Quest 2006, 58, 20-31
© 2006 National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education
The American Academy of Kinesiology
and Physical Education, 1940-1984:
Innovation, Introspection, Identity,
and Involvement
J. Thomas Jable
In 2005, the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education reached
its 75th anniversary. In celebration of this momentous occasion, this paper examines 44 years of the Academyʼs history from 1940 to 1984. During the 1940s, the
Academy was engaged in the war effort. Then in the 1950s, it sought to define more
precisely its role and function as an organization. The 1960s saw the Academy
embark on a “Body of Knowledge” project, while the emergence of subdisciplines
in the 1970s moved the Academy to question its nomenclature and challenge its
leadership. The next decade, it made a valiant, though unsuccessful, attempt to
unify subdisciplines. Nevertheless, the American Academy of Kinesiology and
Physical Education produced a distinguished record of significant achievements
during this 44-year time period
During the nearly five decades of AAKPE history covered by this paper, the
Academy and its members engaged in a variety of experiences from supporting the
War effort during the 1940s to raising the physical education banner for unification in the 1980s. In between, the Academy struggled almost constantly with its
own identity, but at the same time it made significant headway in determining its
purposes and role within the profession. This paper, then, explores the Academyʼs
major activities and principal achievements from 1940 to 1984.1
The 1940s: Wartime Fitness
and the Post War Effort
Jay B. Nash, one of the five founders of AAPE, gave the presidential address
at the 1942 AAHPER meeting in Cincinnati. Due to the austerity of war, most
conferences were prohibited, but the federal government granted special permission for this one because its theme, “National Fitness,” was so germane at the time.
Nash spoke in depth about the nature of “fixed values” promulgated by dictators of
totalitarian states that swept the world into war. He even related the notion of fixed
or inflexible values to our profession by referring to the relationships of physical
The author (AAKPE Fellow #421) is Professor of Physical Education at William Paterson University,
Wayne, NJ 07470. E-mail: [email protected].
20
04Jable(20) 20
1/15/06, 11:44:46 AM
AAKPE: 1940-1984
21
education, health, and recreation. Those entities, according to Nash, overlap far
more than they are discrete. His chief concern on that date, though, was the cause
of freedom and flexibility, which he saw embedded in democracy “where values
and evaluations must be constantly changing as men see more and more clearly
the mountain tops of truth” (emphasis supplied; J.B. Nash, Presidentʼs Committee
Correspondence, 1942).1
The following year, David K. Brace chaired the American Academy of Physical Education (AAPE) Committee on Projects and Plans that considered compiling
information on Academy members involved in the war program. Its intent was to
formulate suggestions for “war work by the Academy” and to develop a report on
the status of physical education in the United States during the war that might be
distributed to allied countries as well as to physical educators in this country (D.K.
Brace Letter to AAPE Committee on Project and Plans, February 8, 1943).
Under the presidency of Arthur H. Steinhaus, 1943-45, the Academy embarked
on a campaign to prevent the substitution of military training for physical education by organizing a Committee on National Affairs. Its two-fold purpose was to
formulate a position on compulsory military training and to work with Congress in
presenting “intelligent physical education viewpoints before bills are finally crystallized” (Steinhaus letter to Clifford L. Brownell, May 17). Steinhaus had hoped
that Joseph E. Raycroft, noted physician-psychiatrist who had been a consultant
on physical training during World War I and the author of Mass Physical Training,
a text used by the armed forces, would head the committee consisting of Jay B.
Nash, Seward C. Staley, and D. K. Brace. When Raycroft declined (as did Clifford
L. Brownell), Steinhaus turned to Frank Lloyd, head of the National Committee on
Physical Fitness. On another front, Steinhaus moved the Academy toward balancing
members in health and recreation as well as emphasizing the need to increase corresponding (i.e., international) fellows. In a closing message to Academy Fellows
in 1945, Steinhaus wrote: “Younger, strong Fellows will best assure our becoming
a potent world influence. Yours for an Academy of active leaders, not a museum
of showpieces” (Letter to Academy Fellows, February 1).
