Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History

Interview with Lucius J. Barker, April 19, 1991

Louie B. Nunn Center for Oral History, University of Kentucky Libraries
Toggle Index/Transcript View Switch.
Search this Transcript

DANIELS: --Alpha Oral History project with William Daniels, uh, interviewing Lucius J. Barker. Uh, first question I'd like to ask you is about your personal background and when you developed an interest in political science.

BARKER: I, uh, developed an interest in political science at Southern University in Baton Rouge, um, and, and that was in the--oh, in the 1940s, '47, '48, something like that. Uh, the person who was most influential was Rodney Higgins, uh, who was a person that we very much, uh, a number of persons very much attempted to emulate, was a role model type. Um, I suppose that I did venture somewhat from what my parents had intended, uh, because I was named--my uncle was a doctor, a physician, and, uh, they intended me, particularly since I was named 00:01:00after him, to be a doctor. And really, both my brother and I, he'll probably tell you, did start out in pre-med.

DANIELS: I was going to ask you where you were --

BARKER: Pre-med.

DANIELS: You, you--

BARKER: Um-hm.

DANIELS: Pre-med. Okay.

BARKER: Um-hm. As a matter of fact, um, and, and did okay, really. Uh, did, did okay, in terms of the academics. In fact, uh, we were invited to join what was called the biology club, uh, which was supposedly some sort of a pre-med society and membership in it was based upon your grade point average. So, if you did okay in Biology I or math or something, they invited you to join. So we did okay in the freshman year. We were invited to join. Um, in the sophomore year, as I recall, in the sophomore year, as I recall, we were, uh, had to take some elective courses. Uh, you know the kind, the distribution requirements. And one of the distribution requirements was American politics, was the dist-, the social science requirement.


DANIELS: Was that taught by Rodney Higgins?

BARKER: It was taught by Rodney Higgins.


BARKER: And was a large lecture course. And Rodney was, at first, a young Ph.D. just out of the University of Iowa and he was quite, quite good. I mean, he, he was just great. And he had a lot of students in his class. And while taking his class, we were also taking one of our other, uh, prerequisites for, for med, for the pre-med, which was comparative anatomy. The comparative anatomy, you know, you can take a number of other courses but the comparative anatomy was taught by a person whom I was not particularly fond of, but more than that, uh, I didn't like the smell of the formaldehyde and all that kind of stuff, the dissecting of frogs and stuff--(Daniels laughs)--like that. I thought it was repulsive. And, at the same time you have those two things vying for your attention. You had, uh, this guy who was very suave and good, teaching American Politics, and there was the other guy who was not that good teaching a course which was difficult to be admitted, but we thought we could have made it. But anyway, we saw 00:03:00what being away and Higgins not only influenced both my brother and I, but he also influenced a number of other people who probably would have been science majors, uh, because he was very good. After American Politics we took Constitutional Law with him and, and then we started to major in political science. So, the interest was really sparked by that teacher. It was the great teacher concept and Higgins was there, uh, who influenced us toward political science.

DANIELS: Now, did you, at that, when did you decide to go into graduate school? Was it--

BARKER: Well, I decided to go to graduate school, um--I was torn as to whether graduate school or law school. And, and I--

DANIELS: Okay, you've forgotten about medicine completely, by this time. (laughs)

BARKER: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. By then. Well, I hadn't taken all the prerequisites in any case.

DANIELS: Okay. Okay.

BARKER: But I'd forgotten about it. Um, and, uh, I think what happened was that my brother Twiley finished, uh, undergraduate school the year before I did and he went to Illinois to graduate school and did fine. 00:04:00And, uh, I was searching around for something to do and I--when I say something to do, that is, which direction I wanted to--


BARKER: --take. And he came back in terms of how well he got along. And the way was paved, so I just went on to Illinois. And that's how I went to University of Illinois. Got the same job that he had as a graduate student. He was some--he worked in the poli sci library as some sort of a graduate assistant in the library. And all you did was sit on the desk. It was a kind of a faculty graduate student library. It was an excellent place to study, get your lesson, and know all the faculty, because they'd come by. And so when Twiley left, after his master's degree, I think he went to work, uh, and, and I just went on to school. And I stayed in school. I think Twiley, I think, had to go to the Army or something like that.

DANIELS: Yeah, he went in there for two years.

BARKER: Yeah, for two years. And I just kept straight through school. And so that's why I got my degree a year before he did.

DANIELS: Okay. How was your graduate training organized? I mean, if-- 00:05:00what--

BARKER: Well--

DANIELS: --courses were you expected to take and--

BARKER: Well--

DANIELS: --were you expected to--

BARKER: One of the reasons why it was good that Twiley went first is-- the first thing, most people didn't know where Southern University was. Uh, they thought when you said, "I went to Southern," they thought you meant Southern Illinois. So you--(Daniels laughs)--you were at the University of Illinois, see, and they thought you were talking about Southern, SIU, you know.


BARKER: And so, I didn't have to fight that battle, as Twiley did, because he'd already fought it. So people knew that. And I think also there was more of an appreciation that a black college could give a very good background. In other words, I think there was perhaps a little, uh, and I, I, I sensed that a little toward me, too, whether or not these grades really represent that this student has had a good background. A little apprehension concerning whether or not there was as solid a background as possible. I think Twiley erased some of that, and certainly I did, because I--

DANIELS: Were you tested in any significant way or just --


DANIELS: --you just --

BARKER: Regular.

DANIELS: That was it, regular stuff.

BARKER: Regular, regular testing. Um, no regular testing. And--but I thought, you know, you had the impression, well, we'll see how you do 00:06:00in the courses. I thought the courses were easy frankly. (laughs) I didn't have any trouble at all. And, and I thought graduate school was a--was nice. I enjoyed graduate school.


BARKER: The whole thing.

DANIELS: Were you expected to emphasize one area to the other or did you --

BARKER: Yes, I --

DANIELS: --take a st-,--


DANIELS: How would you--do you recall what courses you were expected to take?

BARKER: Well, you had to take--it depended on what you wanted to go in, but you had to take some sort of a sample. I think you--I think I first took a master's degree and I think in a way the master's degree at that time, uh, you took a master's degree and you took the Ph.D. after the master's degree. It was not as many of us have today where you are admitted to a Ph.D. program.


BARKER: You were admitted to a master's program and I think that was somewhat of a trial situation. Now the master's degree is given, more or less, if you don't get the Ph.D., as a consolation--


BARKER: --prize, but back in that day I think the master's degree was really a weeding out.

DANIELS: That was the minor leagues.

BARKER: That's right. That was a minor league. You're right.

DANIELS: Yeah. Okay.

BARKER: Good, good analogy. It was the minor leagues and, uh, I survived the minor--(laughs)--the minor leagues and, uh, in good shape. 00:07:00Uh, and I thought it was relatively easy, as I said.

DANIELS: So, you just took a range of courses. There were no special, there was no specialization --

BARKER: Just you had--

DANIELS: --at that time.

BARKER: --a certain number of units. That's right. A certain number of units and write a master's thesis, and which my thesis was on the, the House of Lords. The Parliament Act of 1911, as I recall. British politics, uh, which I enjoy.

DANIELS: How did you, how did you decide on that?

BARKER: I don't know.

DANIELS: It was just one of those things, huh? (laughs)

BARKER: Well, no. There was a, there was a guy who--Ed Lewis was, was my advisor--somehow he became my advisor and he taught British Politics. And, and I, uh, I took British Politics, did well, and I got interested in it and so I wrote a thesis on the House of Lords. I'm glad I did, because it just brought me here, somewhat. And then after that, when I started on the Ph.D., uh, I do think that you were somewhat invited to work on the Ph.D. and I think I was invited or something like that, got a fellowship of some kind. And, uh, I, uh, and I, uh, 00:08:00kept on until I, uh, finished the, uh, I finished, uh, I, I went on toward the Ph.D., uh, and decided to go toward American politics.

