&

the alumni magazine of washington and lee
(USPS 667-040)

Volume 57, Number 3, May 1982

William C. Washburn, 740 ..........0 0. ccc cece cece eee e eee Editor
Romulus T. Weatherman ....................... Managing Editor
Jeffery G. Hanna ............... cece eeeee eee eens Associate Editor
Robert Fure ............ 0.0. ccccc cece eeeeee eens Contributing Editor
Joyce Carter 2.0... 0... cece cee eee ence ne ene ees Editorial Assistant
W. Patrick Hinely, °73 ............ ccc cece eee e eee Photographer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Development Program Overview ..................655 |
Messages of Pride and Gratitude ......................0.. 11
President Robert E. R. Huntley ..................... 11
Rector James M. Ballengee .......................04. 12
Development Director Farris Hotchkiss ............ 14
The Program Year by Year ............00.0ccceeeeeeeeees 16
John Boardman on Why He Gave .....................4. 26
Perspectives on the Program ..................::eeeeeeeee 28
Rand D. Weinberg ...................cceeeeee eee eeeeees 28
W. W. Pusey IID ........... eee eee e cece cece e ees 30
Lewis H. LaRue ................c cece ee eee cence eeeees 31
M. Kirkland Follo ............. cece cece cece ence eens 33
Albert C. Gordon ............ 0... c cece cece ene ee ee eens 35
Leonard E. Jarrard ........ 0.0... e cece cece e eee ees 37
Capers Along the Way .................. vend vateeneenge 39

Published in January, March, May, July, September, October, and
November by Washington and Lee University Alumni, Inc., Lexington,
Virginia 24450. All communications and POD Forms 3579 should be
sent to Washington and Lee Alumni, Inc., Lexington, Va. 24450. Second
class postage paid at Lexington, Va. 24450 and additional offices.

 

Officers and Directors
Washington and Lee Alumni, Inc.

JAMES F. GALLIVAN, 51, Nashville, Tenn.
| President

JOHN H. McCorMACK Jr., ’50, Jacksonville, Fla.
: Vice President

W. DONALD Bain, ’49, Spartanburg, S.C.
: Treasurer

WILLIAM C. WASHBURN, 40, Lexington, Va.
Secretary |

Leroy C. ATKINS, ’68, Lexington, Va.
Assistant Secretary

PETER A. AGELASTO III, ’62, Norfolk, Va.
ANDREW N. Baur, ’66, St. Louis, Mo.
EDGAR M. Boyp, ’42, Baltimore, Md.

OwEN H. HARPER, ’59, Pasadena, Calif.

CHARLES D. Hurt Jr., 59, Atlanta, Ga.

SIDMON J. KAPLAN, 56, Cleveland, Ohio

G. RUSSELL LADD, ’57, Mobile, Ala.
WILLIAM E. LATTURE, ’49, Greensboro, N.C.
J. WILLIAM MCCLINTOCK III, ’53, Tunica, Miss.

WILLIAM C. NORMAN Jr., ’56, Crossett, Ark.

S. MAYNARD TuRK, 752, Wilmington, Del.

CVU

v

ON THE COVER: This photograph illustrates the mar-
velous blend of the old and the new that has resulted from
Washington and Lee’s decade of progress. The new Uni-
versity Library is in the foreground; Ol’ George on top of
Washington Hall and the steeple of Lee Chapel are clearly
visible in the distance. Photograph by W. Patrick Hinely,
a

 

 

 

 

by Frank A. Parsons, ’54

Assistant to the President

Conquering a Tall Hill

Frank Parsons has been a man for all seasons at
Washington and Lee for more than 25 years. He
has served as Sports Information Director, News
Office Director, Director of Public Information
and Publications, and Director of Institutional
Research. He was assistant to President Fred C.
Cole and is in his 14th year as assistant to

President Huntley. Throughout the Development

Program, his advice contributed greatly to its
success, and in his capacity as the University’s
chief representative to architects and contrac-
tors, he was an influential voice behind the many
physical improvements made possible by the
program. |

‘We have a tall hill to climb, but we are
going to climb that hill!”’

That’s what John Stemmons of Dallas said
back in February 1972, when Washington and
Lee announced its unprecedentedly ambitious
plans to raise $56 million over the next decade, a
goal that subsequently was revised upward to
$62 million. Stemmons was chairman of the
University Board of Trustees’ Development
Committee at the time, and one of the influential
shapers of the Development Program’s scope.

As is the common wisdom in collegiate fund-
raising, Stemmons was standing about $9 mil-
lion up the slope when the height of the summit
was announced, but there was no denying that a
long, hard climb lay ahead. At times that hill
seemed more like Mt. Everest. There were times,
especially in the mid-1970s, when every step up
on the solid rock of endowment growth became a
two-step backward slide in the sands of inflation
and recession.

