[TAPE 1, SIDE A]

BRENT GLASS:

Today is December 16, 1986. The following is an interview with Senator Terry Sanford. The interview was conducted in Mr. Sanford's office in Durham, North Carolina. The interviewer is Brent Glass. I wanted to start out by asking you, did you ever think that you would serve fifteen years as president of Duke University? Were you surprised that you did?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I found the time running on and the years piling up, almost imperceptively. I didn't come to a point and say, "Now, do I want to stay here another five years?" I had initially said that it would appear to me that five years would be about long enough to do this. Then I would get out and do something else. I've always had about eight or ten things out there that I wanted to do. Obviously, I haven't gotten to very many of them but I didn't have in mind staying there the rest of my active life. As it went on there were always new challenges rising out of the next year, the following year. So I just stayed on and on without ever quite making a conscious decision that well, I ought to be here a little longer.

BRENT GLASS:

In the last ten years were there ever any thoughts of leaving earlier than your retirement? Is there anything that came up that…

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh well, I made a pass at running for President. Obviously, if I had pursued that and if I had gotten the nomination, I would have had to leave.

BRENT GLASS:

Sure. But since then, since '76.

TERRY SANFORD:

I never set out and said it's time for me to go until I was reaching the age sixty-five, which was three years before I did retire. I said at that time, "I think I ought to go." The trustees, for various reasons, said at that time, "How about staying three more years?" So I did. I think maybe I'm wrong in the three years, maybe—when I told them I wanted to leave at 65, they said three more years. I'd have to calculate that. In any event I did stay an added period after I told them I was ready to leave. After they met for several months to decide what they wanted to do, [they] asked me if I'd stay a little bit longer and get a couple of other things in place to let them be in a better position to look for a new president.

BRENT GLASS:

How involved were you in the search for the new president?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, in a way, not at all and in another way, crucially. I had nothing to do with the search committee. I wasn't even kept informed of what they were doing, and that's a peculiarity, apparently, in the academic world. Anywhere else the chief executive would be heavily involved. On the other hand, by having chosen a chancellor three years earlier, at the point when they asked me to stay, I realized that in all probability I was picking the next president. Not because I would be deliberately trying to decide what the trustees would do, but the very fact that we had a good man in that position would make it very difficult for them to pick somebody from the outside equally as good. So I indeed said at the time to the trustees, "You are going this way because you didn't take my

---

Page 3

advice about the way I think you ought to go about picking a president." I thought they ought to go right then and pick the next president and have him understand that he would be the chancellor for a year or two until all of us decided that we were ready to make the transition. I wanted them to conduct the search for a year before I filled the chancellor's position. They talked all Saturday about it, following a board meeting, and decided they didn't want to. They decided that a person wouldn't accept that kind of a position but they were wrong about that.

BRENT GLASS:

In effect they'd be hiring a temporary chancellor.

TERRY SANFORD:

No, they would be hiring, in effect, a president-elect who would serve in the chancellor's position until we were ready to make the transition, which might have been a year or two and probably would have suited everybody. The attractiveness of the Duke presidency was such that we could have gotten almost anybody in the country, we had otherwise wanted, to do it that way. But they thought not. So I said, "All right, then, the burden falls to me to pick a chancellor, and I can tell you that in all probability I'm picking the next president. I don't really prefer to do it this way." But we did it anyway. I think it's worked out very well.

BRENT GLASS:

So really it was up to the new chancellor to succeed as chancellor and then pretty much make his way as president.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, it would be very hard for them to get past him. Now they looked all over the country. They looked at almost everybody before they came back and looked at him,

---

Page 4

apparently by design. I didn't have anything to do with that, and I'm not sure they did it that way.

BRENT GLASS:

Looking back, it's hard to distingish between the last ten years and the last fifteen years but what are one or two of the things that you're most proud of in terms of your accomplishments at Duke?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I think we gave Duke a very high academic standing. Now, some people on the faculty were never quite sure of that but that obviously tremendously improved. It was always the ultimate goal of the things that I was doing, and I think we did. Of course, we gave Duke a reputation—and I say we—for excellence as a creative and exciting place, very attractive to students who came to one of the most sought-after schools in the country. It moved from a rather indefinite position of being a very good school to being one of the top half dozen in the country. There were a lot of elements that went into that.

BRENT GLASS:

Such as?

TERRY SANFORD:

The academic excellence, which is fundamental. The difference between Duke and one or two other highly ranked schools is that our academic requirements and standards are impeccable and much, much better than some other popular schools. Also, I think the students liked it not only because they liked the academic quality, and students do appreciate the discipline of that, but they also liked the excitement that was part of Duke life. I'm not quite sure. That's an intangible thing but you did it by letting students sense their own personal

---

Page 5

responsibility for everything that went on. In many ways they bred their own excitement.

BRENT GLASS:

When you say we, who were some of the key people who you came to rely on to accomplish some of these goals?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I relied on everybody. My style was to give everybody their head, and to be supportive. That would have to do with the Dean of Students, later the vice-president. That would have to do with the business manager and all of the far flung enterprises. That would have to do with the Medical Center as well as the—not just the Chancellor for Health Affairs but the head of the hospital and the cancer center and various things—children's clinic—that wanted my support. They got it. The Fuqua School of Business, the head of the Student Union—you let all of those people feel that they could be creative. They could go ahead and get things done, and they would have complete support—it was up to them to bring their best talents to bear on the job. If you can get that kind of feeling in an institution, the institution is going to prosper. So I could name almost anybody that would fall in that category—the head of the Chapel, the head of Duke Choir, the head of Duke Security—all of these people did their own thing with the sense that I expected them to achieve a level of excellence which was Duke's standard, and that I would support them in everything that they were doing, and that I encouraged new ideas. Now some people we didn't get any new ideas from, but mostly you did.

BRENT GLASS:

Would you say to them, you come up with your goals, and rather than you say, these are the goals I want for your agency…

TERRY SANFORD:

No, I didn't say that so much. I didn't pronouce that as much as to give them the feeling that that's right. I constantly tried to set goals. I talked about goals. I encouraged them to put together their own goals—let's say the Forestry School, or for that matter, the Medical Center, the hospital. We knew what the institutional goals were.

BRENT GLASS:

How personally involved would you get with some of these outstanding gifts that Duke has gotten—the Medical School growing the way it has, the Fuqua of School of Business as you mentioned, the liberal arts campaign? How personally involved did you—I'm trying to get at the role of the president in a growing, expanding university.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I would never permit my role to be defined or even described as an external one of raising money and doing things of that kind. I felt that if I didn't portray myself as in charge of all the University, including the academic standards and the academic departments and the academic achievement, I wouldn't be a complete president and really wouldn't be very good in raising money anyhow. But there wasn't any money raised that I wasn't involved in, not that I initiated it all. The great gift of, over a period of time, some eight million dollars that the Forestry School got—the Dean of the Forestry School discovered an old alumnus, old in the sense that he graduated

---

Page 7

from Trinity. He didn't graduate in Forestry but he went into the forestry business.

