CHD Trial Research | LeVine Keynote 5-13

(inspiring music) – [Margaret] My name is
Margaret Beale-Spencer. I am very pleased to
serve as the current chair of the Department of
Comparative Human Development and where I also completed
my doctorate in 1976. Now I have three tasks this evening, to introduce our dean, to announce the William
E. Henry Memorial Award for the best dissertation and then to introduce tonight’s keynote speaker. However given the obvious
success thus far today I would prefer first to
acknowledge the significant organizing and hard work provided by the third year doctoral students. And their very successful
child research conference, which has taken up the
majority of the day. They are Billy Yee, please stand up, Amanda Brown, and Keisha Harris who’s
in Brazil right now. You are the very best of
academic event planners. (applause) Thank you, clearly I’m not the only person who feels that way. I was approached by a member of my cohort who asked whether or not
contributions can still be made in support of our students,
given our celebratory occasion. You did that. So, thank you again. So, yes, you can continue
to make contributions (laughter) in support of our
students, thank you also, thank you very much. I’d like to also acknowledge
the very impressive child research presenters today as well as the BA paper presenters,
so thanks to all of you. Now, in addition, as we move
into this evening’s preparation for tomorrow, I’d like to
jump ahead and also thank CHD colleagues Rick Schweder and John Lucy for the wonderful start of our
75th anniversary celebration. (applause) The staff support of
Spencer Bonadeo as well as the listed 75th
organizing committee members, who are listed on the back and who will be acknowledged again later. You’ve all helped in
facilitating what is already a very exciting celebratory occasion, so I’d like to acknowledge
all of your hard work to start things off. Okay now I will go back on script. (laughter) Thus I’d like to introduce
our Social Science Dean, valued colleague David Nirenburg, who is the Debra R and Edgar D. Janotta Professor of Medieval History and Social Thought. As a bit of background, Dean
Nirenburg earned his doctorate in history from Princeton and joined the University of Chicago,
Chicago’s faculty, in 2006. Not surprising, he is a prolific scholar, and particularly given
my recent role as chair, I view him as a highly valued colleague. As indicated on the program, Dean Nirenburg will provide
a few words of welcome. Dean Nirenburg. (applause) – Thank you, it’s
wonderful to see you here, and I must say, uh, this is a great day, a great celebration of
a wonderful department, a humbling department. I think my only
qualification for being here is that I come from
the other strange child of the social sciences division, the Committee on Social Thought, and I think about the comparison, and I suddenly realized that
the Committee on Social Thought is small potatoes next to
Comparative Human Development, because comparative,
right there, I remember, I think it was Socrates
who said that there are only two basic decisions to
be made with any question, the choice between
similarity and difference. And he said he would follow
like a god the person who knew which was the right one for each question. And you are the gods who know. And human, human is much
bigger than the social, and when comparative human
development does human, it does it across a spectrum of anomality. So we can look at ground
squirrels and learn about the human from them, we
can look at primates, and learn about the the human from them. Comparison, similarity, difference,
across all of the animal and maybe the plant kingdom,
who knows what comes next. And development, well
development is everything, and you know where my
committee on social thought seems sometimes stuck in
the pre-Industrial world, with the Greeks, at best the Germans, I mean the Hegel-Germans, not the, like. (laughter) You guys are asking the
basic questions about what, about the transformations that occur, as we reorganize our forms
of sociability and life. So for example, whereas in Hegel’s day, 3% of the human population
lived in cities, today it’s 68% and rising,
and you care about that. Whereas the committee on
social thought doesn’t. (laughter) The department of, well,
not the department. It is a department, and
this is a strange thing about Chicago, everywhere
I go, people say to me, why is it called a
committee on comparative, why is it called a committee on social, but the then-committee of
comparative human development was, as you all know, founding in 1940, bringing together biologists
and social scientists. Not actually such a strange combination. To study human development
throughout the life course and from a variety of perspectives, physical development, mental, social, and personal development,
the social environment as it influences human development, and methods of investigation
in human development. And it launched a number
of path-breaking studies and approaches to these questions. And one of the things that
amazes me about the committee on human development,
is how it has managed to develop itself since
1940 to the present. Plutarch tells a story about
the ship of the Argonauts, that the Athenians had
stationed in the harbor as kind of a memorial
to their mythic past, and he says that every plank in that ship had been replaced so many times
that the philosophers walked around the ship, they were
paripatetic philosophers, debating whether it was the
same ship or a different one. Now the committee on
comparative human development has reinvented itself time and time again, on questions like education
and human achievement in its social context, from the early work of founding members Robert
Haviqhurst and Ralph Tyler, to the current work of
Susan Goldin-Meadow, Guanglei Hong, and Lindsey Richland. Now I’m not gonna mention
everyone in the long history of the development or of the committee or everyone necessarily in the present. I’m just trying to give a sense of some of these continuities. Development through the lifespan, again through Robert
Haviqhurst, Bernice Neugarten, Bill Henry, Carl Rodgers, and Burt Kohler, a much-beloved and
long-time member who I knew, to the current research department chair, Margaret Beale-Spencer. How human development is shaped by its cultural and linguistic context, from Robert Levine, from
whom we will soon hear, to Rick Schweder, John
Lucy, Jennifer Cole. Human behavior in its evolutionary
and biological context, from Daniel Freedman to the current work of Martha McClintock,
or Dario Maestripieri. And I’d be remiss not to
mention Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whose path-breaking work
on creativity and happiness was doubtless enabled
by the unique culture, happy culture, of the
committee and the department. So my point is that the
department has managed to do what Lampedusa in Il
Gattopardo said we must do, we must change if we
want to stay the same. And there is really no higher
praise for an institution as innovative, as venerable, and as beloved as this committee. So with that, I welcome back Margaret, to commit pass number two of her list. (applause) – Thank you, David. For my next task, I am
very pleased to announce this year’s William E.