But despite the difficulties, despite the up-
ward revision of the goal, the hill has been
climbed. On January 19th, the Robert E. Lee
birthdate that the University observes as Found-
ers’ Day, President Robert Huntley announced
that the Development Program had exceeded its
$62 million goal by $5 million.

When the success of the effort was announced
in the January issue of the Alumni Magazine, the
headline proclaimed the achievement as “‘a pro-
mise kept,’’ and indeed it was.

Essentially, it was a promise made by the
Board of Trustees to assure Washington and Lee
University of its foreseeable future, to provide
physical facilities second-to-none, to generate
growth in endowment and annual giving to

underwrite an educational program that is truly
distinctive in American higher education.

It became a promise kept by the trustees
themselves, by dozens of alumni and others who
worked diligently in the fund-raising effort, and
by hundreds, even thousands of alumni, parents,
foundations, corporations, and other friends
whose generosity of support and encouragement
extends far beyond the dimensions of the De-
velopment Program itself.

The immensity of the achievement is even
greater when one considers the past.

The prior performance record was not good.
Twice since World War II Washington and Lee
had undertaken major capital fund-raising efforts.
The first, despite the array of special events and
focus of attention associated with the
University’s Bicentennial in 1949, fell
substantially short of its modest $3 million goal.
The second, a highly-organized knock-on-
every-door effort in 1958-60 to raise $2 million
for new science and journalism facilities,
succeeded only when all funds received during
the period were counted toward the goal, not just
those committed to the purposes of the
campaign.

There was no lack of careful planning
associated with either of these former major
efforts. The first fell short because of a certain
naiveté on the part of its leaders that the
Bicentennial itself would motivate support. A

 

John M. Stemmons: “‘. .

that hill!’’

. climb

 

more important reason was an absence of real
‘‘leadership’’ giving, especially among the
trustees themselves. A little over a decade later,
the second capital campaign struggled and
strained under the same handicap. Expert fund-
raising counsel charted a proven course of
highly-structured area campaigns, but without
strong leadership commitments in advance of
these localized efforts, there was no hope of
complete success. The University got bad advice
from its counsel who recommended suspending
annual giving for the two years, and not
soliciting annual gifts from alumni who had
outstanding pledges to the capital drive. Even
the overlapping presidential leadership of two
administrations—Dr. Gaines’ and Dr. Cole’s—
was unable to do more than assure the best
possible use of the funds that were raised.

So, what chance did Washington and Lee
have to raise $62 million in the 1970’s when the
past decades did little to inspire confidence?
Some folks were inclined to say ‘‘a fat chance.”’
Others, more familiar with those who were
going to be involved as_ leaders, were
optimistic—not certain—but certainly hopeful
and willing to try. There were many encouraging
factors. |

First, there was Washington and Lee’s
young and vigorous president. When Bob
Huntley came to office in 1968, one of his first
priorities was a revitalization of alumni interest
and involvement in the University. By the time
the scope of the Development Program was
announced four years later, he had visited and
addressed every organized alumni chapter at
least once. Growing numbers of alumni had been
brought back to the campus for meaningful
encounters with students, faculty, and staff, and
there was a new awareness among Washington
and Lee’s most important constituency of what
the University hoped to achieve. Among other
important ways, President Huntley had inspired
the confidence of alumni and others by his sen-
sitive handling of potentially disruptive student
protest movements in May 1970; there was senti-
ment common to alumni, faculty, students, and
trustees alike that Washington and Lee couldn’t
have a better person in the president’s office.

A second encouraging factor was the re-
vitalization of the Board of Trustees itself. Future
University historians will have to search hard to
find a more significant event than the reorganiza-
tion of the Board of Trustees that occurred in
1969. Key provisions included mandatory retire-
ment at age 70, term memberships of six years
duration (with eligibility for a consecutive second
six-year term), and an opportunity for the alumni
to nominate a trustee from their ranks every two

years. Also, the size of the Board was enlarged
and its committee structure refined and made
more effective. A result of all this change was a
new, younger profile for the Board, a new char-
acter that promised a more direct involvement in
the affairs of the University, a new element of
leadership at the very highest level.

A third sign of encouragement stemmed di-
rectly from the personality of the Board. Its
members were, without exception, men accus-
tomed to achieving their goals. They were not
given to associating themselves with enterprises
and causes with little hope of success. Their
commitments, both in terms of time and treasure,
were already impressive, and their confidence in
Washington and Lee’s future proved contagious.

