Women Enrolled at St. Thomas - Back to Top

Before Msgr. Murphy and the St. Thomas Board of Trustees considered the co-educational issue, in response to the discussion between the two schools, the administration at the College of St. Catherine made it clear that they intended to remain an all-women’s college. This left St. Thomas with only one consideration: whether or not to independently become a coeducational institution. This issue finally came to a vote at the trustees October 18, 1976 meeting. The admission of women to the undergraduate program was approved by a vote of 16 to 2 with 3 abstentions. When Msgr. Murphy made the announcement of this decision to the campus community, he reiterated the intention to continue a cooperative relationship with St. Catherine. The St. Thomas administration intended to draw only young women to campus who had not previously attended St. Catherine. In keeping with this, transfers from St. Catherine would not be allowed for at least three years. Initially, admission of women to St. Thomas did not seem to adversely affect St. Catherine’s enrollment numbers.

For the first time in the fall of 1977, 221 women (10% of total undergraduate enrollment) enrolled as full-time students. Undergraduate enrollment increased to 2686 with a corresponding increase to 1453 graduate students (See Appendix 2). There were qualitative and quantitative differences noticed all over campus. As hoped, both the academic quality and the size of the student body improved which contributed to the financial strength at St. Thomas. Gradually, other positive outcomes were reported by departments including: increased numbers in majors, an increase in women faculty, greater departmental stability, and leadership of women students in departmental organizations. Although departments did not report any negative effects, the shift was not without difficulty. Initially, some females were reported to be the brunt of sexism in the classroom and professors unfamiliar with the differing temperament between males and females found it difficult to have a young coed in tears in the middle of a final exam. After a period of adjustment, the overall effect was positive for the College of St. Thomas. As the entering class of 1977 progressed toward graduation, many of these first female students graduated with honors.

Despite St. Thomas’ active efforts to continue a cooperative relationship, the admission of women ultimately strained the relationship with the College of St. Catherine. Some departments continued offering joint programs while others reported program development difficulties. Even homecoming activities were indicative of the changing nature of the relationship. Traditionally, St. Thomas and St. Catherine selected a king and queen for homecoming royalty. Beginning in 1977, St. Thomas also selected a queen. After a couple of years, having two homecoming queens became awkward and the practice was stopped. Administratively, there was also clear evidence of an evolving relationship. After a decade of including both courses and faculty rosters in each college’s biennial catalog, these joint listings were discontinued in 1982. At this time the strong sense of being sister/brother institutions no longer existed and the relationship with St. Catherine’s became no different than that with other Associated Colleges of the Twin Cities (ACTC) member institutions.

Accomplishments of the 1970's - Back to Top

By 1977, St. Thomas had increased the number of graduate and undergraduate programs. Undergraduate programmatic additions had increased total undergraduate enrollments to 2,686.

At the graduate level, 1,453 students were enrolled in these three programs: Masters in

Education, Masters in Business Administration, and a Graduate School of Religious Education. The enlargement in the student body led to a faculty member increase from 117 to 136 full time and from none to 91 adjunct members. Additionally, the endowment had also grown to $7,280,000 and St. Thomas had a total college operating budget of $9,602,000 (See Appendix 1).

A new undergraduate programmatic addition reflected St. Thomas’ continuing effort to pursue their underlying mission of meeting community needs. In 1974 a proposal was made by the Academic Alternatives Committee that the College consider the establishment of a co-educational evening school to serve the needs of men and women whose academic careers had been interrupted, as well as other atypical students. St. Thomas’ evening division, entitled New College, was established in 1975 with Dr. James Byrne, who had been Dean of the graduate programs in Education, as it first director. In 1977, this undergraduate college enrolled 159 degree and non-degree students in courses provided exclusively in the evenings and on weekends.

Another program which was very appealing to undergraduates involved overseas study. Beginning in the mid 1970’s, St. Thomas began developing a number of affiliations with colleges and universities in Europe, Asia, and South America. The College, through its International Education Center, encouraged students to spend either a single term or a full year in one of the affiliate programs abroad. By the early 1980s, overseas academic experiences were available in England, Germany, Austria, Norway, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, Wales, Ireland, Peru, Columbia, and Egypt.

The ten years spanning 1972 and 1982 marked several shifts in faculty demographics. The percentage of religious faculty decreased from 12 to 9 percent of the total. Lay female faculty increased from 8% to 18%. Full-time tenured faculty remained constant at approximately 36%. Overall, the core of full time faculty grew by 68% and salaries grew by 164%. By 1983 St. Thomas faculty were ranked third in full professor salaries and first at the associate and assistant professor levels compared to five other regional institutions (University of Minnesota, Carleton, St. Olaf, St. John’s, and Macalester colleges). As St. Thomas grew, Dean Keffer’s position was changed to Provost of the College reflecting his expanding duties (See Appendix 3).