Henry Dissertation Award. This award is named
after William E. Henry, who was a faculty member here. Bill Henry earned his
own PhD here in 1944, joined the faculty in 1947, um, did a lot of very important work, and his later work, in
fact, focused on executives and the aging process of executives. So I think it’s very
appropriate that this year’s winner of the award is Dave Kern. Dave Kern is a student
of Martha McClintock, and his work on multiple levels, Martha describes as
absolutely breathtaking. The work is focused,
like Bill Henry’s work in his later years, on aging. Methodologically and conceptually,
his work is important in that, methodologically,
he’s developed something that he calls an odor pen,
which allows him to move into the field to look at, to examine, how across the life course,
people respond to olifaction, in terms of different odors,
and that’s a real breakthrough, according to Martha in
particular, and the fact that it’s been used most
significantly and recently for his dissertation
on the aging population really fits with Bill
Henry’s contribution. We are very, very sorry that both Martha, Martha’s at the Center for Advanced Study and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford, so she couldn’t come back for this, and Dave Kern was unable to attend. Now that notwithstanding,
I’d appreciate it if you would join me in
congratulating David Kern. Dave Kern. (applause) So my third, and very very special task, is to introduce our
keynote for this evening. Bob, uh, Robert Levine,
ah, finished his BA degree and Masters here at U of C,
and finished his graduate, his doctorate degree at Harvard in 1958. While here at Chicago, he
also earned a certificate from the Chicago Institute
on Psychoanalysis. And that was not unusual
then, for people who were part of the committee to also
have these relationships with the Institute, so it’s
always made, for my opinion, Bob a very special type of anthropologist. So Bob came to U of C
as a student in 1949, received his MA and BA degree, and he was, he’s been the Roy E. Larson Professor of Education and Human Development
at Harvard University between 1976 and 1998,
when he became emeritus. Bob was a committee member, he’s, a Committee of Human Development
member here at U of C between 1990 and 1976. Bob has had an incredibly prolific career, having written at least
15 books and monographs, he has one that’s coming out soon, so we have to continue
to work really hard, because Bob is really intimidating. During this period, before
becoming emeritus in fact, he’s completed approximately
100 articles and chapters, so he continues to be
a very prolific writer. I’m very, very happy for this opportunity, because I think I was probably, uh, a member of the last cohort
of students who took Bob as a professor. In fact, my little funny story was that they wanted me to sort
of, there was a rule that you had to have credit
for a particular biology course or Bob’s course, and Bob was
away at Harvard on leave. And so I was anxious to, I had my trial, I had my proposal hearing, I
had to get special permission to wait on Bob to, to
necessary, wait on that course, after I’d had my trial research, because I wanted to start collecting data. Now I was so happy that
I was able to do that, because that course continues to have an incredibly significant impact on my program of scholarship
because for his class, I became introduced
to, and began studying, marginalized populations,
in this case, was in Japan. And this experience of individuals who are different in some way, and their experiences interacting
with cultural context, you know, really makes a difference for their entire life course, and having that course with you, Bob, has certainly impacted mine, so thank you. Dr. Bob Levine. (applause) – Thank you very much, Margaret. Chicago has always felt like home to me, in spite of the fact that I’ve
been a lot of other places and haven’t lived here for
the last 40 years or so, but um, uh, I’m so happy to be back, and uh, to have the chance
to reminisce in this context. Oh I see Diane (laughs) and Joe. And so, the reminiscing,
I’ll try to keep my emotions under control. (laughter) Uh, well, 50 years ago, literally, I was here, I can’t remember
which building it was, for the 25th anniversary conference of HD. At that time, I was on the faculty of HD, as well as anthropology, but I
was definitely centered in HD and I gave a paper at
that conference entitled “Sex Roles and Economic
Change in Sub-Saharan Africa” in which I spun a comparative theory with ethnographic examples,
and ended with a sentence, “The general validity
of this analysis remains “to be tested in systematic research.” Well as soon as I finished at the podium, Bruno Bettleheim took me aside and said, and whispered disdainfully,
“You must never say that.” He considered me a pathetic wimp who conceded in advance that
my findings might not be right. But what Bruno didn’t understand was that I actually was
an arrogant young man, displaying my credentials as a cautious scientific researcher, and I only mention that because
that kind of disagreement, even about fundamental issues of science, was pretty typical of HD in those days, and it didn’t diminish the excitement of our interdisciplinary work, and it might even have increased it. The Committee on Human
Development, you’ve heard a little bit about this, but
I want to review this history, was one of several
interdisciplinary committees, perhaps the first in that
history we’ve looked at, it says this was the first
interdisciplinary committee at the University of Chicago,
established during the days when Robert Maynard Hutchins
ran this university, and the other, uh, the others included the Committee on Social Thought,
which you just heard about from Dean Nirenburg, and the
Committee on Ideas and Methods, which was interesting, and the Committee on Mathematical Biology, which, believe it or
not, I had some friends in that committee. This was explicit
institutional recognition that academic disciplines had not been set in concrete back in 1890 or 1900 or any other
time, but ought to change as scientific thought
and research progressed. Once again, just as Dean Nirenburg said. The University of Chicago was a leader in fostering interdisciplinarity,
and HD was the leader in wedding psychology
with the social sciences. The interdisciplinary
committees, all of them, reflected the interests and
inclinations of their founders. In the case of HD, the founders in 1940, were Bob Haviqhurst, Ralph
Tyler, and William Lloyd Warner, three larger than life individuals. I mean by that that they were
either social science virtuosi like Warner, or visionary
movers and shakers from the Rockefeller Foundation,
like Tyler and Haviqhurst. Warner had begun as a
social anthropologist of Australian aborigines,
writing a book about about Murngen kinship,
and then became, uh, I was about to say “somehow
or other” but I know how, but he did become the foremost sociologist of social class in America,
and published all those many books, which were known
originally as the Yankee, the Yankee, (audience member mumbles) The Yankee City Series,
which was strangely enough, Newburyport, Massachusetts. What a choice, that was, but anyway. He worked in Illinois, too,
he did a study of Quincy, which was also very, uh, well received. So Warner was just an amazing polymath within the social sciences. Tyler, after his time in HD, was then dean of the social
sciences division here, and then became the founding director of the mass study of behavioral
sciences at Stanford. When I joined the committee
on human development in 1960, Haviqhurst was the only one
of the founders still here. Now, 20 years is a long time
in an academic institution, and I simply can’t tell
you what it was like in HD in those first two decades,
that is from 1940 to 1960. But by 1960, when I came,
a second generation, Bernice Neugarten, Bill Henry,