BRENT GLASS:

Do you recall the name?

TERRY SANFORD:

Raymond E. Sullivan. He was very well-to-do and had a great deal of forestry land that it would—from a tax point of view and an inheritance point of view—pay to do it the way they did it with a deferred gift with special provisions. The University got the income for a number of years and the next generation, his grandchildren, got the property back. In the meantime we had the benefit of that eight million—well, my point is, without going into all the details, that he found that prospect. I went to Columbus, Georgia with him two or three times to develop it. I went to see him, and I kept in touch with it but I didn't initiate everything by any means. I didn't pursue to the final making of the gift everytime, but I was involved in virtually every gift of any size during that whole period of time because I saw that as a special contribution that I could make. People want to talk to the president if they are going to give any substantial amount of money.

BRENT GLASS:

Did anyone ever come with a gift that you just felt wasn't in keeping with the…

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh yeah. We never took that money if they wanted money for a program that—oh, and nobody ever came with any evil money. Oh, people came with money that they had some special purpose that just didn't suit us. You tried to be as diplomatic as possible in getting it directed to something that we wanted to do. If we couldn't, we didn't take it. I could cite four or

---

Page 8

five incidences of where we didn't take the money. Either we didn't want to continue the program that they would start, or we didn't want to commit our resources to that, or we didn't want to pursue the particular program in the first place. So yeah, we didn't…

BRENT GLASS:

Can you cite one example of those things?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I would but it would be misunderstood. It just didn't suit our purposes.

BRENT GLASS:

One of the issues that comes up and has come up recently, in terms of UNC with Glaxo, is the relationship of private research and university faculty.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, that's a very difficult—oh, yes. In fact, I was trying to define that issue seven or eight years ago in the university world in two or three speeches of how do you handle that relationship. It is a delicate issue. It would damage pure research in the long run if everything took that turn. On the other hand, there's a place for that kind of research. It is in a limited area. But even there you've got to be very cautious in the conflict between the academic world—wanting to get out the truth, and to get it out as soon as possible, and get it cross checked by other investigators—and the need for secrecy in the corporate world to develop patentable ideas. So that has to be carefully resolved, and I would assume that they are carefully resolving it. No good university is going to sell out to commercial research alone. On the other hand, it's a contribution they can make. Then there's that conflict between applied research, that's a very broad term. The good aspects of

---

Page 9

it are why have research if it's not going to do something beneficial. [interruption]

BRENT GLASS:

We were just talking about the issue of private research and the university. One former chancellor of one of the universities said to me that almost inevitably the university wins in the long run. If you total up the box score, so to speak, the benefits to the university always outweigh the benefits to the corporation. Has that been your observation?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, it depends on what you mean by benefits to the university. If you're doing someone else's research, something that is not of particular interest to anybody but a narrow commercial interest, the question [is] whether or not supporting a professor in that kind of research was necessarily a function of the university. So I think you have to look at it very carefully and know what the purposes of the university are. I would think that it's the kind of partnership that would be beneficial to both sides, and to the extent that it is not beneficial to both sides, then no partnership of any kind of an undertaking is worthwhile. So I think it can be done provided that everybody understands the limitations and the needs and the purposes of the two enterprises.

BRENT GLASS:

Would the decision making as far as accepting a contract or not accepting a contract be about the same as the criteria for accepting a gift? Did you turn down contracts? Were you involved, or would that be something that would be decided in the individual department of the university?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh no, we would not have allowed anything like that to have been decided at too low a level, a level where purely the investigators were involved. On the other hand, most research grants are generated by the investigator, that is the faculty member. He will write the proposal, sometimes with staff assistance, and he pretty well directs the kind of research that he wants to do. I think there is no question that sometimes their research objectives are distorted by what kind of money is available, and so they might alter it. Generally, that kind of research money is fairly free. That is, fairly free in the determination of which way the research goes. Certainly all support of pure research is pretty much free. So sometimes decisions might be made where an investigator, in order to keep his lab going, might be doing something that he didn't think was the best way he could spend his time, but he certainly didn't think it was useless, or he wouldn't have been doing it.

BRENT GLASS:

Did it ever come across your desk where you were genuinely shocked or outraged at the kind of research that was going on?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh no. I don't think so. We simply didn't go after some things that some universities went after. It might have been slightly different at some universities. I think we kept institutional integrity intact in all those kinds of dealings.

BRENT GLASS:

Inevitably, over fifteen years there's going to be some frustrations and disappointments as well as successes. What were one or two of your major disappointments as president?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, there really weren't very many because almost everything that we tried to do was accomplished. Just to give you an indication of how few we had and how lacking in great importance, one of the frustrations is that I let get away from me a purchase of the Saturday Review of the Literature which would have been a very good deal. Today, the number one literary magazine, which since then has virtually been destroyed, would be published by Duke University, and I think at a profit. Well, I was on a little short sabbatical at that time and let senior staff people nip that in the bud when I thought they were following my instructions to pursue it. They, thinking they were wiser than I, and that this would not be a good thing for the university, killed it. By the time I discovered it, I would have had to fire somebody of considerable importance to me to have done it, or I would have had to have reprimanded him. It would have been so public in that rather limited public arena that the embarrassment would have had repercussions that I didn't want. But I think today, when I look at the New York Times Book Review, that we could be doing so much better. It's just a true university function. Well, that's a minor frustration. That didn't change the university one whit. That's about the only disappointment I have.

Well, you might say, "What about the Nixon Library?" Well, I did my duty there. I thought that we were the ideal repository for those papers. I thought it through and stood my ground, and the faculty finally agreed with me by which time we had more or less poisoned the well as far as the Nixon lawyers

---

Page 12

and people were concerned. I wouldn't say that it's a deep regret to me that we didn't get it. I'm sorry that we didn't get it because I think those papers ought to be available in a way that they're not available. I think the university could have best done it, and that we were the best university to do it. We got all kinds of emotional reactions here. I might say I was considerably surprised at the decision-making based on emotion instead of objectivity within an academic faculty. But the more I reflect on it, I shouldn't have been surprised.

BRENT GLASS:

Do you think the oppostion was a matter of philosophy or process?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, it was absolutely a matter of blind prejudice against Nixon, though the process was an excuse.

BRENT GLASS:

Okay, that was what I wanted to …

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, no, that was simply something they could hang it on. The process was simply that the Academic Council process was not really a process of communication as I incorrectly assumed that it ought to be. So when I involved the chairman of the Academic Council, I mistakenly thought I was involving communications with the faculty, when in truth they didn't have any mechanism for communication. Because it was summer time, I had no other mechanism. In retrospect, if I had put it off until September, it might have been a different story. They at least wouldn't have had the excuse of process.

