Reagan's agricultural advice came 
primarily from two sources: Earl Coke and Allan Grant. Earl 
Coke was formerly director of Agricultural Extension for the 
University, in the period between B. H. Crocheron and George 
Alcorn. So he was the second director of the Agricultural 
Extension Service. 


Earl was quite revered by California's agriculture, 
organized and otherwise, and also knowledgeable about the 
University, as a former employee. He started out as an ag 
extension specialist in agronomy. He was, at the time that I 
moved in to my spot, secretary for California's Agriculture and 
Services Agency, and his director of agriculture, in Calif orria's 
Department of Agriculture, was Richard Lyng, Dick Lyng, who is 
the present United States secretary of agriculture. 

Allan Grant was not only president of the California Farm 
Bureau Federation, but he was president of the State Board of 
Food and Agriculture, then known as the State Board of 
Agriculture. Later it changed its name when the department 
became the Department of Food and Agriculture. He was also, as 
president of the State Board of Agriculture, an ex officio 
Regent. So the governor had, as far as he was concerned, two 
very strong advocates for agr-'.culture as his close personal 

With Harry Wellman, at luncheon for 
formal presentation of Wellman 's 
oral history, January 1977. 

Evelyn and Jim Kendrick, 
October 1981. 

The California State Board of Agriculture, at last meeting with Governor 
Ronald Reagan, December, 1975. Left to Right: Jim Kendrick, Al Tisch, 
Allan Grant, Governor Reagan, Wes Sawyer, Herb Fleming, Director Bru 
Christensen, Emil Mrak, Cordner Gibson. 


Interpreting the University's Mission to the Ag Staff and 
Communi ty 

Lage : Allan Grant. I noticed in the editorials in California Farmer. 

seemed exceedingly upset with the University in the period of 
'68. '69. 

Kendrick: Yes. The sources of his unhappiness with the University were the 
same sources that caused the unhappiness that the governor 
exhibited. These were the perceived seeming lack of resolve to 
punish and admonish the confrontations, the strikes, the sit- 
downs, and rowdy behavior, in their view, by students who were 
opposed to the U.S. policy in the Vietnam engagement. 

Lage: Did he carry that over to his attitude towards your division? 

Kendrick: No. I had mentioned earlier in one of our sessions that one of 
the attitudes I often encountered in Cooperative Extension was a 
feeling that they were not a part of the University of 
California, particularly those people who were located in offices 
in regions of California which were pretty conservative. They 
tended to look at the University of California as them, and those 
of tis are different, and we aren't sympathetic towards that sort 
of thing. I tried to remind them that, rather than criticize the 
University of California in its generic sense, to recognize its 
comprehensiveness and explain that they were also a part of the 
University of California, and anyone who wanted to condemn the 
University of California in its totality were in a sense 
condemning the agricultural extension program also. I thought 
that they ought to stand up and be counted, indicating that the 
University was a diverse collection of ideas and people like 
them. The noisy ones at the moment were being somewhat rude and 
obstreperous. That the University was a collection of 
differences; it wasn't a collection of monolithic ideas. 

Lage: Was this hard to get across to your own staff? 

Kendrick: Absolutely. They couldn't see it. Particularly, I would say, 

the Cooperative Extension personnel located in the counties not 
necessarily those that were located on campuses because they were 
exposed to the campus environments but three-fifths of the 
Cooperative Extension people were in county-based offices. And 
so they were influenced considerably by local community attitudes 
and politics. Mot only they, but their clients and constituencies, 
would frequently ask and complain about the fact that the University 
didn't appear to speak or advocate the same position. "You're 
inconsistent. You've got critics in biological control that 
condemn the use of pesticides, and you've got those that believe 
that pesticide use is the only way to control the pests. Why 
don't you make up your mind, so that we understand what's going on?" 


Kendrick: I would say to those people. "Don't try to hold us to a single, 
uniformly expressed point of view. The University has no point 
of view. It is a home for intellectual inquiry and expression, 
which is not going to be uniform and monolithic. If you've got 
an expert on one side of an issue, I can find another expert on 
the other side of the issue, and we'll have a lively debate. And 
you can make up your mind which one you want to believe. But 
don't expect us to do so for you." 

Often I would get a plea from some particularly irate 
citizen, who seemed to be offended by a particular statement or 
point of view, saying, "You better get ahold of that person and 
stop them from saying this!" And I'd say, "Not on your life. I 
can't stop anybody from saying anything. I can expect them to 
justify and provide the basis for what they claim to believe, and 
are expressing, but I won't force them to change their opinion. 
I'm not running a censorship agency." 

Protection for Philosophical Differences in the Faculty Promotion 

Lage: Did you find that there were times when faculty in the Experiment 

Station who may have expressed unpopular points of view 
regarding, say, mechanization, or large farms versus small farms, 
or any of these controversial issues, were hindered in their 
advancement at the University? 

Kendrick: I have no evidence that that ever took place. One of the most 
vocal critics of the traditional pest control systems with a 
heavy emphasis on chemicals was the late Robert Van den Bcsch, a 
colleague of mine at Riverside who moved to Berkeley and was a 
member of the Department of Entomology and the Division of 
Biological Control. His criticism was often times cynical, 
sarcastic, and somewhat barbed. He became a very popular person 
to quote in the press. His descriptions were vivid and 
appealing, as far as the public media were concerned. But I'm 
not aware that Bob ever missed an advancement or a promotion for 
those reasons. I vigorously defended his right to express 
himself. I didn't happen to agree with him, but he was certainly 
at liberty to pursue his academic rights to be a critic. So that 
we had a good relationship even though we differed on many issues 
that he found time to criticize. 

There were others. I think the Biological Control group 
felt that they were under siege a good part of the time, and we 
tried to organize them a little closer into the Department of 
Entomology here at Berkeley. This precipitated a world-wide 
letter-writing campaign suggesting that we were doing away with 
Biological Control because we didn't like their criticisms and we 


Kendrick: didn't agree with their programs, which was not the case at all. 
We were just trying to tighten up the management a little bit and 
get them to become more a part of the physical environment of the 
Department of Entomology. 

We've kind of digressed here, but this was another one of 
those battles that took place during my regime when we were 
trying to reorganize the way things were being handled here at 
Berkeley. Riverside was on the fringe of that argument because 
the biological control people are entomologists, fundamentally. 
But they differ about 180 degrees with some of their 
entomological colleagues. They believe philosophically that 
entomologists who advocate pesticide control of insects are 
contaminating the environment, so the biological control 
specialists pursue a different tactic in controlling insects and 
weeds. And that is promoting biological warfare in a sense, by 
pitting one biological entity against another. 

So that philosophical difference was the source of a schism 
between the two groups that still exists today. They're not 
airily brought together in the collegia! environment. The people 
in the Division of Biological Control feel that if they were 
totally amalgamated and submerged into the Department of 
Entomology, which at both Riverside and Davis are large 
departments, they would lose the force of their ability to 
express themselves in the manner that they do now. It's really a 
case of preserving the right, at least the opportunity, to exist 
somewhat separately. They felt that a structure of separatism 
was exceedingly important to them, in being able to express this 
different philosophy. 

Lage: Did they win that battle, or were they ? 

Kendrick: Yes. They still are separate. 
Lage: It's a separate department, or ? 

Kendrick: A division. It's a subunit of the Department of Entomology at 
both Riverside and Berkeley. I continue to believe that they 
would be better off being a little more a part of the entomology 
department. But I believe that they should be allowed to 
preserve themselves as a subunit and express their philosophical 
points of view just as strongly as the economic entomologists, 
who essentially are identified as the pesticide group. 

The urge to kill things with chemicals has passed. I think 
we've gotten through that era of pest control. And we're into 
the much more enlightened era of developing strategies to control 
diseases and pests. But the transition has left a lot of raw 


Kendrick: The question you asked about whether these differences of opinion 
from the standard opinions were detrimental to the advancement of 
those who expressed them, and I have to say that I have no 
evidence that they were. I think if we were to ask some of the 
people who expressed them, they might suggest otherwise. So I'm 
not sure that the evidence is very clear on one side or the other 
because advancement and promotion are based upon good scientific 
work, and that is somewhat of a subjective analysis by your 
peers. There are some who will say, "Well, my peers were down on 
me because I've been criticising them all along." It would be 
hard to prove or disprove either case, but I think that you could 
also find critics of the quality or quantity of the work being 

Lage : In the promotion process, don't they go outside of their 

immediate department and maybe outside the college to get 
opinions? In agricultural economics, for instance, would they go 
outside of the immediate Department of Agricultural Economics for 
peer review? 

Kendrick: Each campus handles their promotion process slightly differently. 
but there are certain similar elements that characterize the 
University of California as a whole. When you are moving to 
tenure, or moving from an associate professorship to the 
professorship, or from the higher ranks of the professorship into 
the super grades, outside testimony is sought. The outside 
testimony, primarily, is from people in other institutions or 
other campuses, who are familiar enough with the work of the 
candidate that they can interpret the quality and the fundamental 
nature of the contributions. So that opinions are sought from 
people who have no axes to grind. They may not even know the 
individual, but because they happen to be working in the same 
field, they may know the candidate's work. 

When it comes to putting ad-hoc review committees together, 
you are not confined to members of your own department. You may 
have no more than one representative from your department, or you 
might have two. on a five-person committee. And they even go 
outside the colleges. You're at liberty to cover the campus. It 
is likely here at Berkeley that biologists from one life sciences 
area, in zoology or botany, would find themselves on committees 
evaluating plant pathologists. If they happened to be plant 
physiologically oriented, or biochemistry oriented, they might 
find people from biochemistry serving on the committee of someone 
who is engaged in the biochemistry of reactions, or viruses, or 
what-have-you. And then when you get to the budget committee, 
that next level that is placed there to iron out differences or 
biases, you're lucky to have anybody from agriculture on that 
committee on the Berkeley campus. There have been 
representatives from time to time, but it's a smal?. personnel 


Kendrick: committee. The closest you're apt to get is someone from 

biology, or someone from social science who would take care of 
the economists. So the system is established to eliminate br'.as. 

Lage : It should offer some protection, although I'm sure there are 

subtle ways bias can be expressed. 

Kendrick: Well, it's the way letters are written, initially. The 

department chair plays a very important part in assembling all 
that information. The first action that takes place relative to 
an advancement is a vote of the tenured members of the faculty in 
all cases. In some cases, they include more than just tenured 
members in that decision. That's a campus option; it depends on 
how broadly they consult. If it's not a vote, at least it's an 
attempt to gain some consensus of whether or not the colleagues 
in the department feel that the candidate is qualified for the 
next step. If all the colleagues in the department have an 
opinion different from the chair, the chair must record that 
difference, and then that's the beginning of another problem. 

Supportive Oversight during Reagan Governorship 

Lage: So that took us off our original topic, but I think that I wanted 

to get to that at some point. We were talking about the 
differences between the different governors. 

Kendrick: The fact that Allan Grant, the Regent, and Earl Coke, the 

secretary in the cabinet, were both strong agriculture-oriented 
officials, placed the agriculture program in the University in 
the unique position of having oversight by supporters. They were 
quick to act and to comment when they felt that the budgetary 
process was being disadvantaged as far as agriculture was 

So I kind of "tiptoed through the tulips" in this 
relationship. I was pleased to have it, but I was also mindful 
of the fact that I was having to deal with that special 
protection that I inherited when the budget cut was allocated to 
the University in 1967 and agriculture was protected to the 
extent of that three percent cut overall. After Governor 
Reagan's initial unhappiness with the institution toward its 
seemingly mishandling or not handling protests, our budget for 
the total University was really treated very well. Governor 
Reagan ceased to have much direct involvement in University 
affairs. That didn't mean that some of his appointees didn't 
exercise considerable influence, including Alex Sheriffs, who was 
his educational advisor. 


Kendrick: At one point Verne Orr was the director of finance; he was a 

pretty tight-fisted director of finance. Cap Weinberger was the 
director of finance at one point. That's where he got his 
reputation of Cap the Knife, because he was not very generous. 
You really had to fight for what you thought you needed during 
those years when Charlie Hitch was president. 

Confrontational Regents' Meetings, with Campus Administrators 
on the Defensive 

Kendrick: There was always a lot of tension on the Board of Regents between 
the Reagan appointees and those who had been appointed by the 
senior Governor Brown. Very different points of view, and there 
was still the residue of campus confrontations, teach-ins, and 
sit-ins, and one thing or another. It was during those periods 
that People's Park took place this was in the early seventies 
and we also had the National Guard in the streets some of this 
time. Regents' meetings became a target of protest, as far as 
students and eager faculty were concerned. 

We had a particularly frightening Regents' meeting very 
early in my vice presidency in '68 or '69 probably the fall of 
68 at UCLA, in which the students surrounded the University 
dub where the meeting was being held. They broke in, or tried 
to break in, storming the place with rocks and breaking large 
glass windows. It was a hair-raising experience, bordering on a 
riot. The Regents had a little trouble getting out of the 
meeting when it was over. 

That meeting was followed soon by another hair-raising 
Regents' meeting on the Santa Cruz campus, in which another 
student-led protest resulted in their infiltration of the meeting 
room where shouting and confrontational tactics took place. 
There was a lot of anger expressed toward the governor and his 
representatives. And so when they would appear at Regents' 
meetings, a lot of that anger was vented in this confrontational 
setting. That really caused the Regents to decide that they 
would not meet on campuses any more. Up until that time, they 
had been moving from campus to campus to hold their meetings. 

So for the remaining period of President Hitch's presidency 
and most of the period of President Saxon's, the Regents' 
meetings were held one north, one south in the Extension 
Centers. Ultimately, the Regents got so fed up with the 
Extension Center in downtown Los Angeles, which was nothing more 
than a made-over Safeway store, that they moved to the L.A. 


Kendrick: Convention Center. That was a little bit like holding it, well, 
in a convention center. That was where this famous meeting on 
the ag mechanization issue was held. 

But then Chancellor Young finally persuaded the Regents that 
they could have a well-controlled meeting at the West Center, 
which was the alumni center on the UCLA campus. And every time 
they went south subsequently, we met on the UCLA campus which 
was not devoid of confrontations, but there seemed to be a little 
better control of things, and the volatility of the issues were 
less were more localized. Vietnam and Free Speech were issues 
of the past. But Regents' meetings are still focal points for 

Well, Governor Reagan and his appointed Regents, after 
causing the dismissal of Clark Kerr, expressed a certain amount 
of unhappiness with what he thought was mishandling of student 
unrest by Chancellor [Roger] Heyns. Roger was a master 
chancellor, but nearly every meeting he had to explain something 
that had happened the previous month 

Lage: Did he handle the explanations well? 

Kendrick: He was a master at that. Roger was one of my favorite people.* 
And he just wore out, having to endure that kind of inquisition, 
it seemed to me. The topic of controversy could be a 
publication, an obscene publication, and he had to explain why 
that was a freedom that was allowed. Almost any subject that 
some Regent took issue with, he would be called to the table to 
explain what he was going to do about it, or what he had done 
about it, or why he didn't do something about it. 

It was also the period when Chancellor Chuck Young had 
agreed that Angela Davis could be hired as a faculty person, and 
he went through a period of trying to explain why someone who 
advocated communist rule would be welcomed to the University 
faculty. It was also the period when Bill McGill was chancellor 
at San Diego. 


He had a faculty member, overage, 'whose appointment was 
coming up for renewal, and that faculty person's name was 

* See Roger W. Heyns, Berkeley Chancellor, 1965-1971; The 
University in a Turbulent Society, Regional Oral History Office, 
The Bancroft Library, 1987. 


Lage: Herbert Marcuse. 

Kendrick: And our Regents I don't mean all of them, but certainly Allan 
Grant represented this point of view very strongly couldn't 
understand why the University could possibly expose students to 
that point of view. Marcuse was a Marxist, an advocate of that 
political system. In the face of the confrontations and the 
student riots, the chancellors at UCLA and Berkeley and San Diego 
seemed to condone this kind of nontraditional and nondemccratic 
thinking. It was all pretty hard for the Regents to swallow. 
And, of course, Clark Kerr was identified with opening up the 
campuses to the appearances of Communists and with free speech. 

That was all very impressionable, and as one of those who 
was part of the President's staff and trying to help poor Charlie 
keep the house in order, it was no time for me to make special 
pleadings for special considerations for agriculture. [laughs] 

Lage: Were you put in the position of trying to defend things, say, to 

Allan Grant? 

Kendrick: I did all I could because in May of 1968 I became a member of the 
State Board of Agriculture, and served in that capacity for about 
sixteen years. So I had more than a casual relationship with 
Allan. Over the course of our relationship, we became close 
friends, and I think he was a strong supporter of what I was 
trying to do. And it gave me an opportunity to try and help him 
think through what a university really stood for. Well, I don't 
think I completely sold him on the notion that we were not going 
downhill and that we were applying sanctions to the offenders. 
But Roger was applying as many sanctions as he could get away 
with. He was a tougher administrator than people have given him 
credit for. 

President Hayakawa of San Francisco State University was 
getting all the publicity for yanking off the loudspeaker when 
someone was advocating some position of protest. That's the main 
thing he ever did, but that was a dramatic event with lots of 
media coverage. Roger was developing all kinds of rules, 
regulations, policies, and sanctions, and making them stick. So 
he did ten times what Hayakawa did to try to bring order back to 
the campus. But it was tough for the Regents to see because 
every time he moved one step ahead, it seems like he got pushed 
two steps backwards. 


The Jerry Brown-David Saxon Era 

Warfare between the Governor and the Regents 

Kendrick: Then came Jerry Brown, and there was kind of a sigh of relief 
because we expected him to be supportive. Charlie Hitch felt 
that eight years of Reagan was about all he could stand as the 
chief administrator of the University of California, and he was 
not looking forward to going through all this with another 
governor. At the end of Charlie's presidency, the University did 
not have good relationships in Sacramento. 

Lage: In the Brown administration? 

Kendrick: No. At the end of the Reagan administration. Even though the 
budgets didn't suffer a lot, there was in the state government 
still a lot of residual suspicion and resentment, I think, of the 
University of California. Particularly in the legislature. Bear 
in mind [Assemblyman] John Vasconcellos as a constant in all of 

Lage: Yes, but he would have been a particular burr in the side of 

agriculture programs, or was it of the entire University? 

Kendrick: Yes. He got his burr in the agricultural program over with 

early. [laughter] I had my bruises, but I think we got to the 
point with John where he recognized that we were on different 
wavelengths, and I think we respected our differences. I didn't 
convince him, and he certainly didn't convince me. In those 
early years, he tended to be vindictive, I thought. That's my 
judgment. He kind of had it in for us, in the sense that he felt 
that agribusiness had profited long enough. They developed 
machines; they were not sensitive to environmental quality or to 
the farm workers. But John's fundamental interest is educational 
quality, and he's been riding that hobbyhorse ever since. So as 
far as targeting agriculture for criticism, I think that's 
passed. If a particular abusive action happened to take place, 
he would be quick to restore his anger and concern, but I think 
that's not likely to happen. 

Along came Jerry Brown as governor, and somewhat of a sigh 
of relief went through the University. They felt that here was 
one of our alumni as governor, a person of clear intellectual 
stature who was capable of understanding the intricacies of the 
University. We thought he understood what a university was all 
about. We felt that at last we have somebody now whom we can 
talk with. 


Kendrick: We were quickly disillusioned. And of course, the Jerry Brown 
era was the Saxon era. 

Lage : So Saxon came in as President of the University just about the 

same time? 

Kendrick: Just about the same time. David took it upon himself to try and 
repair some of the ill feeling that existed between Sacramento 
and the University and tried to work as best he could with the 
governor. What started us on this interpretation today was the 
budgetary process. We got down to a pretty standard way of 
putting the budget together, as far as the Reagan administration 
was concerned, and in due course the budget really didn't suffer 
a lot, even though he had this feeling of unhappiness with the 
way we were doing things. But after those early years of cuts, 
Reagan's unhappiness didn't come out in any harmful way as far as 
the budget was concerned. Faculty salaries suffered; they were 
not very sympathetic there. But we didn't know what we were in 

Governor Jerry Brown surprised a lot of us because he then 
let his arrogance and cynicism show. The first adverse session, 
and one that was crucial as far as I was concerned, was a meeting 
that the Regents held in the Lawrence Hall of Science. It wasn't 
a very good environment for a Regents' meeting, but it was held 
up there on the hill. It was a meeting at which Chet McCorkle, 
who was then the senior vice president, was to present to the 
Regents the result of a two or three-year effort to develop a 
master academic plan for the institution. It consisted of a 
collection of nine to twelve individual academic plans and an 
overall master plan. My group had contributed to this, by 
writing an overview of where agriculture was going. 

The entire document must have weighed twenty-five or thirty 
pounds. It was nine to twelve documents, and when they stacked 
them up on top of one another the stack was at least a foot high 
or higher. Chet had them with him at the Regents' meeting, and 
he was really quite proud of the fact that they had finally 
worked this academic plan through the system. There was 
everything in it from A to Zilch and back again. The governor 
took the microphone, and said he was totally unimpressed. What 
the University was trying to do was what he called the squid 
process, and the squid process, he said, was to obscure things 
with ink. [laughter] 

Lage: That's not too funny, after you've developed the plan. 

Kendrick: So it was kind of a personal defeat for Chet, and a bit of a slap 
in the face as far as what had become a standard format for doing 
business. The mistake, if any mistake was made, was to take a 
big document that was a foot high and composed of nine to twelve 


Kendrick: sections, and plunk them down on the table at the meeting of the 
Board of Regents. I can assure you nobody nobody just 
absolutely nobody is going to read that much material. What was 
really needed was a concise, executive summary, with an 
explanation that if any Regent really was all that interested in 
the details, we would make arrangements for that Regent to see 
the detailed document. But anyway, that wasn't done. 

Well, that kind of summarized the warfare that the governor 
had with the Regents and the University. He was totally 
unsympathetic with the Reagan-appointed Regents. He interpreted 
Regents' meetings as nothing more than a corporate board of 
directors' business meeting, which involved talking almost 
exclusively about financial management and spent scant time on 
intellectual and educational policy matters. He felt that the 
established Regents were all mechanistic and representatives of 
big business, agribusiness, and traditional institutional 

Lage : Did he express all this? 

Kendrick: In a way, he would. Not the way I've described it. He was very 
candid and blunt in his criticism of the Regents, in telling them 
that they spent far too much time on the appearance of buildings. 
What did that matter? The fundamental issue that a board such as 
this ought to be talking about was educational philosophy. And 
he set about appointing some members to the board who represented 
really non- traditional points of view, so that the character of 
the Board of Regents changed materially with appointees not 
necessarily sympathetic towards the kinds of programs that I was 
administering. They didn't understand them necessarily, but they 
held the point of view that agriculture had been favored for 
seventy-five or a hundred years, and it was about time to 
reallocate some of that favoritism to other bypassed segments of 

Jerry Brown's idea of a good Regents' meeting would be one 
that would spend an hour discussing educational philosophy or the 
deficiencies that undergraduate education was providing its 
students. His criticism wasn't all wrong, but the manner in 
which he addressed them was not complimentary to his colleagues. 
He didn't give them much credit for the fact that they were 
interested in managing effectively a multibillion dollar 
corporation. While [Regent] Ed [ward W.] Carter was always 
polite, and Jerry Brown was always polite in his dealing with Ed 
Carter, they certainly didn't come to life with the same point of 
view. The interesting thing is that Jerry Brown reappointed Ed 
Carter to an unexpired term, to extend his tenure on the board 
longer than almost anybody else who had served. So he was not 
alienated by Ed Carter, but he certainly was by Regents Bill 


Kendrick: Wilson, or William French Smith, or Verne Orr. and some of the 
other Reagan appointees. He was always on the opposite side of 
issues with Regents Dean Watkins and Glenn Campbell. 

So there were a lot of opportunities for conf rontationism 
between Jerry Brown and the Regents. And Jerry wound up 
attending more meetings than Reagan did. He would usually bring 
an agenda item that he was interested in pursuing. I'll have to 
review some of the names of the Regents that he appointed. 

Lage: One was Gregory Bateson. 

Kendrick: Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead's former husband. He was an 
appointee by Brown who almost belied rationality. Gregory 
Bateson would take off on a discussion of something that 
absolutely nobody in the room could understand. He would launch 
on a discussion for fifteen or twenty minutes, and there wasn't 
anybody who would have a rejoinder or anything to say because it 
was so abstract. [laughs] It bore no relationship to reality. 
What he was really talking about was some sort of intellectual 
pursuit that was associated with a University exercise, or could 
appropriately be incorporated into a University environment. But 
it certainly was beyond most of the board to grapple with because 
he was not able to put it in to a contemporary situation. 

But Jerry Brown could engage in that kind of discussion. 
The more we dealt with him, the more we saw that his concept of 
what Regents ought to be was a collection of people capable of 
engaging in seminars and philosophical discussions of the role of 
the University in contemporary society. During both of his terms 
as governor, he continued to express this point of view, although 
it certainly became considerably less anti-business as he became 
reconciled to the fact that healthy economic growth in the state 
of California was vital to the welfare and activities of the 
state, and so he became a bit less critical of that kind of 
representation on the Board of Regents. We had some budget 
problems with him. 

Brown and the Budget 

Lage: Now, how did that attitude get translated in your confrontations 

or cooperation with the Department of Finance? 

Kendrick: Well, the Department of Finance, as far as Brown was concerned 
I'm trying to think of who his directors were. We continued to 
work with kind of the traditional civil servants who come along 
with the Department of Finance. Roy M. Bell was Department of 
Finance director, and at one point, Mary Ann Graves was director. 


Kendrick: Saxon's relationship with Brown ultimately deteriorated. David 
really didn't have a lot of tolerance for the kind of 
intellectualism that Brown wanted to talk about, when David was 
really suffering because faculty salaries were not being 
adequately increased and money to run the place was tough to come 
by. Renewing the contracts to manage the weapons laboratories 
was coming up, and Brown wasn't very helpful wasn't helpful at 
all in trying to sustain those kinds of contracts. There were a 
lot of bread-and-butter issues as far as the University was 
concerned that the Regents had to contend with, but Jerry seemed 
to be saying, "So what? The place will handle itself." 

While he was correct in the fact that the Regents needed to 
be concerned about educational policy and the quality of 
undergraduate education, and the issues of admission policies, 
and demographic changes, and affirmative action, he ignored the 
primary need of providing an adequate budget to support all of 
the activities of the University. He tended to dismiss, we felt 
too easily, the kind of bread-and-butter issues that had some 
relationship to dollars and cents, and physical facilities 
maintenance and construction. 

It was during this period that Jerry conceived of the nutty 
idea of giving everybody a sixty dollar per month raise, or 
something like that. So a full professor got a sixty dollar 
raise, and a custodian got a sixty dollar raise, and the 
percentage there upset the whole salary system, particularly 
because we operate the salary augmentation system on the 
percentage basis. It took years to recover from that kind of 
action but his explanation was, well, the lower-paid people need 
the money more than the higher-paid people, and sixty dollars 
means a lot to them and doesn't mean a lot to those other people. 
Sixty dollars sticks in my memory somewhere, but I don't know if 
that was what it was or not. But it characterized his cynicism 
about the University. I think his Jesuit training influenced his 
spartanism. In his commentary about salaries of administrators, 
he was totally unsympathetic towards the allocation of sufficient 
remunerative salary as far as the administration was concerned. 

He would not recognize that you're in a competitive society 
with managers, with external private enterprise as well as in 
other higher education institutions. You can't just get anybody 
to be a president or a vice president, you have to have people 
who are qualified and experienced in those areas, and you set 
your salaries on the basis of what other top quality institutions 
are paying for positions with similar kinds of responsibility. 
So the competition was not necessarily with the manager of a 
bridge district or something, it's with a manager with comparable 
responsibility in a comparable institution. 


Kendrick: He would counter that argument by saying. "Well, there's a 
certain value to psychic income," that not many people are 
favored with the opportunity to serve in a capacity that makes a 
difference. And therefore, as compensation in lieu of money, you 
ought to be satisfied with the fact that there's a lot of psychic 
income associated with being in these responsible positions. 
Well, psychic income doesn't buy food for the kids, or put them 
through school or what have you. So, there was not a lot of good 
feeling in the course of the two terms of Governor Jerry Brown. 

Extension's Budget Cuts Restored by the University 

Kendrick: As far as agriculture was concerned, I had some problems. I 
think we had another cut that wasn't particularly aimed at 
agriculture, but it was a University-wide reduction. In this 
instance, I was able to prevail and suggest that we were gcir.g to 
take our fair share. 

During one of these reductions that the University was going 
to take and I think it was related to that early favored 
position; even though the people involved were different, the 
memory lingers on Cooperative Extension was targeted for about 
an 8 percent cut. The University had been assigned something on 
the order of about a 6 percent or 5 percent cut. 

Lage : That was by the governor for the University budget? 

Kendrick: That was in the governor's budget. It was not a vindictive cut, 
it was just a shortfall in revenues, and all state agencies were 
having to dig deeply in their pockets. There was one action 
promoted by Governor Brown which did not give the faculty any 
salary relief, no range adjustments. That was applied somewhat 
to punish the faculty and their "arrogance." And we ate it. But 
this was a revenue shortfall action, and I don't recall 
particularly what year it was. 

But Saxon and the budget office people decided that 
Cooperative Extension was low in priority, below some of the 
other areas that they wanted to fund. So they decided to assign 
a greater percentage cut to extension than they did the total 
University's budget. Now, that didn't set very well with the 
agricultural interests, and I had somewhat of a problem to 
contain that unhappiness internally, in extension. I really 
didn't want to be associated with bringing about a strong politi 
cal action in the legislature to counter the President's action. 

Lage: Because extension had the local connections to gather the 

political forces in the counties? 


Kendrick: That's true. You can play that political maneuvering once in & 
while, but you really ought to play it when it really counts. 
And since it wasn't going to amount to a lot of dollars and 
cents, we were sort of waiting and seeing. We were not silent 
about it, but to my knowledge we took no active efforts to stir 
up the crowd about that differential. I advised the President 
against his plan when he suggested to me that he was going to cut 
the extension budget like this. I said, "You are the author of 
how you are going to allocate your funds, but I would caution you 
against it because that particular unit has a strong political 
base. It could be somewhat embarrassing to you in due course." 


David listened attentively to my comments, and he said, 
well, he'd think about it. But he finally proposed to take this 
reduction differentially. I'd also indicated to the President 
that what he was advocating was a perfectly legitimate budgeting 
technique, that I would agree that cutting some programs more 
than others made good sense because if you're taking a budget 
reduction and you just nip everybody, you have some programs 
which can't handle a little reduction, and these suffer 
excessively while the larger units could probably absorb them in 
due course without having a major program problem. But that 
nevertheless, his suggesting that Cooperative Extension take the 
larger share of this cut was going to cause some problems 
politically. And sure enough, it did. 

As I said, we weren't silent about what effects the cut 
would have because we have a constituency who read the papers and 
know that we have to deal with budget reductions. There's also 
an agricultural lobby in Sacramento that follows very diligently 
all agricultural actions, and we had the University's 
Governmental Relations Office in Sacramento, and they followed 
constantly issues that affect us, particularly the budget. So it 
was no secret that this was going to happen. 

What really was at stake here was that the overall 
reduction, money reduction, was for the University, and we were 
told, "You can take it where you want to." But then the 
legislature wanted to know where we were going to take the cut, 
because if we were to take it out of the affirmative action, that 
exercises a number of the people. If we were to take it out of 
another program, that exercises another group of people. If you 
take it out of agriculture, that exercises another group of 

So when it came time to appear before the Senate Finance 
Subcommittee one morning, public service funds, of which 
Cooperative Extension is the major share of that particular 
budget item, was the topic of the review. Senator [Kenneth L.] 


Kendrick: Maddy from Fresno and Senator [Walter W.] Stiern from Kern 

County, and Senator [Nicholas C.] Petris from Oakland were the 
three members of the subcommittee. The main testifier from the 
University was Bill Frazer, who was the academic vice president. 
This was in the latter part of the Saxon era. 

We came to this topic, and Senator Maddy said, "What about 
this allocation of 8 percent reduction to Cooperative Extension?" 
I was in the witness chair, and I said. "Senator, this was not my 
recommendation. I think you ought to listen to another 
representative who has overall responsibility for the academic 
program of the institution. And since this was counter to my 
recommendation. I think you should listen to his justification 
for it." Bill took the chair, and he did about as well as he 
could, explaining that good budgetary practices dictated the fact 
that you make differential allocations of cuts rather than nip 
around the edges. He made good logical sense. I'll condense a 
good deal of conversation into one sentence: The senator 
ultimately said, "Well, you may have the logic on your side, but 
I've got the votes on mine." [laughter] "I suggest you restore 
that cut so that it's equalized with the rest of the 
institution," and that's the way it worked out. We didn't have 
any organized campaign, but it left a lot of ill feelings in the 

The Budget as a Political Document 

Kendrick: It left a lot of ill feelings within Cooperative Extension 

against the president. He really didn't need to do that. The 
amount of dollars they were going to achieve in that area were 
minimal, in my judgment, and the political price that he paid was 
somewhat of an embarrassment, to be told that you may have your 
priorities, but I've got mine. And mine are going to prevail 
because I'm voting on your budget. 

This kind of reinforced within Cooperative Extension and its 
leadership a feeling that the president really didn't care about 
Cooperative Extension, that it was being punished for all the 
personnel troubles arising out of Cooperative Extension, relative 
to affirmative action and alleged discrimination in handling 
personnel problems by its management. And it reinforced the 
suspicion without any good justified explanation that the 
President was taking it out on Cooperative Extension without 
really caring whether personnel deficiencies in management were 
there or not. 

Lage : Did you fee 1 , that it was a punishment for this type of thing too, 

or just purely a budgetary decision? 


Kendrick: I don't think it was a punishment reaction by Saxon. I don't 

think that he felt that it was as important as faculty salaries, 
or as important as some of the more critical campus-based 
programs, and therefore it was lower in the priority of things to 
be concerned about. And therefore it could stand a higher 
reduction in its base budget than something more important, in 
his point of view. 

But the thing that David overlooked, and was never in my 
judgment completely in tune with, were the political forces at 
work in the state. The budget is a political document, and it's 
no accident that when David Gardner became president, he combined 
the budget responsibilities with the University Relations Office. 
Because he said, "Once that budget is put together, you get it 
funded by the political process, and not by any logic." I 
quickly learned in my vice presidency that logic is the lifeblood 
of the academic decision-making process, but once you leave that 
environment, you've got to be pretty doggone political. And if 
you want your viewpoint to prevail, you have to convince people 
who are not trained like you, who have voting responsibilities 
and public representation responsibilities, that what you have to 
say is important. They want to know how many people out there 
also think it is important. 

To illustrate the political process at work in one of my 
requests, I'll tell you exactly how the IPM [Integrated Pest 
Management] program was funded in a very interesting way. It 
took place in about a minute, minute-and-a-half, conversation 
with the state director of food and agriculture, Rich Rominger, 
Jim Kendrick and Governor Jerry Brown, at a meeting in San Diego 
where Jerry Brown was the principal speaker. Rich and I went up 
to the speaker's table just to say hello and get this last word 
in, because he was about ready to sign off on his budget. He 
asked Rich if this was an important program to him, and Rich 
said, "Absolutely. Without this program, we won't be able to 
regulate these pesticides." The governor replied, "Okay." 

Lage : Had you done some work with Rich before? 

Kendrick: Absolutely, we'd done much work with Rich and many others! 

Lage: Well, let's talk about that in more detail next time. 

Kendrick: We can do that. But what I'm saying is that despite the fact 
that the University was having all kinds of problems with 
Governor Jerry Brown and his approach to budgeting, I again felt 
that we did reasonably well in agriculture except for the fact 
that when the institution suffers, agriculture suffers also 
because our faculty package is the same as everybody else's. 
When salaries aren't increased or kept pace with competitive 


Kendrick: institutions, then our budget also suffers because that large 
amount of money that comes to support people's activities is a 
part of that overall budget. And then it gets segregated every 
year from the University's total budget, so it shows that the 
Agricultural Experiment Station has had a budget increase, if 
faculty and staff salaries have been increased. But usually it 
was a salary range adjustment and an indexed increase for cost of 
living resulting in more dollars than we had the previous year. 
But it didn't result in one dime for a new program. 

During most of the latter part of the Reagan administration, 
and after Dick Lyng went to Washington, D.C.. Jerry Fielder was 
made director the Department of Food and Agriculture. He lost 
his life in an airplane accident. Following this tragic event, a 
member of the Board of Food and Agriculture, and a colleague of 
mine, Bru [C. Brunei] Christensen, became the director of Food 
and Agriculture. Bru was a strong advocate for agriculture and 
appreciated the University's role in serving California's 
agriculture. So I felt that if I really needed political support 
in dealing with the legislature or with the executive branch, I 
had a receptive opportunity to do so. The legislature itself was 
where I was experiencing a lot of problems, but they were largely 
philosophical problems; they didn't result in budgetary 
adj ustments. 

Brown's Major Agricultural Appointments: 
Rich Rominger 

Tim Wallace, Rose Bird, 

Kendrick: During the Jerry Brown administration, I started with Rose Bird 
as the secretary of the Agriculture and Services Agency, and Tim 
Wallace, who was on our staff when he accepted an appointment as 
director of the Department of Food and Agriculture. Tim was an 
extension economist, who went on leave from the University to 
accept the appointment as director. 

The established agricultural units of the state ultimately 
became disenchanted with Tim. Probably what caused the 
disenchantment more than anything was his strong advocacy for 
consumer representation on marketing boards. There is a state 
statute which the Department of Food and Agriculture administers 
that authorizes the establishment of commodity marketing order 
boards. Marketing order boards are producer-dominated boards 
which, through a process of membership approval, tax themselves 
for promotional sales activities and in many instances support 
research programs. It's somewhat complicated to form a marketing 
order board. For approval to establish a marketing order board 
for a specific commodity, a specified percentage of the acreage's 
ownership must vote favorably on its formation. The list of who 


Kendrick: is eligible to vote is assembled by the Department of Food and 
Agriculture. But once it's approved, then all members of the 
commodity-producing group belong and must tax themselves on some 
production unit basis and contribute to the marketing order fund 
for that commodity. The fund is then allocated to activities on 
the basis of recommendations from the board composed of the 
grower members of the commodity marketing order. 

Well, the authorizing statute also states that the consumer 
shall be represented on the marketing order boards. Up until 
this time the consumer was never really represented because 
agriculture just didn't want to be bothered with "outsiders" 
commenting on how boards should administer these funds equally 
since the origin of the funds came from the growers themselves 
and was not composed of the general tax fund. The prevailing 
attitude was, "It's our money, we ought to be able to allocate it 
the way we want to." 

Tim wanted to interpret the law more strictly than his 
predecessors and get consumers represented on the boards there 
must have been thirty or forty active boards. He began placing 
consumers on the boards, and that angered the traditional 
members. They generally responded with dismay and asked, "Why 
are you doing this? It's our money." Tim countered with a legal 
interpretation from the attorney general's office that it was not 
their money because once the boards use the policing power of the 
state to tax individuals, that money becomes public money. It's 
not solely growers' money anymore; it becomes public funds 
administered by public agencies of government. 

Well, you can imagine that that just didn't swallow very 
well as far as organized agriculture was concerned. Some boards 
voted to disband: the Wine Institute, for instance, wasn't going 
to put up with any of that stuff, so they just disbanded their 
marketing board. There were some others that were equally 
unhappy. Ultimately because of this and a number of other 
actions, Tim was persuaded that he had lost the confidence of 
organized agriculture, and he'd be happier returning to the 
University. Which he did. I've simplified a more complex 
problem including Tim's relationship with Secretary Bird, which 
led to his resignation as director, but the marketing order issue 
was a major factor in agriculture's disenchantment with him as 
the director. 

Rose Bird spent a good deal of her early activities getting 
the Agricultural Labor Relations Act designed and enacted. It was 
a time of uneasy truce with agriculture. Lionel Steinberg, I 
think, was the president of the State Board of Food and 
Agriculture, and by this time that ex officio spot on the Board 
of Regents was gone. Lionel was from Indio, in the Coachella 
Valley. He was a good Democrat and had previously served on the 


Kendrick: Board of Agriculture. He also was a nontraditional 

agriculturalist as far as his farming colleagues were concerned 
because he had a certain amount of sympathy towards organized 
labor. He tried to make it work and tried to be sympathetic 
toward it. So he had one of the earliest contracts with the 
United Farm Workers. Cesar Chavez's union. 

Lage: He was appointed by Brown, you said? 

Kendrick: Yes. Jerry Brown. The president of the State Board of Food and 
Agriculture is appointed annually. They are often reappointed. 
but it's not a multi-year term like the other members of the 

There were also other members of the Board of Food and 
Agriculture who saw that farm labor unrest was a losing 
proposition. It was something that everybody wished would cease 
and desist. So when the Agricultural Labor Relations Act was 
working its way through the legislature, agriculture, on the 
basis of the governor's promise that this Agricultural Labor 
Relations Board would bring peace to the fields and mediate the 
differences, backed off and in a sense said, "Well, we won't 
oppose it." So it was enacted. And then Governor Brown 
proceeded to appoint four strong advocates for the United Farm 
Workers to a five-member board. Agriculture felt that the 
governor had really done them in, sold them down the river. And 
they had absolutely no sympathy for Jerry Brown from then on in. 
They ceased to trust him to do a thing on their behalf. I 
believe most farmers attribute that lack of trust to that one 
act. Rose Bird was also tarred with that same brush. They, the 
farmers, felt betrayed. 

Lage: Did they feel that she had a role in the appointments, or that 

she had misled them in promising something from the board that 
didn' t occur? 

Kendrick: Well, I think both. They knew that she was Jerry's principal 
agricultural advisor, and when several union sympathizers were 
appointed members of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, and 
the executive secretary, who had a lot of influence, came right 
out of organized labor's units, they had strong evidence of that 
betrayal. And then in order to assemble the work force to get 
the Labor Relations Act implemented, they recruited staff from 
among organized labor people. So as far as agriculture was 
concerned, what they found themselves saddled with was a state- 
supported labor organization, an advocacy group, not an 
independent arbitration unit that would listen to both sides of 
an issue and make a judicial judgment. 


Kendrick: So that was not only tough to handle, but it placed agriculture 

pretty much at war with the Brown administration. The Department 
of Food and Agriculture's successor to Tim Wallace was Rich 
Rominger, who was also at that time a member of the Board of Food 
and Agriculture, a farmer from Winters who was a longtime 
personal friend of mine. We had a close and supportive 
relationship. So during all of the hullaballoo that existed as 
far as organized agriculture and the governor was concerned, I 
had a way to get to the governor and his staff, through Rich, who 
although not an assertive director, at least had the confidence 
of the governor, and the governor listened to him for 
agricultural advice. 

Lage : Did he have a nontraditional approach in terms of agriculture? 

Kendrick: Sort of. But he's a hardworking farmer near Winters, and he has 
to make ends meet. Rich's value in that role was that he was 
willing to listen to criticism, willing to acknowledge some past 
practices, such as pesticide usage, as being detrimental to the 
environment, and recognizing that consumerism and environmental 
quality advocates groups had a role to play in the agricultural 
society. He was a Davis graduate and a good student. I think he 
really was the only person who could fill the role of trying to 
deal with the extreme positions advocated by the governor, or 
even Rose Bird. I thought I had a cordial working relationship 
with Rose Bird, but I didn't have to work with her very closely. 

Lage: She wasn't in too terribly long, was she? 

Kendrick: No. Not more than a couple of years because when the chief 

justice of the state Supreme Court position became vacant. Jerry 
appointed her to that position. 

Another political maneuver took place at this time, because 
when Rich was first made director of the Department of Food and 
Agriculture, the representative of agriculture on the cabinet was 
Rose Bird, the secretary for agriculture and services. It was 
tough for agriculture. 

Earl Coke, under Governor Reagan, was the one that created 
the secretary's position in the first place, and the agriculture 
department had won the day by having a secretary of agriculture 
and services with cabinet representation. Earl was a very close 
confidant of the governor. But when the secretary was Rose Bird, 
the agricultural community didn't feel represented. 

Lage: She was the first one who didn't come out of agriculture, wasn't 



Kendrick: Yes, but the creation of the secretary of agriculture and 

services was done by Governor Reagan. Prior to that time, the 
director the Department of Food and Agriculture had a cabinet 
position. Then Governor Reagan made the super-agencies and 
incorporated administratively more functions than just a single 
department in those secretaryships. That's when the department's 
administrator became subcabinet level. A group of agricultural 
interests of the state, and I was included, met several times 
with the governor, and ultimately prevailed upon him to recognize 
the importance of agriculture and its representation as a cabinet 
member. In due course the director of the Department of Food and 
Agriculture was made a cabinet officer. 

So Rich became a cabinet officer, which was an important 
move. Even in a fairly hostile state government as far as 
agriculture was concerned, when the governor was persuaded to pay 
a little more attention to agriculture, Rich was the ideal person 
to push the governor in subtle ways into positions that were 
somewhat favorable to agriculture. Rich didn't enjoy the 
undying, or uncompromising, support of all traditional 
agriculture because they felt he was a little too sympathetic in 
dealing with labor and a little too sympathetic towards consumers 
"messing around" in agricultural matters the same kind of move 
that I was making in the University. The reason Rich and I 
worked so well together. I think, is that we had the same 
motivation and goals, and we both had to deal with fairly 
traditional departments. So we had to make some changes. 

Lage: Interesting correlation. 

Kendrick: I felt that we had a very good relationship, and Rich stayed with 
that role until Jerry Brown did not run for a third term. 

The Deukmej ian-Gardner Years: 
Stature and Its Budget 

Restoring the University's 

Kendrick: Now, we've gotten to the third change in the governorship during 
my tenure. That occurred with Deukmej ian's election. Governor 
Deukmej ian's relationship with the University, as all the 
evidence shows, has been tremendously favorable. 

Kendrick: Therein begins another regime as far as the University 

administration is concerned; that's when Dave Gardner became 
president of the University. 


Lage: Is that by design that these presidential changes take place at 

the same time the governor changes? 

Kendrick: No. 