During the same ten year span, the Board of Trustees had grown to 28 members. The Board's Executive Committee membership consisted of a Chair and Vice Chair (who was also Chair-elect) who were recommended by the Board Affairs Committee and elected by the full Board. The Chairs of the standing Board committees on Academic Affairs, Finance, Investment, Institutional Advancement, Physical Facilities, and Student Affairs were also members of the executive committee. Additionally, the full Board elected at-large members, but the number is at the discretion of the Board. The Executive Committee met once each month (except July and January) and conducted business for the Board between their meetings. The senior administration attended Executive Committee meetings but with no vote.

While the Board of Trustees accomplished the work of the institution, the corporate officers formally represented the College for various legal purposes. Although they never had separate meetings, these corporate officers were comprised of the following: the Archbishop of the St. Paul Diocese, who served as the Chairman; the Vicar General of the Archdiocese was the Vice Chair; the President of the College; the Provost was the Secretary and the Vice President for Business Affairs was the Treasurer.

The 1980's Focus and Expansion - Back to Top

National Projections

In the early 1980s, several high-profile national reports critical of higher education were published calling for reform in undergraduate education and general studies programs. Institutions of higher education were coming under fire for a lack of responsiveness to the changing needs of students and for tenaciously holding to traditions that impeded curricular innovation. Nationally, high school enrollments declined. This prompted many colleges to revise and intensify their recruitment and retention programs. While such efforts occurred at St. Thomas, they were unpredictably successful. After becoming a coeducational institution, the

larger pool of potential students from which to draw had resulted in a more positive scenario for total enrollments.

1983 NCA Visit

Increasing enrollments were a welcome part of the picture that was painted in St. Thomas’ 1983 Self Study Report for the North Central Association (NCA). Contrary to the national trend forecast for the 1980s, the student population at St. Thomas had doubled since its 1973 NCA evaluation. In 1973 student enrollments had been at 2,451 and by 1982 they had grown to 5,854. Due to the success of the graduate programs, the distribution had shifted from 79% undergraduates and 21% graduates in 1973 to 67% undergraduates and 33% graduates in 1982 (See Appendices 1 and 2).

However, in their evaluation report, the NCA noted several concerns related to the recent growth at St. Thomas. These included:

By the middle of the 1980’s the mission of the college had been further elaborated and published in the undergraduate handbook of 1984-86. At this point the mission read:

The 1980s marked a period of rapid growth in three major areas: undergraduate and graduate student enrollment, the number of graduate programs, and an expanding physical plant. In 1987 St. Thomas had 4848 undergraduates and 3548 graduate students for a total student population of 8396. This led to a corresponding expansion of the physical plant. In the ten-year period between 1982 and 1992, the estimated over-all construction and remodeling projects exceeded 100 million dollars. These projects covered capital improvements involving new construction, the acquisition of the former St. Paul Seminary Campus and other existing residential buildings, as well as considerable remodeling of facilities.

During this period, graduate programs were initiated and established in a variety of ways. One example is the Business Communications degree co-founded by two faculty members. This idea interested Monsignor Murphy enough to allocate $20,000 with $10,000 for travel to research best practices. A contrasting example involves another faculty member originally hired by the Provost to teach a single course with no promises for financial support beyond that. With an entree into the St. Thomas community, this faculty member capitalized on the opportunity to write grants to cover the development of additional graduate level courses she was interested in teaching. Still another example involves a faculty member in the computer sciences department. She had a comprehensive and timely proposal to offer a graduate degree in software development. After presenting this idea to the Provost, she left with a little bit of seed money and the incentive to prove it was worth more. All three of these very different beginnings produced well-developed programs.

While program ideas continued to emerge, most faculty and staff on campus wondered if there were priorities or a design that guided these expansion decisions. It seemed obvious that anything could happen at St. Thomas in one of two ways: "either it doesn't happen or it happens next week." Frustrated by the ad hoc nature of this evolution and the lack of a long-range plan, some faculty wondered if the growth was creating a fragmented institution. Although St. Thomas may not have had a formally documented set of priorities, nevertheless, indications of priorities could be seen in the physical and programmatic changes occurring in the institution which corresponded to timely financial support.