BRENT GLASS:

You know, I am familiar with a little bit of the story of the honorary degree that was offered to Nixon and then

---

Page 13

retracted. I guess back in the fifties. Was that lurking in your mind at all?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh well, there's no question. I called the head of the History Department, or the acting head and former head, and told him [about the library proposal]. He said, "Well, as a historian I suppose I should be for this but I can't stand that…" I think he used a profane word but since I'm not absolutely certain he did, I won't put it in this record. Obviously, he was saying my professional standards are in conflict with my personal emotions. He said that as a historian, "I suppose I should be for it." It turned out that he wasn't for it so the personal emotions overrode the professional judgment. He was the person that took credit for mobilizing the forces to kill the—as a young professor—to kill the Nixon honorary degree. He took great pride in telling of his part in that, as perhaps he should have. In any event, this was a different question though some of them saw it as a question of rehabilitating Nixon at our expense. I didn't see it that way.

BRENT GLASS:

Clearly you weren't political allies with Nixon…

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, well, it had nothing to do with politics on my part, or redeeming Nixon, or anything else because I was the only person on this campus who had participated nationally in two campaigns against him. But that's gone and past, and the University's no worse off. I think that the academic research world is worse off. The public, essentially, I suppose, benefits from that kind of research.

BRENT GLASS:

There's a certain irony that the most…

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, the truth of the matter is that perhaps not having those papers readily available has permitted the rehabilitation of Richard Nixon to proceed with more dispatch.

BRENT GLASS:

With less scrutiny.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I happen to think that the way it's come out with Mr. Nixon reestablishing his credibility is something that ought to be admired. You know, a great many people would have long since given up, committed suicide, died, or whatever but he stuck in there. He continued to do things, project things that improved his standing and image, and the truth of the matter was that he always was a highly intelligent and able person. He had those personal flaws of insecurity and whatever else went with it—a lack of judgment in some, what might be called moral issues. That is, a level of what was shady and what was not shady. Though he was by no means a crook as he said he wasn't, and he wasn't. But he exercised such very bad judgment, and he paid the penalty, and while we wouldn't have had anything to do with the rehabilitation, we would have those papers available. So yes, I would say that we should have done it, but it didn't hurt the University that we didn't.

BRENT GLASS:

A certain irony that some of the greatest opposition came from the department of history where the archives would have served many historians.

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, well, the center of the opposition was the History Department. I think it had more to do with the fact that these people happened to be there. They just as soon could have been in any other department.

BRENT GLASS:

Can you access the relationship…

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, let me hasten to say, since this might fall to somebody else's eye someday, it wasn't just the History Department, of course. They got a rather long list of people to sign the petition saying they were opposed to it. It spread across the University. There were equally as many, and perhaps more, that thought we ought to have it.

BRENT GLASS:

Would you say that the relationship between private and public education, higher education, in North Carolina, is better, worse than ten years ago? In the last few years have you sensed the growing support or growing opposition to the arrangement that we have in North Carolina?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, we've always had extremely strong political support and never have been in serious trouble there. I think the private schools, even when I had something to do with it, didn't press the case quite as hard as they could have. They could have gotten more. But in any event, it's always been rather overwhelming, the legislative support. The University of North Carolina, particularly the president of the University of North Carolina, was the principal opponent. I would have to guess, though I haven't tested him out, that that's probably changed now. But in that ten-year period or so, maybe a little longer, we established that principle. While I had ten years earlier suggested it as Governor, it wasn't a pressing issue then. The gap hadn't developed so, though it was beginning, I had to make my choice between three big programs in that last session. As I recall, one [was] for retarded children, very

---

Page 16

comprehensive, $10 million dollars—then $10 million dollar program—which now would probably be a $30 million dollar program starting out, for the expansion of educational television, or the equalization payment to students going to private schools, and I didn't have enough money for all three of them. So I took the two obvious ones I should have taken. Still it was out there as a suggestion. Now it's a firm part of the policy. The only question now is the amount of money. The amount of money should be related to the gap, and it's worked very well. So it's on firmer ground. Bill Friday finally came around to thinking this is something that we have got, that he is not now quite as determined in his opposition to it. So I think it's in much better shape.

BRENT GLASS:

What role, if any, have you played in national higher education over the last ten years that you feel that you'd like to talk about?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I attempted to do my duty without spending too much time off attending national meetings and doing things that I didn't think had any particular relationship here. I was the chairman of the first National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, that after a period of two or three years went through a transition into what it is today, but that was the forerunner of it. It gave me an opportunity to speak out for the dual system of education and a continuing opportunity to do so. I was, in my due time, president of the Association of American Universities. I was very active always in that organization because that was the organization that I could learn

---

Page 17

from that would help Duke. I spent less personal time—though we were represented on a number of other organizations,—I spent less personal time with those organizations. Not that I didn't think they were important, but I just thought I had things that I could do better with my time somewhere else. Though I made speeches to several of them on several occasions, I never did get really involved. I, in a way, could have been heavily involved with the ACE, which is the umbrella organization. But I never saw anything that I would do that somebody else wouldn't do just as well. I didn't want to get involved in working for a leadership position in that organization because I didn't see that it would serve anything but my own vanity and that didn't need any serving.

BRENT GLASS:

We've talked before about role models and politics, political leadership, Kerr Scott and Frank Graham. Were there any role models in the presidency of a college—people that you admired around the country?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, there were people that I had an admiration for, at least in some of the things that they were doing. I attempted to draw from them lessons that might be useful to me at Duke. I'd say almost every person that I met at the AAU and some outside were doing things that I wanted to emulate. I think Kingman Brewster handled the [student] demonstrations in a very good way compared to other presidents at the time and compared to where he was—in a town of, among other things, working people, to say nothing of a place where the more liberal dissenters had tended to congregate and stay after finishing college. I think

---

Page 18

his dealing with them was very ideal, and I observed that before I even began as president of Duke. I certainly think that, just for one example, Steven Muller, President of Johns Hopkins, handled the fiscal affairs and general administration of the university in a way that I admired. A great many other people whose approaches—I can't pick out one person that could say was a role model. I could even go back to Frank Graham in his dealings with students. So I attempted to pick up all the good performances I could everywhere and apply them as they were appropriately applied to Duke.