 

RESULTS
of the
W&L DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
1972-1981
Millions
of $s

         

60

 

 

50

40

 

30-

 

   

       

        

 

 

 

     

 

°o | o) ©

S | S S

oO | oO oO

Oo | oO ©

2 | 1D 3

5 | g :
3i12)] /3l/2]| /sil3
Si. | a Ty
Si os o}|5
© © ©

7G}; H) Ro] w O}) wl
ol|=| o}||= we
cD LL | N LL CO Ww
Ail>] wii > eoll>
se pa
xt a | <C;) ry, <x I
O}|O O};O] O}|O
ptLOUstLI OU =] [o}}<

PHASE! PHASE Il PHASES1&|I
1972-76 1977-1981

 

 

1972-1981

 

 

 

 

 

Still another plus factor was the amount of
money pledged to the Development Program
during its planning stages and prior to its public
announcement. Gifts and pledges, principally
from within the Board of Trustees but including
other substantial leadership gifts as well, totaled
$9,258,369 when the program was announced in
1972 by President Huntley, Rector Dr. John N.
Thomas, and Development Committee Chairman
Stemmons. New momentum came almost im-
mediately in the form of a $9 million gift from
Frances and Sydney Lewis of Richmond, desig-
nated for construction of a new law school build-
ing and the endowment of a proposed law center.
That act of generosity remains the largest non-
testamentary gift Washington and Lee has ever
received.

And there was the need, the critical necessity
of improvement to physical plant, endowment
resources, and annual giving, essential if Wash-
ington and Lee was to continue as a vital element
in private higher education. These needs were
not whims of the moment, but represented the
most careful analysis possible by trustee, ad-
ministrative, and faculty planners. A compre-
hensive institutional Self-Study completed in
1966 had addressed two basic requirements: the
urgent need for more systematic approaches to
both planning and fund-raising. First steps in
both areas had already begun by 1968 when Bob
Huntley became president, and the appointment
of this former Navy destroyer lieutenant quickly
transformed this beginning impetus into what he
once would have called ‘‘flank speed.”’

First, President Huntley sorted out his staff,
with the appointment of Farris Hotchkiss as Di-
rector of Development the key move. The
recommendation for this came from Robert E.
Nelson, a Chicago-based development con-
sultant whose ‘‘feel’’ for Washington and Lee
was both quickly acquired and sensitively ap-
plied.

The president then began an extension of the
self-study process, leading first to a 1969 decision
to proceed with construction of a major addition
to Doremus Gymnasium, and then to a special
meeting of the Board of Trustees in April 1970,
in Washington. There, the trustees considered
position papers presented by the academic deans,
the librarian, and other top administrators that
defined for subsequent Board approval the range
of objectives for the forthcoming Development
Program.

President Cole’s eight years as president had
accomplished much. The early 1960’s brought a
new science building for biology and physics, an
enlarged and renovated Howe Hall for chemistry
and geology, a remodeled Reid Hall for jour-

nalism and communications, and a restored Lee
Chapel. But the 1959-67 years under President
Cole were more remarkable for their emphasis
on strengthening the faculty, assuring its teachers
of an adequate compensation scale, expanding
financial aid for needy students, and generally
providing the faculty and students with the class-
room, laboratory, library, and other resources of
a first-class college.

Bob Huntley became president just as the
emphasis of need was swinging again to bricks
and mortar. There were four major areas of virtu-
ally equal urgent priority:

Old Doremus Gymnasium was anything but
adequate for an athletic program that aspired to
meet the intercollegiate, intramural, and recrea-
tional requirements of all of its students.

The Law School was bulging its walls in
Tucker Hall, coping with twice the number of
students the building was designed to handle,
using every available space for shelving the con-
stantly expanding library. |

The undergraduate collection in McCormick
Library was in a similarly cramped condition

 

 

President Huntley said of the author:

essential part.”’

 

About Frank Parsons

‘With his characteristic modesty, Frank Parsons has sometimes
described his job as one of being assistant to a president who needs no
assistance. In this one‘matter, Frank is badly mistaken. The opposite is
more nearly accurate. Frank’s talents and hard work as my assistant have
made it possible for me to be president. In every success which the school
has achieved in the past 15 years, Frank has played a vital and usually

 

 

 

that could only grow worse. The building offered
little in the way of adequate study space, nor was
it suited well for adaptation to modern library
technology. |

The inadequacy of Newcomb Hall for the
School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics
had been a problem in search of a solution for
many years. There were even studies made to
determine if it were feasible to excavate a base-
ment. It wasn’t.

Besides these major physical needs, Wash-
ington and Lee was confronted with a host of
other clamors for remedy. The sciences and jour-
nalism were adequately housed, but few other
departments in the College were. Some made out
in basement or attic locations, while the pro-
fessors of others were scattered throughout the
campus, meeting their classes in remote loca-
tions, far from their offices.

And there were the human requirements of a
quality institution. Washington and Lee needed
to remain competitive in attracting the best
teachers to Lexington. This meant not only com-
petitive salaries, but proper adjustment of teach-
ing loads, and an adequate program of faculty
development—periodic leaves of absence, sup-
port of scholarly pursuits, library resources, and
secretarial assistance.

Good teachers usually prefer to teach good
students, so the University needed to beef up its
student recruiting program, assuring Washington
and Lee of a continuing strong flow of applicants
from a steadily shrinking pool of qualified young
men. Close companion to the recruiting emphasis
was an urgent demand for a stronger flow of

financial aid to deserving and needy applicants.
Several scholarship programs of limited duration
or support were expiring; the impact of successful
minorities recruiting was a further consideration
in financial aid planning.