Lage: Just has happened the last couple of times? 

Kendrick: That's been a coincidence. I think governors [laughing] have 
worn out our presidents, as much as internal activities are 
concerned. I don't think David Saxon really wanted to put up 
with another governor. He had served eight years with Jerry 
Brown as governor and that took its toll from David's energy, I'm 

Lage: So it's starting over again, with a new governor. 

Kendrick: I think if he'd realized the support that was going to come from 
the governor's chair in Sacramento, he might have looked at it in 
a different light. But I think David Saxon was tired, worn out. 
You get worn out. These jobs are just as abrasive as they can 
be. There's a lot of glamour associated with being the president 
of the University of California, but they have tough assignments. 
You have people gnawing at you all the time. The moments of 
glory are few and far between, and the rest of the time is spent 
trying to keep the place together and trying to drain the swamp 
filled with alligators. It's not all that it appears to be. In 
my judgment, they earn every cent that they pay them because 
they're short-lived positions. They're not the traditional 
presidencies that used to be associated with a university or 
college, where you spend your career as a president, enjoying all 
the nice things that happen to you, where you're revered by the 
total constituency of the institution. That's not the case 
anymore. It's a rat race to stay ahead of the critics. 

So, the Deukmej ian-Gardner era came, and David Gardner was 
able to convince the governor that one of the things that he 
could be long remembered for would be to restore the University 
to its once-high stature, recognizing the fact that it was unique 
and it had a quality faculty which was in danger of being 
destroyed by not compensating it in relationship to its leading 
competitive institutions. President Gardner convinced the 
governor that he could do much to restore that quality by 
preventing the drain of people going away to other places because 
they received more attractive job offers. And that happened; in 
the course of about two years' time, there was about a thirty- 
five percent increase in faculty salaries, and we're now slightly 
ahead of the average for our competitive eight institutions. In 
my judgment, it was all attributed to the relationship that David 
Gardner and Governor Deukmej ian have developed. 


Lage: Do you have some knowledge about whether it's particularly 

Gardner's approach that won Deukmej ian over, or do you think that 
Deukmej ian had these sympathies? 

Kendrick: No, I think Deukmej ian, more than the two previous governors, 

understands the importance of education. In spite of his running 
battle with [State Superintendent of Schools William] Konig over 
the funding of community college and K-12 programs, I think the 
governor really does understand quality education. I think that 
if he could be convinced that the money going into education is 
money well spent and not sort of frittered away in programs that 
are not really directed towards education, he would be willing to 
give these schools what they need. He recognizes that Honig's on 
the other end of the political spectrum from him. So part of 
their difference is a political difference; it's not just an 
educational philosophy difference. 

But with David Gardner and Governor Deukmej ian, I think both 
showed up at the concert with the same sheet music and started 
singing all of it together. They're true believers. I don't 
think David had to spend a lot of time convincing him that the 
University had been disadvantaged through the Brown 
administration, and the most important thing that the governor 
could do would be to restore the stature of the institution. 
There was a lot of hard evidence that we were getting second and 
third choices in our recruitment efforts, and we were losing some 
significant faculty members from the campuses because they were 
being attracted to higher salaries and greater opportunities 
elsewhere. If this had been allowed to continue, it would be 
many, many years before we could restore that kind of quality in 
our institution. 

I don't think the governor took a lot of convincing that 
that was indeed true, and that he could gain positive points by 
being identified with being sympathetic towards a quality higher 
education support in the state. Of course, Gardner is a very 
persuasive person in his own rights. He doesn't advocate 
something without his homework being very well done; he's 
articulate, and you'd have a hard time debating an issue and 
winning against him. You can make points, but he's going to x.ake 
counterpoints. I think he's developed this relationship with the 
governor in a very admirable manner. 

Just as when I was trying to get funding for some of these 
special programs such as IPM, I wouldn't say, "You've got to do 
it," and I don't think Gardner said, "You've got to do it." He 
put it in the frame of giving the governor a choice. "You don't 
have to do it, but if you don't, this is going to happen. If you 
don't, we'll just continue to gradually deteriorate, little by 
little. You won't notice any dramatic event, but in due course 
it will show." Bear in mind that David arrived here having spent 


Kendrick: a year as chairman of that national study that published with 
great fanfare the document A Nation ^t Risk, which pointed out 
the deficiencies of public education as it presently existed in 
this country. The report said that if a foreign country had 
tried to weaken this country, they could do no better than 
destroy our educational system by dropping the quality. 

That was a fairly powerful document, pointing out the 
importance of education and the lack of competitiveness. So he 
had the credentials to point out to the governor, and anybody 
else who would listen, that we're just a part of that total 
system. By neglect and lack of funding, the whole system was 
going to be at risk. He had a powerful argument that something 
had to be done, and it had to be done quickly. He pointed out 
also that it didn't have to be done all at once. David proposed 
another little bit of subtlety, that you could adopt a program of 
improvement phased over several years if the deficiencies are too 
great to overcome in a single year. He said let's have a goal 
over a two- or three-year period, something that is fundable. 

So, as the University and the faculty's salaries got better, 
a lot of the internal unhappiness dropped. Of course Cooperative 
Extension's salaries were linked to the funding adjustments also. 

Another thing that David Gardner recognized, and I never had 
to spend a lot of time persuading him not to do, was separating 
out the faculty salaries from all academic salaries. David Saxon 
always wanted to increase just the faculty, recognizing that they 
were the backbone of the institution, I never argued with the 
fact that they were the backbone of the institution, but there 
were certainly a lot of other political aspects to increasing 
faculty salaries alone. When you were talking about academics, I 
had 550 hard-working academics in Cooperative Extension, and if 
they had been so differentially treated in any academic salary 
adjustment, and they had been organized, they would probably have 
gone on strike. 

But as long as the definition of faculty meant all academic 
salaries, we could make a case for treating academics in some 
fashion a little differently from the non-academics, for the 
staff support. But you want to be careful about how you treat 
them, too. They are an important part of the institution, and 
they're part of what makes things function smoothly. David 
Gardner understands that. He didn't take a lot of convincing. 
So my relationship with David and his support were superb. I 
felt I retired with more support and understanding than I had in 
any of the three regimes. That was not to say that I didn't have 
good support and understanding in the other two, but it was a 
little easier to convince David of the importance of the 
division's programs, and the role they played in the vitality of 
the total institution. 


Kendrick: I did not develop the same kind of relationship with the 

Department of Food and Agriculture in the Deukmej ian regime that 
I had with Rich Rominger and with Bru Christensen, and Jerry 
Fielder, and Dick Lyng. The director of food and agriculture was 
Clare Berry hill, dare was a former senator and a farmer. He 
was a pretty politically-driven person. 

I was not reappointed to serve on the State Board of Food 
and Agriculture when my term expired in 1985. So my relationship 
with the department was a little more distant than before. I had 
turned over a good deal of the responsibilities of direct 
relationship with segments of the department to Director [of the 
Experiment Station] Lowell Lewis. So he maintained a closer 
relationship with them than I did. But the University's 
relationship overall with that particular regime in the 
Department of Food and Agriculture tended to drift a little bit. 

Lage: Lack of sympathy on Berryhill's part? 

Kendrick: No. I think it was a lack of understanding of the role of the 

University in agricultural research and extension. I don't think 
his primary interests were in improving that relationship. In 
one of the early sessions I had with him, I had to try and play 
down one of the blasts that he had received from a member of the 
faculty of the University who had accused him of something that 
was not very complimentary. So we didn't start off on a very 
good foot. He wanted to know why I would allow that sort of 
expression to come forth from the University. He felt unjustly 
accused of something, I don't even remember the subject. It was 
not a very politic thing to do on the part of one of my 
colleagues, but it was nevertheless nothing that I could control 
or that I would attempt to do so. 

Berryhill was also somewhat unsympathetic with the makeup of 
the Board of Food and Agriculture. He didn't express it as such, 
but you could tell that philosophically and politically it was 
composed of more critics of traditional agriculturalism, a 
characteristic of the kind of people Jerry Brown had appointed to 
the board. He was out to make changes on the board and to have 
people who were much more sympathetic toward traditional 

Richard Peters was appointed president of the Board of Food 
and Agriculture. Richard was an agriculturalist from Fresno, a 
longtime supporter of the governor, both financially and morally. 
He is an Armenian and a political confidante of the governor. I 
had a reasonably good relationships with Richard. But my own 
need to work as closely with the department as I had in previous 
administrations was not as great, as I indicated, because the 
director of the Agricultural Experiment Station was engaged in 


Kendrick: more of the operational relationships. Cooperative Extension had 
kind of an oblique relationship with the department, wherever 
they were engaged in similar activities of an educational nature. 

As far as the budgetary support was concerned, we had some 
interesting developments with the governor, and that's one of the 
topics of funding that we'll come to when we talk about special 
projects that the experiment station undertook. 

Lage: So that's what we'll turn to next time. 



Giannini Foundation for Research in Agricultural Economics 

The Original Grant and Organization 
[Date of Interview: October 22. 1987] ## 

Lage: Today is October 22, 1987; this is our ninth session with James 

Kendrick. We're going to talk about the Agricultural Experiment 
Station and some of the special programs you began to introduce 
flexibility into the research program. 

Kendrick: The experiment station in 1968, under Director Clarence Kelly, 
was certainly not performing unimportant research, but it was 
having some trouble managing its meager resources in order to 
meet all the defined problems of commercial agriculture. The 
most vocal concern expressed by the clients, so to speak, the 
commercial agricultural interests, was that we were not paying 
enough attention to marketing and economic problems. That was 
laid at the feet of the Giannini Foundation's not performing in a 
manner that the commercial agricultural interests of the state 
had been accustomed to, in dealing with the Giannini Foundation. 
And that was due in large part to the personnel of the Giannini 

Let me describe the Giannini Foundation because that's one 
of the units we were going to discuss today. 

Lage: Was that a unit within the ? 

Kendrick: That's a unit within the experiment station. It has a long 
history because it goes back to an original grant from A. P. 
Giannini, when he was president of the Bank of Italy, which was 
the predecessor of the Bank of America. He gave the University 
$1.5 million, from which they built Giannini Hall on the 


Kendrick: Berkeley campus and had a residue left over, for which there was 
a trust statement as to how that could be used. It was to 
support agricultural research, aimed at improving the economic 
status of a whole array of things. The charge would almost 
include anything you wanted to do in the Agricultural Experiment 
Station, but it became predominantly an economics research 

The unique thing that the Giannini Foundation did in its 
operation was to have fellows appointed in the Giannini 
Foundation as a distinct appointment, in addition to an 
experiment station appointment or a professorial appointment. 

Lage : You mean one person would hold the three titles. 

Kendrick: One person could be listed as a fellow in the Giannini 

Foundation, as well as, say, an agricultural economist in the 
experiment station. In those days they started as a junior 
agricultural economist, and went to an assistant agricultural 
economist, next an associate agricultural economist, and then 
just agricultural economist. That was the series within the 
experiment station, and then of course the parallel faculty 
series was instructor, then an assistant professor, an associate 
professor, and full professor. Each one of those steps were 
ranks, and they constituted a promotion, from one rank to 

A fellow in the Giannini Foundation did not have any rank, 
in those steps. You were just given the courtesy title as fellow 
in the Giannini Foundation. The only qualification for being a 
fellow in the Giannini Foundation was being appointed as a 
regular faculty member in the Department of Agricultural 
Economics. Originally, the only Department of Agricultural 
Economics was on the Berkeley campus, so the Giannini Foundation 
was centered, in its early years, on the Berkeley campus. 

The director was also the chairman of the department at 
Berkeley. In its early years, it addressed specifically economic 
problems and market evaluations for particular commodities of 
California's agricultural crops. It was highly regarded by 
commercial agriculture as an organization within the University 
that was really helping a lot in marketing the commodities 
successfully. Some of the individuals who helped guide the 
Giannini Foundation were Claude Hutchison, Harry Wellman, George 
Mehren, Ray [Raymond] Bressler, David Clarke [Jr.], and Loy 
Sammet I'm not sure Loy was ever director of the Giannini 
Foundation. But in any event, those were the people who paid a 
lot of attention to the agriculture's economic stresses and 


Kendrick: Well, as I indicated, the only requirement for being a fellow of 
the Giannini Foundation was being appointed to the faculty of the 
departments of agricultural economics at Davis or Berkeley. And 
associate fellows were those who were agricultural economists in 
forestry, at Berkeley, or economists in the soils and 
environmental sciences at Riverside, and all of the agricultural 
economists in Cooperative Extension. To help the director in the 
governance of the foundation there was what was called an 
executive committee composed of representatives from Davis, 
Berkeley, and Cooperative Extension. 

The foundation also supported a rather comprehensive 
graduate library. Over time, it has developed into one of the 
most complete libraries of agricultural economics that I'm aware 
of so it has a good reputation. 

Lage: Did the fellows get an extra stipend? 

Kendrick: No. It's a courtesy title. All of the University's agricultural 
economists published under the logo of the Giannini Foundation, 
and so the Giannini Foundation for Agricultural Economics has a 
reputation far exceeding the amount of money that goes into 
supporting the program. Most of what was left from the original 
1.5 million-dollar grant after building Giannini Hall, which has 
been increased by its investment value, essentially supports the 
Giannini Library. There was a small amount to support the 
administration of the foundation the director's stipend, a few 
graduate fellowships, and a few dollars for specific research 
programs. The truth is that the main support for agricultural 
economic research was the regular University funding, plus grant 
funds that these individuals obtained from other sources. 

But since nearly all the research was published with the 
acknowledgement of the Giannini Foundation, it's easy to see why 
the reputation of the Giannini Foundation was really gained by 
the total activity of all the University's agricultural 
economists pursuing their regular research programs within the 
University of California. So it had a reputation far beyond its 
financial resources. It was always a problem for me to respond 
to the nostalgic memories of people who said, "The Giannini 
Foundation is no longer addressing the needs of agriculture. The 
faculty seemed to be more concerned with their own professional 
advancement, and they publish stuff we can't understand." 
Agricultural economics was moving into econometrics and complex 
mathematical analyses, which wasn't being translated into 
language and operations that the commercial agricultural people 
understood. So it was perceived that the Giannini Foundation no 
longer was really addressing problems of agriculture. 


Kendrick: Also, some of the things that the commercial representatives were 
interested in were not really academic research. As the pressure 
for academic advancement continued to exist, assistant professors 
and assistants in the experiment station realized that their 
future depended upon their ability to produce research that had 
quality in the eyes of their peers. They sort of drifted with 
the academic current, and often those kinds of research problems 
were somewhat remote and abstract as far as commercial needs were 

Lage: That answer probably didn't satisfy your agricultural 


Kendrick: No, it certainly didn't. 

Restructuring to Meet the Practical Needs of Commercial 

Kendrick: So we went through a number of changes of administration to try 
to construct a Giannini Foundation that would be able to address 
the problems of commercial agriculture a little bit differently. 

One of the first things I did to address that problem, after 
receiving some administrative advice from the executive 
committee, was to decouple the directorship of the Giannini 
Foundation from the chairman of the department at Berkeley. 
There was also some degree of rivalry between the Berkeley 
Department of Agricultural Economics and the Davis Department of 
Agricultural Economics. The Davis department felt that they were 
getting only what was left over from the meager funds of the 
Giannini Foundation and that they were not being treated 
favorably, relative to their ability to address some of these 
problems and in the support of a library of their own. That 
friendly academic rivalry exists today, and probably will always 
exist because it's the nature of academic competition. 

Lage: And of the relationship between Davis and Berkeley. 

Kendrick: Yes, it comes to play there. 

One of the things we tried in the early 1970s before 
separating the department chair from the directorship was to 
appoint an active associate director of the Giannini Foundation, 
who was given the responsibility of trying to develop a program 
within the Giannini Foundation with what resources it had, and 
also with the expectation that it would obtain outside grant 
money to support particular kinds of research problems. 


Lage: To focus on the more practical needs? 

Kendrick: Yes. And that was done but not forced upon the director. The 

executive committee of the foundation was willing to try whatever 
would reduce the climate of criticism as far as the external 
community was concerned. 

The man whom I asked to become this associate director of the 
Giannini Foundation, and work with the chair, was Dr. Ken 
Farrell. (He is now my successor as vice president.) Ken 
operated with a level of frustration for several years trying to 
persuade the faculty to address some of the problems. But it was 
a frustrating experience for him. He then had an opportunity to 
go to Washington, D.C.. in the United States Department of 
Agriculture, as the deputy administrator of the Economic Research 
Service. And that is where he went. I won't describe his career 
because he can do that later. 

Lage: He'll have his turn, maybe in twenty years. [laughter] 

Kendrick: But that was his last official association with us. He was. at 
the time that I asked him to assume the role of associate 
director of the Giannini Foundation, an extension agricultural 
economist with Cooperative Extension. So he was a known quantity 
with a good reputation as an agricultural economist, even then. 

Lage: It almost seems as if this kind of research belongs more in 

extension. It's very practically oriented. 

Kendrick: Well, it probably does now, with a redefinition of what 

extension's mission is, and with more emphasis on practical 
research in extension than exists in the experiment station. But 
at that time, that kind of work was the prerogative of the 
experiment station, and it was protected very much by the 
experiment station. The attitude, even when I was in the early 
years of the vice presidency, was that extension was incapable of 
doing research. And it took quite a while to neutralize that 
attitude and the feeling that Cooperative Extension didn't have 
adequately trained personnel to pursue research. There was a 
certain justification in that attitude, because initially the 
training of many individual members of extension was short of 
Ph.D. and masters degree education. They didn't have an exposure 
to the experimental method, and statistical analysis of the 
results was not widely practiced. 

So there was some justification in believing that the 
personnel in extension, in those early days, was not a trained 
research staff. But as the educational requirements for 
appointments, particularly the specialists, was increased and 
ultimately held to be the same for extension specialists as it 


Kendrick: was for initial appointments in the experiment station, there has 
been less criticism of that differential now, and I think quite 
rightly so. 

Well, the next attempt to reorganize the Giannini Foundation 
so it could stand on its own was to separate the directorship 
from the chair at Berkeley. With the help of Chet McCorkle, who 
at that time was the vice president of the University, we were 
able to generate a half of an FTE to go with the half-FTE which 
the Giannini Foundation resources supported, and we created a new 
FTE, a full-time-equivalent position, for a director. We went 
recruiting for a director, and found Del [B. Delworth] Gardner at 
Utah State University. He was a full professor, who had a good 
reputation in the field, and we persuaded Del to come and be the 
director of the Giannini Foundation. We arranged for him to be 
appointed to the Davis Department of Agricultural Economics, but 
indicated that the headquarters of the Giannini Foundation would 
continue to exist at Berkeley, due to the fact that the library 
was there. It also seemed to us that this arrangement would 
facilitate cooperation between the members of the departments at 
Davis and Berkeley. Riverside didn't really have enough 
personnel to contribute much to the foundation's program. It was 
always a source of disappointment to the Riverside administration 
that Riverside was not able to have a department of agricultural 
economics, but that goes back prior to my time. I think it was 
due to Harry Wellman's view that we didn't need any more 
[laughing] agricultural economists in the University of 
California. I may be jumping to a conclusion that's unwarranted, 
but I'm not so sure that that's off the mark. 

At any rate, the agricultural economics activity was 
centered on the Berkeley and Davis campuses. Del continued to 
function as the director of the Giannini Foundation and did a 
pretty good job of elevating the visibility of the foundation. 
But I think he had, over the course of his five or six years' 
tenure in that role, increasing difficulties persuading his 
colleagues on the faculty to address some of the more practical 
problems that were surfacing. It was a period when I was sort of 
relaxed about the foundation because I had a director, and any 
inquiry I received which needed attention I just sent on to the 
director and asked if he could take care of it. 

Del wound up taking care of it, but he wound up taking care 
of most requests pretty much on his own. He really wasn't able 
to obtain the commitment of the broad array of the agricultural 
economists, who existed in the two departments, in the program. 
So it was kind of a frustrating experience for him. 

When Lowell Lewis came to my staff, we were still having 
frustrations with the Giannini Foundation, and I turned the 
problem over to him as the director of the experiment station. 


Kendrick: He and the executive committee subsequently designed another way 
to handle the Giannini Foundation. Del resigned from the 
directorship and became a full professor of agricultural 
economics in the Davis department. 

The next iteration for managing the Giannini Foundation was 
to use the executive committee, chaired by the director of the 
experiment station. So for a while, Lowell Lewis was the 
director of this governing board for the Giannini Foundation. 
The executive group consisted of the chairs of the departments at 
Berkeley and Davis, and the group leader in extension for the 
extension agricultural economists, plus an additional 
representative from the two departments, and there may have teen 
an additional extension component also, I'm not sure. 

Lage: It sounds as if the foundation had no leverage to apply to 

counteract the academic direction. 

Kendrick: I think you're quite right. The foundation doesn't have any 

leverage because it doesn't have very much money for programs of 
research. If I were to characterize leverage as far as my own 
responsibility for the total program was concerned, I would say 
my leverage was money and persuasion. And I found that money was 
the biggest persuader that I had. 

Lage: [laughs] That sums it up, probably, for a lot of your programs. 

Kendrick: Well, I think that is very true. And the reason I say that is 
because, as we will subsequently describe in some of these 
programs within the experiment station, the lack of leverage was 
due to the lack of flexible money to allocate to people to 
conduct particular programs of timely importance. 

Lage: So if you had flexible money to support research, and you could 

define a particular research problem, you could find someone to 
carry out the research. 

Kendrick: That's right. What I really needed was a big fund for grant 

money, where we could define the terms of the grant in such a way 
that you could make short-term grants of one, two, three, four, 
five years, and at the end of that period you would have the 
money returned to you and you could redirect it to something 

Lage: Did you approach the agricultural community who were asking for 

these changes in the foundation? 

Kendrick: Yes, I suggested that we should establish an agricultural 

research foundation and make grants from it. But I was always 
reminded that, "Well, the state already appropriates sixty 
million dollars to you. Why can't you find flexibility in that 


Kendrick: sixty million dollars?" I'd go through the standard explanation. 
"Yes, I have all that money, but I don't have any control over 
most of it because it's already supporting people who have tenure 
and who are regular members of the faculty. And I also have an 
agricultural field station that I could close, but that doesn't 
seem the way to manage a program. So I'm left with less than a 
million dollars of flexible money." These are the kinds of 
things you have to consider when you're trying to administer a 
program and keep your resources flexible enough so that you can 
direct them to current problems. 

Well, the Giannini Foundation, as I understand it to now 
operate it was when I left office has an executive committee, 
but instead of the director of the experiment station being the 
chair, they elect a chair. Or, if they don't elect a chair, it 
alternates periodically between the chairman of the department of 
Berkeley and the chairman of the department at Davis. The 
committee administers the program of the Giannini Library. They 
have a few fellowships that they can grant from the fund, and 
they make research grants to applicants for particular kinds of 
defined programs. So the Giannini Foundation, with what money it 
does now have that's flexible, operates as a granting agency. 

Lage: And are they committed to try to grant research funds for these 

more practical problems, or ? 

Kendrick: I think they tend to grant them into short-term definable 

programs that lead into what the executive committee regards as 
important current economic issues as far as agriculture is 

Agricultural Issues Center 

The Idea and the Funding ## 

Kendrick: Since we're talking about the Giannini Foundation, let me slip 

over into the Agricultural Issues Center. One might say, "You've 
got the Giannini Foundation, why do you need an Agricultural 
Issues Center?" 

This organized research unit is in the experiment station, 
and it includes extension, so it's not just exclusively 
experiment station personnel. It had its origin at one of my 
retreats with the Executive Bulls. I'll explain what the 
Executive Bulls is. It is an informal organization that meets 
twice a year, for a twenty-four hour period, composed of 
representatives of agricultural enterprises, widely diversified 


Kendrick: as far as the activities are concerned. The representatives who 
are members of the Bulls are the senior managers of the 
activities. What the group does is hold a bull session, so hence 
the name Executive Bulls. 

I was kind of shocked to be included in an organization 
called the Executive Bulls because I thought it pursued [laughs] 
other kinds of activities. But. nevertheless, it is a group that 
I became quite fond of, and it was an important source for me in 
assessing what the current problems affecting the agriculture 
enterprises in California were. 

Well, in one of these sessions, I roomed with an executive 
from the Kellogg Foundation. The Kellogg Foundation made grants 
to institutions to pursue particular kinds of problems, such as 
programs to improve and expand computer use in agriculture or 
programs to improve the transfer of technology to practical use. 
These are mere examples of a wide variety of programs the Kellogg 
Foundation has supported over the years of its existence. 

Well, this representative of the Kellogg Foundation and I 
were discussing Kellogg's program, and he indicated to me that 
they were interested in fostering the development of regional 
centers addressing policy matters affecting agriculture. And 
that they had in mind setting up four regional centers and a 
national center to study policy matters. I thought to myself, 
"Well, if Kellogg is going to fund regional centers to study 
policy issues, I'm certainly going to go after one for the West 
located in California." In order to meet the requirements of the 
grant. I came home and appointed a committee to design a program 
and a budget. The composition of the committee included 
representatives of several different disciplines, but it had 
strong representation from the agricultural economists. I also 
included representatives from Stanford and Santa Clara because 
if we were going to have a regional center, we had to make sure 
that we were including more than just Berkeley or the Davis 
campus in this program. Also, on that initial study committee 
was a representative from the business world, the former vice 
president for agricultural affairs for the Bank of America. 

Chairing that committee was Alex McCalla, a professor of 
agricultural economics at Davis, who was one of my administrative 
supporters during the period when he was the dean of the College 
of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at Davis, and also an 
associate director of the experiment station. Alex was a very 
good chair who also was very good at conceptualizing things. He 
was a good builder. He was just the right kind of a chair to put 
in charge of developing that concept. 

Lage: Was this done without grants, yet, from the Kellogg Foundation? 


Kendrick: Yes, that's true. It was done with our own resources. 

The notion that I tried to transmit to the steering 
committee was that I wanted a program that was broader than 
economics. I thought that the policy matters affecting the 
future of California's agriculture dealt with toxics, dealt with 
environmental issues, dealt with labor issues, dealt with 
marketing issues. In addition, I could see that the genetic 
engineering matters were coming to the front, and those were 
policy issues also. So there were economic issues, as far as 
marketing and foreign policy and the like, but there were also 
some other issues that weren't based primarily on economic 



What date do you have for this? 

Do you recall when this all 

Well, the center is about three years old, and it was about 1983 
that we began talking seriously about it. And the idea was for 
the committee to develop a grant proposal to send to Kellogg. 

Well, they worked very well and put together a marvelous 
program that I thought was just what we needed. Kellogg, in the 
meantime, decided that they would like to start slower than 
originally planned. So they established a national center to see 
how that would operate before they entertained any proposal for 
regional centers. The national center was located in Washington, 
D.C., at Resources for the Future the organization that 
President Hitch headed up briefly, when he terminated his 
presidency at the University of California. 

At Resources for the Future, they found Ken Farrell, who was 
a fellow of Resources for the Future, and he became the director 
of the national Center for Agricultural and Food Policy Research. 
So that's where the Kellogg grant wound up, at a national center. 

Meanwhile, having charged up this committee and they 
produced such a good product I decided that I wanted to get some 
funding into it. So I put it in the asking budget for '84, I 
think it was, at a half-million dollars, in order to get it off 
the ground and get it started. I expected the agricultural 
industry representatives of California to say, "Now, finally he's 
doing something useful for us," and it would have a lot of 
support in the legislature, and it would go through with no 

It was David Gardner's first year as president, his first 
budget. 1984. He thought it was a great idea, too. As a matter 
of fact, he spoke in support of it when he was talking to 
agriculture groups. He was one of my best lobbyists, in a sense. 
So I felt pretty good about it and was very surprised to find 


Kendrick: less than enthusiastic interest among California's organized 
agriculture in the University's establishing an agricultural 
policy research and study center. 

Lage: They didn't see it related to their immediate needs? 

Kendrick: I ultimately found out what the problem was. Commercial 

agriculture does not trust faculty to meddle with policies that 
might affect their economic well-being. There had just been 
published about that time a paper that got a lot of publicity 
written by a member of the faculty not in agriculture from 
Berkeley, and co-authored by another person from UCLA, suggesting 
that the citizens of Los Angeles were subsidizing the 
agricultural enterprises in the San Joaquin Valley to the 
detriment of the cost of water delivered to Los Angeles. Now. 
that's a long and complicated story, and it's full of debate. 
The assumptions that people make for their points of view are not 
necessarily congruent, but the topic makes alarming headlines, 
when one reads about the so-called unfairness of the water 
distribution and costs associated with agriculture in the San 
Joaquin Valley versus southern California. 

That had no sooner appeared in print than my phone began to 
ring, asking me how I would let people publish such nonsense. 
Well, it was sort of "here we go again." [laughter] Jim 
Kendrick does not tell the faculty what they can and cannot 
publish. But I would point out to these complaining individuals 
that if we'd had something like an agricultural policy center 
with some kind of a review policy in place, that irresponsible 
claims would be at least reduced to a minimum because we'd have a 
review process that made sure that claims and assumptions and 
facts were indeed supportable, and not just somebody's idea. But 
that point, again, was lost. 

Lage: I can see you try to turn most everything to your advantage. 

Kendrick: Well, I try. [laughter] But I guess that's the politics of the 

Anyway, the half-million-dollar request got pruned to a 
$250,000 request before it got into the governor's budget, and 
that was just an economy measure. Then it worked its way through 
the legislature, and even this meager $250,000, which would have 
been quite helpful, was having problems because agriculture's 
representatives weren't rushing forward to say, "It's a great 
thing, you've got to support it." And if we couldn't get the 
agriculture people to support it, you can be certain that the 
legislature's Ways and Means Committee wasn't going to go out of 
their way to just give the University extra money that 
agriculture thought that they didn't need anyway. Commercial 


Kendrick: agriculture was certainly leery of the University developing 

agricultural policy, which they thought was the purpose of the 
proposed center. 

So, we spent a lot of time in Sacramento in support of this, 
and I wrote an editorial in the California Agriculture suggesting 
that studying policy was different than advocating policy or 
supporting particular actions; that the University was the proper 
vehicle to analyze policy options so that agriculture would have 
some knowledge of what their alternatives were and what their 
options were. But that distinction was somewhat obscured. In 
social issues, it's very difficult to separate study and research 
of policy matters from the perception of advocating one position 
over others. In technical matters, we, of course, advocate all 
kinds of policies we advocate certain actions because they would 
increase yields or control more pests and diseases. 

In studying policy matters, you tread very lightly in taking 
advocacy positions because you're dealing with political and 
emotional subjects, and the University's faculty and staff are 
not policy-makers. They shouldn't be. But that's a fine line to 
walk, and we have members of the institution who don't understand 
that fine line. They find themselves advocating certain kinds of 
policy the small farm group, for instance, with their interest 
in the 160-acre limitation, had some rather strong statements 
made about that. So it's an advocacy role that makes life 
difficult for someone who's trying to be objective. 

I was going to say how this got resolved. It was suggested 
that if we take "policy" out of the title, and change "policy" to 
"issues," and it became an agricultural issues research and study 
center, that we would not have as much problem. 

Lage: Now, who suggested that? 

Kendrick: They were the representatives of commercial agriculture, the 

Sacramento lobbyists. So, I said, "That's no great problem, I'm 
just stubborn enough to try and educate people that we're not 
policy advocates, we're policy researchers but I'm also a 
pragmatist, and I would like the center because I think it's 
needed and I think it can make a significant contribution, so if 
you think it takes 'issues' rather than 'policy' in the title to 
get this thing off the dead center, I'll go along with it." So 
it ultimately became the Agricultural Issues Center. And it 
looked like it was going to get through with no more problems, at 
its quarter of a million dollar budget level. 

In an attempt to reassure the agricultural community that we 
were not going to be a threat to their prerogative to determine 
policies affecting their own welfare, we hired Dick Lyng to 
survey a select number of California's agricultural leaders. 


Kendrick: This was just prior to his being appointed secretary of 
agriculture for the U.S. and while he was working out of 
Washington, B.C., as a consultant. He had the confidence of 
practically all of California's agricultural leaders, and we 
hoped that his intervention on our behalf would help in gaining 
their support. Dick also asked these leaders for ideas 
concerning issues they felt important to study. In the end he 
gave us a written report on the results of his survey with 
suggestions for the advisory board and issues which needed 
attention. I believe that his role in the process of gaining 
political support for the center was very positive. At any rate, 
he was convinced of the value of having a center to study these 
agricultural issues and he supported it enthusiastically. 

Just when it appeared that we had successfully countered all 
of the criticism and would get the center funded at $250,000, the 
budget got whacked again in a mark-up session in the Ways and 
Means Committee, because a lot of issues were being heard 
affecting the University's total program. The legislative 
analyst had given a negative recommendation of the issues center, 
on the basis that, although it was a good program and there was 
nothing wrong with its conceptualization and its need, it was 
something that ought to be funded by the agricultural interests 
themselves. I'd gone that route, and I didn't really want 
agricultural interests funding this center because I wanted it 
free and unencumbered from any kind of specific influence. 

I think we were going to be able to beat that criticism, but 
the legislative analyst was losing nearly all of his 
recommendations concerning other issues in the University's 
budget, and the University's position was being sustained in 
almost all of them. They came to the Ag Issues Center, and the 
comment from one the legislators was, "Well, maybe we can let the 
legislative analyst win one of them." [laughter] So they took a 
hundred and ten thousand dollars off of it, and I wound up with 

Lage: Not too much to get something going. 

Kendrick: It was almost down to the point where I considered briefly 

saying, "Well, if it doesn't seem that important, we won't take 
the money." The notion I had was that if you give in completely, 
you create the attitude that, "Well, they'll get along with 
whatever we give them." It really kind of emasculated what the 
original concept of how we would approach that program but we 
decided we'd swallow our pride and take the $140,000 and do with 
it what we could, and demonstrate that we had a program of value. 
We hoped to augment subsequent budgets through grants or go back 
at them with another request. The last act that I created in the 
budget just before I retired was to put in a request for another 


Kendrick: hundred thousand dollars to augment that original appropriation. 
That got lost it emerged and stayed in the University's budget, 
bat it got lost in the legislative battle again. 

Choosing a Diverse Advisory Board 

Lage : So there isn't a strong commitment or an understanding of it. 

Kendrick: I think the center and its program are gaining a reputation for 
usefulness and visibility. Like all such programs as they get 
started, they have to demonstrate their worth and the usefulness 
of their contributions. Hal Carter, a professor of agricultural 
economics at the Davis campus, is the director. The center was 
designed to have an external advisory board to help guide the 
direction of the program. I decided that I would appoint that 
board so the vice president could maintain some involvement with 
the center. The board was composed of twelve members. It has a 
representative from labor, and the consumers, and from banking, 
and water interests, the processing industry, and farming 
operations. As a matter of fact, the legislation that authorized 
the establishment of this center defined the broad areas of 
representation which should appear on that board. 

Lage: Was that based on your design? 

Kendrick: It was based on material we put into the legislation. And the 
board is of high quality. 

Lage: Is there such a thing as "the" water interests? 

Kendrick: No, there isn't. I had fun trying to find the kinds of people 

who I thought would bring an objective, open point of view to the 
board. I can't recall offhand the names of the people who were 
on the board you can probably augment that in due course. But 
the water interests [laughs] are at least represented on the 
board by an interesting person, who is an attorney, the senior 
attorney of a firm in Riverside. The firm in Riverside is Best, 
Best, and Krieger, and the attorney is Arthur Littleworth. 

Arthur Littleworth served on the ad-hoc water commission 
appointed by Governor Jerry Brown to study the water problems of 
California. Art has become very knowledgeable in water policy 
and water law. He represents water districts in some of the 
legal claims, but over and above that, I've talked with Art a 
number of times about water and water problems in the state of 
California. He has in my judgment a very good understanding of 


Kendrick: the fundamental problems of distribution and the value of 

protecting environmental qualities and the like, and responding 
to the domestic needs as well. 

The interesting thing about Art's relationship with the 
Kendrick family is that he was president of the Riverside City 
School Board, when Evelyn was a member, and he and Evelyn were 
the two who had to run for the re-election in 1966. So it was a 
personal link, as well as one that I felt would bring a lot of 
quality to a board of this nature and would also get southern 
California represented on the board. He has taken a deep 
interest in the center. 

The chairman of the board is Bill Allewelt, a retired chief 
executive officer of Tri-Valley, the large food processor 
canning tomatoes and peaches, mostly fruits, some vegetables. 
But tomato canning was the big backbone of the Tri-Valley 
operation. Bill is a graduate of the University of California at 
Davis, in agricultural economics. He is a member of the 
Executive Bulls and a demonstrated successful agricultural 
manager, one very dedicated to the mission of the University of 
California and knowledgeable about agriculture, whom I've stayed 
in touch with regularly. 

The banker who I appointed to the board is president of the 
Bank of Stockton, Robert Eberhardt, also a regent of the 
University of the Pacific, and a person quite knowledgeable about 
agriculture financing. He had served on the banking commission 
for the state of California. 

The labor representative who I asked to serve was at the 
time chairman of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Jyrl 
James- Ma ssengale. She is a lawyer with a law firm in southern 
California and had represented management in some instances in 
dealing with labor- management problems. She was appointed by 
Deukmejian as chair of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. 
She's a black lady and was trying to bring peace and objectivity 
to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, but she of course was 
not perceived by the Cesar Chavez group as being sympathetic tc 
their point of view. She has subsequently resigned from that 
position, but she remains on the Agricultural Issues Center 

The environmental and consumer interests were represented by 
Lois Salisbury, from Public Advocates law firm in San Francisco. 
I was not able to get well acquainted with Lois because she was 
busy having a youngster at the time we were beginning to meet 
with the board, and she was unavailable for those first meetings. 
She brings a point of view that's well thought out, but it's 
certainly contrary to seme of the traditional agricultural 


Kendrick: viewpoints. Both Hal Carter and I felt she would be a valuable 
addition to the board because she could at least keep the 
traditional agriculturalists on their toes. 

In addition. I asked Henry Schacht, who writes a column 
about agriculture which appears regularly in the San Francisco 
Chronicle, if he would serve on the board, and he agreed to do 
so. The dairy interests were represented by a dairyman from the 
Modesto area, Arnold Barcellos. 

Lage: Now, what would be the role of the board of a group like that? 

Kendrick: Well, they're advisory and they attempt to keep the program of 
the center relevant to issues that were important to the future 
of California agriculture. 

Lage: So they work with the director 

Kendrick: They work with the director 
Lage: to define the problems 

Kendrick: Yes. And the vice president meets with them. Another member of 
the board is the owner of a large successfully operated vegetable 
and fruit produce firm in southern California, Howard Marguleas, 
the chief executive officer of Sundesert. His company markets 
dates, citrus, tomatoes, watermelons, and grapes. Howard is a 
very successful entrepreneur in agriculture. Henry Voss, 
president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, and Gray don 
Nichols, a successful farmer in the San Joaquin Valley and in the 
Sacramento Delta region, are also members of the advisory board. 
So agriculture is well represented on the board. I think the 
board is composed of significant people, who represent an array 
of activities that characterize California's agricultural 
enterprises and organizations interested in agriculture. 

Lage: Just one comment to keep you on your toes here: I would guess 

that the person you had to represent labor really wouldn't be 
somebody very well accepted by agricultural labor not just Cesar 
Chavez, but in general. 

Kendrick: I had problems seeking that labor representative, and I probably 
could be questioned on why I didn't get organized labor on the 
board, but I did not want to create an environment in which I had 
a battle on my hands at every meeting. 

Lage: But what about somebody like Harold Gilliam, whom you had as 

representative of the environmental movement on another board, 
who is not a leader of an environmental group necessarily, but 


Lage: somebody very knowledgeable and sympathetic to the environmental 

movement. Wouldn't there be a counterpart for the labor 

Kendrick: Well, that's where I perceived Ms. James-Massengale to be very 
knowledgeable about labor laws. It wasn't because she happened 
to represent management on some issues in the National Labor 
Relations activities that I chose her. She knew a lot about 
labor, labor law, and labor organizations. A lawyer can 
represent one side or the other, and I was anxious to have 
labor's viewpoint and labor's concerns expressed on the board, 
but I didn't want to create a board in which I had my traditional 
agriculturists sitting glaring at the labor representative and 
never really addressing the issue. It just becomes an argument. 
I chose very carefully to try and get the viewpoints on the table 
without polarizing the individuals because they don't like one 
another. And that is not easy to do in agricultural labor 
relations, because it's a very emotional issue. Water's another 
one, and I chose, I thought, wisely there because I chose a known 
quantity, a person who was accustomed to arbitration, and 
accustomed to negotiation, accustomed to listening to an opposing 
point of view and working his way objectively through an analysis 
of all the issues. 

That's not always possible to do in agricultural matters 
because there are some strongly held views on one side or 
another. When one refers to the agricultural industry of 
California, it really doesn't describe the agricultural 
enterprise of California. It's not a unified industry such as 
you find in the automotive industry producing more or less a 
single product. It is an amalgamation of anarchies [laughter], 
in that everyone is for themselves. The citrus grower isn't 
particularly concerned about what happens to the lettuce grower 
except if it becomes a common labor issue. Then they go marching 
together. But if it's a marketing issue, let the citrus people 
take care of themselves. 

Lage : 

So it is not an industry in the usual sense of the word, 
that is defined with uniform goals. Even water separates them, 
the northerners and the southerners. About the only thing I know 
that unifies agriculture at all are labor and taxes. 

And that's two of their big issues. I noticed in those farm 
magazines that they focus on labor and taxes. 

Kendrick: Yes. That's right. 

Lage: I noticed that you appointed a couple of women to this board. 

Was that a new step for the agricultural division? 


Kendrick: No, I had previous advisory committees with women serving on 

them. I wanted minorities as well as women represented on this 
board. The last person. I appointed to the board is an executive 
from Sun Diamond the Sun Diamond public affairs officer, Richard 
Douglas, who had spent time in the USDA as one of Dick Lyng's 
staff aides. He's a black agricultural economist. I think we 
did pretty well getting women, minorities, and the traditional 
and nontraditional agricultural activities represented on a board 
that doesn't have very many positions to fill. I left my 
successor with one vacancy on the board. It was intended that 
each member have a three-year term with reappointments permitted. 
In order to start that sequence and create an overlap of 
membership, we determined one, two, and three year appointments 
by lot for each of these first appointees. 

That center was my last creative act as far as trying to do 
something for the future of the program in research and 
extension. I would guess that the jury is out on whether or not 
that is going to take. They don't have a lot of money to operate 
on yet. It has good leadership. Its board is enthusiastic and 
very supportive; they see the need for the program, and they are 
people who are not without influence. 

Making the West a Force in Agricultural Policy 

Kendrick: The other motive I had in trying to get an issues center 

established concerns national issues. The West does not get well 
considered in national agricultural policy. It is perceived to 
be sort of specialty- crop agriculture; it has many commodities 
and crops that get into commerce, and therefore when you line up 
the growers of vegetables or fruits and nuts against the Midwest 
corn growers or soy bean farmers, they are easily outnumbered. 
They don't have near the influence in national policies because 
agriculture policies are dominated by corn, wheat, soy beans, 
beef, and dairy interests. Irrigated agriculture, or range 
agriculture, is sort of regarded as western agriculture, and it 
can take care of itself, or it gets traded off in various 

Economists and spokespersons for agricultural policy are 
more apt to emerge from the midwestern or eastern universities 
such as Maryland, Georgetown, Harvard, Iowa State, Michigan 
State, or Minnesota. And while we have a number of western 
people who participate in specific events we have had a few who 
served on the President's Council of Economic Advisors as 
agricultural representatives the West doesn't have a very strong 
voice when these policy matters are discussed at the national 
level. We haven't had an organization that has been identified 


Kendrick: with paying particular attention to these national or 

international issues. And that's what I had in mind in trying to 
get an Agricultural Issues Study and Research Center established 
with a great deal of visibility, so that eventually a person or a 
group or a committee addressing national agricultural issues 
might automatically think, "Well, have we heard from that western 
agricultural issues center? What is their point of view relative 
to this matter or that matter?" 

Lage: You'd think that argument would appeal both to the agriculture 

community here and to the legislature. 

Kendrick: Well, it does. But agriculture is not sure that they want an 
academic voice. They want their own voice, and the history of 
this center working with commercial agriculture is too recent for 
them to see what the product of an agricultural issues center is 
vis-a-vis their needs. And I think it's going to take years to 
work that thing through. You don't create a reputation overnight. 

Lage: No, that's right. This is a long-term 

Kendrick: So I'm not disappointed with what we've got going here; I think 
if it serves any usefulness at all. it will grow and be 
supported. If it doesn't, it will disappear and be a memory. 

But the other thing going for it is that the former director 
of the National Center for Agricultural and Food Policy is Ken 
Farrell, who is now the vice president of the University's 
agricultural program. I'm sure that wasn't a primary reason why 
he was appointed my successor, but it certainly doesn't hurt 
having his interest and his former experience in the national 
center brought to bear to oversee this regional center. So I 
feel quite good about this as a program. This is an example of 
an activity that I would never have been able to put together as 
an inexperienced, young administrator in the early stages of my 
responsibility. I had to do a lot of politicking. It's a good 
example of how important external community relationships and 
internal politics within the University are in order to 
accomplish something in the University. If I hadn't been able to 
get this item in the President's budget in the first place, it 
wouldn't have gone anywhere. 

Developing Support for Agriculture in an Urban Society 


Was it a struggle to get it in the budget? 

Kendrick: No, it wasn't. The President David Gardner saw this as a 
useful contribution almost immediately. 


Lage: He sounds very supportive of the agriculture division. 

Kendrick: Yes, he is. 

Lage: Is there something in his background that makes him sympathetic? 

