Patrick Hayashi | Interview 3 | April 6, 2023

FARRELL: Okay, this is Shanna Farrell back with Patrick Hayashi on Thursday, April 6, 2023. We are talking over Zoom and this is our third session for the Japanese American Intergenerational Narratives Project. Pat, welcome back. It's nice to see you again.

HAYASHI: Good to see you.

FARRELL: When we left off last time, we started to talk a little bit about your career, and we talked about your time in Japan and coming back and your decision to return to UC Berkeley. And then in 1984, you were working as an analyst at Cal and then in student services as well, so you were working as the head of student conduct. Can you tell me a little bit about that role and what your experience was like?

HAYASHI: It was a halftime -- I was halftime 00:01:00as head of student conduct and halftime as an analyst. I was working for Assistant Vice Chancellor Bud Travers, who's a close friend of mine, and we played tennis together. We had worked as analysts together in the budget office and he needed someone right away, so he called me up and I could start the next day because I was a grad student basically, and that's how I got it. There wasn't a recruitment or anything like that.

FARRELL: Oh, okay, I see.

HAYASHI: The student conduct aspect was interesting. Before then, it had been handled by a student services guy and he I don't think understood the importance of 00:02:00student conduct for the university. I'm not sure if that's fair, but it seemed that way. When I took it over, it was kind of a shapeless office and set of responsibilities. You deal with academic misconduct and that gets complicated because a lot of departments have their own procedures but some departments would turn to our office to handle it because it's a difficult area. You don't quite know if the goal is to identify people who have cheated and or if it's to educate people about what plagiarism 00:03:00is and why it's not appropriate in a university setting and so there was always that tension there. There were issues of sexual assault and those were very, very difficult and largely because of how troubling that area is, and also because the survivor. In times that I had worked, they were all women, most of them, if not all of them, did not want to participate in hearings and for a variety of very understandable reasons. 00:04:00Sometimes when I thought that a case should be pursued, it involved bluffing because if the student got an attorney and they pushed it, I would just have to concede because I had no one willing to testify. So those were tough. The other part of it, there was one case that I was pursuing where the vice chancellor of my area, a guy named Mac Laetsch advised me and Bud that we should go easy on this one accused student. Because he said that when he was in college that there 00:05:00were women who they referred to as townies. This was at the University of Indiana and that there was a sense, a cultural sense, that they were fair game. That was the other part of it. You have an unsupportive boss and then you have a victim who did not want to be further traumatized through a formal hearing. In those cases, and there weren't many of them, I would have to run a bluff and usually it worked because the accused suddenly found himself in a difficult situation. 00:06:00The other part was student protest, and there were a lot of anti-apartheid protests at the time and that was very, very interesting to me. Intellectually interesting because it involved the right to assemble and free speech and protest. I was lucky I found a long essay by Laurence Tribe, who is now retired. He taught at Harvard, he was Barack Obama's law professor, and he wrote an essay on how to think about protest, free speech, and forums. For example, that there are certain forums like 00:07:00Hyde Park and Sproul steps where, through custom, there was the establishment of absolute free speech rights. That you could limit those rights because it's an office building and that serves students. You could limit those rights to certain hours, but you couldn't limit the speech, and so that was our free speech venue. Then there were issues about other places like Sproul Plaza, which has limited but pretty broad freedoms. And then you have classrooms where their faculty 00:08:00have academic freedom and students, to a certain extent, have that too, just speak their mind, but that's limited. If you're in a math class, you can't disrupt the class to talk about anti-apartheid. It was intellectually fascinating to parse those out and then to try to put them into place.

FARRELL: Yeah, that sounds really interesting, and I'm wondering how that rolled into your role as special assistant to Mike Heyman who was the chancellor, and you started that in 1986?

HAYASHI: What happened is that there was a protest management group that would meet regularly 00:09:00and it had about thirty people in it. The chief of police, his assistant, head of grounds maintenance because a lot had to do with removal of things and things like that, public affairs, and the office of student conduct, and I was there in my role as student conduct. But one of the things you find out in intense crises, which are sometimes physically dangerous, that some people show up regularly and other people never show up regularly. I was among the group of people who showed up, and so you get to know each other 00:10:00in tough times and you pay attention to who shows up. I became friends with John Cummins, who is Chancellor Heyman's assistant, key assistant. John was amazing and so John was then given additional duties. He was asked to take over public information for a while, so I was brought in to backfill, to take over the things that John didn't do. One of the things about working directly for the chancellor or a chancellor Mike Heyman is that John and I would meet with him every morning at 9:00, and we were his first meeting. We'd go over the day and we just talk about things. 00:11:00Mike was a tough guy, he was trained as a city planner and also a lawyer, and he had clerked for Earl Warren and so he had a liberal frame of mind. The idea that he would be accused of suppressing free speech or suppressing protest was hard for him and so we worked together in that kind of maelstrom of constant protests. There was one protest outside of California Hall where the chancellor's office was and students and non-students alike had built a shantytown 00:12:00around the building or in the front of the building. God, there must've been ten or eleven shanties, they're build out of plywood, and they had roofs and things. There were twenty-four-hour protests, so they were constantly occupied. We cleared away the entrance to the door but you'd had to walk through them; people would be shouting at you and everything. The fire marshal said that it was a fire hazard, which it was, but in instances like that, you often ask the fire marshal to declare it a fire hazard. There was a decision to go and remove the protesters and to tear down the shanties 00:13:00and for reasons I think of safety, they decided to do it at midnight where there weren't other students who would be endangered or attracted to join the protesters. The police brought in a bus and they had powerful searchlights all set up, so everyone could see what it was doing. The officer in command ordered students to disperse and said that if they did not disperse, they would be arrested. Some left, most did not because in situations like that, it's hard to get up and leave. Then 00:14:00they started to arrest and they were using those of plastic zip ties as handcuffs. That's what they used pretty much everywhere now and they're very effective. But they ran out of them and so they would arrest people and release them because they couldn't take more. The students and protesters that they released went back and joined the protest and so it was a real botched arrest. Word got out that the arrests were taking place and so students from the dormitories came and they started to sit down. There was a very militant protest group of students and nonstudents called By Any Means Necessary 00:15:00and so what they started to do is break up the cement bicycle racks. The police were close to the shantytown, they were flanked by protesters who were sitting in peacefully, including a lot of the students from the dorms who had come just to show support. The students By Any Means necessary began throwing huge rocks. I mean these are like four inches by four inches, they're broken up cement basically, over the demonstrators at the police. One of my friends got his shield broken in half, that was how violent it was, 00:16:00and the police weren't going to just take it because they could actually get killed. They went through the students who were passively demonstrating to get to the people who were throwing at them and it was just a mess. One demonstrator got his leg broken seriously and there were things like that going on. I don't think that the police called for mutual assistance. Sometimes when protests get out of control, they'll ask adjacent agencies to send police officers to help. But they're reluctant to do that because the officers, 00:17:00say, in Oakland volunteer to do it. What I was told by other police officers is that the police officers who volunteer, volunteer because they want to go crack some student heads and saw Berkeley students as privileged and arrogant and so there was always a reluctance to call in mutual aid. That's the kind of stuff I did in the protest management part.