DANIELS: Was, uh, also Professor Ed Lewis the influence at that point?

BARKER: No, uh--


BARKER: --Ed--

DANIELS: --I mean--

BARKER: --Ed was for the most part was--the master's degree, as I said, was, was more or less, as you've mentioned, the, the minor leagues and I think that, oh, you, you just picked up a master's degree in the course of their deciding whether or not you did good enough in a bunch of courses, in order to satisfy what they felt would be their Ph.D. training, you know. And, and I did that. It wasn't that I was particularly enamored with British politics or with him, for that matter, but he was a very good teacher and, uh, and I enjoyed the 00:09:00course and I think that there was--may have been a, even an assignment. You know, the, um, Lucius will work with you or you will work with Lucius. And I, uh, and I did so. After that, after the master's degree, then you did make some choices as to what you wanted to do. And I wanted to go into--I think also during that time I took, uh, Jack Peltason's constitutional law course, uh, during that master's degree. I think I did. And, uh, and, uh, and I liked it very much. And so I decided to concentrate--and Jack was new. I mean, he was a new, young Ph.D. and just came to Illinois.

DANIELS: Do you know where he was from?

BARKER: Yes. He was from, uh, Smith College.


BARKER: Uh, he graduated from Princeton.


BARKER: Princeton, yeah. Uh, Corwin, a Corwin student, Edward S. Corwin, but he had taught at Smith, I think, for a while. He came to Illinois. About at that time also we had a-- Illinois was a, was a very good department. It--a very good department in that they had Austin Ranney 00:10:00who had just come, you had, uh, uh, Murray, Murray Edelman, uh, who was there, uh, and you had Jack, and several others. It was a--and Charlie Hagan and I mean, they were, they were very--Charlie Kneier. I mean, you had people who were very--it was a very good, very distinguished department. And, uh, I suppose everybody looks back on their days as good ole days, but those were very good days.

DANIELS: Really recognized people in the discipline, no--

BARKER: Very--

DANIELS: --question about --

BARKER: --very recognized no question about that. And then so then I became closely, um, interacted closely, rather, with Jack and, and I ended up writing my thesis in his area. And, and that was it.

DANIELS: He was your advisor.

BARKER: He was my advisor.

DANIELS: Okay. What was that on?

BARKER: The thesis?


BARKER: Oh, golly. It was on the tidelands controversy, the submerged lands controversy. Dealing with the, uh, uh, the, uh, the making of public policy, courts and public policy. And Jack, as you know, about 00:11:00that time was finishing up his, his own book called Federal Courts in the Political Process, that book's kind of a classic now--

DANIELS: Right. Right.

BARKER: --which, uh, which kind of really set the tone for how --

DANIELS: Okay. Were there, uh--

BARKER: ----------(??) books.

DANIELS: --how large wer-, was the department in terms of students, at that time?

BARKER: I really don't recall, but it was a large department.

DANIELS: It was a large--

BARKER: Yeah, it was large--

DANIELS: Oh, large? Okay.

BARKER: Yeah, it was a large department. We used to have what we called--oh, yeah. I would imagine there must have been anywhere from sixty to eighty, uh, people or students there, but, uh--

DANIELS: Sixty to eighty?

BARKER: --masters and Ph.D.s, because the reason we know that is that every Thursday afternoon there was a, a, uh, a meeting of all faculty and graduate students over in the agriculture building, called Munford Hall. It was a non-credit seminar; we met once a week, in which all graduates student, particularly at the masters--at the Ph.D. level were expected to give a report on their Ph.D. dissertation. It--

DANIELS: Is that right?


BARKER: --was for the entire department.

DANIELS: No kidding.

BARKER: For the entire department.

DANIELS: Now, that's interesting.

BARKER: --and when they ran out of Ph.D. people, then they went for the master's degree. I had to give one, I think, on my master's degree. And in the other times of the year then they would have other kinds of things like, uh, I think Jack, uh, had to get together two or three graduate students to review a book that had just come out. In other words, there was for the whole department, they come up to you yet, and really it was a great kind of situation because it was perilous in a sense, that if you were a Ph.D. candidate and you gave your--you had just started on a Ph.D. project in the university and there were all these people, all these faculty, and they'd ask you all kinds of questions, and it was a--I say, perilous times. Uh, but it was very interesting and--

DANIELS: I bet it was.

BARKER: --I bet it did a lot to, to encourage people, if you want to say encourage, to really get on with their work, because they knew they had to meet that, what some people call a formidable burden. And there 00:13:00were a few professors in the department who took delight in asking you all kinds of questions. Clarence Berdahl, for example, you know Clarence Berdahl?

DANIELS: No, I don't.

BARKER: You know Clarence? Clarence was very good at that. He was very good and, and in, it was, it was--

DANIELS: It, it helped--

BARKER: --encouraging.

DANIELS: --shape your thinking.

BARKER: It, it shaped your--

DANIELS: Wa-, --

BARKER: --thinking and your work.

DANIELS: Was there any more, any other minorities at Illinois at that time?

BARKER: Not during that--I don't recall. I just don't recall. I don't recall. No, I don't recall.

DANIELS: How did you--what was your first, uh, position after Illinois and how did you get there?

BARKER: Maybe I'd better you something else about--


BARKER: --Illinois. Um, I had gone, as I told you, straight through to my Ph.D. work and just before I was to take my preliminary examination--that was the big exam that was where you were admitted technically to candidacy. See, you took so many courses but then you had to take the comprehensive--

DANIELS: Comprehensive ----------(??).

BARKER: --as we called it then.


DANIELS: Some of those--

BARKER: We called it preliminary.

DANIELS: Yeah. But now, I think they call them qualifying exams.

BARKER: Qualifying.

DANIELS: Yeah. Okay. But, yeah.

BARKER: Okay. But in any event, uh, at that time the preliminary exam, as we called it, was--consisted of a two hour oral only.


BARKER: A two hour oral only.

DANIELS: The--no written?

BARKER: No written, and I will tell you that I would rather take a written any day. Because what happened was, you studied much more, it seems to me, and organized much more because you went into the room with six people and they could ask you anything about any of the courses which you had had.


BARKER: They knew what courses, what courses, you had everything out, and the preparation, I can assure you, the preparation was even more meticulous than what students do today, I think, in terms of how they prepare for exams, even though it was jus-, and moreover, given the kind of a, uh, the dynamics of oral exams, you didn't know what the heck would happen next. I mean, you know, somebody would get you on a, 00:15:00on a, on a train to thinking and you could sink fast. (Daniels laughs) I mean, you could.

DANIELS: You could take on a lot of water in a hurry.

BARKER: You'd take a lot of water in a hurry, whereas when you're writing something, I mean, you have time to think and write.


BARKER: I mean, you have people who give you two days to write. Heck, I could write something in two days. It may not be too good--(Daniel laughs)--but I could write something. But if you're in there at a two hour exam, um, and, and, and they would go around the table, uh, and you had people from various areas. Uh, so anyway, I was preparing for that exam. In the preparation--during the time of preparation I was just honing in--I got a knock on my door, of the carrel door in the library. Graduate students, as you know, are paranoid for the most part. I mean, think the worst things of everything. (Daniels laughs) You see all sorts of evils. And these stories, these tales that float around, such as in one of the folklore, or whatever you want to call it, that floated around during our day was that if you hadn't had--at sometime they want you to have experience similar to what some people say now about some law schools, you'd like for a person to have maybe a 00:16:00little experience to make certain, you know, you just don't come right out of undergrad and go into law. They, they look for experience and whether or not a person really is hungry and wants it and maybe related experiences. Well, the, the rumor in the paranoid--(laughs)--among paranoid graduate students was that sometimes when it looks like you're finishing too young, they might tell you take a little time off and get some experience. Go out and teach a while and then come back, get a bit more mature. Well, this knock came on my door just before an exam. And guess who it was? It was Mr. Berdahl himself. Mr. Berdahl was a senior member of the department and graduate students feared Mr. Berdahl. And he knocked on--(laughs)--my door and said, "Mr. Barker, Professor Kneier would like to see you as soon as possible." Well the first thing, for him to come to my carrel I know was just God, what is -----------(??)? And then Professor Kneier was chairman of the department. And so--

DANIELS: That's--

BARKER: --all these--

DANIELS: --the double whammy.