BRENT GLASS:

What about relationships with the U. S. Department of Education itself? Did you discern the differences in policies from one administration to another that you had to respond to?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, the Department of Education, which became a department in '73 or '74 or somewhere along there, nonetheless was represented either by a commissioner or either by HEW at various stages. I always thought that the Department of Education, or whatever it was called at the time, was overstaffed. I always thought that they wasted a lot of energy and maybe some money in doing things that had no useful purpose. I always felt that the philosophy of education, the policy of education, should be kept out of Washington. We higher education never did really need the Department of Education then. But I supported its formation—for other reasons. It also is true that it wasn't as oriented towards higher education. Our concerns up there had more to do with the health sciences and the National Science Foundation and the funding for things that were relevant

---

Page 19

to us. They were not in the Department of Education. I had one running quarrel with [Joe] Califano, who I thought didn't understand a whole lot about education generally—nonetheless, he was there—over women athletes, which is something that I had been in favor of a good while. But they were off on some silly kick that you had to have as many scholarships for women as you had for men, period, and that you had to spend as much money per person. Well, that's all right if it were not for the rather unusual American institution of football teams. While I'm perfectly willing to see women go out for a football team, I'm not at all willing to create a new women's football team. To take that much money, and spend it on grants-in-aid to women who didn't come to Duke because they wanted to be athletes and who weren't qualified to get scholarships on the basis of merit, and to spread it out, offended me both in principle and as a practical matter of conserving money. It fell to me to try to work that out on behalf of higher education with HEW. Finally we did but not to everybody's satisfaction. Califano managed to help give me a reputation of being anti-feminist, which was nonsense. At any rate my experience with them was never very good. Now when Ted Bell came along to abolish the department, which I never thought he would do—I had known him since he was the chief state school officer when I put together the Education Commission of the States. He was a very thoughtful person. He's probably, well not probably because we haven't had many, he's the best Secretary of Education we've had.

BRENT GLASS:

Now Bennett was appointed…

TERRY SANFORD:

A total misfit. Bennett is a total misfit. Wherever he ought to be, he ought not to be up there involved in trying to do something that the Department of Education is not supposed to do anyhow, and that's set educational policy.

BRENT GLASS:

Recently he has set his sights on higher education criticism. I don't know whether you follow that. It might be after you had left Duke.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, Bennett doesn't know what he's talking about. That goes almost across the board, and I don't think that Bennett is any serious threat to education because I don't think that many people pay attention to him.

BRENT GLASS:

Let's move on to…

TERRY SANFORD:

I rather like Bill Bennett personally. I had known him at the [National] Humanities Center. I just think that he's doing things that he would have been the first to say, when he was on the outside looking in, that the Office ought not to get into. The great argument against it was that it would try to shape policy. He now has violated that more than anybody else.

BRENT GLASS:

You think that its just developed too much of an ideological base?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, of course, he's attempted to transfer his own ideological approaches to this.

BRENT GLASS:

Let's shift over to Duke and Durham for a little bit. In what way and why did you decide to become active in the development of Durham?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, because it needed to be done. Because Duke was the major employer, Duke was the major citizen, corporate citizen, of Durham. It's our town.

BRENT GLASS:

That was a major change because Duke had always been certainly at some distance from Durham.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, it's easy to be at some distance—easy for a corporation, the tobacco companies, American Tobacco Company, to be uninvolved. But certainly Duke ought to be involved, and certainly Duke students ought to be involved for their own education. So it was a thing that I started the day I got here, attempting to tie Duke in. One of the things I did the first day was go visit the City Council, and I think maybe the County Commissioners, if they were in session—if not, a day or two later.

BRENT GLASS:

What was the background of your involvement. It seemed to accelerate in the last few years.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, everything seemed stagnated. It occurred to me that by virtue of being at Duke I could be a catalyst, and that's what I tried to do. Now, there had to be a line between being a catalyst and being a political activist, and I tried not to cross that line. So once we got the downtown thing started with the Downtown Development Corporation—when the City Council decided to take it away from the corporation and handle it itself, you almost knew that it was doomed to fail and did. But neither was there a lot that you could do about it without appearing then to be trying to get Duke involved in telling them how to run the city.

BRENT GLASS:

What would you cite as some of the positive results of this involvement.

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, I don't think that there is any question that getting people together and getting them to talk and getting them to quit quibbling about their little differences was a good thing, and we carried it right on up to the time I left Duke. Some people thought I ought to continue it but it seemed to me that I couldn't very well do that.

BRENT GLASS:

You're talking about the (Durham) Progress Group, the breakfasts and the other activities.

TERRY SANFORD:

Yes, we never did really give a name to it. We wanted it to be kind of a flowing committee that anybody could come join and just anybody that wanted to work with Durham could come have breakfast with us. It got called Durham Progress Group and two or three other things. I just said it was the people of Durham having breakfast together.

BRENT GLASS:

Do you think Durham is unique in that divisiveness that seems to exist in North Carolina? How knowledgable are you of other cities, and how would you compare getting things done in Durham as compared to other municipalities?

TERRY SANFORD:

Durham has had a very difficult time getting its act together. It's just evident. It's evident that we didn't get downtown shaped up right compared to say Charlotte or Raleigh. We didn't pay enough attention to the benefits that flowed from the Research Triangle Park, and let Raleigh steal most of them, which they were perfectly justified in doing. We ignored industrial development or didn't do a good job. We most

---

Page 23

likely didn't give the person we hired to lead that enough support. Now that we're giving him more support you can see a better job being done.

BRENT GLASS:

Is this with the Chamber you mean?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, the Chamber's Industrial Development Department. So, Durham has lagged behind, and maybe now that that's happened that's to our benefit because we don't have to make all the same mistakes that others made. On the other hand, there is still an anti-development sentiment here. I'm totally in favor of proper planning and environmental controls but there's a group of people that transcend that to just being opposed to the moving of any stone or cutting of any tree. Well, we can't live in a wilderness since we don't live in a wilderness. We could if we chose, and individually moved to wildernesses. But if we're going to have a flourishing place that can support its downtown, that can support the arts, that can support the things that improve the quality of life, we've got to have jobs, and especially in this town that could have predicted that textile jobs and tobacco jobs were going to disappear. We were at least ten years slow in being aware of that and attempting to do something about it collectively. So there'll be a lag there but I think we can catch up.

BRENT GLASS:

How do you respond to the articles that you see where people fear the Research Triangle-Durham starting to resemble some of the northeastern metropolitan areas that are choked with traffic and have various—and there are indications, every once in a while you read about them in the paper…

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh yeah, we get choked with traffic. I had three cars ahead of me at the stoplight today.

[TAPE 1, SIDE B]

TERRY SANFORD:

We can escape some of that. Durham can't do it unless it understands that orderly development is the most legitimate purpose of the community, and that communities are developed areas in the country. They're not wild, wilderness areas. So the question is how do you develop them properly. You don't do it in a haphazard way as Durham has been inclined to do. Sometimes they'd make good decisions, sometimes bad decisions—never quite consistent rationale of how Durham ought to develop.

BRENT GLASS:

One banker in Durham said to me that the park is now downtown, and Chapel Hill, and Raleigh, and Durham are almost surburbs or boroughs within a much larger metropolitan area. Do you see that?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I don't see the Research Park as being the center of it. I do think that the Triangle area is rapidly becoming one community.