Bob Hess, and Don Fiske, was taking over from the founders. Bob Hess had just become chairman, and others who I believe had
been active in HD before, like Alison Davis and Jack Getzels, seem to have moved into the
department of education, where they had joint appointments. Mind you, in reconstructing
the history of this committee, you are faced with the
fact that so many people had joint appointments,
in other departments, especially psychology but also, um, but also, in my case
anthropology, and in other cases, sorry, especially education
and also psychology and anthropology, and others. A second, this second
generation had taken over, that included Don Fiske, was
taking over from the founders, and um, when Bob Hess became chairman, and yeah, I mentioned that
Alison and Jack Getzels had moved into the
Department of Education, but where I think, you know,
that was their home at the time In any event, both HD and
education were in Judd Hall until 1970, and so um, you know, when we moved to that old weather
station on Woodlawn Avenue (laughter) which I guess quite a few
of you know and remember, because it wasn’t so recent,
that CHD moved out of there, it wasn’t such a long time ago. In fact, when I was here
in 2008, it was still in the weather station, which
I think was originally built as a fraternity house, but um. But it was a weather station,
when we moved in there in 1970 it was full of old equipment
for measuring rainfall. It was the US Meteorological
Survey or something. Anyway, let me say a few
things about Bob Haviqhurst, because he was the only
founder I really knew well. And did I know him well, I’m not sure. But Bob Haviqhurst was a tall, quiet man, with rimless eye glasses and a mustache, who had enormous influence on the world of foundations, universities,
and governments. And he used his influence
for progressive causes and to build the kind of social research he believed was required
for social progress. By progressive causes,
I mean racial equality, the welfare of minorities,
including Native Americans, and care of the elderly. Haviqhurst conceptualized,
I’m not gonna say for the first time, but he
definitely conceptualized a psychology of the
lifespan with gerontology as a major component, and
he and Bernice Neugarten already had a funded gerontology program by the spring of 1960, when
I taught a course in it called “Adult Roles in
Non-Western Family Systems”. Now I didn’t know anything
about gerontology, but I did, but I know, you know, how, as an anthropologist, how adults live in other human societies,
and I put together a course about that, as, so that, um, and I taught it to all the students, who were, um, who were, who were actually training
to become gerontologists, and that included Shelly Tobin. So that was, that was my first teaching. I was still at Northwestern then, in the anthropology and
political science departments, but I’d been recruited to HD by Bob Hess, who saw my work on comparative
political socialization as relevant to his collaboration
with a political theorist, David Easton, and that
research still has its, that collaboration that
Bob had with David Easton, is still present here in the work, and has been for a long time,
in the work of Judy Tourney, who is here, and um, and has kept that, that research going through many years at the University of Maryland. So the younger generation in HD, Neugarten, Hess, and
Henry, collaborated closely with each other, even
though they didn’t have the same research interests,
an interesting thing. Each member of the HD faculty,
I wanna emphasize this, was expected to represent
and further to define a different, often new field of research. The fields of study overlapped,
but they were not identical. By the way, since Lloyd
Warner had just left Human Development, I
didn’t get to meet him until years later, Hess was
able, in talking with the dean, to frame my appointment
as a partial replacement for the great man, but I
was actually an unknown, 28-year-old guy, who uh, and Lloyd Warner was actually one of the best known sociologists
in America at the time. Haviqhurst, as I said,
with Bernice Neugarten and Bill Henry, created the
field of social gerontology, and Bob has created the field
of political socialization. And, I didn’t say it, David Easton was in the political science department, and he collaborated with Bob. One of the earliest
professorial appointments in Human Developments in
1942, had been Alison Davis, the African American
anthropologist from Yale, who co-authored the famous monograph, “Children of Bondage,”
a study of adolescence in Natchez, Mississippi,
with John Dollard at Yale. David, and when Alison came
here, he and Haviqhurst conducted research on
child-rearing in Chicago. Very interesting study
that I found recently in going through the literature. Though Davis was not
active in Human Development when I was there, he and his wife were my next door neighbors on 50th Street, so I did get to know them. And if I haven’t, no I haven’t said it, at the time of his appointment, Alison was the only, was said to be, the only African American
professor at a major US, a major university in the United States. Haviqhurst retired in 1965,
but he remained, of course, as active as ever in research
and public policy circles. One personal memory, in 1968, one month after the, uh, police action in Grant Park during the Democratic
National Convention, a group that I helped start, called
Citizens for Free Chicago, marched down Michigan
Avenue to Grant Park, and Bob Haviqhurst was the
master of the ceremonies for an event that included
some 45 thousand marchers. I will admit here for the first time that I tried to get
Jesse Jackson to do it, but he wasn’t feeling
well on that occasion, so Bob as usual was willing to take over. That remains, actually, my
last memory of Bob Haviqhurst. You know, I have many personal memories of people at Human Development, but I’m going to put them
aside for the moment, particularly because I couldn’t
really relate them properly without a good deal of further research. I want, instead, to
make an academic point, focused on the question of survival. Why did Human Development survive into, and thrive, in the 21st century, when the other major
interdisciplinary programs of the 20th century
disappeared a long time ago? The short answer is that
HD has always supported a multiplicity of studies and orientations within its boundaries rather
than trying to integrate its theoretical approaches,
research, and teaching around a single framework or vision. And I’ll give some examples of that. In 1962, we brought Larry Kohlberg here, and although he had been
a student of Helen Coke in the psychology department,
those who brought him, including Don Fiske, had nothing in common with his approach to development. They weren’t bringing him
because he represented the kind of thing they loved,
but for some other reason. When he was here he
taught a year-long course called “Child Development”,
which was, Piagetian, in you know, Larry Kohlberg, cognitive developmental theory, and Bob Hess and I taught a sequence, but we didn’t teach it together, I, uh, I taught one term, one quarter and he taught two quarters of, the socialization of the child. And it was not only
different from Larry’s course on child development, it
presented a competing position on how to view the child. This was not regarded as a
problem, at least among faculty. The students had to sort it out, yes, but we did, nobody on
faculty thought there was anything peculiar about
having two completely, you could even argue
diametrically opposed positions being taught. That’s one example, another
example from my time was the advent of Dan Freedman. (laughter) Well, sorry, yeah, the advent. This is the divinity school. (laughter) Dan Freedman came, and
those who invited him to HD, and I don’t remember the
decision making process, sorry, did not necessarily
