INTERVIEWEE: WILLIAM SCHONFELD Dean of Social Sciences

INTERVIEWER: Samuel c. McCulloch Emeritus Professor of History UCI Historian

DATE: March 5, 1990

SM: Well, it is a pleasure to interview the Dean of Social

Sciences on March 5, 1990. When did you come, Willie, to UCI?

WS: I joined the faculty July 1, 1970.

SM: That's what I thought. As I remember, later that year we were

on an ad hoc committee.

WS: Yes.

SM: Now, what was your view of the School of Social Sciences then

when you came?

WS: When I came, I was fascinated by the School of Social

SM:

WS:

Sciences. I was trained in a Political Science department and

I started to teach in that department. And one of my sources

of frustration and concern was the kind of--from my

perspective--narrow and parochial understanding of what were domA'0

appropriate Q~~ of inquiry for a political scientist. To

just take one example, I wanted to teach a course which I

WftMeli :I;Q. titlef.•Political Sociology. 11

Just one second. (tape is turned off) All right. We won't

be interrupted again, Willie. ~J)

. which is a rather broad area of inquiry, concer~with

the social basis of politics. I went to the department chair

SCHONFELD 2

to make this suggestion and was informed that, ~as L~

impossible because ~t belonged in the Sociology Department.

SM: Where was this?

WS: At Princeton. At the same time, I had a colleague who--~~

i~ft~was teaching a course on European political

doctrines and was not allowed to teach about Marxism because

there was another course that was supposed to do that.

SM: (laughter)

WS: And, you know, try to imagine, you're supposed to teach about

nineteenth century political doctrines coming out of western

Europe, but you can't deal with Marxism because we do that

elsewhere. This kind of rigidity I found not only bothersome

but intellectually offensive. And the [UCI] School of Social

Sciences was an extraordinarily attractive environment for,

amongst other reasons, ~ere were no boundaries at all.

No matter what you were trained in, you were invited to pursue

the intellectual interests and the teaching interests which

you had. And that I found, to put it mildly, a refreshing

change. I was also impressed by the fact that there was a

. . ~q very 1ntellectually 1ntereste~group of colleagues who wanted

to talk with you about what you were doing and wanted you to

listen to them talking about what they were doing. And all

of that I found very appealingjand a very bright group of

people.

SCHONFELD 3

SM: Tell me, Willie, did this not occur to you--I 1 m sure it

did--that as you were progressing into graduate work? For

example, I said to Jim March, "Now it 1 s great not having

departments if you 1 re not going to do graduate work. If

you're going to be a big famous graduate school, you've got

to have departments."

WS: Well, you know, Sam, you asked me the question about what my

impressions were and what attracted me here and that's what

I responded to.

SM: I did. You're quite right.

WS: Okay. With the passage of time, I perceived many of the

~1 ~~r weaknesses with(this environment, one of which is pne that you

just identified. There·were other problems that existed in

the context, but they were problems which I became aware of

as I spent more time in the School of Social Sciences. They

weren't problems that struck me, maybe because of my own youth

and inexperience when I first came. When I first came, I saw

the system as it existed, and from what I could judge of it,

in very positive terms. It had none of the elements of

stodginess, which I didn't lik,eJ_ -£ither at Princeton or other

places where I considered going• I only saw the advantages.

With the passage of time, I saw the major flaws within that

system, and then worked with other colleagues to try to

contribute to muting those flaws while maintaining what I

perceived as the advantages.

SCHONFELD 4

SM: Well, what I was impressed with, Willie, when about three

years on, after your arrival, your group of political

scientists all of a sudden put together a program that was so

good, in my view, that I would send students over there. I'd

say, "Well, now, you've got to take courses and maybe you'll

want to graduate with a major over there."

WS: Right.

SM: But you did something that the others didn't do.

WS: Oh, definitely. I mean, I and many of my colleagues, while

perceiving the advantages of the environment . I think

probably the first thing that struck me and may have struck

other people also, but to me, at least, the first thing that

struck me is this system was really nice because it met my

rebellious needs against established practices.