In the early 1980s, Msgr. Murphy was greeting people at the entrance to the campus chapel after mass. As James Callahan, a Music professor for over 15 years, was walking out the door, Murphy pulled him aside and asked him what it would take to install a quality pipe organ in the chapel. At that point, knowing how expensive such a project would be, Callahan gave Murphy an amount that made that clear. When Msgr. Murphy heard the estimate, he was visibly disappointed. Still determined, Murphy appointed three campus experts (Callahan, the Chair of the Music Department, and the chapel music director) to a committee and charged them to make the necessary decisions regarding the matter. The team brought in builders and architects and it was soon accomplished. With ample funds secured, Murphy and the VP for Development and External Relations were able to acquire the organ they wanted and also bring noted organists to campus each year for recitals.

The Work of the College

In its restructured form, the Board of Trustees played an integral and more powerful role at the College. As a private, non-profit corporation of the State of Minnesota, the Board of Trustees functioned according to Article XI of the "Restated Articles of Incorporation of the College of St. Thomas." This document stated the Board has full control and management responsibility for the business and educational affairs of the College and has the power to make, alter, amend, or repeal any of its bylaws as the Board may see proper and which are not inconsistent with laws or the purpose of the corporation.

Much of the routine work of the College was usually accomplished through a system of permanent or standing committees while ad hoc committees and task forces were heavily relied upon to address pressing issues. Faculty saw volunteering for service on task forces and curriculum committees as opportunities to be part of the development of new programs. This was in addition to their traditional time spent on teaching. Overall, the growth and development at St. Thomas changed the workload and focus of activities for most faculty. Reviewing, responding, restructuring, and adjusting became a part of everyday life at St. Thomas.

This decade of rapid growth saw two cycles of long range planning take place. Beginning in the spring semester of the 1980/81 academic year, the Long-Range Planning Committee (LRPC) was charged to review the organizational structure of the college. The Committee utilized the same planning process employed in their first cycle in 1973. The LRPC was chaired by Provost Keffer and a final report was delivered to the College community and Board of Trustees in May, 1983. Suggested actions from that report included:

As alternative programming became important, extended campuses in Chaska, Owatonna, and downtown Minneapolis provided the space. The Gainey Family Foundation donated an unusual gift to St. Thomas: the beautiful home of the late Daniel C. Gainey, President of Josten’s, Inc. Located seventy miles south of the St. Paul campus in Owatonna, his home became the site of a new conference center and retreat location. Through additional gifts and grants totaling 1.5 million dollars, improvements were made on this property including additions to the main building, construction of a large conference and seminar facility, and the purchase of 187 acres surrounding the area. The main purpose of this facility was to extend the services of the Management Center to southern Minnesota.

The Peavey Corporation donated its technical center to St. Thomas. This center was a 50,000-square-foot complex, situated on eleven acres overlooking Lake Hazeltine and valued at $5 million. St. Thomas offered a variety of courses at the Peavey Center, located in Chaska about twenty minutes outside of the metropolitan area. This new facility was used to launch the

College of St. Thomas Enterprise Center which provided specialized services to young, growing businesses. The New College offered undergraduate courses and graduate offerings in management and education were also available at this Chaska location.

The Minneapolis site was a temporary facility intended to bring the MBA program to the downtown area. Space in the old Powers Department Store was donated by one of the trustees to initially house the program. The intention was to offer graduate level courses and seminars to working professionals during lunch hours and after work at a convenient location. It was a pilot program to see if students would fill the classrooms at a downtown campus. The year that the Minneapolis Education Center opened (1987), the MBA program enrolled 1890 students on all of the St. Thomas campuses with about 80 initially involved at the new center.

Expansion of the Centers

Another way that St. Thomas attempted to meet the needs of their constituents was through the

establishment of numerous program centers (See Appendix 5). Programs and services provided by these centers offer a range of opportunities for life-long learning. Some centers focus their mission on a unique social theme, age group or career sector. During the 1980s, the number of centers nearly doubled due in part to these varied factors: the demand for specialized programs from constituents; the creative use of a donated resource; increased need for ongoing professional training beyond degree programs; response to a request for affiliation from a program that had previously functioned in another sector of society; and faculty initiative and/or collaboration.

Because these centers are intended to be a dynamic representation of the College’s commitment to the changing needs of the greater community, they each maintain ongoing assessment through evaluation instruments and input from advisory boards, participants and experts. As a result, their curricula and programs adjust and accommodate to meet changing needs. Consequently, centers may go out of existence as a result of this responsive structure.

