In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

102 hen the regents accepted Thomas Hamilton’s resignation in May 1968, Vice-President for Academic Affairs Robert Hiatt was named acting president . Student protests on a number of campus issues continued, notably on course requirements for graduation and the lack of student housing, but in a lower key. Committed to academic freedom and freedom of speech, Hiatt was open to students and faculty who raised questions about the University as well as about larger social issues. In a statement quoted in the Honolulu Advertiser, he defended those rights but opposed unlawful actions. As a university we certainly recognize the right of people to dispute or question any facet of their society, including the university society, and to engage in dissent and protest actions against things they feel are wrong. As university officials, we would certainly want to extend this right to the student community with respect to the activities and policies of the University of Hawaii. We also . . . expect the concerned persons . . . to present any issues for discussion in an orderly fashion —not by any mob action or anything of that sort.1 A group of students came to his office to protest requiring certain courses for graduation. One of them began using strong profanity to abuse Hiatt, who quietly said to him, “If you say that one more time, out you go.” The student remained but modified his speech. The faculty generally expected Hiatt to be named president, as he had been an effective “executive officer” while Hamilton concentrated on building community and legislative support. Hiatt had been instrumental in establishing the research institutes and in securing federal funds to support them. But he was not a player in the local political system and bore the handicap of having been the administration’s chief negoW 3 EXPERIENCING MATURITY: 1969–1995 Experiencing Maturity 103 tiator during the 1968 student sit-in. Although neither the sit-in nor its outcome had been due to any fault on Hiatt’s part, some of the adverse community reaction had attached to him. When it became apparent that he would not be named president, Hiatt resigned to become the first director of the Research Corporation of the University of Hawai‘i, an agency established to employ staff for research projects without going through the state’s civil service system and to administer grants, thus avoiding the skimming off of a sizable percentage in “overhead” charges by the state government. Vice-President for Business Affairs Richard Takasaki served as acting president during the search for a new president. Student demonstrations continued. After a daylong sit-in at the East-West Center, Takasaki issued a statement similar to Hiatt’s: I wish to reiterate the position of the University of Hawaii that an atmosphere of freedom of expression is essential to the educational process. We will continue to respect and protect the right of honest protest and orderly dissent, but will not tolerate action which violates the freedom of others or impedes the essential functions of the University. Hiatt and Takasaki each tried to mend fences with the community but in their brief tenures were able to restore little of the public support that had been lost. The role of the Board of Regents changed during this interim period. Under Hamilton, it had left most administrative decisions to the president and his staff. Formal meetings were brief, having followed an off-the-record closed session in which the president had presented the agenda with his recommendations for action. Regents’ questions already addressed, the official meeting was mostly undebated approval of items on the agenda. With Oliver Lee’s 1968 appeal of his tenure denial, however, the board found itself involved with the kind of personnel decision it had previously only “rubber-stamped.” A critical precedent was set, expanded on when the board’s Personnel Committee began to review the dossiers of faculty members recommended for tenure or promotion. Where the board had previously limited its concern to personnel policies, it now began to decide on individual cases. The mentality of the board had also changed. During Hamilton’s tenure, it had been dominated by leading businessmen who recognized the division of authority between a board of directors and its appointed administrators. Under their leadership , the board’s main function had been to select and support the president. Many regents of the 1970s, however, saw their role as similar to that of legislators, and they began to exercise in detail their formal powers, intruding further and...

Share