BRENT GLASS:

How active have you been? What's been your role in shaping that development? You've been an education and business leader now in Durham. Can we talk about that a little bit?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I've been involved with the Research Triangle from its beginning almost. No question that the concept has been developed pretty much according to plan. I haven't been as active in the Research Triangle Park in the last five or six years as I had been before, primarily because I had other things to do. I didn't see that I would do anything unique by being more involved in the road problems, and the street sign problems, and the other things that were concerning them, though I remained

---

Page 26

on the boards of the two until I resigned from Duke. I don't think there's any question that getting the Microelectronics Center, which I did get heavily involved in, has been another good indication of where North Carolina wants to go. Our technology is less well defined—where it might take us. Nonetheless, all the things that we've done at the Research Triangle Park have been of great benefit to the state and to this area. Durham is part of it. Durham now is the next place for development because Raleigh simply has to slow down. Chapel Hill doesn't want to gear up, and it's already overdeveloped anyhow. It wasn't organized to be that kind of community. Except for people retiring connected with the University, there's not a whole lot of justification for putting something new in Chapel Hill. People might disagree, but I think that's generally the public policy over there. Durham, on the other hand, started out as an industrial community. It's got to keep on being one. That is, it's got to create jobs. To the extent that the County Commissioners and City Council understand that, we'll do well. To the extent that they don't understand it, and they get carried away from the main purpose with little side issues, we won't have a rational program of proper development and properly planned development.

BRENT GLASS:

You know it just occured to me that in preparing for this that one of the by-products of Duke becoming closer with Durham has been that a number of former Duke students have stayed in the community and have become politically active and now serve

---

Page 27

on the City Council, many of them. Do you find that a certain irony there?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, a great many Duke students have remained here to work and to be here. No, I think that's inevitable. I think you would expect students to find it attractive to stay here. If they stay here, they ought to get involved.

BRENT GLASS:

I might be wrong but I think in the past Duke was seen more as a sort of a stop in between high school and a career.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I think from the 70's on you had a great many people that just didn't want to leave.

BRENT GLASS:

Who came up with the—how do you put together a project like Treyburn? Who comes up with the vision for what has to be, I guess, the second largest, or maybe even larger than the Research Triangle Park, development? How did that come together?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, a lot of people had something to do with it. I had been looking at that property a long time, having had a good deal of experience at that kind of thing in Fayetteville when I was practicing law—getting areas together for development, knowing something about the problems. Though I did it there mostly as a lawyer but I helped my clients initiate things. Then I became governor and got out of all that. I had begun looking at this property. In fact, I had bought a little piece of it several years before, the Weaver farm that touches on Roxboro Road, and had taken an option on about half of one of the other parcels, the Wright property or Snowhill Farm. There were three parts of the old Cameron lands left that had gone to different hands. The most recent one was the Fairntosh that was

---

Page 28

owned by a direct decendent of the builder and had been sold about ten years before. So it was all out of [original] hands. Except to some extent Snowhill was still in the family where it had been for a long time. About the time that I was—but I had abandoned that because I did that when I thought I was going to leave at 65. That's when I bought that little piece of property and took that option and thought I'd make that one of my little side enterprises. At that time you couldn't have bought the other two pieces of land. You could have bought the other piece of Snowhill but they didn't especially want to get rid of that. So we got what was available.

Then three years later it all became available by a series of events. The engineers [Army Corps] had taken too much of the farming land at Fairntosh to make it a good farm. Liggett had moved to New Jersey and wanted to sell their real estate. So all of it became available. Then Clay Hamner and Terry [Sanford, Jr.] came into the picture and began putting that together. I was involved with them then. Certainly to the extent that I assured them that we couldn't finance with borrowed money. That if we leveraged it too much, given the cycles of real estate, we'd ultimately stand to lose it. I'd seen this happen enough in my own experience because not only did I do this as a lawyer in Fayetteville, but I served on a real estate investment trust for First Union—Cameron Brown. I saw what happened to developers who were over leveraged. So Clay with his contacts found investors, and that's about how it got started.

BRENT GLASS:

Were you more involved in Treyburn than, let's say, Erwin Square or Brightleaf?

TERRY SANFORD:

No, I wasn't involved in Brightleaf at all and, except as a passive investor, in Erwin Square—one of the minor investors.

BRENT GLASS:

So Treyburn is the first one.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I didn't have time to devote to business. But in Treyburn, I intended to be very active. Of course, I intended to see that it was properly planned. For all the talk of the one or two very small groups, it's the best planned community in the state. The environment is the best protected of any place in the state. So all that will work out at the proper time. You know, Terry called me up. He'd come back here to build houses, been out of Chapel Hill for three or four years. He'd been off down in South Carolina learning how to build houses. Started off with a job at Raleigh. What's the name of that, in Cary, the Kildare?

BRENT GLASS:

Oh, McGregory Downs?

TERRY SANFORD:

No, Kildare. Putting in sewer lines and roads. He majored in psychology. So he called me in Florida and said that he had paid ten thousand dollars down on the two Liggett warehouses. Did I want to be in on it with him? I asked him where he got ten thousand dollars. He said, he had saved it. So I said, "I'll be in on it if you lose. If you win, I don't want any part of it. But I got a man here that you ought to talk with and probably ought to be in it with you, and that's Clay Hamner," who happened to be in Florida with me. So that's how they got

---

Page 30

together. Then they did one or two other things, and then they got Erwin Square and then Treyburn and now a couple of other things. I haven't really been involved in anything but Treyburn. By the time we got going here then I got into the Senate race and so whatever they do now, I can't be actively a participant.

BRENT GLASS:

Let's talk about the senate race. Let's lead up to it and try to backtrack and ask you, how active in the last ten years have you been in state and national politics?

TERRY SANFORD:

Not very active. But active enough to keep my hand in. Just before coming to Duke I had been the national chairman of the Citizens for Humphrey-Muskie which was pretty heavy involvement since you might say that that was the center of his campaign—might have been better if it had been the total center. We had the Democratic National Committee with Larry O'Brien still heavily influenced by the Kennedys, attempting to run the organizational side which didn't run too well. Not that Larry wasn't a good leader but there were problems there. In any event, I was pretty heavily involved. I made a tremendous number of contacts there, as you might guess, including young staff people like Sam Poole who now has become my campaign manager.

