Notes

talked to them about the merits of conversation and committees

Although we, too, have had our demonstrations, change here is usually a product of discussion in the decision-making process

she was the most prominent intermediary between her increasingly radicalized fellow students and a change-resistant faculty and administration

she favored teach-ins over sit-ins, talking over chanting, symposia over sign-wavin

And she did these things by not only listening to the concerns of fellow students but by forging relationships with professors, deans and a college president whom those same students saw as a stodgy obstacle to change.

She was one of the few who actually had relationships on both sides, and she was pretty busy going back and forth, back and forth.”

Her platform, such as it was, characteristically leaned heavily on a faith in Robert’s Rules of Order. In committees. “As president,” she wrote in a statement about her candidacy in the News on February 15, 1968, “I would … like to explore the feasibility of having students as advisory members of committees directly concerning us such as the library policy committee.” She added: “I have been working through the Constitution Revision Committee on a plan for a joint student-faculty board to consider and encourage ideas of curricular innovation.”

“She was listening, learning and working with a variety of different student views,

“I think she was very good at bringing people along, explaining why process works, why it allows your voice to be heard,” said Eleanor Dean “Eldie” Acheson, another classmate and a lifelong friend. “You can’t just stand there in a vacuum and scream and yell about this stuff. You need to understand where other people are coming from.”
She would meet weekly with Adams, the president, keen on communication with college authority figures.