Kendrick: He jokingly refers to the fact that he had some early exposure to 
practical agriculture on an uncle's ranch, or farm, in Montana, I 
think it was. He quickly perceived that that was not a future 
that he wanted to be engaged in; it was hard work and long hours 
[laughing], and the economic return wasn't very great. So he, 
like most of us, is of an age to have had grandparents or parents 
in some kind of agricultural enterprise. But that experience is 
fast disappearing; most of the people presently in their thirties 
and forties have no vivid memory of any kind of agricultural 
association. I didn't grow up on a farm; I'm a product of an 
academic family, but both of my parents were raised on farms, and 
Evelyn was raised on a farm. Her parents were farmers, and you 
get back one generation from mine, and almost everybody had some 
kind of an agricultural association. The younger members of 
today's society do not have the understanding of agriculture's 
contribution to their well-being and value system that we have 
traditionally had in our population. 

And that's another factor in the difficulties of operating 
an agriculture-supporting enterprise in the present urban- 
dominated society where the legislature is an expression of urban 
society. It's difficult to convince people that some 
agricultural programs or problems are as important as AIDS or 
poverty or homelessness and I would be presumptuous to assume 
that some of them are as important. I would say no, they're not 
as important as some of those excruciating problems associated 
with joblessness and job displacements, and the like. You have 
to manage these affairs so that they fit into a total program in 
a relatively compatible way, not to the exclusion of somebody 
else's major problem. Crime in the street, the drug scene and all 
the rest of it are issues that people in the legislature have to 
wrestle with. Do you put your money here, or there? Do you put 
it in the Agricultural Issues Center or do you put it in prisons? 

Unless you're willing to help people think their way through 
that, and not get upset because your pet project doesn't get 
supported immediately, you're in the wrong business. You've 
really got to come after these things in a totally open, objective 
way, and that's why I perceived the vice president's role to be 
an advocate for the agricultural needs and to interpret for the 
agricultural community how we fit in dealing with total societal 
needs. My role was to try and explain to agriculture that there 
are other competing needs of society, as well as trying to 


Kendrick: advocate the agricultural needs at the same time. I found it fun 
to be in that role. But it certainly is a challenge and somewhat 
frustrating at times. 

Well, we spent a lot of time on two issues, or two units of 
activity, but I think they are important activities as far as the 
experiment station and extension programs are concerned. And 
extension has a major share of the program responsibilities in 
the issues center. 

Kearney Foundation for Soil Science 

Genesis and Direction 

Kendrick: The first attempt to introduce flexibility of funding so that we 

could address programs of more current interest than it was possi 
ble with previous special appropriations was done with the Kearney 
Foundation for Soil Science. There was a fund created by the Uni 
versity for the pursuit of soil science research, which resulted 
from the sale of property in the San Joaquin Valley, the Kearney 
Ranch. That property was originally given to the University with 
the hope, at least, that there would be a campus of the University 
of California established in the lower San Joaquin Valley. And 
was pursued rather vigorously by the [Chester] Rowell family. 

Lage : Now, when was this? 

Kendrick: That goes back to Robert Gordon Sproul's time. The San Joaquin 
Valley interests really wanted a med school. I think, but they 
also wanted a campus of the University. I don't know if it was 
felt the property was surplus to the University's needs or it 
wasn't located where a campus would be desirable, or what, but 
for some reason, Bob Underbill, who was the secretary-treasurer 
of the Regents, sold it and got a good price for it. Part of the 
proceeds from that sale were set aside by the Regents to function 
as a foundation for research in soil problems affecting agricul 
ture. So the Kearney Foundation for Soil Science became a reality. 
In the early days of its existence with its handsome annual yield 
of several hundred thousand dollars, it was administered by the 
chairman of the Department of Soil Science at Berkeley. 

Lage: So it was something you inherited. 

Kendrick: Yes. And it became rather identified as an augmentation of the 
supporting funds for the Department of Soil Science. When Perry 
Stout of Soil Science moved to Da\ is, the fund went to Davis with 
him because he was administering the program. 


Kendrick: My Administrative Advisory Committee, which consisted of the 

deans and the directors, all agreed that we should try to change 
the goal and administration of that foundation fund. We 
conceived of a program which was unique, somewhat bold, and 
continues to operate today. What we wanted to do was establish 
five-year programs, with a different director for each program, 
with a budget that consisted of the yield from the investments of 
the foundation's funds. It was designed to be a mini-granting 
agency. The only requirement was that the problem defined for 
the five-year project be in soil science or related subjects. 

The problem was to convince the existing director of the 
Kearney Foundation, who was Professor Perry Stout, a long-time 
Berkeley faculty member who had moved to Davis, that this was in 
the best interests of the future of the Kearney Foundation. We 
wanted to set up an advisory committee to select a problem, and 
to suggest a director, and to then provide oversight during that 
five-year period of the research activity. It all seemed like a 
very fine idea at the time. 

We were able to do that, without too much dust in the air. 
Perry Stout cooperated beautifully, somewhat to the surprise of 
many people. They thought that Perry was going to be too 
possessive of his prerogative to run it, but he 

Lage: Had the funds been used previously to fund whatever the soil 

scientists happened to be working on, and now you were going to 
try to control the choice of research subjects a little bit more? 

Kendrick: That's correct; that a good way to describe it. We thought it 
had been confined a little too much to the departmental 
activities and particular problems that Perry Stout felt were 
important. We felt that we needed a broader base of input into 
the direction of the overall program. 

The technical advisory committee that we put together was 
broadly representative of soil scientists and extension personnel 
in the University of California. It selected nitrogen and its 
fate in soil as the first five-year program, and identified as 
the director for that five-year program, Don Nielsen, who is now 
the senior associate dean in the College of Agriculture and 
Environmental Sciences at Davis. We owe Don a lot of credit for 
establishing the ground rules and the operational mode for the 
moving five-year project which ha subsequently characterized the 
foundation's program. An important aspect of the rules governing 
the projects of the foundation is that none of the five-year 
programs could be renewed for an additional five-year term. We 
wanted to automatically interrupt potential dynasties. 


Kendrick: Another stipulation was that we would not renew a director's 
term. Each director had to be someone identified with the 
current research problem. 

Lage: What was the thought behind that? 

Kendrick: Well, we just didn't want any single program to monopolize the 
future, and we wanted to preserve the flexibility of the fund. 
Another stipulation was that the headquarters for the foundation 
would be on the campus of the selected director. So it could be 
at Davis, or it could be at Riverside or Berkeley, wherever the 
faculty home of the director was. And that, in fact, did happen. 
The importance of that concept was that it was very difficult to 
move resources from one campus to another, particularly regularly 
budgeted funds. We gave the entire budget of the foundation to 
the director and his advisors to administer in any way they 
wanted to. So they could call for proposals and make research 

Lage: They hired the staff on a five-year basis? 

Kendrick: Yes. And then they use a certain amount of the support to wind 
things up into a publication, or a workshop, or a symposium, or 
what have you. The concept I had about continuing the program 
was that, if it was of such current interest and importance to 
the field of soil science, then other funding sources would move 
in and take over. And, in fact, they did the National Science 
Foundation pursued a number of things in the nitrogen program. 

Lage: And was the public presentation a part of it also you mentioned 

some kind of a workshop or ? 

Kendrick: It wasn't all that public, but this particular one ended up with 
a two- or three-day symposium, a discussion of the results. But 
there were ongoing contributions and publications. So it was 
really quite a successful venture. 

The next topic selected was a study of the fate of heavy 
metals in the soil system. The director was Al [Albert] Page of 

Lage: When you pick a director, do you look into their administrative 

capabilities? It seems that you need certain talents that you 
don't need to be a professor, in order to administer a granting 

Kendrick: Well, I'll have to admit that that wasn't the primary 

requirement. First and foremost, we picked someone who had a 
reputation and knowledge of the subject matter. It turns out 
that the people we've selected all have had reasonably good 
competence in administering a program such as this, and of 


Kendrick: course, there's enough money to provide some administrative 

support. If you needed to augment the departmental staff so that 
you'd have an administrative aide to take care of the ruts and 
bolts of keeping track of the funds and other administrative 
duties, that was possible. 

Then the next five-year program was a soil-water salinity 
program with John Letey at Riverside as the third five-year 
director. He is a professor of soil science at Riverside. 

Flexible Response to the Kesterson Crisis 

Kendrick: We're into the fourth cycle now, so that we've just gotten 

another program started, and the Kearney Foundation's program has 
moved back to Davis with Kenneth Tanj i as the director. He came 
on board just in time to inherit the Kesterson problem. What 
pleased me most was that because of the importance of the 
selenium accumulations and its toxicity in the Kesterson 
reservoir, the director and the advisory committee delayed the 
program of the Kearney Foundation one year and directed the 
funding that would normally go into that program to study the 
Kesterson situation. 



The level of funding had reached, I think, three to four 
hundred thousand dollars annually. This is a model that I really 
think could serve the cause of flexibility well in the future. 
Because we had this system in place when this Kesterson problem 
came along and had not yet committed funds from the foundation 
into the next five-year program, the decision could be made to 
divert that first year's yield into the Kesterson situation and 
problem. Ken Tanj i, who was the designated director of the 
fourth five-year program for soil sciences, was also a co-leader 
of the Kesterson research project. 

But only one year spent on it, or ? 

That's the only year that I'm aware of that the foundation's 
resources were diverted to that activity because we then went for 
special appropriations for the solution to Kesterson. Rather 
than having to wait a year to get some special appropriations, 
here we had an opportunity to do what our external clientele had 
been telling us to do, which was to reallocate from existing 
funds. And the only way we had money available to do so was 
because we had the foresight fifteen years earlier to increase 
the flexibility of a significant amount of money which happily 
was available to meet an emergency. 


Kendrick: I think without that kind of a flexible funding, we would still 
be waiting for the legislature to appropriate enough money to 
divert people from existing commitments in their regular programs 
into some of the research programs that were needed to address 
the Kesterson problem. The Kesterson Waste Management group was 
put together rather quickly as a task force. The director of the 
experiment station and one of his assistants, who was his program 
coordinator, assembled people in both the experiment station, 
extension, and anybody else who had expressed an interest, 
including the water center people, at a meeting to see what we 
knew about the problem and what we could do about it. That waste 
management task force was another one of the devices that was 
used to mobilize for specific kinds of problems the resources of 
the experiment station and extension into units that could 
address those problems. 

That same kind of technique had been used about fifteen 
years earlier to form a committee of consultants for agricultural 
water quality standards. When the water laws and water quality 
control boards came into existence in the state of California, 
one of the requirements of the legislation was for districts to 
define their own water quality standards. I don't know just hew 
many districts there are, but there are quite a few maybe 
fifteen, or twenty. And those water districts' boards were 
composed of lay people, primarily, and some engineers. They 
employed consultants to help them define what they needed to pay 
attention to as far as defining standards for domestic water 
quality within the district. But the boards found themselves 
uninformed when they came to consider agricultural matters and 
what agricultural waters did to water quality in general, as well 
as what agricultural activities required as far as quality was 
concerned. It's no secret that agricultural crops don't grow 
well when water with high content of certain heavy metals or 
salinity is used to irrigate them. 

Some of the boards came to the University seeking help in 
dealing with these matters that affected agriculture and water 
quality. So we formed primarily within Cooperative Extension a 
committee of consultants composed of knowledgeable people in 
irrigation and water matters. Some experiment station people 
were also included in the committee. The chief contributor and 
leader of this activity was Bob Ayers, who was an extension 
specialist in irrigation. Bob has since retired and is living in 
Davis. That consultant group performed in a handsome manner, 
contributing when called upon for the information needed to 
establish water quality standards in those districts seeking 

So in a way, we had experience in assembling experts under 
the direction of a coordinator to deal with problems that kind of 
popped up unexpectedly with no real planning for them to be on 


Kendrick: our active agenda. The Kesterson situation was handled in a 

similar manner, but the problem was a little bit different, and 
the solution is complex as well as difficult. Working in this 
program has been complicated by the competing activities of 
several federal and state agencies each with some responsibility 
for regulating water use and runoff. So the task force is a 
useful technique that has evolved to handle issues that are, as 
I say, unpredictable, and sort of come at you in a hurry. 

Slosson Fund for Ornamental Horticulture 

Kendrick: One of the early-on unexpected funding augmentations of another 
defined program of our organization was done in support of 
ornamental horticulture. We had an extension specialist in 
Cooperative Extension by the name of Harry Butterfield, long 
since deceased. Harry was kind of a one-person encyclopedia of 
ornamental horticulture, who worked very closely with garden club 
organizations and people interested in gardens and urban plantings. 
He provided a great deal of service, and I think he helped 
organize the Garden Clubs of California into a state society. 

In the course of doing that, one of the people whom he 
helped was a widowed lady by the name of [Elvenia J.] Slosson. 
Mrs. Slosson was the early founder of the California Garden Club 
Association. Harry had worked closely with her for a good part 
of his career. Well, the result of this good relationship was 
that Mrs. Slosson left the University a million dollars to be 
used to enhance the public's appreciation of ornamental 
horticulture through both the research and extension. Since 
Harry Butterfield was in extension, there was a strong 
committment for using these funds to address the practical needs 
of persons who were trying to enhance ornamental plants in an 
urban setting. 

Having a million dollars at my disposal was more than I'd 
been accustomed to receiving. We set up the fund as an endowment 
so that only the income from the million dollar investment was 
available for the program. I appointed a committee to advise me 
on how best to use this money. We started with the concept of a 
Slosson Fellowship for which we would make a major grant on a 
competitive basis to a member of the faculty for a period not to 
exceed five years. The Slosson Fellows had an obligation to make 
a useful contribution from their research program to practical 
ornamental horticulture. The first Slosson fellow was Toshio 
Murashige on the Riverside campus, who had a strong research 
program in cultivating embryos of plants and freeing them of 
viruses. This embryo transplant technique has become very widely 
used in the ornamental nursery industry for propagating plants. 


Kendrick: But in due course, the advisory committee became a little 

disenchanted with granting all that money to one person; they 
thought it would be more useful if we had a stronger extension 
component and had grants to more people, so we changed the 
methods and goals for the Slosson Fund. We dropped the Slosson 
fellow concept and asked the Slosson Advisory Committee to deal 
with grants and spread them around the system. So we have 
another fund, like the Kearney Foundation for Soil Science, a 
fund that supports defined programs. The advisory committee has 
also adopted a five-year emphasis of particular programs within 
the expanded topic of ornamental horticulture. 

Mosquito Research Program; Broadening Decision-Making for a 
Cooperative Effort 

Kendrick: The mosquito research program was one that I inherited which had 
had kind of a stormy existence because it had participants who 
were interested in mosquito research for entirely different 
reasons. The external group interested in what the University 
was doing in mosquito control research were the managers of the 
abatement districts. California is organized into mosquito 
abatement districts, which are supported by local taxes. These 
districts have as their goal the control of mosquitoes within 
their boundaries. The manager is a locally employed person who 
is charged with keeping the mosquitoes from annoying people and 
transmitting diseases. 

Another component group interested in mosquito research is 
in the Department of Health Services, formerly called the 
California Department of Public Health. And the Department of 
Public Health had a unit in vector control monitoring and research 
and also had a unit in research on the control of mosquitoes. 

Another unit, not under the control or direction of the vice 
president for agricultural sciences, was in our own faculties of 
the two schools of public health, one at Berkeley and one at 
UCLA. The two units outside of agriculture that were engaged in 
mosquito research were interested in epidemiology in relationship 
to the onset of malaria, sleeping sickness, and other mosquito- 
borne diseases affecting public health. 

Then we had within the experiment station in entomological 
units at Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside, people who were doing 
research in mosquito control, and mosquito epidemiology. That 
unit was more or less directly under the program of the Division 
of Agricultural Sciences. All of these diverse units had a 
common interest^ but they were coming at it from a different 


Kendrick: Also there was some funding in the California Department of 

Public Health for mosquito research that, before I became the 
vice president, was moved to the University of California in 
support of research because of some disenchantment by the 
mosquito abatement district managers with the California 
Department of Public Health. And there was some resentment, as 
one might expect, in losing a program in the California 
Department of Public Health to the University. 

Another thing that sort of characterized mosquito research, 
of which I became aware in due course, was that it was good news 
media material. As far as public news media was concerned, we 
seemed to constantly be discovering a promising new mechanism to 
abate mosquito problems. And somehow or other, mosquito problems 
continue to exist. The new method somehow wasn't really a 
panacea for control; it wasn't as good as it promised to be. Our 
researchers, however, continued to keep the public's interest 
high on these new discoveries. That frustrated not only the 
mosquito abatement district managers, but also people who paid 
attention to research in mosquito abatement. 

I began to wonder how I might bring all of this together and 
have a cooperative program that would restore the confidence of 
the district officers and the public in what would be perceived 
to be a useful, needed program in mosquito research. 

Lage: Were you getting complaints that made you turn your attention to 


Kendrick: Yes, I would hear from, particularly, the managers of the 

districts. They were complaining about not receiving useful 
information, and that it was not being made available to them. 
It was an ongoing program, but it certainly was not well- 
coordinated because the experiment station group was pursuing the 
problem from their own perspective, and the public health groups 
were doing research based on their needs. 

I thought, once again, this calls for a committee, 
[laughter] When in doubt, form a committee. But, as trite as it 
sounds, it is really the only way to introduce different 
perspectives into a common forum so you can begin to discuss what 
those issues are and see if you can't arrive at some 
accommodation for everybody's needs and wishes. So that was 
done. I had all the parties that I just described represented on 
this Mosquito Research Advisory Committee. And I chaired it, at 
least initially. 

I believed that what was really needed was someone who could 
give the mosquito program full-time attention. One of the strong 
persons who helped me organize was Bill Reeves, Professor Reeves, 
of the School of Public Health in Berkeley; he is an 


Kendrick: entomologist. He developed a career in mosquito research and the 
epidemiology of the vector control. And I quickly determined. 
and Bill and the committee also agreed, that we needed an 
extension- type individual to coordinate all of the research and 
to relate regularly with the abatement district managers. So we 
brought a well- qualified person in from Colorado, whose name I 
don't remember. That was the first step in putting a rationale 
into the program. We added this coordinator to extension's 
staff, but he didn't really function as a typical extension 

I told him that I wanted him to pay particular attention to 
the various needs of the district people and to organize and 
manage the granting part of the program. We had several hundred 
thousand dollars to oversee and I wanted to be sure that the 
money was going to programs that were of current interest and had 
scientific validity. So in the experiment station, we asked the 
entomologists to organize an entomology steering committee that 
peer-evaluated the applications for funding from the mosquito 
fund. The mosquito abatement district organization had a 
research group in their organization which had a great interest 
in the University's research program. I asked this group to 
review the research proposals and to prioritize them according to 
their views. Finally, the University Mosquito Research Advisory 
Committee, which had representatives of all participating groups, 
evaluated the requests and made the decisions concerning the 

That format has continued. The original person, identified 
as [laughs] I like to call him the head mosquito did much to 
quiet the nervousness about the system. He worked very well with 
both federal and state agencies and local district managers. We 
were searching for another person to assume this role, and just 
before I left office. Bruce Eldredge from Oregon was invited to 
come down and assume an appointment in the experiment station 
with the charge that mosquito research coordination was his 
primary responsibility. 

The major deficiency of the program, while I was associated 
with it, was my inability to bring the locally-based Cooperative 
Extension people into the program, even though a Cooperative 
Extension position was assigned the responsibility for the 
coordination of mosquito research. It was difficult to engage 
the local county offices into mosquito problems, for reasons I'm 
not sure I know. It always seemed to me that the locally-based 
Cooperative Extension people were in a pretty good position to 
work with mosquito control programs, particularly in rice-growing 
regions. The rice-land water contributed a lot to the mosquito 
problems in northern California. Many agricultural operations 
also lead to mosquito production; waste water collections and the 
like were a part of the problem. 



Why did you have trouble engaging Cooperative Extension? 

Kendrick: I don't think the coordinator worked with Cooperative Extension 
the same way other extension specialists did. 

Lage: It wasn't necessarily resistance on the part of Cooperative 


Kendrick: No, I think it was the fact that the normal responsibility for 
mosquito control rested with the abatement district managers. 
They're the ones who have the contacts and who deal with the 
local communities. I think it was a case where a public agency 
had the primary responsibility for controlling mosquitoes so 
Cooperative Extension did not have this program high on their own 
agenda. I had no quarrel with that view, but I did expect 
Cooperative Extension people to work with the abatement district 
people when the mosquito problem was associated with an 
agricultural practice. 


What I've been describing are mechanisms used to respond to 
identified agricultural needs in an environment where there 
really wasn't very much flexibility in the ongoing appropriations 
from state and federal sources. The fundamental research program 
in the experiment station is the aggregation of many projects 
where something in the order of twelve hundred to fifteen hundred 
projects are active at any one time. But this array of research 
projects are categorized into a classification system so that you 
can increasingly aggregate the projects of the experiment station 
into broader and broader caregories, such as pest and disease 
control, or agricultural production, or nutrition. So for the 
purposes of administrative convenience you could say that 60 
percent of all resources were going into agriculture production 
kinds of activities and maybe 5 to 10 percent were expended for 
nutritional quality kinds of programs. 

Those kinds of statistics get you into as much trouble as 
they do in providing an understanding of where your funding is 
being expended because special interest groups have different 
points of view relative to whether or not you were 
overemphasizing or underemphasizing particular programs by the 
allocations of resources. 

Lage: If you make someone happy, you're bothering someone else. 

Kendrick: And there is a lack of understanding that in order to shift 
resources, I had to shift people. It's not easy to shift an 
agricultural engineer into the program of labor relations. You 
make essentially a lifetime commitment to a person when you 
employ them in a ladder position on the faculty of the 


Kendrick: Agricultural Experiment Station, and you make a similar lifetime 
commitment to the career of the person in extension. Even though 
tenure is not a part of the Cooperative Extension system, it's 
pretty secure employment as long as the individual remains 
productive and active. 

That's just another way of saying that there's not a lot of 
flexibility to adjust your programs quickly once you make those 
commitments. The only way to have flexibility is to have a 
broadly-based continuously employed staff so that you can call 
upon particular specialists when a problem emerges, unless you're 
talking about a long-term basic research program, such as in 
biotechnology or in toxic waste management and the like. Ajid the 
techniques I've described are ways of utilizing a little bit of 
money that becomes available to make specific grants to 
individuals to buy their time and attention away from an already 
busy schedule into a focused research and extension program that 
has some practical utilization in agriculture and natural 
resource problem areas. 

Most of the faculty and staff are busy and fully committed. 
You have to interest them in doing what you want them to do, at 
the expense of disinteresting them in doing what they want to do, 
and for which they already may have some funding support 
available. The problem is accentuated if you are dealing with a 
particularly skillful research worker who has oodles of money 
from the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes 
of Health, or some other granting agency. You must interest that 
person in, for instance, the problem of selenium accumulation in 
the ground water system in the Kesterson region if he or she is a 
person who has the skills you need to work on that particular 
problem. After arousing the person's interest you must then have 
resources available to support whatever effort that person can 
devote to the problem. Well, that's not all that easily done. 
But the techniques I've described were successfully applied ar.d 
did diversify our program in research when these particular kinds 
of problems arose. 

San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Research and Extension Center 

A UC Program for the San Joaquin Valley 

Kendrick: One of the things that was established early on was the San 
Joaquin Valley Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 
located at the Kearney Horticultural Field Station, one of our 
nine agricultural field stations, located near Parlier, about 
twenty miles southeast of Fresno. This was a concept to increase 


Kendrick: the visibility and activity of research and extension in the San 
Joaquin Valley by assigning academic and extension people to that 
center. It was in contrast to our other field stations, which 
merely provided facilities for research. This was a modest 
attempt to respond to the long-time yearning of the San Joaquin 
Valley interests for a campus of the University of California in 
their area. 

So there were experiment station personnel and extension 
specialists located in augmented physical facilities at Kearney. 
It is a difficult concept to understand; those of us 
administering it could understand it, but the external community 
certainly couldn't see the difference in activity between a field 
station and a center. It was really quite different because we 
had departmental members from Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside, as 
well as extension specialists assigned to the center. Presently, 
there are about eighty people at this center, and we've shortened 
the name to the Kearney Agricultural Center. The center has 
buildings of its own, the most recent of which is under 
construction costing about five million dollars, to provide more 
research space. The center is administered by an executive 
committee of three persons and it will address agricultural 
problems characteristic of the San Joaquin Valley. We wanted to 
make it a true agricultural research and extension center for the 

Lage : It sounds somewhat similar to what the Citrus Experiment Station 

might have been initially. 

Kendrick: That shows how well you are grounded in the background with 

agriculture. You are precisely right. It is in a sense an early 
edition of what the Citrus Experiment Station was originally. 

The difficulty of staffing the Kearney Agricultural Center 
with academic personnel is that once they're located away from a 
campus, their future promotions and advancements become more 
difficult. They are removed from day-to-day contacts with their 
colleagues on the campuses, who will ultimately sit in judgment 
of the quality of their work. Moreover, until you have a 
critical mass of people representing several disciplines, and a 
library, and a few students around, it is difficult to be a real 
self-starter and perform in a manner that is deemed acceptable by 
the University of California in these non-campus areas. That's 
the primary reason why we've never located very many people from 
the academic community at these field stations; instead, we have 
kept them as facilities for campus-based people to conduct their 
research on a need basis. 

But the Kearney Agricultural Center still has the potential 
for being another Citrus Experiment Station. In my judgment, it 
really depends on whether or not the ultimate funding and the 


Kendrick: numbers of people associated with it will become sufficiently 
large to become a unit of its own, with its own budget and 
ability to determine its own destiny. There are people who think 
it may, and there are people who think that the nature of the 
University's advancement system is such that it mitigates against 
its ever becoming anything other than an expanded field station 

I think that the real challenge is to develop an 
academically acceptable program at Kearney without trying to 
convince the regular campus-based faculty that they could operate 
at the Kearney Agricultural Center effectively and still protect 
their future. I proposed that we try locating at the center a 
post-doctoral cadre of people who have term appointments and who 
realize that they would not be there for their entire career. 
Such an arrangement would provide an opportunity to the post 
doctoral person to gain experience in practical problems 
associated with agriculture. They could conduct research in an 
environment where the public would be watching them doing things 
that they thought were important, and they would have an 
opportunity to relate directly with the agricultural clientele. 
I think the concept is worthy of trial because it would provide a 
period of internship for future agricultural research people 
without committing to long-term employment of permanent 

Locating extension specialists there is less of a problem 
because their kinds of activities are precisely those that are 
deemed to be of practical nature, and their advancement does not 
suffer by their activities at such a center. And as long as 
there are enough academic people there, they don't lose touch 
with or the stimulation of associations with academic colleagues. 

So the commitment of an augmentation to the facility, I 
think, is something that President Gardner was interested in 
pursuing because we really hadn't had very good visibility as far 
as the total University of California was concerned. In spite of 
much agricultural activity by the University, it's been somewhat 
diversified. It needs to be more visible and perhaps more 
coordinated to receive the attention it deserves. The 
University's program visibility is important because we have 
Fresno State University in that same region. The agricultural 
people at Fresno State are constantly suggesting that they're the 
ones who are addressing the practical problems of agriculture, 
and that the University is only interested in basic research and 
therefore has withdrawn from those things that the agricultural 
community deems important. 

Well, that's not true. But impressions and perceptions are 
what build budgets and persuade appropriating agencies, so 
there's more than just pride at stake here. We need a broader- 


Kendrick: based recognition of the agricultural programs of the University 
of California in the San Joaquin Valley and an active support of 
their value and importance. We've had good support from that 
area in the past, and that we cannot treat lightly. It will go 
away if the politicians and their supporters perceive that we're 
too purely academic to address the practical problems of 
agriculture in the region. 

Whether the concept of a Kearney Agricultural Center 
develops fruitfully or not I think is problematical. It has a 
budget of its own which is separate from the field station 
budget. I was involved with a special appropriation request from 
the state for the center early on in my vice presidency. I had 
to help shepherd it through the legislature. We started out 
again with about a half a million dollar request and wound up 
with about half of that amount. 

Administrative Changes 

Lage : So this goes way back. 

Kendrick: This goes back to 1968-69. The administration of the center has 
undergone several administrative changes. The biggest boost the 
center received was when I asked Bill [William B.] Hewitt, who 
was a professor of plant pathology, to direct the center's 
program. He had been the chair of the Department of Plant 
Pathology and a few years before he retired wanted to move from 
Davis. He thought that this would be a good opportunity to do 
something worthwhile so he accepted the appointment as director 
of the San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Research and Extension 
Center. I also gave him the title of an assistant director of 
the Agricultural Experiment Station and he became a part of my 
administrative counsel. 

Under Bill's direction the center functioned pretty well as 
a unit. Bill was a vigorous administrator, a person who 
perceived the importance of the program in the area. He stepped 
on a few toes and irritated a few people because he had no 
tolerance for unproductiveness and slovenliness. But he gave it 
a good deal of visibility. 

Lage: How did he do with the local community? 

Kendrick: They thought he was fine. He met with them regularly, and he was 
sympathetic to their needs, and they perceived that the 
University was interested in their problems. The irritations 
were from the University people whom he was trying to push and 
direct into productive activity. 


Lage: People on the staff. 

Kendrick: On the staff. But I have to give Bill a lot of credit. We 

haven't had that kind of vigororous leadership for this program 
since his retirement. The last director of the center didn't 
work out very well, and he has resigned. The center is now run 
by a committee. 

Lage: [laughs] The ubiquitous committee. 

Kendrick: The ubiquitous committee. The local academic staff in both 
extension and research have agreed to follow the method of 
designating department chairs on a campus. The dean usually 
consults with the departmental members about whom they might like 
to be their chair. If a majority of the people agree on one of 
the dean's suggestions, that person is likely to be chosen as the 
chair. If the majority of the people say, "Under no 
circumstances would we work with that person," the chances are 
pretty slim that the dean would appoint that person because it's 
rather crucial to have somebody as the leader of a department who 
has the respect and support of the membership of the department. 
So that's the way in which the academic unit at Kearney is being 
administered presently. 

The manager of the local field station has a busy agenda of 
his own, just keeping the management of the property and the 
crops going. That person receives a certain amount of public 
attention by the nature of his position. At Kearney that person 
is Fred Swanson, who is a capable person and who cooperates well 
with the academic chair. Now, just to complicate the picture, we 
have the regional director of Cooperative Extension also located 
at Kearney. The regional director of all the Cooperative 
Extension programs in the central San Joaquin Valley and the 
central coastal region is Bill Hambelton. So we have three admini 
strative people on the committee who have administrative responsi 
bilities for the activities of the center, and in the Valley. 

Following Bill Hewitt's retirement, I perceived that having 
three people with split responsibilities was an impossible way to 
administer, so I made an impossible assignment to one person, 
[laughs] Andy Deal, who was an extension specialist in 
entomology, located at the Kearney center, was made the regional 
director of Cooperative Extension, and I decided to appoint him 
director of the field station and director of the Kearney 
Agricultural Center in addition. So he bore the brunt of being 
administratively responsible for three diverse activities and ran 
himself ragged. He did a very credible job of trying to keep all 
this coordination going, but he had a very different personality 
than Bill Hewitt. Bill was very blunt and candid about things. 
and Andy tended to not disagree or be disagreeable, and so there 
was a different kind of leadership in that era. 


Kendrick: When Andy retired we looked for another Bill Hewitt type and 

found him, [laughs], and he quickly alienated a lot of the people 
whom he should not have not on purpose; he was just a misfit. 
So then by mutual agreement he stepped aside. And now we're back 
to the administration by committee. I think that's not 
necessarily how it will ultimately be resolved, but my successor 
is going to see how it functions before he makes another move. 

The Future of Cooperative Extension: Regional Centers? 

Kendrick: In the long-term plan, we have two other agricultural centers 
that we were trying to bring into being. One is in Imperial 
County, where we had hoped to locate both extension and research 
activities at the Meloland Field Station to serve Imperial Valley 
and desert agriculture in general. We had planned to move the 
Imperial County Cooperative Extension staff to that center. 

That plan ran into some political problems with the county 
board of supervisors. County-based Cooperative Extension must be 
supported by county budgets, and we had several members of the 
board of supervisors who were unenthusiastic about financially 
supporting Cooperative Extension at a university facility. 

Lage: What were they afraid of? 

Kendrick: Well, in the first place. Imperial County was extremely poor. 

It's in one of the depressed areas of California, and it really 
didn't have much money left to make any long-term commitments to 
non-mandated programs, but the concept of county support is 
essential for Cooperative Extension. There was a particularly 
irate member of the board of supervisors who really I think if 
the truth were known wanted the location of Cooperative 
Extension and the agricultural commissioner at a center located 
in a different place, somewhat removed from the University of 

The University of California is not an endearing institution 
to everybody in the state; it's regarded as arrogant in some 
places and irresponsible in others, and they cite evidence that 
sustains their points of view. So that Imperial County 
Agricultural Center, I think, is still up in the air. The 
Cooperative Extension personnel in Imperial County are now 
located in old county buildings, and whether or not they get 
moved is not very soon to be resolved. It's one of the problems 
I left my successor. 


Kendrick: The other area where we were trying to develop the concept of an 
agricultural center was with the USDA [U.S. Department of 
Agriculture] in the Salinas area. We are pursuing, I think 
still, without bringing it into being, an agricultural center for 
the central coast. Not just for Monterey County, or not just for 
the Salinas Valley, but the whole coastal area, which has an 
agricultural characteristic of its own. The USDA has a research 
center located in Salinas that gives attention to lettuce 
breeding and some agricultural mechanization studies. They have 
a nice facility there, and we were negotiating with them for the 
location of a University operated field station and the Monterey 
Cooperative Extension program at the same location. Such a 
development would be identified as an agricultural research and 
extension center for the central coast region of California. 

Lage: You worked with USDA, then? 

Kendrick: Yes; we were negotiating with them on that concept. That still 
is possible, in my judgment, but it kind of depends upon the 
status of the economic picture. There's a lot of willingness, 
but there has to be some accommodation over jurisdiction. That 
always rears its head, about who controls, or who's going to be 
in charge. So just about the time you get all the ducks in 
order, the USDA changes its local leadership, and we have to go 
through negotiations all over again. But it's my view that these 
regional centers are apt to be ultimately viable, and there will 
be more of them, and they will be largely staffed by extension. 
I think extension's role in each county will become diminished as 
the budgets become more difficult to be achieved, and the 
problems that extension will address will be really more global 
and more diffuse than specific how-to kinds of questions that 
have been the traditional menu of extension activities. How soon 
that might happen, I don't know, but I really believe that 
extension's future is going to be sustained only if they 
aggregate themselves into regional areas rather than county- 
centered offices. 

The downside of that regional organization is that you lose 
local support. So one should not just ignore that downside 
issue, unless you're prepared to support the regional centers 
from some other source if you cut back and have it supported 
through your federal and state funds in a way that compensates 
for the losses that you're going to achieve by moving out of the 
local situations. 


Integrated Pest Management Program 

A New Concept of Disease and Insect Control 

Kendrick: There are three other programs I'd like to cover before we end 

this session, and they all resulted from augmented funding. The 
reason they are viable is because they did receive special 
appropriations. They are the Integrated Pest Management [IPM] 
Program, the Wildlands Research Center, and the Agricultural 
Sustainability Program. 

Let's go back to the IPM program first because it represents 
an attempt to promote a different concept of disease and insect 
control, a changed emphasis from what had been the traditional 
way of looking at control on a piecemeal basis by plant 
pathologists and entomologists. The integrated pest management 
term was introduced by the entomologists and was intended to 
incorporate biological control as a tactic in the control of 
pests. It was a perfectly sound concept because what they 
intended to do was to model plant growth in addition to studying 
insect life cycles, a fairly new concept as far as entomologists 
were concerned. 

The introduction of modeling of plant growth and studying 
the plant's susceptibility to particular kinds of damage by 
insects was first developed most completely by studying cotton, 
cotton insects, and cotton insect control. By modeling and 
understanding what influenced various stages of cotton growth and 
when the bolls and the blossoms were most susceptible to attack 
by insect pests, treatments could be targeted to just the 
susceptible periods. This improved information did much to 
reduce the amount of insecticides applied to plants as a 
protective measure. So the IPM concept was beginning to develop 
as a practical means of control in the early 1970s. 

Lage: Was it a reaction in part to the environmental concerns, or to 

the loss of pesticide effectiveness? 

Kendrick: Well, both. I think it was certainly not hindered by the 

concerns about contamination of the environment. Its development 
was made possible because of the computer. The introduction of 
computers into the research program was crucial. With the amount 
of information accumulated on growth of plants and pests and the 
effects of factors in the environment such as temperature and 
moisture on their growth and development, measured as often as 
each day for the life of the plant, you can get a basement full 
of data that you can't handle with a hand calculator and a 
pencil. With the introduction of the computer, you've got a 
capacity to store that information and regurgitate it in a way 


Kendrick: that you can run correlations and find out what is or is not 
significant. Without the computer, development of the IPM 
program would have floundered. So concern for the environment. 
concern for toxics, and the evident loss of effectiveness by a 
number of widely used insecticides because of the resistance of 
certain insect populations all congealed at the right time. 

The concept of bringing all this epidemiological information 
together for analysis was certainly not a new concept plant 
pathologists had done it most of their lives. When I described 
my earlier program in the control of bean root rot, I think I 
said I tried everything I could think of to try to eliminate bean 
root rot that is, change varieties, alter planting dates, and 
apply fungicides to the soil that's all IPM too. It's bringing 
every facet of information to bear that you can possibly 
accumulate relative to the plant, the insect, or the plant 
pathogen, and see whether in that relationship there's a weak 
link. You may be able to target that and interrupt the sequence 
of disease or insect damage. 

Lage: Does it tend to be a team approach? 

Kendrick: It has to be a team approach. One person cannot master all the 
specialities required because you've got to have crop 
specialists, plant pathologists, entomologists, weed control 
specialists, together with perhaps the toxicologists and 
biostatisticians working together. 

I determined that we really needed to put some money into 
this program, so I asked some well-established entomologists and 
plant pathologists to design an IPM program. This occurred in the 
early 1970s. Nothing useful arrived on my desk in terms of a propo 
sal, and I was frustrated as well as disappointed in my colleagues. 

I concluded that I had asked the wrong people to do this 
job. So I decided that I needed a committee of young people 
whose careers were ahead of them to address this problem and 
design how they might like to see it put together. I appointed a 
committee headed by Andy Gutierrez, a professor of entomology or. 
the Berkeley campus in the Division of Biological Control. He is 
a computer expert and systems analyst. He chaired this effort 
with representatives from Davis, Riverside, and Berkeley. In a 
short period of time, they produced a very useful and workable 
report. It became the basis for the establishment of the IPM 
program. I was seeking a program that I could take to the 
legislature and request funding for its support. 

I have to describe Andy as irreverant and outspoken in his 
relationships with his colleagues. He was pretty outspoken about 
discrimination, very outspoken about what he thought was the 
second-class citizenship of biological control people. 


Lage: So he came out of a biological control orientation? 

Kendrick: Yes. He was the disciple of Robert van den Bosch. I think some 
people were surprised that I asked him to chair the committee, 
but he certainly responded in great fashion to the charge. I 
think he also saw an opportunity for [laughs] biological control 
to emerge from the shadows into the forefront of IPM. But he was 
very helpful and his concept was sound. 

With some modifications. I then went forward with a 
proposal. I made some modifications concerning the 
representation on the advisory committees and technical 
committees, all of which was screened through my Administrative 
Advisory Council. I talk like a lot of this was all done by me. 
That's not true 

Lage: Was the initial idea for this integrated pest management program 

yours, or did someone else come forth ? 

Kendrick: Well, as I say, the basic concept of IPM was entomological. It 
was already in existence; I was just thinking that I wanted to 
broaden it into a UC program and get some state funding behind 
it. I wanted it not just to be entomological, but I wanted it to 
include plant pathology and weeds as well. While IPM was 
conceived as an insect management program, I knew that plant 
pathology also had a place in an integrated pest management 
program. If I'd had the opportunity to go further with it, I 
would have changed the terminology so that it would have been 
known as an integrated plant health program, without identifying 
a particular threat to plant health. But the nomenclature was 
fixed. IPM was the wave of the future, and I caught that wave 
and tried to ride it. 

Developing Budgetary Support in the Jerry Brown Administration 

Kendrick: Well, I proposed a program with a manager, the director of the 
IPM program, much like we had with the Kearney Foundation for 
Soil Sciences. We'd had that experience, and since it was 
successful we wanted to set IPM up with the same level of 
administrative arrangement. 

So we went to the governor and the legislature it was 
during the Saxon administration requesting a five year 
augmentation of our budget so that we end up with a five million 
dollar annual appropriation. We proposed starting with a couple 
of a million dollars to get it off the ground. 


Kendrick: Now, I recall that this requested augmentation occurred around 

the time I was having trouble with the legislature about allega 
tions of inattention to the small farmers, discrimination against 
Hispanic employees, and farm labor displacement by mechanization 
research, so there was a lot of unhappiness in that body. Along 
comes this proposal to augment our budget to pursue an IPM program. 
Well, much to my surprise, I received support from all quarters for 
this program. It came from environmentally concerned organizations, 
it came from the chemical industry, and it came from agriculture 
you couldn't have asked for a more diverse group of special inter 
ests to come together to support this program. It also came at a 
time when the Department of Food and Agriculture was faced with 
increasing difficulties in policing the use of agricultural chem 
icals. This was during Rich Rominger's directorship of the Depart 
ment of Food and Agriculture, and Jerry Brown was the governor. 

I remember meeting with representatives of both the 
Legislative Analyst's Office and the Department of Finance during 
the formation of the governor's budget, and we were receiving the 
usual comments about, "Why do you need additional money for the 
program?" I said, "Well, it's not a case of need as much as it 
is a case of urgency. We'll continue to work in this program 
with our present resources." We had just completed work and had 
published a pear pest and disease manual. It had taken about ten 
years of work by several extension workers and experiment station 
people. I said, "We probably can cover one crop about every ten 
years. If that's the way you want this program to operate, we'll 
continue to do so. But if you want it accelerated, if you want 
us to cover more crops as we propose to do, then it's going to 
take this amount of money." That tactic really worked. It was 
put on the basis of, "I don't need it, but you're the ones who 
are after me to do it, so if you want me to do it, it really is 
going to require some augmentation of our budget." 

Rich Rominger was totally supportive of the program. He 
knew that we needed alternative means of addressing the insect 
and pesticide problems of the state. The Department of Finance 
went along with it but said the governor would have to decide 
whether he wished to support it. That's when I had the brief 
exchange with Jerry Brown and Rich Rominger at a luncheon meeting 
in San Diego at which the governor was a featured speaker. We 
had a three-minute conversation with him, in which he asked Rich 
if it was an important program, and Rich said, "Yes, it certainly 
is. Our future really depends upon the University being able to 
do effective work in this area." And the governor said, "Okay, 
we'll do it." That's the way the IPM budget was launched into 
the political process. 

Lage : You mentioned different interest groups that supported it. Did 

you or your staff contact the lobbyists for interest groups 
to get their support? 


Kendrick: Yes. When we were designing the program, the Environmental 
Defense Fund, for instance, was a significant group that 
supported it. We made certain that they were aware of what we 
weie proposing. They didn't have input in the design of the 
program but were represented later on the policy advisory 
committee, which was created to permit all the interested parties 
to stay in touch with the program. 

Lage : So you were kind of bringing in a new support group. 

Kendrick: The reason that broad-based support was there was because each of 
the diverse groups saw that the program supported their 
individual goals. The agricultural chemical industry knew that 
they were ultimately going to have to have a justification for 
the use of agricultural chemicals in controlling pests and 
diseases in a more enlightened manner. The people who advocated 
no use of agricultural chemicals in the control of diseases and 
pests perceived that integrated pest management was going to 
result in a program that would replace those chemicals by 
biological control methods. The people who were concerned about 
environmental quality expected that IPM methods would result in 
the reduction in the amount of chemicals released into the 
environment. We proposed to study first those crops on which 
there was a high usage of pesticides to see if we could reduce 
the pesticide load in the environment. 

So the program didn't have very tough sledding; it got 
pruned back a little bit from our original request for support. 
But it emerged with a million dollars of support, and that was a 
big augmentation for the agricultural budget, at a time when all 
the other noise of discontent and criticism was taking place. 
The IPM was proposed at just the right time to obtain the broad- 
based political support that it needed to be successfully 
defended in both the executive and legislative branches of 
government. It was well designed and had universally acceptable 

The IPM program was run by a director. Ivan Thomason was 
the first director, and Ivan was succeeded by Jim [James M.] 
Lyons. Ivan is at Riverside. He was an ideal director to 
develop the program. Ivan was trained as a plant pathologist, 
but his professional career developed as a nemotologist. 

Lage: Did you appoint these people with advice and faculty input? 

Kendrick: Yes. Everything involved advice and consent. Ivan was a natural 
choice from among a number of qualified people. I won't describe 
the techniques of how the IPM program was put together, but it 
involved a lot of people as advisors, and an advisory committee 
for each crop studied. These studies have resulted in some 
handsome and comprehensive publications. That's one of the best 


Kendrick: things that happened with the IPM program. It published manuals. 
They're called IPM manuals, and they're probably the most popular 
publications we've put out in the last decade. So it was a good 
success story and a model to follow. 

Wildland Resources Center 

Kendrick: Now, the Wildland Resources Center has existed on the books for 
a long time. I think Henry Vaux, Sr., originally conceived the 
need and put it together. I made several stabs at trying to 
identify and sharpen up the goals of the program by getting all 
interested parties together to put together a defined program. 
It had a modest annual appropriation of $15,000 split between the 
Berkeley and Davis campuses that didn't permit any significant 
research effort. The center was barely functional. 

It was originaly proposed, I think, probably at an 
inopportune time as far as the budget was concerned because it 
came when we were suffering from proposed budget cuts prior to my 
arrival on the scene. We could never get the program put 
together in a way that was sexy enough to appeal to a legislative 
group. It wasn't a crisis kind of a program IPM was essentially 
a response to a crisis. Wildlands everybody's for them, but 
nothing easily defined seems to threaten their existence in the 
public's mind. 

Lage: It was a popular concern in the seventies. 

Kendrick: Yes, but they didn't have a well-organized constituency. Their 

problems are like deferred maintenance; i.e., other urgent crisis 
problems replace them in the budgets. 