agree with his position, but they thought we needed
to have a researcher who focused on genetics,
evolution, and human biology. And that was just a given, I
mean we all agreed with that. It wasn’t, we just needed, that was 1964. Dan and I became friends,
and in 1969, I brought him to northern Nigeria to
examine newborn infants there. We had students in
common, like Jerry Barcow, who worked in northern Nigeria. But this did not mean,
even then, that we adopted a common position, we didn’t. We still had different perspectives. By contrast, the
interdisciplinary programs at Yale and at Harvard were victims of their own efforts at integration. The Yale Institute of Human
Relations in the 1930s was taken over by the behavior
theory doctrines of Clark Hull. At the time, you know, it’s almost, it’s so hard to believe, but Hull was considered a genius
equivalent to Isaac Newton. You know Isaac Newton
put together terrestrial and celestial mechanics into a
single theory of gravitation, and Clark Hull was said
to have put together a Pavlovian associative conditioning with Thorndikian
reinforcement conditioning into a wonderful thing
called behavior theory. I won’t go into all the details on that, but all I can say is that 15-year period in which behaviorism dominated psychology, not just at Yale but in this country, is now seen as an embarrassing episode in the history of psychology. So you know, but, at Yale,
there was this notion that we have to all integrate under, under the behavior theory mandate, and of course, you know, remember that left out things like the mind. (laughter) Cognition did not exist. Uh, and I’m getting into it, but anyway. (laughter) In all the laws of
learning, not only could be, but had been, developed by Clark Hull using albino rats under 22
hours of food deprivation. That was the way you got the human, I can’t say mind, because
they didn’t use the word mind. And that, I think, you know, it was amazing that so many bright people participated in that, but it happened. (laughter) At Harvard just after World
War II, Talcott Parsons, working with Henry, getting a big grant and
working with Henry Murray, Gordon Allport, and Clyde Kluckhohn, created a conglomerate
department of social relations by uniting parts of the psychology and anthropology departments
with all of sociology. And publishing a volume called “Toward a General Theory of Action”, it had a bright yellow cover on it, that was supposed to
be the common manifesto for the department of social relations, despite doubts about
its comprehensibility. There were rumors that it been
translated from the German (laughter) and it was a bad translation. (laughter) So, um, when the sociologists
pulled out of the department to form a separate one in 1970, the psychologists and anthropologists returned to the departments at Harvard and the experiment was
over after 14 years. For further information on the demise of the social relations department, you can consult Norman
Bradburn or Rick Schweder. We were all there, we were trained in it. And Dick Talbot. Thank you, Dick. (audience member mumbles) Others. Yeah, but I will only say this, it was not an embarrassing episode, and I’m glad I was trained there. But we, in retrospect, it
was too large and cumbersome to last beyond a certain period. And so it disappeared
pretty much without a trace. And not just, there was, there was a. Herb Kellman insisted on having a, calling, calling a psych, that he wouldn’t go back
into the psych department, unless it was called Psychology
and Social Relations. So there was a period where there was a pseudo social relations department, but it was actually just psychology, and Herb Kellman was, uh, happy. (laughter) No he wasn’t happy. (laughter) But meanwhile, HD did last,
and its transformation into comparative human development seems not only the right move, but one that was anticipated
from the very beginning as the various histories of it show. And even in its pre-history back to 1930. And that spirit of pluralism,
openness, and mutual tolerance seems to have persisted
with only a few ruptures. For me, the best examples of that spirit come from the freedom I had in working with students
more than 40 years ago, and the freedom they had, the freedom they had in choosing
research topics to work on within the psycho-social sciences. Of course we’ve spent the
day hearing these papers, which are proof of that. When I first join the faculty, I was assigned a doctoral advisee with a name I found
difficult to pronounce. That was Mihaly Csikszentmihaly. He was an Italian journalist
of Hungarian background, and he was interested in
studying artistic creativity, he told me. Well I knew nothing about
artistic creativity, that wasn’t my thing, but Jack Getzels guided
him to studying students at the Art Institute for his dissertation, and it was a convincing
exploration of a new subject. Of course this was only the first of such innovative
exploration in Mike’s career. I’m calling him Mike now. Bernice Neugarten said
let’s just call him Mike C. So we don’t have to get involved
in mispronouncing his name but anyway, that was only
the first thing, I mean. And I’m sorry he’s not here, but um. But here, I’m using him to
call attention to the freedom HD accorded a student to
pursue untrodden paths. And as a new faculty member,
I felt completely authorized to continue working with him, though his specialty
and mine hardly matched. Another example was Elizabeth
Bates would run into trouble working with professors in
the psychology department. She was in human
development, but she, anyway. But she was working with, uh, someone in psychology department. They didn’t like her approach
to language acquisition, and I believe it was Carole
Feldman who sent Liz to me, and I eventually agreed to
sponsor Liz for an NSF award, which she got, to study the early stages of language acquisition in Italy. The only problem is that
I didn’t really understand what she was doing. (laughter) I only sensed it, I could sense its importance,
but I was able to call upon Mike Silverstein from the
anthropology department and another linguist who was visiting, whose name I no longer remember, to help me in the process of evaluating and defending her dissertation. It turned out to be worth the effort, as Liz Bates became a leading contributor in the child language field in
her many years at San Diego, and she turned, and moreover, she turned over to me the video equipment she had used in Italy,
which I took to Kenya for our infant study there. How about that for economy. A few years before, before that, and you know I’m getting
chronologies all mixed up here, I had a student from
Texas, Wendell Wilson, who was here, who discovered that changes in immigration laws had brought
Indians to the north side of Chicago in great numbers. Devon Avenue running into
Skokie was where they were. So instead of going back to India where he had had a Fullbright, he could study them
right here, and he did. And I learned from him that these people were known in India as patidars, I hadn’t heard that, from Gujarad, and only
then did I understand why the telephone directory in Nairobi had pages and pages of people named Patel, everybody seemed to be named Patel, and what kind of telephone
directory is that, if everybody has the same last name? (laughter) Well, anyway, I learned from Wendell, I learned a lot about that, and his dissertation revealed
what life was like for them in their early days in Chicago. In my last years here, a U of C medical student named Joe Tobin came over to work with
me, interested as he was in cross-cultural research,
especially on Japan. And his parents may have
been appalled by his decision to pursue a PhD in human development instead of an MD in medicine, but they were quite civil
about it, at least to me. He decided to study preschoolers, another subject on which I knew nothing, but his book, “Preschool