The 1950s: Reexamination, Reappraisal,
and Relief (for a Fellow)
During the 1950s, Steinhaus continued to pressure the Academy to “find a
unique way of making its impact felt in our profession.” He frequently reminded
Academy Fellows of R. Tait McKenzieʼs viewpoints of “electing people of real
stature” and “recognizing work of high quality” to enable the Academy to make
a “real impact” (Letter to Ruth Abernathy, March 4, 1959). Steinhaus believed
the Academy should avail its services to the United States Congress and it should
reach out to distinguished scholars on the international scene. The tenor of Steinhausʼ disposition and that of others, no doubt, prompted Academy President Elmer
Mitchell in 1955 to question the Academyʼs purposes and call for a reevaluation of
the organization. Mitchell not only felt the heat of criticism from the outside but
also internal pressure within the Academy and the physical education profession. In
questioning some non-Academy members whom he respected, Mitchell learned that
they felt isolated from the Academy and consequently were “indifferent to what we
04Jable(20) 21
1/15/06, 11:44:48 AM
22
Jable
were doing” (Paper presented at the meeting of the AAPE, 1955). The Academyʼs
gravest shortcoming, according to Mitchell, was its lack of publicity in which we fail
to tell the outside world what we do and taking “it for granted that . . . [the outside
world] knows about our work.” Echoing Steinhaus, Mitchell proposed expanding
the Academyʼs influence by having it represented on joint committees and at joint
meetings on teacher education, required physical education, intramurals, facilities,
and athletics. He mentioned the possible affiliation with the American Council on
Education. He then moved on to international relations. “No group in the physical
education profession,” declared Mitchell, “is as strategically situated to promote
international contact as is our own group, the American Academy of Physical Education.” Lastly, Mitchell believed the Academy could make its greatest contribution
through research. He even envisioned the Academy becoming a Research Institute
because its members have highly distinguished records in conducting and promoting research. The Institute, then, could become a “clearing house” for research in
physical education and perhaps even promote cooperative (broad-based national
studies) and integrative (synthesis of findings on major topics) research, the latter
might conceivably lead to the creation of an Encyclopedia of Physical Education
(Paper presented at the AAPE, 1955).
During the summer of 1958, President Delbert Oberteuffer solicited feedback
from members regarding the Academyʼs reason for existence. He then called upon
Ellwood Craig Davis to head a committee that would reexamine the Academy by
looking into ways of improving it. To gather information, Davisʼ committee began
its work by surveying the Academy membership for suggestions and ideas. Jay
B. Nash (1959) thought the Academy could become a “judgment making group”
because he thought several members “could speak with authority, and their voices
would have weight” (Letter to E.C. Davis, February 24), while on the other hand,
Tom McDonough (1959) did not want to encumber Academy members with any
additional tasks or work. “The reason I like the Academy,” remarked McDonough,
“is that the vast majority of members are still producers without the attendant
pressures” (Reports. McDonough Presidential Papers). Ultimately, the committee
identified four categories for improvement—screening; selection and orientation
of new members; improvement in structure, work, and status; and purposes. It
planned to discuss the results of the survey at the 1959 AAPE meeting and then
present a final report at the Academyʼs 1960 convention in Miami Beach (Letter
to Academy Membership, January 7, 1959, Oberteuffer Presidential Papers; E.C.
Davis Tentative Report to Committee on Reexamination of the Academy, March
17, 1959).
Oberteuffer, like his predecessors, Steinhaus and Mitchell, continued to press
for the Academyʼs involvement in international organizations. The World Health
Organization invited 12 Academy members to attend its Second National Conference of the Citizens Committee for the World Health Organization at Washington,
D.C. in May, 1959. Oberteuffer and two other Fellows attended. In his report to
Academy President Helen Manley, Oberteuffer stressed the importance of AAPE
never losing “its international contacts now that we have established at least one
and on the contrary [AAPE] should seek additional contacts through which we can
make our presence felt” (Letter to Helen Manley, May 11, 1959). Oberteuffer also
believed that international experiences offered useful information that could be
used for Academy programming. “The last time we had a program of international
04Jable(20) 22
1/15/06, 11:44:50 AM
AAKPE: 1940-1984
23
significance,” Oberteuffer wrote, “we saw Seward Staleyʼs slides of tennis courts in
Sweden. I think we can do better than that. . . . Certainly those of us who attended
this conference were stimulated by hearing of the magnificent and wondrous things
which are taking place elsewhere in the world” (Letter to Helen Manley, May 11).
Moreover, Oberteuffer reiterated, this was the first time a health educator was part
of an American delegation.
In promoting cooperation with other organizations, the Academy decided to
meet jointly with the American College of Sports Medicine at Miami Beach in
1960. The two groups attracted Dr. Paul Dudley White to give the R. Tait McKenzie Address, and they put together an attractive symposium on space medicine.