So I really couldn't get much interest internally in an 
augmented wildlands research budget, until Harold Walt was 
appointed chairman of the State Board of Forestry at the 
beginning of the Deukmejian administration. (He has a background 
from Walt's Drugs here in Berkeley.) He's a very vigorous and 
effective politician who decided that he wanted to do something 
for forestry research. He was politically well placed with the 
governor and very persistent. The Department of Forestry and the 
State Board of Forestry organized a centennial program, a two- 
year program of laying the groundwork for a significant 
augmentation of the University's and the Department of Forestry's 
programs in forestry and wildlands. This was an opportune time 
for us to join this external political influence and get 
something in our budget for these overlooked programs. That 
happened. We put together a program based largely on some of the 
early studies. I appeared at one of the centennial meetings in 


Kendrick: Yosemite with Henry Vaux, Sr.. in which I said that the 

University was prepared to address these needs, that we certainly 
supported the augmentation of the budget. 

Well, the long and the short of this is that President 
Gardner wasn't all that enthusiastic about funding this program 
at this time because of some other University priorities, but 
Harold Walt was. I arranged for him to visit with the President, 
where he pressed his point. I also worked with Vice President 
Baker, our budget officer, pointing out how much political 
support and interest there was in the program, and how much good 
we could do ourselves by having a visible program in this area. 
We certainly had the support to bring it through the legislature. 
I knew we'd do ourselves more harm by turning our back upon that 
support than we would by accepting it and placing the request in 
our budget. So it got into the budget, and it was supported. 

We then appointed Robert Callaham director for the Wildland 
Resources Program, a former USDA Forestry research director, on a 
half-time basis. He began to mobilize, organize, and coordinate 
the activities. He is a little abrasive with people under him, 
but he certainly is a vigorous individual who has entre into the 
total resources of the University in addressing the problems of 

Lage: This has also become sort of a granting agency? 

Kendrick: Yes. It's a granting agency. Again, making grants on a 

specific, relatively short-term basis, so we don't commit funds 
into perpetuity. That is absolutely essential in these programs 
if we're going to keep ourselves current. 

Well, I've lost track of exactly what the status of it is 
now. I know that this was the first significant augmentation of 
money in support of wildland and forestry problems in a long, long 
time. I felt gratified in being able to bring that to bear 
because it was certainly an area that needed attention, and I 
couldn't light the spark until Harold Walt came along. 

Lage: Interesting, especially since Henry Vaux, Sr., was his 

predecessor [as chairman of the State Board of Forestry] , and he 
was vitally interested in forestry research. 

Kendrick: Yes. Henry is a dear friend of mine, and one of the most 

competent elder statesmen and professors I've ever known in this 
area, and also, as you mentioned, a former chairman of the State 
Board of Forestry. But I think Henry would be the first to admit 
that he's not the politician that Harold Walt is. There is no 
doubt in my mind that this program is underway today because of 
the political influence that Walt was able to exert, particularly 
in the Governor's Office and at the Department of Finance. The 


Kendrick: Department of Finance wasn't all that enthusiastic about putting 
this kind of money into wildland research when they had other 
crisis topics in need of money. But Harold called in his 
political chips of support for the governor. 

I didn't kid myself for one moment that logic would prevail 
in any of this. I had to be ready with the appropriate program 
at the opportune time and seize the opportunity and run with it. 
If you're not ready with the likes of an IPM program, or a 
wildlands research center, or a mosquito research program, or 
what have you, when the political snowball is set in motion, then 
forget it. You're not necessarily going to sell programs on a 
logical basis. The Agricultural Issues Center, on the other 
hand, was a program proposal based on the logic of need. I think 
its modest funding is a result of the lack of overwhelming 
political support. If agriculture had been more enthusiastically 
supportive we could have easily doubled its state support. 

Lage: So this gets back to the question on this sort of generalized 

outline [for the interview series] on how the mission is defined. 

Kendrick: [laughs] I guess it does. The mission is defined by the 

external environment, to a large extent, and the capacity of the 
division to mobilize and to respond to it. And the only way I 
found to mobilize it is to put money into a program leader's 
hands and let the leader direct the program. In most of these 
program initiatives the work of Lowell Lewis, my assistant vice 
president and director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, 
was indispensible. He carried out most of the "leg-work" 

Sustainable Agriculture Program 

Serving Small-Scale and Organic Farmers ## 

Kendrick: The last program I want to talk about that arrived with another 
political opportunity is the Sustainable Agriculture Program. 
It came into fruition at the very end of my administration. It 
is now, as I understand it, perking along in pretty good shape, 
but the program initially developed largely because of a high 
level of criticism that the traditional programs in agriculture 
ignored the needs of this group of participants in the 
agricultural scene. 

Characteristic of representatives of this group are very 
small farmers, farmers of crop specialties with a limited 
distribution. Many of them market their products directly in 


Kendrick: health-food stores, or in natural food outlets in regular 

supermarkets, or directly at farmers' markets. A lot of them 
operate in response to the needs of specialty restaurants that 
make a point of not serving food that has any identifiable 
chemical additives to their products. 

Lage: So they are organic farmers? 

Kendrick: The organic farming enthusiasts have an organization, a national 
organization. The most renowned representative of that point of 
view is the Rodale Farm in Pennsylvania. The Rodale Press is 
probably the principal source of published items that address 
organic farming. 

Admittedly, that is the group of farm people in California 
whom our extension program really didn't pay a lot attention to. 
Extension's attitude was that we're available to help if they 
want us, but if they don't come and get us, why that's their 
problem. We did have an aggressive program for small farmers 
which included an information center and we also staffed our 
extension program with several small-farm advisors 

Lage: Now, were these programs long-standing or initiated during your 


Kendrick: This program came into being during my administration when Jerry 
[Jerome] Siebert was the associate director of Cooperative 
Extension. He was instrumental in developing the concept of 
assistance for limited resource farmers who often were not 
literate in English. It was implemented in response to the 
general criticism that we weren't paying enough attention to the 
needs of the small farmer. Also, we filled these small-farm 
advisors' positions with bilingual people, who were not just 
Spanish-speaking, but were of Hispanic origin. They found 
themselves working with agricultural cooperatives as well as 
people struggling to set up farms of their own in which they had 
some independence. So it wasn't a case of ignoring those needs; 
but we weren't really dealing with the organic farm groups. 

Lage: I would think all these small farmers wouldn't necessarily be 

organic farmers. 

Kendrick: No, they're not. They're small because they're economically 
incapable of starting very large. Small farming, organic 
farming, and sustainable agriculture were the sources of another 
editorial I wrote [California Agriculture. July-August, 1985], in 
which I tried to point out just the point that you were making, 
that the program was not a synonym for the organic farming 
philosophy. I said also that sustainable agriculture certainly 
was not a program that I thought was incompatible with what I 
thought the agricultural research and extension program at the 


Kendrick: University had been about all the time. We were not interested 
in developing recommendations that were going to result in the 
extinction of agriculture. I pointed out that some abuses and 
misuses in agricultural practices had resulted in environmental 
deterioration, but that had not been the intention of all the 
research. I also suggested that organic farming had to 
demonstrate its economic feasibility in both production and 
marketing before it would become a generally accepted practice. 

Legislative and Public Input to the Program 

Kendrick: Again, some of our biological control people were advocates of 
this program, because they're generally the nonchemical 
proponents of agricultural production. Strong interest in the 
program developed in Senator [Nicholas] Petris's office. Senator 
Petris is one of three members of the Senate Finance Committee's 
subcommittee that reviews the University's budget. Senator 
Petris's staff was quite interested in the University's diverting 
their funds and their interest into what was called "sustainable 
agriculture programs," perceived and interpreted another way: 
nonchemical farming. 

Well, Senator Petris's interest in anything the University 
is doing is not to be ignored. So we probably gave the program a 
good deal more attention than we would have ordinarily. We were 
asked to conduct some hearings to determine what the need really 
was. Robert Peyton was employed by Lowell Lewis to hold public 
hearings and listen to people complain about what the University 
was or wasn't doing to help them. 

Lage: These were Petris's hearings? 

Kendrick: No, no. These were conducted by us. 
Lage: Was this something new? 

Kendrick: Well, we wouldn't ordinarily conduct public hearings, in that 

fashion. It was a new twist of listening to a client group who 
felt that they were disadvantaged and not paid attention to. We 
made a gallant effort to do so. 

Lage: When was this? 

Kendrick: It was done in '85. This procedure was encouraged by Petris's 
office. He was more than just casually interested in our doing 
that sort of thing and encouraged us to do it. 


Kendrick: The public hearings resulted in a report and a summary. An 

external committee was put together on sustainable agriculture, 
with representatives of the organized groups and Senator Petris's 
office. Robert Peyton, as I said, was the person we employed to 
oversee the development of the program, and he was just 
absolutely the right person. He had the "patience of Job" to sit 
and listen to the many witnesses. Hearings were held in about 
four different locations in the state. Everybody felt that he 
was fair and would listen to their complaints for as long as they 
wanted to express them. I had many, many hours of discussion 
with Robert and said, "Don't turn anybody off. We want to give 
everybody ample time to voice their complaints." Some of them 
were kind of abusive and pretty hard to listen to. But he 
performed with good humor as the university's hearing officer. 

Lage: It was a multi-session hearing? 

Kendrick: That's right, and it was all transcribed by a court reporter. 

Well, let me say without going into more detail that the 
hearings resulted in a proposal for an augmented budget for the 
University's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources to 
conduct a program in sustainable agriculture. It was another 
case where we persuaded President Gardner that it was politically 
advisable to include it in the University's budget, particularly 
since Senator Petris was going to impose something of his own on 
us if we did not propose something that was at least compatible 
with our existing programs. 

We also had an internal academic advisory committee, which 
worked quite well with the external groups. The academic 
committee was charged with the responsibility of designing the 
program. President Gardner accepted my recommendation, and it 
made its way through the Department of Finance, to the governor 
and the legislature, and was sustained. I'm not sure just how 
much money ultimately was appropriated because it occurred just 
at the time that I retired. I think the proposal was for about a 
million dollars. At least that's the amount we were talking 
about at the time. It provided, again, for the employment of a 
director of the program. 

Lage: That seems to be an essential ingredient. 

Kendrick: Yes, in the environment in which we operate, it is. These 
program directors are responsible to the director of the 
Agricultural Experiment Station, so even though the director has 
overall responsibility for all programs, it is necessary for 
somebody to give full-time attention to these particular 
programs, and sustain them, and be concerned about them. 

Lage: Now, will that address problems of small farmers overall? 


Kendrick: Yes. 

Lage: Not just organic. 

Kendrick: Yes. all small farmers. It's not just an organic fanner program. 

Lage: But you will address those needs too? 

Kendrick: Certainly. It has an advisory committee with external membership 
which sits in judgment of the program and its research. It also 
has an internal faculty and extension advisory group, who try to 
keep the program academically acceptable. A lot of things that 
the people on the outside think the University ought to do are 
just not appropriate to University activities and ought to be 
done by somebody else. You have to be certain that sort of 
distinction is understood and carried out; you can't allow the 
University's program to become less than University stature. The 
misunderstanding of that incites some of the comments that the 
University is arrogant. It's not arrogance at all; it's trying 
to keep the program in the right direction, in the right context. 

Dr. William Liebhardt was appointed director of this 
program. He was formerly director of research at Rodale, and he 
came through a search and screening process that is typical of 
our usual ways of seeking the most qualified person to fill a 
position. I think this appointment went a long way to 
demonstrate to our skeptics that our commitment to this program 
was sincere. 

That's the last special program that came along that I had 
anything to do with. I was pleased to be able to shepherd it 
through the University budget process, and help Robert deal with 
the issue, and also help him interpret seme of the traditional 
concerns of the faculty and staff that he would encounter frcm 
time to time. 



A Historical Overview 

[Date of Interview: October 29. 1987] ## 

Kendrick: We were going to talk today about the administrative adjustments 
that were made during the course of my tenure as the vice 
president, and there were a number of them. 

Lage: Just let me put the date on here: October 29. 1987, our tenth 

session. Okay, now, you're ready to start; you don't need a 
question from me. 

Kendrick: All right. The division was organized when I moved up into the 
vice presidency in April of 1968 with a director of the 
Agricultural Experiment Station and a director of what was then 
known as Agricultural Extension [later, Cooperative Extension]. 
There was a special assistant to the vice president, Douglas 
McNeill by name, and the usual administrative assistants, plus 
some Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension 
personnel keeping track of financial matters and the project 

That was satisfactory initially, but the thing that I 
noticed over time was that the two directors had most of the 

Lage: The directors of the experiment station and extension? 

Kendrick: Yes. They were the operating officers of their respective 
organizations. The role of the vice president was one of 
coordination and policy review and overall responsibility for the 
total program. And that was the most difficult thing to do. I 
think that probably characterized the principal challenge to the 
chief administrative officer for the division, in those days as 
well as today. The nature of the two activities of research and 


Kendrick: extension are somewhat different, and their physical locations 
are different. It presents a problem of how you operate a 
unified program with several different functions. 

Lage: From the beginning, were the two supposed to be coordinated? Is 

that the goal? 

Kendrick: I don't think it was ever consciously designed to be so. Both 
research and extension- type programs were performed by the same 
people back in the days of Hilgard.* The reason that Cooperative 
Extension was established in the first place was to have a 
program to introduce into practice the knowledge that was being 
accumulated through research efforts by people in the experiment 
stations. There are various ways of organizing state programs so 
that that is brought about. Cornell coordinates their research 
and extension programs by giving their professors part-time 
extension appointments, thus funding part of their appointments 
by an extension budget. By that procedure there's pretty close 
integration of the activities of extension and research. 

California is organized quite differently. B. H. Crocheron 
was brought to the University, I think in about 1919. to set up 
an extension program. It was designed to have a separate staff 
and be a separate operation, so that the regular members of the 
University's faculty did not have extension appointments in 
addition to their research or teaching appointments. 

There are advantages to both organizations. I don't think 
that the New York system is necessarily better than the 
California system. On paper, it suggests that there is a built- 
in mechanism for close coordination, but as I studied the 
organization in thinking about some possible adjustments of 
California's system, it seemed to me that it wasn't functioning 
any more effectively than our own system. The principal 
deficiency of the Cornell system is that the extension personnel 
located in the counties are paid by county funds. So that there 
is a flaw in the central leadership's ability to exercise 
appointment authority over the county people and to treat them as 
fully integrated members of the unit. He who controls the purse 
strings of the budget really controls the destiny of the program 
and the people, and therefore there was a lack of central control 
in New York which let local units exert their will over what 
might be seen as being in the best interest of the total program. 

Lage: I wondered if they had a problem getting the professors to carry 

out that portion of their appointment as extension service. 

* Eugene W. Hilgard was founder of California's Agricultural 
Experiment Station and dean of the College of Agriculture. 1888- 


Kendrick: Well, I think they probably did. As I understood it, the amount 
of time a professor spent on extension- like activities was 
determined after the fact, rather than before the fact. In other 
words, there was an accounting made at the end of the year by 
asking the individual professors, "How much time did you spend in 
extension work this past year?", and then a guesstimate was made 
relative to that time, and that became the basis of time spent on 
extension programs. 

So I was not really impressed that that system was operating 
as efficiently as it appeared to be on paper, even though it 
showed a close paper coordination between research and extension 
because it involved the same people doing both those activities. 
In California, I think we built a stronger extension program by 
having a separate organization of people, and having the 
specialists in extension added to the staff because they had some 
special expertise in a particular discipline. Those individuals 
are now placed in the departments of their discipline and 
provide the linkage between the experiment station activities 
and the advisors located in the counties. All extension 
personnel are funded and budgeted through the University's 
budget, so there was never any doubt in anybody's mind that 
county-based Cooperative Extension people were University of 
California employees. That, I think, was a very wise decision, 
in the early establishment of extension. 

But the drawback, and there are drawbacks and deficiencies 
in every organization nothing seems to be perfect is that the 
organization tends to function as an individual organization, and 
coordination of programs occurs more by luck than by design. 
Cooperative Extension initially was run by a very dominating yet 
benevolent administrator, B. H. Crocheron, who established it as 
a quality organization. It almost resembled a paramilitary 
group. People in extension were quite proud to be a part of it 
and very loyal to their director. They felt somewhat special; 
Crocheron kept them on their toes because he had no tolerance for 
mediocrity or slovenliness. So when the chief came visiting, it 
was almost like a military inspection. 

Lage : This would be when he visited the county offices? 

Kendrick: Yes. That military aura diminished with the subsequent 
administrators, Earl Coke and George Alcorn. 

Lage: Coke must have had a difficult place to fill, succeeding someone 

with that much of a personal hold on 

Kendrick: Well, I think he did, but Earl Coke came closest to being the 

ideal successor because he was a strong, dominating person in his 
own right. He had some different ideas about the organization, 
but there was never any doubt that Earl Coke was the director. 


Kendrick: He went on to other responsibilities, including one as an 

assistant secretary of agriculture. He took leave from his 
directorship of Cooperative Extension for about a year and a 
half. During that period, Cooperative Extension functioned with 
an acting director. The acting director at that time was Wayne 

The Link to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Kendrick: But that's beyond my history. Let's go back to what I am leading 
up to in trying to lay the groundwork for correcting what I 
perceived to be. if not a problem, at least a challenge to bring 
Cooperative Extension's planning process into a closer link with 
the experiment station. The director of the experiment station 
was Clarence Kelly, and the action of the experiment station was 
really on three campuses, where it was administered by the deans 
who were also associate directors of the experiment station. 

One also has to realize that both Cooperative Extension and 
the Agricultural Experiment Station have funding and program 
linkages with the United States Department of Agriculture. So 
they are partially federally funded activities, and from the 
USDA's perspective, those two operations at land-grant 
institutions are agencies of a federal program. The directors 
are recognized as officers of the USDA and the secretary of 
agriculture gives tacit approval of their appointments. It's a 
formality, but they are recognized as agents of the USDA. That's 
necessary for them to have the authority to administer and handle 
the federal funds that come into the respective programs. 

Well, that describes a relationship between the USDA and the 
directors that is clearly understood by the USDA and most of the 
directors but generally not understood by the University, that 
is, to an extent not understood or at least accepted by 
University officers such as vice presidents and presidents who 
have primary responsibility for their local institutions' 

The chief administrative officer for agricultural programs 
at land-grant institutions carry different titles. There are 
vice presidents, deputy vice presidents, and by far the most 
widely used title of dean. Each of the people who hold these 
titles bears the responsibility for both extension and research. 
But there is no official relationship between these overall 
administrators and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 


Kendrick: That manifested itself in California by the fact that the USDA 
corresponding offices for extension and research communicated 
directly with the directors rather than with the vice president. 
I learned about federal matters only if my directors wanted to 
tell me about them. 

Lage: How much of the work of these two organizations was funded by and 

overseen by the USDA? Was this a major portion of it? 

Kendrick: Well, not in California. It varies from state to state. 
California does not have a large USDA-funded extension or 
experiment station program. About 20 percent of Cooperative 
Extension's budget is derived from USDA's Smith-Lever funds, and 
about five to seven percent of the experiment station's budget is 
composed of the USDA's Hatch fund. Hatch funding for research is 
allocated to faculty of the three campuses through a project 
system. Faculty design projects and submit them through the 
channels of the experiment station administration for approval. 
Ultimately the USDA's office of Cooperative State Research 
Service, which is responsible for the administration of the Hatch 
Act must approve or disapprove these proposed projects. 

Once their approval is given, an allocation can be made to 
those projects from the Hatch fund, which comes to the University 
as a bulk grant fund. The amount of the grant is based on a 
formula that is really not in California's favor, because it is 
based on the relationship of the number of farm units, and rural 
population versus the urban population. We don't fare very well 
in that formula because of the distribution of our rural and 
urban populations. 

Smith-Lever funds for Cooperative Extension are not 
allocated by a project system but are commingled with state 
appropriations, unless they are appropriated for special programs 
such as urban gardening, or farm safety, or the nutritional 
education program. The regular Smith-Lever funds are allocated 
to states on the basis of a formula, which, again, did not favor 
California in particular. They support the overall program in 
extension through salary allocations. 

The USDA annually received from the University's Cooperative 
Extension organization a plan of work, which described by 
standard categories what had been accomplished during the year 
and what was proposed for the coming year. That plan of work 
would be reviewed by the Office of the Extension Service in the 
USDA, who after commenting about the proposals, would ultimately 
sign off and approve it. 

So there were two federal agencies acting on the programs of 
two agricultural units in the University of California, and there 
was no evidence that the USDA Office of Cooperative Research and 


Kendrick: their Extension Service Office ever had any common goals or 
common discussions about the state's research and extension 

Lage: So. in Washington the two were not carefully coordinated? 

Kendrick: That's correct. At the federal level the organization was 

constructed in a way that kept the two operations separate. In 
contrast, we had University officers who were charged with 
coordinating the two activities. 

Improving Budgetary Control over "The Provinces" 

Kendrick: Well, other states, I had noticed, organized their programs with 
deans who had overall responsibilities for teaching, research, 
and extension. These individuals would carry simultaneously the 
titles of dean and directors of both units, so that one person 
had the responsibility for all three functions. That 
administrative maneuver solved, at least administratively, the 
communication problem between Washington and the local 
institution. The operational responsibilities would then be 
assigned to an associate director or an associate dean. 

When I took office I was not aware of these different 
arrangements, but I recognized that something needed to be done 
to improve our planning and budgeting. The first administrative 
change I made was in January of 1970, when I added another 
special assistant to my staff named Russell McGregor. I had 
become acquainted with Russell through some national activities 
that I had for the USDA in serving on a committee to review the 
research program of the Cooperative Research Service. Russell at 
that time was a budget examiner for the federal Bureau of the 
Budget, which ultimately became the Office of Management and 
Budget, OMB. Russell was the examiner in that budget office 
whose assignment was the USDA's research and extension program. 

He seemed to be what I was looking for because he had a keen 
analytical capacity and a planning background, and I thought the 
division needed that kind of administrative assistance. He 
willingly resigned from his federal post and came out to assume 
the planning and analysis role for the division. 

Lage: Could you give an example of the specific problems that there 

were that made you see the need for these changes? 

Kendrick: Well, I'm not sure that I know of any particular difficulty, 

except that I felt the responsibility to plan effectively and to 
develop a budget that could be described in program terms. 


Kendrick: Cooperative Extension was not all that out of step with what 
really needed to be done, but there was no evidence that its 
budget development and planning were related to the programs that 
described the division's activities. The national organization 
of experiment stations had just developed a classification system 
because they needed a way to file and retrieve the information 
from the many research projects being conducted in all of the 
states. They also needed this system in order to account for the 
expenditure of funds at various levels of program aggregation. 
The system adopted was called the CRIS system, Current Research 
Information System. That came along about 1966. 

So there was a major effort to get all the projects 
classified in the new system. The CRIS system enabled us to 
describe the amount of research effort going into pest and 
disease control, or in agricultural production, or in water 
resource studies, or in nutrition and the like. Those are just 
the broad categories. I felt that in being able to analyze where 
we were allocating our resources, we needed someone to aid in the 
planning of future program changes as we sought to meet new 

Lage : It sounds as if you were getting better control over the budget. 

Kendrick: Right. That was the goal. Russ had been doing that all the time 
for the Office of Management and Budget as far as agriculture was 
concerned, so he had a good background for the assignment I gave 

That effort was not resisted by our organization; in fact, 
they cooperated pretty well. Russ was a little aggressive, and 
he tended to attempt to pry information from campuses that they 
weren't all that willing to share with the systemwide 
administration. It's always a struggle between a systemwide 
administration and the operating units that I refer to as "the 
provinces." It's kind of a tug-of-war between the two. 
Systemwide usually wants more information that the campuses don't 
want to share, necessarily, because if they share it with 
headquarters then they lose some of their power and control. The 
same situation exists at state level the more state funding that 
goes into local school districts, the less prerogative local 
school districts will have because the state will want to know 
how they're allocating and spending state funds. 

What I've described is not unique to the division; it's just 
human nature and the nature of organizations. I'm sure it exists 
in private enterprise also. But it's necessary to get a handle on 
it because the people held responsible for reporting these things 
are in central administrations. And I was the one who had to 
testify in Sacramento as to the validity of the expenditure of 
state funds for the University's agricultural programs. It 


Kendrick: wasn't the directors, necessarily, unless I took them along with 
me to talk about programs in detail. So Russ was the first 

The Day Committee; 
Resources ## 

Coordinated Planning for Allocation of 

Lage: This was still while George Alcorn was head of Cooperative 


Kendrick: Yes. George and Kelly were the directors of their respective 

units. Kelly had asked the late Boysie Day [deceased June 1988] 
to come from Riverside to assist him. Boysie up to that time was 
the associate director of the experiment station at Riverside. I 
think I explained all that in an earlier session. Kelly needed 
some assistance in managing the experiment station. He was not 
in the best of health at that stage. Boysie came to Berkeley ir. 
the role of associate director of the statewide experiment 
station to give Kelly a helping hand. 

If you recall in an earlier session, I said I had inherited 
an academic planning group, which produced a report that didn't 
go anywhere because I couldn't get any response or interest from 
the campuses due to a number of administrative changes taking 
place at Riverside and Davis at the time the report was issued. 
So recognizing this deficiency, and at the strong suggestion of 
my own administrative council, made up of the new deans and 
directors, I asked a special committee to produce a planning 
document. I asked them to identify in the program structure of 
the CRIS system where we were allocating our resources and advise 
me where some adjustments should be made in the allocations in 
the future, with some attention to timing and phasing the 
proposed changes in allocation. That committee became known as 
the Day Committee because I asked Boysie to chair the effort. I 
felt strongly that I needed representatives from the Berkeley, 
Riverside, and Davis chancellors' offices in that effort, because 
I needed their commitment to any plan that would emerge from the 
work of the committee. 

Lage: So this was kind of a long-range planning for research? 

Kendrick: Yes. It turned out to be dominated by research planning. I was 
really more concerned at that point with the planned allocation 
of the positions that would become vacant in the experiment 
station over time. 

Lage: What areas they should be hiring 


Kendrick: Where we should adjust any reallocations if that was called for. 

Lage: Did you mention earlier that this effort was related to the world 

food situation? 

Kendrick: Well, that came on a little bit later, and it came about from the 
early flurry about the hunger in the world and at least a 
superficial belief that what we needed to do was put more of our 
resources into agricultural production activities. The world 
hunger study was headed by Hal Carter and resulted in a 
publication called The Hungry World. That activity was a little 
later than the Day Committee activity I'm talking about. But the 
Hungry World report certainly turned our attention to the fact 
that we didn't need to overemphasize the production research 
activities of the experiment station because there were more 
crucial concerns relative to the distribution of existing food 
reserves than a lack of its availability. Furthermore, the 
report showed that there was a lot of productive capacity that 
was not yet being used. At least up until about the turn of the 
21st century, overemphasizing production in the United States 
wasn't called for what was needed was to bring in some new land 
and new resources and improve the efficiency and use of existing 
resources in some areas. And it pointed out that, with the 
exception of Africa, most of the areas were potentially good 
producers of agricultural products. 

That, in fact, has been the case. We are observing a 
worldwide increase in production of agricultural products. The 
use of modern technology is not unique to the United States, 
Canada, and Western Europe any more. These techniques have been 
incorporated into the agriculture of South American countries, 
also in the Middle East and some other countries that are 
potentially good producing areas for agriculture. So the United 
States's problem of world competition in its agricultural trade 
was due largely to the fact that there's a lot of basic grain 
supply available to people from countries other than the United 
States, Canada, or western Europe. That's another subject, but 
it's related to what must be considered when you are engaged in 
long-range planning for agricultural research. 

The difficulty of planning allocations for experiment 
station personnel was also complicated by the fact that at both 
Davis and Berkeley, and to some lesser extent at Riverside, we 
had to factor in the teaching needs. Davis's teaching needs with 
its rising student population almost dictated the place where you 
could allocate your future resources, because of the fact that 
you had to cover certain subject areas which were not necessarily 
the most crucial areas for your research program. So you had to 
make compromises relative to the allocation of those resources, 
and as long as there was a student demand or a student load for a 


Kendrick: particular kind of activity, you had to be certain that those 

personnel were assembled so that they could cover and teach those 
kinds of courses. 

That is another reason why the chancellor and the vice 
president had to listen to the pleas of the dean, who had the 
direct responsibilities of responding to the clamor for more 
resources to do this, that, and the other thing, particularly in 
the teaching area. That resulted in annual meetings at campuses 
where the chancellors and I listened to the deans make their case 
for the allocation of resources. The chancellors and I would 
agree to agree on the allocation of our respective resources not 
always agreeing with the deans. 

Resistance to Reallocating Positions between Campuses or 
De par tme nt s 

Lage : Is there any specific case that you could describe to show how 

that would work? Is there one that you recall where you had this 
interaction between the dean, the chancellor and yourself, and 
how it was resolved? 

Kendrick: Well, no particular case. The thing that I discovered in this 
process of review was that while there was willingness on the 
part of the local campus administration to move positions from 
one department to another department on that campus, there was 
total rejection of a suggestion to move positions from one campus 
to another one. Allocations within a campus were infinitely 
easier to suggest and bring about. I'm not even suggesting that 
moving positions between departments on the same campus was all 
that easy because departments become very possessive of their 
allocation of positions too. They don't like to lose resources. 
The dean has to put up with that sort of thing if he feels 
strongly about making an adjustment. But it's almost heresy to 
suggest that Berkeley give up resources to Davis, or Davis give 
up resources to Riverside, or send Davis resources back to 
Berkeley. That didn't happen. 

In all my experience, we negotiated only a couple of FTE 
moves from Berkeley to Davis. There was some reluctance on the 
Berkeley administration's part to do so, but the logic of the 
move seemed so compelling that it was made. It was much easier 
to make those changes in the previous administrations. 
particularly when Claude Hutchison was the dean, because they 
moved whole units. 

Lage: The entire department? 


Kendrick: He moved entire departments. In those cases there was no loss of 
resources for the department, which is always difficult to 
accept. If you move an entire unit, it probably was better for 
the unit in the long run because the administration often had new 
resources to put into the unit, or would build a new building for 
it. So there were gains to be made relative to those kinds of 
moves. Reallocating existing resources among units that have to 
get along with one another is not necessarily a gain for all 

Lage: When you talk about reallocating resources, does this mean a 

professor is retiring and his replacement would be in a different 

Kendrick: That's correct. We never disenfranchised an active person. We 
are talking about positions, not individuals. You described it 
correctly. When a position became vacant due to a resignation or 
a retirement, then that position was available for reassignment. 

Lage: Then you'd look at it to see where the needs were. 

Kendrick: Usually the notice of retirement arrives at about the same time 
as a justification for reassigning that position exactly back to 
where it came from. That's usually initiated by the department 
where the vacancy will occur. 

Well, the Day committee, in studying the existing assignment 
of resources among the eight or nine broad program areas, 
recommended some modest reallocations of these position 
assignments in order to strengthen our program in subject matter 
areas that were emerging as important issues for agriculture 
research. But when it came to talking about whether they would 
come out of forestry or whether they would come out of plant 
pathology, or whether they would come from Berkeley or Davis or 
Riverside, then the peace and harmony of that committee vanished. 
About the best they could do was talk about general reallocations 
without becoming very specific. It was left to those of us in 
the administration of the system to identify the specifics and 
try to implement the changes. 

Centrifugal Forces on the Cooperative Extensi o n Planning Proce s s 

Kendrick: Well, the Day committee activity did produce a document that was 
useful. It identified trends and paid attention to the rising 
concern about environmental quality, suggested that we really 
didn't need to place additional resources in production kinds of 
activities, but its principal deficiency was that it did not link 
extension into the plans. Extension participated on the 


Kendrick: committee, but George Alcorn and his staff functioned mostly as 
observers and did not really lay out what they proposed to do in 
terms of integrating their plans with those for the experiment 
station. All was not lost, however, by extension's passive 
participation on the committee, because it created an awareness 
within extension of where the research program was going. This 
awareness, in due course, was reflected in their own "Plan of 
Work" reports to Washington by describing extension's intentions 
to strengthen their programs in the same areas that the 
experiment station had indicated were to be strengthened. The 
awareness also was reflected in extension's proposed allocation 
of vacated positions. 

The difficulty in making reallocations in Cooperative 
Extension is that the counties became just as possessive about 
positions as departments as the University did. As agriculture 
in counties changes, as it did in Los Angeles County in the 1960s 
and '70s, you have to change a whole office so that you have a 
different kind of program. But those counties are not anxious to 
lose positions to other counties where agricultural activities 
may be increasing. 

Specifically, I found some problems in allocating positions 
for livestock advisors. Each county that had some livestock 
activity wanted a livestock advisor. In my judgment, it's not 
necessary to have a livestock advisor in every county, because 
the smaller counties, in particular, could share this advisor 
with each other. But there were administrative difficulties with 
these shared arrangements. The travel and other support for a 
livestock advisor in County A was provided in County A's budget. 
And County A wasn't thrilled with providing support for the 
livestock advisor in County A to work part time in County B. So 
we had to negotiate with County B to provide funding support for 
County A's livestock advisor when working in County B. 

Lage: Did these monies come from the state, though? 

Kendrick: Those support funds were county funds, allocated from county 

budgets. One can understand that counties must have control of 
their own tax monies, but it creates a difficulty in trying to 
run a statewide program, in terms of efficient use of resources. 
What it does is force, or at least push, towards inefficient use 
of resources. 

Lage: They're competing with each other. 

Kendrick: There are inefficiencies that develop from local jurisdictions 
for regionally needed services. 


Combining the Directorship of the Agricultural Experiment Station 
With the Vice Presidency, 1973 

Kendrick: I guess what I'm illustrating is that there are a number of 

obstacles to overcome in trying to design and administer a system 
that will force the coordination and common planning of a program 
that reflects the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources 
as a whole, rather than just one of its parts, the Agricultural 
Experiment Station or Cooperative Extension. 

Lage : When did you put yourself in as director? 

Kendrick: Not yet. That comes a little later. I'm trying to put a date on 
the time that some of these changes were being made. Kelly 
retired from the directorship, I think about February of 1972. 
That meant I had to do something about either appointing a 
successor or getting a different administrative arrangement. 
Boysie Day had been brought to Berkeley with the expectation that 
he would succeed Kelly as the director of the experiment station. 
Since he had the experience of chairing the planning committee 
and laying out the future agenda for the experiment station, he 
seemed to be a natural to take on the responsibilities of the 
director. During the course of chairing that committee, however, 
he disenchanted himself with the deans and chancellor's office 
representatives, and when it became necessary to make the change, 
he was viewed less enthusiastically as the successor to Kelly 
than he was earlier on. 

I sensed that, and in fact had some concern of my own about 
asking him to be the director and I shared those concerns with 
him. Boysie assured me that he could overcome the eroded 
support, and that he would be bitterly disappointed if he didn't 
become the director. This exchange took place in the fall of 

So with some reluctance, I went ahead and appointed him 
director of the experiment station. In the meantime, George 
Alcorn was still functioning as director of Cooperative 
Extension. My first attempt to strengthen the coordination of 
programs between the experiment station and Cooperative Extension 
occurred when I also asked Boysie to become the associate 
director of Cooperative Extension for research. George Alcorn 
approved of that, and Boysie did function to some extent in that 
role. That was the first administrative linkage of any joint 
appointment between extension and the experiment station. What I 
wanted to accomplish by this administrative arrangement was to 
have one administrator who would be responsible for research 
planning and resource allocation for both Cooperative Extension 
and the experiment station. 


Kendrick: It really didn't work to the extent that I thought it should 

because I don't think Boysie was ever really fully accepted by 
Cooperative Extension as being a significant administrator who 
controlled the fate of individuals in extension. The most 
influential administrators in Cooperative Extension, as I'm sure 
exists in most organizations, are those who influence or control 
the advancements and salaries of the individual employees. Other 
administrators such as planning officers are often listened to 
only when what they have to say agrees with what the audience 
wants to hear. Administrators who function as support staff but 
who don't have line authority are only as effective in bringing 
about change as they are able to convince the line officers of 
the need to make changes. Boysie did not have any line authority 
in extension, so that administrative arrangement didn't work out, 
but it was an attempt. 

The next change came about in 1973, when it appeared that 
the directorship of the experiment station under Boysie was 
really going in a direction that 1 felt was departing from 
cooperative activities, and I was getting more static from the 
campus administrators about that happening. So in July of "73 I 
decided to bite the bullet and become the director of the 
experiment station in addition to the vice president. For all of 
the reasons I've mentioned earlier: I wanted to establish direct 
communication with the USDA and be recognized as the local 
administrative officer with responsibility for the experiment 
station. That was the first time the University of California 
adopted this type of administrative organization. Now, it wasn't 
all that unique, as I've indicated, for many other states had the 
same individual acting as dean and director. 

The change created some concern among the external 
constituency, because they didn't fully understand what was going 
on in the administration of the division and the experiment 

Lage : When you say external constituency, who do you mean? 

Kendrick: I'm talking about the people like the editor of California 

Farmer, and the Agricultural Council of California, and Council 
of California Growers, and the commodity organizations of 
agriculture. They were not quite sure that I was doing the right 
thing because Boysie had a great supportive following with that 
constituency. Some felt that I had ulterior motives involved in 
making that change, and therefore it wasn't perceived to be in 
the best interests of agriculture. 

Well, I had motives, all right. They were not ulterior, but 
in my mind, they were there because I wanted to bring about a 
closer coordination with both national and the state programs. 


Lage: Did you see it also as a way to make more programmatic changes in 

the experiment station? 

Kendrick: No, I'm not sure that that was foremost in my mind. I was more 
concerned about being on the outside of things as the vice 
president, and not intimately involved in planning and directing. 
It's awfully easy for directors to become possessive and 
protective of their own unit. Under Boysie Day's administration, 
I saw that happening in the experiment station to the extent that 
I didn't think it would be good for the overall program of the 


Well, about this same time, Russ McGregor wore out his 
welcome among my other administrative staff, particularly those 
who were campus-based. He was a little tenacious and insistent 
in assembling information and analyzing budgets, and his 
experience as a federal officer, I think, discredited him with my 
colleagues on the campuses. I continued to value his assistance 
in spite of the criticism, however. But it was Russ's initiative 
when he decided that he would like to move into another responsibi 
lity. I believe I brought his attention to an opportunity to 
move to the National Association of State Universities and Land 
Grant Colleges as the agricultural officer. There was some restruc 
turing going on in that organization which I had had a hand in 
during the period of my national activities. Russ expressed 
interest in being that agricultural officer, so he applied and 
was ultimately selected. He decided that was an opportunity too 
great for him to pass up. So in 1974 he went to that position. 

That left me a little thin as far as administrative support 
was concerned. I was aware of the fact that Loy Sammet of the 
Berkeley campus was within two years of retirement. He had been 
in the Chancellor's Office as the vice chancellor for research, 
and he was returning to the College of Natural Resources and was 
helping out in the dean's office at that time. In fact, he may 
have been the acting dean for an interim period. But he had 
planned to go back to his department and do some teaching and 
research. I figured his experience was what I needed so I 
decided to interest him in becoming my assistant. And after 
reflecting upon it, and in spite of feeling that he would be 
moving away from the University into the isolation of systemwide 
administration, he did accept. He came with me on the 30th of 
June, 197A, as my special assistant and associate director of the 
experiment station, and essentially picked up from where Russ had 
left that position. He, of course, had a very different 
personality than Russ possessed. And since Loy had been a member 
of the faculty at the University, he didn't have to overcome the 
onus of being a "foreigner" as far as the University's faculty 
was concerned. It's very difficult for an outsider, someone from 


Kendrick: another institution or even another organization, to fill a 

significant administrative office and begin to operate with full 
acceptance. We are a closed society, in spite of the fact that 
the universities were supposed to be citadels of liberalism, 
openness, and objectivity. They're not in matters concerning 
their faculty's individual lives and welfare. They're about as 
conservative as you can describe. 

I was director of the experiment station with Loy Sammet's 
help from 1974 to 1976. when Loy had to retire at the age of 68 
it was October 30 of 1976 when he retired. Subsequently I asked 
Harold Heady to join my organization, and he took up where Loy 
left off when he retired in October of '76. Harold was with me 
from 1976 to 1980. (Harold was one of several people who were 
recommended for consideration for this appointment by a screening 
committee I had appointed for that purpose.) 

Lage: Were they with you as assistants in the experiment station, or in 

the overall division? 

Kendrick: They had overall responsibilities. Loy was made an associate 
director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, but not 
Cooperative Extension, and special assistant to me. When Harold 
Heady, who was in the Department of Forestry and Conservation at 
Berkeley, was identified as a candidate for this responsibility, 
I made Harold an assistant vice president. I also made him an 
associate director of the experiment station. I gave him the 
title of associate director of the experiment station with the 
understanding that I was the administrative director. 

Assuming the Directorship of Cooperative Extension, 1975 

Kendrick: The next opportunity for change presented itself when George 

Alcorn reached the age of 65 in 1975. We mutually agreed that 
that was an appropriate time for him to retire as director of 
Cooperative Extension, and I thought it would be a propitious 
time to combine the directorship of Cooperative Extension also 
with the office of the vice president. That took a little mere 
politicking to bring about than combining the directorship of the 
experiment station with the vice presidency because the director 
of Cooperative Extension deals more directly with its external 
constituency. Cooperative Extension also has the county-based 
personnel. Well, there was, I would guess, a cautious agreement 
within Cooperative Extension to the new administrative 
arrangement. So by 1975, mid-year, I had become the director of 
Cooperative Extension and I continued to hold the titles of 
director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, and the vice 
president of the division. 


Lage: That sounds like a prodigious amount of responsibility and 

outreach and 

Kendrick: Well, on the face of it, it was. And somewhat of an impossible 
operational task because one couldn't be director of Cooperative 
Extension and hold the other responsibilities and do everything 
the previous director had done. That proved to be a major 
problem with the reorganization because Cooperative Extension 
felt they'd lost a full-time director. They didn't really 
believe that someone could take on all those responsibilities and 
give them the same kind of attention they had had previously. 

In my mind, I had planned to ask Jerry Siebert, who was one 
of two associate directors of Cooperative Extension at the time, 
to be the operating director, with the title of associate 
director. This was similar to administrative arrangements for 
Cooperative Extension in a number of other states. Jerry 
proceeded to fulfil that role by becoming the day-to-day, 
operating director. But that really wasn't the same as having 
the director in that role because we didn't have the tradition of 
an associate director having that much authority. As associate 
director Jerry also felt that his hands were somewhat tied 
because I was the official director. The ex-officio membership 
on the California Farm Bureau Federation's board of directors was 
designed for the director of Cooperative Extension rather than 
this relatively newly created associate directorship of 
Cooperative Extension. So I became an ex-officio member of that 
board of directors. It provided another avenue for linkage of 
the activities of the University vice president with a broader 
constituency of farmers in California. 

Explaining the Division to Farm Bureau Members 

Kendrick: I felt that was a good association because, up until that time, 
the Farm Bureau saw the University primarily only through 
Cooperative Extension's eyes. It didn't at all times understand 
the relationship between research and extension, or what some of 
the constraints were about devoting attention to what they 
perceived to be problems, but which may really not have been 
appropriate for the University to take on. And they didn't they 
being farmers, through their Farm Bureau organization didn't 
think well of the fact that they weren't seeing as many 
experiment station people addressing their local needs as they 
once had. To them, Cooperative Extension seemed to be the only 
organization that was concerned about their problems. Well, I 
was really placed in a position on the board of directors where I 
could explain that that was a natural evolution of the 
University's agriculture program; that the experiment station 


Kendrick: personnel were necessarily moving in the direction of addressing 
broader issues with wider applications than just the local 
problem areas, and we expected our Cooperative Extension people 
to fill that gap. I explained that we were staffing Cooperative 
Extension in a manner that would allow us to address those local 
problems. So it was not unusual to find that Cooperative 
Extension personnel were the ones giving attention to local 
research problems, in contrast to Experiment Station personnel, 
because we were designing the system to do precisely that. 

Well, I think it was important that my relationship at that 
point was such that I was wearing all those hats and could try to 
explain the evolving staffing patterns and the evolving 
expectations of activities of our division personnel. 

Lage: Did the Farm Bureau come to accept your explanation? 

Kendrick: I think the people whom I served with at that time did. One 
thing I was never able to explain even though I tried many 
times, was extension's name change. In their constitution, they 
continually referred to Cooperative Extension as Agricultural 
Extension. A few old-time members in the organization were not 
sympathetic with my point of view. I proposed the name change to 
Cooperative Extension in order to indicate the nature of its 
funding and the fact that its program included more than just 
agriculture extension we had people in urban settings doing work 
that was not agriculture. Our nutritional experts were dealing 
with food and nutrition; they weren't dealing with agriculture in 
the traditional sense. I made several attempts to try and update 
their constitution and bylaws to change the name to Cooperative 
Extension where these documents referred to Agricultural 
Extension. Every time that proposal would come to a vote at one 
of their annual meetings, an impassioned plea would arise from 
some of the San Joaquin Valley Farm Bureau units saying they 
didn't care what we (the University) called it, they wanted it to 
continue as Agricultural Extension because that was the way it 
started out. They did not want to lose that term "agriculture," 
from the title, so I decided there were other issues I could more 
profitably spend my time on than trying to lobby through a name 
change. They could call it what they wanted to, but officially 
it was still Cooperative Extension in the eyes of the University 
and the United States Department of Agriculture. 

That presented somewhat of a problem to our local offices 
because some of the constituencies whom they were working with in 
the local settings looked with scorn upon seeing the name change 
on signs at the county offices. I said, "Well, don't fight it, 
if they are happy with the old sign, leave it Agricultural 
Extension." It was just a manifestation of the difficulty of 
people accepting a change in the status quo. 



New Programs, New Clientele, New Personnel 

Kendrick: Well, that was an interesting era of coordination. I'm not sure 
that I could give you any concrete example of improved 
coordination. At least I thought, as the chief administrative 
officer for both programs, that I was more in tune with the total 
program and was able to evaluate with greater confidence the 
pressures which accompanied requests for resource allocation. I 
think as director of Cooperative Extension, I had a little more 
leverage in making some adjustments within Cooperative Extension 
than I would have had as just the vice president. The 
introduction of self-governance with the Cooperative Extension 
Assembly, peer-group evaluation of their individual 
accomplishments in relation to their advancement, and advances 
made in the whole civil rights area to broaden the opportunities 
for employment of women and minorities all came about in that 
period. I think that Jerry and I, as a team, were able to bring 
about those things perhaps faster than would have been possible 
without our leadership and commitment to those goals. There is 
no way to know whether that is true or not, but at least it 
happened that way, so I'll take what credit there is. 