in Three Cultures”, and the video disc that went with it, shed new light on that subject. And at one time, watching
that CD was required in three courses at the
Harvard School of Education. And Joe has done follow-ups, and he’s written a book, with another CD, on preschool in three cultures revisited. I could add many other instances, and I’m sorry, if, you
know, not to do that, but I think these will
show the unusual freedom, freedom to be innovative
in the study of development that doctoral students and
their professors here at HD had and that was a tradition worth preserving, and all I can say is
keep up the good work. (applause) – Uh, I think we have, first of all (mumbles from off screen) Oh, wonderful, thank you. First all, I, that, your
presentation was wonderful, Bob, and I’d like for us to thank you again. (applause drowns out speaker) Our student assistants can
take around the microphone for those who’d like to make
comments or ask questions, I think it’s a great idea, because I’m not sure about all of you, but this has evoked a
lot of memories for me, but I’m going to let others make comments or ask questions first. Carly, you’re going to do? Who is doing the? Oh, thank you, Carly. I can bring this down here if you’d like. You okay? (mumbles) – Meanwhile, (laughs)
I’d like to just mention some of my other, former
students who are here, Diana Slaughter, and (applause) and Joe Consign, and Lauren Lavender (applause) and you know it really is
an amazing moment for me, and there is Bernie Chapin
who was a post-doc here much more recently,
doesn’t go back that far, (laughter drowns out speaker) I don’t know, anyway. But um, but I think, I hope
it’s raised some questions. By the way, you know, talking
to Dick Talon earlier today, I learned a lot of things
that I didn’t know about. Things like the appointment
of Rick Schweder, um, I spent here for such a long time, and overlapping, of course I knew him. Questions, please, yeah Judy. – [Voiceover] Thank you very
much for a wonderful set of memories and bringing it all together in the way that you did. When I was a student here,
and I got my PhD in 1965, um, I remember a lot of, I guess they were required, but I ended up in a lot
of sociology courses. And I’ve always thought that
that was one of the things, one of interdisciplinary,
well, the sociology, from the interdisciplinary
strands that was really important and I wanted to say something about that, because I remember people like Joan Moore, – Yes, yes. – [Voiceover] Who taught
a course, was very clear, this was not a social psychology course, was a sociology course, that meant. – Joan Moore was a student of, quite warm. I knew her. And I think when she was
doing her dissertation, teaching in, uh, I think
University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and she used to come back. – [Voiceover] And um, the um, so I just wanted to say
that that was a piece of it. And I also wanted to perhaps
throw a little cold water on the wonders of the
collaboration between Dean Easton and Bob Hess, um actually,
the data we collected, we did one of the first
mixed method studies, that is we interviewed kids
before we wrote the surveys on the socialization, and the two authors, the two holders of the
grant, could not agree on the interpretation of the information. So two books were written. (laughter) And as a matter of fact– – [Voiceover 2] Which one sold better? – [Voiceover 1] I think
ours did, actually. (laughter) But in any case, the, uh, ours was published first, and
so we had no particular reason to refer to theirs, to
Easton and Hess, in our book, because it didn’t exist yet. But Easton and Dennis were totally silent on the issue of there
having been another book from the same table, and
there are some people who could read both books and think, gee, these were very similar
studies, weren’t they? How come they aren’t, uh, you
know referring to each other? And I’ve gotten quite
interested in what happens in various areas at the
moment I’m working on, kind of the history of the
political socialization work, having done now a couple of
large international studies as well, and how little
theory there is in that field, and that’s one of the things that I think you couldn’t write a book here, without having some sort
of attempt, at least, to develop a theory
that went along with it. Just saying, these are the
data, now you make sense of it, was never enough, and
having the combination of, again, sociology and
psychology and anthropology and cultural insights was really something that was really important. – Yeah, I, if I implied that, um, that either HD or the social
sciences division here were free of combat. (laughter) Forget it. It was, there was plenty
of fighting, politics. We could, it was, it was everywhere. And yet, HD did have kind of a, capacity to over, had a spirit of, of tolerance, and I can
only go with tolerance, of mutual tolerance, that
people did not try to, uh, just simply seal themselves off. Now that of course,
yeah, that’s not a good, the Hess and Easton study, (laughs) which I was putting forward
is not a good example. – [Voiceover 1] Well it’s a
good example of some things, but (laughter) – Something things. – [Voiceover 1] Wrinkles and things. – [Voiceover 3] Just before I came here, I got an e-mail from one
of your former students, Jerry Barcow, and he wanted me to tell you just how much you meant
to him as a professor and how sorry he was that he
couldn’t be here this weekend. In your talk you mentioned a
faculty member, Helen Coke? And I am in the field of twin studies, and I know her book very well, “Twins and Human Relations”,
but I didn’t know that thing about her, I
wonder if you could talk about her book, but as
a person, if you knew, if you knew her well. – I lay down, I’m sorry, I
remember what she looked like, but I didn’t know her at all. And so, I didn’t ever
have a course with her. Some people like Bruno
Bettleheim I had a course with, when I was a mastery student, so I, you know, I know, you know I got to know Bruno too well. (laughter) But whatever. But Helen Coke I didn’t know, but I do remember she looked very austere, and like a, like a nun, to me. I just remember that
from, from those days. But I, I, you know I don’t even remember. Well, Larry Kohlberg, when he was here, he and his wife Lucille,
gave wonderful parties, and um, which, and I, you know, in spite of the fact that
I was doing socialization and he was doing Piaget, he invited everybody to those parties. But I never remembered seeing Helen go. Maybe she wasn’t fond. – [Voiceover 1] Let me say
something about Helen Coke. – [Voiceover 4] Could
you identify yourself? – [Judith] I’m Judith
Tourney-Perda, I go by Judith now, I haven’t been Judy for a long time. – [Voiceover 4] It’d be good
if people identify themselves. – [Judith] Ever since I started
here in this program in 1960 and Helen Coke taught a course in Piaget, and she was a woman of, she, well, you’d see her on the street, and you’d wonder if she
was a bag lady, you know. It was a possibility, probability. But she would walk into
class, she had her hair up, she’d walk into class and she’d
lecture about Piaget nonstop for the full time of the
class without a note, not one note, not one, and also no attempt to involve students in this. (laughter) Okay, she also had a
house out in Michigan, where she sort of retreated
from whatever was going on, so she was not literally a nun, but she was sort of, all on her own. – [David] I’m David Orlensky,
and I had Helen Coke as one of my professors
when I was a student at the psychology department here. I do not remember her
talking about Piaget, but what I do remember
is I got there early to sit as close to her as I could in order to prevent
myself from falling asleep because I think it was
undoubtedly the most boring class I’ve ever had. (laughter) – [Rick] Ah, I’m Rick