The arrangement with ACSM called for joint meetings every two years, but Arthur
Steinhaus (1959), who helped to found ACSM five years earlier, thought ACSM,
“by the often loud methods used . . . usurp[ed] a picture on the American scene
which our Academy should rightly hold. . . . [and] their method is doomed to failure
because it is too arrogant” (McDonough letter to Helen Manley, November 23,
1959 and December 15, 1959).
In 1952 Frank Lloyd, Steinhausʼ choice to head up AAPEʼs Committee on
National Affairs during World War II and protégé of Jay B. Nash, found himself
trapped in a painful dilemma. Chair of the Hygiene Department and chair of the
Faculty Athletic Committee at City College of New York, Lloyd was dragged into
the 1951 basketball scandals and charged with conduct unbecoming a teacher,
neglect of duty, and disobedience. Lloyd was not involved in fixing games or
manipulating admissions records for athletes, but as chair of the Faculty Athletic
Committee, he was blamed for a big time basketball program that got out of control,
a charge that later did not stick. More damaging, however, was Lloydʼs knowledge
of a letter written by Assistant Coach Harry Sand to Edward Warner, a member of
the basketball squad, that implicated Sand for disbursing to the players moneys he
received for a proposed South American tour that the basketball team never took.
Rather than report the letter to his superiors, Lloyd elected to handle the issue
internally, fearing that revelations of an inquiry would ruin Sand, “an essentially
decent man who already had heavy family problems” (letter written by Lloydʼs
attorney, Lloyd Paul Stryker, to Ellis Champlin, Director of HPE for New York,
June 24, 1953). Initially, investigators only asked Lloyd for eligibility records of
students whose high school transcripts had been altered. Later when they asked
Lloyd for Sandʼs letter, he provided it. Then after the Board of Higher Education
appointed its own committee to conduct the investigation, Lloyd, realizing that
he could be victimized by a biased committee, petitioned the court for an injunction which was denied. Ultimately, all chargers against Lloyd were dropped, but
Lloyd, nevertheless, resigned his position because he no longer felt comfortable
working in the CCNY environment. The New York State Association for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation honored Lloyd with its highest honor award in
1953 and initiated a fund-raising campaign to help defray Lloydʼs legal expenses.
At the same time NYSAHPER officers and several Academy Fellows petitioned
the AAPE president to ask members to send letters of encouragement and, if possible, monetary donations on Lloydʼs behalf. Rosalind Cassidy and Neils Neilson
supported that effort within the Academy. As a consequence of negative publicity
surrounding the basketball scandal, Lloyd lost employment opportunities involving
the presidency of Springfield College and a high-level academic position in Oregon
04Jable(20) 23
1/15/06, 11:44:51 AM
24
Jable
(Appleton letter to N.P. Neilson, June 11 and September 15, Frank Lloyd Case;
Cassidy Letter to N.P. Neilson, September 21, Frank Lloyd Case; Neilson Letter
to Lloyd O. Appleton, September 21, 1953, Frank Lloyd Case; Pratt, Presidentʼs
Bulletin, May, 1953; Pratt, Presidentʼs Bulletin, Summer, 1953).
The 1960s: Critical Issues
and the Body of Knowledge Project
The 1960s began with AAPE Fellows voting on recommendations and constitutional changes brought forth by E.C. Davisʼ Academy Improvement Committee
that was appointed by Oberteuffer in 1958. Unfortunately, all the ballots were lost at
the Miami Beach convention; consequently, no action on constitutional and by-laws
changes could take place (E.C. Davis Annual Report of Committee on Academy
Improvement, 1960; McDonough, Report of the President of the AAPE, 1960).
AAPE President Tom McDonough encouraged the Academy to take positions on a
variety of national issues including President-elect John F. Kennedyʼs statement in
Sports Illustrated on unfit children. At the same convention, AAPE Fellows heard
N.P. Neilsonʼs discussion group paper on “The Hypothesis upon Which Physical
Education is Based.” In addition to developing and agreeing upon a hypothesis
that “physical education has value in human life,” this focus group went on to
discuss “Our Image” in light of how others see us and how we see ourselves, the
inadequacies of professional preparation programs, and fitness beyond just testing
(N.P. Neilson, paper presented at AAPE, Miami Beach, 1960).
The following year, D.K. Brace, at the invitation of AAPE President-elect M.
Gladys Scott, presented a paper on “Critical Issues Facing Physical Education.”