BARKER: --so all these things--(Daniels laughs)--conjured by my mind, 00:17:00gee, well, they're about to tell me, you know, I need some experience. I went to his office right away, stopped what I was doing. And when I got to his office, I was even more apprehensive because he told his secretary, "Maybe you ought to take a little coffee break now so Mr. Barker and I can have a few moments of privacy." Like, how would you feel if you were--

DANIELS: So that, he, he didn't want a witness.

BARKER: He didn't want--(Daniels laughs)--so what happened was that-- (Daniels laughs)--that he, uh, he closed the door and he said, in his booming voice, "Mr. Barker, do you know what I want with you?" "No, I haven't the--(Daniel laughs)--slightest idea." And he said, "We want you to teach," just like that. And I said, "Oh?" You know, I was, I said, "The reason I called you, is that I think I should tell you that this is a signal honor," and all this kind of business. Now, when he said, "We want you to teach," you--it was not a regular teaching 00:18:00assistant kind of thing. You were a graduate student, but you had your own course.

DANIELS: Oh, okay.

BARKER: I mean, this was not where you took a section, you know, under somebody else's tutelage.

DANIELS: And you held a--

BARKER: You had a--

DANIELS: --discussion group.

BARKER: That's right. You had an independent section and this really was an honor, which many people didn't vie for. The reason he called me to his office, though, was that he said that to his knowledge I would be the first black who had taught as a graduate, uh, TA in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois and, in that time, the 1950s, there might be some students who had a few problems with that--

DANIELS: Oh, okay.

BARKER: --and he didn't think so, but he wanted to let me know that the department was fully aware, the university was fully supportive, and he was confident that I would do okay and so forth and so on. I walked out of his office sky high. (Daniels laughs) I really did. It was just great. Um, and I--

DANIELS: Now, when was this? Was this in--

BARKER: About '50, about '53 or something like that.


DANIELS: But it was in the spring, and that was for the fall, or did you have some--

BARKER: This was--

DANIELS: --preparation time or when--

BARKER: No, this was in--let's say, this was about mid-August.


BARKER: And it was for late September.


BARKER: So it was kind of immediate.


BARKER: Uh, or maybe it was even early in August, because I, I didn't spend much time going all the way back to the study for the-- preliminary exams were given in early September. Classes began late. So, I think I could get those out of the way before--

DANIELS: Before you --

BARKER: And I think they, they felt comfortable that I would pass, which I did. Uh, but, um, the teaching went along very well and it ended up that my class was oversubscribed every time. I taught for three semesters, I believe, and my class was oversubscribed. Um, and, to make, to, to end this saga, over some twenty years later, when I was in St. Louis at Washington U, I lived in a neighborhood out in Chesterfield, Missouri and this lady I saw at church and she said, "You 00:20:00don't know me, but I was one of your students--

DANIELS: Is that right? (laughs)

BARKER: --in those classes." Uh, and she was. And so I know, so, I thought, I thought that you, ju-, I wanted to tell you that. Yes.


BARKER: You had to hear it.

DANIELS: 'Cause that gave you teaching--

BARKER: Background, that's right. And it was a very, very good teaching experience.

DANIELS: What, how, did you think much about the intellectual disposition of the, of the discipline at that point? I know a few years later the--there was behavioralism and so forth.

BARKER: Well, I'll--

DANIELS: Did you ever get involved in that or think much about it?

BARKER: To, to an, to an extent, yes, I did. And particularly given the, the courts as an area. You had some people in the department who were very traditionalist, in a sense. That is to say, they looked upon the courts really as apolitical, uh, as outside and were very much kind of, of, how could talk about the court in the same sense as representing interests? And so, so that meant that Jack's view was somewhat in conflict with others. And you could see some of the, uh, you know, 00:21:00some of the differences that would come up and certain kinds of questions that were put to me. And, and I had to try to explain that.

DANIELS: Did he write a book then called, The Courts as Political Instruments either--

BARKER: No, it was Federal Courts in the Political Process, was the--

DANIELS: Federal Courts in the Political Process.

BARKER: --was the name of his book.

DANIELS: And then there was another book about--

BARKER: Rosenblum.

DANIELS: --the same, Rosenblum at Northwestern --

BARKER: Law, Law as a Political Instrument.

DANIELS: Now, now, he's at Northwestern, right?

BARKER: He's at Northwes-, Vic Rosenblum.

DANIELS: They both came out in the same series--

BARKER: The same--

DANIELS: --within a couple of years of each other, I recall.

BARKER: That's right.


BARKER: That's right.

DANIELS: All right.

BARKER: So those--

DANIELS: They were shaping that--

BARKER: They were shaping--


BARKER: And that caused me--my thesis--so, mine was doing, for example, uh, I talked about the tidelands controversy, how, uh, the Congress did something, and then the courts did something, and then there was an interaction of course within the institution. And there were people who asked me, "You mean to tell me that the court can be overruled like," you know, all kinds of things. "Yes, I do mean to tell you that. And this such and such a thing." So, so, it was at the time that 00:22:00you were having the break and particularly in the public law area, from the formalism, all from the formally institutionalism in a sense. That is to say, uh, uh, you know, you look at the behavior of individuals, uh, more than institutions, uh, that's what some of the behavioralists thought, but I think that Peltason was trying to get them to look at judges also as individuals, not unlike politicians, though they may have certain norms and expectations which were different, procedures different and so forth. But still, that didn't mean that they didn't participate in policy. And in, in policy formation. But I think to a lot of people that was very radical. And so, yes, I did and I think that and, and particularly, so, so now, now the judicial politics, as you well--(laughs)--know, except for Glendon Schubert, did not get as far in the behavioral revolution, though there was some, uh, and I think that, that Peltason and, and then Schubert's extension, I 00:23:00thought, and, and I think Schubert's somewhat faded out, in terms of, of that, uh, the decision-making models and that kind of stuff. Um, and I think that, uh, we ended up--when I say we I mean the public law people--as somehow feeling that that particular area perhaps was more difficult than electoral politics, or something like that, to harness in, in models.

DANIELS: To quantify--

BARKER: To quantify. That's right, quantification. The--and, and that's, so, so that was--and, and even today there is a, uh, I think they are, uh, I think somehow the best way to look at judicial is between, uh, I think Peltason perhaps, uh, there were some people who felt that the--there was too much political, uh, barriers, that he 00:24:00didn't give enough attention to the role of law. And, uh, I think that, I think he did, it's just that he didn't talk much about it. But I think that what is happening now is that you have a few more political scientists who are bringing some of the more normative considerations, but I think that, that some of normative considerations are getting into really jurisprudential kind of things, getting involved in theory and all that, uh, jurisprudence, and I, and I think to that extent we are getting toward philosophy and theory and we're leaving some of the--that's another problem.

DANIELS: It's similar to politics now, we're, we're sort of coming to full swing--

BARKER: Full swing.

DANIELS: Yeah. Yeah.

BARKER: I myself prefer to stick with the--what I would call the political process of cour-, courts as part of political process. I looked at them as actors, although you know, giving attention to, uh, to the importance of law.

DANIELS: Well, I'd like to come back, uh, to that in, in a moment, 00:25:00in terms of the politicalization of the, uh, courts by Reagan and President Bush and others and, uh, it may be that what they have done is set us on a course where we, we just cannot--(Barker laughs)-- neglect that, that approach and, and the influence and im-, --

BARKER: Yeah. And I agree.