SM: (laughter)

WS: But students couldn't appreciate that without finding out what

the basic structure was. So, consequently, it was necessary

to build into our program of studies exposure of students to

the things that we were rebelling against. And in that

respect, we were different from many of our colleagues who

believed that all you did was teach about the revolution, so

to speak. You didn't teach in as candidly and comprehensive

a way as possible about existing knowledge before looking into

ways in which you wanted to change the world. And so we did

put together, in some sense, an extraordinary program given

SCHONFELD 5

~y limited number of people and we worke!i at that 1\ !

together in an environment which basically . It's not

that it prevented us from doing that, but there were no

incentives to do that. The only incentives were our own

feeling that it was the proper thing to do. And so a lot of

us found ourselves from the beginning teaching courses far

afield from our own areas of special expertise, in order to

give the students the kind of background which we thought was

necessary.

SM: Did ultimately the other members, say, I was thinking of Mike

Burton in Anthropology, they finally went along the lines you

did, didn't they?

WS: Well, I think different sets of colleagues went along in

different degrees, not because of specific individuals but «~ ~ __ _._ r

because of the extent to which a particular (Colleagues ~ .

shared views. Meaning, in Political Science, for whatever

reasons, we were pretty consensual about the kinds of beliefs

that I expressed. This was not at all the case necessarily

in all segments of the school, where you would have some

anthropologists who shared this view, but others who didn't.

SM: Yes.

WS: Well, the minute you had some who didn't, made it much more

complicated to bring people together.

SCHONFELD 6

SM: Yes. I'd like to turn a little bit, Willie, to your research

that you were doing in France. And you came back and then I

think you went back again and had another leave?

WS: Yes.

SM: How has that all come together?

WS: Well, when I first came here, the research that I was doing

was focusing on socialization agencies, both general

socialization agencies as well as elite socialization

agencies, and I was trying to study problems. Most

socialization work focuses on the learning of attitudes, of

opinions, and what I was interested in the acquisition of

certain patterns of behavior. Rather than focusing on what

people said, I was trying to focus on what they did. And I

was most interested in behavior and authority settings. So

I was studying that in secondary schools and then also

studying that in elite formation institutions.

SM: Where did you go? Did you go around France or just

concentrate in Paris or what?

WS: Oh, I went around France, in lots of different sections of the

country, where I did do interviews and questionnaires and

extensive observation in secondary school settings, in about

four major regions of France. Now, obviously, I couldn't get

a fully representative sample, so what I was trying to do was

dealing with extremes, particularly poor regions and wealthy

regions, urban regions and rural regions. So that what I

SCHONFELD 7

would try to figure out is the similarities that existed

between extreme contexts and be able to make consequently the

argument that this was reflective of the whole system. I

completed that line of research, basically, by the middle

. ~ . . 1970s. And then I ~at-. · ·----2 became 1nterested 1n

political parties and /'~arried on then research which I did

in the latter part of the 1970s and through the 1980s,

carrying over some of the predispositions that I had in the

earlier research, but with a different focus. A major

predisposition that I carried over was trying to look at what

people do as compared to what they say.

SM: Yes, I remember you giving a talk to the Forum on that

subject.

WS: Yes. It's not that I think people are dishonest. It's that

I think that when we try to talk about things, we try to

arrive at summaries. And each of our summaries is special to

us, because they're trying to put together sets of

complicated, unique acts. And often those summaries are

influenced, not just by what we've done, but how we're trying

to interpret what we did and make it come out according to our

own value system. So what I like to do is a kind of

combination of research methods in which, on the one hand, I

do intensive observation of what people do, and then I talk

to them about what they're doing. And in this next major

direction, what I focused on was the Socialist Party, the

SCHONFELD 8

primary representative of the Left in France and the Gaulist

Party, the primary representative of the Right. And one of

the reasons for choosing those parties was that each carry

with them quite different ideologies about how politics should

be run and how a political party should be run. I wanted to

see to what extent those ideologies carried over into the ways

in which those parties actually ran. So that, then, was a new

major project that I worked on in recent years.

SM: Now, Willie, you were away last year, weren't you, on leave?

WS: Yes, I was.

SM: And you were working on this?

WS: I was working a bit on this. I was basically working on my

mental health, Sam, because in the interim I've spent a few

years deaning in social sciences and I found that my gray

matter was dying at an ever rapid rate and I needed to . .