FARRELL: I see, and then in 1998, Michael Heyman also appointed you associate vice chancellor for admissions and enrollment, and this, from what I understand, was in the midst of a controversy over Asian American admissions? At the same time, you became the highest-ranking API administrator in the UC system. Can you tell me a 00:18:00little bit about stepping into that role and some of the context around it?

HAYASHI: Beginning around 1980, Asian American admissions started to grow steadily and substantially, and then suddenly in 1986, the growth stopped. Community leaders such as Henry Der and Ling-chi Wang accused the campus of using illegal racial quotas. Ling-chi Wang wrote an article comparing Berkeley's Asian American admissions to the attempts by Ivy League universities in the ‘30s and ‘40s and ‘50s to suppress the 00:19:00growth of Jewish admissions. He didn't get the particulars right, but he got the attitude right. There was growing concern, particularly from people involved in development, that the growth of Asian American admissions was leading to a sharp drop in particularly white male admissions and that would lead to real problems with respect to fundraising and maintaining alumni support. 00:20:00I think people had a very, very difficult time imagining the campus as anything other than a majority-white campus because that's what it's always been. The director of admissions, Robert Bailey, took an action where he restricted EOP [Educational Opportunity Program] admission, these were low-income students. But he exempted from that restriction Black and Hispanic students, so it 00:21:00affected only Asian Americans. That led to not a drop in admissions but a capping of the admissions, and that's what led to the protests. The chancellor steadfastly believed because of the reassurances of vice chancellor Laetsch who was overseeing student affairs and admissions at the time that we had clean hands in this whole thing. But Bob Bailey had written this memo outlining the steps. He directed his staff to withdraw the special 00:22:00treatment of Asian American admissions in EOP, and that became public, and it was seen as a smoking gun. But it took two years for it to become public and Heyman was being fully criticized all over the world. Because Berkeley was a bastion of liberalism and progressive politics and especially in Asia, the Asian Wall Street Journal and major magazines and newspapers criticized saying the slowing down and restriction of Asian American admissions makes no sense at all unless something illegal was taking place. Then Bob Bailey's letter comes out and that's seen as the direct evidence of motivation to suppress 00:23:00Asian American admissions. When that came out, Mike Heyman decided to use an upcoming hearing chaired by Tom Hayden on Asian American admissions. While he didn't acknowledge deliberate actions to suppress admissions, he did say that the campus should've been more sensitive and all, and formally apologized, and that broke the logjam. Other legislators came in to the hearing room and congratulated him for his candor and courage, and they were glad that the issue had been opened up. 00:24:00After his hearing, after his apology, Asian leaders said, "That's great, thank you, we appreciate it, but you have no Asians in any top-level positions. If you mean what you say, you'll start by appointing at least one because if Asians had been in your cabinet, it's unlikely that this would've happened." In our morning nine o'clock meeting, he was pacing around and saying, "They're right, Pat. I need to find an Asian American, but where in the hell can I find one?" He looked at me, and John talked to him and said, "Why don't you put Pat in that position?" That's how I got the position. I jumped up four 00:25:00levels, and my appointment was covered in Newsweek, the Economist, Der Spiegel, the Asian Wall Street Journal. It was international news actually.

FARRELL: How did you feel about being appointed on the heels of all of that?

HAYASHI: Scared -- I wasn't prepared. Usually when someone gets appointed to that kind of level, that kind of position overseeing a controversial policy area and an extremely complex administrative set of units like financial aid and admissions and the registrar's office, usually you work your way up over a period of twenty years at least. In the process, 00:26:00you learn about the different areas and you have hands-on experiences, too, what the day-to-day work involves. I didn't bring any of that experience with me and so I didn't know what I was doing. In retrospect, I didn't learn it very well. The hardest part for me and the part that I never got right was managing people. I turned out not to be very good at that; I'm not quite sure why. Part of it is because management too is not an intuitive thing; it takes training. The best training takes place incrementally and so that you learn by observing other people and you learn by correcting the mistakes you 00:27:00make. You learn what's legal and what's not and then you learn what's permissible and what's not, and those are different things. On the other hand, in terms of policy development and political skills on the national level and the state level, I was quite good. I could think through policy issues and I could think through political issues skillfully. I don't know where that came from. I think it probably came from having served as head of Asian American studies where again when I was twenty-six or twenty-seven, I found myself at the head of a program. That required negotiations with academic senate committees and other administrative committees on campus 00:28:00and so I learned how to think things through. I was trained to some extent on those kinds of areas.

FARRELL: Well, then a year later in 1999, you became the associate president of UCOP, and you were serving under Richard Atkinson. Thinking about policy, one of the initiatives that you were involved in was challenging the SAT and the National Merit Scholarship Program. I know that you had criticized the standardized college admission tests because they unfairly discriminate people of color and disadvantaged students. I'm wondering if you could tell me a little bit more about why you decided to take that issue on and what it was like for you to challenge the testing admissions?

HAYASHI: I stayed in the associate vice chancellor position at Berkeley 00:29:00for about ten years, and then in '88 --

FARRELL: Okay, oh, I read the dates wrong -- you're right. I read it as 1998 instead of 1988. Sorry -- yes, it was ten years later, not the next year. Thank you for correcting me.