With the help of Academy Fellows who responded to his survey, Brace enumerated
14 problem areas in physical education ranging from elementary school programs
to undergraduate preparation. Braceʼs principal message, though, was the impending impact of change in a dynamic society. “Change is not necessarily good nor
necessarily warranted but history reveals that . . . those organisms and functions
which do not adjust to environmental change usually perish. It is incumbent upon
social agencies, including . . . physical education . . .,” warned Brace, “to appraise
existing trends, stresses, and innovations in the light of enduring philosophies and
goals and be ready to defend those goals still essential and to change goals, or
those approaches to goals, judged to merit change.” Later he quipped, “Failure to
take a stand upon a critical issue does not solve the problem, but merely lessens
the dynamic force of the profession” (Paper presented at AAPE, Atlantic City,
1961). Then in a 1962 Progress Report, Brace wrote, “Failure to exert professional
leadership in all ethical manners possible indicates a stagnant profession.” He did
not believe that “consideration of issues should be a prolonged undertaking … [at]
Academy meetings . . .” but he thought the “Executive Council should know where
the Academy stands on specific issues . . .” and know how and when to release
statements on the position held by the Academy on significant professional matters
(Paper presented at AAPE, Cincinnati, OH, 1962).
The Body of Knowledge Project grew out of the Academyʼs determination to
clarify the nature and meaning of physical education in order to justify its existence.
The project made significant headway under the leadership of Academy President
04Jable(20) 24
1/15/06, 11:44:53 AM
Eleanor Metheny when she assigned two areas of inquiry to a coordinating committee. Lucille H. Verhulst chaired Area I whose charge was to define “the field of
knowledge” in physical education, while Alfred W. Hubbard headed up Area II with
the mission of identifying “disciplinary concepts related to educationally-organized
experiences in physical education” (Paper presented at meeting of AAPE, Washington, DC, 1964). Both groups presented preliminary reports at the Academyʼs
1964 meeting that were well-received. In an astute polemical paper, Verhulst
(Paper presented at AAPE, Washington DC, 1964) argued that the subject matter
of physical education could well be human movement. Hubbard, with tongue in
cheek, concocted a satirical diatribe. Reflecting on this project as designed either “to
establish physical education as a reputable academic and scholarly discipline—or
to refurbish its tarnished image,” Hubbard remarked, “we have refurbished our
image so frequently by slapping on a new set of concepts that the accretion of borrowed concepts has led both to an overwhelming purported ‘body of knowledgeʼ
and also to the accusation that we lack basic theoretical orientation. Blasting off
this very heavy patina may prove as impossible as getting junior high school girls
to exercise and shower without their girdles.” Hubbard acknowledged that sport,
dance and exercise are chief components of physical education, but then cautioned
that a discipline is not a discipline if its components are not discretely defined. He
then provided definitions, touched on categories within the discipline, analyzed
mankind in motion, and called for the necessity of a modicum of physical activity
before concluding with an elaborate explanation of concept formation. In defining
their discipline, physical educators have studied and researched it for years, often
coming up with inaccurate, erroneous declarations, but we learn through error,
so we need to give credit for the valiant efforts. In a postscripted note, Hubbard
indicated that his report “may seem an elliptical over-simplification by the ‘head
simpletonʼ.” Though satire may have been Hubbardʼs motive, it provided delectable
food for thought (Paper presented at AAPE, Washington, DC, 1964).
For AAPEʼs 1965 meeting, Metheny and her steering committee attempted
to synthesize the information generated by the Verhulst and Hubbard committees
and use it for examining the organizational structure of physical education by
posing the following question: “What do we know, know about, and seek to know
or discover about the phenomenon of ‘human movementʼ as the form of human
experience considered within our own disciplinary areas of study and research.”
To facilitate discussion, Metheny classified the body of knowledge into two categories: subjectively-organized and objectively-perceivable (Paper presented at
AAPE, Dallas TX, 1965).
The second half of the decade saw three more committees delve into AAPEʼs
effectiveness in meeting its purposes and goals. Upon assuming the presidency
in 1966, Arthur Esslinger questioned the effectiveness of the Academy in accomplishing its goals. He then tapped Ray Weiss to head the Committee to Evaluate
Progress of the Academy toward its objectives with the charge of examining the
Academyʼs performance in relation to the seven purposes in its constitution. After
reviewing the Academyʼs activities from 1961 through 1966, surveying a sample of
the Academy membership, communicating with past presidents and past committee
chairs, Weissʼs committee presented a 20-page report to the membership at the
1967 meeting in Las Vegas that listed most appropriate activities that the Academy
should undertake (e.g., Critical Issues and Body of Knowledge projects) and least
25
04Jable(20) 25
1/15/06, 11:44:55 AM
26
Jable
appropriate activities that are superfluous (e.g., representation at foreign meetings
or at inaugurations of college presidents, Encyclopedia of Physical Education),
but it left the door open for further discussion (R.A. Weiss report of Committee to
Evaluate Progress of the Academy, 1967).