There was also a lot of tension during that period. The 
tension was pretty well focused in Cooperative Extension and 
centered to a large extent on the actions that involved 
personnel. Once Cooperative Extension broadened its agenda and 
took on the responsibilities for nutrition education for rural 
and, to some extent, urban poor, began promoting AH for urban 
disadvantaged youth, and developed programs for limited resource 
farmers, and migrant farm workers, then some of the people 
problems began to emerge. 

When Cooperative Extension was directing its activities to 
the traditional agricultural community, there was a homogeneity 
of activity and a homogeneity of the people with whom they were 
working. When Cooperative Extension widened its targeted 


Kendrick: audiences to include groups not traditionally served by the 

agricultural programs, such as migrant farm workers, rural and 
urban poor, limited resource farmers, and urban gardeners, the 
organization was faced with a lot of demands to which they were 
unaccustomed and inexperienced in handling. There were also 
deficient levels of education and of understanding of the 
intricacies of institutional program obligations among these new 
clientele groups. 

Lage : You're talking about people you worked with, not the personnel 

that you hired. 

Kendrick: I'm talking about the clientele and to some extent the people we 
hired especially for these new programs, who were less than full- 
time staff. Even some of the full-time staff whom we hired to 
work with these new clientele groups were individuals with 
backgrounds vastly different than our agricultural specialists 
and advisors. So we broke up the previous homogeneity of the 
employed personnel of Cooperative Extension and we no longer had 
a homogeneity reflected in the clients with whom we were working. 
That was not all bad, but it required designing an organization 
to meet the contemporary makeup of the total society, rather than 
only relating to the traditional male-dominated agricultural 
enterprises that characterized the clientele and program of 
Cooperative Extension up until about the early seventies. 

Almost from the start of these new programs we had problems 
dealing with some of the concerns expressed by, particularly, the 
Hispanic group. I was never able to understand fully the reasons 
for this, but I think California's farm labor problems had 
created an environment of suspicion that organized agriculture 
was not in sympathy with Hispanics as a class of people and this 
carried over to a series of accusations that Cooperative 
Extension was discriminating and biased against Hispanics, and 
that its managers, including the vice president and the associate 
director, were insensitive to the needs of the minorities and 
inept at handling their particular needs. 



This was not your personnel, but your clientele still? I' 


having trouble separating that out. 
personnel problems. 

Because I know there were 

I guess what I'm describing is more or less the personnel of 
Cooperative Extension. It's a little difficult to separate out 
the concerns of the clientele, because some of their concerns 
were about our employed personnel. And one of the reasons I'm 
having a little difficulty separating client and employee concern 
is because the nutritional education program was designed to 
employ from among the clientele, individuals to work with the 
program half-time, or not more than half-time. They became 
employees of the University, but they were really from the 


Kendrick: clientele whom we were working with. They provided the link 

between the regular staff in nutrition and family and consumer 
sciences and the people whom we were trying to reach to improve 
their understanding of good food habits and good food purchases 
and how to manage efficiently their food stamps and the like. 
Those employees were called nutrition aides, and by and large, 
they represented minority females, both Hispanics and blacks. 

Inadequate Funding. Staff Reductions, and Charges of 

Kendrick: The difficulty of funding that program adequately didn't manifest 
itself initially. However, since the whole program was supported 
by a federal appropriation and mandated by the USDA's Extension 
Service Agency, we were obliged to operate the program within the 
federal funds available for it, and under the rules and 
regulations they set forth for the program. 

Lage: Did they also mandate choosing your aides from the clientele? 

Kendrick: Yes. That was designed in the project. It was to be a one-on- 
one experience. A major deficiency of the program was the lack 
of a regular mechanism to increase the funding to match the 
inevitable increased cost due to salary increases, price 
increases, etc. We had too much money initially because we 
didn't have a fully- em ployed staff early enough to use all the 
money, and then when we hired enough people to keep the program 
rolling we had to begin cutting back in personnel because the 
appropriations were not adequate enough to cover the increased 
costs of the existing programs. 

Therefore, in order to meet increasing costs, we had to cut 
back the program, which meant we had to reduce the staff, and 
that resulted in some separations of minorities. They generally 
didn't understand why they were separated at the expense of 
keeping on some longer-term employees, who were regular employees 
and who by and large were white females or white males. 

Lage: But these longer-term employees had career positions? 

Kendrick: That's correct. They did have career positions. But in the eyes 
of the new part-time staff, this was a discriminatory act. There 
were also individual cases where personnel actions and work 
assignments were unhappy events, and grievances were filed. In 
those early days, we didn't have a real well-defined affirmative 
action policy. Affirmative action wasn't new, and we were 
making, I thought, considerable progress in trying to broaden the 
base of our employment work force. But there were a lot of 


Ken d rick : 



operational details that were unstated, that weren't written, 
weren't codified, and since a lot of people were involved in 
administering personnel affairs all the way up and down the 
system, there were often glitches well, not often, but there 
were glitches in the system. Poor judgments exercised, and some 
vindictiveness I think probably came to the foreground. 

These personnel irregularities resulted in complaints from 
both the organized structures of Cooperative Extension through 
their extension assembly and from individuals. President Saxon 
and several of the Regents and some of the legislators got long 
letters of complaints. In responding to their constituents, the 
legislators would redirect their letters of complaints to the 
President, who would redirect them to me. Ultimately, I agreed 
with David Saxon that an impartial committee should be appointed 
to review the allegations of discrimination and to separate 
reality from fantasy. 

That committee was put together by Vice President Archie 
Kleingartner, and he asked Walter Strong to chair it, thus it 
became known as the Strong Committee. That committee spent about 
a year delving into all aspects of the alleged discrimination. 

What kind of people were on the committee? 
faculty, or ? 

Would they have been 

They were faculty, and some non-agricultural administrators. I 
don't recall the particular membership; I remember Herman Spieth, 
the former Chancellor of the Riverside campus was a member, and 
Sho Sato from Boalt Law School at Berkeley was a member. Even 
though it was a committee report, I believe that the staff and 
the chairman had the major influence on its contents. 

The Cooperative Extension Assembly for Career Employees 

Lage: You mentioned an assembly within cooperative extension. Was this 

your effort to put a counterpart of the Academic Senate into 
Cooperative Extension? 

Kendrick: Yes, it was. All the elements of an Academic Senate organization 
didn't fit the needs of Cooperative Extension, but there were 
some activities that did lend themselves to patterning after the 
Academic Senate organization. The most important one that I felt 
needed to be implemented involved personnel evaluation with a 
centralized personnel committee. And we also introduced the ad 
hoc peer review system into the personnel evaluation process. 

Lage: Would this represent those non-career people also? 


Kendrick: No, the non-career people were outside of that structure. The 

ladder staff within Cooperative Extension made up the membership 
of the Cooperative Extension Assembly. The extension assembly 
had a welfare committee; it had the academic personnel committee; 
and it had a number of committees which the extension 
organization deemed were important for the effective operation of 
their academic organization. The formation of the assembly was 
really an effort to get the academic staff of extension more 
involved in advising on actions that affected their operations 
and their destiny. It was somewhat new in their experience, 
because prior to the formation of the assembly all committees in 
extension were administratively appointed. It took a while for 
this new organization to take hold in a significant way. I think 
it's been good for Cooperative Extension because it has given the 
academic staff members an organized means of expressing 
themselves. Up to that time, Cooperative Extension was organized 
administratively by employment groups so there was a specialists' 
committee, a home advisors' committee, a AH advisors' committee, 
a farm advisors' committee, and a county directors' committee. 

When I became the director, I told the assembly leadership, 
"You can keep those committees if you want to, but I'm not going 
to appoint them. I'm going to communicate with Cooperative 
Extension through the structure and administration of the 
extension assembly. You can organize your extension assembly in 
any manner you want to, to get a basis for expression of 
opinion." But I felt that it would be counterproductive to have 
these special administrative committees which could dilute the 
power of the extension assembly. So that changed that particular 
relationship to the director of Cooperative Extension. 

I also felt that the county directors had too much power. 
They had an administrative route to express themselves because 
they were part of the administration, and then they were 
organized as a committee of county directors in the extension 
assembly. I said it just doesn't make sense to provide them twc 
avenues to the administration; they already were a part of the 
administrative structure, and therefore, I was not .going to 
create a committee of county directors, because I wanted to 
relate to them through the line authorities of the administration 
of Cooperative Extension. Well, I think it was understood in due 
course that that view was at least logical. Whether or not it 
was fully accepted in all circles, I'll never know. But at least 
there was no committee of county directors under my directorship. 

Lage: I didn't mean to divert you from personnel, but I wanted to see 

how the new type of employees fit into the personnel structure, 
and what were their means for redressing grievances. 


Kendrick: Well, administratively, we began to pay more attention to the 

personnel administration in Cooperative Extension. Up until that 
time, personnel affairs were handled by an associate director who 
had more assigned duties than just personnel responsibilities. 
In fact. Jerry Siebert was the associate director under George 
Alcorn who handled personnel affairs and administrative support 
services. But during the period when I held the title of 
director of Cooperative Extension, I established an Office of 
Personnel Management and had an officer assigned with the sole 
responsibility for personnel matters. The person operating in 
that role was Ken England. Bringing Ken into my administration 
was the first step to develop and to codify policies and 
procedures involving all kinds of personnel actions such as 
recruitment, performance evaluations, salary and promotion 
actions, administrative hearings, grievance hearings, and 
affirmative action activities. What was produced was still in an 
evolutionary stage, and a long way from a finished product. 

We also had pressure from the USDA to get our house in order 
relative to affirmative action grievance procedures because since 
we were supported in part with federal funds, we were required to 
abide by the federal regulations and policies in these matters. 
We faced the loss of our federal funds if we did not comply with 
their policies. 

Strong Committee and Kleingartner Evaluations of Accusations 
against Extension 

Kendrick: Well, the Strong Committee issued its report, and to my surprise, 
the committee, which I felt was going to be fair and objective, 
was not fair and objective from my point of view. It dwelt on 
the few problems and didn't give any credit whatsoever to the 
progress that had been made in the civil rights goals. By 
dwelling on the five or six cases that were not handled in the 
most appropriate or fair manner, the committee condemned the 
total program as being mismanaged and sloppy. They didn't accuse 
either Jerry or me of conspiracy to discriminate, but the 
accusation of ineptness was certainly apparent. That 
condemnation was received with a certain amount of sympathy by a 
few members of the Board of Regents, who perceived that 
Cooperative Extension was an agricultural organization that was 
really anti-labor, ant i- His panic, and anti-small farmer. It was 
difficult to try to counteract that perception and prejudice. 

Loy Sammet, Harold Heady, Jerry Siebert, and Jim Kendrick 
spent a lot of time providing reports and rebuttals to the Strong 
Committee report. The report was also evaluated by Vice 
President Archie Kleingartner. He didn't accept the report 


Kendrick: fully, but he did conclude that there were some sloppy procedures 
that gave the appearance of discrimination. He also suggested 
that changes in the administrative structure of the division were 
desirable because the combination of the directorship of 
Cooperative Extension and the vice presidency placed too much 
responsibility with one person. He said also that he felt that 
the vice president needed to separate himself more completely 
from the operational responsibility of the organization. 

I, with Jerry Siebert and others' help, issued a countering 
report, pointing out the deficiencies of the assumptions made by 
the Strong Committee and identifying activities that directly 
contradicted some of the accusations of discrimination. The 
problem with the Strong Committee was that it really listened 
only to the complaintants of the system and didn't pay any 
attention to the positive accomplishments. I think it generally 
was pretty well biased and showed no real understanding of 
Cooperative Extension's programmatic goals or operational style. 

Well, President Saxon, generally, backed me and my view, and 
even Archie Kleingartner had some reservations about all of the 
Strong Committee's findings and recommendations. The liberal 
Regents led by Vilma Martinez continued to accept it at face 
value, and demanded corrective action. So it had its impact. 
It's still perceived by some people to represent a course of 
action for Cooperative Extension. But it was not fully accepted 
by the administration as a clear, objective review and a 
blueprint for immediate action and attention. 

With my colleague Archie Kleingartner suggesting some 
administrative reorganization, also with a certain amount of 
urging from the external community, who never fully accepted the 
fact that it was a good idea to combine the director of 
Cooperative Extension with the vice presidency, and with a 
certain amount of urging from the established staff of 
Cooperative Extension that we return to the full-time 
directorship of Cooperative Extension, pressure was mounting for 
a change. The stand-alone directorship was remembered as a happy 
arrangement during the Crocheron years, where Cooperative 
Extension was a considerable force in its operations in rural 
California, and this satisfaction continued under George Alcorn, 
who brought a different kind of a leadership to the organization. 
Nevertheless, under this type of leadership, I felt that 
Cooperative Extension operated to a large extent on its own 
mandates and dictates. 

Lage : I don't see how returning to the former administrative structure 

would solve these personnel problems. 

Kendrick: The external community wasn't really concerned about that. 


Lage: So you had two different forces coming up with the same solution. 

Kendrick: Two forces wanted separation, but for different reasons. The 
external community felt that they would get more direct 
attention; the director would show up at more meetings. There 
was never any pressure to make a change from the USDA; they were 
happy at least, they didn't express themselves with being 
unhappy with the arrangement. The pressures came from the 
external clientele, who perceived that they were shortchanged by 
not having a full-time director, and internally, from those who 
felt that the vice president had too many responsibilities to pay 
close attention to the personnel administration and to their many 
other needs. 

Lage: Did you not agree with that second point of view? 

Kendrick: I didn't necessarily agree with it because I thought that they 
just didn't understand the role and function of the office of 
personnel administration and the delegation of responsibilities. 
The critics wanted the director to be involved in every day-to 
day activity. Perhaps it was people who were operating with the 
office of personnel administration who were at fault, but not 
necessarily the organizational structure. 

Another Administrative Reorganization; 
Siebert as Directors 

Lowell Lewis and Jerry 

Kendrick: But it became apparent that I had to make some sort of visible 
change. This was all occurring in 1980, 1981. I also decided 
that if I were going to make a change in Cooperative Extension, 
that I needed to make a similar change in the experiment station 
at the same time. I had to make a change in 1980 because Harold 
Heady had decided that he didn't want to continue as the 
assistant vice president. We had become a little estranged; I 
don't think Harold was very comfortable in putting up with all 
the noise and accusations that we were receiving, but 

Lage: But that wasn't so much on his side of it. at the experiment 

station, was it? 

Kendrick: No. he wasn't in the direct line to receive it personally, but it 
was an environment that involved the whole office and he was 
involved as my chief staff aid in generating a lot of the 
supporting evidence to counter the allegations. But Jerry 
Siebert really caught most of the action because the criticism 
was directed towards Cooperative Extension. 


Kendrick: So when Harold stepped aside as the assistant vice president in 

June 1980, I asked Loy Sammet to come back for another six months 
and become the acting director of the experiment station and 
acting assistant vice president. At that time, I was persuaded 
that Jerry Siebert probably ought to continue as the director of 
Cooperative Extension, but that decision was premature as far as 
President Saxon and my critical Regents were concerned. They 
wanted to see how Jerry and I would respond to some of the 
recommendations of the Strong Committee before agreeing with that 
appointment. I initiated a search committee for an assistant 
vice president and director of the experiment station. That 
committee identified as one of the candidates Lowell Lewis, the 
associate dean for research at Riverside. Lowell accepted my 
invitation to join my staff as the assistant vice president and 
director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Lage : That would have been about '81? 

Kendrick: I think it was in January or February of '81. At the same time, 
in order to set up a parallel administrative structure, I asked 
Jerry if he would be the director of Cooperative Extension and 
assistant vice president for Cooperative Extension. 

Lage: That turned out to be controversial. 

Kendrick: That turned out to be controversial because my critics thought 
that I should have conducted the same kind of open search for 
that officer that I did for the experiment station director and 
the assistant vice president. I had more responsibility in mind 
for that assistant vice presidency than just being concerned with 
the experiment station; that particular position was to be my 
chief deputy. Lowell Lewis's assistant vice president's title 
indicated he was the assistant vice president for the Division of 
Agriculture and University Services. I wanted it that way so 
that that office would have responsibility for programs in 
extension as well as the experiment station in other words, 
function as my chief deputy with full authority to act for me in 
my absense. 

Lage: So then, again, you'd have some overlap administratively between 

extension and the experiment station. 

Kendrick: Yes. And I regarded the move of the associate director of 

Cooperative Extension to the director of Cooperative Extension as 
more of an administrative rearrangement, rather than creating a 
new position. Granting Jerry the title of assistant vice 
president was merely recognition of the complexity of the 
administrative responsibility vis-a-vis other assistant vice 
presidents in the Office of the President. So the position was 
limited to Cooperative Extension administration and titled 
assistant vice presidenct for Cooperative Extension. 


Kendrick: So I felt the circumstances didn't call for a search for a new 
position, but people who differed with my interpretation felt 
that I should have thrown Jerry out and conducted an open search 
for candidates for the position. They felt Jerry should apply 
for the position if he were interested in it. Well, the 
President agreed that it really represented more of a 
reassignment of existing responsibilities rather than a new 
position, so my recommendation prevailed, even though it was not 
accepted by some of the critics. 

No Conspiracy to Discriminate but Some Unclear Policies 
and Procedures 

Lage: Did the critics of these personnel policies perceive that the 

problems were insensitivities of some of the long-term employees 
to minorities, or did they see it as sort of a conspiracy that 
went right through the whole administrative structure? 

Kendrick: Well, we had one particular individual who has become notorious 
in challenging the administration. He has made a career out of 
allegations of administrative irregularities and has focused on 
personnel actions which have resulted in unhappiness of the 
employee involved as a means of directing criticism towards 
whomever happens to be in the adminstrative line and, in 
particular, against Jerry Siebert and, to a large extent, me. 

Lage: Was this one of the employees? 

Kendrick: Yes. Former employee. I think this sort of dedication towards 
making every personnel action that results in some degree of 
employee unhappiness a case for grievance is a reflection of that 
person's vindictiveness rather than a sincere regard for the 
individuals he purported to represent. My experience in 
administration is that that's not unique; it happens in many of 
our units where a former disgruntled employee creates a lot of 
trouble for former associates or administrators, because the 
University is such an open society and pays attention to 
individual rights. It is also a public institution governed by 
public policy laws, making it especially vulnerable to frivolous 
allegations because of the attention these allegations of 
wrongdoing receive in the news media. Another fact is that these 
kinds of cases represent a small minority of the total work 
force, but they require an enormous amount of time to resolve 

There's no question in my mind that the alleged 
insensitivity, mismanagement, and personnel discrimination that 
have been raised by some minority and nonminority employees in 


Kendrick: Cooperative Extension were merely expressions of disagreement 

with administrative decisions by disgruntled employees, and this 
individual, in particular, has made himself a representative of 
these disgruntled employees. The disgruntlements may arise from 
not getting a promotion, or having a critical performance review, 
or being reassigned to a different location, or being discharged 
for poor performance, or because the budget was running out of 
money, or almost anything. A whole array of personnel actions 
that have taken place, resulting in less than full acceptance by 
the individual affected, has been taken on by this person who 
wants to produce so much turmoil that administrators involved in 
his own unhappiness will be discharged. 

Lage: So this one individual, who has remained nameless so far, 

actually served as a representative for a number of people, not 
just himself? 

Kendrick: Yes. He does not just sympathize with them; he serves them and 
expects to be paid for his services. 

Lage: Is he a lawyer? 

Kendrick: He went to law school on our time. 

Lage: Is this the fellow whose name appears in the material you gave 


Kendrick: He is Robert Bradf ield, who was a former nutritional specialist 
in Cooperative Extension. 

Lage: Is he a minority himself? 

Kendrick: No. While employed by Cooperative Extension, unbeknownst to us, 
he was a full-time student at Boalt Law School, getting his J.D. 
degree. He's never been admitted to the Bar, to my knowledge. 
However, because of his knowledge of the law, he is able to use 
the legal system to make time-consuming demands, and he has 
pretty well tied some offices up from time to time. 

Lage: Does this still happen is it an ongoing process? 

Kendrick: I believe it is. He retired on a disability in the early 

seventies, but he himself was the subject of a case of alleged 
discrimination and a grievance hearing. It was initially 
resolved when he decided to accept a disability retirement and 
drop all of his charges. We thought that would be the end of it, 
but it proved only to be a recess in his attacks on our 

Lage: Did you satisfy yourself that the personnel actions overall were 

being handled in a fair way? 


Kendrick: To the extent that I investigated them, I found some of the 

practices and some of the decisions to be prejudicial, and I set 
about correcting them. Bear in mind that this was in the early 
eighties and late seventies, when all of the campuses were 
subjected to criticisms for not having plans of aggressive 
affirmative actions in place, and not having well-codified 
personnel procedures. 


Except for the agricultural programs, the U.S. Department of 
Health, Education, and Welfare, later known as the Department of 
Health and Human Services, had jurisdiction for administering the 
Civil Rights Act at institutions which received federal funds. 
So our University campuses were also involved with some 
allegations of discrimination and inattention to the Civil Fights 
Act. So Cooperative Extension was a part of this whole 

The USDA, which was the federal agency that enforced the 
Civil Rights Act for Cooperative Extension and the Agricultural 
Experiment Station, launched a number of investigations to follow 
up some of these allegations. None of the USDA investigations 
substantiated any of the discrimination charges. As a matter of 
fact, all of those investigations pretty well vindicated what we 
were saying all along that we had certain deficiencies but they 
were not conspiratorial. We needed to adjust our administrative 
procedures a little, and the policies needed to be more clearly 
stated, but by and large there was no major fault to be found 
with what was being done. 

Lage : It seems to me from what you've described as the traditional 

extension employee concerned with the rural farmer, and then 
bringing in this new group of minority, urban employees, that 
just by human nature you were going to have a lot of cross- 
cultural problems, that must have been reflected in personnel 
problems. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. 

Kendrick: No, you've identified exactly what I really was trying to 

indicate earlier, that as long as Cooperative Extension was an 
agricultural extension service dealing with a nearly homogeneous 
set of farmers who were concerned mostly with producing more food 
and fiber and domestic animals, extension had a single, 
simplified focus of its activities. Agricultural Extension was 
staffed to satisfy that kind of need. When it broadened its 
agenda to include the unserved people minorities, urban poor 

Lage: Agricultural labor. 


Kendrick: Labor then it moved into an arena where it was almost certain to 
produce differences of opinion and unhappiness. We didn't change 
our internal staffing pattern rapidly enough to accommodate to 
that different kind of environmental exposure. When we did, we 
added employees with a broadened viewpoint who were not 
necessarily fully accepted by the traditional agriculturally 
oriented Cooperative Extension people. With that change in the 
employment pattern of Cooperative Extension plus the post- 
Vietnam and Watergate period expressed by the slogan "question 
authority" and new legislation designed to extend individual 
rights such as the Privacy Act and the Public Information Act 
employees seemed to assume that the administration was up to no 
good. The general attitude of these newer employees seemed to be 
that there was a flawed administration rather than accepting the 
fact that maybe they weren't performing in a manner that was 
acceptable, or their efficiency was low, or they were malingering 
on the job, or for any number of reasons they were failing to 
make progress in the organization. The common course of action 
was to initiate grievance procedures. Some resulted in court 
cases, although not very many of them went that far; but the 
threat of going to court was always there. 

All of this, aggravated by Robert Bradf ield, resulted in a 
continuous contest between unhappy personnel and the 
administration. So that tension existed, and while it became 
time-consuming and very frustrating because we seemed unable to 
resolve it at any one particular time, it did not dominate our 
activities to the extent that it did in the late 1970s and the 
early eighties. 

Continued Tension between an Integrated Program and Separatist 

Kendrick: That, I guess, brings us to about 1981 and the administrative 

structure that existed for the rest of my administration. I had 
two assistant vice presidents, one of whom was the director of 
Cooperative Extension and the other was director of the 
experiment station. The personnel office was not disbanded, but 
its reporting route to me was changed and given to the assistant 
vice president for Cooperative Extension. I also created a 
director of administrative service who reported to me, and Warren 
Schoonover served in that role. 

Lage: So one personnel office for the division as a whole? 

Kendrick: Yes. There was a little difficulty in identifying that office as 
the division's personnel office, because it was so dominated by 
actions involving Cooperative Extension personnel. Nancy 


Kendrick: McLaughlin was the personnel affairs officer with the additional 
title of associate director of Cooperative Extension for 
administration. She came to Cooperative Extension from Angus 
Taylor's office. Angus was the assistant vice president for 
academic personnel before he went to Santa Cruz as the chancellor 
of that campus. She brought to Cooperative Extension a great 
deal of experience and knowledge in handling academic personnel, 
and I was quite pleased to have her join us. 

Jerry also appointed an associate director of Cooperative 
Extension for programs, and that person was Jim Meyers. The 
organization functioned reasonably well, at first participating 
in developing coordinated plans and budgets. But later 
Cooperative Extension began to drift. At the end of my 
adminstration, I could see that something needed to be done to 
bring it back to a division participant again. I think the 
nature of separate directorships, particularly in Cooperative 
Extension, is such that the gravitational pull for autonomy is so 
strong that some major restructuring and major reorganization 
needs to be done to keep it functioning as a part of the division 
rather than an independent affiliate. 

Lage: And the pull is from the counties and the external constituency? 

Kendrick: Well, it's at least those two, and it's also from the USDA 

itself. In my judgment, a serious deficiency exists in the USDA, 
even though there is now an assistant secretary for science and 
education, kind of a parallel structure with the one we have at 
the University of California. Our vice president has overall 
responsibility, and the USDA has an assistant secretary with 
overall responsibility for research and extension. But that's 
about as far as it goes. There is no real mechanism for forcing 
common planning and common budgets. The research appropriations 
for agricultural experiment stations and the extension 
appropriations for Cooperative Extension are based on two 
different legislative authorities, the Hatch and Smith-Lever Acts 
respectively. The USDA also has the Agricultural Research 
Service, which is the agency's internal agricultural research 
organization, with an internal staff of agricultural research 
people, and with facilities to manage and operate. The assistant 
secretary is responsible for all three agencies, but there is 
scant evidence that he is able to get them together to plan along 
common goals for their budgets. The structure of the government 
is such that it prevents close coordination and a unified budget. 

I'm sure that the leadership of these agencies are aware of 
the major issues facing agriculture in the United States and they 
design their respective programs and budgets to address them. 
However, there is no evidence that the programs of USDA's 
Cooperative State Research Service, the Agricultural Research 
Service and the Extension Service are complementary or are 


Kendrick: coordinated in any way. I think you've got to force cooperation 
and the only way to force cooperation, in my judgment, is to have 
a common budget. 

Well, Ken Farrell, my successor, will need to deal with this 
tendency of Cooperative Extension to plan separately from the 
experiment station and to function as a completely self-contained 
unit. There's a concern among Cooperative Extension that they 
would lose their identity if they become too integrated into the 
division's operations. They perceive a value in that separation, 
and there is value in having a separate identification. In my 
judgment, however, it can be identified easily as a separate 
function, but it's got to have a common program objective with 
the division. 

As extension becomes more and more involved with research on 
local problems, and adapting for practical use generalized 
information developed by the research faculty, it's more 
essential than ever before, that extension be a part of a unified 
program. When a program is designed with both research and 
extension components, it is much easier to justify the budget to 
support it than it is if we seek separate experiment station and 
extension appropriations. When we had the integrated pest 
management appropriation, there were extension activities within 
that program. The most recent appropriation to support the 
program in sustainable agriculture has both research and 
extension components. Our request to the legislature was to 
support a program, not to augment the experiment station or 
Cooperative Extension. Both research and extension activities 
were involved, but the money was appropriated as a lump sum and 
administered by the division. The key to that integration is to 
identify a goal, then design a program within which several kinds 
of functions will be needed to achieve the goal rather than 
emphasizing the functional differences such as research and 

Lage: It sounds eminently reasonable. Am I understanding correctly 

that you see the experiment station as doing the more basic 
research, and extension as doing some applied research and also 
the traditional information transfer function? 

Kendrick: Yes, that's the way I see it. 
Lage: But all a unified program? 

Kendrick: Yes. 


Did extension resist the research function, also? 


Kendrick: No, although certain people in extension reluctantly engaged in 
research. I think those who were reluctant were so not because 
they felt that these activities were inappropriate for extension, 
but because they felt too much emphasis in evaluating their 
performance was placed on what they did in creative activity and 
research. It's difficult for some people to think like a 
research specialist especially if they have not been trained in 
the philosophy and methodology of research. Not all categories 
of employees in extension would have research as a major activity 
of their assignment. 

Take the public information specialists, for instance. If 
you expect them to do research along with their assigned 
responsibility of transmitting information to the public, I think 
it's an unrealistic expectation and one inappropriate to their 
assignment. On the other hand, I would expect them to be 
innovative and creative in the way they communicate the 
information to various publics that extension is expected to 

Extension's role is to extend information into a user 
environment. There are a lot of tactics and many different ways 
to do that, one of which is to take unfinished pieces of 
information which aren't quite ready to extend and refine them so 
that they can be used by consumers of the new information. It 
may need to be packaged differently than it was in its original 
form. This may require field trials under a variety of local 
conditions which is what I call adaptive research. I'm trying to 
think of a good example the efficiency of water use, or 
irrigation practices. Research by members of the experiment 
station may reveal certain fundamental information about water 
penetration in certain kinds of soil. It will then be necessary 
to test that general information under the local conditions of 
individual counties or districts within counties. So the county 
extension personnel must engage in localized field 
experimentation, with a different regime of watering tests to 
find out which is best for that particular local situation. 
That's the kind of research I'm talking about extension doing. 

Well, until the organization understood that we were not 
asking extension personnel to be genetic engineering specialists 
but to be prepared to adapt and test the products of generalized 
research under local situations, confusion prevailed among many 
of the long-term employees. I don't believe that this is a major 
problem any more. 

Twenty-five to thirty years ago a lot of research activities 
of experiment station personnel were in the field, so all 
extension people had to do was extend the information to their 
clients. The major difference between then and now is that 
Cooperative Extension must do most of the field research now. 


Kendrick: That's the reason why it's absolutely essential to have a unified 
plan and budget oversight for the total program. I think in the 
future the ability to fund and support extension activities will 
be improved when they are included within specific programs, 
rather than being penalized because they lose their identity. 

Lage : I imagine your thrust for change created a certain amount of 

tension personally for you. Did you get feedback from extension 

Kendrick: Not directly. I have to say I was pretty well supported. The 
main feedback I got was reading the minutes of the Cooperative 
Extension Assembly Council, where there would be questions raised 
about "We are losing our identity, and we are not being supported 
adequately, and we're being asked to do all these things, but the 
budget won't match the expectations." There were also 
misunderstandings of the role of peer evaluations, and questions 
of why the administration seemed to be shirking its duty in 
making personnel decisions and putting it off on these peer 

It's difficult to see the whole picture when you are located 
in counties or only represent a piece of the whole picture. It 
is perfectly understandable; I never was angry with those 
expressions of opinion. I was disappointed that the learning 
process was so slow. But as Cooperative Extension has matured 
and gotten more experienced in managing its own affairs, at least 
we have a number of people now who are experienced and who can 
see the whole forest rather than only the individual trees. I 
think it's for the better. Nothing ever moves quite as rapidly 
as you would think it ought to move. Maybe that's a good thing, 

Lage: I think we've got a good picture of these administrative changes, 

the reasons behind them, and all the stresses and strains 

Kendrick: It will be interesting to see how my successor handles the 

challenges that I left him, because I decided that the last two 
and a half years of my administration was no time to make major 
changes. I realized that somebody else would soon come on board 
and have a few ideas of their own about how these units ought to 
be managed. I felt that, if I made too many changes, the 
division might get several changes on top of one another, and 
that wouldn't be good for the morale of the organization. I did 
know that if I had continued, I was going to combine the 
Cooperative Extension planning and programming operation into one 
division office, one operation. Our most successful budget 
requests were put together that way, and I knew that that success 
would certainly dictate the future. 

3 10 

Lage: Combine them with the experiment station? 

Kendrick: Well. I have a little difficulty with the nomenclature of our 

own budget, because the University's budgeting process tends to 
distinguish between the Agricultural Experiment Station and 
Cooperative Extension. That procedure resulted in proposals that 
went forward looking as if they were experiment station requests 
because research activities predominated over extension 
activities. But extension components were included in these 
programs. The format for budgeting, both at federal and state 
levels, mitigate against doing what ought to be done, and that is 
look at it program by program. 

Well, that doesn't prevent us from organizing internally 
this way, and that's precisely what Ken Farrell, my successor, 
has proposed to do: establish one office for planning and 
budgeting and program analysis, responsible to the associate vice 
president for the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 
He has decided also [laughs], somewhat vindicating my own 
judgment, to become the director of the experiment station and 
director of Cooperative Extension, in addition to his vice 
presidency. So he's going to do the same thing that I had dene 
early on, to signal to everyone that there's a single unified 
coordinated program and not separately operating units. 

I think the time is a little more right for that arrangement 
to operate successfully than it was when I did it, but it still 
remains somewhat problematic as to how successfully the external 
community will accept that arrangement, because they still, in my 
judgment, will want to see the director of Cooperative Extension 
at many of their meetings. I think time will tell whether the 
external community will begin to understand that the past is not 
necessarily prologue for the future, but the past is past and 
it's history, and we have to make new arrangements to meet the 

The Value of Long-Range Academic Planning in the Division 

Lage: In talking to Loy Sammet. he mentioned five-year academic plans 

for the experiment station, and he wondered about the value of 
those. How does that fit into all this planning process? 

Kendrick: Well, in early '81, '82, amid all this turmoil distracting our 
attention, we put together a five-year academic plan. It never 
really developed to the extent that I think it was originally 
planned, although Loy was a part of helping to gather this all 
together. What we wound up doing was writing an overview plan 
that identified a lot of what I've been talking about, the 


Kendrick: external environmental future trends and the capacity of the 
organization to respond to these sorts of things. We kind of 
laid out an overall blueprint. 

Lage : Was this done from above, or did each unit ? 

Kendrick: This was done from above, and I wound up writing a major portion 
of it, after the staff document seemed not to fit what I thought 
it ought to address. It was sent upstairs, so to speak. It 
became a part of the University's overview five-year academic 
plan. It became a part of the overall plan that each campus was 
supposed to contribute to. The intent was to have a document 
plan with more detail in its content the further down into the 
system it went, so that what I ultimately put together became the 
overview of the division's goal through the next five years, with 
the expectation that the individual campus experiment station and 
extension units would then be more specific and prepare a more 
detailed design of how they planned to manage their resources to 
achieve the goals of their respective units consistent with the 
division's overall goals. 

The campus plans were in various stages of completeness when 
I retired. The Davis campus plan was completed. Davis and 
Berkeley each had an academic plan. Riverside really never got 
around to finishing theirs. And I don't know what the status is 
now; it never got finished during my regime. 

But I don't believe that it has really hindered the 
operations of the division, particularly the experiment station, 
to the extent that we were making poor decisions. There are not 
any topics crying for attention that we weren't able to give 
attention to. I think that one thing which we didn't foresee but 
we've been able to respond to effectively was the organized 
movement for an identified program with the sustainable 
agriculture group. If you'd asked me five or ten years ago to 
work that program into our academic plan, it wouldn't have gotten 
much attention because we were thinking along program and subject 
matter topics rather than clientele groups. It was no problem 
for us to identify toxics, biotechnology, and environmental 
quality as major efforts to be engaged in all of which are 
involved in the sustainable agricultural program, but we probably 
wouldn't have packaged it up as a substantial agricultural pro 
gram. Now because of the potential activity of specific client 
groups we have a funded sustainable agricultural program with an 
existing clientele whom we previously didn't relate to very well. 

You won't find very many large commercial growers going to a 
meeting that is dominated by an organization of organic farmers. 
They get their information by other means. Ten years ago, we 

3 12 

Kendrick: wouldn't have put together a program specifically for the organic 
fanner group. But they have become a political entity to be 
reckoned with; they pay taxes, and it was right and appropriate 
that we have now developed a program to meet the needs of that 
clientele. Fortunately, we had a budget augmentation to allow us 
to address their problems without major disruptions of existing 
programs. That's a happy solution when you can do it that way. 

A documented and detailed academic plan will not be very 
useful or accurate until we are able to develop complete 
flexibility of our resources. Otherwise it is just an awareness 
plan you move when your opportunities arise, and you know where 
you ought to be moving because you are aware of the fact that 
certain external forces demand attention. It's not news that 
chemicals in agriculture need attention. I wouldn't say that it 
would take an academic plan to acquaint an enlightened 
administration with the problems that the division must deal 

Lage : That seems to be Mr. Sammet's point of view, also. 



Cultural Conflict between Traditional Extension Staff and New 
Clientele and Staff 

[Date of Interview: November 5, 1987] ## 

Lage: Today is November 5, 1987, the eleventh session with James 

Kendrick. We were going to follow up on some of the remarks you 
made on Cooperative Extension. It occurred to me that we'd sort 
of missed one point in our last session. As you described the 
differences in background between the old-line employees and some 
of the new people that came in on the programs having to do with 
the rural and the urban poor, it appeared that you would have had 
a lot of cultural conflict within the service. I wondered what 
you did to deal with that. 

Kendrick: Well, it's true that as long as Cooperative Extension was in 
reality Agricultural Extension, dealing primarily with 
agricultural production problems in California, the staffing was 
largely composed of agricultural experts and people who had 
particular skills in dealing with rural farmers. But when 
Cooperative Extension expanded its mission into what I refer to 
as people- problems, such as youth and A-H programs for children 
of migrant workers and the urban poor, and took on the mission of 
nutrition education of the poor in rural and urban communities in 
California, it began to experience some of the frustrations and 
the misunderstandings of people with a wide range of educational 
backgrounds who generally have not had good experiences dealing 
with governmental agencies. Most of the experiences people with 
these backgrounds, particularly the urban poor and the minorities, 
have had in dealing with institutional representatives have been 
either with welfare agencies or with a law enforcement agency. 
Therefore they usually saw the rules enforcement part of agencies 
rather than the parts with programs that try to help them. 


Kendrick: Cooperative Extension as an organization was not really prepared 
technically or philosophically to deal with these new kinds of 
societal concerns. This was particularly true in the 4-H program 
which traditionally was a project-based program with clubs and 
competition. The new 4-H client groups were children of minority 
and poor people and often with a single parent who was the 
mother. The father wasn't around. The children had no 
experience of belonging to clubs and developing projects and 
competing for prizes. The 4-H program depends on a large 
voluntary parent leader group. These single parents were not 
able for a variety of reasons to be very active in the volunteer 
leader group, so a valuable cultural link was unavailable. 

As rapidly as possible we tried to remedy the deficiency of 
having too few staff members who could relate effectively with 
this new youth client group. We added as replacement staff 
representatives of these cultural groups, but these staff 
sometimes found themselves at odds with their colleagues who 
adhered to the traditional 4-H programs goals and methodologies. 
Thus, we had some staff conflicts to deal with which had not 
arisen when the youth and 4-H program was dealing almost 
exclusively with white middle-class rural youth. We also had 
some strongly expressed criticisms by some volunteer leaders who 
felt uncomfortable with the expanded program and from other 
volunteer leaders who felt that the needs of minority youth were 
not being addressed properly or in an understanding way. This 
all placed great strain on our 4-H staff and in my opinion I 
didn't think most of them were adequately trained to handle what 
I've labelled "people problems." 

Lage: But you did hire, then, from some of the minority groups to staff 

these programs? 

Kendrick: Yes, in both the 4-H youth and nutritional education programs we 
sought minority staff. The nutritional education program, 
however, presented Cooperative Extension with much different 
problems than 4-H did. The nutrition program was a federally 
mandated program. The format dictated that the nutritional 
aides, as I've referred to them in several other interviews, cone 
from the community which we were trying to serve that being the 
poor communities, both rural and urban. We were trying to change 
their food-buying habits as well as trying to educate the 
homemaker how to serve her family nutritionally balanced and low- 
cost meals and still retain their culturally preferred diets. 
The federal guidelines for the program were rather specific and 

It was a reasonably successful program, but the funding was 
not nearly enough to address the whole problem of poor nutrition 
among the poor in California; it was like a raindrop in the 
ocean. So there were frustrations internally because choices had 


Kendrick: to be made between eligible counties as to where these programs 
were to be conducted. Los Angeles County, for instance, could 
have absorbed the entire California allocation and still fallen 
short of meeting the total need. 

Lage: Did you discern that there were conflicts between these newer 

employees and the older ones who may perhaps have been 
supervising them conflicts based in the fact that they came from 
different cultures? 

Kendrick: I didn't see them as conflicts that manifest themselves in two 
kinds of cultures in Cooperative Extension. Conflicts began to 
show up usually in personnel actions, where performance 
expectations were not being met by some of the new employees who 
had a different work ethic than the more traditional employees. 
I don't mean to imply that all the traditional employees were 
running around at high speed. But once we began to add 
minorities to our predominantly white male and female work force, 
allegations of unfair evaluations and discrimination increased 
markedly. I need to add also that the females in Cooperative 
Extension in the late sixties and seventies still were confined 
to family and consumer science programs and to the youth and 4-H 

So in the late 1960s Cooperative Extension was a pretty 
stereotyped organization. When the program was broadened to 
include the non-agricultural groups, we developed the 
heterogeneity in our work force, and that is when we began to 
develop conflicts of opinion within our own C.E. staff. The 
changing ethnicity of our C.E. staff in the early 1970s occurred 
simultaneously with renewed efforts by the federal government to 
enforce the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Federal agencies 
were beginning to crack down on federally funded programs that 
didn't show evidence of aggressive affirmative actions on behalf 
of minorities et al in both employment and the programs available 
to people. Programs where discrimination was more than an 
isolated occurrence were subject to withdraw 1 of federal funds. 
Our Cooperative Extension was never threatened with that 
sanction, but it certainly was expected to demonstrate that it 
had a positive affirmative action program. 

That requirement dictated many changes in our employee 
relations procedures. We had to change our employ-recruitment 
procedures. We had to develop procedures for handling grievance 
charges by employees who felt that they were victims of 
discrimination. The policies and the implementation of 
affirmative action programs were not accepted, I would say, 
enthusiastically by the entire organization because there were 
those who had been employees for years who questioned the need 
for special efforts on behalf of minorities and women. 

3 16 

Affirmative Action Workshops to Sensitize Staff 

Lage: Did you have any kind of training to help people come around to 

the new way of thinking? 

Kendrick: Oh, we certainly did. That was part of the plan, to conduct 
affirmative action workshops for all employees, including 
adminstrators. After I set up a personnel administrative unit 
within my organization, I supported with no reservations that 
unit's efforts to acquaint the organization by means of special 
workshops and training sessions what was expected as far as 
affirmative action programs were concerned. I participated in 
several workshops myself, and I found them quite useful. A lot 
of the prejudicial actions were not conspired to be so; they were 
the results of habit and unawareness of what certain thoughts, 
words, and deeds can do to perpetuate the feelings among 
minorities and women that they do not enjoy an equal opportunity 
status with the white males of our society. 

The sensitizing sessions and workshops were given from the 
top down. Nobody escaped these programs. And I think they were 
valuable; I think they pointed out areas that needed to be 
improved and other areas that needed to be strengthened. This 
was going on prior to, during, and after, the Strong Committee 
was investigating Cooperative Extension. That committee's report 
concluded that Cooperative Extension probably did not conspire to 
discriminate, but its organization and its practices were such 
that it was perceived to be discriminating against minority 

Failings of the Strong Committee Report 

Lage: Now, who was on the Strong Committee? Were these faculty? 

Kendrick: Mostly. 

Lage: It was a report you didn't particularly agree with, I gathered 

from what I've read. 

Kendrick: That's correct. It was commissioned by Vice President Archie 
Kleingartner, and the committee reported to him. Kleingartner 
was the vice president for academic and staff personnel. The 
committee arose out of a request from a group of complaintants, 
who had reached the Regents, the President's Office, and some 
politicians in Sacramento, who felt that Cooperative Extension 
had it in for minorities and was not giving them fair treatment. 
To evaluate that criticism, the President, who was David Saxon at 

3 17 

Kendrick: the time, asked both Archie and me if we didn't think it would be 
a good idea to commission an impartial review of Cooperative 
Extension. Of course, we both agreed that that was a logical 
next step. 

I didn't find anything wrong with the proposal; I found much 
to criticize with the product that was produced because, as I 
said earlier, the committee tended to emphasize the negatives and 
the deficiencies of the program, rather than give the 
organization credit for making efforts to bring an old and 
traditional organization up to speed in addressing some of the 
civil rights issues. If the same degree of scrutiny had been 
directed towards campuses and departments, I think the report 
would have been even more critical than it was of Cooperative 

But that's not the way things were done. Cooperative 
Extension was the one that was singled out, and therefore we had 
an unusually close review, without much chance to explain the 
positive accomplishments to the committee members. I think the 
report was produced by and large by the staff of the committee, 
and the committee members didn't do very much to alter the staff- 
written report. Nevertheless, the committee members must bear 
the responsibility, as any committee does, for the official 
report regardless of how it was put together. 

So I filed, at the same time the report was released, my 
rebuttal to it, trying to point out just what I've been talking 
about some of the positive accomplishments and suggesting that 
some of the allegations had a basis other than discrimination. 
But there was just enough fire underneath all the smoke to 
convince me that some of the people in Cooperative Extension 
really didn't show very good judgment in dealing in various ways 
with minorities. So there was no attempt on my part to say that 
the report was all wrong; it was my feeling that all the efforts 
to try and move forward were dismissed and unrecorded. 

Commitment to Excellence and the Work Ethic 

Lage: And, from what you've just said, some of the moving forward had 

led to all the disputes that arose. 