DANIELS: --the great impact that they have had.

BARKER: I agree. I agree.

DANIELS: Uh, wou-, we--I think what we're trying now, to do right now is to get to your first job. I think.

BARKER: Okay. The first job. (Daniels laughs) First job, first job I, uh, that was a digression, but I--

DANIELS: (laughs) No--

BARKER: --wanted ----------(??)--

DANIELS: --that was a good one. No, that was a good one.

BARKER: Okay. The first job--

DANIELS: I didn't want you to be unemployed any longer, that's all. (both laugh)

BARKER: That's interesting. Um, the first job was at Southern, in Baton Rouge. Went back to--

DANIELS: So, went back--

BARKER: --Southern--

DANIELS: --to Southern, okay.

BARKER: --uh, to teach with Rodney Higgins. Um, and, uh, um--

DANIELS: So that had only been a few years then, since you had left. Five years or so.

BARKER: Five years at most, yeah.


BARKER: 'Cause I went straight through.


BARKER: And, uh, after about a couple of years at Southern, where 00:26:00teaching was the most important thing, and it should have been, I suppose, looking at the number of the students, uh, but I, uh, did see- -I saw myself slipping in terms of what I really wanted to do in terms of any kind of research possibility of the program. There was, there was so much teaching, you taught five courses a semester. And there was so much teaching that there wasn't any chance to, uh, to do any research. Um, and, and I was frankly, uh, I, I was interested in doing research.

DANIELS: At that point, did you know what kind of research you wanted to do or you just wanted to do more than, you wanted to do something and you--

BARKER: Well, for one thing, I wanted to get my thesis ready for publication, which I never did get ready for publication. I published articles out of it, but I didn't get it ready for publication. Um, and, uh, but I just found a strain between the two and I think it's too bad, because, uh, I do feel that the teaching and research functions, 00:27:00contrary to many people, are so interrelated in many ways, that, uh, that, uh, I think that research ought to be a component of, uh, of any good institution and, and teaching ought to be res-, part of research. I mean, here--so in other words, I, I see the, the, the, the very interactive links between the two. So, I decided--

DANIELS: Before, before you leave, though, let me ask you this. When you were teaching, uh, Southern at that point, and still is, a historical black--

BARKER: Black college, yeah.

DANIELS: --black college, uh, did you emphasize certain things in your teaching or--

BARKER: Well, well, I'll tell you what, Bill, I'll tell you what, why Twiley and I ended up teaching at the same time at Southern and we were known, we were known as the Barker Brothers to be avoided if at all possible. (Daniels laughs) Uh, and because we both--I know I did, 00:28:00he can speak for himself--but we took a view that the kind of American politics course, introductory course we taught, that I didn't care whether you were at Illinois, LSU, Southern, or anywhere, the, the kinds of materials should be the same in terms of what you get out of that course. Given, I suppose, the preparation that some of the kids came in with, um, you had a--some who were not prepared for that level of work, and as a consequence the grades that we, uh, were able to, uh, to distribute early, put it that way, were not too good. Some were, a few were very good, most were not, students and, and this was a commentary on a lot of things, the condition of black education in Louisiana schools. I understood that, having gone through elementary and high school in Louisiana myself, in Washington Parish, so I knew that, so I was not a northerner transplanted who was trying--I came 00:29:00through the same sort of system. But it did seem to me that more was needed. As a, as a result of that, um, whereas classes would meet three times a week, for example, in American Politics, I would set aside a Friday evening, and I was a single young man for that matter, but a Friday evening, which was a great dating night, so to speak, uh, and I would have what I called American Government Clinics where students could come from all classes if they wanted to, and we would take two or three hours and give a little quiz, and let the quiz count to help their grades. And we were fearl-, and I must say, that you had a number of students who were terribly interested and who did it. And we had some very good students. Southern had some very good students. It was a tragedy, a tragedy, and I think this is true about education of blacks, period. I know it was true of my high school. You had some very bright kids in high school who did not have even the kind of, of family support, who didn't have the connections, who did not get the 00:30:00opportunity to hone what I thought were very bright minds. And, and you had that feeling that a lot of talent was being wasted. And it was, and is.

DANIELS: Or didn't even make it to Southern.

BARKER: Didn't even make it to Southern. I mean, I had high school classmates whom I thought were very good, who did not make it to Southern. And even when you got to Southern, while Southern was a great improvement over any kind of high school one could have, the resources were not there. You had, uh, uh, the resources just were not there. And if you happened to get, and this is where it's important, if you happened to get a good teacher which was true in high school for me, too. I had an English teacher who was very--Beaumont Burse (??). She was excellent. She taught diagramming, she taught writing, English. I loved to read, I loved to write. I wrote a short story in high school, wrote a play. What I'm saying is that if you get that 00:31:00great teacher and one of the things I think that, I think that, that some students are not able to get connected with those great teachers. We were fortunate to get connected with those great teachers, both in high school when--I say Wilmore High but also in college with Rodney Higgins. And--

DANIELS: So you had Burse in high school and Rodney Higgins.

BARKER: Rodney, that's right.


BARKER: They, they were, they were very influential in development, in my intellectual development, and preparation. And preparation. And I'm, I'm afraid that sometimes, uh, that wasn't always the case. So I left Southern after two years and much soul searching because I had enough of a for anybody but Rodney--not Rodney Higgins, but Lionel Newsome. Newsome, he's now dead, but Newsome was president of--later president of Central State. Uh, he was also president of--

DANIELS: Wilberforce, Ohio.

BARKER: That's right, Central State, Wilberforce. He was also president of my, uh, fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, national president. And, 00:32:00uh, Newsome was in, in the sociology department, at that time. And Newsome, I never will forget, had a talk with me about whether it was wise or whether, whether--he was something like a father in a sense, uh, trying to give me counseling. Here am I a young Ph.D., about to leave Southern, and he was not trying to put a guilt trip on me, in a sense that you're abandoning, uh, the ship. But I think he was trying to sa-, he did say, "That you're really needed here," and so forth. And I think he understood when I said, "Yes, I understand that, but I think that some of things that I do can help people here and elsewhere, too. If I start writing books and these kinds of things." And I told him I thought there were some people who were very interested in teaching more than research, and I was interested in both, and I thought I ought to be able to do both, both ways. And I know he was 00:33:00understanding, but it did cause me to think. I just didn't need--it was not a, a, a quick decision, it was a very studied decision, but once I made the decision to leave I called Jack Peltason and within- -(laughs)--a couple of weeks or so, I had good job offers, uh, to go. That was in the early spring. And I left that following September. And, in fact, I only stayed at Southern a year and a half.

DANIELS: Oh, you did.

BARKER: I came in mid-year, say mid-year of '54 or five, one of the two, and I left in '56.


BARKER: But I stayed a year and a half. And then I went--I had a job offer from a very good private college, and I decided not to go there, and I'm glad I didn't. Uh, and I went to University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. And I stayed up there for eleven years. I think that's what it was, '56 to '67, yeah.

DANIELS: That was a bigger place.

BARKER: Oh, yeah. That was a newly developing campus, too.

DANIELS: Right on the lake, right on the lake--

BARKER: Michigan.


DANIELS: --right, yeah.

BARKER: University of Wisconsin, Madison was a fractured campus.

DANIELS: I mean, this was an urban, uh--

BARKER: Urban university.

DANIELS: --community.

BARKER: It was an urban university for the most part, and it did a heck of a lot almost exclusively. Now since it's become a very big institution.