Schweder, and Bob, thank you, I think I could have
sat here all night long listening to you narrate these
memories and observations. I had two related questions, I think. HD went for a long time
without the capacity to initiate appointments,
so most of the appointments were joint appointments,
and one of the things that many units like that experience is a lack of central identification with a place like (mumbles), that is, if they’re sociologists in HD, they still somehow feel
like sociology department’s their main home, or wherever,
whichever discipline. Yet I think HD managed to
create a sense of themselves as a place that you might identify with as a place of primary identity. And I wonder if that’s true,
what your perception was, of all these faculty
with joint appointments. What made them keep faith
or loyalty to this unit. The other related question
is, if I’m correct, I may be wrong about this,
but I believe there were exceptions to that joint
appointment pattern, and I’ve been told that
Bernice Neugarten, for one, was fully appointed in HD, Dan Freedman number two,
was fully appointed in HD, and when I came here,
I was appointed by HD, I take it because Bob Adams, then dean, just thought it would
be a good thing to do, and they counted the college
as my joint appointment. So I’m both curious about the ethos of all these jointly appointed faculty, with respect to HD, I know
David Respeth later wrote about his affiliation with
HD as very important for him but he was only in the college, and that was his graduate appointment, and how did Bernice and Dan
manage to get appointed that way without it being joint? – Um, you know, I’d be a
liar if I told you I knew all the ins and outs of
that, I don’t, I didn’t. Don’t forget, Bernice
and Bill were already on, were senior members of the committee when I joined it in 1960. I always had the feeling
that something happened before I got there, and it
wasn’t just Lloyd Warner resigning to go to Michigan State and do various things. It was a whole bunch of things,
that I don’t know what it, because I believe, as I
said, that Alison Davis and um, and Jack Getzels, who had been important in HD, pulled out and went back to education. I mean, let’s remember,
it couldn’t have been, it might be, a committee
of human development, if there hadn’t been a great
department of education, which it’s absolutely
shaming that this university abolished its department of education, started by John Dewey, and, um, and was lead of department of
education for such a long time but um, and I know all the ins and outs about why they abolished it, but, um, but I still think it was a nasty thing. But that’s not, um. The point is that, um, I had
the feeling when I arrived in 1960 that a lot of
things had been different before I got there. Not that I changed them, but with Bob Hess as the new chairman, and
he was very young, really. It was a really different,
that I understood had happened before, so what happened
before, I can’t tell you. But Dick. – [Dick] I just wanted to
end a little footnote– – [Voiceover 5] Who are you? – [Dick] Oh I’m sorry, I’m Richard Tell. Human action is important in this story, and that, the story of why we continued, and I do say that in 1999,
when HD came out of psychology, that Rick and John and Burt
and Susan were very tough, determined people. There were lots of people,
including some deans, who thought we shouldn’t exist, and that they really fought
to make things happen, so that was a small, devoted band, which could have ended HD,
I mean, HD could have ended. – There was that intermediate
period when they dealt with– – [Voiceover 5] Mic? – [Dick] Could you hold the mic closer? – Oh sorry, there was an
intermediate period when, if you remember, I can’t remember, we brought a committee, that I
think Norman Bradburn was on, was, there was a feeling
that the psych department was inactive, let’s put it that way. So we brought Brewster Smith to Chicago to chair something something that was to be in
place of a psych department. But it included human development, because of course Brewster
was our kind of guy, in the sense of
interdisciplinary psychology, wasn’t from Harvard, originally, but he was a really fine person, and I think that a number
of people working with him, but then he gave up and
went back to Santa Cruz. Norman, you next. – [Norman] Norman Bradburn. I was gonna tell this story tomorrow. (laughter) But now, the short version, anyway. Yeah, I chaired the committee. What happened was in 1972, I
believe it was, 1973 maybe, the then-provost John Wilson called me and said the psychology, the senior people in psychology department
have come to me and said, we cannot decide on a chair. This was after Brewster left. – That’s right. – [Norman] And I think bringing
Brewster in was the attempt before that to solve
the insoluble problem. So he asked me if I
would chair a committee to reorganize psychology in university, because he said there was
something like 55 psychologists in the university spread over
a large number of departments, and he said every time I turn
around someone’s proposing the hiring of another psychologist, and we just can’t have it that way. So I chaired a committee to reorganize it. And interestingly, I’ll
expand on this tomorrow, I used human development as the model, and with some advice
actually from Don Campbell, who had been here actually years before, but so, the new department, which was called behavioral sciences, was a federation of, meant to be, anyway, a federation of committees
like the committee of human development. The only one that was at all successful, even in the short term, was the committee on
cognition and language with Marco Silverstein, when, (mumbles) psychology and anthropology and so forth. That was the only one
that really got similar, in some sense to that. The biopsychology one, which
spanned, to some extent, they had some joint appointments with the biological sciences
division, somewhat, there was a small (mumbles) methodology, essentially wanted, but the idea, which I got from Don Campbell, was that they should be about 7-10 people that could agree on a curriculum, and that could agree, in a general sense, on what they wanted to teach. And, uh, and then they could be called, could be admitted as a committee. So when the department started, I was the only member of the department. And then the committees, on defining what they
wanted to do, essentially, could become, well (mumbles) had already been here, so became the first member, and then the others took
some time to organize. I think what Richard
Town was talking about, (coughing drowns out speaker) retired and did other things, but he um, when psychology began to, many of these committees didn’t take hold, you know, the way human development did. So at some point the notion
of psychology, again, as a department, rather than a department of behavioral sciences,
um, began to emerge, and then, uh, then it made sense for human development to
become a separate department. Because I was the only, you then, in behavioral sciences that had a history of interdisciplinary
integrity that the others, uh. Anyway, so now the psychology department, I think is more like most
psychology departments that have emerged today, although they, psychology departments in
general are not as fractious as they used to be, but, uh. In, one you, is not like,
one’s like any other, universities, very divided
in terms of methodology, interests, and various things like that. – You wanna hear about anthropology? (laughter) – [Norman] But anyway that’s,
that’s the short story. – And, yeah, so, in a way,
human development, almost, it never was threatened, exactly, but it was superimposed or whatever, it was supposed to be integrated. – [Norman] Yeah I tried
to use it as a model, but it didn’t, it was
so generous, (mumbles) marvelous that it has continued and gotten strength, stronger, as it. – [Bambi] Um, I’m Bambi Chapin,