Good teachers also have good ideas about
what should be taught at a school like Washington
and Lee. There was justification for new courses
among the traditional disciplines. Strong cases
could be made for new emphases in pre-profes-
sional ethics, in East Asian studies, in additional
support for the fine arts, and the expanded use of
audio-visual technology. In the Department of
Religion, for example, the faculty was eager to
bring together representatives of the world’s
leading faiths to examine Christianity in a religi-
ously plural world, a hope that was fulfilled in
1976. A new and distinctive academic calendar,
with a short six-week term in the spring opened
up a variety of opportunities for study abroad, all
needing financial impetus.

In the Law School, aside from the deficien-
cies of Tucker Hall, there was the necessity of
expanding the faculty in order to cover the cur-
riculum that a modern law school should offer.
Assuming a continued faith in existing teacher-
Student ratios there, faculty expansion would
lead to a larger number of law students and a
stronger effort to recruit good ones.

All told, these and a multitude of other phy-
sical and program necessities added up to the
mind-boggling eventual total of $62 million, re-
flected in roughly $31 million for new and reno-
vated buildings and campus improvements, an-
other $22.5 million required for new endowment,

 

of $s
|

 

60

$27,215,659

$22,951,806

1972 1973 1974 1975

 

YEAR-BY-YEAR PROGRESS OF
Millions THE W&L DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

$37,469,063

$66,978,954

$41,781,311

1977. 1978 1979 1980 1981

 

 

 

and just short of $9 million in the form of annual
giving in support of ongoing educational and
general expenses. These were the ingredients of
the program announced in 1972 and later
modified in 1978.

For the Development Program to succeed,
many wise decisions had to be made, prior to
1972 and in the following decade. None stands
up better under close scrutiny than the decision,
early on, to include annual giving as a part of the
total effort. Not only did annual giving exceed its
anticipated levels of support, it was the medium
through which every alumnus, parent, and friend
had an opportunity to advance the objectives of
the program itself. When the final counting was
done on December 31, 1981, there was an extra
$5.2 million on the annual giving books, a tad
more than the general over-subscription of the
entire program.

Other wise decisions involved the choice of
fund-raising counsel and the adoption of flexible
staffing solutions for the University’s Develop-
ment Office.

Robert E. Nelson & Associates brought a
different kind of fund-raising counsel to Presi-
dent Huntley and the trustees than earlier devel-
opment specialists had offered in other cam-
paigns. Bob Nelson was an experienced devel-
opment officer himself, a veteran of multi-million
dollar capital drives at other institutions, and he
knew whereof he spoke. He came on board early
at President Huntley’s invitation, and from the
beginning he pulled no punches in telling the
trustees, the president, and Farris Hotchkiss
just how hard it was going to be to raise all that
money. He also assured them that the sources of
funds necessary for success were there, if only
they were patient, diligent, and vigorous in their
cultivation and solicitation. There was strong

COMMITMENTS BY CONSTITUENCY

Alumni
$44,900,000

Friends
$12,400,000

‘qg8'ed
000 of d00

guold

 

 

Other Constituents
$200,000

disagreement at times between counsel and
client. The feisty Nelson’s advice wasn’t always
taken. But for all 14 years of Bob Huntley’s
presidency, Nelson’s valued opinion was sought
at every important crossroad, in every important
decision. |

Few, if any, colleges have ever raised so
much money with such a minimum of full-time
staff support as did Washington and Lee. This
can be credited to the superb administrative skills
of Farris Hotchkiss and his creative use of a
small but talented staff of professional and cleri-
cal assistants. A successful printing executive,
Hotchkiss satisfied an ache to return to Washing-
ton and Lee by first working as a financial aid
director, then moving into development work
two years later. In his 14 years as a development
director, he has won national respect among his
colleagues at other colleges and now is co-direc-
tor of an annual development workshop for those
who want to learn how to do it right.

Hotchkiss was the tireless traveler, criss-
crossing the country in support of trustees and
members of the Achievement Council of volun-
teer leaders who meant so much to what became
Phase I of the Development Program. Back in
Lexington, he had the support of several staff
specialists, including J. Sanford Doughty, a
veteran development officer at Lake Forest Col-
lege and other institutions. The consumate Wil-
liams College alumnus, Doughty helped bring
Phase I to a successful conclusion in 1976 with
the attainment of $37.5 million against a $36
million milepost objective.

Other principals in the Development Office
included Carter McNeese, a Naval Academy
graduate, who took over direction of the Univer-
sity’s annual giving programs in 1972 and con-
tinues to oversee the extraordinary success of
Washington and Lee class agents and other
volunteer workers. Edward O. Henneman, a
graduate of Yale and the Harvard Law School,
also joined the staff in 1972 as an expert in estate
planning and deferred giving. In 1978 he began
teaching in Washington and Lee’s law school
where he is now assistant dean.