~--~~~ 1rhe most candid and honest way to describe f' ,\, l._ftllt~>§, '"~7 'G J

what I did, is I had a real sabbatical. Rather than having

a research project which kept me going from eight o'clock in

the morning until twelve o'clock at night, which is what I've

done before, I spent my time talking to people, I spent my

time reading, I spent my time giving lectures in a variety of

different places and meeting new colleagues and different

colleagues to just re-immerse myself in scholarly existence,

which is impossible to do when you're deaning. I don't have

to tell you.

SCHONFELD 9

SM: Yes. I retired as Dean, just at the point where I said, "If

I don't, if I stay on, it's the point of no return. I don't

want to go past that point of no return. I want to go back

into the faculty."

WS: Absolutely.

SM: And I did actually have about six months, as you say, reading

WS:

articles and reading books and I well remember that. Now,

let's turn now to your work as Dean. You've had a very active

and interesting time as Dean and exerted a lot of leadership,

I must say. How would you summarize what you achieved?

Well, I wouldn't talk about it in Afersonat~ r"t;"':tm~. That is to

say, I don't regard it as sort of . . . I've been part of the

School of Social Sciences, as I said, since 1970, and I have

very close feelings with a broad range of my colleagues. Over

that period of time, I had a deep sense about things that

people wanted to do but that were very difficult to do in our

own context. So I think what I've tried to do during the

period of time that I was Dean is give voice to the

overwhelming majority of faculty in the School of Social

Sciences and their desires. And work with them to develop

. t. !> organ1za 1onal structure, to better meet our needs, and to

dramatically improve the quality of our collegial review

process and of our hiring process to again meet our goals.

So that I don't regard what's happened as a kind of personal

accomplishment.

SCHONFELD 10

I've always sort of regarded myself as basically a

spokesperson for my colleagues. So let me address the

question from that vantage point, which I think is the

meaningful one. There was a lot of frustration amongst people

in the School of Social Sciences that had developed over time.

The frustration came from a variety of facts. One was the

absence of departments in the School made it impossible to do

short-term planning, much less long-term planning, because

each individua_l coll_r ague could decide, "Gee, I'm going to

leave this sdb;:r f;1 colleagues and go form another one, or

belong to none. " So it gave, in some sense, a tremendous

amount of power to the most extreme member of any faculty

group, because that person could bribe his or her colleagues

with the threat of going away if they didn't agree to

something. ~ef the ways • -.x ]~ What was interesting was

that bribery didn't happen very much, but the threat of it was

often in the atmosphere. It was the sort of thing people were

afraid would happen, more than something which actually did

happen.

SM: Yes, just (inaudible).

WS: So we went through a process which led to departmentalization

in the School, which I think worked superbly well. That is

to say, the School of Social Sciences was founded not just

without departments, but with a virulent belief that these

were the enemies of intellectual life. Not only did we

SCHONFELD 11

departmentalize, but that was done in a way that was calm,

dispassionate, did not disrupt the academic activities of

anyone in the School of Social Sciences. It was done

efficiently, it was done slowly.

We first had an outside committee come in. First, we had

various discussions. I mean, I had talked with a variety of

colleagues and sensed these sorts of needs, and I put together

a small committee of a broad range of faculty, senior

experienced faculty in the school, to talk more about what we

might do organizationally. And in this next step, we had an

outside committee come in. The way I arrived at that was I

decided who I wanted to be chair of the committee and there

was a man named Henry Rasovsky who, at the time, was Dean of

the faculty at Harvard.

SM: Oh, yes.

WS: And an absolutely premier, if not the premier, bureaucrat in

American higher education. I asked him if he would chair such

a committee. He first came to visit and spend a few days, to

decide whether that seemed like a reasonable thing to do, and

then he said yes. And then he chose the other committee

members. That created a much more independent committee than

usually is, and given that his status is significantly higher

than ours, it also enabled him to create what everyone

recognized who was on the committee as the most prestigious ~ V'~

committee on which they had ever served. Its members ~' to

SCHONFELD 12

describe them: a ~iversity ~rofessor from Harvard, which is

their most select categor? member of the National Academy of

Sciences, which is rather rare in the Social Sciences; a Nobel

laureate from Stanford; the former Provost and Dean of the

faculty of stanford; the former Provost at the University of

Chicago; the head of the Smithsonian Institution.

SM: Was that Termin?