Administration Changes

The administrative staff was also changing during the 1980s. A number of key hires set the stage for further growth. The Development office of the College had expanded during the last decade. To accommodate the growing needs, the Vice President for Development supervising both development and alumni relations would report directly to the newly created position of Senior Vice President for External Relations effective May of 1983. Public relations activities were also included in this senior officer’s responsibilities. Quentin Hietpas was recruited from the business sector to take charge of the fund raising in this new executive role. He had an undergraduate degree from St. Thomas and a law degree from William Mitchell Law School. With a background in public relations and journalism, he had no fund-raising experience prior to coming to St. Thomas.

Msgr. Murphy also hired young Dr. Michael Sullivan, with no prior higher education fiscal management experience, to be Vice President of Finance. Dr. Sullivan earned a BA in psychology from St. John’s in Minnesota and a Ph.D. in Higher Education with an emphasis in business administration from the University of Minnesota. Before coming to St. Thomas, he had worked for almost ten years as an Assistant to the Superintendent and then Assistant Superintendent in two suburban public school districts.

Historically, members of the clergy had held the upper level administration positions at St. Thomas. Although the presidency would continue to be staffed by a priest, Msgr. Murphy gradually introduced lay people to higher levels in the administration either as other clergy retired or new posts were created. Provost Keffer had been the first lay person to occupy an upper level position with the administration. When Dr. Pauline Lambert was selected as executive assistant to the President (1990), she was the first lay person in that position and the first woman directly reporting to the President. By the early 1980s, the administrative organization of the college had been restructured to reflect the addition of new programs and services for students and staff (See Appendix 3).

Foundation Efforts

Prior to Quentin Hietpas’ arrival on campus, the "Priorities for the 1980s" effort was the most recent fund raising campaign. Spanning three years from 1979 to 1981, the target for this campaign had been set at 14.3 million dollars. Through the leadership of the Board of Trustees, the campaign exceeded this target with combined gifts totaling just over 20 million dollars. The objectives of this effort were to:

Over the ten years between 1983 and 1993, the College reported an increasingly strong fiscal situation. Budgets were balanced. Although they expected financial pressures, the College anticipated remaining in the black. Adequate resources were available to initiate new programs, to provide for existing programs, and to reward faculty and staff. This was in part attributable to the efforts of Dr. Sullivan. More specifically, he employed some aggressive investment strategies and was an effective steward of resources. Compared to other similar institutions, St. Thomas invested heavily in equities that including companies with micro and small capitalizations and also foreign equities.

Critical Decisions Face the College - Back to Top

At the end of the 1980s, after years of informal discussions across campus, the Board of Trustees at the College of St. Thomas began to formally consider the implications of changing the institution’s designation from a college to a university. The challenge implicit in the change of name and its orientation was to align the process of growth with the stated mission and the focused liberal arts tradition. The anxieties expressed by some of the members of the campus community revealed concern for the possible loss of identity of the undergraduate college beneath the waves of institutional expansion. Amid tension and disagreement on this issue, the Board of Trustees would continue to consider how St. Thomas could strike a balance between retaining a commitment to its liberal arts core and its expanding efforts to train students for professional goals.

A name change would be evidence of the expanding programs and enlarging campus. Although there had been a temporary classroom space in Minneapolis, the decision to build a new campus facility in the middle of downtown seemed to raise many concerns regarding the campus growth. Maintaining an organizational structure that could assure that this process of growth would proceed in a manageable and viable fashion made this a difficult decision for the Board of Trustees. In addition to the diverse programs and multiple campus sites, there was no centralized method of providing services for students which often led to duplication of services. There was also no common process for curriculum change, a lack of supervision of extended

programs, and poor communication among faculty, staff and administration throughout the larger extended institution. Although St. Thomas employees agreed that growth was beneficial, many expressed concern about maintaining a sense of community and common identity with the new campuses. They wondered if the proposed new Minneapolis campus would further weaken the unity among the faculty.

Amid these considerations, after twenty-four years of service as president of the College of St. Thomas, Msgr. Murphy announced his retirement effective July, 1991. William Reiling, a trustee, was asked to chair the search committee which would make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees for a new President. There was considerable anxiety at the prospect of replacing Msgr. Murphy who had been a quiet but inspirational leader for almost three decades. He personally had cultivated numerous relationships with key Twin City and national leaders. A replacement for Msgr. Murphy would find it challenging to maintain the precedent that had been set. Considering that Msgr. Murphy was integral to all major decisions at St. Thomas, a change in leadership might involve a change in the direction of the institution. While several qualified candidates were being considered, the committee weighed the advantages of both internal and external candidates. External candidates could offer a fresh perspective while internal candidates could potentially maintain consistency. The Board of Trustees would need to consider which type would increase the ability of the institution to move forward or in a new direction.

Back to Top

Higher Education Transformation Work Group
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
2117 School of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1259