In 1969, Ruth Wilson led another Presidentʼs Committee on Function and
Structure that proposed the following constitutional change reflecting AAPEʼs
broader purpose: “The general purpose of the American Academy of Physical
Education shall be to concern itself with the art and science of human movement,
with particular emphasis upon sport, dance, and related physical activities” (R.
Wilson, Report of Presidentʼs Committee on Function and Structure, 1969). In
that same year Celeste Ulrich, chairing AAPE Committee on Guides to Implement
Purposes, reiterated the necessity of the Academy to take a “stand” on important
issues and to provide guidance and direction when there is confusion. Her committee also recommended that the “Academy needs to be functional in meeting its
purpose and that it can not be merely a structural entity” (C. Ulrich, Report of the
AAPE Committee on Guides to Implement Purposes, 1969).
Issues of function versus structure were apparent even earlier around middecade when President Metheny appointed Thomas K. Cureton to chair a committee
“to explore possible approaches for the development of an Encyclopedia of Physical
Education” and when G. Lawrence Rarick chaired a Committee on the Graduate
Faculty. The latter reported in 1966 that “much more . . . needs to be given to the
purposes of graduate study in physical education before serious attention can be
directed to the graduate faculty” (G.L. Rarick, Report of the Committee on the
Graduate Faculty of the AAPE, 1966) while Curetonʼs committee did move forward
with a blueprint for the development of the encyclopedia that carried into the next
decade (E. Metheny, Letter to T.K. Cureton, June 3, 1964; G.L. Rarick, Report of
the Committee on the Graduate Faculty of the AAPE, 1966).
The 1970s:
Taxonomies, Leadership, and Equality
The emergence of subdisciplines (or splinter groups) in the history, philosophy,
psychology, and sociology of sport during the 1970s prompted AAPE to question
more intently the term “physical education” as the appropriate nomenclature for
the Academy. Rosalind Cassidyʼs position paper at the 1972 Houston convention reflected this development. She argued that the term “physical education” is
semantically inaccurate due to “the acceptance of the psychosomatic unity of the
human individual with no separate physical or mental aspects” (R. Cassidy, Paper
presented at meeting of AAPE, Houston, TX, 1972), which she first identified in
The New Physical Education, a 1927 textbook she coauthored with Thomas Wood.
Then again, in 1938 she pointed out the unacceptability of “physical education”
in another text, New Directions in Physical Education, in which she proclaimed
“movement . . . the base of our discipline” (Cassidy, 1938). Physical education,
then, is the art and science of movement itself, a conception that has not been
articulated very clearly within and outside of the profession, causing Cassidy to
conclude that “we need terminology describing the field of knowledge and terms
04Jable(20) 26
1/15/06, 11:44:56 AM
AAKPE: 1940-1984
27
to describe the school program of the study of man as a moving being”(R. Cassidy,
Paper presented at AAPE, Houston, TX, 1972).
The following year President Ray Weiss invited Academy members to submit
proposals for possible name changes accompanied by a one-page supporting
statement, and President-elect Ann Jewett built into the 1973 convention program
discussion time regarding proposed designations. The net result of this exercise
was the appointment Warren Fraleigh (chair), Perry Johnson, and Betty McCue to
serve on a three-member committee with the charges of (a) evaluating the proposed
name changes, (b) winnowing the proposed names down to three, (c) identifying
positives and negatives of each one, and (d) recommending one name for adoption
to AAPE at its 1974 convention. Ignoring point (d), the committee recommended
three names: Human Phyactology (contraction for physical activity and pronounced,
“fee áct tol o gy”), Human Kinesiology, and Human Kinetics. None of the names
were adopted; instead the Academy approved a motion for the incoming president
to appoint a Committee for Implementation of Name Change with the charge of
recommending a plan for action at the 1975 convention. In a letter of appreciation
to Warren Fraleigh, Ann Jewett expressed her disappointment in the Academyʼs
posture when she wrote, “Perhaps the discussion of ‘phyactologyʼ as a new designation simply reflected that the Academy is not ready to view our field with a futurist
or innovative viewpoint” (W. Fraleigh, Report of the Committee on Name Change,
1974; A.E. Jewett, Letter of Raymond A. Weiss, April 19, 1972; A.E. Jewett Letter
to Warren Fraleigh, May 9, 1974).