WS: The one from Stanford was Hasdorf, Al Hasdorf. So it was a

very, very prestigious group of absolutely first class

people--both intellectually first class and administratively

first class. That is to say, you had the three academic

officers, who had just stopped at that time, of the University

of Chicago, of Stanford, and of Harvard. I mean, all of which

are generally regarded as pretty decent institutions. You had

people of the highest academic quality and they came for two

separate visits. Each time they spent a lot of time talking

to faculty, individually and collectively. In the interim,

they went over various documents that faculty provided.

SM: Are you talking about 1982?

WS: No, no, no, this was later. This process basically began in

1985.

SM: Nineteen eighty-five?

WS: Yes. And then, following this, we created our own internal

faculty committee to look over their recommendations, which

was half appointed by me and half elected by the faculty, with

SCHONFELD 13

the recommendation that we have de facto departmentalization.

We did that for about eighteen months and then converted to

de jure departmentalization. The result was that faculty

didn't feel threatened, didn't feel disenfranchised. They

felt that they were participating in a process which in some

major way organizationally was revolutionary and has also

contributed to having an absolutely crackerjack group of

department chairs who are doing a superb job. So that was a

major organizational change.

Now, sort of coincident, antedating this process and

continuing with it, were a variety of other things which we

tried to do. There had been a certain laxism in the School

of Social Sciences in certain areas over contributions to

undergraduate curricula--on the one hand understandable, in

that we like to call it a research university. on the other

hand, unacceptable. So we made lots of changes in that

direction and working again with faculty to improve

dramatically our curriculum in all academic areas and

improving the kinds of participation that faculty members made

to that curriculum. We've done comparable things with the

graduate program and we've d~bJe ------W~¥e changed

~~~ur mechanisms of

traditional process where the

internal evaluation

s~ School of

from a

Social

Sciences' role was to try to present the best possible case

for the person being evaluated to a situation in which we try

SCHONFELD 14

to do the serious basic evaluation and not leave that to the

Committee on Academic Personnel or the Vice Chancellor.

SM: I was interested in . I was talking to Kim Romney. I

interviewed him about maybe eight months ago or something like

that. And you're able to fit in something that's fascinating.

Duncan Luce and Kim Romney and maybe three or four other

people have a little group of their own. Is it a teaching as

well as a research group?

WS: No. It's a research group. You see, one of the things I

think that was problematic in the historical organization of

the School was that it pretended that research and teaching

groups could be combined in the same entity.

SM: Oh, yes.

WS: And they can't be. And so we've tried to filt~r th~se th~~gp \ A \A ) .AI\'" \')\Jt, \\l\,f,1(;,t,~;\,

apart. So we have, for instance) . And that group

actually i:s.vglve:! :I'ftftfl}" mEH:"~-b~J:.e--i;;;~"(;Aa,t;._---:rt includes

It is primarily a

research entity, but also contributes towards managing--or

will contribute towards managing--a new graduate curriculum,

which will train students on the one hand in mathematical

social science techniques, but on the other hand it requires

them to develop expertise in one of the disciplines within the

School, so that there's a kind of linkage between this

SCHONFELD 15

training enterprise here and the separate departments within

the School.

SM: By the way, you'd be amused to know that I am known as one of

the few people that ever got a lot of money out of Dean (L~s~" >/"'1 Ra:s~ov&:k:y •

. WS: Ah, ha!

SM: The Australian government gave to Harvard a million dollars

at the American bicentennial, that's back in 1976. And since

then, they have brought over . They have a Chair of

Australian studies. And they bring over not only historians,

the first three were historians, but they bring over political

scientists and sociologists and art historians and so on. And

the year I wanted Professor Geoffrey Blainey, who's a very

famous historian, and he wrote . . . Oh, no, the Dean wasn't

going to give any money to have him come give a lecture. It

happened to be my course at UCLA that year. John s. Galbraith

was swapped courses with UCI. So, anyhow, I wrote and said

that they had not spent any money in traveling expenses. The

previous people in the chair had not gone anywhere, and I did

think that the least they could do for us, since I had a class

of eighty-five students at UCLA, and I think that they should

pay for Professor Blainey. So he came up with the money.

(chuckling)

WS: Oh, fantastic.

SCHONFELD 16

SM: But only about a year after that he retired from the Deanship.

Well, you have answered this quest'ion, Willie, about the