Kendrick: That's right. The moving forward, as I've said many times, was 
never fast enough and never enough to satisfy the complaintants. 
That was expressed by Regent [Vilma] Martinez, and Regent [Yori] 
Wada, and Regent [John] Henning, the three Regents who expressed 
personal concern about this problem. I never felt that the 
majority of the Board of Regents was as critical as those three 


Kendrick: were. I think alleged discrimination is an issue that has been 
before the University for quite some time, and that it has 
emerged as a top priority due to the changing demography of 
California, where minorities are on their way to becoming 
majorities, just by population changes, and that the University 
is trying to adjust to that demographic shift. The area in which 
the University of California acknowledges that it discriminates, 
whether it be in personnel actions or programs, is in favor of 
excellence. We make no bones about it. We discriminate in favcr 
of the work ethic, in a sense that we expect people to perform at 
the top of their capacity, and we expect their performance to be 
creative and first class. 

And that, I think, is where the University has a problem 
adjusting to cultures that do not necessarily reward that kind of 
devotion to duty. The yardsticks are a little longer. The 
public school system has slipped in regard to the demands for 
performance in some of the basic skills; the grading system has 
slipped. The public schools seldom fail anybody any more for not 
performing, and they find other excuses for granting a passing 
grade, or shift them into classes that are less demanding, or 
what have you. So performing in the rigorous environment in 
which the University of California has excelled is a major 
challenge for high school graduates with marginal preparation for 
the University's demanding curricula. 

The charge that we could add more minorities to our work 
force if we would just go out and look for them, has always been 
one I've had difficulty dealing with. If you look at some of the 
graduation rates of minorities in some of the technical 
disciplines that we seek staff for. the availability pool is 
virtually nonexistent. Several years ago. there were only two 
black Ph.D.'s granted in mathematics in the U.S. Well, two are 
not enough to make a difference in the affirmative action goals 
when one considers the nation as a whole. The dropout rate in 
high school of Hispanics and blacks, particularly the males, is 
an embarrassment for society and a smoldering ember of future 
serious problems for all of us. If these youngsters do not 
complete their high school education, they're certainly not going 
to be candidates for any position with the University of 
California, either as students or as staff. 

So it's a major problem of trying to meet the hopes and 
expectations of minorities, as I understand them, and trying to 
maintain the institutional quality that the University of 
California is noted for. And that was another part of the 
problem with which we had to deal in changing Cooperative 
Extension's ethnic mix and its personnel practices. 


Kendrick: But we moved forward, and Jerry Siebert, who received most of the 
alleged charges for not managing effectively, was nevertheless, 
in my judgment, doing all that he could to promote affirmative 
action goals for both employees and Cooperative Extension's 

Lage: As you spoke with him personally, did he seem committed to making 

these changes? 

Kendrick: I never had any doubt that he was committed to try to incorporate 
minorities in the work force as well as broaden the programs to 
meet the needs of minority communities. But he also was 
committed to excellence and good performance. That's always been 
a difficult thing for me to deal with because our critics never 
acknowledged that what appeared to them as acts of discrimination 
were most often actions which resulted from deficiencies of 
excellence or poor performance. That doesn't mean that 
excellence and top performance are racial traits. But they 
certainly are what I think we have to hold out for as far as the 
University of California is concerned. 

Role of the Regents and the Work Ethic 

Lage: Tell me more about dealing with the Regents. Would you deal with 

them as individuals as well as at the Regents' meetings? 

Kendrick: In both ways. During the height of the allegations of 

discrimination and alleged lack of administrative skills in 
dealing with the problem, Kleingartner, Saxon, and I met more 
than once with the group of Regents whom I have named. 

Lage: Just these three, Martinez, Wada, and Henning? 

Kendrick: Stanley Scheinbaum was a part of that group also. Stanley was a 
long-term Regent, very interested in the University a good 
Regent. In fact, they were all good Regents. They had a 
particular concern about these allegations because they were 
receiving lots of information, in the form of phone calls, 
letters, and student newspaper articles, with allegations that 
described personal events. The employee union on the Berkeley 
campus took an active role in promoting these allegations on 
behalf of Cooperative Extension's grievances. 

Lage: I remember from the FSM movement the criticism of the Regents 

interfering too much in the University. And yet just a few years 
later, when it's perceived that maybe through pressure on the 
Regents you can make changes, people do expect the Regents to 
step in. 


Kendrick: Well, that certainly was my experience. To the credit of those 
with whom I met frequently trying to convince them that things 
were not as bad as was being painted and that we were making 
changes to improve the efforts in affirmative action I felt that 
they weren't really meddling in the day-to-day operations. They 
were really concerned that we were not addressing aggressively 
enough what they saw to be a major deficiency in Cooperative 
Extension's treatment of its minority employees. And since 
Cooperative Extension had been examined very closely by the 
Strong Committee, we received more than average attention because 
the committee's report contained some evidence that all was not 
right in our operations. 

So I would say that Cooperative Extension bore the brunt on 
behalf of the entire University, of allegations of deficient 
affirmative action efforts and violations of the Civil Rights 
Act. But I need to point out that the other parts of the 
University did not have the kind of diverse clientele to deal 
with that Cooperative Extension did in extending some of its 
programs. We were dealing with a relatively undereducated part 
of the minority population whom those concerned with students and 
faculty would never come in contact with. That made a 
difference, also. 

To the credit of the President, he backed my position almost 
completely. He didn't demand that heads roll and that we make a 
lot of adjustments. I did make some personnel adjustments; I 
felt that there was enough deficiency in the management of our 
personnel office to warrant a change there. 


Lage: Would that be personnel for the whole division, or just for 

Cooperative Extension? 

Kendrick: That officer handled personnel matters for the whole division, 
but the major areas of activity were in Cooperative Extension 
because personnel in the experiment station were really the 
responsibilities of the campus administration. So it was in 
Cooperative Extension where I had direct concern about personnel 

The Affirmative Action Program in Extension and Its Positive 
Accompl ishments 

Kendrick: One of the changes recommended by the Strong Committee with which 
I reluctantly agreed was to appoint an officer who reported to me 
aa an affirmative action officer. That office would then operate 


Kendrick: in a way that would help move plans forward for affirmative 
action programs. It would be a clearinghouse for anyone who 
needed extra help and attention in affirmative action matters. 
It was also a place where staff could lodge their complaints and 
allegations and know that they would be brought to the attention 
of the vice president because the affirmative action officer was 
responsible only to me. 

I asked Zeke [Hezekiah] Singleton to be the acting 
affirmative action officer until we could recruit a permanent 
appointment. Zeke at that time was the associate program leader 
for 4-H and youth programs and was a respected operating officer. 
It was a good interim appointment. He put to rest some of the 
ruffled feathers. But his career was really devoted to youth and 
4-H, and he wanted to get back to that program as soon as 

The affirmative action officer whom I appointed as a result 
of the recruitment process was Eugene Stevenson. Gene had been 
in the dean of student's office on the Davis campus before he 
joined my program as the affirmative action officer and 
functioned in that capacity until about the last year of iny vice 

In addition to appointing an affirmative action officer, we 
developed an office that had responsibility for completing the 
many reports required in affirmative action programs as well as 
the responsibility for developing affirmative action plans 
acceptable to the USDA, the federal oversight agency for this 
program. This office also had to accumulate data that identified 
areas of accomplishment as well as areas of deficiencies. 
Affirmative action analyses have become very sophisticated in 
which potential minority employee availabilities are compared 
with the rate of change in your organization as a measure of 
whether any progress is being made in achieving affirmative 
action employment goals. 

Lage: So they take into account the nature of the work force that's 


Kendrick: Yes. Even though the data may be deficient, the methodology is 
sound. The analyses, however, may lead to false conclusions. 
For instance, if you're looking for plant pathologists to add to 
your extension specialists' staff, you have to know how many 
minorities are available in the graduating pool of Ph.D.'s in 
plant pathology. Well, that's not all that easy to come by 
because the categories used in national registries usually are 
not specific enough to identify all the technical specialties. 
It is likely that plant pathologists would be included among all 
biologists and that isn't very helpful in trying to use that data 


Kendrick: in the analyses or for recruiting pools. So there are glitches 
in the data. But nevertheless, they are used to make 
measurements of progress. 

The Affirmative Action Office, I thought, while performing 
as well as it could, was really on the outside of the 
administration. It could bring information to the attention of 
the line administrators and make them aware of areas needing 
improvements, but it had no direct involvement in administering 
personnel actions. I've never really felt that an affirmative 
action office or officer who was only an adjunct to the line 
administration was the most effective way to accomplish the goals 
of the program. So my ultimate goal was to eliminate the 
affirmative action officer, and hold all of the line 
administrators responsible for accomplishments. That way you can 
measure their actions against their intentions and do something 
about it. 

So about a year before I retired I changed the affirmative 
action officer into an ombudsman, which was more characteristic 
of the activity he performed. He was available to listen to 
people and to attempt to resolve conflicts at all levels of 
employment in our division. He reported only to me, but he had 
the freedom to work with everyone in the division wherever his 
service was useful. In making this change I then held the 
administrators in Cooperative Extension at all levels responsible 
for moving forward on the affirmative action plans. 

Lage: And doing the reports as well? 

Kendrick: We had the reports prepared in Cooperative Extension's planning 
office, and moved the affirmative action staff to the division's 
personnel unit. So the reports got produced along with other 

Lage: But that change didn't reflect a lessening of the commitment or 

Kendrick: It certainly didn't. In fact, I thought it improved the 

commitment. But the critics suggested that we were backing out 
of our program because we were doing away with the affirmative 
action officer. 

Lage: Did Eugene Stevenson become the ombudsman? 

Kendrick: Yes. Eugene became the ombudsman. 
Lage: How did he feel about that? 

Kendrick: He felt reasonably good about it. Gene had suffered some criti 
cism during the time he was our affirmative action officer. Some 
people felt that he had joined the establishment, so to speak. 


Lage: He was a black man, I'm assuming. 

Kendrick: Yes. He was a black man. But he was accused of ineptness and 
not moving forward fast enough, and he unjustly I thought was 
accused of some irregularities in personnel dealings. So he lost 
credibility to some extent as affirmative action officer. But I 
told him when I offered him the position that I expected him to 
work himself out of the position, out of the job. I wasn't 
suggesting that he work himself out of employment, but I looked 
forward to the day when we would not need an affirmative action 
officer, because all administrators would be pursuing affirmative 
action goals in the course of discharging their regular duties. 
By having special affirmative action offices, there is a tendency 
for some administrators to defer to that office some actions 
which the administrators ought to be pursuing on their own. 

Some of the positive things we did, and Jerry Siebert is to 
be commended for this, was to introduce affirmative action 
accomplishments into the evaluation criteria for advancement of 
all the academic employees in Cooperative Extension. They had to 
show some evidence of accomplishment or commitment in affirmative 
action activities. And I recall several occasions when Jerry 
refused to promote people who had consistently ignored the 
program and failed to make any efforts in the affirmative action 
area, even though they had contributed effectively enough in 
other areas to have been advanced. 

Lage: Would this be affirmative action as regarding the organization, 

or regarding the programs serving the minority community? 

Kendrick: Well, it was a mixture of both. Every member of Cooperative 

Extension wasn't expected to have the same kind of affirmative 
action program. Some, most administrators, worked with personnel 
while our advisors and specialists worked mostly with clientele. 
We expected all of our employees to make some effort in affirma 
tive action. But those who consistently resisted making any 
effort whatsoever, or who were outspoken critics of the policy 
were held back in their normal rates of advancement in our system. 

That personnel policy wasn't something we could toot our 
horn about because we were dealing with people and personnel 
actions, and it was the kind of information I did not enjoy 
reading about in the Daily Calif ornian or the local press. There 
was always the possibility that we would stimulate some litiga- 
ation because of these actions. So we continued quietly to make 
our personnel program responsive to affirmative action goals by 
imposing sanctions where and when it seemed appropriate to do so. 

Our recruitment procedures were changed to include women and 
minorities in the search and selection process, as well as 
increasing our recruiting efforts at institutions that had 


Kendrick: records of graduating minorities and women. We were modestly 

successful and probably more successful than other parts of the 
University. From the time I was appointed vice president, 
Cooperative Extension went from all white male county directors 
to where there must have been a dozen to fourteen county 
directors who were female by the time I retired. The director of 
our personnel unit was Nancy McLaughlin. The leader of the 
planning and analysis unit in Cooperative Extension was Doris 
Smith. So women were moving into responsible administrative 
positions in Cooperative Extension, starting mainly in the mid- 

Not only were women moving up in our administration, but so 
were the minorities. When I retired, we had two Asian male 
county directors, two male Hispanic county directors, and several 
black female county directors, one of whom was in Los Angeles 
County. So I felt that we were making good progress in our 
efforts to make all priorities in Cooperative Extension available 
to anyone who was qualified. The other thing that pleased me was 
that the stereotyped female assignment in Cooperative Extension 
is history because we now have female livestock advisors and 
other agricultural advisors, as well as female specialists in 
pest control positions. When I came to University Hall in 1968, 
females in Cooperative Extension were confined to the family and 
consumer sciences or 4-H programs. Now they are out in the field 
rubbing shoulders with the traditional aggies. That is a 
positive sign of accomplishment. 

Lage: Did you get any feedback on how they were received by the 

agricultural population? 

Kendrick: Surprisingly, it didn't bother the agricultural population. 

[laughter] I never had any complaints that came to me directly. 
I don't doubt that some eyebrows were raised and some questions 
raised about whether these young ladies knew anything about 
agriculture or not, but I think their performance put these 
criticisms to rest. 

The Division's Exchange Program with Southern University in 

Kendrick: One of the other programs that I am quite proud of was not a 

Cooperative Extension program, and it never got much publicity. 
Lowell Lewis was concerned that we weren't making much progress 
in affirmative action in the Agricultural Experiment Station, and 
of course it was much more difficult to do so because, as I've 
indicated earlier, the personnel are campus-based, and the recruit 
ment of faculty was the responsibility of the campus administration. 


Kendrick: We felt that we had to make a positive effort to see if we 

couldn't get the pool of eligible minority candidates for faculty 
positions increased. The way to do that is to increase minority 
enrollment in graduate programs. That is what we set out to do. 

Lowell Lewis had spent six months in Washington. D.C., in 
the National Association of State Universities' and Land Grant 
Colleges' office before he joined my staff. He had struck up a 
friendship there with a man in the association's office who was 
in charge of the public Negro colleges of the South, and this 
officer ultimately went to Southern University in Louisiana, an 
1890 public university for blacks. 

That seemed like a good opportunity for the Division of 
Agriculture and Natural Resources to establish a relationship 
with Southern University to see if we couldn't encourage bright 
undergraduate students to pursue graduate training in some of the 
agricultural sciences. So we entered into a formal agreement 
with Southern University and the division and had four campuses 
committed to participating in the program Riverside, Berkeley, 
Davis and Santa Cruz. 

We put together a policy committee with Southern University 
people, representatives from these four campuses, and our office 
on it. We brought students from Southern University to 
California during the summer for a two-week period to see the 
programs being offered at the University of California, and to 
get acquainted with some of the research that was being 
undertaken. In addition to that program, we were hopeful that we 
could have an exchange of faculty and, in fact, did exchange a 
few faculty between Southern University and the University of 

Lage : This would be for a semester? 

Kendrick: No, it worked out to be most convenient for the summer time. 

One of the faculty members from the New Orleans campus of 
Southern University came out and spent two summers in the 
laboratory of Professor [Bob B.] Buchanan at Berkeley. That was 
really quite a successful contact. 

Lage: Did this lead to more graduate students coming out of Southern 

University to UC? 

Kendrick: I'm not sure that it did. We attempted to identify potential 
graduate students by their junior year, so that they could go 
back and make up any deficiencies that they had in their 
undergraduate program. Several students expressed an interest in 
our graduate programs, and a couple of them were admitted, I 
think, to the Ag Econ program at Davis. Whether they ever came, 


Kendrick: I don't know, but I think not. But they certainly got offers to 
go other places. We weren't looking necessarily at the students 
who were in agricultural programs at Southern University; we were 
looking for students who were in science. That seemed strange to 
them because they thought if they were going to go into an 
agricultural program that they had to have an agriculture majcr 
as an undergrad. Modern agricultural science consists of 
biotechnology, chemistry, business administration, and nearly all 
of the professional disciplines you normally find in a 
comprehensive university. 

Today's agricultural producer and processor need a greater 
range of disciplinary knowledge than you usually find in a 
college of agriculture curriculum which concentrates on 
production processes. In our graduate program, we want people 
trained in the basic skills, so a chemistry major, or someone 
majoring in premed is probably just as valuable to us for our 
graduate programs as those who pursue undergraduate agriculture 
majors. As a matter of fact, many who use that channel won't 
qualify for our graduate programs. That was kind of a shock to 
Southern University people because they hadn't perceived that 
entry to agricultural science graduate programs was open to 
graduates with undergraduate majors of general science and 
biology programs. 

That was part of our mission, too. We wanted to break down 
the stereotype that the only opportunity for blacks in 
agriculture was in farming. I think that has been a majcr 
problem in trying to encourage minority involvement in 
agriculture because historically their experience with 
agriculture was as a field laborer. They haven't recognized 
agriculture's change to a science-oriented, business-oriented, 
international policy-oriented activity. The continued use of 
poorly educated agricultural field laborers, who are mostly 
blacks or Mexican emigrants, makes it difficult to change the 
perception that opportunities in agriculture for those minorities 
go beyond field labor, if they educate themselves properly. 

Lage: It's been something they probably want to get out of, if they're 

interested in advancement. 

Kendrick: That's true. And the attraction to the ambitious minorities who 
want to get away from their restrictive home experience is to go 
into medicine or law or politics or teaching. The role models 
are there. We don't have any real good role models in 
agricultural science. A few traditional ones, but 

Lage: George Washington Carver. 

Kendrick: George Washington Carver, but what's happened since? 


Kendrick: I visited Southern University for several days and found it a 

delightful experience. I never felt out of place whatsoever. I 
pointed out to the people administering our joint program that if 
we could produce a highly qualified black male or female in 
genetic engineering, that person would have unlimited 
opportunities for employment. Employers are looking for that 
kind of skill in minorities, I'm not sure that that message is 
really understood yet, but the opportunities are unlimited for 
well-trained minorities and women in this area. I don't think 
the women are suffering too much now because, for the most part, 
they've broken the barriers which kept them out of the agricultural 
sciences. But there still are not enough females majoring in the 
hard-science areas to satisfy the marketplace, even though it's 
much, much better than it used to be. In my own profession of plant 
pathology, I think nearly half the graduate students are female. 

Lage: That's interesting. That's quite a big percentage. 

Kendrick: That's a big change. I really feel that the Division of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources has done a first-class job in 
trying to move forward in affirmative action and civil rights 
areas, much more than it has received credit for. 

Lage: With so much attention focused on you, did you move faster than 

you might have? 

Kendrick: We might have moved faster because we were under the gun. But 

this Southern University-Division of Agriculture program was not 
an inexpensive program. We devoted a considerable amount of our 
own resources to it. We employed Prentice Hall, a former Ph,D. 
chemist from DuPont, who was a graduate from Southern University, 
to manage this program. He proved to be just what was needed to 
run the program. He was fully committed to excellence and top 
performance. His aggressiveness and stubborn adherence to 
standards caused some problems but he knew that anyone who was 
less than a top performer wouldn't cut it at the University of 
California and he didn't want to have any failures on his hands. 

He worked day and night on this program for about three 
years. Of course, we funded him completely, but he managed to 
secure additional support from both the USDA and the National 
Science Foundation for this program. 

Lage: But you don't think you really got many results? 

Kendrick: Well, the cost-ef f ectiveness was just not there. We stimulated 
some of Southern's students to think about going on to graduate 
programs, no doubt about that, but they didn't necessarily wind 
up at the University of California. That was not all bad, but 
I'm not sure how long you can afford to run a program like this 
when you don't have any increase in your own graduate program. 



Lage: Is that program still running? 

Kendrick: Well, I'm not sure. It was running the day I left. I don't kr.ow 
what my successor has done with it. There have been some 
administrative changes also at Southern University, from the 
president on down, and the person who was our original contact 
and developer of the program at Southern University is no longer 
there. The new administration had taken over before I retired 
and were fully committed to the goals of the program, but they 
didn't have much money to put into it. We were moving from two 
to four students from and to Louisiana, supporting them for two 
weeks, supporting their transportation here and providing them 
with a stipend to compensate for lost wages which they may have 
otherwise earned during the summertime. These are things you 
don't often think about in terms of costs of affirmative action 
programs. We would have never brought this about if we hadn't 
had Prentice, who thought about the program constantly, and 
worked with committees, sought out interested faculty at the four 
cooperating campuses, and worked with the deans' offices at the 
Davis, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Riverside campuses. He also had 
to coordinate the University of California's program and 
participants with a similar organizational set-up at Southern 

Lage: He sounds like quite a person. 

Kendrick: He was a dynamo. People who think that just writing a program 
for affirmative action is all you need to do are whistling 
"Dixie" in the dark, because it will not come about voluntarily. 
You must make a firm commitment to the goals and invest major 
resources in it. This effort demonstrated to me that if you're 
really serious about affirmative action, you must be prepared to 
place significant resources into the program. 

Lage: And over the long run. 

Kendrick: And not do it just for one year, you're right. It has to be a 

long-term commitment so that people will ultimately believe that 
you mean business, rather than implementing the program 
temporarily to counteract some criticism. So I hope it is 
continuing. We had hoped to expand the program to include other 
black universities because Southern University alone couldn't 
provide enough qualified students for our need. The first one we 
had hoped to establish a similar relationship with was Howard 

Well, I guess that kind of puts a period to that kind of 


Surviving in Troubled Times 

Lage : Let me just ask you from reading the file folder you gave me, it 

looks as if you yourself were under a lot of attack. Did you 
feel that your job was at stake at the time of the Strong report? 

Kendrick: Well, upon reflection, I see that there were some who thought 
that I ought to step aside or be removed. I never really felt 
that I was close to losing my position. I think it would have 
been easy for the President to believe that he could solve the 
Cooperative Extension problems by making such a change. I doubt 
that that move would have served him very well because these 
allegations of discrimination, etc., were only a small aspect of 
a very large University program in California's agriculture. I'm 
not sure what the agriculture community in the state of 
California would have done if the vice president had been removed 
because of allegations of poor management as far as affirmative 
action was concerned. I never felt that I had lost any political 
base of support from the agricultural segment of California. 
That possible move was never discussed with me. The President 
did hold up a portion of a salary merit increase for both Jerry 
and me, on the basis that we needed to demonstrate some 
accomplishments before the salary increases would become 
effective. Financially, I never really recovered from that. I 
thought that action was taken only to gain the support of the 
four or five critical Regents and that the President gave us no 
credit for the positive accomplishments I've mentioned earlier. 
I accepted his judgment reluctantly, nevertheless, and tried to 
make some more positive changes. 

But there were a few people, up until the time I retired, 
who felt that I should have been dismissed because of these 
alleged deficiencies. 

Lage: But were there people on the other side who were unhappy with you 

for the changes you were making? Did you sense that in 
Cooperative Extension? 

Kendrick: No, I didn't. They weren't all that vocal. There were some who 
thought affirmative action was a bunch of nonsense, and that we 
were paying too much attention to people who weren't qualified to 
join their ranks. But these critics were not in positions of 
leadership and power. Most of them were down at the working 
level of Cooperative Extension, and I just accepted that as the 
noise level. But it was a period that was not comfortable. You 
never really knew what was going to show up in the public press. 

Lage: It seemed to be a very stressful period of your life. 


Kendrick: But my nature was to not toss in the towel. I knew that a lot of 
positive things were going on. and I felt that there were some 
unjust allegations that I could outlive if given a chance. I 
also felt that my removal on this basis would have been 
unsettling to the organization. 

I had a number of suggestions that I ought to move Jerry 
Siebert aside, as you read in the documentation. There was a 
concern that I didn't openly recruit for the director of 
Cooperative Extension at the time that I relinquished that title 
and position to restore a free-standing director of Cooperative 
Extension and assistant vice president. I felt that Jerry in 
operating as the associate director was doing everything that I 
expected a director to do, so it was not really a new position at 
all, it was merely retitling a position already filled, so it 
didn't require open recruitment. 

That situation was contrary to the director of the 
experiment station, which I also restored at that time to a free 
standing position, because I did not have a person in place who 
was filling the associate directorship in the same way. Harold 
Heady had functioned in that position for several years, but by 
mid-1980 we agreed mutually that our respective interests would 
be best served if he returned to the Berkeley campus as a 
professor. So there was a vacancy, and I really had to recruit a 
director of the experiment station. 

Lage: But you saw Siebert as being the effective, or the actual, hands- 

on director already. 

Kendrick: Yes. He was. He wasn't doing anything differently as the 

associate director than he did when I asked the president to give 
him a director's title. I had to persuade the president that 
Jerry was the best person for the position and that it wasn't a 
matter of creating a new position but rather a retitling of an 
existing position. I did this through documentation, pointing 
out much of Jerry's positive accomplishments. 

Lage: And Kleingartner seemed to support you, according to the 


Kendrick: Yes, he did. He thought I should have used open recruitment, but 
he didn't object to the fact that Jerry was my choice for the 
directorship. I wanted Jerry to receive credit for the positive 
accomplishments in Cooperatice Extension. In the course of his 
being director, all of these allegations continued, and some 
personnel actions continued not to be pleasing to everybody. 
Much of the criticism wasn't associated with minorities and 
women, but he was nondiscriminating in his administration of 
personnel matters. In that respect, he couldn't really have been 
accused of discriminating practices against minorities. 


Kendrick: But I think that he had a tough assignment, for all the reasons 
that I have mentioned, with Cooperative Extension's broadened 
clientele base and the heterogeneity of the backgrounds of the 
people he was working with. It was not like a campus community, 
where the faculty you're dealing with even in the different 
disciplines have all had similar educational backgrounds, and 
have had to jump through a lot of educational hoops to get where 
they are. They tend to accept the notion that if you're going to 
be around as regular faculty you've got to jump through some more 
performance hoops. That's sort of the way of the academic life. 

In Cooperative Extension, the same situation does not exist. 
All of the academic employees do not go through the same 
performance hoops, even some of the promotion criteria aren't 
explicit enough to suggest that there are differences, and that's 
a problem. I early on suggested that there ought to be a 
separate salary scale for specialists, different from that for 
advisors. It was my attempt to deal with the difference in 
educational preparation among the academic staff of extension 
because educational requirements for specialists were different 
than for advisors. And they don't need to be held to the same 
kind of research creativity and activity. 

Well, until an organization is able to mature to the point 
where they are willing to recognize those differences and be more 
explicit in what the expectations are, they are going to have 
problems. I think that the whole program in Cooperative 
Extension is still in the stage of evolution in terms of 
perfecting their personnel evaluations. But I'm pleased with the 
progress made because the organization has come a long way in 
self-governance since 1968 when I arrived on the scene. 

Lage: So this is all ongoing. 

Kendrick: Yes. 



The Water Resources Center and Its Archive 

Lage : Let's turn to those programs outside of the Division of 

Agriculture that you administered. 

Kendrick: All right. In the course of the eighteen and a half years that I 
was the vice president, there were a number of programs that were 
not under the division organization for which I was the 
responsible administrative officer in the President's Office. 
The one that I inherited right from the start was the Water 
Resources Center. That had been created, I don't know precisely 
when, but I think under Dan Aldrich's administration, or at least 
in that era [established 1956]. It was conceived in an attempt 
to coordinate and fund specific research proposals of the faculty 
members on any of the campuses of the University of California 
who were doing research in water matters. In the early stages of 
the program, it had mostly a technological orientation, the sea 
water conversion laboratory, and research dealing with the 
engineering aspects of the water storage and tranportation. 

Lage: Did it begin during the did it have anything to do with the 

California Water Plan, the interest of Pat Brown and ? 

Kendrick: Well, that certainly didn't hurt it any. I'm fuzzy relative to 
the period when it was established. The action which supported 
this effort in coordination was federal legislation administered 
by the Department of Interior. The legislation authorized the 
establishment of a network of water centers in each state much 
like the agricultural experiment stations. I know Dan Aldrich 
had a great deal to do with developing that piece of legislation 
because it was sponsored by the land grant association which I 
have referred to several times [the National Association of State 
Universities and Land Grant Colleges]. The association was the 
overseer of the legislation as it was progressing through the 
Congress and getting approved. 



Kendrick ; 


The act authorized an allocation to institutions [one per state] 
to set up water centers or water institutes. So there are quite 
a number of water centers or water research institutes in the 
United States, and they also are expected to work with state 
government water agencies as well. The University of California 
decided early on, I think wisely, that the main use of the 
allocated funding for water studies in this state would be 
granted to faculty to pursue research studies and to support 
graduate students. 

UC officials also decided that it would be governed by an 
advisory committee composed of faculty representatives from all 
of the campuses that participated in the program and chaired by 
the then- university dean of agriculture, or when I took it over, 
the vice president for agricultural sciences. So for eighteen 
and one-half years I chaired the Water Resources Coordinating 
Board with representatives from each of the campuses except San 
Francisco. It was a good experience. The board set the 
policies, made recommendations concerning grants to fund faculty 
proposals, and also maintained at UCLA and at Berkeley what is 
now known as the Water Resources Center Archives. The actual 
day-to-day operation of the center was the responsibility of a 
director appointed by the President. Professor Art Pillsbury 
(UCLA) was the director when I oook over the board's 
chairmanship, and later Professor Herb Snyder (UC Davis) was 
appointed director. Herb served in this capacity for ten years. 

The archives at Berkeley are world-renowned as a first-class 
collection of water documents, accumulated through the years by 
people who have been active in water policy and water management 
matters. It is located in what used to be the engineering 
library in O'Brien HalL After struggling for many years in 
rather inadequate quarters, I think it's handsomely housed now. 

Is it part of the Water Resources Center, then? 

Yes. It's supported completely by the Water Resources Center. 
So there is a real tangible asset associated with the 
establishment of the water center in the development of the 
archives. Part of the center's archives is in an archival 
collection in the engineering school at UCLA. It's not nearly as 
big or well housed as the Berkeley archives, but they're linked. 
They are managed by the director of the Water Resources Center, 
and the two librarians report to the director. 

And is this a cross-departmental effort, I assume? 
that are supported are in various departments? 

The faculty 

Yes, they are. The only common link is water research. 


Broadening the Disciplinary and Geographic Bases 

Kendrick: As I said, the early coordinating board was dominated by 

technological considerations. I felt two changes in the board's 
composition were important to make, and the board agreed. The 
programmatic change needed was to broaden the agenda to include 
more economic and sociological considerations. The effectiveness 
of policy changes needed to be enhanced, and I wanted the advice 
of the coordinating board to make a difference. To do this we 
had to have people on that board who were active administrators 
on their campuses, who could make changes not just a board 
composed of faculty making noise about things, but the action 
people. So we judiciously sought to have the chancellor nominate 
people who were part-time associate deans, or deans, or program 
directors, or what have you, with some administrative 
responsibilities and who also had a faculty appointment. Second, 
we and I had a good deal to do with this wanted to broaden the 
disciplinary base of representation. 

We kind of worked ourselves into an impossible situation, 
because we decided we wanted the social sciences represented, the 
humanities represented, and the sciences, as well as semi- 
administrators in some cases, and good campus distribution. The 
difficulty is that with so many restrictions it was hard to find 
enough qualified people. But we managed pretty well. 

We felt, and I supported this, that we did not necessarily 
need to support agricultural programs, even though they were not 
to be ignored by the center. There was not enough money in the 
whole program to supply the research needs of irrigation studies 
in agriculture, as a problem set, besides which the Agricultural 
Experiment Station already had a good deal of activity devoted to 
these kinds of studies. The value of the programs overseen by 
the water center was that they went outside of agriculture, and 
they also engaged faculty from campuses other than Davis. 
Riverside, and Berkeley in the studies. 

So, that was done. We tried to get all eight campuses we 
kind of ignored San Francisco because they didn't have a program 
in this area but all eight campuses represented on a rotating 
basis for three-year terms, and we tried to get law and the 
social sciences, public policy, and science and engineering 
represented. We found that we had to look for a dean at Santa 
Cruz, for example. We didn't have a lot of degrees of freedom by 
the time we got the cross-hatching demand put together, but it 
did work out reasonably well. 

It was one of the most satisfying experiences I've had in 
the University, chairing that coordinating board for the water 
center. I found it stimulating in an academic sense because we 



Lage : 

brought together from different disciplines people with a common 
interest, in both policy and technology of water use, water 
transport, storage, and public policy. The director who was 
selected by Chet McCorkle and me to succeed Professor Arthur 
Pillsbury was Professor J. Herbert Snyder, an ag economist at 
Davis. He was the director of the center for ten years; for the 
bulk of the time that I had anything to do with the center in an 
active sense. 

Herb's predecessor. Art Pillsbury, was a irrigation engineer 
at UCLA, on the UCLA faculty. One of the last acts I had to do 
before I retired was to replace Herb Snyder, who retired three 
months ahead of me. I was able to get that done in the last few 
months, and selected Professor Henry Vaux. Jr. 

And what is his field? 

Resource economics, but with a special interest in agriculture. 

He really followed in his father's footsteps pretty closely. 

Henry is at Riverside, on the Riverside faculty. He's had some 
direct experience in water policy, nationally, and he also served 
on the coordinating board for the water center. 

Chairing the Interdisciplinary Coordinating Board 



What other kinds of things did the coordinating board do? 
mentioned it was such a satisfying experience. 


Well, I think the satisfying experience was the academic 
stimulation that I got, and I think my colleagues also 
experienced the same degree of satisfaction. There was a genuine 
feeling of camaraderie. 

Did it work out bringing people from all these different 

It certainly did. It was said to me by one of the members of the 
coordinating board that this was such a unique experience, that 
this is the one board where everybody seeks to stay on. Of 
course, we sometimes had a hard time not reappointing them 
because you get well acquainted and you know how to deal with 
your colleagues. Our meetings tended to become more seminars on 
policy, discussions of policy, and sometimes candid discussions 
about the management of the center and the management of the 


Kendrick: We spent a lot of time trying to get the archives up to speed. 

where they would be a real service. At one point, I felt that it 
was going to consume all of the money we had available just 
supporting archives and was trying to give them to the library. 
But the Berkeley librarian, supported to some extent by the UCLA 
librarian, wouldn't agree to maintain the integrity of the 
archives. We felt that it would lose its value if it were 
dispersed, so we backed off that move. 


I was willing to grant a certain amount of the budget to the 
library, but I was not willing to commit the budget in perpetuity 
to support the archives, hoping that the regular budgeting 
process of the library would in time be augmented enough to make 
the archives a regular unit of the library, supported through the 
regular budgeting process. But we didn't bring that about, and 
so we dropped that tactic. 

The individuals who served on the coordinating board were 
historians at Davis, UCLA; the economists at Santa Barbara, 
Davis, and Riverside; the public policy people from Santa Cruz 
and Berkeley, and the technical engineers and water scientists 
from Irvine. San Diego, Davis, Riverside, and Berkeley. They 
were a cross-section of the faculty engaged in an 
interdisciplinary experience. I don't think this kind of program 
is offered often enough in this institution. 

Lage: Did the board make policy in terms of what kind of research 

grants would be given? 

Kendrick: Yes, it did. We designed areas that we thought needed attention, 
and we would call for proposals in those particular areas. So 
the board really managed the direction of the research more so 
than some boards do. It was truly a faculty-governed program. 

Lage: Was Luna Leopold involved in that? He seems to have an interest 

in water and to have an interdisciplinary approach. 

Kendrick: Luna was a member of our coordinating board for a while. He 

never became fully engaged in the water center activities, but 
the times he did participate with us, he was a good contributor. 
Of course, he worked with many of the people we supported and 
funded. One of the early people I locked horns with was George 
Maslach. who was then the dean of engineering. George felt that 
we were spending too much time with not enough money. George and 
I had a long relationship in other matters, in other areas. We 
sort of agreed to differ on a lot of things. George is a very 
strong personality, and a little gruff and rough in his manner. 
But I think we respected one another and got along pretty well. 
as well as most people do. with George. 


Kendrick: The water center accomplished a lot because it produced documents 
and had a publication series. Research reports came out in a 
Water Resources Center series. It supported a lot of diversity 
in its research program. It participated in national and 
regional affairs; Herb, the director, had much national exposure. 
On a couple of occasions, I traveled back to Washington to 
testify in support of legislation which was designed to increase 
the center's budget allocation. We tried to augment the 
allocations to the centers and were successful in some instances 
and not successful in other instances. 

The real deficiency of the concept, I think, is that it 
became political. The basic allocation to Rhode Island is the 
same as the basic allocation to California, and California's 
water use and storage problems are certainly much different and 
probably more complex than water problems in Rhode Island. But 
the political reality of trying to increase augmentations for one 
state requires that you do not suggest that every state didn't 
need a water center. You can never win in politics by taking 
something away from one state and giving it to another. Thus, 
the legislation for augmenting the basic allocation to each 
state's water center was equal for all states. I thought it was 
poor legislation, but that is the reality of national politics. 

I think we've probably spent enough time on the center. It 
has a good program, one of the best to induce interdisciplinary 
faculty involvement, and with good directors who see that need, 
it has contributed to a better understanding of California's 
water problems. 

Working with an External Advisory Committee 

Kendrick: One of the things I neglected to mention is that the center has 
an external advisory committee to which we paid attention. It 
consisted of people from all walks of life dealing with water and 
water policy, such as irrigation district managers, the manager 
of the Metropolitan Water District, Bureau of Reclamation 
administrators. Sierra dub representatives, Environmental 
Defense Fund representatives, and interested citizens. Sylvia 
McLaughlin from Save San Francisco Bay Association was a long 
time member of the advisory committee. 

Lage: So there you have a very diverse group as well. 

Kendrick: And those meetings were really stimulating. The director would, 
with the aid of the officers of the advisory committee, put 
together a rather stimulating program of talks and discussions. 
We allowed plenty of time for floor discussion. [laughs] And if 




the right kind of disciples of their points of view showed up. we 
had a very stimulating day of conversation about policy. Of 
course, water is an emotional subject in California, and it was 
often difficult to get down to objective consideration of the 
problem because there sometimes was so much emotional rhetoric 
associated with people's commentary. 

But I think the Water Resource Center's Advisory Committee 
by and large was pretty good. They respected one another's point 
of view, even though they differed very violently. We had 
journalists represented on the committee. It was really truly 
representative of nearly all points of view. 

How much listening to them did you do? 

How did they affect 

Kendrick: Well* we paid attention to them, but the advice was often mixed. 
We gave them documents put together by the center describing the 
goals and the roles of the center, but it proved a little 
difficult for them to make meaningful comment because there was 
such a wide diversity of points of view represented on the 

Lage: They almost have to make individual comments. 

Kendrick: In one sense, I like that kind of diversity in advisory 

committees because it allows you to go ahead and do what you 
really think you ought to do anyway. Everybody's got an axe to 
grind or at least a point of view to express, and you have to 
make judgments as to how responsive you are to their concerns. 
You make judgments relative to how serious specific comments are 
in terms of all of them. It's a lot easier to respond and deal 
with an advisory committee that's widely representative than one 
which has a single agenda item, because that item may not fit 
into the program of the division as a whole. 

I think that there is something to be learned about how to 
work with advisory committees, and how to structure them to allow 
the program to proceed in the best interests of a broader public 
rather than for just the special interest groups. That was the 
assignment that the director of the center had to undertake and 
pursue. The advisory committee members had appointments. 
Nominations of people to serve on the center's advisory committee 
came mainly from the coordinating board people themselves. 
Committee members were appointed by the President, and most 
members felt honored by these presidential appointments. 

The coordinating board memberships were appointed by the 
President also, so they had stature associated with them. We 
never dismissed anybody from this advisory committee. As long as 
anyone wanted to come to those meetings, they were invited to 


Kendrick: come. After their terms expired, we gave them emeritus status. 
No one ever felt that when they had served a term they were 
through. As long as they wanted to go to the expense of getting 
to one of these meetings, we would welcome them. And we had any 
number of people who were in emeritus status who were faithful 
attenders and who were very vocal in their contributions. 

Lage: Sounds like quite an experience. 

Kendrick: Well, the reason I've spent as much time on it as I have is that 
I think it represents one of the strengths of the outreach 
program, linked with the academic activities. 

The center in no way coordinated all of the work on water 
being done in the University of California, and it didn't make an 
attempt to do so. It would have been impossible to do so. Some 
of our external associates didn't quite understand why it was not 
possible to do so, but unless the center was supporting the 
research, there was no way to identify all the water research. 
The center maintained a comprehensive catalogue of UC*s water 
research projects, but it did not attempt to coordinate those 
which were not supported by the center. There's no single 
catalogue of published research for the faculty of the University 
of California, so there is absolutely no way to know what the 
total research and interests of the faculty are. 

Lage: That sounds like an interesting project, actually, to get 

everything keyed into the computer, all the University's 
research, and then you'd be able to search out by category. 

Kendrick: I wouldn't try to do it. [laughter] There has been some 

legislative interest expressed in that kind of program. In fact, 
there has been some legislation introduced to do precisely that. 

Lage: Probably has certain dangers, also. 

Kendrick: It does. It's hard enough for us to do it in the Agricultural 
Experiment Station, where we try to catalogue everything that's 
being done under research categories of the experiment station. 
We list publications, both in progress and in preparation. 
That's an organization which is accustomed to the expectation and 
rigidity of regularly reporting what you do. When you get 
outside of organized research units into the free-standing, 
regular faculty pursuing their own individual disciplines, where 
the quality of what they do is measured by their colleagues, then 
I don't know just how you would go about finding out what the 
totality of the University's research contribution would be. It 
would be a monumental job. 


The Printing Plant and the University Relations Office 

Kendrick: When David Saxon reorganized his office, he reduced the numbers 
of vice presidents, and he asked me if I would take on a couple 
of responsibilities that had been assigned to one of the other 
vice presidents who had resigned to go somewhere else. That was 
the University Relations Office and the Printing Department. The 
rationale for me to do that was that we had our own public 
information group, and we produced a lot of documents, not in 
hardcover print, but we had a reproductive operation out at the 
old Ford plant in Richmond. We had one printing plant, so why 
not run another one? 

Lage: How did you feel about taking that on? 

Kendrick: Well. I did it as an accommodation, I turned it over to my 

director of administrative services, and said. well, this was 
just another work assignment. It was just learning to deal with 
another set of circumstances. The printing plant is a union 
shop, and of course our cooperative extension reproduction unit 
was not a union plant. So we had a different environment and 
different criteria under which we had to operate. But we had a 
good manager of the printing plant, so much of the work was done 
by working with the manager, Donald Bell. 

Lage: What about the University Relations Office? 

Kendrick: University relations was the program with the University 

Explorer, and it had the media contacts, both for the written 
word and the 

Lage: All the media? 

Kendrick: Yes, from the President's Office, from University Hall. 

Lage: That sounds like a great responsibility. 

Kendrick: Well, I wondered how to manage it. It had a fairly large staff, 
both reporters and artists. I wondered just how to incorporate 
that into my work schedule. So I gave it to Jerry Siebert. who 
had, within Cooperative Extension, a media group. Jerry did the 
best he could to work and relate to that group, but it was an 
unhappy group. It suffered from a lack of continuity in its 
leadership, and the people who were within the group had 
difficulty working with one another. I think there was a lot of, 
as I viewed it, individual independence. We changed the 
leadership, and it improved somewhat. Valena Williams, who is 
not with the University any more, but went with KQED, tried as 
best she could to unify the group. She did a yeoman job of 


Kendrick: trying to bring things together and institute a little discipline 
in the group, but she was whipsawed by some people who were 
accustomed to being quite independent in their operations. 

As I say, we didn't begin to solve all the problems 
associated with that University Relations Office; it was just 
more of a workload than we could really handle. 

Lage: It seems like it would have been a terribly important office, 

especially at that time, when the University was under so much 

Kendrick: Well, it was. And it continues to be an important office. 
Lage: Now it's been moved to what? 

Kendrick: Well, I figured both of those extra responsibilities weren't 

compatible with my fundamental assignment, so when Vice President 
Brady came on board in the latter years of David Saxon's 
administration, and stayed on under President Gardner I don't 
know precisely when it occurred, but I said to Ron Brady one day, 
"How would you like to manage the printing plant?" I thought it 
fit within the broad definition of his work assignment as the 
senior vice president for administration. And he said, "Well, I 
dor.'t mind." So we made a change. 

Then, earlier, President Saxon had a special assistant, 
David Wilson, who seemed to me to be available to run the 
University Relations program, and one that really needed to 
reflect the needs of the President, not the needs of Jim 
Kendrick. David Wilson, the President's special assistant, 
thought well of the idea, so contrary to what usually happens in 
University Hall, I gave something up, a second program. It was a 
good move for my administration, having David take it over. That 
program now is in the portfolio of Vice President Baker, whose 
title is vice president for university relations and budget. 
Combining those two offices was President David Gardner's concept 
as he put together his administration. 

I think it's operating much more effectively now, but a lot 
of its ills didn't cure themselves, just by changing from me to 
David Wilson. It continued to be a place where there was a source 
of internal grievances and unhappiness within the staff and with 
the administration. I certainly didn't need to inherit some more 
internal unhappiness. [laughter] It was a good move on my part 
to give it to someone who had direct responsibilities for it. 

So it was a very brief association, but I enjoyed it, and I 
don't mean to say that it was all a pain in the neck. I liked 
the people, and I liked to work with the people and got 
acquainted with another segment of University people. 


Regents' Security Officer. 1976-1984 

Kendrick: Another thing I picked up just because of the consolidation of 
vice presidencies was [laughs] the Regents' security officer. 

Lage: What did that entail? 

Kendrick: Not very much. What was needed was a University officer who 

could, at Regents meetings, speak on behalf of the University to 
dissident groups who tried to disrupt the meetings, read them 
their rights, and tell them that if they continued the room would 
be cleared and they were subject to arrest. 

Lage: Did they pick you for that because of your voice? 