and I was here as a post doc um, I left about ten years ago. And Bob I really appreciate
you talking about, I think this thing that’s perplexing, which is why, to these,
amazing conferences of people that are doing really amazing
work in different places at different times, sort of, fizzled out, and it seems like, oh we
all missed out on this thing that happened, and this
story of coming to some, too tight an agreement, too uniform, an answer to the question
that you set out to answer, and then that sort of
is a, a death, right, because it’s an answer, and
that HD has had tolerance and an encouragement of
a diversity of approaches and opinions even when there was conflict, but I wonder if this
story of parallel play, that you sort of tell, did produce, um, agreements and then moved
on to new disagreements that you could speak of. Sort of what’s the productiveness of, other than maintaining an institution, what’s the productiveness of having these diverse perspectives
that are often in conflict and I sort of was thinking about that, and have a hunch that part of that is that it gives the graduates
students, it gives the students, the post docs, the
undergraduates, all of us, a lot to chew on, and so
there’s many, many answers that keep coming out and generating. But I wondered if you might
reflect on that a little. – Yes, the history of
psychology in the 20th century, (audience member mumbles) Sorry, the history of
psychology in the 20th century, I cut that out of my thought, will show, uh, shows, that a great deal of pseudo
science was being presented as science, the psychologists
were so enormously concerned to adopt science, and they
went in the wrong direction. Instead of going to Darwin,
they went to Pasteur, you might say, and that was a big mistake. And so they didn’t see
themselves as natural history, they wanted to be white coated scientists who were generating from their labs the laws of learning, (mumbles) or the laws of cognition, and they have, there’s been so much
wrong that has been done under the name psychology, um, in that, in that period, namely most of the 20th century. (laughter) And so I, uh, I’m gonna
write something about that one of these days (laughs) and I’ll publish it in ethos (laughs), but that’s what I feel, I think that, um, that the strength of human development turned out to be, strangely, you know, a reflection of
what other psychology people might have thought as a weakness, that they didn’t have a single program, but since we have had
so many failed programs within the field of psychology
over the last century, and some successful, I’m
not saying there were no successful programs, um, but, um, but it’s a very mixed
bag, and human development didn’t try to get people to focus on, to salute to a single flag. And that was a brilliant,
even if it wasn’t somebody’s notion to begin with, although I think it was Haviqhurst’s idea. I mean, I think Bob Haviqhurst
defintely did believe that and everybody in human
development believed it too, but it turned out to be a, I think, a winning thing, because
the field of psychology is still finding itself, and, um, to the premature claims and so on are now, as I said, embarrassing
episodes in the field. Um, there was something else. That, that’s my view,
of why human development did succeed and continued, um, I mean, it’s not, I’m not claiming that human development has the truth, has God’s truth, on the contrary. They retreat from the idea
that there is a single truth and so the notion of the
social and psychological are multifaceted, uh, things
that need different approaches. They’re not a single approach. What a great idea. – [Carol] Carol Bispell,
I got my PhD in 1980 from human development,
and I have found so much of what you’re saying to be really helpful in thinking through what
my experience meant, so I appreciate that, but
when I first came to HD, I remember taking
classes from Bert Kohler, Bernice Neugarten, Mike
Csikszentmihalyi, Dan Freedman, Susan Studolski, and
thinking what in the world does each of these disciplines have to do with any of the others? (laughter) And I remember just being
sort of flabbergasted by the range of topics that
I was being introduced to, but over the two or three
year period of taking classes it started to make sense to me, and each of them would
send me to take classes from other people that they
thought would be helpful. So Dan Freedman sent me to
Eckard Hess, and Stuart Altman, and Ken Kay, and it even
made more sense after that, and I’m beginning to
wonder if the genius of HD might have been to find people, brilliant people, and put them together and
see what would happen, and I would love to get
your comment on that. – Well, that’s what I was sort of, I was getting at that,
at something like that, when I said that the
expectation was that everybody, each faculty member, even
assistant professors, would define a new field of study, and that from the viewpoint
of many other disciplines, that sounds like a recipe for disaster. You want your junior faculty to, to develop a whole new field of study that might be irrelevant or whatever, and there wasn’t a sense
that it would be irrelevant, there was a sense that, yeah, that these were good people,
I’m not gonna say brilliant, but, anyway, but that these
were really good people who had ideas that needed to
be translated into research and they were gonna do it, and yeah, it sounds crazy, and it was very good. And so. I don’t know, but you know,
some of the things you said sound to me like you were here later than some of the people you, oh because Mike Csikszentmihalyi
came back on faculty here, when was that? – [Carol] I think we all took
classes from him in mid 70s? – Yeah, I guess that would
have been just after I left. – [Carol] Yes, unfortunately
you had left by that point. I didn’t get to have. – I was deeply involved with
the movement to bring him back. From Lake Forest College
where he was teaching. Anyway, yeah. That’s very interesting what you said, and I do think that, yeah. It was a risk taking kind of operation, and maybe it remains that
way, I think it does. And isn’t it wonderful
that there’s some place where that can be done. – [Jay] I’m Jay Magazine, and I was here, I graduated the same
year that you did, Carol. And I think as a student,
thinking of all these, you know I was a student,
I didn’t pay attention to some of the things you talked about, that wasn’t what I, I was
just trying to figure out how I was gonna finish
and leave here eventually with a degree, with a degree and a job, as opposed to leaving without
a degree, and maybe a job. – Most people didn’t care about it. – [Jay] Well I didn’t care
about it until my mother said well, how are you gonna support yourself? It was a time when that just had happened. But um as a student, the vast differences, I ventured off into doing work
with psychiatry and geography which were really different, and I still know some of the
people that I worked with, but it, my, my challenge
out of all of that was to make sense of it and
come away with something that I could really define
as what I was leaving with, which was very different than anything anyone here was doing, so that
was part of the beauty of, of being here, and leaving,
and being able to continue to make sense of novelty
and things that really may not have related
to one another directly by the people who were
proponents of those areas, but I was in a position to
make sense of that for myself, and that’s continued throughout
my career, to do that, so it’s really been a
very rewarding experience, as I reflect back on it many times. – That’s interesting. – [Jerry] I’m Jerry Sarshay, I was here right after World War II
for about eight years, I just want to eventually talk
about the conflicting ideas, and human development I feel has not been like a debating society