HAYASHI: One of the things that happened because I was one of the few high-level, high-ranking Asian Americans in higher education is that I got invited to serve on committees that I shouldn't have been invited to. Because nationally, people were starting to be aware that Asian Americans should be included in policy discussions. One of the first things I was invited to was 00:30:00a college board committee headed by Harvard President Derek Bok and UC President David Gardner, the most prestigious private and public universities. The question was should they revise the SAT and turn it from a two-part test -- SAT writing and SAT Math -- SAT English, SAT Math, and include a third part, the SAT Writing which would require students to demonstrate their proficiency in writing. It was about a thirty-person committee and extremely prestigious people. For example, what would be called the secretary of education under Lyndon Johnson, 00:31:00Harold Doc Howe was a member. Diane Ravitch, who was a distinguished professor at NYU, I think, or Columbia, and also former assistant secretary of education for higher education was on it. A couple of school superintendents from I think Chicago and Atlanta were on it, some very prominent academics, and me. It was balanced in terms of gender and ethnicity. I was the only Asian and I figured that after the Asian American controversy, UC President David Gardner could not chair a committee that did not include at least one Asian and I was the only one he could think of. 00:32:00I was really nervous because I knew why I was there and I also knew that I was not qualified to be there in terms of experience or expertise. At the first meeting, Harold Doc Howe, Johnson's secretary of education, said that he began with the assumption that a person's writing ability was a direct reflection of the person's thinking ability. If a person did not write well, could write well that that was direct evidence that the person was a faulty thinker. When he said that, I was shocked because I had taught freshman reading 00:33:00and composition and Asian American studies for four years. I expected the people of color around the committee or anyone to sharply disagree with him, but nobody did. Not only did people not disagree, they strongly supported his assertion, so I raised my hand. Now in a committee like that, you don't raise your hand, you just interrupt. And because you're prestigious, otherwise you wouldn't have been on the committee, you expect to be listened to. I had written little notes to myself, and Derek Bok 00:34:00was chairing the committee, and he saw my hand. He said, "I believe Mr. Hayashi would like to say something." Very weird interaction. My hands are actually trembling visibly in front of me and I said, "Secretary Howe begins with the assumption that a person's writing ability reflects that person's thinking ability. I don't begin with that assumption. Instead I turn it into a question, and the question is to what extent does a person's writing ability reflect that person's ability to think?" I said, "When you pose it as a question, 00:35:00the answer becomes obvious, it depends. If a person is new to the country or if the person is poor and has attended poor schools where the quality of education is low, then it's incorrect and unfair to think that a person's writing ability reflects that person's thinking ability. Because oftentimes people just haven't had the opportunity and the assistance to develop writing ability."

FARRELL: Yeah, and it calls into question, by whose standards?

HAYASHI: Sure, yeah.

FARRELL: It's not the same for everyone for exactly the reasons that you're describing.

HAYASHI: Well, also, when I taught writing to freshman, writing in Asian American studies, 00:36:00I learned that there are certain grammatical errors that students make that a traditional English teacher would regard as a fundamental serious error. But they're really artifacts of the person's native language like subject-verb agreement in Chinese speakers and things like that. If you understand that, then you can develop strategies for addressing it. The main strategy is to say, "When you're speaking Cantonese, these things happen, and when you're writing in English, the same things happen. Just be aware of that and when you finish your paper, go back and correct them, 00:37:00you know how to correct them." It's a trivial matter really. Anyway, that remark was greeted with dead silence, no one said anything, and it was the silence that really pissed me off, and then Bok called for a break. When I got back to Berkeley, I said that many people on the committee asked me to explain my views further. That was a lie; no one asked me. I wrote to everyone an open letter to the committee and I got one response. It was from Diane Ravitch who, at the time, was known for being 00:38:00very conservative -- she's since changed. She challenged me and so she and I had a series of open letters with cc's to the rest of the committee members. One of the things that happens when you work on a college board committee is you have to sign a confidentiality agreement that the materials you receive in the meetings, you had to keep confidential. What I was doing by writing these letters, public letters was establishing my own body of thought and work that was not subject to the college board's confidentiality agreement. She and I went back and forth and back and forth. She said that if we want 00:39:00to assess a student's said writing ability may be the most important ability for students to have in order to succeed in college. I agreed with that, and she said, "If that's the case, then we have to directly assess how well they write, that's why they must write an essay." After about three or four exchanges like this, I said, "We agree on this, but why are you supporting this test? Because this test does not involve an essay, it involves simple multiple choice questions, and students won't have to write a single word?" Well, she didn't realize that, she thought an essay was involved, and so she had egg on her face and she wrote to me conceding. 00:40:00She didn't say she didn't know that, but she said that, yes, it has to have an essay, and that was the only letter that she did not cc everyone, she just wrote to me. But when I sent my response, I sent a copy of her letter to everyone, and then she essentially dropped off the committee. I think she felt humiliated and then the whole thing was dropped. Because the other thing I did is Gardner was known for having never chaired a committee where a minority report was filed. The college board used to call me all the time 00:41:00and I said that one of the reasons I'm writing these letters is so that I have my own intellectual property because unless things change dramatically, I'm going to write a minority report and included this correspondence in the minority report. I knew that would get back to David, and it did. At which point, he started to call me after work weekly. His assistant, who I knew quite well, would say, "Dr. Gardner would like to talk to you if you are free at six o'clock." "Sure, I'm free." He would call me and he was wonderful. He never tried to change my mind, he actually listened, and in the end, he agreed with me, and so that that was it. 00:42:00FARRELL: How long did that go on for?

HAYASHI: One year.

FARRELL: It was a year, okay.

HAYASHI: Yeah.

FARRELL: Okay, it's quite the year it sounds like.

HAYASHI: Yeah, it was. It was interesting. The head of the college board was a man named Don Stewart, an African American man who had been the president of Spellman and a nice guy, a smart guy. But as I said, usually if you get to serve on a national commission, that means that you had served on state commissions for the college board, regional commissions and had been vetted. The people who got on the national commissions 00:43:00were people who were strong supporters of the college board. It was interesting, then Donald retired, and he was then replaced by a man named Gaston Caperton who had been the governor of West Virginia and didn't have a PhD, wasn't an academician, but was a superb politician. I don't know how I met him, but he recommended that I be made a trustee of the college board, 00:44:00and his staff really fought that. They said, "Do not let him be a trustee of the college board because of the history," but he just overrode them and he appointed me a trustee. I served for four years. It was in that position that I was serving as a trustee when Dick Atkinson led his challenge to the SAT. It was an awkward kind of position, though it was beneficial in the end.

FARRELL: Yeah, yeah, that's really interesting. You did decide to retire in the early 2000s, in 2004. What went into your decision to retire?