Some of the most effective development work
was done by two groups of field representatives,
all alumni. The first group, known as Staff
Associates, was active in Phase I, and included
Upton Beall, ’51, Tyler, Texas; William P.
Boardman, 63, ’69L, Columbus, Ohio; Thomas
B. Branch III, ’58, ’60L, Atlanta (now a trustee);
Jaquelin H. DeJarnette, 65, Richmond; John S.
R. Schoenfeld, ’49, Washington; Adrian Wil-
liamson Jr., ’50, Little Rock, Arkansas; and
Clark B. Winter, ’37, Garden City, N.Y. A
second group, organized for Phase II support as

 

Development Associates, included Beall; John
M. Duckworth, ’71, Charlottesville (also an
assistant development director, 1973 to 1977);
E. Stewart Epley, ’49, Stephentown, N.Y. (now
University Treasurer); John C. Hollister, °58,
Atlanta; Calvert G. de Coligny Jr., ’61, Pitts-
burgh; and Milburn K. Noell Jr., 51, *54L,
Memphis.

The purpose of both groups was essentially
the same—to assist trustees and volunteer leaders
(the Achievement Council in Phase I, the De-
velopment Council in Phase II) in the cultivation
and solicitation of prospective donors. Within
each group not all served at exactly the same
time nor for the same length of time. All inter-
rupted established careers in order to help their
University in a program they believed important.
Some divided their efforts between regular work
and Washington and Lee’s, while others gave up
law practice, investment counseling, banking,
and the like to devote full-time to the University
for months at a time. Each was responsible for a
geographic area, and all were involved in exten-
sive contributions of time, travel, and diligent
effort in support of the trustees active in their
areas.

Robert Trusdell, an experienced develop-
ment man, assumed responsibility for foundation
proposals in March 1980, working from a base in
Richmond. Richard Sessoms, a Hampden-Syd-
ney graduate with close Lexington ties, joined
the staff as an associate director in December
1980 and was instrumental in helping maintain
the intensity of the closing months of the overall
campaign.

The efforts of these development staff mem-
bers, spread over more than a decade of intensive
activity, proved effective and economical. The
University realized a spectacular return on the

COMMITMENTS BY SIZE OF GIFTS

$1,000,000 or more (8)

$75 ,000-$99,999 (6)

 

investment of its fund-raising dollar.

During the course of the Development Pro-
gram, the faculty and staff of Washington and
Lee could not have been more supportive. Evi-
dence of that support came during an on-campus
campaign, headed by Dean Emeritus Leon F.
Sensabaugh, during which 87 percent of the
faculty and staff made gifts.

The real heroes of the effort, though, were
the trustees. When another University historian
writes the sequel to General Lee’s College, it
may be possible to pay tribute to the accomplish-
ments of all those who served during the critical
decade. For now, only a few can be singled
out—the Rectors, the Development Committee
chairmen, a few of the principal givers and get-
ters, among whom there was none more principal
than the University president.

It would be difficult to overstate the impor-
tance of Bob Huntley to the success of the De-
velopment Program. Virtually every major gift
from a living donor can be traced to important,
personal involvement of the president, either in
the cultivation of the individual’s interest or in
the articulate and persuasive request for help that
translated interest into active support. Frequent-
ly, it was both. Foundations and corporations
warmed to Bob Huntley’s finely reasoned ap-
peals, but it was in his dealings with individuals
that Huntley was most effective. Farris Hotch-
kiss, Huntley’s frequent companion in such in-
stances, recalls admiringly the manner in which
the president would insist that a gift be made ina
way that would bring pleasure and satisfaction to
the donor.

Bob Huntley wore many hats, of course. All
fit well. He became a respected spokesman for
liberal education, as admired today by humanists,
scientists, and social scientists as he is by his

COMMITMENTS BY USE

      
 
    

Current Expenses
$13.4 million

    
    

Endowment
$22.8 million

 

Campus
Improvements/Construction
$30.8 million

 

colleagues in law, where his specialty lies. Al-
though his travels for the Development Program
frequently took him away from the campus for
long periods, he maintained close ties with faculty
and students alike when he was in Lexington.

As a visionary planner, Huntley held a firm
hand on the ambitious programs that evolved in
the development of the physical facilities. He
insisted on every feasible economy, putting the
hard questions first to the deans, librarians, and
professors whose programs a new or remodeled
building would serve, then to the architects and
engineers and contractors who shaped the pro-
grams into concrete and brick.

No Washington and Lee president ever
worked more effectively with the University’s
trustees than Bob Huntley. And no president in
the University’s long history ever had a stronger,
more cooperative Board.