BARKER: Uh, but they began to build and everything else, and I saw it from its infancy, so to speak, uh, through '67, about ten, eleven years. Um, I enjoyed it very much. It was a big city. Uh, how I met my wife there, um, uh, in Milwaukee. Uh, during that time I also was able to take a, a leave of --I took a year at Harvard, in sort of a postdoctoral fellowship in law in '64, '65. And, uh, that was a great year. And it was during that year that, uh, I did get married and my wife said, "It took you, you had to go to Harvard Law School to learn how to--(Daniels laughs)--propose to me," or something like that. You know. It was very funny. Uh, but she's never forgotten that and we 00:35:00took--but anyway, I got married in the spring and brought her back to Cambridge and we spent our honeymoon, really our honeymoon the, the last two months I was there. It was very nice. Right on the Charles River.

DANIELS: Right on the Charles River.

BARKER: We had a nice, nice apartment--

DANIELS: So I won't--

BARKER: --with a big water tower over--

DANIELS: --I won't ask you, I was going to ask you about your postdoc, but I'd better not ask you about that then, huh?

BARKER: It was very nice. (Daniels laughs) I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the postdoc. So, you can disclose that, it was very nice, it was very nice. I, I worked with a--I, I, uh, it was a time when the law and politics program where Harvard gave about five or six such for people who were college teachers in Arts and Sciences and they thought that a better acquaintance with the law, uh, would enable people who were teaching those courses to do a better job. And I thought that a--if they had better acquaintance with social sciences would cause them to do a better job teaching law. So I mean, you had a good interaction, I think. But anyway, I, I linked up with that, I got a chance to link up with some different people. I, uh, I, I enjoyed Paul Cohen's lectures 00:36:00in, in constitutional law. He was just excellent. I sat in several classes, uh, Keeton on torts. I, I just endured it. Didn't know half of what was being talked about, but he was very good. Had a teaching methodology, the Socratic method, one of the best I have ever seen. And just excellent. He kept the students abreast, but at the same time he was not breathed (??) and the students were interested. And he did a masterful job. And then I felt that in order to get--you, you can do what you wanted to do. It was almost a research year. You could take courses, uh, and you could, wouldn't, you wouldn't get credit for the course, but you could sit in.


BARKER: But I sat in a seminar, Bill of Rights seminar, Arthur Sutherland, who was, you probably recall.


BARKER: Sutherland was a grand old man. I sat in his seminar on the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. They were doing that seminar and I wrote an article about it from, "Third Parties in Litigation," the article in the Journal of Politics, which I think is the best, best thing I have written. Uh, it was dealing with, 00:37:00uh, interest group participation in reapportionment and segregation controversy. And the Harvard seminar, law school seminar, used to have about forty students. That was their idea of a seminar. I think that's much too big, but he ran it very well. And each person was expected to report to the seminar. And he asked me, "Did I want?" "Sure, I would report." So, here I was a political scientist with third year law students in it, and I was young too, but, uh--(laughs)--and I gave this report and I analogized, um, courts and, and Meeker's (??) participation to interest groups appearing before congressional committees. In other words, the analogy, and to many of those law students, they thought it was heresy, to how dare you make that, yeah. But we had a great time and Arthur Sutherland enjoyed it, because the law students just hit back at me, this political scientist that wrote all this kind of stuff. Had law students who would just follow me around. We had a great time. I enjoyed--


DANIELS: Did they, did he challenge your notion?

BARKER: Oh, they challenged, they challenged notions and they tried to understand what I was talking about, and--

DANIELS: Did they sharpen your thinking? They didn't disabuse you, because you produced the article.

BARKER: No, it was, usually it was--

DANIELS: Did they help you, though, help define your thinking?

BARKER: Hmm, I would suppose so. The interaction was good. It was altogether a ----------(??). They would cause me to look at things that I hadn't thought too much about and I caused them to look at things, too. Um, and, um, you know, I think, I think some of them--I remember one guy, he gave a paper on standing and there was somewhat of a formalistic ring to standing, uh, but I think that, uh, I, I can appreciate that seminar more when I read articles now that--well, that show how those, those things are--like standing, you know, are subject to all sorts of interpretation of who gains access, you know, to the court. Those formal writings are adopting. But that was a very good experience and it was a great experience. Then I came back and after being back at Milwaukee for a year or two, Jack Peltason was 00:39:00asked to come back to Champaign. He was at Irvine as vice-chancellor of academic affairs and he was asked to come back to Champaign as chancellor under the new Illinois reorganization system. And he asked me to come down to Champaign to be his assistant. And, and to also serve in the political science department, the department of--so I left in '67, uh, the University of Wisconsin, and went to Illinois where I became associate professor of political science and also assistant to the chancellor.

DANIELS: And you, you were also an administrator now.

BARKER: The, well, I was part-time, le-, the administrator--let me say this, it was great, it was great--I was administrator for the most full-time, but I also acted in a way as if I could change the world, I said, "But I intend to teach." So doggone it, they helped me out. They said, "Okay, we will let you teach." I took a very--eight o'clock in the morning course, a constitutional law course, which had fifty or sixty students in it. I stayed up half the night preparing for the 00:40:00constitutional law class at eight o'clock. And I got to the office at nine o'clock, by the time most people got to their jo-, I had a job and a half. (Daniels laughs) You know, you know what I'm saying?

DANIELS: Okay. I under-, --

BARKER: --you understand exactly how I--

DANIELS: --understand. Yep.

BARKER: But it was altogether, it was altogether worthwhile. I mean I really enjoyed it, because I kept my hand in both pots. And I didn't get out of that. So, those--that was during a time with, uh, it was very hectic, too. You know, because that was the '67, '68, '69 administration of Martin Luther King. Uh, so--

DANIELS: Well, well, can we stop here for a moment, then and, and, and kind of take a quick sweep at the, at, at the pro-, profession of political science and your subfield. You've had a, a postdoc, had an opportunity to reflect and think. You've, you've written a piece that was challenged by some traditionalists in law. Uh, where, where was the, the discipline at that point--

BARKER: It was a--

DANIELS: --as you saw it?

BARKER: Oh, at that point I reckon is that it was, uh, right when you 00:41:00say "the discipline," I'm not talking about political science, I hope. Now, you're talking about my area in--

DANIELS: Right. Your, your field, your subfield. Okay.

BARKER: Um, I think that, oh, at that time I think there was a lot of, uh, maybe some division of primarily over work like Glendon Schubert was doing, but that was in the sixties. And, and to what extent that was carried out, there was ferment. Um, uh, but also there was the, the Jack Peltason and the Rosenblum and Pritchett kind of, of, uh, of constitutional law, uh, that was really coming through. And I think that was making--so that the, looking at the courts as a political actors or judges as political actors and courts as political institutions, was becoming more accepted and getting out of the more formalistic bowl which some of the early public law people had. Uh, because as you well know, some of the, you know, political science, in 00:42:00many ways, kind of grew out of public law, because some institutions had department of political science and public law, government and public law. I mean, they were both tied to one another. And, in fact, I heard somebody say not too long ago that some political scientists were more lawyer-like than lawyers, because they were very strict in teaching the cases, you know.


BARKER: You got into the cases and all that kind of business. Uh, and I think that in the mid-sixties we were well on our way toward politicizing it, one wants to say. Or not politicizing maybe. But, but bringing courts into the political pro-, well, they already were anyway. They were already in the--

DANIELS: That was in your research, now. But in your teaching, you, you still taught the cases, right?