HAYASHI: Well, we should actually go back to the SAT for a while. Is that okay? Dick Atkinson was in his last year as president and 00:45:00when he was cognitive scientist, he was the most frequently cited social scientist in the world. He had been the youngest head of the National Science Foundation and I think he was the youngest chancellor at UC San Diego so throughout his life, he was associated with academic excellence at the highest levels. It might have been Christmas -- I'm not sure -- he went home to see his daughter and granddaughter in Florida. His granddaughter, who is I think in the seventh or eighth grade, was studying verbal analogies in 00:46:00preparation for the SAT. He came back and he said, "What the hell are these verbal analogies and why are people testing them?" I said to him, "Dick, verbal analogies assess one's deep knowledge of the structure and meaning of the English language." He looked at me and he says, "What theory of cognitive development justifies that bullshit?" Knowing that he's the most eminent cognitive scientist in the world, I decided not to argue with him. He said, "Look, Pat, if you don't 00:47:00know the meaning of one of the words in the analogy, no amount of intelligence will get you to the right answer. But if you do know the meaning, the reasoning involved is trivial. Throughout the history of testing, test makers have often used vocabulary tests, which this is, to introduce a strong class bias into the test because vocabulary is strongly associated with class and education." He says, "I think I should take on the SAT." He said, "I think I'm probably the only person in the country who can do that." Because of his intellectual and academic credentials, 00:48:00the fact that he's always been associated with academic excellence at the very highest levels, and because he knew a lot about testing. I actually tried to talk him out of it because I thought it would suck all the time out of his remaining months in the job, which it did. He was invited to give a talk to the American Council on Education, and some previous speakers had been Bill Clinton and Kofi Annan who was the head of the United Nations. It was a highly prestigious invitation, so he decided to unveil his challenge to the SAT there. 00:49:00It fell to me to write his talk. I was working principally with a man named Saul Geiser who was a head of student research, a very, very smart guy, PhD in sociology from Berkeley. When I structured the talk, I was heavily influenced by an essay by Neil Smelser on meritocratic and egalitarian values in California higher education. That California higher education always worked to strike a balance between academic values and democratic values, and is most prominently shown in our A–G requirements. 00:50:00That we set certain curricular requirements in English, math, and so forth and then we set an academic floor. You have to have a 3.0 or something in these A–G requirements. But the requirements can be met in any high school in the state, and we accept grades for all high schools as equal. A C in a poor urban school means the same as a C in Head-Royce. I used that framework and developed the essay in terms 00:51:00of what should a test do. How does it reflect a balancing of meritocratic and egalitarian values and why the SAT fails to meet that balancing test in part because of its construction? It was interesting because I would write it sometimes in conjunction with Saul Geiser, but mainly me. Yeah, Saul would do the technical parts and give it to Dick, and Dick was a superb editor. He would edit using editorial nomenclature, markings and would turn it around in fifteen minutes. It would be really well edited, mainly 00:52:00clarifying thoughts and then simplifying because he liked to write in a simple way. One of the things I always did when I worked for a top executive is I would learn what they read for pleasure. Dick would read on average three books a week and they were always nonfiction and usually biography. I don't know why I mentioned that, but it was important for me to know it. Dick would have the draft in his drawer and when his most trusted people came by, he would share it with them 00:53:00sometimes -- people like Judd King. They're smart, and they know higher education, and they would give him feedback. He kept it from his chancellors because he knew that some of the chancellors, if they found that he was going to challenge SAT, would go to the regents and try to find a way to stop him. Because the chancellors, some of them were real believers in the SAT. Some of them had actually personally benefited from the SAT and identified as high achievers. That was an interesting dimension of it. We went through I think twenty-six drafts, 00:54:00and the twenty-sixth draft was leaked. I think the penultimate draft was given to our public affairs unit so that they could get it ready to hand to the press and anyone. One person had left that program disgruntled and he leaked it. The day before Dick's speech, it was covered in all the major newspapers. The headline says president of the University California plans to challenge the SAT, so that the meeting itself was standing-room only. I mean it was a huge auditorium and there were TV cameras, everything, 00:55:00and so it was a huge thing. I think the next morning he was on Good Morning America and things like that. That's how it all came about.

FARRELL: That's really interesting. Do you mind if we pause for like five minutes and come back?

HAYASHI: Sure.

FARRELL: Okay, that will be great.

HAYASHI: Sure.

FARRELL: Okay, great, I'm going to pause the recording, and I'll see you in a couple of minutes.

HAYASHI: Okay. [BREAK IN VIDEO]

FARRELL: All right, we are back. When we left off, you were talking a little bit about the SATs and I'm wondering how all of that resolved, if you can say that it has at this point? [laughs]

HAYASHI: Partially resolved, the college board did a little secret survey and they found out in their survey 00:56:00that while many of the major users of the SAT would continue to use it no matter what, California institutions would probably drop it. The University of California was the largest user in the country so that was problematic, so Gaston made some concessions. But in hindsight, Dick's challenge was the start of a series of challenges and that this organization called FairTest worked tenaciously with 00:57:00universities around the country, particularly selective private universities, and got them to make the SAT optional. Once they made the SAT optional, I think all of the universities involved decided that that was a good decision. Because what it did is it encouraged people with lower test scores to apply and they found that those students were indistinguishable from students with high test scores in terms of how well the fared once they were enrolled. They always scrambled “to make their class,” as they call it, to fill it up because of if you're even just 00:58:00ten or twenty students short of your enrolment goal, then you have the beginning of major financial problems. They started that and then at the same time, people within UC started to question the SAT. I think that a chancellor at Santa Cruz -- I don't remember her name -- and Carol Christ at Berkeley publicly questioned the SAT. I don't know if Carol had made it optional at Smith, but once that started, the regents and the chair of the regents, John Perez, 00:59:00contacted me. John had been a student at Berkeley and he was a really, really bright guy. He became speaker of the house and he grew up in labor politics, he was an organizer. He knew that I had done work on the SAT, so when the regents were contemplating it, he asked if I would write a couple papers for him, briefing him, and I did. I said, "The fundamental question is how do you evaluate merit in a democracy?" I said, "I don't really know the answer." I said, "Part of the answer is that you evaluate it in the context of opportunity, how can that 01:00:00be developed in many ways. But I do know one thing, we would not use the SAT, if we're to start now, we would not use the SAT for these reasons." Now there's a widespread universal misconception that Dick and others challenged the SAT because underrepresented students and poor students tended to do poorly on it. That is a fact, but that's not the reason people challenged the SAT. They challenged the SAT because it's a really bad test as a test. The SAT is what's called a norm-referenced test. They take the answers to the tests and they weigh 01:01:00them in a way that creates a bell curve so that you distribute the respondents across a bell curve. In selective universities, you're only concerned with the right side tail of the bell curve where the high scores fall. There, what you end up doing is you end up making monumental decisions based on trivial differences in answers. One or two wrong answers or right answers can make the difference between whether you're accepted in a highly selective university or not. The other way of 01:02:00distributing the test is to have -- I forgot the name of it -- criterion-referenced test. You distribute the scores on the basis of whether students got the questions right or wrong. In a criterion-referenced distribution, theoretically, everyone could get 100. It's a much better test to use because it gives you direct information as to what areas a student is strong in and what areas a student is weak in. That provides you with a basis for looking at it and understanding whether, say, Berkeley has the resources to address a student who 01:03:00has a weakness in certain areas of mathematics or English. I have a friend who's been the president of several small Catholic universities. He uses test like that to make sure that the students that he admits are those who the university has the capacity to serve. Tests can be useful. I'm not an anti-test guy, but I'm anti-SAT.

