I am here in my role as an institutional Methuselah.  Institutions grow over time.  Through four decades, David Vernon contributed significantly to the development of today’s flourishing University and Law School.

 I first heard the name of David Vernon from University President Howard Bowen in 1966 as we entered the second round of a search for a new dean to succeed Mason Ladd.  Howard was often impatient with faculty processes.  So he made a few inquiries on his own.  He was eager to fill the deanship, but as Dean of Faculties I counseled him that “directly” was not the most effective way to proceed with the faculty.  David’s name needed to surface through the faculty search committee, which it instantaneously did.  At the request of the faculty search committee chaired by Arthur Bonfield, I called David in Seattle and said, “I am going to be near Seattle, so I’ll just stop by on my way home from Minneapolis to see you.”  At first David thought I had no sense of geography.  Later he learned that I tended to be both circuitous and parsimonious in my ways.

 In the search visits he made to Iowa City, he was never accompanied by Rhoda, which caused me to be apprehensive about the seriousness of his interest.  Long afterwards, I asked her why she did not accompany him.  She said, “He was going to make the decision and my only condition was, once we move, we stay.”

 In the deanship negotiations David asserted he wanted to double the faculty.  I said, “What for?”  He replied, “I will be back in a couple of days and tell you why.”  When he returned, he described a “graduate college approach” to legal education characterized by smaller classes and a richer curriculum and emphasizing greater individual attention to the development of students’ basic professional skills, particularly their research and writing.  His plan made sense then as it has in the 35 years since.

 When the Vernons arrived in Iowa City, the University was in a period of great transition.  The enrollment of the University was doubling, and the faculty was trebling in size.  It also was a time of considerable protest focused on three issues.  One was civil rights and the opening up of the University; the second was the student desire to eliminate in loco parentis rules; and the third was the growing antiwar sentiment.  David’s talents were immediately enlisted by the University administration.  He had the ability to sort through issues and then to respond to the facts of a situation with a realistic yet principled solution.  On the one hand, he was humane in dealing with people, but on the other hand, he would never compromise the integrity of the University.  For David, the ends never justified the means.  He was committed to the University always being open and open to all ideas.  However, David often bit his tongue in the process, as he did not easily suffer fools.  Mushy thinking was an anathema to him.

 I remember one spring day following the night time arrest of a number of faculty friends and students on the Pentacrest.  As we  entered the Union for the annual School of Religion luncheon during this chaotic week, a staff member turned to us and said “Aren’t these beautiful times on campus?”  I dare not repeat what David said to me. We went on to the luncheon chaired by George Forell who had been one of those arrested and whom David worked to have sprung from jail in time for the luncheon.  Many years later reflecting on those times David said “We were sympathetic to the anti-war movement, but we couldn’t figure out quite why they were taking out their anger about that with the university, which didn’t have much to do with it.  We just tried to hold the place together.”

 In all the years that have followed, even as David remained committed to his role as professor of law, he always responded to the call for help from the University at large.  He served as interim provost twice and special assistant to four presidents.  He handled all nature of problems from academic to athletics to student judiciary.  As a drafter of many University practices and procedures, he assured the due process rights of faculty, staff and students alike.  He also was a staunch promoter and implementer of policies and programs to advance inclusiveness in all aspects of the University.

 While we honor what David Vernon did for all of us and for University generations to come, we thank Rhoda and David for nurturing each one of us in such personal and sustaining ways.  Others give meaning to our lives.  Rhoda and David have added much meaning to our lives.  They have always been there for each of us in bad times as well as good.  Whatever our problem, they have been concerned and helpful.  Even though it was David’s decision to come to Iowa, it was Rhoda’s decision to stay.  Each of us in our own way is everlastingly grateful to David and Rhoda.