In addition to the name change issue, the Academy membership identified the
leadership role of AAPE as a priority consideration. As a consequence, the theme
of the 1973 convention was “How the Academy Views Its Leadership Role,” with
sessions revolving around positions statements on critical issues, the development
of a code of ethics, explication of the multitheoretical base of physical education (sport,
movement and fitness), and formation of a national model for school and professional
preparation programs based on human movement (A.E. Jewett, Letter to AAPE Program Advisory Committee, 1972; Letter of Raymond A. Weiss, April 19, 1972; Letter
to Barbara Forker, April 25, 1972; Letter to Warren Fraleigh, May 9, 1974).
As the question of leadership gathered momentum within AAPE, Academy
leaders decided to take a position on a relevant national issue—inequality and
discrimination in athletics. This issue received heightened attention at the 1972
convention when Vera Skubicʼs position paper, “Should Females Compete with
Males in Non-Contact Varsity Sports?” was discussed at length. Emanating from
that discussion was a statement put forth by a synthesis committee that reflected
the Academyʼs posture on athletic competition for females. The committee, headed
by M. Gladys Scott, released a statement that “the Academy endorsed the principle
of equality for women participating in non-contact athletics and believe[s] that
equality could be provided only through impartial administration in the allocation
of funds, use of equipment and facilities . . . [and] to achieve this objective of
equality in athletics, it is essential that teams for women be provided in a variety
of sports and that the opportunity and the option exist for students to participate on
mixed teams” (M.G. Scott, Report of the Synthesis Committee, 1972; V. Skubic,
Paper presented at AAPE, Houston, TX, 1972).
04Jable(20) 27
1/15/06, 11:44:58 AM
28
Jable
Then, in the mid-1970s, the Academyʼs active membership became a principal concern when only 6 of 43 candidates were elected as Fellows in 1974. The
Academy, trying desperately to boost the number of Active Fellows beyond 100,
prompted President King McCristal to invite Fellows to offer suggestions for
increasing the membership. The heavy response to McCristalʼs invitation triggered
a debate on whether the Academy was an action group or an honorary society.
Ruth Wilson (Letter to King McCristal, February 9, 1975) thought AAPE could
not be an action group if the membership remained under 100. Anna Espenschade
(Letter to King McCristal, February 8, 1975) emphatically wrote, “you are an
‘honor society,ʼ so be one . . . We all know the Academy will NEVER take a stand
on anything but they [sic] might try to clarify thinking in certain areas. . . . Stop
trying to increase size by any artificial means.” Ruth Murray did not believe “the
purposes of the Academy can best be accomplished by restricting its numbers to a
small elite fraternity. Also . . . the mechanics of the election system are stifling the
organization and that measures should be taken to change them.” Moreover, she
stated, “Only one woman out of the total of newly elected fellows implies a hint of
male chauvinism that one had presumed lacking in the Academy” (Letter to King
McCristal, February 11, 1975). She also expressed concern that of 81 active fellows, only two represented the National Dance Association. Newly-elected Fellow
Barbara Forker declared that “the Academy has in its membership a fantastic group
of people, and there should be some way that the Academy reflects what is needed
by our profession” (Letter to King McCristal, February 7, 1975). Eloise Jaeger
thought the Academy needed “to reexamine itself from the standpoint of its purpose and its mission . . . and decide on whether itʼs really making a contribution
or whether, because of changing times, no need exists” (Letter to King McCristal,
February 6, 1975).
Fritz Hubbard, in a stimulating epistle, blamed AAPEʼs procedures, specifically the mail ballot for inhibiting the Academyʼs growth (Letter to King McCristal,
September 9, 1974). Because mail ballots make it unnecessary for Fellows to attend
business meetings, the majority of the uninformed often decide crucial Academy
issues through the mail. Academy procedures need to be streamlined as does the
process for electing Fellows. Hubbard proposed electing Fellows at a business
meeting with no more than 10% negative votes. “Any irrepressible upstart who has
not incurred the active animosity of more than 10% of the Academy cannot be all
that bad,” quipped Hubbard. Lou Alley, however, provided the most provocative
response when he wrote, “the Academy should not be a ‘workingʼ organization.
We already have ‘workingʼ organizations at State, District and National levels that
include all aspects of our field. . . . Why have still another ‘workingʼ organization”? The Academyʼs purposes should be: (1) to honor persons of outstanding
achievement . . . [and] (2) to sponsor and conduct scholarly meetings . . . . Letʼs
not make it an organization to save either the world or the profession” (Letter to
King McCristal, February 7, 1975).