The late Huston St. Clair was Bob Huntley’s
first Rector of the Board, inspiring the new presi-
dent with his steady support and quiet, good
humor. Dr. John N. Thomas was Rector when
the goals were announced in 1972, and his ener-
getic leadership and involvement extended be-
yond his retirement as an active trustee in 1973.
The great expectations associated with the elec-
tion of Ross L. Malone as the next Rector were
dashed when this dynamic leader died within the
year. He was succeeded by E. Marshall Nuckols
Jr., the first trustee elected through nomination
by the alumni at large. Nuckols bore the burden
of Board leadership longest, seven years, before
retirement in 1981. James M. Ballengee, elected
to the Board in 1978, is the promising new
Rector.

Stemmons, the genial giant Texan, was
chairman of the Development Committee from
its creation in 1967 to the successful conclusion
of Phase I and his retirement from the Board in
1977. His successor, John L. Crist Jr., helped
formulate the Phase II goals, but in less than a
year a disabling illness forced his resignation as a
trustee, a loss as sharply felt as that of Ross
Malone. S L Kopald took over in 1978 and
continues to exert his precise and articulate lead-
ership.

When the University’s ‘‘Benefactors’ Wall”’
is completed in the lobby of Washington Hall,
three trustees active in the Development Program
will be listed among those who have supported
Washington and Lee with gifts exceeding $1
million. Sydney Lewis’s name will be there,
along with Jonathan Westervelt ‘‘Jack’’ Warner’s
and F. Fox Benton’s. Because all three and their
wives committed so much of their personal
treasure to Washington and Lee, each trustee
was particularly effective in active solicitation of

major gifts from other friends of the University.

And so it went, for a Development Program
‘“decade”’ that in truth spanned 14 years. Long,
arduous months stretched into long, arduous
years as planning for buildings and academic
development merged and overlapped with the
planning of fund-raising for these needs.

A bold first step to create a physical manifes-
tation of development progress was taken in
1969. Although all funds necessary for the pro-
ject were not in hand, the trustees were suf-
ficiently confident to authorize the start of con-
struction on a new $3.2 million addition to
Doremus Gymnasium. It was the priority need of
longest standing and the one that could begin
without affecting pending decisions on other
buildings. The gymnasium expansion was com-
pleted in 1971; in time for the announcement of
the Development Program and its goals to an
assembly there a few months later. Among those
goals, of course, was an early completion of
funding for the new gymnasium which was to
become the Warner Athletic Center.

Early in 1970, the University established
working relationships with new architectural
consultants who were to play a major role in
shaping the nature of the evolving campus. The
Pittsburgh landscape architecture firm of Gris-
wold, Winters & Swain was engaged as master
plan consultants, while the Richmond firm of
Marcellus Wright Cox Cilimberg & Ladd was
given the assignment of designing a new law
school building. These firms, now evolved
corporately into GWSM, Inc., and Marcellus
Wright Cox & Smith, continue to serve as the
major consultants for Washington and Lee’s
building and campus development.

When Hurricane Camille washed out the
railroad track between Lexington and Buena

 

John L. Crist Jr. succeeded John
Stemmons as chairman of the
Board of Trustees’ Development
Committee. Here he is welcomed
to Board membership by the late
Ross L. Malone, then Rector.

 

 

Gene Corrigan (far right), then
Athletic Director, breaks ground
for the addition to Doremus Gym-
nasium, which later became the
Warner Athletic Center. Presi-
dent Huntley is second from left.

 

Vista in 1969, the rail spur bisecting the back
Campus was removed as a barrier to University
planners. It became feasible to use the old C & O
right-of-way as access to a proposed law school
site across the Woods Creek ravine in the vicinity
of Wilson Field. As the plans for what was to
become Lewis Halli took shape, other planning
began for a new undergraduate library. Each
building would incorporate more square footage
than all five of the Colonnade buildings combin-
ed, and it was determined that each would be
modern in design, yet reflective of the architec-
tural lines, colors, and textures of the historic
campus.

Other pieces of the planning puzzle fell into
place. The space requirements of the Commerce
School could be accommodated neatly in Mc-
Cormick Library, after removal of the books and
a major renovation. Newcomb Hall, remodeled
and refurnished, could accommodate at least four
homeless or scattered departments in the College;
Tucker Hall, vacated by the Law School, would
lend itself nicely to foreign languages, psychol-
ogy, and the computer center. DuPont would, at
long last, be devoted exclusively to art history,
studio arts, and music. Greek and Latin would
have a home in Washington Hall, and math-
ematics and English would be improved in place
in Robinson and Payne Halls, respectively.

Almost miraculously, funding kept pace with
planning, making it possible for logical se-
quences in construction to occur as first project-
ed. Because some commitments for construction
purposes involved future pledge payments,
Washington and Lee found it practical to create
the needed cash flow for paying contractors by
tax exempt financing through the Virginia Col-
lege Building Authority.

In 1976, two unusual circumstances de-

veloped. Planning for the undergraduate library
was complete, but funding was not, and infla-
tionary trends in the construction industry seemed
to be driving the projected cost out of sight. In an
effort to get a better grasp of the cost factor,
Washington and Lee arranged for a carefully
selected contractor to act as the University’s
agent in pricing the project in competitive bid-
ding, just as though the project light were green.
Virtually simultaneous with the decision to pro-
ceed with this exercise, the University received
the estate of Mrs. Miriam Caperton Alexander
McClure of New Orleans, an unrestricted bequest
of $4.2 million. Suddenly, the library bidding
project was more than an exercise, and if the
price were right, the job could actually proceed.

Thus began a remarkable relationship be-
tween Washington and Lee and Bass Construc-
tion Co. of Richmond, the firm selected to bid
and build the $9 million undergraduate library.
Subsequently, the University has chosen to
negotiate contracts with Bass Construction Co.
for the $3.5 million renovation of McCormick, a
$1.2 million renovation of Tucker, the $750,000
expansion of the Evans Hall kitchen, the $500,-
000 transformation of one of the historic homes
on the front campus into an art and porcelain
research and exhibition center, and the $3.5 mil-
lion renovation of the Graham-Lees freshman
dormitory. Under the enlightened management
of its president, Robert Bass, the firm has never
failed to meet its completion schedule well in
advance of the contracted date. Most contracts
with Bass have provided for sharing of any sav-
ings in materials and labor between owner and
contractor, and Washington and Lee’s benefits
from these arrangements are nearing $300,000.
Even when no such clause was included in the
McCormick contract, Bob Bass returned $20,000
to the University because he had realized a greater
profit on the project than he had anticipated. The
renovation of Graham-Lees dorm involved criti-
cal timing—completion in time for occupancy
by a new freshman class in September 1982.
Bass will have the job done three months early.

The development decade has been a time of
spectacular achievement and memorable events.
In 1973, ceremonies heralded the designation of
the venerable front campus as a National Historic
Landmark. A year later, alumni of the Washing-
ton area were guests of Washington and Lee and
Mt. Vernon at the first president’s famous home.
In 1976, the Board of Trustees met in Independ-
ence Hall in Philadelphia, on the occasion of the
national Bicentennial and the centennial anni-
versary of an earlier meeting there by Washington
and Lee trustees. In 1978, the scene was New
York City for the announcement of the start of

 

 

Phase II of the Development Program and the
scope of its revised goals.

Now, in 1982, those goals have been achieved
and there is occasion for reflection on the accom-
plishments of a long decade. After years of noise,
disruption, and muddy raw earth, there are no
construction trailers or other intrusions into the
central campus area, front or back. Site work
still remains near Graham-Lees, but this will
finish by next September. Future projects will be
on the campus periphery.

Not only was the $62 million goal over-
subscribed by $5 million, but the University
found itself substantially strengthened by
achievements not numbered among the pro-
gram’s objectives nor tabulated in its accounts.
Because of the self-liquidating potential of stu-
dent housing and dining facilities, Washington
and Lee was able to finance, at unusually attrac-
tive interest rates, the construction of the Woods
Creek Apartments for upperclassmen and law
students, the Graham-Lees freshman dormitory
renovation, and a major remodeling and expan-
sion of the Evans Dining Hall kitchen.

Two other facilities now enriching the Uni-
versity do not show up in the program figures.
Skylark Farm, 45 minutes from Lexington on the
Blue Ridge Parkway, was a gift from Mr. and
Mrs. Leslie Cheek Jr. of Richmond. Valued at
well over a million dollars, Skylark is an increas-
ingly active site of academic conferences and
retreats, and revenue from the Christmas trees
grown there helps offset the costs of its operation.
Back on the campus, one of the historic former
faculty homes has become the Reeves Center
through a commitment of $500,000 from an

anonymous donor. The Reeves Center will be an —

important research and exhibition facility for the
University’s extensive collection of antique
porcelain and the paintings of Louise Herreshoff.

And not included in the $67 million of the
Development Program is the largest single gift or
bequest ever added to Washington and Lee’s
resources. John Lee Pratt of Fredericksburg,
Virginia, whose affection for Washington and
Lee was developed by Dr. Gaines and nurtured
by Dr. Cole, died in December 1975, leaving
the University a share in his estate amounting to
some $11 million. He specified that it was not to
be used for construction or maintenance, but for
the support of faculty salaries and student schol-
arships. Moreover, his will said that he preferred
that Washington and Lee spend the principal
amount over a period of 25 years, although he
did not state this as a requirement.

Because of the unusual flexibility given the
University in its disposition of the Pratt estate,
and because of its enormous size, Washington

 

and Lee’s trustees decided not to include its

impressive totals in its Development Program
accounting. The effect of this decision was felt in

‘two important ways: first, the availability of

such a resource for immediate use was an effec-
tive cancellation of the debilitating effects of
inflation and recession on the University’s en-
dowment growth during Phase I; second, the
Pratt Fund helped limit the need for an upward
revision of fund objectives in Phase II to $6
million. In short, its effective use did not distort
the purpose nor the goal of the development
effort.