Kendrick: No. President Saxon picked me because I went to Regents' 

meetings and was a University officer. Well, there was one other 
reason. There didn't seem to be another VP who was in a logical 
position to do that. These were assignments that Vice President 
Bob Johnson had held, and when Bob decided he wanted to go manage 
a medical program and not continue at the University, he left 
University Relations, the Regents' security officer, and printing 
plant without a home. That's when my title changed from vice 
president of agricultural sciences to vice president agriculture 
and university services, taking on these things that were not 
agriculture, but were service activities for the University. 

I enjoyed that Regents' security officer bit because it 
introduced me to another group of University employees whom I 
would never have come in contact with and learned to appreciate 
and understand otherwise. There were the professional police 
groups on the campuses of the University. I worked with Bill 
[William B.] Beall when he was the Berkeley campus police chief, 
who was at that time also the coordinator of police services on 
all of the campuses. We would plan how we would meet potential 
disruptions at Regents' meetings. We never had any. During my 
regime, I never had to stand up before an unruly group and say 
that they were out of order and if they didn't behave themselves 
they were going to be arrested. So I considered my tenure in 
this role for about four or five years as really one of a great 
positive influence. [laughter] 

But I really came to appreciate the quality and the kind of 
people who are the University police, and what they were trying 
to do. Like the rest of the University, they are instilled with 
quality and duty. 

Lage: Did you have anything to do about decisions on where the Regents 

would meet, or how to avoid confrontation? 


Kendrick: Not where they would meet. This required that I check ahead of 

time with the secretary of the board, Marj orie Wollman, to see if 
there was intelligence about what was threatened to happen at the 
meetings. Our information system was pretty good. You could 
anticipate whether or not there was going to be one or more 
carloads of students trying to be disruptive at the meetings. We 
could prepare for that. We'd have to prepare alternative meeting 
rooms, so if we had to declare a meeting in adjournment, because 
of the disruption, we had an alternative place to go in order to 
conduct the Regents' business in a regular manner. I was part of 
that decision-making process, and it was my responsibility to 
advise the President of potential disruptions, or on the other 
hand, if there was not going to be any trouble at the meetings. 
I also had to stay in touch with the chairman of the board, and 
let that person know whether or not to expect anything, and 
suggest some things that they might do or could do, if things 
were getting out of hand. 

So I stayed in touch with the local security officer who had 
the responsibility for maintaining an environment that was calm 
and under control. I didn't mean that we didn't have any 
pickets, or sign wavings, or student advocate groups. We had 
those, but we didn't have any meeting disruptions that were 
serious, as we had had during the late sixties and early 
seventies. Those were tense times, and I was not involved as the 
security officer at that time. 

Lage : When did you take it over? 

Kendrick: Well, it was early in President Saxon's regime. Hitch would be 
'68 to '75, it was about '76. I gave that up when Ron Brady 
came. [laughs] That was another gift to Vice President Brady. 
I said, "You're the administrative officer, you're big and tall; 
the police services report to you, they don't report to me." So 
it was logical that I not continue as the Regents' security 
officer. So in due course, the President agreed to make the 
change, and Ron took that over. But that was after David Gardner 
became the President. 

UC Retirement System Board; Defining the Board's Role 

Kendrick: The other organization that I took on in 1976 was chairing the 
University of California Retirement System's Governing Board. 
That was the name at the time that I assumed responsibility for 
chairing it. It had nine members, as I recall, the majority of 
whom were appointed by the President and approved by the Regents. 
In addition, there were two faculty representatives selected by 
the Academic Senate and an elected staff representative. The 


Kendrick: staff representative on the board was elected by all of the non- 
senate members of the UCRS [University of California Retirement 
System]. You're a member of the system if you participate in its 
benefit program. 

The treasurer of the University was an ex officio member of 
the board, and the President designated one of the University 
officers to chair the board. The vice president who had the 
business and finance unit usually was an appointed member of the 

When I became chair the major concern, other than watching 
the benefit picture and trying to improve benefits, was the fact 
that it was not acting as a governing board, in the true sense of 
the name. The Regents were the governing board, as far as the 
control of the retirement system was concerned. So actions by 
the board were not necessarily final, they were recommendations 
to the President to take to the Board of Regents. So a good deal 
of my early assignment as chairman was spent persuading the 
members to recognize the true role of the board, to change the 
name of the board, to redefine the relationship of the board with 
the President's Office, the President himself, and the Regents. 
And that really meant recognizing the fact that the board did not 
govern, in the sense that it was the final decision- making body 
for the system. 

Well, giving up that name "governing board," and recognizing 
the true role of the board, was kind of a struggle. The faculty 
representatives, in particular, were reluctant to recognize the 
fact that they were not the final arbitrators of matters 
involving the retirement system. The staff representative was a 
little reluctant also, but less so. The administration 
representatives were easy to persuade. In fact, they were the 
generators of it. But it was a board that was a challenge to 
chair, because of such widely different and strongly expressed 
views. Our very conservative Regents' treasurer. Bod [Owsley B.] 
Hammond was a member as was John Perkins, who was the vice 
president-business and finance, who also had a conservative 
point of view. David Feller was a professor of law; I think he 
would recognize that I could call him a very liberal person. He 
was one of the faculty representatives on the board. His 
professional background was in labor law. 

The staff representatives often times I think felt 
overwhelmed by the faculty members. David knew the system 
backwards and forwards; he had a lot of experience serving on the 
board, and he was a very persuasive debater. But he was about 
180 degrees away from Bod Hammond's and John Perkins' points of 



Kendrick: So it was almost a given that whatever issue the administration 
would bring to the meeting agenda would be supported by the 
treasurer and the vice president business ard finance, and would 
be opposed by the faculty members and frequently the staff 
representative. The trick was to keep peace and harmony among 
the members and to keep matters going forward. 

Issues Debated by the Board 

Lage : 




What kinds of things were you debating about? 
purpose of it. 

I'm unclear of the 

The board would discuss potential augmentations to benefits, 
whether or not to extend benefits to remarried widows, for 
instance. The system is complex to administer, similar to an 
insurance system. Rules and regulations govern almost every 
decision. There was always room for different interpretations of 
some of the regulations and to liberalize the regulations 
governing the types of beneficiaries. The faculty members felt 
that the treasurer was too conservative in his investment policy. 
They felt that the market yields with which they were familiar 
could be greater than those the treasurer was reporting. So 
there was a bantering back and forth about the reports of 
investment earnings. The faculty members felt that increased 
earnings could fund benefit augmentations, or could be used to 
reduce the amount of member contributions to the system. Other 
matters debated were setting actuarial assumptions, cost of 
living adjustments for retirees, number of options for 
supplemental retirement individual contributions, to name only a 
few of the many issues discussed. 

But no decisions on where the investments would be made? 

No, no. There was the feeling by some of the faculty 
representatives that because the supplemental contributions were 
made by the faculty from their own resources, that they ought to 
have more to say about where it would be invested. 

Was there discussion about allowing employees to invest through 
other companies, like Fidelity or Calvert? Was that a decision 
the board made? 

Kendrick: That was a real issue because in the early days of my 

chairmanship. The attitude of the treasurer was that he knew best 
how to handle these funds. And that view, I must say, was 
supported by and large by the Board of Regents. The Regents 
regarded it their responsibility to manage the funds. The 
faculty felt that they were being forced to accept certain 


Kendrick: investment policies with which they didn't necessarily agree. 

They also felt that everybody's benefit needs were not the same. 
Families with two working members were covered differently than a 
family with one wage earner. There is a whole array of different 
needs as far as the benefit coverage is concerned, and the 
policies governing the system didn't always recognize this. The 
policies and regulations were written at a time when it was 
assumed that there would be one wage earner per family who was 
male, and the family would be what is today called a nuclear 
family. The system was established on the basis that the Regents 
would manage the system for the benefit of the members, and all 
that the individual members need to do was to make contributions 
to that system. 

Well, society has evolved into a lot of different 
arrangements. Today there are many more two wage earners per 
family, likely to be covered by two benefit systems. You may 
also find two wage earners per family in the same system. Sc 
there was a constant need to pay attention to those changes and 
to update the rules and regulations, the standing orders 
affecting the system. Every change in the standing orders had to 
be submitted to the board for comment and either its approval or 

The early struggle over the board's role as "governing" versus 
"advisory" was a tussle. The non-administrative members of the 
board were reluctant to recognize that their actions were 
administered by the President after obtaining regental action on 
proposals. The President was reluctant to accept the board's 
actions as final, which of course they couldn't be because the 
Regents were the real governing body as far as the system was 
concerned. The President did not want his authority compromised 
by having the board deal directly with the Board of Regents. 

Well, we finally achieved a compromise reluctantly agreed ro 
by the faculty and the staff representatives. The compromise 
resulted in a policy which stated that the President was obliged 
to report to the Regents whatever the board's position was on 
matters taken to the Regents. He couldn't just sit on the 
board's views and ignore them. We had to remind the President 
once that he had not taken an adverse view to the Regents, and it 
was kind of an embarrassment. I felt the new policy was a good 
one because it preserved the integrity of the advisory board, and 
recognized its independence from the University's administration. 

The role that I tried to assume as chair was not to stifle 
any discussion and not advocate from the chair the 
administration's point of view. Even though I was privy to most 
of the administration's views on benefit matters and often 
assumed from my own analysis the same administrative view. I 
nevertheless didn't use the chair to stifle dissenting opinion. 


Kendrick: I felt that the administrative point of view was appropriately 

expressed by the vice president for personnel administration, who 
had the responsibility of administering the system. The benefits 
program reported to him as one of his responsibilities. The 
treasurer had no direct line relation to the administration of 
the University, but related directly to the Board of Regents. He 
was concerned with the investment policy and worked with the 
investment committee of the Regents. 

We had several Regents who were thoroughly familiar with the 
retirement system and took a very paternal interest in it. The 
principal Regent who was involved, I think, with the 
establishment of the system and who maintained careful oversight 
of it was Regent [Ed] Carter. So, a lot of decisions were made 
on the basis of how Regent Carter might view the situation 
because he was very persuasive with his fellow Regents about the 
retirement system. The rest of the Regents kind of deferred to 
him concerning retirement system issues. 

Lage: His point of view was that ? 

Kendrick: I would say he was more conservative than perhaps most of the 
faculty would find acceptable. 

After we removed "governing" from the title of the board, it 
became the University of California Retirement System Board, with 
no modifier of board. Just a little name change, but you'd never 
know the hours of discussion we went through in trying to make 
that small change. But that goes with the academic system, I 

UCRS Changes under President Gardner 

Kendrick: In due course, new governance of the University took over, and we 
had the David Gardner regime, with Ron Brady as the senior vice 
president for administration. With this change Ron took over the 
responsibility for the administration of the system. Both 
David's and Ron's points of view were very different from that of 
the Saxon administration. We also had a new treasurer. Herb 

They recognized, or at least saw logic in the fact that the 
system's members ought to have an array of investment 
possibilities in their supplemental benefit program. They saw 
also that a lot of recommendations that the board members were 
making made a certain amount of sense, didn't cost a lot of 
money, and by agreeing to them it would neutralize some of the 
member dissatisfaction with the system. They were sympathetic to 


Kendrick: what was called a cafeteria-style availability of benefits, 

because everybody, as I said earlier, did not have equal needs 
for the same kind of benefits. The system is well managed and 
the investment policy has produced one of the best- funded 
publicly funded systems in existence. The politicians in 
Sacramento recognized the well-funded nature of our system and 
expressed increased reluctance to keep contributing money into 
such a well-funded system when the state was short of money. So 
we experienced a year when the state borrowed money from the 
system by not making an allocation to it. That was an action 
which caused a lot of discussion by members of the board. I 
don't need to go into the details of the management of the 
system, but chairing the board was a rich experience for me. As 
a plant pathologist, I had no previous exposure to this kind of 
activity, but as I told the President, at my age it was an 
assignment in which I had a vested interest, and one which 
contributed another chapter to my varied experiences in the 
affairs of the University of California. 

Well, with the new administration of David Gardner, the 
system was liberalized. The attitude of those managing the 
benefit system was that the benefits should reflect what the 
members desired as long as the system maintained financial 
integrity, and I think that the benefit system is much enriched 
by that change in attitude. 

I resigned from the board in 1985, when I was having some 
recurrent health problems, and the chair of the board was 
designated to serve on the special committee to study 
disinvestment of assets from companies doing business in South 
Africa. I could see that this new assignment was going to be 
fairly demanding on the chair, and I was not yet operating at 
full steam. So I asked the President if he would relieve me of 
that responsibility and give it to somebody with more vigor. 
That's when the Vice President Brady was asked to chair the 
board. He also became the member of that special investment 
committee that was chaired by Chancellor Chuck Young. 

So my experience with the board ended in 1985. It was a 
good nine years, 1976-1985. It was an enriching experience for 

A good part of the years that I was the chair. Vice 
President Archie Kleingart ner, who was not a member of the beard, 
was responsible for administering the system, because he was the 
vice president for academic and staff personnel. It was 
perceived by President Saxon to be an academic and staff 
personnel service, not a financial or administrative function. 
Archie was expected to bring the administration's point of view 
to the board, and that's -hen I decided that I would represent 


Kendrick: the board rather than the administration, even though in other 
matters I was part of the University's administration. And I 
think that arrangement worked out pretty well. 

Lage: It sounds like a good system. I wonder whether, with Brady as 

the chair, that point of view continues. 

Kendrick: Well, I think it's a bit awkward, because Ron has the 

responsibility for administering the system, and he's also chair 
of the board that presumably advises the President. So he chairs 
the board that is advising him. Well, quite frankly, I wouldn't 
set it up that way. But then, I'm not the President of the 
University, and it's his prerogative to set the board up to serve 
his needs the best way he sees it. I suspect that the tension 
associated with the whole matter of divestment of investments in 
companies that do business in South Africa, which was really a 
fairly volatile issue in the University in the 1985-86 period, 
was somewhat persuasive in his appointment of the chair of the 
UCRS board, who was to serve on the disinvestment study 

Ron had a terrific amount of experience in investments; when 
he was at University of Illinois, he had the responsibility of 
overseeing that university's investments. I think he was the 
vice president for finance or administration there. So he 
brought a good deal of experience and knowledge into his new 
assignment. My impression is that the board is run fairly 
smoothly, and the benefit program for all University employees is 
liberalized; it's quite well-funded. It's a good thing it was 
well-funded, with the recent major decline in the stock market 
[the "crash" of October 1987], It could experience a bit of a 
loss without jeopardizing any of its commitments to the members. 
I don't know specifically what kind of shape it's in now, but I 
do know it is the envy of a lot of retirement systems, and the 
total offering of benefits I think is quite good compared to 
other institutions. 

It was a genuine educational experience for me to try and 
guide discussions away from acrimony and towards positive 
accomplishments. And to the credit of the faculty 
representatives, who seemed early on to have a vendetta against 
the administration, they really reacted I thought very well. 
When David Feller would lose an issue, he'd say, "Well, I'll just 
bring it up again later." 

Lage: That's what it takes. 



Changes in Administrative Responsibilities and Title, 1952-1983 

Lage: Today's Friday the 13th, November 13th. our twelfth and possibly 

final session with Jim Kendrick. We're going to continue 
discussing programs that were actually outside the Division of 
Agriculture that you administered. Towards the end it was called 
the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. When did that 
change occur? 

Kendrick: That change occurred with the advent of David Gardner's 

administration, and the division really reflected the name of the 
title of the vice president. I don't believe that you would find 
any official action by the Regents on changing the name of the 
division. The Division of Agricultural Sciences, as I inherited 
it in 1968. was the only division in the University. It was a 
bit of an anomaly. I think the division designation was a result 
of the change from a single College of Agriculture to 
decentralized colleges at Berkeley. Davis, and Los Angeles, with 
four units of the Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative 
Extension. In earlier days the entire organization was referred 
to as the College of Agriculture, with deans serving as the chief 
administrative officers of the college. 

Harry Wellman was the first administrator of agriculture not 
to have the dean's title. His title was vice president- 
agricultural sciences, with the college and the Agricultural 
Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension reporting to him. 
And as I indicated in an earlier session. Harry Wellman created 
the free-standing director of the Agricultural Experiment Station 
for Paul Sharp, who was the first appointee to this position. 

This is a long answer to a simple question, but it is for 
the record, and since I've seen it garbled in other 
interpretations. I want to get it as clear as I remember. When 
Harry Wellman was moved up the ladder to vice president, under 
dark Kerr. they created the title University dean of 


Kendrick: agriculture, still retaining that dean's title. In addition, it 
carried some responsibility as far as personnel appointments and 
department chair designations were concerned. So all personnel 
actions were not initially decentralized. [Dan Aldrich held the 
title University dean of agriculture from 1959-1963.] 

When Dan Aldrich was appointed chancellor of the Irvine 
campus, Maurice Peterson, who had been the director of the 
Agricultural Experiment Station under Dan Aldrich, succeeded him 
as University dean. In due course Clarence Kelly came from 
Davis, from the Department of Agricultural Engineering, to be the 
director of the experiment station. And maybe if we go digging 
back through the records, we can find the time when it became a 
division and not a college, but I'm pretty sure it coincided with 
the decentralization to the Berkeley, Davis, and Los Angeles 
campuses of fairly autonomous roles to administer their own 
responsibilities, as far as college units were concerned. The 
respective college programs at Davis, Berkeley, and Los Angeles, 
and later at Riverside, were never a part of the division 

So, in order to designate a university-wide activity, the 
division title was selected. There are no other major divisions 
in the University of California's organization. This is the only 

When Harry Wellman was still active as the vice president 
for President Charles Hitch and he was helping him put his 
administration together, I think the two of them, probably at 
Harry's urging and with' some external clientele encouragement 
decided to restore the vice president's title to the division's 
chief executive officer. And since Harry had had that title 
during his regime, I think he was easily persuaded that it was an 
appropriate title for the division's CEO. So I came on board as 
the vice president and not the University dean. The title was 
vice president for agricultural sciences, and it was then known 
as the Division of Agricultural Sciences. 

When Charlie Hitch finished his eight years as the 
President, and David Saxon succeeded him, he reorganized, 
reducing the number of vice presidencies, and began to 
consolidate some activities. Some of the areas of consolidation 
had formerly been the responsibilities that Vice President Robert 
Johnson had held during the Hitch regime. In addition to the 
responsibility for the Printing Department and University 
Relations, which I described in an earlier interview. President 
Saxon gave me the responsibility for the Natural Reserve System and 
the Governing Board of the Retirement System. So there were five 
activities added to my administrative responsibilities that were 
really not within the Division of Agricultural Sciences. With 
these changes, my title was changed and with tacit approval of 


Kendrick: the President, and not with any official regental action, we 

began to refer to our organization as the Division of Agriculture 
and University Services, which reflected the change in my title. 

That term, university services, encompassed these other 
activities, including the Regents' security officer, which I 
described in an earlier interview. Most of these administrative 
responsibilities really belonged under an administrative vice 
presidency, but President Saxon didn't have an administrative 
vice president, as such. He had a vice president for business 
and finance, who was John Perkins, but he didn't serve as the 
administrative vice president. 

So, the division existed as the Division of Agriculture and 
University Services until David Gardner succeeded David Saxon. I 
visited with President Gardner during the interim period and 
suggested that I was happy to continue these responsibilities 
which were outside of agriculture, but I thought that they might 
appropriately be handled by one administrative officer who really 
had responsibility for other kinds of administrative service 
support systems. I told him I would be happy to relinquish them 
any time he wanted me to do so. 

At the same time, I said I was really interested in 
retaining administrative responsibilities for those units that 
had a relationship to biology and the natural resources, and that 
I also had a continuing interest in the retirement system. Let 
me back up and fill in on the retirement system. The statutes 
setting the retirement system up the rules and regulations, 
Regents' bylaws called for the chair of the retirement board to 
be a University officer, so there were not many choices as to who 
would chair it. It had to be one of the vice presidents, and 
since I had had it for a number of years, the easiest thing was 
to continue as the chair. And the Natural Reserve System was one 
program that I had a deep interest in, and I wanted to do 
something positive for it. Under the administrative structure 
that David Gardner was putting together, no other vice presidency 
lent itself to having the reserve system as its responsibility. 
He quickly agreed that that was appropriate, and that the subpart 
of my title, university services, was probably inappropriate. 

So, upon the announcement of his administrative staff, he 
changed my title, and the Regents approved that change, to the 
vice president, agriculture and natural resources. This made a 
lot of sense, since the Water Resources Center, and Natural 
Reserve System, and forestry were within my administration. And 
simultaneously, we changed the name of the division to the 
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Probably through 
no real official act, but by continual reference to it, it came 
into being. 


Lage: Did that change of title bring any reaction from your traditional 

clientele groups? 

Kendrick: No, they didn't react; I'm not sure they were even aware of it. 
As long as agriculture was in the program, it didn't seem to 
matter what we called ourselves. They're really more concerned 
about what we were turning out and how we were relating to their 
hours of anguish, and whether or not we were responsive to their 
needs than what our title was. They would have really raised a 
cry if the University was withdrawing its commitment to them. 

College of Natural Resources; Attempting to Establish a Special 
Emphasis for the Berkeley Campus 

Lage: You've always had forestry, which is sort of anomaly in the 

Agricultural Experiment Station, and in the Division of 
Agriculture. It's not really an agricultural concern 

Kendrick: Well, that's partially true. 

Lage: Did it get the kind of attention that the forestry people think 

they deserve? 

Kendrick: I don't think it got the attention that the foresters felt was 
due them, although Henry Vaux, when he was the dean, and John 
Zivnuska, who succeeded Henry, maintained a pretty visible and 
active program. I think forestry kind of lost some of its 
ability to be near the top for attention when jobs became kind of 
tough to get in forestry. It went through a fairly long period 
of recession. 

Forestry programs used to emphasize forests as a source of 
lumber. Dean Vaux, however, could see that forests were more 
than just sources of lumber. Why it was retained under the 
Division of Agricultural Sciences in the University of 
California, I guess I don't really know, except that I don't 
think it was a big enough program to stand by itself. Whenever 
the decision was made to include it as a part of the division, it 
found a happy home for the most part. Early on, it was a 
department, then it was a school, and then under my 
administration it was incorporated into the College of Natural 
Resources, which was an amalgamation of the then College of 
Agricultural Sciences and the School of Forestry and 

Lage: Was the creation of the College of Natural Resources at Berkeley 

something that you or your office or the statewide system had an 
influence in? 


Kendrick: We think we did. [laughter] 

Lage : Let's talk about that for a minute. 

Kendrick: From the standpoint of the Agricultural Experiment Station, I had 
a good deal of concern about the lack of a defined purpose for 
the unit of the experiment station which was on the Berkeley 
campus. During the periods when we were trying to write academic 
plans and project needs for staffing and program emphasis in the 
overview statements that were produced by my office, we were 
trying to justify the existence in the experiment station of 
seemingly duplicated units, such as three departments of plant 
pathology, three departments of entomology, and three departments 
of soils, and two departments of nematology, and two departments 
of agricultural economics, and on and on. So there was an 
appearance of duplication within the division. 

Lage: Because of your various campuses. 

Kendrick: They were located on different campuses, that's true. 

It seemed logical to try and indicate that the three units 
of the experiment station had different programmatic emphases. 
They could be justified not only because of physical separation, 
but because of the size of the state, the size of the problems, 
and the diversity of the problems. Riverside, for instance, was 
close to the desert, and it could emphasize in its program dry 
land agriculture, desert agriculture, the interface between the 
urban community and agriculture, since it was in an area of heavy 
population explosion. Its program also concentrated on pest 
control, in which it had a big investment of people and 
resources. But its natural affiliation was dry land, desert, 
irrigated agriculture, and urban agriculture, plus citrus and 
subtropical agriculture. 

The Davis program was recognized as the comprehensive agricul 
tural school; everything was there. It had ornamentals I must say 
that some of the Riverside program was in ornamentals also because 
it worked with nurseries in southern California. The nursery busi 
ness is large in southern California. Riverside also picked up some 
of the people in ornamentals who were at one time located at UCLA. 
So Riverside continued its program of research and service in the 
ornamental industry, too, but Davis has a Department of Ornamental 
Horticulture, and part of the UCLA people came up to that depart 
ment. But that didn't detract from locating a complementary 
program in southern California because these campuses are 450 
miles apart. If you were to lay the eastern seaboard onto the 
California coast, you'd find that our state is equivalent to 
about five states. So there would be five experiment stations in 
a similar geographical distribution on the East Coast, when in 
California we had just one experiment station with three sub-units. 


Kendrick: When writing this overview statement, after recognizing that 

Davis was the comprehensive agricultural campus where you could 
find all supporting disciplines for agriculture, and Riverside 
was recognized for its specialized programs including citrus and 
subtropical agriculture, that left us with a dilemma concerning 
Berkeley. Berkeley was the birthplace of the College of 
Agriculture. During Dean Hutchison's era, followed somewhat by 
Wellman's, there was movement of units from Berkeley to Davis. 
The College of Agricultural Sciences, as it was known at that 
time at Berkeley, was really a remnant of that earlier college. 
It was not a complete college of agriculture anymore. It had a 
Department of Nutritional Sciences, genetics, soils and plant 
nutrition, plant pathology, entomology and economics. 

Lage : Was there any particular reason that those things had remained 

while others went to Davis? 

Kendrick: I think size of the units kept them here, for one thing. Moving 
whole departments to Davis was not easily accomplished. There 
was a lot of tension about loss of resources from one campus to 
another, and there were people who wanted to move and people who 
didn't want to move. But nevertheless, units were moved, and 
those departments I listed were left here. Forestry was also 
left here as the School of Forestry. So there were two 
administrative units and two deans in the division on the 
Berkeley campus. 

Well, there were those of us, including the Berkeley 
chancellor, [Albert] Bowker at that time, who felt that it would 
be in the best interests of the Berkeley program to redefine its 
purpose and to improve the administrative efficiency by combining 
the School of Forestry and the College of Agricultural Sciences 
into one unit. The faculties of the two units were not thrilled 
by the administration's suggestion. The suggestion received 
semi-official status as a result of a report that the ad hoc 
committee, described in an earlier interview, consisting of 
McCorkle and Kendrick; Meyer, the Chancellor of Davis; Bowker, 
the chancellor at Berkeley; and Hinderacker, the chancellor of 
Riverside, commissioned. Harry Walker was asked to study the 
division's organization and program and to make recommendations 
as he saw their need for reorganizing the division. We placed no 
restrictions on him, so we expected some of the recommendations 
to exceed feasibility. And he made some wild ones. That became 
a document that frightened people. 

Lage: Did it suggest moving more departments to Davis? 

Kendrick: It suggested moving resources back and forth and made Riverside 

mad. By their interpretation, it didn't recognize the importance 
of Riverside, and it overemphasized the comprehensiveness of the 
Davis campus programs in agriculture. The report also suggested 


Kendrick: the amalgamation of units of the division at Berkeley. It was 
really produced as a draft document, meant only for eyes of the 
committee, the five of us. But it quickly leaked and was spread 
rather widely. There was a pretty universal negative reaction 
among the faculty; they weren't going to have these five 
administrators reorganizing their future. 

But as a result of that report, the two units at Berkeley 
got together and decided, "Well, if we're going to be reorganized 
into a single unit, we'll do it on our terms." Gort [E. Gorton] 
Linsley was the dean of agriculture at the time, and John 
Zivnuska was dean of the School of Forestry. Henry Vaux was 
active in the program, and the chairman of the Department of 
Agriculture Economics, Dave (Hark, was also active in the 
amalgamation effort. They decided that it would be in the best 
interests of the Berkeley programs in the division to combine in 
a redefined program. These individuals were very, very helpful 
and quite cooperative in bringing that amalgamation about. They 
felt that it would result in a stronger and better defined 
program with a rejuvenation of student interest in the natural 

Lage : Did it keep all the units, then, at Berkeley? 

Kendrick: They didn't suggest moving units at all. 
Lage: Just a redefining of general area and purpose. 

Kendrick: I think probably one of the toughest things to swallow as far as 
forestry was concerned was to change their status from a school 
to a department. 

Lage: Although it's such a small program now, it may have happened 


Kendrick: Well, it was a school with a single department. That's kind of 

an anomaly too, but the College of Chemistry is that way, as well. 

Lage: But I think they only had ten students a couple of years ago, ten 

graduate students. 

Kendrick: Well, they had more at the time this amalgamation was considered. 
The long and the short of this little soliloquy is that the 
faculty ultimately, with some expressed individual reluctance, 
agreed to the amalgamation. So the two units became the College 
of Natural Resources, and they sought a dean who would administer 
it because both Gort and John Zivnuska were at the end of their 
administrative assignments, and Gort was about to retire. It was 
during part of this period that Loy Sammet was the acting dean 
following Gort Linsley, and he further helped in trying to get 
the program unified. 







There was also a period of time that Dick Doutt was acting dean- 
he came out of the Division of Biological Control, a division 
within the Department of Entomology at Berkeley. My memory is 
unclear about the exact sequence, but the first free-standing 
dean with a natural resource background was Bill [William E.] 
Waters. He was recruited from the USDA. 

Now, you still have a lot of departments in the college that 
wouldn't really fit under the name natural resources, it seems. 

At Berkeley, you're right, 

What do you do with nutritional 

Right, nutritional sciences, plus various agriculture 

The faculty agreed to just accept the fact that nutritional 
sciences was to be included in the new college. Historically it 
was a very famous department. 

If not established by Agnes Fay Morgan, she was the one who 
put it on the map, a very renowned professor. It was not as much 
of an anomaly as it subsequently came to be under the College of 
Natural Resources, because home economics was what this 
department came out of, although we never really identified it as 
a home economics program. 

Lage: And part of the Agricultural Experiment Station mission. 

Kendrick: That's correct. 

The home economics program at the University of California 
emphasized nutritional sciences. Child development studies, 
design, and some other elements of a home economics program were 
the units that were moved from Berkeley to Davis and incorporated 
in their Department of Applied Behavioral Sciences. Dan Aldrich 
had something to do with these moves, as did Harry Wellman, I 

Well, what really has occurred in establishing the College 
of Natural Resources is that, unhappily, only the name has 
changed, while the definition of the college still remains the 
same. It was my hope that the restructured College of Natural 
Resources would begin to staff their departments with the mission 
of the college in mind, that the departments would become a true 
natural resource support system. Soils, for instance, in my 
judgment, should emphasize soil problems associated with 
wildlands and forestry and not try to deal with commercial 
agriculture's problems. The plant pathology and the entomology 


Kendrick: departments and economics, in particular, should focus their 

research, as far as experiment station support was concerned, on 
problems associated with forest, wildlands, and the like. 

That has really not happened. There has been some re- 
emphasis, particularly in agricultural economics they changed 
their name to agriculture and resource economics, and they have 
economists who are resource economists, but so does the 
Department of Forestry and Conservation. Both departments dcn't 
need resource economists, in my judgment. Plant pathology really 
hasn't changed its emphasis and recognized that most of their 
efforts ought to be in support of the natural resource 
commitment. Genetics is a little tougher one to handle because 
it's the only Department of Genetics on the Berkeley campus, and 
it offers its genetics to students in the College of Letters and 

That's part of what the Berkeley campus is agonizing over 
now: what to do with biology on the campus. Biology is in 
agriculture, in this College of Natural Resources; it's in the 
College of Letters and Science; it is a subject area where 
biotechnology is exploding in all areas. You find plant 
pathologists, botanists, plant physiologists, and entomologists, 
all dealing with biology and genetics. Members of the Department 
of Genetics and the unit of molecular plant biologists attached 
to the Department of Plant Pathology are all emphasizing their 
interest and activity in biotechnology and genetic engineering. 

Well, administrators see this dispersion and presumed lack 
of coordination 

Lage : It's not tidy. 

Kendrick: It's not tidy, you're right. [laughter] Somehow, you want to 

put them together. Well, the best way to group them is to build 
a building, and put them together with a common plumbing system. 
Then you begin to see natural alliances and cooperative programs 
develop. So now Berkeley is in the process of building a 
building for this group of molecular biologists. This will 
result in some realignment of individuals in different 

Then, you agonize over what to call the new organization a 
college or a superdepartment? I haven't any solution for that 
dilemma. I think that the future of the Berkeley campus's 
Agricultural Experiment Station unit will be best served by 
continuing to develop an emphasis in the natural resources, so 
that it is a program of activity and not just a family name. 
Right now, in my judgment, it's kind of a shotgun wedding. 


Lage: That more or less coincides with what Henry Vaux has suggested in 

his oral history. 

Kendrick: His impression too? 

Lage: Yes. He had great hopes for it but thinks not much has come of 

it, in terms of a changing direction or rethinking the program. 

Kendrick: That's true. Now they have a new dean. Dean Wilford Gardner. 

And I have high hopes that his administration with his experience 
and his commitment will move it further in this direction. He 
will certainly, I believe, get my successor's support for 
movement in that direction. Lowell Lewis, too, shares this 

Lage: It seems like there's tremendous conservatism there 

Kendrick: Well, it's very difficult to get people to change, because their 
professional reputations are built over many years of research in 
their specialties. The only way to bring about significant 
change is to use vacant positions and fill them with people with 
the appropriate disciplinary backgrounds and a commitment to the 
new mission. Rapid change could only occur if a major number of 
vacancies in the faculty positions occurred over a two to five 
year span. It's asking quite a bit to change the research 
interests and even the teaching interests of a person who has 
been working for fifteen or twenty years with the cotton people, 
or potato people, and emphasizing their own disciplinary 
interest. Because usually faculty vacancies occur only at the 
rate of a few each year, you make these kinds of changes only at 
the margins of the total program. If you've only got one or two 
vacancies occurring every year, you better hope that you will 
have a minimum of five to ten years and a plan to follow before 
you can really remold a college program. 

There are no real opportunities to make drastic changes in 
the academic structure because we're built upon a security of 
employment system. And that kind of defeats some people in even 
starting to make changes. I've never been one who thought this 
fact was reason enough to not try to make changes. I figure if 
you're going to learn to walk, take one step at a time. Pretty 
soon you'll be running. But if you don't start walking that just 
delays the end of the race. So my urging was always, "Let's get 
on with it," and don't be defeated with the fact that you can 
only make minor changes at the margins. Those margins will 
shrink more rapidly than you think at first. 

I'm not despairing or giving up because I think that the 
campus administration at Berkeley wants a stronger unit in the 
college. They want a unit that makes sense. Leadership is what 
is required to bring that about. 


The Natural Reserve System 

Defining Goals, Building Campus Support through an Academic 
Planning Process 





Shall we turn now to the Natural Reserve System? 
in here. 

It seems to fit 

I don't recall the exact year when I took this on; we would have 
to look in the records. 

You didn't take it on in '68, when you came aboard? 

No. It was under the vice president for university relations 
under President Hitch. It came to me when David Saxon's 
administration started, which was in 1975. It was then known as 
the Natural Land and Water Reserve System. I was not 
unacquainted with the system and thought that it had a lot of 
promise. When I started to work with Roger Samuelsen [director 
of the unit] I asked for an academic plan for the system. I 
wanted to know where the unit was going and what its purpose was. 

It seemed to me that a good part of the activity up to then 
was the acquisition of land. Because those acquisitions were 
Regents' items, those of us who attended Regents' meetings 
regularly were aware that there was a fair amount of acquisition 
activity by the reserve system. It also had a fairly large grant 
from the Ford Foundation, which required matching funds, to 
support, the acquisition of new property. But I really wanted to 
know if there was a limit to the desired acquisitions. How many- 
properties did we need? What was the goal, and what was the 

The system had a faculty advisory committee that was kind of 
self-perpetuating. The members usually nominated themselves; 
they would get their respective chancellors to make the 
recommendation to the President, and then the President appointed 
the committee. There also was no stated term of service for the 
members, so they served as long as they were willing to do so. 
The system was started under President Clark Kerr, who recognized 
the need to preserve some of these fast-disappearing unique 
habitats in the state of California, where biologists were 
conducting research. The idea of setting up a University-wide 
system, I think was recognized to be that of Professor Ken 
Norris's, who was professor of natural history/natural science at 
Santa Cruz. He was a former UCLA professor who went to Santa 
Cruz and an inspiring person. Of course, Mildred Mathias. 
professor of botany emeritus from UCLA, is also regarded as one 
of the patron saints of the Natural Reserve System. I think the 


Kendrick: University owes a deep debt of gratitude to Ken Norris and 

Mildred Mathias for the concept and the tenacity to stay with the 
idea of establishing the system and developing it into a viable, 
useful program. 

So, I was quite attracted to the system. I could see the 
need. As a biologist myself, and one who had minored as an 
undergraduate in genetics, I knew the value of evolutionary 
studies and the necessity to retain natural land reserves for 
these kinds of studies. It was a pleasant assignment, as far as 
I was concerned, and one which I felt I could administer with an 
understanding of biology. Up to the time I took over, the 
program, because of the acquisition of properties through grants 
and gifts, had been treated by most campuses as a grant program. 
More often than not, the local administration was assigned to the 
gifts officer, an administrative officer of the campus who 
didn't really pursue academic justifications for these programs. 
And other faculty members, at least, regarded the program as one 
for particular faculty interests. I felt that that was not the 
way to sustain a long-term commitment to this valuable program. 

Lage: Would the land often come via a faculty connection, a particular 

faculty who had a contact and ? 

Kendrick: Yes. We had a particularly lively faculty member at Riverside, 
who [laughs] I accused of wanting to get the entire state of 
California in the land reserve system. Bill Mayhew was a 
professor of biology there who continues to be active in the 
program. He was always bringing to our attention possibilities 
of more properties to bring into the system in order to make it 
more representative of the diverse ecosystems of the state. 
Roger Samuelsen spent a major share of his time working with 
people who were interested in negotiating terms of their gifts 
and grants and with agencies and foundations in trying to 
interest them in making grants to enhance the program. The 
program has a little state money in it, but not much. It 
functions almost completely on gifts, grants, and donations. 

I felt what was needed to bring the system better academic 
recognition and therefore improved justification for regularly 
appropriated money for its core support was to develop an 
academic plan and have it approved by the regular academic 
process on each campus. I wanted the faculty at large to buy 
into the program. We needed faculty to indicate their interest 
in the program as a valuable academic program for each campus 
and, therefore, one that should be supported just as are some of 
the other facilities that support the academic offerings on the 


Kendrick: I felt that if we could get the commitment of the faculty at 

large to the value of the program, then the chancellors would be 
easier to convince of the system's academic value. I reasoned 
that it would then be easier to obtain their commitment to use 
resources at their disposal for partial support of the system. 
Now, some chancellors were more supportive than others of the 
systems units that reported to them. But I really wanted all 
eight chancellors who had some responsibility for these outdoor 
laboratories to see them as necessary facilities where we offered 
unique opportunities for students to experience and study natural 

Lage: It sounds like a lot of politicking would need to take place to 

get that kind of commitment. 

Kendrick: Well, it didn't come overnight. We set about doing that, working 
through the advisory committee that had representatives from each 
of the campuses. 

Lage: Did the advisory committee take to this idea? 

Kendrick: Yes. There was absolutely no reluctance to do this. In fact, 
the strong supporters were both Ken Norris and Mildred Mathias. 

I think that the core staff in Roger's office, Jeff Kennedy, 
Dan Cheatham, and Bob Dering, supported it in principle, but I'm 
not sure but what they felt that it might weaken their own 
position in the overall administration of the program. It was 
never really expressed to me that way, but I have a sense that 
once you build up a university- wide unit with central control, 
then the more control you give away to the faculty, the more 
threatening it is to the centralized autonomy. But as far as I 
was concerned, this change was absolutely essential because I 
could see that in the long run, the Natural Reserve System was 
not going to be at the top of the priority of needs in the times 
of tight money if it lacked a firm academic purpose. And the 
only way to get that was to have it recognized as an integral 
part of the academic program offering on the campuses. 

I won't describe the details of how the system is 
admininstered, other than to say that there are about thirty-six 
properties. Not all are owned by the University. Some of them 
are under use agreements between the University and the Nature 
Conservancy, or the National Park Service, or the Forest Service. 
They own the property, and we negotiate basic long-term use 
agreements with them, so that when experiments are set up, 
they're not in jeopardy of being dismantled or pilfered or 
destroyed due to neglect or changes in ownership. We have 
commitments for a longer period of time for our work. 


Kendrick: Each of these properties is assigned to a campus to administer, 
which is done by a campus manager for the respective reserve 
system units. The properties that are of sufficient size have a 
resident manager to not only oversee the work program, but to 
keep trespassers away and make arrangements with students and 
research faculty to do their work at periodic times. 

Well, that arrangement works out pretty well, but it runs on 
a shoestring. The system depends upon campus commitment to 
support the local programs. All the support that is needed can 
not come from allocations from Roger's office. There is some 
funding available in the reserve system's office to allocate to 
the campuses for the reserves under their responsibility, but 
there's never enough. Never enough to support the total program 
or all of the people. So a lot of the activity is kind of an up- 
and-down activity, which depends on whether a faculty member 
using a reserve is funded through NSF [National Science 
Foundation] or some other granting agency. 

The system has compiled a good record. There has been a lot 
of student use of the facilities. Students who have been 
privileged to experience the on-site teachings of a Ken Norris or 
a Mildred Mathias, and some of their colleagues, really have had 
a rich experience. I kept telling Roger that the Natural Land 
and Water Reserve System was the best-kept secret of the 
University of California. 

Let me finish talking about the academic plan. That process 
took much longer than I had hoped. We ultimately got plans 
developed and exposed to campus educational policy committees, 
then up through the chancellors' offices. But it came at 
different speeds through different campuses, and while we have in 
form what is called an academic plan, it never really totally 
satisfied me. I think it fell a bit short of being a standard 
academic plan. But the system was a lot better known following 
this exercise than it was earlier. 

In addition to the development of an academic plan, I felt 
that the program also needed an academic leader. Roger would 
admit that, while his commitment to the program was solid, he was 
not a biologist. 

Lage: He's a lawyer. 

Kendrick: He's a lawyer. But he was not someone who could sit down and 

relate to faculty in biology or life science. I felt the need to 
have a Special Assistant for External Affairs and for 
Development. I asked Roger to assume that role for me half-time 
and reduce his commitment to the Natural Reserve System by that 
amount of time. He agreed to do so. 



Kendrick: The advisory committee saw this same need, and they agreed to 
release Roger for that amount of time. That left some support 
for a new position. Consequently, we sought an associate 
director for the Natural Reserve System who would be an academic 
person and would have the responsibility for the academic 
program. I felt this was really a crucial move because we needed 
somebody from that systemwide office who could relate to the 
faculty on their own terms. 

That was accomplished with the approval of the advisory 
committee, who participated in the selection process. That's 
when Ron Carroll came on board as the associate director of the 
system. He had a background in entomology and biological 
control. That was one more step toward emphasizing that the 
Natural Reserve System was an academic program and not just a 
land acquisition or grant program. 

Publicizing the "Best-Kept Secret" in the University 

Kendrick: Now, one of the things that I felt was a big deficiency was the 

fact that, as I said, the system was one of the best-kept secrets 
of the University of California; I didn't think it was tooting 
its horn enough. It was not utilizing techniques that we in 
agriculture felt were essential, that of telling people about our 
programs and what contributions we were making for their benefit. 

So I urged Roger to develop in the reserve system office the 
capacity to publish a regular newsletter and to get it to the 
faculty. I wanted the newsletters to describe interesting and 
exciting things that were going on at these reserves, who was 
involved, and what the significance of the work could be. So 
after a long gestation process, the Transect emerged, and when it 
came out initially it was too academic. They tried to dress it 
up; it wasn't newsy and brief. So it has gone through some 
evolutions, and the recent editions I've seen come pretty close 
to being what at least my notion of what a newsletter ought to be. 

Lage: You said initially it was too academic? 

Kendrick: Yes. It was put together by the central staff, and they wanted 
to be sure that it was edited right down to the last "t"; it was 
kind of scholarly and too long. The staff's concept of what it 
ought to include and my concept of what it ought to include were 


Lage: I'm just trying to get a sense of your role in something like 

this would you have, when the newsletter came out, conveyed your 
impression of it? 

Kendrick: I sure did. 

Lage: And say, "Let's make some changes."? 

Kendrick: Yes. To Roger, and done in a polite way. My goal was to get 
somthing short, sweet, and snappy before the faculty. I felt 
that, if we're trying to generate faculty interest, enthusiasm, 
and commitment to the reserve system they needed to know that 
these facilities were available to them to work on. 

Since Cooperative Extension produced newsletters we had help 
for the system's people to create an informative publication. 
And subsequently that was done we utilized some of the staff of 
the California Agriculture in helping to put some of the natural 
reserve material together. Roger ultimately added an editor to 
his staff, and the publication began to improve. 

So the system's program began to move into an academic mode. 
I really had hoped that a much more comprehensive faculty 
outreach program would be conducted. I had visions of the 
associate director going from campus to campus and describing 
what the reserve system was and how the reserves could fit into 
any of the many ecological studies conducted by our biology 
facilities. I also hoped to stimulate more student use of the 
reserves. I felt that there was some feeling on the campuses 
that particular reserves had only specific faculty interest and 
were regarded as individual outdoor laboratories. 

Lage: And did these individuals also see them as their exclusive 


Kendrick: Not really, but I think there was a reluctance for the non- 
involved faculty to get into the reserves for their own teaching 
and research purposes. The Riverside campus had more reserve 
properties assigned to its management than any other campus. 
Davis, when I took over, had none. We always wanted the Davis 
chancellor to commit himself to support the system, and 
ultimately, the Davis campus did pick up a couple of reserves and 
the responsibility for them. The chancellor's point of view 
changed from one of skepticism and disinterest in the program to 
one of commitment and support. Their first property was acquired 
largely because of the interest of Professor G. Ledyard Stebbins, 
a rather famous geneticist. 

Lage: I thought he was at Berkeley. 

Kendrick: He was formerly at Berkeley. 


Lage: And then he moved to Davis? 

Kendrick: Yes. When he was a very young assistant professor. I enrolled in 
his course in evolution. It was quite an experience. I was 
there with mostly graduate students, and I was a junior at the 
time. So the competition was extremely keen. The only tests we 
had that semester was a mid-term paper and the final examination. 
We didn't have the foggiest notion of what he was going to ccver 
as far as the final examination was concerned, and the whole 
grade really depended on that final exam. He was often six miles 
ahead of the class because he was such an enthusiastic assistant 
professor who was full of his subject. 