FARRELL: I do want to turn a little bit to your retirement in 2004. What went into your decision to retire?

HAYASHI: Could we talk about the National Merit Scholars Program? 01:04:00FARRELL: Yes, we can definitely talk about that, but I do want to be conscious of time as well because we only have about forty minutes left, and I want to make sure we're talking about Topaz as well and some of your artwork.

HAYASHI: Okay. I was in a cabinet meeting with Chancellor Tien, and he looked at The Chronicle of Higher Education, and it ranked universities on the basis of National Merit Scholars. Harvard was number one and Berkeley was number twenty-two. He looked at me in an open cabinet meeting and he says, "This is a disgrace." I tried to explain why it wasn't and I wrote him a memo why it's not good to participate in the program, and he didn't care. He ordered us to participate, so the next year we were number two behind Harvard. 01:05:00If you formally participate in the National Merit Scholars Program, you have to agree to give every National Merit Scholar you admit a stipend. At the time, it was $2500 a year, and you guarantee it for four years. Most National Merit Scholars are wealthy so that meant that you were literally taking money from poor students and giving it to rich students. But Tien didn't care, he wanted us to be ranked high. When Bob Berdahl came in, and we met with him, we explained it to him, he said, "Let's get out of the program," so we got out of the program. Later, I established a campaign to get all campuses to drop the program. The academic senate 01:06:00resisted it because they thought I was just concerned because there's zero Black National Merit Scholars. But when they studied it for a year, they were aghast at what a terrible program it is, psychometrically, educationally, socially, so all universities, all campuses had dropped out. I'm proud of that by the way.

FARRELL: As I think you should be. Those are I think a couple of really big, big deals but also big accomplishments too.

HAYASHI: Now we would talk about -- ?

FARRELL: Well yeah, so I am curious to know about your decision to retire.

HAYASHI: I retired at sixty or sixty-one, and I retired because Dick retired.

FARRELL: Okay.

HAYASHI: I just did not want to work for anyone else. 01:07:00I liked working for him quite a lot.

FARRELL: That make sense. So it's as simple as that.

HAYASHI: Yeah, it was.

FARRELL: You also had a long career too. But returning to your relationship with Topaz over the years, I know that you became more involved with Topaz in your personal relationship to the site as time went on. It took a little bit of time. I know one of the pivotal parts of this was a 1972 exhibit that you went to at Berkeley. Can you tell me a little bit about that exhibit that you went to?

HAYASHI: Well, there are two exhibits. One was at Berkeley called the Executive Order 01:08:009066, forty-five photographs. They were blown up, so it was quite big. Many of the photographs were by Dorothea Lange and so they were extremely beautiful photographs. The beautiful tonalities of her black-and-white images, and she had an amazing compositional eye, and a great gift for capturing emotion and feeling through body language and gesture. When I went in there, that had a huge effect on me because it was like I was walking through my family scrapbook, which we didn't have because for 01:09:00the first couple of years, the camps prohibited photography. It sort of created images in my mind where I didn't have them before. At that exhibit, I volunteered to sell the exhibition catalogs. The person organizing it asked if I had been born in a camp. I said, "Yeah, Topaz." She said, "Well, would you like to wear one of these nametags that everyone wore with Topaz on it?" I said, "Yeah," and then I put it on it, and it must be like the Star of David the Jews wore -- the armbands that Jews were required to wear. When you put it on, it takes you back in time and creates a deep 01:10:00connection with everything that people went through. I talked to this old, white woman who came up to me while I was selling the catalogs and said, "I think it was shameful and terrible what we did to you Japs," not realizing that that's a terrible word. However, she was well-meaning. It captured in a just a brief second the difficulty of talking about the camps with white people or Black people or Hispanic people. Japanese Americans have a feeling for it that's so deep and complex and so unarticulated that it creates this communication gap and emotional gap that we're gradually 01:11:00chipping away at.

FARRELL: I think that's a pretty salient example of what you're just describing. Another exhibit you went to, were there drawings of James Wakasa?

HAYASHI: There was -- my mom told me the story of Mr. Wakasa.

FARRELL: Right, and then didn't one of the first pieces that you ended up buying was a rendering of him?

HAYASHI: No, this was in 1984, I think. It was called The View from Within. It was an exhibit of camp art in the San Jose Museum. At the time, I had zero interest in art and I didn't feel comfortable in museums. They seem like high culture and 01:12:00I didn't how to behave, I didn't know if I could talk, and I didn't know how to move. But I went in and as soon as I went in, I choked up. I don't know why. The first paintings were landscapes and still lifes. I turned the corner, and there was Chiura Obata's Sumi sketch of James Wakasa falling over after he was shot, and I just started to cry. I was embarrassed but the gallery was filled with Nisei and Issei too, and they were all crying. I think that it just captured something that was horrific and captured the 01:13:00terror that, oh, permeated life in the camps, and that we never talked about except that my mother told me that one story.

FARRELL: Yeah and you, after that, started collecting Obata's pieces, right?

HAYASHI: I used to go to a little art store and framing shop on Shattuck called NIKKO, and they did Obata's framing.

FARRELL: Oh, okay.

HAYASHI: Yeah, I went in there, and there was a brush painting of a place that looked like Topaz and so I said, "Is that Topaz?" He said, "Yeah." I asked, "Is it for sale?" They said, " Yeah," and so I bought it. It cost me $700. It was in this brocade mat with a handmade bamboo frame. When I bought it, she said, "You actually bought two paintings," 01:14:00and she opened a compartment in the back, and there was another small brush sketches with his poetry and all written in Japanese.

FARRELL: Wow.

HAYASHI: I had the other framed, and that led to me collecting camp art. She knew I was interested in it, so if she heard anything, she'd contact me. Hmm, I had a collection of about twenty or twenty-five pieces, and they were nice. I ended up donating them to Stanford about a year ago and they put that into their inaugural exhibit of Asian American art. They have an Asian American Art Initiative there and it was interesting to give to Stanford. A good question is why didn't I give them 01:15:00to Berkeley? Well, the answer was that Stanford had an organization focusing on that with two young, very young, very brilliant women -- one is [an art historian] and the other is a curator -- and they're amazing. They're absolutely amazing.

FARRELL: Yeah, I believe I watched the talk when that exhibit was opening that you participated in.

HAYASHI: Oh, Masako and I? Yeah.

FARRELL: Yes, yeah, exactly. Those pieces, the camp pieces, is it just related to Topaz, or are you interested in other sites as well?

HAYASHI: I'm interested in all the sites, yeah.

FARRELL: Going to the 1972 Executive Order 9066 exhibit at Berkeley and then the '84 View from Within show, how 01:16:00did that impact your relationship with Topaz?