with conflicting ideas, it’s been more characterized by diversity, and it seems to me that
the human condition, the human being, is so complex, has so many different aspects,
just like an individual, and you move to the family,
and then you move to a community and to a
culture and to the planet, and my gosh, there are
new things every day, so you can’t, it’s silly
to spend time debating whether my position is better than yours, there’s so much new to discover every day, and in the, uh, student research thing, I’m learning new things
today from the students that are coming along, so it’s really, what’s the new thing to
discover in human development, not who’s gonna argue as to who’s got the best theory for today. – [Margaret] Thank you, Carly. Margaret Beale-Spencer. I just want to follow
up on Carol’s comment, especially Carol’s comment
concerning the various classes that one took, and the
impact of those classes, and I would agree, it
was an experience for me from 71 to 76, I’ve
had all these, but yes, parallel, but very sort of
strongly held perspectives and so it, um, you know for me, it was being so respectful of who
was delivering these ideas that I did not always agree with. I mean, for example, I was
very happy to have waited to take your class, Bob,
because from day one, Dan Freedman and I
fundamentally disagreed. He was one of the individuals
that I interviewed with when I applied to the program,
and we started there arguing you know, and I never
knew that Dan Freedman always got the last word (laughs). And because I came here very
excited about a master’s thesis no he did not get the last word, so what he said, not
holding a grudge, he said, well we’re not finished
with this conversation, if you come back then
we can talk some more. Of course I waited until I was accepted, then we continued these debates, but because there were
strongly held ideas, and you were so respectful
of the individual, so in this case, I would
take his classes for an audit because I did not want to have
him judge my interpretation of what I was learning, but I
wanted to know what he knew. But the point is that I,
given the work on children that I did with Diane,
what I did what Stadowski, with Mike C. and other people, it was like there were
these bodies of knowledge that you were acquiring,
and for me it was, when you were out in the
field collecting data, then all these perspectives came along. And I can tell you that my
clarity of my dissertation became clear with all these points of view aiding that clarification but
was actually out in the field. But, and even terms of
Bernice’s, Neugarten’s, work at the the time was on aging, but thinking about the aging process say, in the teaching
environment of teachers, had a recursive impact
on how kids in the case that I was working understood, you know, race and color and et cetera,
I mean it all literally came alive for me, but these were for me, as a student, these were absolute giants that I respected so
much, and therefore those volumes of knowledge
I totally internalized and were very helpful to
me, as a little aside, and something very funny,
so much so that when I had finished my degree,
my first job was at Emery University, and my
first year, Bernie Spidak, a Columbian, said Mrs.
Neugarten is coming to Atlanta, and she wants you to go to lunch with her. And I said oh my God, she’s
come to take my degree. (laughter) So yes, there were not just
these incredible bodies of knowledge, but they
were communicated by different individuals
who really were excited about the ideas, therefore
you couldn’t help but get excited about them as well, and also a bit fearful. (laughter) – [Carly] One last, one
last question or comment. – [Margaret Pike] I wanna
say one other thing, I was here from 61 to
69, I’m Margaret Pike, and uh, and so that was,
when human development was pretty new, and I
knew it was just exactly what I wanted because
I’d studied sociology as an undergraduate and
thought it was so narrow, it left out the individual,
and I went to psychology, and I thought they were worse, they left out the social structure, so I thought, a ha, but then
I loved it all the way through but the problem was when
you get on the market, then I ended up in psychology,
cause I found a job, so I became a psychologist
instead of sociologist. But the fact is no matter where we’d gone, I think I had to slice
off various components as I got right up to
the psychology program, I looked at their exams and I thought, oh my God, I don’t know half this stuff, and I’m supposed to evaluate them on this? And I looked at, I was
teaching human development, and I said yeah but
where’s all the line stuff? I loved your portions. And that was, where’s all this stuff, this other’s perspectives,
what kind of a family structure are they talking about,
there’s all these other ones that shape up your behavior, so my, I really loved it all, but it took me, I felt all the time I was going through, I was throwing stuff into my soup pot, and then by the time I graduated, started to turn into some kind of stew, and actually it was tasty (laughs) each individual vegetable
wasn’t all there was, so thank you for rounding it out. – I just remembered something. In relation to what Margaret
said about my participation in the Chicago Institute
for Psychoanalysis, uh, yes, I spent most of the 1960s being trained in pscyhoanalysis. I had a grant, in HD, that
allowed me to do that. But HD, by the way, the
University of Chicago didn’t, paid my salary only two of
the 16 years I was here, it was mostly paid for the NIH. I had to sign research
scientist award, aged, which was negotiated by
Bob Hess, but anyway. So I was able to have, at the time, to spend, or waste, you might say on psychoanalytic training. I had a training analysis
with the director of the institute, who I
had to see five days a week for six and a quarter years during that. I mean, in spite of that, I
still went to Africa a lot, but anyway, and then,
then after two years, I was allowed into course. And the reason I mention
this, if you wanna know what orthodoxy was like (laughter) you had to go to the Chicago
Institute for Psychoanalysis at that time, so, you know, there was no, there was none of the
experience of human development that everybody’s been
talking about here, at all, and by the way, Ernie
Haggard, a psychologist, is mentioned, he had been
part of human development earlier on, he was a PhD
psychologist, not an MD, but also, he was the
first person to be trained in the research program
for the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, he
was a neighbor of mine, and we had talks about it, but um, but there were hardly any people
who knew what research was at the Chicago Institute. All they knew is they, they had the word, the truth, the truth about human behavior, and they wouldn’t call it behavior, the truth of human development, certainly. So even though I was
admitted to the institute, and for years was the
only anthropologist there, later Jim Moran became
one, and later than that, my student, Worf Kracke was,
student of anthropology, Worf Kracke was there, but, um, but in my day I was the
only one for a long time, and I, you know, I would go to Africa and collect interesting data
and then I would come back and present, and they
said oh you must present, you know, your data at the
Wednesday afternoon meetings at the institute, faculty,
and I knew what would happen, every single time, everybody
knew better than I. They, they, they told me
what was really going on with the people in Africa
that I’d been working with. So you know, this is, this
is what the other side of the coin is from human development, and I was experiencing
it at the very same time that I was in human development. – [Voiceover] Well the party has begun in the most wonderful way, thank you Bob, thank you David, for launching us. (applause)

Tags:, ,

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *