So, this is the sort of basic biology and then we will try to look at models at various levels of complexity to see how we can model this ok. So, we will start off with the simplest sort of model and then we will see what it does and what it does not do. So, we will start off with the model of an equilibrium polynomial. So, here what we will say is that I will forget a lot of this complexity that I just said I will put it back in slowly. So, I forget that there are these two states the GTP and the GDP and so on. I just say that I will consider a simple polymerization process. So, I have these subunits and these subunits are being added.  This could be as well a model for actin or for microtubules because it is thrown away all the relevant distinctions between them and I say that it only grows and shrinks by the addition of a single monomer ok. So, if some it is to grow so let us say it is a n length polymer n length actin or n length microtubule if it has to grow it can only grow by the addition of one more subunit or if it shrinks it can only shrink by one subunit dissociating. There is nothing like let us say a breakage from the middle where it is sort of snaps into two parts ok. So, I do not consider processes like that. So, in that case the relevant sort of chemical reaction as it were were a polymer of length n adds a monomer right and becomes a polymer of length n plus 1 right. It has some rates. So, let us say it has an on rate to go this way and it has an off rate to come back from that way right the dissociation. So, what the. So, let us say if I wanted to write what is this d p n plus 1 d t right that is simply k on times the concentration of p n the concentration of p 1 minus k off times p n plus 1 right that is my rate equation and that is true for any n that you might write. So, what this equilibrium what this equilibrium assumption means is that I say that this probability does not change in time. So, it has reached some sort of a steady state and I put this equal to 0 which means that these concentrations of these various polymers. So, I am thinking in terms of an ensemble I have many polymers or one polymer repeated many times however you want to think. So, what I would say is that this concentrations let us say p n p 1 by p n plus 1 that in this steady state approximation is equal to k off by k on and that is called the dissociation constant k d right. So, this is the equilibrium this is sort of the equilibrium of the steady state assumption equilibrium assumption. Now, you could imagine that or rather more realistically you could think that this on and off rates are actually a function of n themselves that is if I were go if I were going from polymer of length 2 and I were to try to add one more maybe the rate would be some k on 2 and then if I were to try to add one more that would rate would be k on 3 and so on. So, these could all happen with different rates and similarly for the dissociation. So, it in principle this k d should be a function of n, but let me make an even more simplifying assumption that I assume that all of these k d's are the same. So, let me just say it has no n dependence. This is not really motivated by biology, it is motivated by a physicsy way of thinking this is what I can do this is the first step to any model that I can build. So, let me make this assumption and see what I get. So, I say that all these equilibrium constants or this dissociation constants are the same and then I can sort of write down let us see. So, basically I will have if I were to consider the first step that I have a monomer and I add one more monomer to it to get a dimer then that reaction is p 1 plus p 1 giving me a p 2 which means that this k d is p 1 whole square by p 2 right. So, p n p 1 except that n is also equal to 1 now. So, p 1 whole square by p 2 right. Similarly, if I continue this sort of thinking then k d what am I writing k d.  But now I can. So, let me say I want to write down what is p 3. So, p 3 is p 2 p 1 by k d and then for k d I substitute. So, p 2 p 1 by k d ok.  So, if I substitute this becomes p 1 cubed by k d square right. So, p 2 was p 1 square by k d to the power of 1, p 3 is p 1 cubed by k d to the power of 2 and so on. So, if you continue this scheme you will get that p n is equal to p 1 to the power of n k d to the power of n minus 1 right. So, let me just say this is k d times k d times p 1 by k d whole to the power of n ok. So, let me rewrite this. So, I can rewrite this. So, this is k d k d e to the power of n log p 1 by p 1 by k d to the power of n log p 1 by k d right. This to the power of n I just written as exponential of and then if this object I call as some alpha or rather minus alpha then this is like k d e to the power of minus alpha n where this alpha is just that object alpha is negative log of p 1 by k d. What is p 1? p 1 is simply the monomer concentration right is a single. So, it is like G actin concentration or this alpha beta tubulin dimer concentration the free monomer concentration divided by this equilibrium constant. So, that is my log my negative log of that is my alpha and then the probability or the concentration of having a filament of length n goes as k d e to the power of minus alpha n. So, as long as your as long as your monomer concentration p 1 is less than k d you will get a distribution that looks like this p n as a function of n you will get some sort of an exponential distribution. So, I have done this very simple model and what it says is that if I take all of these approximations and then I looked at a system. So, I look inside my cell let us say I have microtubules of various different lengths I plot the probability distribution of those lengths I should see an exponential and actually amazingly you do indeed see an exponential. So, if you were to actually plot the length distribution if you were to plot the histograms of these different lengths that are found inside a cell you would see roughly an exponential distribution ok. So, that is that is nice in the sense that we have done really a very crude model we have taken this equilibrium approximation and we have taken this approximation simply for the matter of convenience not without even trying to justify it biologically, but still we get a distribution that looks like an exponential which is what the experimental distribution looks like. Still it is not that all is well this is the final model, but let us stick with this for the time being and just try to calculate. So, what is the average length of the polymer? So, given a distribution like this I can calculate what is the average length the average length of the polymer is simply n times p of n. So, it is like k d e to the power of minus alpha n d n divided by k d e to the power of minus alpha n d n right. That is simply the mean length of the polymers that you will get if you do the k d anyway cancels out. If you do this integration so, this is from 0 to infinity 0 to infinity. If you do this calculation what you will get is that this mean length goes as 1 over alpha which is 1 by log k d by p 1. In fact, if you think about this so, this was for the case when p 1 is less than k d. So, this k d has units of concentration right because k d is p 1 concentration around the concentration divided by another concentration. So, it has units of concentration. So, you can think of this let me call this as some c star so, as long as your monomer concentration is less than this c star you will get on an average that this filaments will be shrinking and you will get a length distribution like this which is peaked about 0. If you have monomer concentration which is greater than c star then your filaments will keep on sort of growing and you will get infinite length filaments. In that case this calculation will no longer hold of course. This is for the case when p 1 is less than k d. And you can sort of calculate if you can just put in numbers for example, if I put in numbers for actin roughly of course, these numbers none of these numbers are gospel they differed again from cycle which point of the cell you are looking at different proteins and so on. But still a typical number is like 10 micro molar per second for the on rate and let us say the off rate is around 1 per second which means that together this gives you a critical concentration or a k d of rough k d is k off by k on. So, this is roughly around 0.1 micro molar. So, it would say that if you if this were if I were to consider a model like this then as long as my concentration of monomers was less than this if these filaments would on an average shrink and I would get a length distribution like that if it was greater than this then your filaments would keep on growing. Of course, you have to realize that and we will do that in a bit that this monomer concentration is not sort of a fixed quantity right. As things sort of polymerized you are using up more of your monomers as well. So, you have to take that into account as well. Even if you started off with something which was C greater than C star as time goes on and you polymerize and polymerize will hit a limit where you know C is no longer greater than C star. So, we will take such a model into account. But anyway so, this is the 0th level model and equilibrium sort of a model. But now I can calculate one more thing over here within this sort of a model which is about time scales.


All right, so this is the UC Emeriti Oral History Project. Would you please introduce yourself? I'm Barbara Ramizak, and I came to Cincinnati in 1967 after I accepted a position as an assistant professor in the history department to teach the history of India, where I did my dissertation research, China and Japan. Wow, OK. What was the hiring process like? Well, I only actually had one on-campus interview, which was Cincinnati. And it was very informal, like no one met me at the airport. They said, you know, take a taxi. And so I took a taxi and spent the first night by myself. And then someone was supposed to pick me up for breakfast, and I was to leave that same day of the interview. So I was all prepared and everything, but didn't have breakfast. And the person didn't show up. And so then my first interview was with the dean. And his first question was, what did I think of the retirement policy? And I had not looked at the retirement policy. And I said, oh, I think that it sounds very good. And so the questions, he was, I think, a biologist. And it was just evident that he really didn't know too much about India, China, or Japan. And so it was sort of a smooth introduction. Then I was taken around to visit with various history professors and a political science professor who taught about India. And for example, I tried to go to the restroom. And the restroom doors for the faculty women, there were separate restrooms for faculty women, were locked. And so finally, I got back to the history office. And I went in and I asked the secretary. I said, I don't know where I can get into a bathroom. Can I go into a student bathroom? She said, you mean those men didn't give you a key? And I said, no, they didn't. So she took care of me. So it was obvious that they were doing an interview with a species that they hadn't done before. I knew that they had interviewed for the job the previous year. And people had rejected it because they were all men. And they didn't want to teach. The Chinese trained people didn't want to teach India and vice versa for the India. So it was my first job interview. And so they said, you can do it. And I said, well, yes, I had a field in Chinese history. I had Indian history. And I didn't tell them this. I said, I had a course in Japan history. And I had half of a course in Japan history. So that's how the hiring process. And then they took me to lunch. And they kept asking me questions. And I can remember it was an African-American woman who was a waitress that, now, you men be quiet and talk among yourselves. She's got to eat. This is a difficult pie for her. So that it was nice to find another woman on campus. So then the other thing is, which I don't think anyone realized, the head of the department offered me the position before I went to talk to the faculty. Because traditionally, when you're being interviewed, your last interview is with the faculty sort of off the record. And they were supposedly to vote, I thought. And maybe they did vote, but I had an initial offer. And I didn't bargain about salary. I didn't know you were supposed to do that. And the only thing I bargained about is they wanted me to teach a year-long upper division course on India. They wanted me to teach a course on South Asia, which would be India and Pakistan and Sri Lanka, that. And then they wanted me to also do a Western Siv and to do China and Japan. Well, they wanted an Asian history course, which would have one quarter India, one quarter China, one quarter Japan. But at the same time, they wanted me to do the course on world history that started with ancient Egypt and came up to. And I said, I could do this, but could we do two years of, I mean, two courses of Asian history survey my first year. And then the next year that I would do the world history. And so they said, yeah, the department had called me back the next morning and said yes.  So that's where I knew I would get $9,000. So I have my PhD from the University of Michigan. And I had just returned from being 18 months in India and five months in about four months in England doing research. So I'd been outside the United States. And as probably most people remember, that was a very, very taught time in political things because mainly of the situation in Vietnam. And so in Ann Arbor, where I was doing my work and I returned, I mean, it was a very, I guess you would say a bowl of protest against the government's policy in Vietnam. And I was involved in some of those things. And so when I came to Cincinnati, I became active in the Democratic Party at the very lowest level at the precinct going around campaigning for Eugene McCarthy. And I had Doris slammed in my face. And I was just going to Democrats because they gave me a list of where the Democrats were and my precinct. And what was my precinct is now two precincts. And I would go around and the Democrats were in for Jackson. And I didn't meet one person who was for Eugene McCarthy. But in the history department, there were people who were supporting Eugene McCarthy. And I became quite good friends with them. Zane Miller, who was our urban historian. And the two Shapiros, we had Herbert Shapiro and Henry Shapiro, and they were both very staunch. So I was signing or getting people to sign my petition to be a precinct executive. So there was a lot of debate on campus about the Vietnam War and our involvement in it. And the thing is what I was amazed at, and I won't mention any names, is that there were history people who were very strongly supporting the war. And there were people who were not supporting the war. And there was one time we had a dinner at a restaurant that we wanted. And afterwards, the men were shouting at each other. And I thought, possibly, going to fight each other, but people took them apart. So that within the history department, there were people who supported the president, and there were people who supported McCarthy. So that you were politically involved. But at the same time, I tried to be very, let's say, legal and not be too loud, because I was a woman. And at that time, when the year I came in the College of Arts and Science, there were only 14 women who were tenure-track women. There was one Margaret Fulford who was in Botany. There was a woman who taught German literature, Havas-Lezarev. And then there was a woman teaching the romance languages. But she was a specialist on Spain. So that was in Arts and Science. And then the rest of us were all first-year assistant professors. And mainly in the humanities, I know there wasn't anybody in science. So there were only 14 women in all of Arts and Science. And I think that maybe there were 150 faculty, 100.  And so there was the Vietnam War. And there will be other things that I'll say about that. But I think it's important to remember that Cincinnati was a city school. It was a very old city school compared to the other city schools like in Toledo and Akron and places like that. But those started to go state because they couldn't survive on the taxes from the city. But people in Cincinnati said, we want them to buy our campus. We don't want to just give all that land away. And so there was a strong backlash against going state. But at that time, we're getting some subsidies from the state. So we did eventually go state. But it was later than the others. And it was really about the early 1970s. And then we'd been hiring a lot of people. We had 31 people in the history department tenure track when I came. But part of it was our classes were bursting at the seams because during the Vietnam War, you could delay being on the draft list by coming to UC. And so our classes were filled with a lot of young men. We had young women, too. But that's why we couldn't support 31. But then the, I don't know whether you want to say recession, but up the 1970s, things got really bad. And so people started, and the war sort of was winding down. So it was very difficult because if somebody left or didn't get tenure on the faculty, the history department started to become much smaller. And then if I think it was maybe by 1972 to 1976, 77, we didn't hire anyone. So that you had, your classes were still large, but there were fewer of them. And so that was one thing that was happening. And then there were other things that had tremendous impact on the university. And first of all, it was the one and fourth of April 1968 with the death of Martin Luther King. And that evening, I was on my way to a democratic district thing for the local people. And it was over in Western Hills. And I came and we went into the auditorium there, or the room where we were meeting, and we were told that Dr. King was dead. How did you feel? I felt I was just appalled. How could this happen in the United States? That someone's going to be shot down like that. And so they said, we're dissolving the meeting. Go home. Well, I needed gas. So I stopped it. There were more than one gas station on Clifton Hills, not Clifton Hills, on Parkway, on Central Parkway. So I stopped for gas. And the man said, what are you doing out here? You should be at home. It's going to explode. And I said, I'm on my way home, but I need gas to get home. So that's why I'm here. And so I went home. And I mean, it was just unbelievable, the protests against what had happened. And we didn't know what was happening. And then also that, and I can't remember for sure, well, I remember that. Then the next day I remember there was a curfew in Cincinnati so that they were trying to keep it under control. Is there a lot of rioting or something? There was a certain amount of rioting. It would be a little bit worse. I mean, there was rioting. And I was trying to check whether someone died because I know someone died. They were going down, it was over east of the university. And they were, somebody from the university were shot. And I can't remember whether it was after the death of Martin Luther King or after the Kent State killings.  And they were just, the person who was killed in, it's the area next, it was going over towards where now 71 is. And they were going down the hill there. And it was just, you know, you were afraid. And people said, well, why are you doing this? You can't do this, but you know, I was rioting. And that really created, you know, a lot of, I think, you know, protest marches. And I remember Dabney Glenn, who was hired the same year I was, and but later left the university, that, you know, he was participating in the protest. So that really, you know, was something that I never thought would happen in the United States, but I did. And I was, you know, involved, but I wasn't involved in a very public way on that time. Because, I mean, teaching three courses, when we had no T, and I had no TA, the people in American, US history or European, they had TAs to help with grading. And you had 70 people in your class, and I had two classes of that. So I was, you know, really keeping my nose to the grindstone there. And then the other, the next thing, which I just couldn't get over, were the killings at Kent State. And that was on the 4th of May, 1970. And I was actually in Ann Arbor because I was giving my midterm exams and so I could have someone do that. And I had gone up to Ann Arbor to talk with my dissertation because I was just finishing up, well, I just finished up my dissertation and defended it. So that I was up in Ann Arbor. And I didn't know about it until we were at dinner celebrating that I was finished. And the waiter came up and said, there have been these killings at Kent State. And I remember the people said, it's going to explode. The campuses are just going to explode. So I came back to Cincinnati and I forget whether it was on, it might have been Saturday or something. And there were riots in the city. And the police had, and there were protests on campus and the people asked the police for greater protection. And the police said they couldn't, you had to get the National Guard. Well, the National Guard had just killed students on a campus up in Kent State. So I mean, that was not the answer. So that also just opened up much more protests. And so I mean, you had to be very careful if you were going around.  And as I say, that was something that sort of seared you for life on that and made you more active. Well, and then the university was attempting to deal with what had happened. And at first classes were canceled. And I remember one thing that we had, there was a Korean woman in the history department who was working for her PhD. And we were not supposed to go to campus. And she was due to have her oral exams, her so-called prelims. And we weren't supposed to go on campus, but we thought we had to wait. Well, we're not supposed to be teaching. And we were told we weren't supposed to be teaching. We weren't supposed to be teaching. And so what could we do for this woman? She had to go back. And if she didn't have her exams, we couldn't say that she had entered candidacy. And so we held them in one of the, across the street in one of the religious groups that were student-oriented. And I can't remember if it was the Presbyterians or what, I know it wasn't the Jewish one or the Catholic one, but it was one of them. And so you're feeling like, am I going against the law? Because we were supposed to be on countdown or something that we weren't supposed to go near the university. And so we did it. And she was a candidate. Unfortunately, when she went back, she didn't have time to work on her dissertation. So she never got to be, get the PhD. But we did feel good that she could take this back in. But it was very, very difficult. And so there were all of these meetings on campus. There were, well, then finally we got to meet on campus and we were having meetings and everything. So then that was when a university senate was established and it was to have administrators, faculty and students to bring people together and to, you know, try and cross those categories. And it was to include those groups. And the first three chairs of it were history professors. Really? The first one was Jean Lewis. Oh. And the second one was Zane Miller. And the, but they were professors. I was an assistant professor. I was a woman. And so they made, Zane said, oh well you have to be chair of the university senate. And I said, oh, I'm not prepared for this. And he said, oh no, you can do it, don't worry. And so I became the chair of, but by that time things are starting to settle down. And so we did have, you know, a lot of discussions. And I think what was something that I never anticipated, one day I was in my office which was, or I was asked to go to an office of the head of student affairs. And I met with a group of males, students, and mainly they were from CCM.   And I said, well, you know, I don't know. We have some faculty that I'm not sure, you know, they seem to be somewhat conservative where they would be on this. So I said, but I'll try it. And so it was, I think, I can't remember, it was either the next to the last meeting or the last meeting. And I was really scared. I was really scared. And I thought, what in the heck is going to happen here?  And it passed. Oh, it's amazing. I was amazed because it was hard, you know, I didn't feel that I could do talking, you know, that I could talk or I could advocate which way I was definitely for it. But I thought I didn't want, you know, people to say that I was trying to course them. And even if I just was talking to them, they might come back and say, oh, you know, she was trying to course us. And so we did have it. And I think it's important to know that we had it on campus. And when we had interviewed people in the history department, I always made sure that they knew.   And so they, but later found out and said that was something why they wanted. The other thing which I think is interesting, you know, in the city, they had passed a resolution, no discrimination against gays, and then it had been rescinded. Really? Yeah, and I was trying to think, I couldn't find the date it was rescinded. It was defeated that we have this in our city charter. And I thought, you know, way back when we had it in the university. And I mean, there wasn't, there was publicity. It was the only time I got my name in the newspaper that we had passed it. And I didn't know if I could send that home to my parents. So I didn't. And the thing is that, you know, so there were things at the university that were happening that were positive, too. And that the university was ahead of the city. And at the same time, what you have to realize is that it was a transition. And also, that was the time in the 1970s when the AAUP got to be much more, have much more power and, you know, involve and not just be sort of, you know, talking about what we should do, but doing it. Yeah, were you involved in that? No, I was for a little while and then I thought, I have to, I was supportive of it. But the thing, I didn't do a lot of overt work for it because I just thought I had too much. I'm trying to get tenure, I'm doing this, I'm doing that. And it was, and also I was active in a lot of Asian, or particularly South Asia, which is India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, that sort of area, in events off campus because there was no one I could really talk to. And so I felt that I needed that. And so I got involved with that. I was in the head of the research committee on the Punjab and I was, I got involved in all of the middle, I forget what it's called, but it was like the Asian studies of the Midwest, Midwest Asian studies. So I was involved in things that related to my research and my teaching because while all of this is going on, I finished my dissertation and defended it, well I finished it earlier, but defended it in 1969. And so then there's the pressure to start publishing articles and things like that. So with the AUP, it wasn't that I wasn't in favor of it. And initially I did a couple of things with it, but then I didn't because I thought I have, I'm spreading myself too thin anyway. So I mean teaching, and then after the first year because my classes were filled when I was doing two of Asian, then I was doing two of Asian history. And that was a lot because I had no TA. And then also within the department, I had gotten, I started on a one year contract and the next year I was only renewed for a year. And so I went to the department head and said, I thought I would get a two year renewal after. And he said, well, I said, what are the guidelines? What did I do that I could get it? And he said, well, we really don't have any guidelines. I said, oh, that was Professor William Ashbacher, Bill Ashbacher, and he was new. And so then he appointed a committee to formulate what should be the criteria for promotion at various levels. And he named me Cher. Oh my gosh. If you talk up, they're going to say, well, you can do it. But he was very astute because the ones who have the most to win or lose with that are the assistant professors who don't have tenure. So he put another professor on, I think it was John Alexander, and then there were two faculty and George Ingram, I think maybe the other, I forget the other one, but anyway, so there were four faculty, one full professor, one associate, and two assistant, and I was Cher. So we did give guidelines about what we thought you were appropriate for you to do. And it wasn't ironclad in any way. You could probably make an argument one way or the other, but at least we finally had something that you had to do. So actually, when I came up for promotion to associate, well, I came up a year early for promotion to associate professor because I had published an article in our major journal, Journal of Asian Studies, and I guess my students were revolting. I mean, I think my Asian, I know my Asians, of course, was very difficult for students. I mean, I tried to make it easier for them, but every once in a while, and not so much now because I'm so old, but I would be in burgers and people would come up and say, you know, Professor Ramisack, your course was really hard. I said, well, I know it was unfamiliar material. He said, but you know, I learned something. And I said, oh, good, I'm glad to hear that. And I said, it'll be helpful if you want to go to India and travel or anything. But so I know that I was doing something that they had never heard of, like if you're doing, I mean, and John Alexander was a fabulous teacher. And so, you know, everybody wanted to take American history from John.  So, but I knew that, you know, and like even during the Afghan war, I had a student and he said, you know, I really wish I had this course before I went to Afghanistan. He said, I would have a better idea of what was happening there. So, you know, I was hired, I think as a woman because I was doing something that was, you know, they didn't know what to do about it. But so I did spend a lot of time, you know, in other groups like the Midwest Conference, I went every year, Association for Asian Studies, a lot of times to the history. And so in my career, I ended up actually, I think I'm the only person from the department who has gotten, who was a faculty member in my time, which starts from 1967, who was elected to the overall council of the American Historical Association. Really? How'd you do that? I got elected. People asked me, I mean, people asked me, well, how did you get elected? You're not from a big university. And I said, I guess people voted for me. You know, that's all you can say. And I was very active in them, in the American Historical Association because the woman who went off to be the first woman president of Harvard had started a group to talk about how to improve conditions for part-time and non-tenure track people. Because there were stories like some places, they didn't even have Xerox privileges. They didn't have an office. They didn't have a place to put their coat. And they had very, very low pay and nothing that would make it a little easier for them. So there were 10 associations like Political Science and Economics and things like that. I don't know if it was Economics, but Political Science and a lot of literature and things, and so we met for over two years. And it's interesting, all but one of the sort of heads who were running the operation, plus me and one or two faculty, we were all women. Really? Because it was mainly women who were working part-time and getting paid $2,500 dollars for teaching the course and expected to do all of this grading and everything. And so we drew up guidelines that were printed within the monthly thing of the American Historical Association. And I was on various other committees form in terms of book prizes and things like that. That was before I was on the council itself and was doing that. And so the same thing in the Association for Asian Studies. I was elected in the South Asia group. And then I got enough votes so that I was on the top council. So there was one Chinese specialist, one Japanese, one Southeast Asia, one South Asia. What was the last one, I forget now. But anyway, Southeast Asia, South Asia, China, Japan, and then, you know. And so anyway, it was very awkward at times because these were very senior men. And also for them, you know, South Asia, it was, you know, or Asia was just, you know, South Asia, that wasn't important. Right. So, or Asia wasn't important because on the historian thing, I was the Asianist. On the one for South Asia, the Association of Asian Studies, I was South Asia. So there was two things. And so I saw how those things operated and was, you know, most probably involved with, but I was involved in other things than the women's issues. So that, and that takes a lot of time away from your research. And, you know, if you're teaching a heavy load, that takes a lot. But then we eventually got to the two, two, so that, two, two, two, so that was easier. What's two, two, two? I mean, two classes each semester. I mean, each quarter, you know. Because when I came in, we taught three classes each semester. Then we got to two. So, and theoretically in a research university, and Cincinnati was trying to say, yes, we are a research university, then you get a lighter teaching load because you're going to conferences and, you know, doing a lot of research. And see, I had to go to India to do my research. And I did, I did a lot of research in London too, but most of it, hardcore research was in India. And that, you know, getting visas, it getting all of your shots and, you know, whatever your inoculations that you need and everything. So that it's, you know, it's a challenge and it's time consuming. But, you know, I'm glad I did it and, you know, I really learned a lot and, you know, met many people there and have friends. You know, and then also, see, I attracted, I was away, I was in India and there was an Indian woman who applied here to come to UC and that was in the 80s. And she, they, they said, oh, you have someone who wants to come here, but we're not getting her transcript. Well, I came back from India and I guess I was in London or something and I came home for some reason. And so they said, you know, we've got this one from India, but it's not the one, you know, this Paula Banerjee. And I said, well, this is Paula Banerjee, but the University of Calcutta uses the Bengali spelling of her name. So it was Paula Chattopadaya. And so, you know, there were those things. So she was my first student and then there was a, she had a friend and that student came the next year. And see, I had to have students who came with their language because we didn't have any language teaching in the Indian languages. And so, and then I established a reputation in India for my research because I met some of the women who were doing research and I was doing, working first on princely states in India and then I was doing work on women. I started, a second field that I developed was looking at efforts to improve female and infant mortality. And so I was doing women's history and I was doing princely state history and I was writing, I was in an effort to do a book on all of sort of the non-Western world in women and there were five books. There was one on Middle East, there was one on Asia, there was one on Latin America and now I forget the other two but there were five of them, Latin America. And so the thing is that I was doing a lot externally as well as a lot, you know, and a lot that focused on content and then a lot that was service and then teaching. And, but I ended up having six Indian students, women who came to study women's history with me and I'm proud to say they all have jobs. That's awesome. And some of them are now full professors. One is at Northern Arizona where our new Dean of Arts and Sciences from. And so that was Sanjay Malawalia. My first one was Paula Banerjee and then there was one that doesn't communicate with me. I don't know. And let's see, Paula and then Uma Ganesan and there's one more. So the thing is, how could I forget that? Oh, anyway, I'll think about it and I'll come up with it. So that, you know, I feel very fulfilled that you see that I've been able to have these graduate students who are now all teaching one in India and four in the United States. I know one that I don't hear from teachers at Shipmentsburg, Gentry Kapal is her name. And so then there's a one from Arizona State. Oh, there's one at University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  So that four of them are, five of them are tenured and one more will be tenured. That's great. So that that's good and so like that. And the other thing that I really tried, worked with, and it wasn't a conscious thing, but we were getting students, women's students who had married young, had their children and wanted to come back to the university. And so I know in, I think, I know in two cases. In one case, the person had applied elsewhere and they wouldn't take, well, one had applied to, they said that they were rejected. And so I said, you know, I looked at their things and I said, it looks, and so I took them. But then there was also, when I was twice director of graduate studies, some people are never director of graduate studies. I was twice, but I liked working with graduate students so it was fine, but it was time consuming because you got a course load reduction but it took a lot out of you to do that. And so this woman called and said, she was interested in this and she was 39 and would she be considered? And she wasn't considered at other places. They said no to her because she was too old. Really? Well I will personally see that you get full consideration. And so maybe I was departmented and so I followed it through and she did get, she got in and she's in, I think Kansas, she's in the middle part. And she's very active in all sorts of things about pipelines going through territory where they shouldn't be going through. And so I feel like as director of graduate studies there were also students in department head and I was the first woman department head. And that was, and the thing is I never wanted to be department head but your term comes in sort of serve and because you can't please all the people all the time and the administrators tell, the dean tells the department, the president tells the provost what he or she wants. The provost tells the dean. The dean tells the department head, I have to tell the students at the bottom, I mean the faculty at the bottom and also some of those students, but the faculty at the bottom and then they say, well we don't want to do that. We think that's not a good idea. And I said, well that's what it is so we have to work around this and try. So that various times I've been in the middle of things where I didn't want to be in the middle of things but you survive and so you just keep going and you hope that you're having a major, or not a major but just having some impact on people's lives. How are we doing for time? We're good so far, yeah. We're doing okay. The thing is, I think, well another thing that I'm very proud of is that when in the 70s, when we were meeting in women's groups, I mean we were looking at such things as first of all the development of women's studies. Did I, I haven't said anything about women's studies. Any woman? Okay, women's studies. And that was in 1974. And so we needed people to teach classes and Betsy Sato was here. She was teaching Japanese history and then she later left that position. She went in, she was director of AUP for many years. She got very active in it and it was hard to be, so both teaching and being active in AUP at the level that she was. So that she didn't stay in the academic position. And so we established in 1984 and we had support from the provost who was a law professor, we had provost from the president we had. So we had support. But at that time, any new course had to be approved by the faculty of arts and science. So then you had to make a presentation. So Betsy and I made a presentation and some of the faculty were not happy with the course. They said, what are you going to do? You're not going to have enough sources.   Yeah. So we were doing, we were team teaching a course and it was on women in India, China, in Japan. And so to make sure that it was seen as valid, we were assigning about 250 pages every week for them to read. And they had to do various lengths of papers. Sometimes it was a longer one. Sometimes it was a shorter one. And so everyone did their reading. I mean, because the students were really committed to, and I mean it was a seminar, I think there were like maybe 10, 12 students in it. It was hard because you were getting all these papers to read and you too had to read all these books and know them, you know, to lead the discussion. So one time Betsy would be in charge and then one time I would be in charge and but we were both sitting in the class and everything. So that was the way in which we started, women's studies, other people started in other departments. And it was mainly, we had people in sociology, in English, Robin Shields was, oh, Robert Sheets was a superb teacher in English literature. And at that time, even the president taught a course with her because he was interested in English history. That's great. But now presidents don't teach at all. And so I think that it would be good if they taught at least one course a year. Did that used to be more common for presidents? Yeah, I mean, but it was, this is back in the 70s and 80s. But now, and I realize they have a million things to do. And maybe just once in their term, or I mean their entire term, go in and teach a course and see what it is. And I think it would be good for them because they did used to do, not a lot. And some, I don't think you would want to teach a course, but anyway, they did teach the course. So that was how it started. Another thing that women agitated for, it was in the 1970s that there were 70s or 80s, I think it was 70s, there were in law school, there were only 7% of the students were women. Now women I think are almost in a majority in law school. There were only 4% in medicine. And so you've come a long way with the availability of that there are more options for women nowadays. But I mean, it just, and like when I was at the University of Michigan to show something really bad, they in 1960, 61, they had eight or 900 students in the law school, which is one of the top law schools, not like Harvard or Yale, but still up there. And they had only eight, there was eight or 10 women in. Oh my goodness. And one of them was, we were all in a dorm and she was in the room next door with another roommate. And so I was with somebody who was in speech. But it was amazing because we thought we had it bad in terms of graduate school, but in the graduate programs, because there weren't a lot of women going on for PhDs in history when I did. They would come for their masters and go into high school teaching. And then there was one more conservative professor that I wouldn't say. He thought, well women could get a PhD because it would make him a better high school teacher. And that there was no, so that's the sort of thing that it was back in the 60s and 70s and even into the 80s. So that it's really changed and a lot for the good. Was the pay between men and women different when you taught? Yes, because what happened to me, I got my $9,000. And then I got my raise and as I say, I went up, I got promoted in my sixth year instead of my seventh year. So I went up in my fifth year and I got my raise. And then the next year, at that time, they would put it in your mailbox. And so I remember there used to be a meat market very, very good on Ludlow right next. Well, where the, oh, the sort of the tea room was a very, been a variety of things. But you know, you have the clothing store and then you have sort of like a, I think they have alcoholic drinks, coffee shop there. And they've sort of cleaned it up. But anyway, there used to be a meat market there. And so I went in, I'm standing in a meat market and I'm opening up my envelope and I'm thinking, oh, I'm probably going to get $200 as my raise. And I got $1,500. Oh, wow. And so I took it the next day to Dr. Eschbacher and I said, Dr. Eschbacher, they made a mistake here. And he said, Barbara, you were underpaid. I didn't have any, I didn't have, I couldn't do anything about it. But the provost did something about it. So, I mean, you know, so I know I was being paid less than the men. When I started and when, you know, I was, so then it just keeps you down. So that there wasn't, but I think that from what I know, you know, salaries are now published but I don't, you know, go in and look and see what they are. But I think that women are probably, you know, doing better than we did before.  Let's see, what else did I want to talk about? Well, I think that, and well, there were other things that, you know, happened to me and I don't know if they're relevant, you can say, we don't really have to talk about that. For example, in terms of getting an international reputation, it was Christmas Eve and I happened to be here and I got this call and it's from the curator at the South Asia at the Victoria and Albert Museum. And he said, we would like you to be the keynote speaker. We're having an exhibit on Maharajahs and you've done a book on the Maharajah and you and I, it was also, my first book was on what was happening to the Indian princes who were a client of the British when the balance of power is going from the British to the Indian nationalists because what's gonna happen to these princes? So I did it from, oh, about 19, I didn't think about 1910 to about 1935 because at that time, at the British archives, they were closed for 50 years and in India they were only closed for 30 years. So I couldn't go past 37 because I couldn't get into the archives in Britain so that was that. So anyway, I worked on princely states and what was happening to them at that time. And then I was asked to do the volume in the new Cambridge history of India on the princely states. So Cambridge is a big name and this was a project before what they would have. They would have essays in a book but then just essays on princely states or whatever. And so then I was doing that book. So that was what got me the invitation to go, I think it was about 2008 to, and I will never forget it because I got to go to the, first of all I got to go into various marts all over the V&A and talk to a lot of the curators and learned a lot from them. And then I got to go to the private opening, not the one where some member of royalty was at the, this was the more vast one. And I never thought I would be, and the British love champagne and they just circulate and you can have all the champagne, you want to drink and everything. And so I knew very well, or it became great friends with the curator. So there was an after party going to be across the street in South Kensington. And so I went to her and I said, you want to walk over there together? And I said, you know where the room is, where it's going to be and it was in the basement thing and everything. And so she said, well, I have to give back my diamonds first. And I thought she was wearing rhinestones because I know curators don't make a lot of money but Van Cliff and Arpel was one of the sponsors of it. So she got to wear diamonds. Oh my goodness. But there was a man following her to make sure that no one, nothing happened to those diamonds. And I didn't, you know, he was just looking like, you know, he was someone looking at the art or not, he wasn't looking at the art, he's just circulating. So he was looking at it. And so I did there. And then I was the keynote speaker at the symposium and that was about three weeks later. And, you know, I never thought in my whole life that I would be introduced as the primary authority on the princely states in Britain because, you know, the British are very proud of their tradition and their graduates. So, you know, and I came from the University of Michigan and I wasn't from Harvard or Yale, you know. And, but I think I did very well at Michigan because I think Harvard or Yale was not ready for women. And I know they weren't ready for women when I went in the 60s. So, I mean, that was one thing that, you know, I'll never forget and people still know it. Like I just went to a workshop at the University of Leicester and it was on the princely states. And so I was the oldest person there. And that there was one young woman and she said, and I read Barbara's book and she really talks about how this one princely state, Bob Nugger, got the right to have the port from the British. And I thought, oh, I had even forgotten that.  Yeah.  And I really, you know, helped when we were setting up the women's studies program. And now, you know, it's taken off and it's its own department, it's a TAF department. And then I was head of TAF, which, you know, gave money. And that was always a very interesting experience because, you know, working, we had this money to spend but then I had to go and we were reported to the TAF trustees.  So how do you feel about TAF paying for a lot of the A&S courses rather than the A&S like a college itself? Well, the thing is, you know, I don't really know the inside story. And so it's hard for me to know what to do. I mean, the thing is that I have no idea now, you know, I used to know what, I mean, we used to get about 42.  And I've just heard little bits about the courses. So how is that done? Do they pay? I mean, because I mean, it's a very complex thing if you're going to give money to the course. And then also, you know, I know that they had more money to give than I did. Well, and see, that was another thing. TAF has existed since the 1940s. There was some problem because I think the deed was, you know, signed in about 1929. But then it got involved with, it was very complex. And so that there wasn't money coming off of it until sometime in the 1940s. And so I came here and no one told me about TAF. No one told me. And I found out later that the head of TAF, the TAF, not the TAF trustees, the TAF in the university, you know, they would tell, it was all men. And the men knew about it. And the male, you know, the men of my age or, you know, level of commitment in the department, they knew about it, but I didn't know about it. So then at one point, the TAF trustees said they wanted to have an external evaluation. So they had an external evaluation. And they said that they wanted to open it up. And so to make it that there should be more publicity about it.  It was named, she was from the French department.  And none of my colleagues in history told me that. And they were on the TAF board. One was chair of the TAF board and shall remain nameless. But anyway, so then I had been at the Humanity Center and I got, and that's another thing I got. There's a National Humanity Center in CHAP. Well, it's in the research triangle, you know, Chapel Hill, where Duke is, and then North Carolina. And that's sort of, and this triangle was started as an effort in North Carolina to attract industry because tobacco was going down. And so they had a lot of medical research there going on, but they also, there was a lobbying and there was a Humanity Center, so you applied nationally and there were about 40 people each year who got, and they had people from India, like there was someone that I knew from India who was a very eminent professor of Indian painting. And it was like being in La La Land because if you wanted a book, you just gave a slip to somebody and they got the book from one of the three libraries for you. If you wanted your paper's type, they asked you, do you want the British system or do you want the American system? And they'll type the whole paper for you. Oh my goodness. And I hadn't had that.  And then you had your lunch there and there would be coffee pots and there wasn't an afternoon snack, but anyway. And you had your own private office and it was just like being in La La Land because it was so different. And so then when I came back, that was, I think, 76, 77, when I came back, they were, Judy Myskins was head of Taft. And so I said, I think that this is really a good idea because at Chapel Hill, they have a research center on their campus, so we should have some sort of research center. And so we worked on that and we wanted one where we could bring in people from the outside as well as inside, but there were all sorts of issues that I won't go into. You don't say problems, we say issues. And so the thing is that that really opened up Taft. Now what happened, there were some people, including a couple of women, they were applying, they would get $2,000 a year in the summer. And they really didn't have, and I know from the records, they really didn't do much. So when Judy came in and she made me head of it, she said, okay, we're going to start having overseeing of the grants and there'll be a committee and he'll do it. Okay, and so then I said, well, $2,000, we should go up to 4,000, but we should make it competitive. And then I said also, we should have a supplement if you have to go and travel for your research because if people are sitting in Cincinnati and doing their research, that's fine, but their expenses are much lower than say when I go to London or somebody goes to California or England or something. Excuse me. So, what's Judy Myskins, and she said, okay, we'll be chair of the committee because you know how it works in North Carolina, I said, okay, so then I was the next chair of the TAF committee. And we were able to do a lot more to make it open. And to raise the stipends to make them competitive. Now some people were unhappy and like one woman actually followed me into the restroom during the summer opera season to cast a cape, really, because she had gotten something every year. And so now she wasn't getting it. And so I said, I'm sorry that you're not getting it, but we have to be more competitive and it is more expensive if you're going to travel. But everybody got the 4,000 and then if you could get 1,500, which wasn't gonna pay for, you're spending the summer in London or in Paris or a big metropolitan city. Yeah. And it started doing more, but I was there, they have to look at my paper to see when I was there as director of TAF. Oh, I was a TAF professor too. But the thing is that I had a five year term so I really think that we put it. But then the political science professor name, when he took over, they really got, they were able to have a space and full time staff and Richard. What's Richard's last name? Anyway, and he's in political science and he was very good at really making the basis for what it could do now. Yeah. And so it was, but just getting it publicity and establishing some rules about, that made, were sensitive to the various demands or the various requirements of faculty. Yeah. That took a lot. And then some people just didn't pay attention and then when you didn't pay, like one of them called up and just was so upset with the secretary and I could hear him. And he was going on and on about, that he should not have to pay for his taxi where he was because he had to get to the archives and so that we should pay for a taxi. We don't pay for taxis. Yeah. You go public transportation or walk. And he, so then I had to call him and tell him that if you want to protest, you protest to me. You protest to your equal, you don't protest to a subordinate person.  And sometimes, I mean, it really turns you off of being in an administrative position like that. I bet. But you know, you just fare well. Those are the breaks of the game and what am I going to do about it? Yeah. And just don't think about it. So a couple more questions. One, how did you feel about the system changing from quarters to semesters? Generally, I think it's a good idea because you have more time, particularly when I was teaching like, you know, the survey to do Indian history. And I would say, okay, this hoop to empire is a classical period. What's a classical period in someone's culture? And I try to get out of them what, why we call, you know, the Greek and Roman classical period. They didn't have too much on that. But the thing is that I really, how did I get off on classical period? I would say, okay, this is the classical, the gupta is the classical. We already know what one empire looks like. We're going on. We have to spend more time on Islam and Hinduism and, you know, the moguls and this sort of thing. So that it was hard to teach it in 10 weeks. So that's good. I think what the problem was when it was done, it was done just as a time that everybody is saying, okay, you've got to, you know, have more students, butts in the seat and then you'll get paid. So then you have other colleges starting to teach English or social studies or things like that. And they're really doing it sort of a, you know, but I would say it was a more high school level history or something. And so then the enrollment in the humanities declined drastically because, and then the university was letting these other places, you know, get courses that would really be, belong best in the arts and sciences. And I think, you know, I don't know what happened to the, because, and I was on the council of department heads and things like that. So I used to know a lot of their problems too.  And so I think, I mean, it can be done. And I don't, and I think, you know, most places do have semesters. So, and I can see the value in it, but I think that my main concern about it happened just when the bottom was dropping out of the humanities. Right. But I also think that people should take some humanities courses, you know, whether it's history or English or, you know, a language course or in social sciences too. I mean, and I don't know how they're doing it.  Not just distract you, but take up your time. And so this is where I think, you know, it we're really suffering for the humanities. Because if they're not going to get it here, they're not going to see it on the TV. Right. So what do you hope your students stick away from your classes that you taught? I hope, because of what I was teaching, that it gave them insight to a culture different than their own. That, you know, the way we do things isn't the only way to do things. I'm not saying that some of the things that go on in India are better than here. I have questions about, I mean, concerns about, I shouldn't say it quickly. I have concerns about their prime minister. And so I, you know, I really think that arts and science, you know, and, but look, arts and science building has never, the McMichan, which we don't know how long that's going to be, has never been totally revamped. Education has. But frankly, I don't think the education college, it's very important, but I don't think it has the sort of, I don't know what I want to say, but I think arts and science deserves a better building. Yeah. I mean, you know, because every time I go in there, and I remember the bathrooms were terrible, when I was department head, I took Joe Scaniel in there and I said, listen, we have water sitting in our sinks. That's breeding, you know, this. Well, and I also had to take him in because we had one very tall woman who had a hip thing and she needed a raised toilet seat. And I thought, the jobs you get when you're department head taking in this mail to the women's restroom and say, okay, Joe, we need to get this fixed. And, you know, he sort of fixed that, but he couldn't get the fountains or they finally had fixed the sinks because a friend came over from DAP from fashion design and she was auditing my course and she went in in my sinks and she said, I've been in India and I haven't seen anything as bad as this. And I said, well, just this is McMicken. So I think that, you know, I think that it's great that we have these good departments in other areas that we, you know, and we have, you know, Africana studies, we have, you know, a lot of new things, Judaic studies, women's studies. Yes, I think that's very good. But at the same time, you know, I just get upset. So I'm arts and science.  And I think, you know, we've had too much turmoil at the top levels in terms of people not staying long. And so I think that's difficult. And I think the university, you know, somebody who, you know, I think they're worth their money if they're doing well because it is a very time-consuming job.  But, you know, I, now I'll probably get feedback from this, but I'm a graduate fellow. And so I go to the meetings of the graduate fellows. And we have twice a year and one is when the new people come in and then the other is to have speakers and, you know, somebody, one time when there's a speaker from the university administration. And we had a dean, like a university type dean, I won't mention, and he talked for an hour and never once mentioned the humanities. And then there was sort of a talk session and I thought, well, I have to go to the bathroom, but I'm going to say something. And so I said, you know, there was no mention of anything related to the humanities or sort of really even the sciences and arts and science because what they're talking about is we have to do more research. We have to, you know, we have to do things that will bring in money, not just have, and I agree, we need that, we need that. I mean, so that we need to have that, you know, and I'm in graduate fellows, there's a lot of people from medicine in there. And I go to a lot of things over because I'm interested in the history of medicine because my current research is on efforts to improve maternal and infant mortality rates and maybe I said this earlier. And so the thing is that I'm at the medical school and I think they deserve everything they're getting but at the same time, we should also mention that they're getting, and they do have now a program in medicine and the humanities because I think that when you're in medicine, you shouldn't know something about the humanity. The human side of it. But I want my surgeon to be very well-trained in your study when they're doing it. So I don't, but I just think that there needs to be more attention and I think if you walk in MacMacon, it looks like 1950s and you go into the education and I haven't even been in the new business college so I can't imagine what's there. But so I think, and I know that I probably could have gotten more writing done if I wasn't as interested in women's issues, liberal arts, do things externally because I really enjoyed being on the Council of the American Historical Association and you learn a lot about what's happening and in the Asian Studies group. And I was active for a while in women's studies but it got to be too much of an overload and so I give them a little money, not much, but a little money and I go to some of their events but it's hard to keep up with everything. And so, but I feel very privileged that I've had my career at UC and that I've been asked to do things that were I think helpful to people and that people think that they learned something and because I mean I knew what I was teaching was very different than what else they were doing so that it was going to be hard or let's say it's going to be challenging to them but I tried to help them and I think that I don't know how many never came up and said that they thought I did an interesting class or they learned something and like I think I said, one time this fellow who had come back from being in Afghanistan or I don't know where exactly he was but it was towards the tail and then I said I really wish I had this course before I went there and so I think that like for Vietnam too to know what's happening and to know India because like a lot of people now, Procter and Gamble for a long time it was just Colgate in India and you couldn't get anything from Procter and Gamble but now when about my last time when I was living there, 20607 there are things we're starting to get in the market and now when I've been back for short things you see much more of Procter and Gamble and there's Procter and Gamble there there is Cincinnati Bell there there's all of these things and so I think that if you're going to whatever you're going to do in this world that you should know something about other parts of the world and not that I think everything is Tumpy Dory in India where I have all sorts of problems and I've seen improvements in things that have to do with women and but at the same time I know there's a long way to go and there's a lot of people even more than here who have not gotten the benefit of modernization or whatever you want to call it or even schooling. I mean when you see if you're in and I don't travel that much in villages now but when you went to villages and I mean some people's lives are not very comfortable or safe for a variety of things. That's unfortunate. And that's very unfortunate and I know it's happening in my country too so don't throw stones here. So is there anything more about you so you'd like to talk about? I think that you can get a really good education at UC and I think some people think it's, well I didn't get into OSU or this place or that place but I think that so much good has happened that if you're willing to and okay so you get one class that isn't going anywhere. If you can't drop it but if you can't then just ask people around or go and talk to the professor. Now the thing is that I don't see professors around that much and I don't know whether they do a lot on email or anything but I like interaction with people. So I would be, there would be days I would want to have a day home to prepare for things or a half day to prepare for things but in this department that I was in the office and much more than some others were. And so I know that there are things that I could have, I probably could have gotten more published but I didn't necessarily go in to be a publishing star and for me writing is very difficult. I do a lot of drafts and so it isn't that there are some people who are much more able to do that than I and some people I think who necessarily don't give all their teaching to and I did try to do that but I think it was difficult sometimes for students because you just didn't know about it. Now you know much more about India because you can see them around town, you can see them in running for president of Indian background, Indian heritage, running for political office and so I think I find it very interesting to see how that has played out over the years and you know because you didn't know in India.  Right, sounds frustrating. Yeah, so that could be frustrating but I just feel like I had a very rich life and I wish I could get more writing done now but I was surrounded by books and this and that and I'd get off on to things and so but I really feel very blessed that I've been able to do this because I know a lot of people don't and I think it's in the United States because I mean I got a grant from the federal government for three years to study Indian history and Indian political science and then I had to take Michigan and I mean I'm glad I was in Michigan and I had to have a field of pre 1500 and so I took the Renaissance but now people I think get so focused on what their project is and so I think if you're having a liberal education it's good to know a little bit about something else and then I came back through when I went around the world and when I was coming back from my dissertation research I went to Florence for three days. Now I was in Rome for three and a half days I was in Florence for three and a half days and unfortunately I had lower digestive tract problems so I could only have, I had minestrone and bread and I thought the whole time in India I was thinking I can hardly wait because there was no Indian, I mean there's no Italian food in India. Now there's pizza every place and there's been pizza most places for a long time. So the thing is that I just feel, I mean I'm not saying that there weren't times that I thought why did I do this but it was more or less and I like working with people, I think I am a people person too so I like working with people. So any other questions? I think that's about it for me, any final thoughts you wanna, I'll do this interview? No, I just, I think that you should encourage people to do, to explore things. I think that's what I would say, you should explore things and have, I didn't have much self-confidence and I, because my parents were from another generation and everything and I didn't have, so my faculty advisor said to me when I was in the undergraduate, you don't have any and I said well, I don't know, I just don't have, because I would always think well I'm not doing good enough or I could do better and so it's good for some time for people to say yes, you are doing good and yeah, Rome wasn't made in a day so this isn't going to do and I know I have to write many drafts of a paper or a book and that it takes me a long time. I'm not somebody who can sit down and zip it off but as I say, I'm happy that people are still reading my book on the Indian princes and I'm still happy that occasionally someone will come up to me and like, oh, some fella at one of the beer places said, you know, I had a course from you and I don't know, it was, I think someone's wedding up there or something and he saw my name tag and he said, oh, I hope the grade was okay and he said, well, it was sort of okay but you know, you just hope that other people can enjoy what you did too. So that's why, you know, because I'm giving money to UC and money to my undergraduate college too because my parents had, we had five children and they said, well, the girls will get married and somebody will take care of them and so we'll send the two boys to college and I said, okay, I want to get to go to college so I worked for two years at the telephone company and the service representative but you'd come in and we'd talk about getting your telephone and then if you didn't pay your bill, I called you and told you what was going to happen and so either way, I didn't have always happy people but anyway, so I worked for two years and then I went to college and I was taking night courses while I was working and I went to Alverno College and I was able to get through in three years but my faculty advisor was the one who helped me apply and so that's why I worked a lot with my graduate students too so that they can be competitive because you've been on the other side of judging so you know what they're looking for. Right. So that that's good and so I feel satisfied. I guess that's the way to, and I think that I did well at Cincinnati, there are things that I don't necessarily agree with but I think students can get a very good education here. Now, I don't say in every department but I think that if you and I would tell people if it's not going well and you think you're not going to like it, try something else. Yeah. And because I think people become bitter when they think they're stuck in something. Right. And so you want to just say you have to try. Now I realize that there are major groups of people who don't have that ability to try something else too and so our United States has a lot of issues. We don't have problems, we have issues and unfortunately some of them aren't getting any better. So we just, and so I worry about that. I do worry about politics but I can't do too much about it. Right. It's a vote. So I'll do that. Okay, well I think that's about it. Thank you so much. And thank you very much. Well thank you too for coming and asking the questions and everything. Of course.


Well, originally when the Course of Heracles was first received by Helen Shuckman and taken down with shorthand notes and it was then Helen read the shorthand notes and basically her boss who was her collaborator, Bill Thudford, wrote it down in the first document that appeared was called the Urtext. And in the Urtext Jesus had a lot to say about sexuality. In fact, the published version that most people read when they go and buy it at the bookstore is an edited version of the Urtext. One time I heard one student say, oh yeah, I've got the published version, it's the nuns version. They took out all the sexuality out of it, it's just for nuns to read. Actually it was Jesus's head, it was more for the general public. And you might say that your question relates to a question we talked about last night which is distorted miracle impulses. The sexuality is definitely in the realm of distorted miracle impulses because the call is always to return to God. That's why the miracle impulses, it's a call to forgive the world, release the ego, remember your true identity as a creation of God. But through the ego's lens of lack, then those distorted miracle impulses come out on the surface of consciousness way out there in the perceptual world and the body as cravings. And sexuality, you know typically when people talk about sexuality, they talk about sex drive, libido and so forth.  Then in terms of other overlays we have these things where there's distinctions around heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, you know it's quite finely refined. And there's lots of morality around that. What's good, what's bad, what's evil, you know God will strike you blind for this, but no this is fine. God doesn't mind if you make a lot of babies, just do it with one partner and put lots of care and attention in raising those babies.  But here we're pretty close to San Francisco, so it's good to talk about these things, you know, oh don't you know there. So you know it's a lot, but basically if you start to cut through all that and you get back down to, you know, the sexual drive, like I talked about last night, as well as hunger and thirst, some of you remember Abraham Maslow, you know he he had a beautiful hierarchy of needs and he'd do this little pyramid and actually right down there there were the base needs, you know, for food and water and sexuality was right in there, it's a human need and then you work your way up to more towards a sense of love and then as you get to the top of the pyramid it's the meta needs or the being needs, the bee values, you know these were things that when you go into self-actualization, of know-thyself, you know, things change from your consciousness when you're down at the base to when you come up to the higher self-actualization and it's an interesting side note that Bill Letford, who was the collaborator with Helen Shuckman to bring the course, you know, into being for it all, in his past he had been a graduate assistant of Carl Rogers and Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are kind of thought of as the core, some of the core founders of humanistic psychology, which was a forerunner to transpersonal psychology and California is filled with transpersonal psychologists, it's wonderful transpersonal, transcending the personal, coming to the actual, to the real, so the sex drive is a distorted miracle impulse and in the urtex Jesus will make some like distinctions in there and will address a little bit around homosexuality and heterosexuality and he even quotes Virginia Woolf in the urtex and there's some really interesting things in there but I would have to say if you really want to cut to the chase and get to the core of things you have to bring it down to see that as long as you have a belief system in lack that's the filter or the prism in which these distorted miracle impulses flow through into consciousness and you have to clear the mind away as Buddha said empty the mind of these these unconscious beliefs in order to get this beautiful straight miracle impulse without any kind of distortions so when you take it down to the core you start to realize that that it's not like Jesus condemns anything there's not a condemnation involving sexuality or homosexuality or heterosexuality or bisexuality it's more like he's he's so interested in bringing it back into the mind and getting to the root of the distortion it's he's not really moral I know a lot of people go what are you saying Jesus isn't moral he's not really so much into morality and ethics as he is into purity and and a lot of morality and ethics involves beliefs and theologies and there's much contradictions I mean if you go around to different cultures you'll find a huge rainbow of beliefs around sexuality what one culture says is moral another culture says is immoral what one culture says is ethical another one says it's unethical and this is the same with with even around violence or killing it seems to be there's more it's more common commonly accepted in the theologies that thou shalt not kill but then you know we always have exceptions to that even so that's the most important thing and really the solution is is that's what the Course in Miracles is about it's about getting in touch with the higher with and the higher self the Holy Spirit whatever name you want to use and and being guided into clear away the false debris clear away the darkness so that the light can shine through you know unhindered and without distortion and that's why we would say that instead of giving straight answers like a lot of the spirituality is trying to give hard and fast answers on sexuality it's really opened very much to individual guidance that when the mind is asleep and dreaming the Holy Spirit will reach the mind right where it believes it is so for example if somebody seemed to be will say what the world would call very promiscuous with sexuality very loose and promiscuous free sex free love there's chances are when the Holy Spirit starts to work with that mind there will be some definite instructions on on bringing them back more to what we'd say towards center and coming in deeper and deeper so it's not unusual that somebody who is extremely promiscuous may get guidance to to go through a period of celibacy just to take a look at thoughts that are underneath and likewise if somebody would be will say very will say sexually inhibited and very very reserved in that area the chances are that the guidance would would again be guided might be to go skinny dipping or you know you know to have sex as guidance so forth as a way of loosening if the mind gets so locked you know into certain patterns the spirit has to use ways to to un-unstuck them you know unstick them from their their patterns and you see that that that goes way beyond these discussions of of morality and ethics it's really what will serve to loosen the mind from the grips of guilt is really what what's about so let's say somebody is is extremely inhibited it wouldn't be surprising that Holy Spirit might guide them to a sex therapist who may work with them on their emotions and thoughts and have them start to loosen up around it and likewise you know that's why when we talk about this topic it is really highly individualized we aren't trying to just give hard-fast answers you know when people say well homosexuals are gonna pay for pay for this or they're gonna burn in hell or this and this you know God it's not a punishing God it's it's like the the movie what the bleep do we know where Brahms is like speaking to Jay-Z Knighton is basically saying you know you're it's a progressive evolution of consciousness and it's just you're drawing higher and higher in consciousness towards perfection towards divinity and it's not so much that there's a right or wrong or there's not this punishment concept there's no hellfire punishment concept that has anything to do with the source or with God but it's more of what will serve to take me higher what will serve to awaken me what will take me into forgiveness is always the question and that relates to every sexuality food finances across the board and so you can see this is a course in changing your mind about your mind and it's so different from the theologies and the religions of the world which basically have pronouncements you know don't wear a hat in church it's in the Bible oh goodness better get that little baseball cap with it doorly off your head you know you're gonna pay for that one you know this isn't some kind of anthropomorphic God who's like watching human beings going I told you not to wear that hat in church and I told you over and over and so the elders of the church told you it's right there and this is in the creed you know and so get that hat off there don't go into that you know it's just spirituality true authentic spirituality is just like that


Hi, thank you. My name is Steve Tyler. I'm a part-time developer. I've been learning front-end development in the last few years. I work as a small business IT consultant. For the last few years I've been learning front-end development, just doing websites for friends. Sorry. Sorry. Last few years I've been doing websites for friends and local small businesses. About a year ago I kind of lost my way a bit. I wasn't quite sure what direction to go in. Then I got an email one day from one of these online learning sites that I signed up to. A site called TalentBuddy. They've got a new course. It's a full-stack course using the latest technologies. We get to build a basic version of Twitter. I thought it sounded like a great experience for me. It was quite a big leap from my experience at the time. I really guarded it and it was a really good experience. I'm just going to run through what the app does. It's just a basic version of Twitter. We just log in here. We just get a list of your posts here. We created some of my Twitter favourites within here. You can just create a new post at the top. We just publish a new post and then I can just delete that. You can go on to other people's pages so I can just go on to my own page and it just shows you posts, who I'm following and who follows me. I'll just log out of there. For me on the course, when I was first introduced to Ember, I was told to go to Emberguide. For me personally, now that I've got a bit more experience, Emberguide is great. It's a really good reference. When I was first starting, it was quite a lot to take in and I was quite overwhelmed. One thing I think it's missing for this is an actual diagram. It's a diagram that's been used in other talks. Ember uses its own version of the MVC pattern where you have models of your data. It's a way of separating your concerns. We all know how to separate our HTML from our CSS from our JavaScript. Here we're separating our models, our data from our views, what's went into the screen, and then from our controllers, which are like the middle man between the two. Ember's based around the router. It uses the flexibility of URLs where you can bookmark URLs and share them. It generates a URL per root. If we go back to my app again, you'll see here that when I go see it on the sign-up page, you get to create account root so that I can use the back button and go back. Some other apps don't always work like that so you may end up going to the previous website that you are on. In the router, that's where you load your models, your data. Because you have to define your roots in the beginning, it makes you think about the structure of your app first. It's a good way of working. I still quite like to take in. After a few weeks, I'm still a bit confused. I just said to my tutor, can we start with basics, Ember? He said he came up with some exercises for me in JS Bin. People don't know, it's a really good testing environment. We just did some very basic examples. In Ember, your base class is Ember.object, which all your objects inherit from. You use object.create to instantiate that class. Various simple things we did. Just create like a data object here. First name and last name. Create a new Ember object. Ember uses here, when you enter the template here. In this case, we use hammer bars, but I'm not in the latest version of Ember from version 11. It's actually HTML bars. Here, you render a template. Give it a contact with my previous data object. The view, you can then append to a class in the DOM. In this very simple case, it just outputs pi under London. That's the output in JS Bin. I've since found out that there's actually Ember.js bin now. That looks really good. It's worth trying that out as well. After that, that's when it started to sink in for me. Then we had to go on to create a new Ember project. We use Ember CLI, just a command line interface, which you can just run from your terminal or on your virtual machine. I use a Ubuntu virtual box. The benefit to this is that it gives you a good project structure from the beginning. It uses ASX Transpillation, so you can use new features now before they're available in browsers. You have a lot of dependencies. To manage those, you use Bower and NPM, so you just have a Bower.json bar and a package.json bar, which keeps a list of all your dependencies. Again, because there's so many dependencies, you need, when you compile all these, all your assets, it needs to be fast. I know with GruntWatch, we'll watch an individual file. In this case, when you might have hundreds of different files, you need a fast process broccoli, so it uses, rather than individual files, it uses trees, directories of files instead, so it's a lot quicker. It gives you mock server so you can simulate your network requests. Live reload is basically so when you make a change to any of your files, it will automatically build all your assets and updates your browser in the screen. Now we also have, I don't think it was available, when I wouldn't start using it, I think I was using the beta version, I don't think it was available then, but now we have generators, so there is some boilerplate code when you're defining routes and controllers. You can just type in ember, generate, route, telegram, in my example. To create a new project, you need to install MSLI first, so just npm install globally, with a global switch, and then you just type in ember new and then the project name, so telegram, whatever you want to call it. If you have an existing file, you can just run ember in it within that folder. So that generates, that's my folder structure, so quite a lot of stuff there, but generally you'll just be looking in the app folder there. So again it gives you a good structure to know where to place all your files. Right, so if you go back to the app again, so from the beginning we need to think about what routes I wanted to create. So from here, so we have one route here for our login page, we have another one here for sign up, another one for reset password, that's three, and another one once you've reset the password and just says confirm that you've reset your password. So that's four on this route. So if we look at the actual router, so the parent route, as it were, is called a resource, so that's a namespace, respectively. So then within that we have this route just login with the optional parameter, if you want to change the name of the path here, so I've just changed it to the index route there. So we have four routes within that resource, and also on the next page, on the user page, you'll have a user post page, a user following and a followers, so that's another resource for the user page. So the objects that are created from the router, in this case will just be, so the resource will create telegram route, telegram controller, telegram view, and then for the routes will be telegram login routes, telegram login controller, et cetera. So looking at the login page, so this is my template, so this is just the form, the login form, so here this is just a form where we type in our username and password. So we have these input helpers that just take the value of the username and password, and you'll see that will then check it on the backend, on the server, and you'll see that if the login fails, then it will render a div and an alert that the password is on. So if I just type in, so login, so it's rendering that div because of the password. So on the controller for the login route, this is where we're checking if the username and password are correct. So we're doing a find on the store looking for the user. If the passwords match, then we have this controller.transitionToRoute path here. So if the username and password are correct, then it transitions to the route myStream. If not, it sets the login fail property to true, which is why that alert was rendered just now. Right, so now if we log in, so if I log in normally now, so now that we're on this page, so now we need to load some data in because we need to load the post data in. So for that we use EmberData, which is a library that manages your models. So it manages that within the browser. So it keeps the store within the browser, so it's a lot quicker. And that saves us having to use lots of extra codes in the past. You may use Ajax calls to load in JSON objects. So in my case, the two models are very simple, just users and posts. So this is just my user model. So we need to find the attributes here. Most of these are just going to be strings. Apart from obviously it's followed, true or false. And in posts, so we have user property here, because that's the author of the post, so that creates a one-to-one relationship between the posts and the, so that's one-to-one relationship between the two models, the post and the user model. Right, so in the route now for that MyStream route, so we return, so if you use this.store.filter and you filter it for posts, the operation, that's a back-end operation, so that's run on the server, and that will return all my posts and the posts of people that I'm following. Store.filter returns a live array so that if you were to add posts, so if I was to create a new post or delete a post, it keeps that array up-to-date. Right, so in here, I don't know if you noticed, but if I type a post again. Sorry, yes. Right, so you'll see as I type in, there's a character counter underneath, just like in Twitter. Also the date here, well, it's a few days ago, but this keeps up-to-date. So in Ember, what we can use to do that is computer properties. So the way I think of computer properties is like Excel cells. So if you've got like a formula in a cell, say for calculating VAT or something, I don't know, but that is dependent on another cell. Sorry, so it's a property that is derived from another property. And they do this by extending the function prototype. So this is my, again, my controller. So a new post, that's just the value of the text area. So obviously that will be empty, that's what I'm off with. And so the character count, computer property, it's just dependent on the value of new post or the length of that value. And so you define the computer property, we'll say dot property at the end, and you put in the two properties, new post and max length. Right, I just mentioned components. I haven't used components too much. I'm starting to kind of move my post into a separate post component. Because components allow you to define your own tags, HTML tags, which means you can reuse those anywhere else within your application. So my, originally my post looked like this. So I was just, so the HTML was in the, just within the template. So we have a link to helper there, which just links to the post root of the user. So now I've moved a lot of this code into a separate post component, sorry. And now I can just render it like this. So you're defining a new component post block, I've called it in this case, and it needs to have a hyphen in it. But I am on adding some more features to this and using more components in the future, adding like a repost, retweet component to it, a bit later on. So I think that's about it. Yeah, thanks. As you cast your mind back to when you were learning at the start, do you remember what are the things that were troubling for you or that didn't make sense when you first looked at the guides that now didn't make sense? Well, it's just a lot to take. I mean, being new to NBC as well is quite, again, doing it individually, like working with controllers first or then working with the user individually, that's what really helped me. I suppose having MSCLI as well gives you that structure so you know exactly where to put things. I'm obviously still learning, so I'm not being a... I can't do in my spare time, so it is taking a lot of time or something, but I think I will sort of get there. Hi. Had you come across some of this for the time of the course? No, I'd never heard of it before. No. So, because they just said of using the latest technology, I wasn't sure what that meant at the time. So, yeah, so that's good. Yeah, because I wasn't sure if it was going to be Angular at all or not, but I think that the guys are based in Canada, so I think they know who they are, I think they know them, so they're based in the same area, I think. So, just why, but I think that's one of the other reasons why they chose Ember. Hi. Hi. That was awesome. Oh, thanks. It's all right. No, that's cool. So now you've got your newfound sort of experience in Ember, what do you sort of see as the future? Is this something you're planning on taking forward to keep going? Yeah, well, I'll definitely, definitely, because this gave me an idea to kind of extend this app. I'd like to kind of tell it into like a sort of organiser, so I've kind of added another feature to it where I can import my own tweets into it. So, I thought I'd be convinced of a project for me just to sort of an import data into it and then start filtering it and searching and things like that. So, that's what I had to do next, just a little side project. So, you just work on this in your own time, basically? Yeah, it's in my, yeah, yeah. So, I've come a freelancer whenever I don't have constant work, so whenever I don't, I kind of work on my own book. That's awesome. I love seeing stuff like this. I mean, every one of us here has been in exactly the same positions. That's really cool. Yeah, thanks. That feels awesome. Yeah. Cheers. Thanks a lot.