Other Academy highlights of the 1970s were communications with the White
House to rejuvenate the Presidentʼs Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, the
AAHPER convention jogging incident, the continuing saga of the Physical Education Encyclopedia, the appointment and reappointment of committees to review
04Jable(20) 28
1/15/06, 11:45:00 AM
AAKPE: 1940-1984
29
purposes of Academy by King McCristal and other presidents, and the appointment
of a Future Directions Committee in 1976 by President Marvin Eyler.
In late 1969, the Academy Executive Committee recognized and endorsed
President H. Harrison Clarkeʼs previous effort of encouraging Vice President
Spiro Agnew to appoint a Task Force to examine the operation of the PCPFS and
to recommend appropriate activities that it might undertake. Although Agnew did
not appoint a Task Force, he did call for an “extensive evaluation” that led to the
appointment of C. Carson Conrad as Executive Director and astronaut James A.
Lovell, Jr. as the chair. Both appointments were welcome moves to Clarke, but
he still believed that a Task Force was necessary because, in his estimation, the
PCPFS needed direction and guidance from authorities with solid backgrounds in
exercise and physical activity. Continued communication between the Academy
and PCPFS brought a response in 1974 from President Ford through Conrad. In a
letter to Academy President McCristal, Conrad mentioned the Presidentʼs pleasure
with the Academyʼs view of PCPFS as a “vital national organization” (H.H. Clarke,
Memorandum to Executive Committee, AAPE, 1970 and March 30, 1971; C.C.
Conrad, Letter to King McCristal, October 15, 1974).
The jogging incident occurred at the 1971 convention in Detroit when Thomas
K. Cureton warned of the danger of numerous joggers participating in the AAPERD
convention jog without proper medical screening. Shortly thereafter President Ben
Miller urged the Academy to take a position on this event. The Academy responded
with a resolution that deplored jogging at any convention with medically unscreened
adults. A motion to release an abridged statement to the wire services, however,
was defeated because a number of Fellows thought the message would be more
confusing than helpful. Among the most vocal opponents was Harrison Clarke who
believed PCPFS should have handled this matter, leaving the Academy free to take
stands on other major substantive issues worthy of its stature (AAPE Minutes of
second business meeting, April 1, 1971; R.A. Weiss, Memorandum to Executive
Committee and Chairman of the Constitution Committee, AAPE, August 27, 1971;
H.H. Clarke, Memorandum to the Executive Committee, AAPE, April 26, 1971).
Initiated by Eleanor Metheny in 1964, the AAPE Executive Council in 1971
approved The Physical Education Encyclopedia Project headed by Thomas K.
Cureton. About 200 individuals agreed to write 1200 to 1500 word entries involving all major aspects of sport, physical activity, fitness, and physical education for
the encyclopedia. AAHPER, the Armed Forces, and other affiliated organizations
responded favorably, but there had been some discontent and opposition to it within
the Academy as Ray Weissʼs 1967 report has revealed (T.K. Cureton, Report of the
Physical Education Encyclopedia Project, AAHPE, 1972).
After decades of reexamination committees that produced voluminous reports
on the purposes of the Academy, AAPE finally approved a Statement of Purpose on
17 March 1977. It read: “The dual purpose of the American Academy of Physical
Education shall be to encourage and promote the study and education applications
of the art and science of human movement and physical activity and to honor by
election to its membership persons who have directly or indirectly contributed
significantly to the study of and/or application of the art and science of human
movement and physical activity.”
04Jable(20) 29
1/15/06, 11:45:01 AM
30
Jable
The Early 1980s: The Quest for Unity
Responding to the emergence of subdisciplines (splinter groups) during the
1970s, the Academy shaped its 1981 convention around the theme of “Reunification.” President-elect Earle Zeigler indicated that there were at least twenty topics
suggested for conference themes, but the “fundamental ‘splinteringʼ problem
surfaced time and again,” so “Reunification” became the best choice for that
point in time. In lamenting the impact of splinter groups on fragmenting physical
education, Zeigler proclaimed, “we need to be reunified” and then asked, “If we
can ‘reunify,ʼ how shall we go about it? If we canʼt what does that mean? This is
the great question for the field of physical education . . . to resolve in the 1980s”
(Zeigler, 1981, p. 11).
Actually, the seeds of unification were sown several years earlier in Louis
Alleyʼs “Search for Relationships” speech (1977) and Harold Barrowʼs presidential
address (1980) in which the latter blamed educational pluralism for transforming
our body of knowledge into “a large number of subdisciplines and our profession
into many specialties.” Alley thought the turbulence of the 1960s caused physical
educators to move all too quickly in recasting their graduate and undergraduate
curricula as an academic discipline, which led to the emergence of subdisciplines
in exercise physiology, biomechanics, history of sport, sociology of sport, and
others (Alley, 1977; Barrow, 1980).
Upon assuming the presidency of AAPE, Zeigler appointed Sy Kleinman to
lead an Academy Viability Committee. Among the many issues Zeigler charged the
committee to examine was his concern with the Academyʼs disintegrating relationship with AAHPERD. Believing strongly in the mutual relationship between the
two organizations, he was hopeful that recommendations coming from Kleinmanʼs
committee would “urge the Academy and AAHPERD to spell out an agreement . . .
[that] will bring about a renewal of a former relationship that has seemingly disintegrated due to changing times, a resultant set of changed conditions, and a significant
change of personnel” (Zeigler letter to Sy Kleinman, November 8, 1981).
In addressing the future of the Academy, Ed Shea, in his 1984 presidential
address, also noted “the need to transcend subdisciplines,” but along with that he
believed the Academy had to be “sensitive to change” because “change is often
a measure of growth.” To keep pace with the dynamics of expanding knowledge,
proliferating technology, and imaginative educational practices, Shea suggested
that AAPE establish an “innovation audit.” He thought such an audit would enable
the Academy “to determine member aspirations, improve communications, develop
new programs, find new ways to disseminate resolutions, integrate and synthesize
isolated interest units, and bring concepts and theoretical relationships into reality.” In this fashion will the Academy remain an effective organization because it
will continue to reflect “the values and professional conceptions of its members”
(Shea, 1984, p. 146-151).
Conclusions
AAKPE, now in its 75th year, has an established tradition of innovation, introspection, and involvement. Academy leaders were in the forefront during World
04Jable(20) 30
1/15/06, 11:45:03 AM
AAKPE: 1940-1984
31
War II as consultants on physical training and afterward in preserving the physical
education curriculum in the public schools. Throughout the 1950s, the Academy
began to reexamine its purpose for existence, to reach out to other organizations
and to international scholars. The following decade it decided to consider taking
positions on critical issues and to initiate involvement in a body of knowledge project. Then in the 1970s, the Academy leadership spent considerable time and effort
investigating possible name changes along with innovative ways of increasing the
number of Fellows in the Academy. With Title IX on the horizon, the Academy,
complemented it with its own declarations about female participation in sport. The
early 1980s saw the Academy deal with the arrival of subdisciplines, call for unity
among them under the banner of physical education, and then accept the reality
of their existence.
Jay B. Nash (1939), one of the Academyʼs five founders and first recipient of
the Hetherington Award, urged his students, colleagues, and friends to “die with
your boots on, with a hundred interesting unfinished activities for which there
was just not time. On such a prescription, one may live long and happy, often on
borrowed time” (p. 23). Though intended for the individual, AAKPE collectively
could be the beneficiary of Nashʼs sound advice if Academy Fellows continue to
follow one of its founderʼs sound advice.
References
Alley, L.E. (1977). A search for relationships. In M.G. Scott (Ed.), The Academy Papers,
No. 11: Relationships in physical education (pp. 2-6). Washington, DC: AAPE.
Barrow, H.M. (1980). The presidentʼs address: The Academy—today and tomorrow. In
M.G. Scott (Ed.), The Academy Papers No. 14: Citius, altius, fortius: Faster, higher,
stronger (pp. 7-10). Reston VA: AAPE and AAHPERD.
Cassidy, R. (1938). New directions in physical education for the adolescent girl in high
school and college: A guide for teachers in cooperative curriculum revision. New
York: A.S. Barnes and Company.
Nash, J.B. (1939). Take it easy and die young. In H.M. Jessup (Ed.), The hopeful traveler,
Jay Bryan Nash (p. 23). Washington, DC: AAHPERD.
Shea, E.J. (1984). The future agenda. In H.M. Eckert & H.J. Montoye (Eds.), The American
Academy of Physical Education Papers No. 17: Exercise and health (pp. 146-151).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Zeigler, E.F. (1981). The theme for 1981: Reunification. In M.G. Scott (Ed.), The Academy
Papers No. 15: Reunification (p. 11). Reston, VA: AAPE and AAHPERD.
Author Note
1
Material for this paper, including quoted letters, reports, and memoranda came from the
AAKPE Archives housed at Pennsylvania State University.
04Jable(20) 31
1/15/06, 11:45:04 AM