Comparing presidential leadership and approaches to education
Friday draws comparisons between the leadership styles of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter. Friday worked with each of these presidents on various commissions and task forces involving higher education during the 1960s and 1970s. The excerpt concludes with an assessment of Ronald Reagan and how his approach to issues of education demonstrated a departure from federal interest in education.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with William C. Friday, December 3, 1990. Interview L-0147. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- WILLIAM LINK:
-
I had a few questions, and I'd like more opportunities for
you to elaborate. Between Kennedy and Carter, particularly, I gather,
you had rather close contact and increasedߞJohnson, Nixon,
Carter, and those particularly with whom you were vitally involved in
central educational decisions. I'm wondering how you would
compare the presidencies of those people, in terms of your own
relationships with them.
- WILLIAM C. FRIDAY:
-
I don't claim to have been that close with them. When you
dealt with presidents, you had to deal with the people around them. They
make them.
[END OF TAPE 1, SIDE B]
[TAPE 2, SIDE A]
[START OF TAPE 2, SIDE A]
- WILLIAM C. FRIDAY:
-
....was a manߞhis presence was commanding. He wanted everybody
to know that he was in charge, he was running it. But that
didn't mean that he dealt with it. He would move in in center
stage. He was the kind of fellow that would pull you right up to you.
Big, strong, and had a hand that would just swallow your's
up, and he'd pull you up close. Sometimes you felt like his
mind was somewhere else, when he was talking with you about your
subject. But, very much a product of the congressional system of
development. Mr. Carter was quite the other way. Very bright. A product
of gubernatorial training. Much more attentive to individuals, rather
than the system. He's a man that didn't have the
feelingߞyou didn't feel as warm when you were
talking with him, as you did with Johnson. Not that
that meant anything, but it was just a different personality type. You
had the feeling that he could be very severe, if he had to be. His eyes,
at times, you could see a fixed stare in them. He had a great team of
people. Eisenstadt was a first-rate domestic chief. What you learn about
all these men, though, is that they soon drift away from immediate sense
of commitment to domestic things. They want to deal with foreign policy.
They want to deal with the world. And I think each personal history
shows you that. Mr. Nixon was so much that way, that he really, I think,
had any time for domestic affairs. Mr. Johnson was exactly the opposite.
It was a thing thatߞthe Vietnam War did him in, as he said it.
Gerald Ford wasn't in there long enough to go either way. But
Jimmy Carter, through his work with Israel and Egypt, and their two
premiers, Sadat and Begin, he became an international figure by it. And
it's so interesting to note how Mr. Carter has emerged in the
last ten years. Such a distinguished figure in international
involvement. Mr. Reagan: I don't know, I've never
felt that history would deal with him in a very generous way. Because
I've never felt that he really was our leader. He had an
agenda that got this country in the worst deficit situation that it will
ever see. It's got its educational system in a very bad way.
He deliberately and willfully set out to establish a tax policy that
benefited the wealthy. That's openly admitted. He really
diverted the resources of the country to the military strength issue.
And while president turned the whole thing around to where the wall came
down. It was obviously a massive expenditure, which they say he brought
about, but that's not what history says. It was the internal
decay of the communist system that killed it. And the building of a
great military structure might have been a force in it, but it was not
by any means the real element of the destruction that went on there.
- WILLIAM LINK:
-
Was part of itߞI gather, a lot of the problem with Reagan, in
terms of his light attentiveness to, really, education ߞwas it
that he didn't have the people around him? Was that it?
Johnson did, obviouslyߞhad all these people who were very
interestedߞ
- WILLIAM C. FRIDAY:
-
That's right. But you know one of the interesting things
about it is he dealt so much with the business community, yet he never
listened. David Kerr, for example, with Xerox recently made a statement
that I only wished that Mr. Reagan had heard. He said when
youߞ"Education is not to be viewed as in competition
with national defense, and AIDS, and foreign affairs of this country. It
should be viewed as a solution to these problems." Which is
really what the truth is. Now Mr. Eisenhower saw some of this when he
admonished us all: "Keep your eye on the union of the
military-corporate alliance." You're seeing the
effect of that under Mr. Reagan. I just don't think Mr.
Reagan ever really understood it. Nor did he care, therefore, for the
role the academic educational process plays in developing the economy of
a country. It has everything in the world to do with it. Especially now
with the intelligence level in plant operations being so high. They
never grasped this. Some governors do, some don't.