BRENT GLASS:

He was on the Humphrey-Muskie?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, he worked for me as one of the people working with Young Democrats or young people, mostly Young Democrats in the general election. I'd worked all summer for Humphrey as a volunteer. Pretty much spent my time in Washington and around the country, lining up his delegates. At the end of that I had a tremendous number of contacts. Then I came to Duke, and I really

---

Page 31

didn't expect to get involved in politics. But in '72 with McGovern beginning to sweep the country and anybody that knew anything about politics could stand aside from the one emotional issue and realize that McGovern simply couldn't cut it. Students in Chapel Hill started it and got Duke involved. Got a petition and put my name on the ballot. I thought I could get out of that with the trustees. Well, oddly enough the trustees led by a big Republican, Tom Perkins, just urged me to do it. Thought it was a great exercise. Unfortunately, I shouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, Governor Scott not only wouldn't support me, he attempted to ridicule the effort. He wanted Muskie because he thought—well, he was pledged to Muskie. He could have easily have gotten out for his father's campaign manager and his friend and a person who had a lot to do with his being Governor but he didn't. That was fatal in itself.

Then the black candidate emerged and John Wheeler, who was the black leader in North Carolina, and whom I'd made nationally known. I'd done all kinds of things to elevate him and to use him as a consultant but he felt he had to stick with her.

BRENT GLASS:

Shirley Chisholm.

TERRY SANFORD:

And you had Wallace coming in here—you know it's fatal to lose the black vote. Well, at that time I ought to have gotten out if I'd have known any decent way, graceful way to have done it. Then in addition to that you had the Nixon people that were very much campaigning against me for obvious reasons. You had the McGovern people who were campaigning against me though he was for all practical purposes out of the North Carolina race. It

---

Page 32

was Shirley Chisholm and Wallace and me and there really wasn't any way I could win that race. But I got into it, and I got out, I think, gracefully when it was all over. But I went on to being nominated just to make our point. So that gave me again a wide array of contacts I hadn't really set out to get.

Then at the end of that, in spite of the fact that I had been against McGovern [interruption] , I became chairman of the Charter Commission in (1973). That gave me that summer (of 1973) to travel around the country and hold hearings and ultimately run the first Democratic midterm conference, gave me another wide range of political contacts. Really by '75 if I had wanted to quit Duke, I probably could have been a formidable candidate. My mistaken move, if it was a mistake, was not doing that and thinking that I could stay here. [That] because I had all these credentials that I could be nominated without getting out there and spending thirty days in Iowa and forty-five in New Hampshire. All of which was irrational but necessary. So, in spite of all my isolation by being in the academic world, I probably had as much political experience in the last fifteen years as almost anybody, without intending to.

BRENT GLASS:

Now there were at least, from my calculation, at least one, two, three opportunities to run for Senate prior to this one. You didn't choose to do that. Why?

TERRY SANFORD:

I never had any great ambition to be in the Senate. It seemed to me—certainly I didn't have any ambition to spend my life in the Senate.

BRENT GLASS:

How involved were you then in state politics in the last ten years?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I took the position that every citizen, regardless of whether he was working in a machine shop or was president of the university, ought to be involved in politics. I never hesitated to take sides. I always did it, I hope, with some taste and judgment. I never was by nature violently partisan but I supported the Democratic candidates always and always openly, and I supported Hunt. I had a big fund raiser here for Bob Morgan when he ran the last time unsuccessfully for the Senate. I had a statewide fund raiser for him, for which I sent out personal invitations. So I stayed pretty much involved.

BRENT GLASS:

Did you have a working relationship with Hunt?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, close.

BRENT GLASS:

In his eight years as…

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, you know, Hunt in a way saw himself as a protege. He started off campaigning with me. Then I supported Bob Jordan this last time for Lieutenant Governor. I supported several other people but he was the successful one. I supported Lauch Faircloth and then Rufus Edmisten and then Rufus Edmisten again in the general election. Of course I supported Hunt, and I stayed in politics which I think I should. I did it in a way that didn't upset any Republican trustees.

BRENT GLASS:

You characterized once the governors that have succeeded you as perhaps not being as activist or as—well activist will be the word I'll use. This was back in '76. Would you say that Hunt accelerated the course that you tried to set?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, Hunt approached the governorship with more like my approach.

BRENT GLASS:

What finally led you to decide to run for Senator?

TERRY SANFORD:

Two things. One, I was out of work, needed something to do. I'd toyed with it, struggled with it. I saw good reason for doing it and many, many reasons for not doing it. All the reasons for not doing it were personal, and all the reasons for doing it were, I might say, motivated by public concerns. It was obvious that the Democratic Party was just about to finish itself off. The last thing it needed was one more bloody primary, and especially when you saw the Republicans rising with such a respectable group of people. Broyhill, of course, is a very respectable candidate, could be expected to beat almost anybody, including me. The best chance of getting the Party together—for no other reason than Faircloth and Blount who certainly were the only two, they were the two candidates that were coming out of the first primary… Neither would run if I ran, and the fact that I had ties to all parts of the Party, and that I'd been out of it long enough not really to be seen as a partisan. In any event over the passage of time almost everybody emerging in North Carolina politics was associated with me in 1960 one way or another. So I was the proper person to try to unite the party. Furthermore, I thought that I could, and that I should. That was a big factor in getting me to run but that wouldn't have been enough. The goal itself had to be, is it worthwhile being in the Senate at this time? And the answer was yes, especially at this time because there will be no national

---

Page 35

agenda by the time you get there. You can have a part in shaping the national agenda, and maybe a part in seeing to it that the Democrats don't make the same presidential mistake for the fourth time. So put it all together, it looked like a great exciting challenge. Why not do it?

BRENT GLASS:

Would you care to describe the discussions you had with various leaders? Because you got into the game kind of late, didn't you? Everyone was saying if someone didn't get into it by October of '85 that was almost like the absolute cutoff date. You certainly wouldn't have run, for instance, if Hunt had decided to run, right?

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, no. Oh, I wouldn't have run. I tried to get Bill Friday to run. I tried to get Wade Smith to run. I tried to get numerous people to run that could have a unifying effect. The truth of the matter is that Blount and Faircloth would not have made it. In the first place they wouldn't have stood aside for each other. They would have stood aside for some of these others. I offered to do all kinds of things to support Bill Friday. I don't know how good a—nobody ever saw him as a campaigner, but he would have been good if he had followed the same kind of campaign strategy that I did. He would have been a good candidate, I think. Whoever ran had to follow the strategy that I finally followed. First unifying the party, and then running as hard as you could on the issues. So, it was certainly Christmas before I even began to think about it again. Probably not til the first week in January that I began to say, "All right, let's talk." People were beginning to say then, "Run, and

---

Page 36

we'll help you." I don't remember when exactly but it was either the latter part of January or… It didn't leave much time.

BRENT GLASS:

Did it hurt your relationship with the people who had already announced, Blount, Faircloth? There was speculation about that.

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh yeah. I think Faircloth was caught by surprise that I ran although I told him I was. He just, in his own mind, thought that I wouldn't. He, in effect, told me to, but in his own mind, thought that I wouldn't do it. I think it did catch him by surprise and hurt his feelings.

BRENT GLASS:

Don't you think it's hard for someone who's never run for elective office to run for that high an office? Who's never been successful, I guess, seems that people—I thinking about Bill Friday more than Faircloth—it seems if no one has ever pulled the lever for that person.

TERRY SANFORD:

Oh, I don't know. Bill Friday, of course, was well known and had a good reputation. Whether or not he could have exercised the independent approaches that you had to if you're not going to let these professionals take over your campaign and if we had let them do that, I think I would have lost.

BRENT GLASS:

By professionals, you mean …

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, the television people, for instance. They ran Faircloth. They ran Hunt, in my opinion. I was determined I was going to run my campaign. If we'd have been with Friday, I think we'd have determined that we were going to help him run his campaign.

BRENT GLASS:

The first question I had was, "In your mind what was, did the election in '84 have any influence on your thinking and how you prepared for both the primary and the general election?"

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I think if the '84 election had been successful, I probably would have had less problems if indeed I had ended up being the candidate. I might also have had less incentive for running and would have ended up having somebody else to support. Certainly the Party would not have been in a divided condition. Certainly the danger of continuing division would not have been as deadly a threat as it turned out that it was. So the very fact that we lost that election had a fundamental effect on my campaign, or whether or not, indeed, there really would have been a campaign. I suppose that I didn't think about running until sometime after that campaign. That would have been in the fall of '84. So the spring of '85 as I was leaving Duke, certainly was the first time that it began to cross my mind that it might be something that I might want to try to do, maybe.

BRENT GLASS:

Not only the outcome but the conduct of the campaign, did that have an influence on you? Thinking, to run, not to run, or how you would conduct your campaign?

TERRY SANFORD:

I hadn't any question about how I would run the campaign. I had had some difference of opinion with the managers of the Hunt campaign. When I would talk to Jim Hunt about it, he certainly seemed to be inclined to be in agreement with me but stymied by the fact that all of this expert advice and these

---

Page 38

pollsters and people that are supposed to know were telling him that he had to do it a different way. I suppose he would now be the first to say, as he later advised me, "Don't let those people, that is experts, run your campaign." Well, I learned that but I think that I already knew it.

BRENT GLASS:

What kind of advice would they give you?

TERRY SANFORD:

I never had operated with that kind of a battery of experts but I had pretty well made up my mind from having seen them in several campaigns. You just didn't do that when I ran for governor. You had an advertising agency. We had a pollster. We put it together, and we made the decision of what kind of a campaign to conduct and how to develop the issues. I felt the candidate always has ultimately to do that. Now, I don't think the candidate runs his own campaign because he can't. I think he has to call the shots and set the style and certainly decide how it's going to be run, especially in terms of issues. So I had observed all of that, and I don't know that had I observed it or not that I would have run any different campaign. Obviously, I, having been through that—the people of the state having been through it made it all the more imperative that I run the kind of campaign that I did. At least I thought so, and I suppose, coming out the way it did, I have to conclude I must have been not wrong. Maybe they…

BRENT GLASS:

Well, what would be the contrast?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, the contrast of course was that they constantly went after Helms. That was the advice he was getting—absolutely contrary to the advice that I wanted them to take—

---

Page 39

but that they had to go after him. I felt they needed to build up Hunt's own spendid record as Governor, that they emphasize that and ignore to a considerable extent Helms. Now I don't mean ignore him totally. I think some of my people during the summer misunderstood my concept. I didn't think you ought to totally ignore them. You couldn't. Neither could you let them dominate your campaign and set the style of the total campaign, and set the agenda of issues. I think anytime you can seize the initiative, you're better off. So they were responding in kind. I was determined that we would not respond in kind, and we didn't. I don't mean to rehash the campaign but the negative elements of the campaign in my judgment, in my biased view, were all on the Broyhill side. I don't think we did anything that could be called negative. We didn't fail to run some comparative ads. We didn't attempt to take a little piece of his record and twist it, or at least I hope not. We certainly weren't responding in kind and weren't letting him set the agenda. Again, I hope that's true. I'm fully cognizant of the tendency to overlook your own flaws and not the opponents.

BRENT GLASS:

Had you been running against a more free swinging candidate, let's say that Funderburk defeated Broyhill, I don't know, how would you handle that?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I think that our campaign would have looked even better against him. We would have let him run that stuff. We didn't answer the last month's campaigns that attempted to say that I was the kind of big spending liberal and ended up with a picture, a distorted picture, of three people—one of whom was

---

Page 40

me; one of whom, as I recall, was a caricature of Mondale, and the other a caricature of Kennedy. In fact, it was so badly distorted that it became ridiculous and therefore funny and therefore, I'm sure, ineffective. In any event we didn't attempt to answer that, and we certainly didn't attempt to go back and hit him with people that he wouldn't want his name associated with. We certainly could have come up with a number of things of that kind if we had wanted to. But it would have been a mistake. It would have been a mistake in strategy. We weren't not doing it just because it was not the thing to do. It would have been a bad piece of strategy. There were a lot of reasons that I wanted to run a positive campaign that you could look at after it was over and say, that was a clean campaign. It was also a good strategy to do it that way, and it would have been a good strategy for Hunt. In fact, the only quarrel I had with—the biggest quarrel I had, that is, with my people—was that they didn't emphasize my positive record enough. I felt that we ought to hit hard on the things I had done for the state, to really get the emphasis on the community college contribution which was substantial. It's the best answer in the world to the sales tax. Now, granted most of the sales tax, the new sales tax money, really didn't go for community colleges. It went for teachers' salaries, it went for libraries. But finding the tangible evidence of that for a thirty-seven second spot on even for a theme is much more difficult.

BRENT GLASS:

You were saying that one major difference was the type of people, the type of team, that you assembled as opposed as to let's say, how the Hunt campaign was run.

TERRY SANFORD:

No, it was virtually the same type of people. It wasn't the in-state people and the campaign manager and the people that got up money and the people organized to get out the vote. It was the outside consultants, really the television people, because, see, the campaign other than television was a superb campaign. The television campaign, ultimately, did him in, both the Helmes side and, in my opinion, to a considerable extent his own side because it took away from him—the bright, young, clean-cut Governor. It made him in the eyes of too many voters just another person like Helms, slapping out at the opposing candidate. He shouldn't have been on any of those spots when they felt it necessary to take on Helms. It should have been somebody else, not him.

BRENT GLASS:

That taunt, "Where do you stand, Jim?" just kept coming back and back.

TERRY SANFORD:

Yeah. Well, you know he just kept on the attack of Helms, and that's what they were advising him to do. When I would tell him, he would say, you know, with complete perplexity, but "This is what they're telling me I have to do," and they'd point out that back in the spring when he didn't do that he got behind. Well, I think that probably was not the reason he was getting behind. He was getting behind because of the big push Helms was putting on. In my opinion we could have left that alone as we did during the summer for Broyhill. They made that

---

Page 42

thrust, and then they had shot a good deal of their ammunition. When we came back, that had dwindled in influence. Anyhow, it's awfully easy to hold a post-mortem, and had I lost, people would be saying everything I did was wrong. It may be that he simply got beat because Reagan was on the ticket. Nonetheless, I thought that the campaign could have been improved, and consequently I was making certain that I didn't do the same thing.