HAYASHI: I'm typical of third-generation Japanese Americans; we grow up hearing next to nothing about the camps. My friend Judy Sakaki, who was president of Sonoma State, when she heard her parents talk about the camp, she thought it was a summer recreation camp. That's not an uncommon misunderstanding because people just didn't talk about them typically. I think it's this odd thing. Jews have studied the intergenerational transmission of trauma and I think trauma can be transmitted nonverbally 01:17:00and because the silence among Japanese Americans, among everyone, is textured. Different types of silence mean different things and convey different emotions, and I think that's how I learned about the emotional tone of the camps and the devastation it had. Once I got involved in Asian American studies and we're studying about myself and my history, it was no longer a point of embarrassment but a point curiosity. Then gradually over my lifetime, I started to fill in the blanks and create a mosaic. It is a mosaic because it doesn't hang together all that well. There are particular images that had a great impact on me. One was 01:18:00a decapitated man who, because of how he felt about camps, put his head on a railroad track. You look at that and you think, my God, how could this happen, and what led to this? Over time, I just learned more and more and more and more and then I served on the California Civil Liberties Public Education Fund, which was first a federal and then a state program where over the years we gave about $10 million for projects related to the camps. I would read them all like back in my contracts and grant days. It was just a great source of education to learn more and more and more about camps, about the literature, the sociology, the law, 01:19:00the religion. Very little is known about religion in the camps, the interesting thing, and things like that. Young people addressing the camps through comic books and other people doing painting, having plays, creating dances, writing histories. It was a wonderful education.

FARRELL: It led you to start to do your own art practice as well, and I'm wondering how you came to art at that point in your life?

HAYASHI: I contacted Obata's family and his granddaughter Kimi Kodani Hill said that Obata's main student was a woman named Shirley Rencher 01:20:00Miller who lived out in Walnut Creek. I contacted her and I started taking brush painting lessons from her. My theory was that brush painting ability was genetically encoded in me, and I just had to clear my mind and the ink would flow. [laughs] Well, that was wrong, and I was terrible. It's extremely difficult because it's unforgiving. You make your mark and there it is, so you better know what you're doing. But to learn what you're doing takes a lifetime. I have in the corner a bamboo brush painting by Obata, and it's probably fifteen strokes. They're graded tonally, some edges are lost and found, some edges are sharp, it's just masterful. 01:21:00The composition had mainly white space, and that's how I got to start at art. Once I realized I would never be a good brush painter, I just started taking university extension classes and I liked it. I don't have many regrets in my life, but one regret is that I took up art and singing too late. I wish I had taken it up when I was a kid and stuck with it because my life would've been richer. I would've been a much better policy analyst, a much better political strategist.

FARRELL: Yeah, it's interesting at what point we come to different things and then having hindsight about how it might have been back. You've also dabbled with different mediums as well, like 01:22:00you were just mentioning brush paintings and I know that you've done some dying textiles. You also did some smoke and fire after discovering you could do that by accident when you had a kitchen fire?

HAYASHI: Probably the most interesting medium is the one I discovered about how to paint with smoke. I had monotype that I had made, a print of red fire ants that I hated and so I took it to the sink to burn it and it flared up. I hit it with a spatula, and it flipped over, and the back was beautiful. It looked like a Zen painting. For the next several months, I just started trying just put smoke on paper or set fire to paper. I tried 01:23:00different kinds of matches and ended up using little, tiny kerosene lamp because kerosene has a dirty smoke and the smoke has to have soot in it, and so that's what creates the image. I ended up working primarily as a Tonalist landscape painter. The most prominent American Tonalists were [James Abbott McNeil] Whistler and [George] Inness and they don't try to depict a particular place. Instead they try to evoke a spiritual mood and that's what I try to do in my paintings. When I do it well, it succeeds. The challenge is that if I do it too often, I get too skilled, 01:24:00and part of the charm of the medium is when things are not terribly clear. There's usually only one section in each painting, which you can read unambiguously, the rest is ambiguous.

FARRELL: Yes, you want it to maintain that the audience is getting a feeling?

HAYASHI: Yeah, I had a show on The Faculty Club, and Carol Christ contacted me and said she'd like to buy some of those smoke paintings. I said, "No, I'll give them to you" because I give away my work now -- I don't sell it -- but I haven't gotten around to it. Now because of this conversation, I'll start getting her paintings done.

FARRELL: How often --

HAYASHI: You know --

FARRELL: Oh, go ahead.

HAYASHI: Carol plays the viola and I'm told that 01:25:00she has a trained voice, soprano I think. I think that those are important things to know about her because it talks about another dimension of her that most people probably don't know about.

FARRELL: Yeah, yeah. How often are you making work these days?

HAYASHI: Pretty much daily.

FARRELL: Oh, okay, okay.

HAYASHI: But my latest, [shows wrapped rocks] I've been wrapping rocks.

FARRELL: Oh cool.

HAYASHI: I was completely uninspired and so I said, “Well, let's try and do something completely different.” I got some cane and started wrapping rocks. It's kind of fun. 01:26:00FARRELL: I appreciate that, like the try something different. Well, another thing I wanted to ask you about was you had mentioned in another interview that we did that you worked a little bit with the Topaz Museum and did some summer workshop with Jane Beckwith for Utah teachers. There are about thirty teachers per workshop. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about how you got involved with the Topaz Museum and what those teacher trainings were like for you?

HAYASHI: When I heard about the Topaz Museum, that that Jane was considering making one, I contacted her. I said, "Thank you for doing this, that's wonderful, I'd be glad to help." She asked me to join the board, but I don't like being on boards, so I declined. She said that she had started to give workshops during the summer 01:27:00to Topaz or Utah teachers in their continuing education workshops and so she invited me to participate in that, and I would go. They were two days in the classroom and one day at Topaz. I went to Delta where she lives -- well, they were actually held Salt Lake City -- and the night before, we would always have dinner and then we'd spend two and a half days together and so I got to know her quite well, and I admired her. It's hard to do something single-handedly like that, yeah, and then something happened. They were developing the display text for the new 01:28:00museum that they built. I don't know how it happened, but the proposed text got released for public comment. Some people, principally Nancy Ukai and Chizu Omori and others, were alarmed by the text. They thought it saw Japanese Americans in the model minority myth context and they thought that it was a whitewashing of the experience. There was no examination of the harshness of the camps. The National Park Service, which was partially funding the museum, heard about the controversy. They paused funding 01:29:00because they didn't want to get involved in internecine community battle. They convened some meetings and then they reconstituted the committee, the oversight committee, and they recruited a man named Franklin Odo, who was head of the Japanese American section in the Smithsonian and an eminent historian, and he chaired the committee. Another woman Cherstin Lyon who was a professor at Fullerton had written a major book on resistors in the camps. They reshaped the exhibit, they brought in a professional exhibit designer. Franklin's view and one that I share, was that the 01:30:00design came out okay. It's not perfect because a lot of it had been built out already and so the degrees of freedom were limited as to how it can be changed, but it came out well considering. I was invited to talk to the California Historical Society and I spoke. I spoke about this challenge about how to shape the exhibit. I spoke about the responsibilities of the public museum and making everything up as I went along. I thought I was quite complimentary to Jane, and I sent her a link to my talk, and I 01:31:00never heard from her again.

FARRELL: Was this the 2016 Day of Remembrance talk?

HAYASHI: Yes.

FARRELL: Okay. Yeah, that's interesting.

HAYASHI: She had asked me to be the keynote speaker when the museum was opened, but after that talk, I never heard from her. Not a word.

FARRELL: And so that was it, you never heard from her again? That was the last time?

HAYASHI: That was it.

FARRELL: Interesting, okay. How do you feel about the museum now?

HAYASHI: I've never been there. I think I admire that it's there. I honor the effort and the dedication that it took to build it. I think that their handling of the Wakasa monument 01:32:00-- oh, well, it was just awful. There is going to be on April eleventh

, the eightieth anniversary of his death, a program in J-Town [Japantown in San Francisco]. Do you live close to J-Town?

FARRELL: I do, and I actually think I'm going to go. It's from 12:00 to 1:00, and I saw that you were speaking.

HAYASHI: Oh, good. I'm working on the talk now and something interesting has happened. Mary Farrell and I are going to be the principal speakers. Mary is the archaeologist who found the stone, and something is happening. We're talking less about the desecration, the kind of 01:33:00disrespect. No Japanese Americans were there when the forklift pulled it out and destroyed the entire site. Architects grid the ground they study in I think one-meter grids and then they go down one centimeter at a time sifting the soil, photographing everything they find. Because people don't know what happened to Wakasa's ashes, and maybe they were buried along with the stone, but because of the way the ground was treated, no one knows. There may have been something written on the stone in Sumi and because it was dragged across the ground, no one knows. It's just awful. And were other artifacts put 01:34:00in there? Were his kitchen knives put in buried with this stone? It is just terrible. But taking a cue from Mary, we're going to talk more about how the stone has uplifted our community spiritually. That is now a time for forgiveness and so that's been interesting. I've been thinking about the concept of wonder and awe, and I think that that's being released, triggered, or evoked through the stone to us, our generation. 01:35:00FARRELL: It's going to be interesting to see how that rolls out. One other thing I know that you did as well was that you spent some time with the Topaz High School Class of '45. You've spoken at two of their reunions.

HAYASHI: Yeah.

FARRELL: One thing that you talked to them about was the discussion of what to call Topaz, what to call it essentially. Can you tell me a little bit about the time you spent with the class of '45 and those conversations you were having about what to call Topaz?

HAYASHI: What I did to prepare is I had at least an hour interview with each person I could contact, and I wanted to learn their stories. In my talk, I re-told their stories to them, and they did not know how remarkable their lives had been, 01:36:00and so they're astonished. I attended their planning meetings and there were about eight people in each planning meeting, and some of them were retired military. My cousin's husband was a major in the air force and deeply patriotic. The question was what do you call Topaz? Some people wanted to call it a concentration camp. 01:37:00Everyone was in agreement that internment camp was just not proper, but you could call it a confinement site and something like that. They asked me what I thought, but I didn't say anything. I thought it was up to them. In the end, they decided to call it a concentration camp, and that included my cousin who had been the major in the air force. I could see a complete transformation occur once they settled that issue. They became proud of their lives and proud at how they conducted themselves in the camps. I think prior to that, they saw themselves as just clueless teenagers who did as much as they could to enjoy themselves through dance and singing and baseball and football. Once they saw it as a concentration camp, they could see the way they lived their lives fully as an expression of their fundamental humanity and honoring their own inherent dignity. They could see their insistence 01:38:00on living life fully as an act of defiance, and it happened right before my eyes. It was amazing. At the reunion itself, Mark Izu, who's a principal trumpet player in the San Francisco Symphony, he and a guitarist came. Mark's father was in Topaz. Mark's father married an English woman, a white woman, and they never talked about the camps at all. It was only when he died when Mark was sixteen, and he and his two older brothers went through his effects that they found the Topaz Rambler or the yearbook of the camp. Mark then went on a journey to try to find out about his father in the camp. He played and he attended 01:39:00the planning meetings because he wanted to know what songs they danced to. They danced to things like "Blue Moon" and "Don't Fence Me In," all the ‘40s big band music. When he played, I learned that there is a huge difference between a musician and a world-class musician, it was just astonishing. He started playing and the people in the class who were sitting upfront or in roundtables literally pushed their walkers away and got up and started to jitterbug. It was amazing and they were doing twirls and everything, and they weren't doing lifts or between-the-leg stuff, but they just became transformed physically and emotionally. I talked to a neurologist 01:40:00and he said that music follows different neural pathways, and it activates the body in different ways. I thought, wow, it was amazing to see that, but I think that that was also connected with the prior decision to acknowledge that it was a concentration camp.

FARRELL: Yeah, and I think you've discussed this a little bit, but did it have an impact on your perspective?

HAYASHI: Yes, my preferred term was concentration camp, but it was a political position 01:41:00rather than something that affected me emotionally and seeing the Topaz High School Class of 1945 affected me emotionally. Now when I refer to it as concentration camp, I think of them and what they taught me, but I'm not consistent. Sometimes I'll refer to it as a confinement site, but that's hard to say, and sometimes I'll refer to it as an internment camp. I think it's a big deal, but internment camp doesn't bother me if it's used thoughtfully.

FARRELL: Yeah, okay, interesting, yeah, and so it's more of a fluid thing for you?

HAYASHI: Yeah.

FARRELL: I 01:42:00know you haven't been to the museum and I know that there are no official pilgrimages. But have you visited Topaz and done your own, some sort of pilgrimage?

HAYASHI: I've been probably been there four times. The first time I went, I was at a conference in Salt Lake City and I'd go out there. Someone told me to contact Jane and I contacted her. This was before the museum and she was very, very gracious and inviting, and that led to more contact, and that led to the classes we gave to Utah teachers. At every class, we would go out to Topaz. There's nothing there. I remember the first time I went there, I took a little tripod seat, and I took my watercolors. I was wearing shorts and I sat down and I was going to absorb the scenery. But I 01:43:00started to get bit by mosquitoes and sand fleas, they drove me out in just a second. First time I drove out there, it was bright and sunny and then it turned into a blizzard and the snow was falling horizontally. It was scary and kind of a whiteout. But then I said, “Oh God, this is what it was like here.”