departmental structures and I am fascinated with this. I had

not been aware of how it was done and how with the least

trauma.

WS: Yes.

SM: Now, I'd like to turn now to what are your expectations for

the School. We're going down the pike now . . . Ten years

from now, we're talking about (inaudible).

WS: Yes. Well, I think, again, as one looks towards the future,

one has to be looking at stages, which I think sometimes on

the campus in general we don't do. For example, one of the

common ways of talking on campus is, "What are we going to do

that's special, so that we can be competitive with other more

established and larger entities?" Now, I think that's a

critical way to look at the world in the short term, but it

makes no sense when you're looking at us as a campus with

28,000 students, because at that time we're going to be bigger

than most universities. So now we have a kind of balance.

How do we in the short term be competitive, setting a base so

that in the long term we are competitive? And I think that's

the kind of problem that all academic units on this campus

face.

The way we're trying to do that in Social Sciences is by

being conscious of that, that in the long-run we are going to

SCHONFELD 17

be more or less the same size as major departments at Berkeley

and UCLA; which means that in the long-run being highly

specialized is going to make us second-rate. So what we have

to do is follow one of two kinds of strategies, which we're

doing in different ways for different departments. One kind

of strategy is developing first major sub-discipline clusters

of particular high-quality people in a broad area where we can

be genuinely competitive already. But doing that construction

in a way such that we do that in phase one. And in phase two,

as we continue that, we are increasing through other sub-

disciplinary areas, so that we don't end up being big and

marginal.

SM: Yes.

WS: The other thing which I think is a model being followed by

some of our departments is that while we want to move towards

this across-the-board excellence, we also want to have certain

defining traits. That, for example, you'd mentioned before

about the research in unit in Mathematical,/~ehavioral Science. One of the things that we have is a major cluster

of very sophisticated people, such that we can do teaching in

a broad array of a discipline, but bring to that certain

special kinds of expertise which make us different from every

university and we have our own special mark. So we're trying

to deal with those two kinds of strategies.

SCHONFELD 18

SM: Well, tell me, Willie, I noticed that one of the first things

Tien did was to draw up an academic plan. Now, as you know,

I'm Emeritus now, so I'm not in on those things, and I ask

questions but I wasn't clear. For instance, how did you as

Dean and your School·of Social Sciences get involved in an

academic plan?

WS: Well, yours is really a process question, so I answer it that

way.

SM: (inaudible)

WS: What happened was the Vice Chancellor first asked for

different departments to come up with plans.

SM: Ah, ha!

WS: And then asked the Dean to evaluate those departmental plans.

SM: I see.

WS: ,II,!

Then asked various Academic Senatei to evaluate the global

picture. And then to have the departments redefine their

academic plan in reference to these comments. That sort of

is the basic process line that was followed. Now, on the

general planning issue, I should note that my own sense of

history is not as profound as yours or your colleagues, but

planning has always been a very, very complicated thing,

especially if you anticipated saying anything about what will

happen in the future.

SM: (laughter) We just changed it every one year, Willie. We'd

always draw up a five-year plan and we changed it every year.

SCHONFELD 19

Ah, my word! It's kind of sad that we're sort of having to

shift around again.

WS: I think that's very serious.

SM: Serious because Jack will stay on awhile, yet, but, I mean,

he can't go on for that long.

WS: Of course.

SM: Another thing, I'd like to ask you a question. It doesn't

matter because these . . . It's a fair question. Why does

Jack Peltason put so many people on his search committee? I

think I know why, but I would never permit . . . When I was

Chair of the Academic Senate, I had a say on the search

committees along with the deans and those people, and I would

see to it that they were properly represented, and we never

had more than about seven to eight people.

WS: I think that the Chancellor's own logie--r mean, if you were

asking him .

SM: I might ask him. It's coming up.

WS: Yes.

SM: I'm going to interview him again. He's been interviewed once

already.

WS: Yes, yes. His response would be to represent a variety of

constituencies, which he feels should be represented. Now,

an alternative view than the one which he's operationalized

would argue that a committee of seven or eight people, because

clearly it cannot represent all constituencies, as compared

SCHONFELD 20

• . . will effectively be less criticized than a committee of