BARKER: I still taught the cases, but to teach the cases, I still teach the cases today, but I teach the cases in a framework in which we try to show the relationship between cases and the, um, and the, the larger framework. In the very beginning of my courses, even now, I spend a 00:43:00great deal of time developing what I'd call the framework of analysis. The first two weeks of a semester, even in a quarter system. This past month--we have an eight week or a ten week quarter, I believe, the first two weeks, the framework of analysis in which I talk about the overall political system, uh, how the courts fit into that system. Uh, we read books like Larry Baum, Jack Peltason, Martin Shapiro. We, we take a kind of a big, big picture of it and juvenile courts. We look at case studies of cases, uh, where you have a Supreme Court case, like the ones that are put in the, in egregious quarrels that shake the constitution. Uh, and the, the book that Twiley and I did called Freedom, Courts, Politics, in which took certain cases and, and showed how those cases--who the litigants were, what the interests were involved, where they'd get the money from. Make, make the cases come 00:44:00alive to show that these were not so formalistic. Show how interest groups, how the ACLU, the N double ACP and other groups--and how you try to achieve your policy objectives through the courts when you couldn't rec-, achieve them through other areas. So, um, so that, that's pretty much, uh, what was really different in the way I teach.

DANIELS: Um-hm. Okay. So, now you're at Illinois. You're, you're teaching at eight--(Barker laughs)--going to work at nine.

BARKER: That's right. (Daniels laughs) Teaching at eight and going to work at nine, how about that--(Daniels laughs)--after, after staying up all night getting ready for the class. Uh, so, what do you want to know, about what I did in Illinois?

DANIELS: Well, uh, well, insofar--was there any changes in, with respect to your approach to teaching, your approach to the discipline, uh, or your scholarly interests, or collaboration, or those kinds of interest?

BARKER: Well, I suppose what happened was that--

DANIELS: Was anything changing at that point? Did--

BARKER: Well, there was a--the, the biggest thing was whether or not I wanted to go into the administration arm and teaching. In other 00:45:00words, it was at a, at a point, a very pivotal point of where an opportunity to either pursue an administrative career or to go to the scholar's career. And, uh, and I think that several forces, uh, acted to help make my decision. One was that my wife was not too enamored with Champaign as a place to live. Um, second, that I did have a very attractive offer that came from Washington University. Um, and third is that I knew, on the basis of my teaching and also administration, that I was still very, uh, frustrated between wanting to go to the library or whether or not I wanted to try to quell the next disturbance 00:46:00on campus. In other words, I--if there was going to be a demonstration do I--and it was, that was at a time of the sixties, late sixties, when a lot of, lot of demonstrations and protests were taking place. And a lot with, with, with great results. Uh, I, uh, and I think some of it was good. I think Jack Peltason should be credited greatly for his, uh, handling of the, uh, at least the way in which he resolved some of the conflicts down there with respect to black students were saying they did not have enough blacks in the University of Illinois. And Jack almost single-handedly with strong---

[Pause in recording.]

DANIELS: --J. Barker, April 19th, 1991, tape two. Then you were--

BARKER: Yeah, I was talking about, uh, I think that Jack makes, made an important contribution to increasing the, the opportunities for, for black students, uh, at Illinois because, uh, there were not many in the state university and he really pioneered the way to gain the entrance 00:47:00of more freshmen, uh, and, and, of course, that opened a pipeline and was quite an adventure. Uh, so I think that, that the administration side has pay-offs, too, because I think good administrators do really make a difference. Well, you're an administrator yourself, so of course you're going to make a difference in, in, in setting the tone for the whole institution. And that was that was a challenge, in a way. And, and, uh, at the same time, as I'm certain you realize, there's, there's that continuing frustration between getting on with your research and, and, and doing administrative kinds of work.

DANIELS: Would you say that--maybe yes, maybe no--I'll just ask you the question and let you answer, that, that being an administrator, uh, uh, changes or shapes or alters your perception of your work as a, as a, uh, a political scientist in the field of public law? Does, does the administration have anything to do with the way you look at what you're 00:48:00doing as a scholar?

BARKER: Well, I suppose. Um, not necessarily as a scholar, but as a faculty member, I think I, I can appreciate more what administrators do. Faculty always say, well, those people over there, what they're doing in Administration Hall, is central to administration. I can appreciate more the importance of their work to my being able to do my work. And, and I think that sometimes that's not as appreciated as much. And that, that administrators make a hell of a lot of difference in terms of the whole tenor, the atmosphere of the campus. Uh, I do think also that, uh, that, that faculty, uh, sometimes, uh, uh, don't appreciate the fact until--we did, as an administrator at Illinois, have to let faculty know that when students would come to us, because that they wanted more black faculty, for example, you go 00:49:00back to the faculty because they're the ones who initiate and who in effect make the appointments. In other words, chancellors don't make appointments, faculties make appointments. And, and I think that, that that's a lesson also that the university is appreciating more. But I think administrators can do certain things, certainly, to encourage faculty, uh, to make the appointments. So no, that was--but more than, more than, I--it didn't affect my, my, uh, scholarship per se. It affected my perception as a faculty member as to the importance of the administrative role in a university.

DANIELS: Okay. So then, uh, you, you're, you're at, uh, Champaign, you're getting ready to leave now.

BARKER: Um-hm.

DANIELS: And then you headed out west.

BARKER: Out west, yeah, go on.

DANIELS: By about three hundred miles.

BARKER: Yeah. As a matter of fact, somebody said I was gradually making my way back to Louisiana. I start off at--(Daniels laughs)--start off in Wisconsin, back to Champaign--

DANIELS: Champaign.

BARKER: --then to St. Louis--

DANIELS: St. Louis.

BARKER: --the next stop is Memphis--(laughs)--and go back to Baton Rouge (??). I didn't get to Memphis.

DANIELS: Okay. (laughs)

BARKER: Um, so I stopped in St. Louis. Stopped there for twenty-one 00:50:00years, uh, Washington University. I was given an endowed chair, the Edna Fischel Gellhorn, uh, University Professor of Public Affairs and Professor of Political Science at Washington University. Frankly, I had not heard too much of Washington University, even though I was at Illinois. I just hadn't heard too much of it. Um, and, uh, when they invited me, I knew some people there. I knew Bob Salisbury was there, he was a classmate of mine at Illinois.

DANIELS: Oh, okay.

BARKER: I knew him.


BARKER: But you know, I had never really heard about Washington University. I'd heard of the medial school, but didn't too much about the Arts and Sciences College. I knew some political scientists, believe it or not, but I didn't know too much of the school as school. And before I accepted the chair, and they did. They said, "Well why don't you come up and visit?" I said, "I certainly will," but I went to visit because I thought it was going to be a street tough situation, or a street tough campus. I was pleasantly surprised. Uh, as you know, it's a beautiful campus, residential campus. It's really a kind of an Ivy League school in a Midwestern setting. It's very great. 00:51:00And so we, we, uh, went there and we found us a nice place to live and we really had an enjoyable, very productive twenty-some years in St. Louis. Um, during that time, um, I also served as chair of the department for two, uh, different times, one for five years and one for three years. So all together about eight years. The department, uh, really was, was, uh, was in the top twenty departments, somewhere in, in the lower top ten, but still in, in the lower bottom ten, rather. But in the top twenty. And being in the top twenty in, in the nation is very good, I think.

DANIELS: Oh, absolutely.

BARKER: And, uh, and, and for a small department it was, and is, a very good school. I mean--

DANIELS: How small was small? How large is large?

BARKER: Well, I would say that, that I would think a relatively small department where you are playing in the league of a top twenty institution is small by eighteen to twenty-one people. So you're 00:52:00talking about twenty-one training Ph.D. students and turning out Ph.D.s who were placed well. Um, that's small, although the department did not try to service every area. It was selective, American politics, comparative politics, formal market. It was, it was pretty specialized, and that was fine. So you were able to really kind of beef up your faculty resources and the library and other kind of resources in those particular areas. So students who would finished in those areas, they were very, uh, and they would have to service the undergraduates, too. So, I think that the--yeah, because I mean, the larger departments are forty, fifty, sixty, you know, the largest department was Michigan's in '65. They're very large departments. Uh, you know. So that's--

DANIELS: That's very large.

BARKER: Um-hm. Yeah, it is.