FARRELL: Yeah, I've heard about the extreme weather and that it can change on a dime.

HAYASHI: Yeah.

FARRELL: It's intense, yeah. Those four times that you visited, what did it mean to you to return to Topaz?

HAYASHI: I think it would be mean more now. I thought I would have an epiphany of going home, 01:44:00but none of that happened. Maybe it's because I was thinking of it in sentimental terms and romanticized terms and political terms, so it didn't affect me deeply at all. Teaching the teachers and working with Jane did affect me deeply. I remember one time in my presentation -- we may have talked about this -- I began my presentation telling the teachers that I imagine my father standing late at night looking towards the mountain, Mount Sevier, and thinking about my mother and his three sons and his 01:45:00two elderly parents and his younger brother. Then I recited a poem by Sylvia Plath, "The hills step off into whiteness. People and stars. Regard me sadly, I disappoint them." It captured, for me, his solitude and the deep emotional and physical and economic and parental burden that he felt. It was interesting because the teachers were wonderful. They were there by choice and they really responded to that. We could talk in a deeply spiritual way; it wasn't just a recitation 01:46:00of the chronology of events.

FARRELL: I want to ask you a few reflective questions at this point. Looking back over your life, your career, your work with art, what are some of the things that you're most proud of?

HAYASHI: Well, this answer surprises me, but I think I'm most proud of the fact that I worked hard all the time. I just worked constantly. That's also one of my big regrets, so it's an odd thing to say, but that was part of it. I think I was imaginative in the way I approach problems, and that was in large part 01:47:00because of the curiosity I developed through children's literature. I'm not sure Sherlock Holmes is children's literature, but through reading. I'm very pleased by close friends that I have. I had John Cummins and Ray Colvig, a small circle of close friends. It's helpful to have friends at Berkeley who you can just relax with. I think those are the things.

FARRELL: Looking back, when they think about 01:48:00this history and all of its nuances and complexities, what do you hope that people learn or remember or take with them about incarceration and that impacts that it's had on descendants?

HAYASHI: I hope that they develop a habit or a reflex of learning more and more and more about the camps. One of the things that's wonderful about Wakasa controversy is that I've met many amazing people. Did I send you the film that Emiko Omori made of me painting with encaustics?

FARRELL: No, not that one.

HAYASHI: I should send it to you. 01:49:00FARRELL: Yeah, please do.

HAYASHI: Nancy Ukai for the Day of the Dead contacted me. I have no idea why she contacted me other than she knew I was involved in art. But she said that Kimiko Marr was creating a day of the dead altar at the Watsonville Cemetery, which is a Japanese American cemetery -- I didn't know anything about this -- and would I please paint some marigolds. Sure, okay, and so I painted some marigolds and gave them to her. She came back and she said, "After Mr. Wakasa was killed, people reported seeing a fireball in the air, 01:50:00about forty feet high." In Japanese folklore that fireball is called a hinotama, and it was Mr. Wakasa's soul. She said, "Could you paint his soul?" Nancy gets people to do interesting things, and so I painted his soul using encaustic, which is melted wax, and I actually did several. I gave one to Jeff and Mary, the archaeologists, I gave one to Nancy. I'm planning to give about thirty of them, but I ran out of steam. But that was interesting. A lot of people do things now that they wouldn't have done otherwise 01:51:00Emiko was a gold medal winner at Sundance for best documentary, so this is real talent that comes in, and it's extraordinary. Kimiko Marr, who's a Yonsei artist, and she organizes pilgrimages, and she's a filmmaker and seems to have endless energy. She created a series of short films, ten-minute films about different people in the camps, and I look at them because they give me the best sense of what life was in the camps. One film is on the family of the head of the resistors at Heart Mountain and his wife, his widow, 01:52:00his daughter, and some grandchildren were talking. They talked about how he would get so angry that one time he hit his daughter so hard they thought she was dead. They talked about it and said, "Well, he had too much on his shoulders and it came out this way." His granddaughter said that her father was missing in action somehow and that her grandfather took her to the father-daughter high school dance. She said he was a really good man and then they all agreed that it wasn't so bad. 01:53:00Kimiko is such a skilled filmmaker, she creates the understanding that it was bad. I mean you don't hit someone that hard and then not be bad. It was bad, but it was complicated, and he was a complicated man of many parts. That these little films really gave me a deep sense of how camps affected people and continue to affect people.

FARRELL: My last question for you is how you hope your art continues in the future?

HAYASHI: I have taken up puppetry but I've decided to put that on the back burner and just do it as a sideline and to concentrate on collage. 01:54:00Because I like collage and it's not a medium that I've studied very much. I've done some collage, but it's something that I could maybe develop a voice in. But I could also use collage to explore the camps for example and my family in the camps and the continuing effects of the camps and or a lot of other things like music or aging. Aging is something that really interests me and mortality, and I think that collage will give me that flexibility. I announced to my wife that I was putting puppetry on the back burner and concentrating on collage and she didn't say 01:55:00anything. I said, "Jeez, I just shared with you this momentous decision and you didn't react. She says, "But you change your mind all the time." [laughs] Okay, maybe that's fair enough.

FARRELL: Well, that's funny. It's interesting because we started our conversation with a discussion about puppetry.

HAYASHI: Did we? I have forgotten.

FARRELL: Yeah, we did, yeah. Well, I think that's all the questions I have for you, unless there's anything you want to add?

HAYASHI: No, other than I've enjoyed this quite a lot, and I appreciate it, and I hope you have too.

FARRELL: I have very much enjoyed it and I really appreciate you sharing everything that you did and your perspective on all of this and your work and your experience. I think that it's tremendous and I think we 01:56:00also benefit from hearing your story, so I really appreciate your time and your thoughtfulness with this.

HAYASHI: I hope that you enjoy working for Berkeley as much as I did.

FARRELL: Yeah, yeah, I do.

HAYASHI: Yeah, it's a great institution. It's so complex, you can find many places there.

FARRELL: I agree, yeah. I'm going on ten years and no plans of leaving, so let's see.

HAYASHI: When I was contemplating making that gift of paintings to Stanford, I remember what Clark Kerr told me once. He says that Stanford and Berkeley have always had a very, very mutually supportive relationship and 01:57:00in terms of faculty helping each other, and that Stanford always supported Berkeley's requests for financial support from the state. I thought, hmm and he felt that neither university could've become as great as it did without the other's presence. And I thought, wow.

FARRELL: Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah, that's probably true.

HAYASHI: Yeah.

FARRELL: Well, thank you, Pat. I'm going to pause the recording and talk to you about next steps.

HAYASHI: Okay.