twenty-one. Since the number seems so high, all could

presumably be represented and, yet, of course, they can't be.

So that some could argue that the larger committee is actually

more subject to being condemned for non-representivity.

SM: There are twenty-one, I think, on it.

ws: Yes.

SM: Bill Lillyman is the Chair.

WS: Yes.

SM: And he's got the whole shooting match.

WS: I've heard it mentioned or concerned that only a relatively

small proportion of those people are representative of the

academic enterprise.

SM: Absolutely correct, and I'm shocked.

WS: And this seems to be a position which, presumably, is

predominantly their chief academic officer.

SM: Now, I've got it there. I think I'll put it in my briefcase

over there to take home to Sally. I don't know. Now, you've

really answered my question, Willie: What do you feel have

been your main contributions to the School as you were Dean?

But I thought you'd maybe summarize it again. You've very

modestly (inaudible).

WS: I think my main contribution, my single main contribution as

Dean of Social Sciences, is having an understanding of the

basic desires and goals of the faculty of the School of Social

SCHONFELD 21

Sciences in all areas, and being able to work relatively

efficiently towards achieving their goals and aspirations.

SM: Well, that's a very, very fine and admirable contribution.

WS: I should note, I am a believer that a Dean is, first and

foremost, representative of the faculty within his or her

academic unit.

SM: Oh, yes.

WS: But a Dean is not a representative of the central

administration in the academic (inaudible).

SM: Well, I always knew that. I remember we had talked about that

one day over at the University Club. I think Spence Olin was

sitting with us. But you're dead right and that was my view.

I always felt I'm here to help the faculty. I want to get a

lot of this crap out of the way so they can do their work,

their research and their teaching properly.

WS: Absolutely.

SM: That's all I did and I did it for four years at San Francisco

State and six years here. But I think you've done a really

fine job.

WS: Thank you.

SM: I must say that I suppose as Dean I had a fair amount of

tangles with Jim [March]. I liked Jim, got along well with

him, but I didn't agree with him. But, you see, what you've

gone through and done, and, I must say, amazingly well. I

said to Jim, "You've got to have departments and if you don't

SCHONFELD 22

have them now, somebody's going to have to find secretaries

and all those sorts of costs, that it might be very difficult

later on." I'll bet you had some problems getting

secretaries.

WS: Yes. I think in some sense of the failure, March's real

failure, was not rejecting the disciplines. I think that

there was an alternative thing he could have done at the

outset, which is something closer to what was done in

Biological Sciences. One could have created departments

around analytical problems. The difficulties of total absence

of departments was an inevitably unstable situation as the

institution grew. Size does matter. And beyond a certain

size, you just can't organize something.

SM: Well, when I interviewed him for this oral history back in

1974 or 1973, I said,· "Jim, you're a specialist in

organization. Now, you really created an anarchy."

WS: Yes.

SM: He just laughed. He just laughed. And I'm not at all sure,

in a way, he was a whimsical sort of fellow, and I think that

he sort of, as an organizational specialist, he watched this

thing develop . . .

WS: He may very well.

SM: And just when it was all going to go, you know . . .

WS: He left.

SM: He left. (chuckling)

SCHONFELD 23

WS: Absolutely.

SM: Well, is there anything more you'd like to say to me as the

UCI Historian? I think your School has really . . . I mean,

the acquisiti0ns of people like Harry Eckstein and people like

that.

WS: Yes. I think those things have been very, very important.

I think that bringing in people of such absolutely stellar

quality and also people with extensive experience have helped

the School of Social Sciences grow, and grow in the right

direction.

SM: Now, is Easton still .

teaching?

WS: He's still teaching.

Is he Emeritus or is he still

SM: Those guys have taught You know, they're really going

to (inaudible).

WS: Right. And Duncan Luce in the same way.

SM: Duncan Luce, yes.

WS: Really very . . . You know, Duncan, besides everything, was

recently Chair of the Department of Psychology at Harvard and

there's a lot of administrative as well as intellectual savvy

which has enormous spill-over effects on everyone.

SM: Yes, yes. Kim Romney from Harvard.

WS: Yes.

SM: And, of course, to have a person like Duncan Luce because he's

a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

SCHONFELD 24

WS: Right.

SM: And, my God, you know, that's good.

WS: Which is very rare in the Social Sciences, very common in the

hard sciences.

SM: Oh, yes. I think Jim March was one of the first .•.

ws: Yes, yes, absolutely.

SM: Well, thank you very much, Willie.

WS: Thank you, Sam.

END OF INTERVIEW