BRENT GLASS:

Your principle team, could we describe who they were? Who were the people, obviously different people from 1960, but who were some of the new people? You mentioned Mr. Poole the other day.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, Sam Poole, whom I've already mentioned was the campaign manager and did a spendid job. The campaign manager is in charge of everything. He's in charge of picking the television consultant. He's in charge of picking the pollster. He's in charge of picking the staff. He's in charge of getting the counties organized. He's in charge of getting up the money. He's in charge of everything. He's in charge of dealing with the press. Well, obviously, one person can't do it all. Obviously, he consults with the candidate on all those things. You have to let a campaign manager make those decisions if you are going to hold him responsible. Now, they certainly told me what they had in mind for the television and the pollster. I could have said, "Don't do that." But even if I had said don't do that, go somewhere else, when they went somewhere else, it would be their decision. Those people who are responsive to him, they didn't

---

Page 43

think they could by-pass him to me cause I didn't hire them. So Sam Poole was the manager, and he held all that together, as you must, loosely in a campaign. You don't have time to tighten everything down. When I ran for governor, I had about five or six highly competent people. I had Bert Bennett doing what Sam was doing. I had Henry Hall Wilson, a very competent lawyer who later became administrative assistant to both Kennedy and Johnson, working in there. I had Joel Fleishman working in there. I had Tom Lambeth working in there. I had Hugh Cannon working in there. All of them doing what Sam was doing in my campaign. So we had to get him some help. We did have Paul Vick on pretty much a full-time basis though he was still doing some other things. He was an adviser and a consultant who dealt with the television people and took in all the money and was the controller. That is, more important than taking it in, he spent it—saw to it that it was conserved, very tight management, and also his political advice. He was, for the primary in the summer, Sam's number one consultant—not totally, formally in the campaign—but he was too, he was the controller. He dealt with the television people. They pretty much took the advice of those, followed the instructions of those two. But again, looking for somebody to take the part of all these other folks about August I got, Sam got, Bill Green who is vice-president of University Relations at Duke, a highly regarded journalist, to take leave and come to the campaign full-time to work with the issues, with PR, with editors. That made a tremendous difference. It gave Sam some mature support. It gave Paul Vick

---

Page 44

mature collaboration. It made a tremendous difference. I also brought Martha McKay in to put her hand on fund raising mostly, fund raising out of the state, but generally fund raising as well as issues and using her political judgment. At least we got her involved in the campaign. We didn't have the same worry about raising money that we'd had in '60 because we then just sort of raised it as we could. We had three or four people that were finance chairmen but we needed much less money then. So we had John Bennett, who had worked full-time in Hunt's campaign, working full-time in our campaign after the primary. We needed to be available and to follow up, at least we had somebody doing that. Then I could spend less time on fund raising than Hunt had spent on fund raising. That was a distinct advantage. We went into the wrap-up really with that leadership. Now we had some good people in there, Angie Elkins, a good person on the telephone and knows people everywhere, very efficient. We had Bill Bost to come in—Sam Poole's law partner.

---

Page 45

We just decimated that law firm to put together our get out the vote. We had some other good people working, very good people but we had a fairly lean staff at the top. Really, you'd have to say Paul, and Bill Green, and Sam Poole were running the campaign.

BRENT GLASS:

Did you have any doubt about winning the first primary?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I didn't because…

BRENT GLASS:

I mean winning with a fifty percent majority.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I think we had to spend money to be sure we did because while the polls looked pretty good, still that many people running would worry you. You know, just almost accidentally nine people could get a whole lot of votes, and two or three of them were pretty good vote getters. That's why we went ahead and put on a very well-planned and fairly costly television program because we didn't want to take any chances of coming under 50%. I think that would have been disastrous. In fact if I had, I would have been trying to figure someway to get out of it.

BRENT GLASS:

You mean just the fact of not winning the first time?

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, I think you would have failed to get the momentum that you would, that I had to have, to come in that way. So once we began to do that I didn't have any question that we could sustain it. We also were able to be very soft on our opponents in the primary and very careful not to offend any of them, and without any qualms gave up even campaigning in Mecklenburg County where we had three opponents. Well, they could hardly get mad with me if I, out of restraint and

---

Page 46

consideration for them, didn't even organize the biggest county in the state. It might have cost us a few thousand votes in the general election, that we were so slow getting going in the primary really. Then here was the summer. You can't organize Charlotte in the summer.

BRENT GLASS:

Everybody's up in the mountains or down at the coast.

TERRY SANFORD:

Well, summer is not a good time certainly to organize an urban county. We did fairly well. I think we ultimately did extremely well in Mecklenburg County.

BRENT GLASS:

The black vote in the primary, it's important to get the black vote. At the same time it can be, you can be tagged as the black candidate in the general election or second primary. You know we've seen that happen. What kind of thinking went into organizing or getting out the black vote?

TERRY SANFORD:

None, absolutely didn't give that danger one thought. I declined to have any Blacks for Sanford Committee or Women for Sanford Committee. We just didn't want to perpetuate that split and division. We wanted to treat blacks as simply Democrats and citizens of North Carolina, and so we didn't really give any emphasis to that. Now we had a number of black people working. We had one in particular who was working with black leaders around the state but we didn't attempt to emphasize that. I, of course, don't even know how many blacks voted. I'm sure that information is available. I just haven't seen any need to take limited time to analyze it because I don't think it means anything much. Well, it does mean a whole lot. But to me, I'm trying my best, as we go along through the years, to get away

---

Page 47

from this business of talking about the black vote and the white vote. So I gave a great deal of attention to that when I was running for governor, when I was running against somebody that I knew would raise that issue, when it was a time when the race issue could be raised in a very bald way.

[TAPE 2, SIDE A]

BRENT GLASS:

Well, you were saying if Broyhill had raised the race issue…

TERRY SANFORD:

Yeah, I think if he had raised the race issue, it would have been damaging to him overall. A great many people would have then seen him in the light of Jessie Helms. It would have been more detrimental than helpful to him. I think that's generally so today. I don't think you can do it. Helms did it in a very devious way but it was always the underlying current. The fact that he voted against Martin Luther King's holiday, and that became the code word for the people that could be appealed to in that manner. But it was much less likely to get into this campaign. In any event, I don't remember our even discussing that possibility in the primary.

BRENT GLASS:

Was there ever any concern, after the primary, of how to handle the neo-conservative religious groups, that are much more active in politics now.

TERRY