DANIELS: Let me ask, du-, during that, were, were there man-, any other minorities on, on the faculty at Washington University? Were, were--

BARKER: Yes, there was--

DANIELS: --you able to work with them?

BARKER: --there, there were one or two. Not too many. There was a guy 00:53:00in psychology named Rob Williams, Robert Williams, professor of, of psychology. And I think there were one or two others whom I did not know too well. Uh, yeah, there were one or two others.

DANIELS: Did you feel as though, when you were in, chaired the department, that you wanted to recruit minorities? Were there--

BARKER: Yes, now we did have --


BARKER: --there was another, uh, we recruited a, another black assistant professor, a black assistant professor, uh, Jesse McCorry, uh, in the department. And, uh, then after Jesse McCorry we had Byron Jackson, he was in the department. Um, and now, I understand, um, um, there is supposed to be another, uh, person who will be in the department as an assistant professor. They brought another black person to the department. But I think Washington University, or any university for that matter, as you well know, uh, the number of blacks particularly in the major research institution faculties are very small, and that's true at Washington University and other universities, too, for that matter.


DANIELS: Now, given your research at this point, you're collaborating with your brother on some, some--


DANIELS: --projects.

BARKER: Yeah. We, we--the civil liberties book, uh, that we have out now, which is in its sixth edition about to go to seventh edition, it's a, it's a, it's a case and commentaries book, but we, we like to think of it as more than just a collection of cases, because the introductory essays in each of those chapter areas are original essays and, uh, they take up a, they take up really about a third of the book, because they're--and so that's been going very well. As I say, it's in, it's in its sixth edition now and will be in the seventh and, and it's doing very well. Um, then I also collaborated on a black politics book which is now under revision. Jesse McCorry and I had a book called Black Americans and the Political System, which went through two editions. Jesse left the university after he became assistant secretary of 00:55:00Health, Education, and Welfare with Patricia Harris, in Washington. When he came back he then decided, he decided he wanted to go back to Washington and open up his own private consulting business, which I understand is doing very well. Uh, and he didn't have time for us, and, uh, so I had to get another co-author, and, and Mack Jones is co-author of the, the new book, with the, the third edition of that book. Uh, and, uh, you know, then I, you know, between the other publications and like an article in the Boston Law Review and things like that. Between the books--uh, now, my brother and I put that Freedom, Courts, Politics book out while I was at Wisconsin, Milwaukee. The civil liberties book, the case book, came out after that, which is revised every three years I should say, which tends to be very quick. And, uh, in between that and the teaching, and the lecturing, and all kinds of things, it's been rather busy, but interesting.

DANIELS: Um-hm. Now, uh, the, the--


BARKER: That's why I should say also--

DANIELS: --conception--

BARKER: --should say also that one or two other things that--


BARKER: I, uh, uh, two or three other books, uh, the--I wrote that volume on Jesse Jackson, as you recall, um, um, which really was a, a kind of a, uh, chronicle of my experiences as a delegate, a Jackson delegate to the '84 convention. And I wrote that book primarily as a part of the record, out of the eye of a delegate. I did not write it as a scholar, although I was a scholar, um, I just wrote it as a delegate. And I recall that, uh--let me say this, I enjoyed writing that book, uh, because I wanted to let my feelings come out, I felt about the whole thing, and my observations. It was--to kind of put it in sophisticated garb it was a participant observation kind of thing. And, uh, I wrote that book and to my amazement, uh, it's gotten very good reviews, both scholarly and popularly. Um, uh, Dick Fetter was 00:57:00the chief reviewer for the Illinois Press and it was a glowing review of the book. And Dick encouraged me not to try to make it political science, because enough political science was coming out anyway. In other words, it was coming through anyway. And if you try to make it political science and then you would, you would, you would lose some of the originality or some of the freshness of it because you would make it a bit more stilted.

DANIELS: When you say, when you say try to make it more political science, you mean in, in a theoretical, conceptual sense--

BARKER: ----------(??) that's right.

DANIELS: --because you were a political scientist, trained as a political scientist--

BARKER: That's exactly it.

DANIELS: --who experienced that--

BARKER: --that's, that's right--

DANIELS: --so obviously--

BARKER: Yeah. That's right.

DANIELS: --that gave you some background and--

BARKER: Exactly.

DANIELS: --insight. You were--

BARKER: So, not--

DANIELS: --not your common--

BARKER: That's right.

DANIELS: --Joe Six-pack--

BARKER: --that's--

DANIELS: --delegate.

BARKER: --that's exactly --


BARKER: --that's exactly his point. And that this was very valuable information coming from a person who has training in this area. And, and it makes a record. I thought that there should be some sort of a record from a delegate's perspective, and that's what I did. So that 00:58:00book came out. Then there was a book that was a bit more conventionally scholarly, I suppose, that Ron Walters and I edited, uh, in which we did take--and invited people to take a more detached view, not as, but other than scholarly. And that book did come out also, on the Jackson '84 campaign. Uh, that book came out. Now of course, also during this time I was very active in the NCOBPS organization. And, and as you know, uh, I have just finished serving my three years as editor of the National Political Science Review. And, and that is a journal which I think is, is going to be very good. At least it's, it's launched and, and we have started it and, and Matthew Holden is going to be the editor. Um, and I think we've made some, uh, some inroads there. We have, uh--it comes out annually, the third volume should be out soon. Um, but that also was quite a bit of work in the sense that we wanted 00:59:00to have a journal that would allow, um, an additional outlet for young scholars, particularly young black scholars, and others, whose, whose work perhaps, uh, was not, uh, the kind that would be solicited by some of the mainstream journals. At the same time, we held to high standards. And, and we made that, so and I think that, um, I think the standards, the peer review system is sufficient enough so that those persons would, uh, receive the kind of, of credit, let us say, in academia for having written and published in refereed journals.

DANIELS: Okay. So--

BARKER: And we encourage it.

DANIELS: --so the, the, the journal then becomes an outlet that, within the perspective of the discipline of political science, it, uh, uh, is designed to allow persons who have not published, young people, uh, 01:00:00who, uh, perhaps also minorities who haven't published, and would you also say, uh, uh, topics or approaches that might not, might not, uh--

BARKER: Be a, be a--


BARKER: --be appealing to some other journals.


BARKER: And, and you--

DANIELS: So, all of these.

BARKER: All of those, and, and we put it in a pretty good format. It's, it's a, it's a pretty good format.

DANIELS: Okay. There was a need for this at this time? I mean, now--


DANIELS: --we're talking--

BARKER: Now, this is, this is--

DANIELS: --thirty years down --


DANIELS: --down, down--

BARKER: Now, this just started---

DANIELS: --down the track.

BARKER: That's right. This just started--oh, I don't know, the journal started about four or five years ago. Um, for a long time some of the mainline journals, the American Political Science Review and some of the others, uh, for whatever reason, probably because, uh, they published without submissions and when there was submissions maybe the reviewers did not see them as a seller, a regular kind of methodology 01:01:00being followed. In any event, there were seen to be a lack of publication in articles that dealt with, uh, the matter of, of black politics writ large and, uh, and also the relation of, of blacks and black-Amer-, African-Americans to other groups. And, and we felt this would fill a void. And, uh, and even looking at some of the so-called traditional kinds of topics. Um, I think when you have some times different perspectives from different, uh, groups, uh, you can show insights which, uh, some scholars have not shown before. You can look at the same phenomenon and come to some different insights. And, and we thought this was a way of increasing that. And I think as a result, I think there is more communication, uh, and I think that we're drawing the materials to the attention of, uh, the profession, to the attention 01:02:00of many of the journals and, and I think we've given an impetus to more black scholars and more younger scholars to write. And so they're not only submitting articles to our journal, but also to other journals. So, you just spread it. So, that's what we thought--


BARKER: --for doing that. Increasing scholarly communication across, across areas and across all journals.

DANIELS: So, at this point then, uh, uh, we can begin just sort of wax, uh, globally. Um, you, you've now made one more move.

BARKER: Um-hm.

DANIELS: Okay. You're now in, out in sunny California.

BARKER: Stanford, yeah. (laughs)

DANIELS: And now, uh, this--you, you've left administration completely.

BARKER: Yes, yes.

DANIELS: Now you're going all the way back to just teaching--

BARKER: Research.

DANIELS: --research, and scholarship.

BARKER: Um-hm.

DANIELS: Okay. Uh, where would you say you are now, in terms of where 01:03:00you started? Are you, you haven't changed, uh.

BARKER: What tells you, I haven't changed?

DANIELS: In, in the sense, conceptual sense--


DANIELS: --that the courts--


DANIELS: --are, are interacting with other political--


DANIELS: --institutions. This is, this has been--is it fair to say this has been a constant?

BARKER: That's right.

DANIELS: And it's been something that--what would you say the variations have been on the theme?

BARKER: Well, the, in a sense--

DANIELS: --maybe that's a, a better--

BARKER: --one of--

DANIELS: --question to ask--

BARKER: --one of the things, one of the things I wanted to do--I was talking to somebody last evening--is, is that I want to write a ---- ------(??) piece, I think on this very thing about, uh, where we are, and where we've been in the, in the, uh, public law area, particularly feeling for the Supreme Court.

DANIELS: You could put it on tape, first.

BARKER: Yeah, but I'm not ready to--(Daniels laughs)--put it on tape. (laughs) I'm not ready to put it on tape because I need to do more thinking about it.

DANIELS: Yeah. Yeah.

BARKER: But, but the, the question you raise is a good one because I was thinking about articles which have come out, the Dahl article, uh, the Casper article responding to Dahl, and then I thought about my own third parties article, Frislaw's third party article, Murphy's elements 01:04:00of strategy, all those kinds of things.

DANIELS: Ooh, that was--that's, that's been almost thirty years.

BARKER: Yeah, I know.

DANIELS: Elements of Judicial--


DANIELS: --Strategy. Yeah.

BARKER: But you think about all those things and I think, primarily, that, that we, uh, I think, I think basically in a way that Jack Peltason, his overall, the tone and, and, and the framework in that Federal Courts encapsulates just about everything that we've talked about, I think that's true. Um, I think, for example, I did not see and I do not see any real argument between Casper and Dahl. I think that Dahl's view is, is correct that sooner or later, you know, the dominant majority--I mean, the courts reflect--and I think Casper is right in saying that, that, uh, that, uh, Dahl's article might convey a more restrictive view for the influence of the court, that the court 01:05:00sometimes can be much more influential in policy than just mimicking the majority. But I, I, I, I don't see that as being contradictory at all, because Dahl makes leeway for that by saying in times of ferment, when institutions won't act together, uh, then the court probably could take a greater lead and he uses desegregation cases as one. Uh, so, so, that. So, I, I don't see--so, in other words, I don't think that, I think that we see a, a pretty good convergence of many of, of the styles. I think Martin Shapiro's, uh, roles of the court, his political jurisprudence; I think those things are right on target. Uh, so I don't see much of, uh, I just think that what we need to do is to just say, uh, we have come away from the more formalistic role of judges somehow through this federal law, they're kind of mechanical jurisprudence, there's no way you can have a doctrine of development, well ----------(??). Um, and somebody mentioned the other day, in 01:06:00class, that whether or not--and, and just heard some people to say that Peltason was making it too political, doctrines do not decide cases, judges do. Uh, or that, uh, uh, doctrines don't decide cases, but doctrines can, uh, can help influence judges. In other words, it's not all one way or another; they have to take account of them. But his point is, is well made, that--his point was it's not a mechanical jurisprudence. That you just can't have tests.


BARKER: At the same time, doctrines do influence--or the development of doctrines is very important for judges who--that's what the, the Rehnquist court is trying to do now, develop certain kinds of doctrines so they can make it easy for them to do what the hell they want--


BARKER: --to do.

DANIELS: Depends on the questions you ask.

BARKER: That's right.


BARKER: That's exactly it. And, uh, so I, I, I think we've got--my orientation with respect to, to that is still a, uh, very much influenced by Peltason's work, my orientation of courts being a 01:07:00part--the, the kind of the group theory of politics, the interests in politics, the, the Bentley-Truman kind of development, which Illinois was very high on early on. Um, so I, I--

DANIELS: So that put that in your blood and it's still circulating.

BARKER: Yes, sir. (Daniels laughs) And Bob Salisbury and I were talking about it today, as a matter of fact. Salisbury felt--keeps, the people talking about the new institutions as an article, and we've got our ways in. We know what's going on, so I mean what's all this business is being rediscovered now, because in the good old days of Illinois we--

DANIELS: Um-hm. Okay. But can we finish maybe by just talking about the profession as a whole, uh, its, uh, governance, its, uh, uh, in its relationship to, uh, research, furthering scholarship, and any other observations that you might care to make? You've been involved with, uh, the APSA and National Conference of Black Political Scientists for 01:08:00years. Uh--

BARKER: Well, I think the--

DANIELS: President-elect now of the APSA.

BARKER: Nominated.

DANIELS: Nominated.


DANIELS: And, uh, I don't know if I should put it on tape, but we've got, uh, people who'll want to start challenging slate, but that's another story. We'll have to wait and see how that turns out. (laughs)

BARKER: (laughs) Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

DANIELS: But given that, uh, would you have any observations about, about that, over the years?

BARKER: Well, I think that the APSA has certainly evolved, as many other institutions in America has evolved, from an organization that was not as open as it is today. And I think part of that evolvement is due to the fact of creating an organization such as the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, also the continued involvement in the organization of people like you and me and others. Um, and as, and, and I think that there has been some presidents of the association were 01:09:00pushing rather hard, uh, toward opening a, a--the association. And I think that, uh, that is, is done to the point where it is possible, uh, that, uh, the association activities are growing to such an extent, the Bunche Institute, uh, Programs, the Congressional Fellowship Programs, a number of other programs. Uh, I think a number of departments and I'm very pleased to see that a number of departments, uh, leading departments are really pushing, are trying to get more blacks and minorities, other minorities into these new programs. I think we are beginning to see, as America generally is beginning to see, that, that that diversity is not only virtually ----------(??) but diversity also helps out with scholarship, different perspectives, and so forth. And I think that, that those things are developing on a broad scale and I think the organization not only is keeping pace, but perhaps setting, 01:10:00setting some, some, um, some pace for that area of development. So I think that, in that respect, uh, uh, it's come a long ways. Got a long ways to go, but I think it's on the right track. I think Cathy Rudder's, uh, being executive director is another indication of opening up the whole association.

DANIELS: She's the first female, uh--

BARKER: To be executive director.

DANIELS: --executive director. Okay.

BARKER: And I think that, uh, uh, just the sheer nomination by the nomination committee of eighty, uh, regardless of what, what happens there, indicates that, uh, uh, the organization, at least the nominating committee, was willing to do that. And that is the first time since I think Ralph Bunche--

DANIELS: Ralph Bunche.

BARKER: --that that has happened. So I think these are some signs of-- now I do think that these, uh, kinds of, uh, of, of very visible symbols 01:11:00have to be translated into more substantive kinds of programs, such as the Bunche Program for it to be meaningful, because I just don't believe in symbols. I believe in symbols are important, no question about it, symbols are important, but I believe that you have to use the symbols to, to get some kind of reaction. So that's about it.

DANIELS: That's about it. Do you want to wrap it up there?


DANIELS: Well, I thank you very --


DANIELS: --much. I look forward to, uh, seeing a piece on Jack W. Peltason. Uh, I'm an optimist, also. I look forward to your leadership of the American Political Science Association. And this concludes tape two of two, Lucius J. Barker. Thank you.

[End of Interview.]