Lage: Did he convey it well? 

Kendrick: I didn't think so, not in those days. I think later on after he 
gained experience in teaching, he improved, but he remained a 
University character, but his contributions to his subject matter 
and to the University were renown. And he did provide us with a 
Natural Reserve System entree to the Davis campus the Stebbir.s 
Cold Canyon Reserve, up in the Putah Canyon area. 

The present chancellor at Davis, Chancellor [Theodore] 
Hullar. is very committed to the program. I think that we now 
have a chancellor who [laughs] will be hard to keep up with, as 
far as the reserve system is concerned, because he is a 
naturalist himself and he recognizes the value of these 
properties and the threat that they are under by urbanization and 

Lage: At this time is there any sense of collecting properties even if 

there isn't specific interest right at the moment, but with the 
idea that you need to save representative areas for the future? 

Kendrick: There is a little interest. One of the consequences of being 

persistent with the advisory committee and with Roger, in urging 
them to give us some idea of what the ultimate goals are, was 
being able to plan to acquire missing representatives of 
California's ecosystems. They busily got to work under Ken 
Morris's leadership, and produced a master plan for acquisitions 
to the reserve system. The plan described what I think is the 
ultimate system. There are some properties in northern 
California that will be desirable to acquire, either through use 
arrangements or by acquisition directly. The optimum system 
would contain representative habitats of the diverse land and 
water environments that exist in California, and since we have 
such a diverse state, it takes a lot of habitats to cover all the 
uniqueness. There is an end in sight, and I take some credit for 
trying to force that issue, so that it wouldn't appear that there 
was no end to the acquisition activities of the system. 


Kendrick: That plan was accompanied with a plan to staff and manage these 
various properties. The plan called for a major commitment of 
resources, one that I tried mightily to get approved by the 
President. I never was quite successful. President Gardner was 
quite sympathetic, and he said one of these days he would put it 
into his budget. But he said to me, "I don't want to go 
piecemeal for this. I want to wait until the program is well- 
conceived, and we know what the total cost will be, and then 
let's go for broke." That makes perfectly good sense to me, 
except that there are times when very urgent things come up, and 
they keep displacing the ones you can put off until next year or 
until the year following. 

There now exist well-developed management plans. Roger and 
his crew are quite good at this. They did a lot of consulting 
with campus administrations. That was part of the groundwork 
needed to gain significant campus commitment. I know that 
imposing a centrally written plan on the campuses without room 
for negotiation or changes is not the way to gain cooperation. 
So Roger and his staff approached each campus by saying, "Well, 
now let's develop something that's agreeable to you and that you 
think you can handle." I wanted Roger to work with the campuses' 
academic vice chancellors or some other academic program 
coordinator and to stay away from the business offices. I wanted 
the plan to be accepted as part of the commitment of each 
campus's academic administration. And that was done. So I feel 
pretty good about the plan; it just happens to be little too rich 
for the resources at the moment. But it's not an extravagant 
plan in my judgment, and it outlines a management system worthy 
of this valuable system. The system is not only available to 
University of California students or faculty, but it's also 
available to anyone who has a legitimate need for working on 
these properties. And it does, in fact, draw people from other 
institutions and school systems. 

The Faculty Advisory Committee 

Kendrick: I think we can finish by describing how I hoped to restructure 
the advisory committee. Since it had gotten to the point where 
it was nearly self- perpetuating, I felt that more people needed 
to serve on the committee so that more people would be aware of 
its program and its value. So I asked the members of the 
advisory committee if they wouldn't consider altering the manner 
in which nominations for membership on the committee were made 
and have them come from each campus's Academic Senate's Committee 
on Committees. I proposed that the nomination be forwarded to 
each chancellor so that there would also be administrative 
support for the nominees. I recommended that the President 


Kendrick: retain the right to appoint two or three persons in addition, so 
that he would feel some responsibility for the committee, rather 
than being asked to rubber stamp an already accomplished action. 
The advisory committee ultimately adopted and modified the new 
plan only slightly. I felt there needed to be active 
participation as far as the President was concerned, because the 
committee needed to have a business office representative and a 
legal representative. These representatives would not 
necessarily be identified by the faculty process. And that, I 
think, has been done. 

I also wanted the terms designated specifically, so that 
there would be staggered three-year or four-year terms, or 
whatever seemed desirable, with permission to reappoint for one 
more term. But after that, you had to go off the committee. 

Lage: Is that standard operation for most committees of this sort? 

Kendrick: Most academic committees have that kind of arrangement. Well, it 
finally got through most of the approval process, and I 
understand that it has now been adopted. Whether it's operative 
yet, I don't know. I hope that it is because I think it's a 
necessary adjunct to the rest of the changes in trying to bring 
the reserve system into the core of the academic offering of the 
University of California. When these changes are completed and 
accepted, then I think its future will be secure. 

The other thing that happened during the time I was working 
with the system was to change the long name. Originally it was 
Natural Land and Water Reserves System, a tongue twister. Well, 
there was a lot of agony expended on trying to find a successor 
name to that. Roger had an automobile license plate with NLWRS 
on it. He checked out several acronyms to see if they were free 
to be used, and he found out that the Natural Reserve System 
[MRS] was one that was not spoken for, so he said, well, he would 
be agreeable to that name. [laughter] 

So ultimately this was an official regental action we did 
change the name to the University of California's Natural Reserve 
System, a much easier name to handle. It also fits well within 
the name of the division. So I felt good about the reserve 
system. I think it's a good program, and I enthusiastically 
support it. I tried to set things in motion to secure its 
future, but that remains to be seen. 


Harold Walt, David Gardner, and State Funds for Wildland 

Lage : I had the impression when we talked about the Wildland Research 

Center that perhaps David Gardner wasn't as supportive of 
wildland-natural reserve types of programs as he was of 
agriculture. Can you elaborate? 

Kendrick: Oh. yes. The wildlands program, as I think I've referred to it 
earlier, through a good portion of my administration was an 
orphan. It had a little annual support but not enough to 
accomplish very much, When Harold Walt became president of the 
State Board of Forestry he decided that he was going to make a 
major commitment to increase support for the state's forestry and 
wildlands program. He laid the groundwork for this multimillion- 
dollar increase in resources through special symposiums. And in 
the process of doing this, he also put on his political hat and 
began to cover the bases of political support. 

Well, realizing that the University's forestry and wildlands 
program had not been able to generate sense of urgency needed to 
get the state funding augmented, when this opportunity came 
along, I figured that we might as well go as far as we could with 
it. We had plenty of planning studies that outlined what 
wildlands needed. It is relatively easy to convince people that 
we need money for crisis-type programs, such as toxic and 
hazardous waste control programs or the IPM program which 
promised to take care of the excessive use of pesticides. 

But forestry and wildland programs don't qualify as "crisis- 
type" needs. In times of limited resources they usually could be 
put off until next year. There's no real crisis involved; so a 
type of creeping paralysis takes over because of continuous 

Well, one of the major issues was whether the State Board of 
Forestry should require timber cutting plans for privately owned 
oak hardwoods in the foothills. The owners were not thrilled 
about the State Board of Forestry having anything to say about 
how they cut wood in these foothills. There was very little 
information about the effects of harvesting the oaks in the oak- 
wood forests, on the rate of regeneration, wildlife habitats and 
watershed yields. So there was a clear need for much more 
research on the woodlands in the foothills of California. These 
questions formed the basis for a report on needed research for 
these wildland areas. 

Hal Walt was enthusiastic about the proposed program and 
began to lobby in favor of it. He asked me if he shouldn't talk 
to President Gardner. And I said, "Well, if you insist, I'll try 


Kendrick: to arrange a meeting." For political reasons. I felt that David 
should meet with Hal, and I found that Bill Baker, our vice 
president for university relations and budget, also agreed with 
me. The meeting was held and Hal politely told the President 
that he would support the budget request for the proposed program 
if the President would put it into his budget request. He also 
wanted Dave Gardner to speak at one of the symposia that he was 
arranging in an attempt to gain legislative and the governor's 
support for a major increase in budgetary support for research in 
the wildland field. 

David ultimately agreed to talk at the symposium held in 
Sacramento. I participated as a speaker at the first of the two 
symposia, as did Henry Vaux, that was held in Yosemite. David's 
talk was supportive of the program, but I detected that he kind 
of resented Hal Walt's intrusion into the regular budgetary 
process. Hal wasn't modest in what he was requesting. He wanted 
us to put into our budget a million dollar increase for the 
program. That was a tall order in terms of the total research 
budget increase, especially when David had to consider some other 
critical University needs such as faculty salaries, library- 
expansion, student financial aid, increasing teaching assistants, 
and a whole array of unavoidable increases. David felt that this 
wildland issue wasn't quite as important as some of these other 
critical needs. 

Lage: And did he feel it might eventually wind up competing with other 

University needs? 

Kendrick: Sure. Absolutely. When our budget is put together, we start 

with a bottom line, a figure that we think the governor is going 
to approve, and then we start putting the ingredients together 
adding up to that total. We start with the most important and 
unavoidable items, and just go down the line. I am sure that the 
President had difficulty trading off this million dollar request 
for wildlands against some other highly desirable requests. He 
didn't feel that he wanted his options politically maneuvered. 
But Hal had connections in the governor's office, and the 
governor had made some promises to him. We decided that we 
really couldn't afford to have Hal unhappy with us. 

So I think it was not a case of David Gardner thinking that 
the program was not justified or was inappropriate, or anything 
like that. It was a case of removing some degrees of freedom 
that David felt he needed to decide what budget items should go 

Lage: I see. So the impression I got about Gardner probably wasn't 

accurate, that maybe his interest in the natural resources area 
wasn't as strong as his interest in agriculture. 


Kendrick: No, I don't think that's the correct interpretation. It's just a 
matter of priorities in terms of interests. His knowledge of the 
agricultural interests I think were probably expressed in a more 
organized manner than they were in the natural resource area. 


It is pretty easy for me to identify fifteen or twenty 
people in agriculture who come close to representing the 
diversity of agricultural interests in California, but it's much 
more difficult to do the same sort of thing in the forestry or in 
the wood products area. In forestry and wildlands there are 
almost as many interest groups as agriculture has, and they are 
no more related than some of the agricultural interests are 
related. The interest groups include the fisheries and wildlife 
people, the lumbering interests, the recreational people, the 
developers who are interested in developing second home sites in 
the woodland areas, and the furniture manufacturers in southern 
California who use the wood products. 

Lage: And the environmentalists. 

Kendrick: Yes. There is a wide diversity of interests that I was never 

able to relate to in the same way that I could in agriculture. I 
think it could have been done if I'd worked at it. It's a 
challenge to the new vice president to do a better job with that 
sort of thing than I did. [laughs] 

But the program was augmented, both through the state's 
Department of Forestry and the University budget. We got a 
significant augmentation for the program and had an infusion of 
money such as we'd never had in a long time. So presently there 
is a viable program in wildlands research and extension. It is 
under the responsibility of the director of the Agricultural 
Experiment Station, and he has identified a program leader who 
has a half-time assignment. 

I felt pleased that we got it approved, even though it did 
take a little political arm-twisting to get it. I'm not even 
sure the governor was all that happy that he'd made the 
commitment to support it, but he had a significant political 
supporter in Hal Walt, who was calling in some of his lOUs, and 
got it through. So you have to be ready to play your cards when 
you get them, and when the table stakes are right. 

I don't think that David Gardner was reluctant to support 
the program and have its budget augmented. If you pressed him, 
he would just say, "Well, sure it's a good program, an 
appropriate one for us to have, but I'm suffering in some other 
areas. " 



Agricultural Research Policy Advisory Committee 

Lage: Shall we turn to your activities on the national level? 

Kendrick: All right. The principal national activity that I got involved 
with is the Division of Agriculture in the National Association 
of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. My first exposure 
to the national scene of agriculture occurred early in my vice 
presidency in 1968, when I received a request from the secretary 
of agriculture, Orville Freeman, to serve on a committee to 
review the agricultural research in the USDA's Office of 
Experiment Station Research and its program in the states. One 
of the co-chairmen of that committee was Cliff [Clifford M.] 
Hardin, who at that time was the president of the University of 
Nebraska, and later became the secretary of agriculture. Ke was 
an ag economist by background. 

The assignment of that committee was to take a look at 
agricultural research that was supported by the USDA, as we've 
done periodically, it seems to me ad infinitum. These exercises 
take place whenever there is a groundswell of concern expressed 
about the appropriateness of the program. That committee was my 
introduction to some of the deans of agriculture in other 
institutions, as well as a representative from the Federal Office 
of Management and Budget, which was then called the Bureau of the 
Budget. It was that study committee where I first became 
acquainted with Russ McGregor, as I mentioned earlier, who I 
asked to serve as my special assistant for program planning and 
analysis and budgeting. 

The result of that study was the recommendation that the 
secretary establish a committee called the Agricultural Research 
Policy Advisory Committee, and it was commonly referred to as 
ARPAC. It became a fairly unwieldly committee, as it ultimately 
was formed because, while the idea was fine and justified, it 
seemed like every unit in agriculture wanted to be represented en 

Secretary of Agriculture Orville Bentley presents 
Agriculture Science Leadership Award to Jim Kendrick, 
Phoenix, Arizona, November 10, 1986. 

Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Council of 
Directors - Council of Statewide Assistant Directors, 
Sacramento, Spring 1983. Front TOW, left to right: Jim 
Meyers, Jean Lyons, Jerry Siebert, Nancy McLaughlin, Rosie 
Powell, John Anderson, Jim Kendrick. Back row, left to 
right: Warren Schoonover, Lowell Lewis, Gene Stevenson, 
Dave Schlezel, Charley Hess, Lew Weathers, Harold Myers. 


Kendrick: the committee. That's been characteristic of agriculture, as 
well as its clientele groups; nobody speaks for agriculture in 
its totality. There are so many well-organized special interest 
groups that they do not give up their prerogative to have their 
own representation at the highest level of whatever government 
agency is involved with their welfare. So by the time we got 
ARPAC put together, it had every agency in the USDA with any 
resemblance of a research program sitting on the committee. 

Then, when you look at state representation, the South, the 
West, the North, and the East would never agree to having just 
one representative for all regions, so we had four regional 
research representatives. Cooperative Extension was not a major 
concern of this committee, but it convinced the secretary's 
representative that it should also have a membership on the 
committee. Regional representation, however, was avoided for 
extension. Directors of the Agricultural Experiment Stations did 
not really agree to have deans and vice presidents act as 
spokespeople for them, but I served briefly on the committee, in 
some capacity that I don't remember. I think I probably was the 
western representative for the overall administrators of land 
grant agricultural programs. 

But it was very difficult to have a committee of this size 
engage in meaningful discussions concerning research goals, 
policies, and management. 

Lage: How large a committee did it end up being? 

Kendrick: Well, I don't remember, but it seemed to me every time we had a 
committee meeting, there were about thirty-five or forty people 
in attendance. It became a show and tell experience. People 
came from all over the U.S. and were there for about a day or a 
day and a half. And the agencies in the USDA felt that they had 
to filibuster the committee to show the members what they were 
doing, so they'd monopolize the agenda. It was really a 
frustrating experience. It would produce reports, but they were 
staff-written. There was precious little opportunity to do what 
the people who generated the idea felt had to be done. 

So ARPAC, in due course, fell by the wayside. But a 
successor committee has emerged, and it was a product of the Farm 
Act, which is the act that governs the appropriations and the 
programs of the USDA. That came forth about 1977, and created 
legislative authority to establish an agricultural research 
advisory group. I guess it's still concerned mainly with 
research, even though Cooperative Extension sits on the 
committee. The assistant secretary for science and education is 
one co-chair. The other co-chair comes from the land grant group 
and is usually a dean of agriculture somewhere in the states. 


The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant 
Colleges' Division of Agriculture 

Kendrick: Getting back to the national association when I first started 
going to those meetings, I was overwhelmed by the numbers cf 
people who would attend the meetings. I ultimately became aware 
of the fact that it is the national organization of public 
university administrators in all areas of the institutions' 
administrative units above department chairs. 

Lage : It doesn't just deal with agriculture. 

Kendrick: No. All areas. It is really run by the presidents of the 
association's university members, but there are sections 
organized for academic vice presidents, student relations 
officers, public information officers, university relations 
officers, graduate deans, and budget officers, for example. I 
can't identify all the units that make up the national 
association, but it's a large collection of administrators of the 
many diverse university programs. A meeting will have anywhere 
from 2,500 to 3,500 people in attendance. So there are not many 
places where it can meet. The association always meets one year 
in Washington, D.C., and the alternate year in some other city in 
the United States. 

The Division of Agriculture within the association is the 
largest division, and it's large because it has a lot of these 
units that I've described. It has an experiment station section, 
a resident instruction section, an extension section and, now, a 
council of administrative heads of agriculture. 

When I attended my first meetings, I had a hard time 
figuring out which section I belonged to, if any, and who all the 
people were. I had noticed that some of my colleagues were 
wandering around also, going to this section meeting or that 
section meeting. It turned out that these were the deans, vice 
presidents, or deputy chancellors who had the overall 
responsibility for agricultural programs back at their state 
institutions. In some institutions Cooperative Extension does 
not report to the agricultural administrator. It sometimes 
reports to a university extension officer, or some other route to 
the president. But in a traditional setting, the Cooperative 
Extension director or associate director reports to the 
agricultural dean or comparable officer. 

At the University of California, both research and extension 
report to the vice president, but resident instruction is a 
campus responsibility. There are no resident instruction matters 
that come to the attention of the vicn president for any ki:-.d of 
action or advice. That is another difference in the University 


Kendrick: of California's agricultural administration from other 

institutions where the resident instruction associate dean 
reports to the dean, and the dean is the overall responsible 
administrative officer for the total agriculture program of the 

Creating the Council of Administrative Heads of Agriculture (CAHA) 

Kendrick: When I first began attending these land grant meetings in 1968, 
the group that was called the overall deans were kind of on the 
outside looking in because all the business of the division was 
handled by the established sections, and there was no section for 
the "overall deans." The overall deans didn't have any place to 
go; they were wandering. Some of my colleagues at that time were 
Dean Charlie Palm of Cornell, Provost Russ Larson of Penn State, 
Dean Orville Bentley of Illinois, Dean Elmer Kiehl of Missouri, 
Dean Glenn Pound of Wisconsin, Dean Bill Hueg of Minnesota, Dean 
Doyle Chambers of LSU, and Roy Lovoron of North Carolina. Of 
that group, Charlie Palm, Elmer Kiehl, Orville Bentley, Russ 
Larson, and I decided that since we had overall responsibility 
for agriculture at our home institutions, we ought to have a 
similar relationship in the association with these sections which 
produced recommended programs for the division. So, through 
politicking it took several years to bring it into being we 
ultimately were able to get the division to accept a new section, 
called the Council of Administrative Heads of Agriculture, 
referred to as CAHA, 

That was really a major step forward as far as making the 
Division of Agriculture an effective and respected member of 
the association. Up until that time, the main function of the 
association as far as the division was concerned was to approve 
the proposed annual budgets developed by the Experiment Station 
Section for the Hatch Act and by the Cooperative Extension 
Section for the Smith-Lever Act and then forward the requests to 
the secretary of agriculture. The sections submitted their 
budget requests to the Division of Agriculture for approval and 
the division then forwarded them to the association's executive 
committee and ultimately to the association senate for action. 
To a number of us, these early budget requests were an 
embarrassment, because they were so unrealistic. Moreover, the 
two section requests often had no relationship with each other, 
so it was difficult to determine what the division's priority 
ranking was. The association was formed one hundred years ago as 
an agricultural organization concerned with the appropriation and 
use of federal funds, so the subject matter was appropriate. It 
was the methodology which had gotten out of control. 


Lage: So the association had begun as an agricultural organization and 

then expanded to include public university administrators in 

Kendrick: And then expanded into a number of sections incorporating 

University administrative officers. The Division of Agriculture 
was a very active member of the association, because it was the 
only national organization representing agricultural 
administration at the land grant institutions. It had a lot of 
business besides budget development with the office of the 
secretary of agriculture and the agricultural committees of the 

The group of us who wanted to establish a section for the 
administrative heads of agriculture and to place it into a 
leadership role for the division were able to develop an 
acceptable set of bylaws and regulations that recognized that 
CAHA would provide the leadership for the division. That was no 
small doing too because somebody else had to be displaced for 
that to take place. We constructed an executive committee in 
which the representation from this Council of Administrative 
Heads would be well represented. In fact, we originally 
constructed it so that it would have a majority of membership on 
the division's executive committee. It's been subsequently 
changed to a Board of Agriculture, and I don't think that the 
Council of Administrative Heads still has the majority member 
ship. But the leadership of the division still comes from CAHA. 

CAHA* s Leadership in Budget Development for the Division 

Kendrick: Well, one of the most significant accomplishments resulting from 
changing the administration of the division was that we got mere 
sense introduced into the budget development. It became a 
program-designed budget, and not just a wish list of add-ons that 
had become ridiculous in their requests. It was easier to take 
that budget to the executive committee of the association and 
have them understand and approve it. than it was with the non- 
programmatic budget requests. 

The executive committee of the association is designed to 
place the presidents of these land grant and state universities 
in total control. The association's policies are determined by 
the senate which is composed of the presidents and 
representatives of the divisions, councils, and sections. the 
senate is large and unwieldly so the association's executive 
committee has become its major governing body. I could see as I 
listened to many of my colleagues at other institutions who did 
not have a close relationship with the presidents of their 


Kendrick: institutions, that there was almost an adversarial relationship 
between the presidents and the agricultural deans, with the 
presidents not understanding or not supporting agriculture in the 
manner in which the deans felt it should be. Some presidents did 
not have agricultural programs at their institutions so they 
naturally were less than enthusiastic about some of the proposals 
coming from the Division of Agriculture. Many of the members of 
the executive committee felt that the division completely ignored 
the needs of the total institution and were unrealistic in their 
agriculturally centered requests. This was an environment which 
needed to be changed so that the division could gain some respect 
of the association as a whole. Not all of the presidents were 
negative about the agricultural programs. In fact, some had 
agricultural backgrounds and were quite supportive and some of 
these presidents were on the association's executive committee 
from time to time. 

Among the changes in the bylaws of the division was a 
provision that each of the four regions of the United States 
would have the responsibility for leadership of the division 
every fourth year. I started out as a secretary for the division 
and became the vice chairman, and then the chair. 

One of the important offices that needed to be filled was a 
division representative to serve on the executive committee of 
the association. 

Lage: Was that something new? 

Kendrick: No, that was always the case. The executive committee of the 

association was chaired by the past president of the association. 

Following my chairing the division, I became the division's 
representative to the executive committee of the association, and 
served a three-year term. It was in that role where I became 
quite familiar and understanding of the role of the division 
relative to the overall association organization. It was during 
my membership on the executive committee that Russ McGregor was 
an employee of the association as the agricultural legislative 
representative. So it was easy for me to relate to the employees 
of the association, and it also helped to fill my needs in 
representing the division. What I set out to do was not to be 
obnoxious in representing agriculture to the presidents, to 
create an atmosphere of friendliness and respect, so that when I 
brought something forward, it wasn't laughed off the agenda. 

Lage: Had that been the attitude before? 

Kendrick: Yes, because the budget requests were obnoxious. 

Lage: So it was what was being brought to them that created the disrespect? 


Kendrick: Yes. That was the major cause of the disrespect. The budgets 
had been just wish lists. They were not practical. They 
represented an arrogance, in my judgment, that was totally 
unjustified, because they failed to observe any constraints in 
their total requests. 

Lage: So you had to work with those undercurrents. 

Kendrick: There was a prejudice about agriculture that I figured I had to 
overcome in order to convince the members of the executive 
committee that the budgets we were going to bring forward were 
really needed budgets, carefully conceived and justified. We got 
the executive committee to designate a president to sit on the 
division's budget development committee, so they had a hand in 
seeing it from the start. And it finally worked out as we had 
planned. The budget requests were programmatically based, they 
were much more realistic and the presidents felt that they had 
had a hand in their development. They began sailing through the 
executive committee with very little comment. 


Well, by the time I finished my three-year term that was in 
the middle seventies, '76 or thereabouts I think we'd gotten the 
executive committee to have a pretty positive relationship with 
the Division of Agriculture. I really enjoyed my association 
with the presidents and other members of the executive committee. 
A number of the presidents had been agricultural administrators 
anyway and had gone on to become leaders of their institutions. 

So I felt reasonably good about being able to contribute to 
the evolution of a more responsible division organization, as it 
works with the association in its broader mission. And during 
this period, we were able to bring into the association's office 
some ongoing staffing assistance. There seems to be an enormous 
amount of federal involvements in agriculture that need almost 
constant attention. So it required daily involvement by a staff 
member of the association, the first one of whom was Russ 
McGregor, my former assistant. 

A couple of years after my official term I was asked to fill 
an unexpired term as the division's representative on the 
association's executive committee which I did with pleasure. 

Lage: Was this in the eighties, then? 

Kendrick: It was approaching the eighties. I'd been off the committee for 
two years, and had been succeeded by Keith Kennedy who was at 
that time the dean of agriculture at Cornell. He was asked to 
move into the provost position at Cornell, so he lost his 


Kendrick: agricultural responsibilities and was an inappropriate 

representative of the division. So they asked if I would fill 
out the last year of his term. 

I was willing and pleased to fill out his term because I was 
re installed with acquaintances whom I'd been working with 
earlier. I really enjoyed my executive committee colleagues and 
the work with the national association. A change was made in the 
leadership of the association during the interim period of my 
service on the executive committee. The previous executive 
officer was Ralph Huett. and he was succeeded by Bob Clodius. 
Bob Clodius is a nephew of Harry Wellman. He had been at 
Wisconsin at one time. Dan Aldrich has been president of the 
association; so has Mike Heyman; and so has Chuck Young. So the 
University of California has had some significant involvement in 
the association. 

Lage : So at this level in the national association, the University is 

represented by the chancellors as well as the President. 

Kendrick: Yes. 

Foreign Agricultural Programs 



There was a good deal of involvement in the division with foreign 
agricultural programs. Some institutions had strong identifiable 
commitments to foreign agricultural programs, much more so than 
the University of California had. But it was through the 
processes of many meetings with governmental officials and the 
institutional foreign agricultural administrators under the 
umbrella of the Division of Agriculture that resulted in 
augmenting some of the foreign agricultural commitments through 
Congress and ultimately into adminstration through AID [Agency 
for International Development]. 

Is that an area you ever tried to develop at the University? 

No, I felt that the University's promotion policies, as far as 
its faculty was concerned, did not permit us to engage in foreign 
agricultural programs as highly organized as a lot of other 
institutions did. We are so committed to faculty peer evaluation 
of professional creative work that you don't get much credit or 
any credit, unless it's an augmentation of your professional 
activities in the first place for the kind of service commitment 
that foreign agricultural programs require. 


Kendrick: Institutions with active foreign agricultural programs would get 
contracts from AID to staff and provide faculty for developing 
institutions in South America, or the Philippines, or in India, 
or in Africa, or wherever, and that would require a faculty 
commitment for several years at a time. There is no way we can 
really commit our faculty, particularly at the assistant or 
associate professor level, to go off to Pakistan or India for 
five years. When they come back, they would find themselves 
bypassed in their merit advancements. 

The way that was handled in some institutions was to hire 
people specifically to go on overseas assignments. They would 
have a university affiliation, but they wouldn't be members of 
the regular faculty. When those kinds of commitments became 
institutionalized, you had a phantom faculty in a sense, who were 
really not regular faculty, but were outreach people. It was a 
special staff to do a special job. But there's no room in the 
University of California's organization for that kind of 
arrangement, so I didn't feel justified in spending a lot of time 
in developing these kinds of programs. 

We participated a lot in foreign programs, but it's mostly 
on an individual basis. There are a few formal commitments in 
which we have signed some contractual agreements to manage a 
program, and I think they haven't all been that successful. We 
had one with Egypt on the Davis campus that a lot of people 
worked on, and made a lot of trips, but in my judgment, it didn't 
make much of an impact. That's a prejudicial judgment, since I 
have not been to Egypt to view what was done. I think some of 
the participants would suggest that, yes, they were successful in 
changing some of the practices. 

The thing you're dealing with, when you're working in 
foreign agricultural areas, is that the country and the 
institutions are organized very differently than our own, and we 
don't often recognize how differently they are organized. If 
they don't have a supporting kind of infrastructure that in the 
U.S. is standard and expected, then when you go home, everything 
falls apart. Most foreign countries don't have an extension 
program like ours in the United States, with resident experts. 
Most foreign agricultural assistance programs are conducted by 
the countries' ministries of agriculture, which are really 
regulatory agencies. They are not primarily educational 
organizations. It is a subject that has received a lot of 
attention, but I think one that won't change very soon, if ever. 
It's very difficult to sustain the kind of information and 
practices that you think you've started without resident 
specialists with longterm commitments to changing native habits 
and practices. 


Lage: I think we've pretty well covered these areas that we set out to 

cover. I'm sure there are going to be more things that come up, 
but shall we ? 

Kendrick: My national association activities was the principal thing I 
wanted to cover. The other kinds of ad hoc activities I was 
involved with were not necessarily programs, they just came in 
the normal course of operating as the University's chief 
administrator for its agricultural programs. The few chances I 
have had to travel around the world and to visit foreign 
countries to observe things have served to increase my 
understanding and knowledge of how other people do things a part 
of the process of broadening my education to supplement my own 
judgment in making decisions on my own institutional programs. 




Retirement Events 

The end of my career with the University of California was 
marked by three very special events. In June of 1986 a day-long 
convocation was held on the Davis Campus at which a number of 
speakers covered subjects in agriculture and agricultural 
research which were of special interest to me. I certainly 
appreciated the planning and work of all who participated in that 
event made to make it a memorable occasion. I also felt honored 
to have Chancellors Hullar and Meyer, Vice Chancellor Park, and 
President Gardner take part in the program. The convocation was 
followed by a delightful reception held at the Davis Faculty 
Club, which was attended by many of my friends and acquaintances. 
Evelyn and I were joined at this event by my mother, my sister, 
Liz, and her husband, Don Gale, my brother, Ed, and Evelyn's 
sister, Lura Alleyne. The surprise of the reception was an 
unexpected invitation to me to join Dan Aldrich and George 
Zentmyer in singing a couple of our old quartet songs. It had 
been nearly twenty years since we last sang together, but the big 
surprise was that we sounded like we had been rehearsing 
regularly. Most of the people attending the reception had no 
idea that I had ever been involved in quartet singing. 

This event was followed shortly by another reception held on 
the Riverside Campus in the University Club (formerly called the 
Faculty (Hub) and hosted by Dean Irwin Sherman of the College of 
Natural and Agricultural Sciences. Evelyn and I enjoyed this 
reception particularly because quite a number of our town friends 
as well as our current and early campus friends and colleagues 
came to greet us and wish us well in the future. It was an 
afternoon filled with reminiscences. 

* Chapter XIX is a written epilogue, added by Mr. Kendrick after 
he completed his review of the transcript. 


The final event held in late September of 1986 in our honor 
was a marvelous reception hosted by President Gardner at the 
Blake Estate in Kensington, the President's official residence. 
It was planned by a committee composed of people from my office 
and from several offices within the President's Office. The only 
thing they didn't plan for was an unexpected rain which forced us 
out of the beautiful gardens into the Blake House itself. That 
cramped the space for the attendees but it certainly did not 
cramp the spirit of the occasion. This was an especially 
heartwarming afternoon because many of my Berkeley friends and 
current and former colleagues came by to extend their greetings 
and best wishes. 

I felt particularly favored by these three events because 
each was unique and each gave me an opportunity to reflect on my 
work and associations with the three campuses with which I had 
the most contacts during my lifetime, and with the University- 
wide administration where I spent nearly half of my active career. 

Outlook for the Future 

Finally in closing, although this is a document of history, 
I would like to be permitted to comment on what I believe is 
needed in future research in order to keep California's 
agriculture strong and economically viable. The agenda would 
consist of four major categories under which nearly all of the 
many existing individual research endeavors would fit. The main 
requirement would be for the researchers and the managers to 
define the programs and projects in such a way that they would be 
steps toward fulfilling one of the major goals. 

These categories or goals are: 
1) Reduce agriculture's chemical dependency. 

Modern-day agriculture has become almost totally dependent 
on chemicals for fertilizers, weed and pest control, and growth 
regulators. Although California has one of the tightest sets of 
regulations governing the use of pesticides, there is still the 
suspicion by consumers that farmers and ranchers care little 
about the safety of the products they produce as far as these 
introduced chemicals are concerned. One way to restore that 
confidence and also reduce the cost of production is to reduce 
the need for these chemical additives. There are a whole host of 
things that might be researched in order to achieve this goal, 
including bioengineering, exploitation of the integrated pest 
management systems, alteration of cultural practices, and 
education of the consumer that cosmetic appearances of fruit and 


vegetables rarely have any relationship to the quality of the 
product itself. A by-product of this chemical dependency is the 
necessity to deal with contamination of some soil and water sites 
caused by the disposal of hazardous chemicals or the transport of 
them through soil and water systems. There are probably many 
other research programs which could also contribute to the 
achievement of this goal. 

2) Reduce agriculture's farm labor dependency. 

This is a boldly stated goal in view of all the trouble the 
University has had with the farm mechanization issue. 
Nevertheless, I believe it is necessary for the future well-being 
of California's agriculture. There will be many social 
scientists who will strongly disagree with this goal, but they 
are more concerned with rural employment than they are with a 
viable agricultural industry. I am encouraged by the advocacy of 
this goal by a few social scientists who are experts in the 
subject of farm labor and the use of foreign workers who are both 
legal and illegal emigrants as farm laborers. This will require 
a renewed emphasis on developing mechanical aids in the cultural 
and harvesting operations of farming as well as the development 
of new varieties and crops which can be handled by mechanical 
devices. New concepts of the way crop-plants are grown will 
undoubtedly be required. 

3) Improve agriculture's water-use efficiency. 

With the exception of rangeland agriculture, nearly all the 
remaining agriculture in California is dependent on our stored 
and transported water supply. There are increasing demands on 
this water supply by the expanding urban developments in southern 
and central California and by the rising concerns of 
environmental groups who want to be assured that we are not 
destroying the integrity of our wildland habitants in order to 
satisfy these agricultural, urban, and industrial needs. Since 
agriculture is the single largest user of the water supply, 
utilizing about 85 percent of the supply, it is essential that it 
demonstrate to the public that its use is not wasteful and is 
fully justified. It probably should be prepared to reduce its 
demand on the total supply somewhat. The implications of this 
goal are broad, including the development of sophisticated 
irrigation systems for a wide variety of crop-plants under widely 
varying environmental and soil types, changing cropping patterns, 
and the development of drought- tolerant varieties of crop-plants. 

4) Enhance market opportunities for California's agriculture. 

California's agriculture regularly produces from 25 to 30 
percent more than the domestic market demands. This means that 
more than a quarter of the commodities produced each year must 


find a market overseas in order to maintain a healthy balance 
between supply and demand. While much of this goal is the 
responsibility of the industry itself, there are things that our 
specialists in the University can do to aid the industry in 
achieving this goal. Aside from the educational endeavors to 
assist those who wish to be involved in foreign marketing, we 
have the capacity to survey and analyze world-wide agricultural 
marketing opportunities and bring this information to the 
attention of our farmers and ranchers. We could also help 
improve our domestic market demand by assisting many small- and 
medium-sized growers meet the growing desire by consumers for 
exotic fruits and vegetables and meat free from additive 
chemicals. The increasing diversity of the ethnic mix of 
California's population also suggests a change in the domestic 
market demand by these groups for food with which they are 
accustomed. This could present a challenge not only to the 
producers of these new crops but also to the University's genetic 
engineers and plant breeders. 

Well, this is my agenda for California's agriculture for the 
next several decades. It is an agenda that would not be easily 
fulfilled, but it is one that would be immensely satisfying to 
promote. I do not want these remarks misunderstood. They are 
not meant to tell my successor what he ought to seek as his goals 
for the future. These are my own thoughts based on my own 
observations and experiences. My successor will have to develop 
his own agenda for the future, and furthermore, he will have the' 
responsibility to implement programs to achieve them. I have the 
privilege of being an observer and occasional commentator. 

I have had a most satisfying career and I'm grateful to Ann 
Lage and the Regional Oral History Office of Berkeley for 
stimulating me to record it for those who might be interested in 
reviewing it. I take full responsibility for its content. I 
hope the listeners to the tapes and readers of the text will gain 
a sense of the excitement which characterized my life and will 
also gain an understanding of what motivated Jim Kendrick, I 
hope it also records accurately nearly two decades of 
agricultural activities in the University of California, a period 
characterized generally by turmoil, no-growth budgets, and rising 
criticism of agriculture in general and some of the University's 
program in particular. 

Transcribed and Final Typed by Shannon Page 


TAPE GUIDE James B. Kendrick. Jr. 

Interview 1: September 2. 1987 

tape 1. side A 

tape 1. side B 

tape 2. side A 

tape 2, side B 

Interview 2i 
tape 3, 

September 9, 1987 
side A 

tape 3, side B 
tape 4, side A 
tape 4, side B 

Interview 3: September 15. 1987 

tape 5, side A 

tape 5. side B 

tape 6, side A 

tape 6. side B not recorded 

tape 7. side A 

tape 7, side B not recorded 

Interview 4: September 17. 1987 

tape 8. side A 

tape 8. side B 

tape 9, side A 

tape 9. side B 

Interview 5: September 28. 1987 

tape 10, side A 

tape 10. side B 

tape 11. side A 

tape 11. side B 

tape 12. side A 

tape 12. side B not recorded 

Interview 6: October 6. 1987 

tape 13. side A 

tape 13. side B not recorded 

tape 14. side A 

tape 14, side B 

Interview 7: October 13. 1987 

tape 15. side A 

tape 15. side B 

tape 16. side A 

tape 16. side B 

tape 17. side A 

tap? 17. side B not recorded 













Interview 8: October 16, 1987 

tape 18, 

side A 

tape 18, 

side B 

tape 19, 

side A 

tape 19, 

side B 

tape 20, 

side A 

tape 20, 

side B 

Interview 9: 

October 22, 1987 

tape 21, 

side A 

tape 21, 

side B 

tape 22, 

side A 

tape 22, 

side B 

tape 23, 

side A 

tape 23, 

side B 

tape 24, 

side A 

tape 24, 

side B not recorded 

Interview 10: 

October 29, 1987 

tape 25, 

side A 

tape 25, 

side B 

tape 26, 

side A 

tape 26, 

side B 

tape 27, 

side A 

tape 27. 

side B 

Interview 11: 

November 5, 1987 

tape 28. 

side A 

tape 28, 

side B 

tape 29, 

side A 

tape 29, 

side B 

insert from tape 31, side A 

tape 31, 

side B 

Interview 12: 

November 13, 1987 

tape 30, 

side A 

tape 30. 

side B 

tape 31, 

side A 

tape 31, 

side B 

tape 32, 

side A 

tape 32, side B 






INDEX James B. Kendrick. Jr. 


advisory boards. 150-152. 157-158. 

239-243. 337-339 
affirmative action in employment, 

303. 315-316. 320-324 
Agrarian Reform group, 174-176 
agribusiness, 155, 169 
agricultural interest groups, 

California. 56-60. 151-152. 157. 

186-189. 212-214. 219-220, 227- 

229, 232-233, 236-238, 244. 270- 

274, 288. 291-292. 294-295, 299- 

300. 304-305 
Agricultural Experiment Station. 

administrative structure, 144- 
149. 287-290 

budget. 184-196. 212-214. 282- 

field stations. 189-193 

personnel. 200-203. 255-256 

relationship with USDA. 278-280 

special research programs, 226- 
274, 310-312. see also under 
name of research unit 

see also University of 

California, Riverside, Citrus 
Experiment Station 
Agricultural Extension Service. 

See Cooperative Extension 


Agricultural Issues Center, 233-246 
agricultural labor, 153, 156-162, 

166-174. 217-218, 294. 384 
Agricultural Labor Relations Act, 

agricultural mechanization, 159- 

162, 166-174 
agricultural research, 142-143, 

146. 152. 169-170. 226-274. 372- 

373. 383-385 

see also plant pathology, research 
Agriculture, Department of. See 

United States Department of 

Agriculture; California, 

Department of Agriculture 

air pollution, 62-66 
Alcorn, George. 287, 290 
Aldrich, Daniel, 72-78, 103-104, 

Allewelt, William, 240 

Backus, Myron, 38 

Bartnicki-Garcia. 108-109 

Batchelor, Leon. 55 

Bergland, Robert, 177 

Berryhill, Clare, 224 

biological control of insects, 200- 

201. 264-265 
Bird, Rose, 216-219 
Boyce, Al. 107. 129, 132 
Boyd. Philip L. , 79-80 
Bradfield, Robert. 303. 305 
Brady. Ronald, 347-349 
Brown, Edmund G. , Jr. , as governor, 

207-212, 216, 221, 265-266 
Butz, Earl. 177-178 

California, State of 

Agriculture and Services Agency, 

Agricultural Labor Relations Beard, 

218. 240 
Board of Food and Agriculture, 

198. 206. 224 
Department of Finance. 196-197, 

204. 210. 269-270 
Department of Food and 

Agriculture, 216-217, 219-220, 

Department of Health Services, 

Legislature. 154-156. 160-162. 

186-187. 196-197 

California Farm Bureau. 291-292 
California Rural Legal Assistance 
(CRLA). 174-182 


Calvary Presbyterian Church, 

Riverside, 118-120 
Cambridge University, 66, 67-69 
Carson, Rachel, 153, 170 
Chapman, Homer, 78-79 
Chavez, Cesar, 153, 171, 173, 218 
Coke, Earl. 198, 203, 277-278 
Cooperative Extension Service, 57 
administrative structure, 149, 

287-288, 290-291, 296-302 
budget. 188, 280-282. 285-286 
clientele groups, 291-292, 313- 


coordination with Experiment 
Station. 252. 254-255. 257- 
262. 276-278 
nutrition education program, 


personnel management, 162-165, 
199-200, 223, 293-309, 314- 
316. 320-324, 329-331 
research in, 230, 307-308 
and USDA, 278-280 

Davis, California, 5-7 
schooling in, 8-9, 11-16 
see also University of California, 

Day, Boysie. 145, 282, 287-289 

Deal, Andy, 260 

Deukmej ian, George, as governor, 
220-225. 268 

Dugger, Benjamin M. . 33, 37-38 

Bugger. Willie Mack. 143, 145-146 

Dutton, Frederick, 154 

Dymally, Mervin, 171 

Eberhardt, Robert, 240 
Executive Bulls, 233-234 

Farrell, Kenneth. 230, 235, 244, 

307. 309, 310 
Feller, David, 344, 349 
Furtado, Loren, 195 
Furth, Gordon, 8-9. 15, 16 

Gardner, B. Delworth, 231 
Gardner, David P.. 182, 215. 220- 

223, 235. 244-245. 347-349. 367. 


Gardner, Max W. . 4, 25. 116 
Giannini Foundation. 226-233 
Gilliam. Harold. 157 
Grant. Allan, 198-199, 203, 206 
growers associations, 56-57, 157 

see also agricultural 

constituency, California 
Gutierrez. Andy, 264-265 

Haagen-Smit, A. J. , 64 

Halden, Dewey, 12-14 

Hall. Prentice. 327-328 

Hanna, Jack, 166-167 

Hard Tomatoes. Hard Times. 168-170 

Hart, James D. , 17 

Hatch Act, 174-175, 177, 179-180, 

194. 279 

Heady, Harold. 290, 300 
Henle, Evelyn. See Kendrick, Evelyn 


Henning, John, 317. 319-320 
Hewitt, William B., 259-261 
Heyns, Roger, 205, 206 
Hightower, James. 168-169 
Hinderaker. Ivan, 137, 139 
Hitch, Charles, 129-131, 136-137, 

147, 207. 351 
Hutchison, Claude, 133, 284 

Integrated Pest Management program, 

215, 263-268 
international agricultural programs, 


James-Massengale, Jyrl, 240, 242 
Juvenal, Andy, 157 

Kearney Agricultural Center. See 
San Joaquin Valley Agricultural 
Research and Extension Center 


Kearney Foundation for Soil Science, 


Keitt. George. 39-40 
Kelly. Clarence. 104. 145. 282. 287 
Kendrick. Edgar (brother), 4. 28-30 
Kendrick, Elizabeth (sister, Mrs. 

Donald Gale), 4. 28 
Kendrick, Evelyn Henle, 15-16. 18. 

26. 32. 49. 118-121. 125. 127-129. 

Kendrick, James B., Sr. (father), 

1-7, 9-11. 13-14. 20. 21-22, 25- 

26. 29, 92-93, 116 
Kendrick, Violet (mother), 3, 6, 9- 

11. 14 
Kleingartner, Archie, 296, 298-299, 

316-317, 330. 348 
Klotz. L. J. . 50. 54, 55. 72 

Lewis. Lowell, 224. 231-232. 270. 

301. 324-325 

Linsley, E. Gorton, 356 
Littleworth, Arthur, 239-240 
Lorenzen, Goby, 166-167 
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, 

agricultural committee, 58-60 
Lyng, Richard, 178. 198. 237-238 

McCorkle. Chester. 208-209 
McGregor, Russell, 280-282, 298, 


McLaughlin, Nancy, 306 
MacLeod, Guy, 155 
marketing order boards, 216-217 
Martinez, Vilma. 182, 299, 317, 


Maslach, George, 336 
Mathias. Mildred. 360-363 
Meyer, James, 132-133, 145, 306 
Middleton, John. 50. 52. 54, 55. 

62-64. 93. 110, 116 
minorities in agriculture, 324-328 
Moje, William, 109 
Mosquito Research Program, 252-255 

National Association of State 
Universities and Land Grant 
Colleges, 289. 332, 374-375 
Council of Administrative Heads of 

Agriculture [CAHA] . 375-379 
Natural Reserve System, 360-368 
Norris, Kenneth, 360-363, 366 
nutrition education, 162-166 

Oliver, Sally, 161