However they may have been accounted for,
the achievements of the past decade reveal them-
selves in differing ways. An alumnus returning
after more than a decade’s absence will see a
front campus virtually unchanged. Only the most
perceptive person with total recall will notice the
absence of a tree here or there, victims of storm
or old age; new trees and shrubs will look as
though they were always there in the mind’s eye.

Behind the facade of newly painted brick and
columns, an excellent faculty will be teaching
good students in superbly appointed and equipped
classrooms. Some of these professors will hold
teaching chairs endowed by gifts through the
Development Program. Scores of students will
be supported by scholarships, some based on
need, others based on merit, that resulted from
similar fund-raising success. Tangible results of
the Development Program abound: a modern
computer center meeting Washington and Lee’s

John Lee Pratt's bequest was not
included in the Development
Program totals, but it had a major
impact on the overall success of
the effort.

 

The view from the top of John
Stemmons’ figurative hill shows
the Liberty Hall ruins (center
foreground), new athletic fields,
Lewis Hall, Woods Creek Apart-
ments, the Warner Center, and
the University Library.

administrative needs, offering courses in com-
puter science, and supporting both faculty and
student computer-based research; a journalism
department whose newsroom is considered to be
among the very best equipped in the nation;
splendid studio facilities for art and music; a
dedicated seminar room for every department in
the College where professors and their majors
often meet in the easy informality of coffee and
stimulating conversation.

When the alumnus passes between Tucker
and Robinson, or between Payne and Newcomb,
he will behold an exciting new Washington and
Lee landscape—the mall between the old library
and duPont Hall, the new library, and across the
ravine, the Woods Creek student apartments,
Lewis Hall, and the terraced elevations of athletic
fields and tennis courts.

Few colleges in America provide as many
carrels and other places for study as Washington
and Lee now does in its University Library, the
Commerce School Building, and its other aca-
demic buildings. Law school deans and pro-
fessors from across America visit Lewis Hall
each year to marvel at its functional design and
the distinctive applications of modern technology
to its teaching and research. Few colleges offer
the variety of opportunity for competitive sports
or recreational enjoyment.

Contemplating all this, the alumnus may
sense some of the priceless intangibles achieved
by those who worked for and who gave to the
development effort—the pride of being associat-
ed with a college, vigorous and strong, well into
its third century . . . the satisfaction of having
been a part of this remarkable effort to assure the
University of a fourth century . . . the certain
knowledge that Washington and Lee remains an
institution where the individual, student and pro-
fessor alike, is important and special.

There’s a vantage point high on a hill beyond
Wilson Field where it’s possible to look in one
direction and see the limestone walls that remain
of Liberty Hall, vestige of a rich institutional
heritage. In the opposite direction there’s Old
George, white and elegant against the Blue
Ridge, watchful over the magnificent buildings
of the old campus of nearly 180 academic sea-
sons. In the foreground of this view is the array
of new buildings—Lewis Hall, Woods Creek,
the Warner Athletic Center, the University Li-
brary—all proclaiming Washington and Lee’s
commitment to a bright future. Finally, off to the
north, the eye can travel across pine forests, part
of some 200 acres owned by Washington and
Lee, waiting, if needed, for this future.

If this is the hill that John Stemmons had in
mind, the view is well worth the climb.

 

Photograph by R. Brooke Lewis, ’76, ’83L

 

 

 

by Robert E. R. Huntley, ’50,'57L

President of the University

A Cause for Rejoicing

Ecclesiastes reminds us that there is a season
for all things at Washington and Lee. This is the
season to rejoice. And we have many reasons for
rejoicing.

The most tangible reason is the success of the
Development Program which began more than a
decade ago. The story of that success is described
elsewhere. Most of our alumni and friends are by
now familiar with it. Most of them participated
in causing it. Buildings have been restored and
renovated and buildings have been added; the
endowments have been enlarged; programs and
teachers have been added or strengthened in every
part of the curriculum.

These successes provide convincing evidence
that this school does truly have its own guardian
angel. Our history over all the decades and cen-
turies is difficult to explain in more traditional
terms. On many occasions in our history we have
approached the final margin of survival or
mediocrity only to be redeemed by the inspired
effort and generosity of men and women whose
ties with Washington and Lee have seemed al-
most by accident. The gift of Washington and the
leadership of Lee are two examples we remember
in our name. There are hundreds, even thou-

sands, of others, persons of large talent and bold
generosity who have dedicated their careers and
their fortunes to this University. There are few
institutions of any kind, anywhere, which can
look back over so many years at a history of
perseverance in quest of high ideals.

The qualities that make Washington and Lee
special can hardly be articulated. Those that know
the school need no such statement. Integrity,
determination, idealism, and independence—
these are words one can use about our institution
with no embarrassment and no hyperbole. The
school’s practicality and determination have often
caused it to transform necessity into virtue; the
school’s idealism and integrity have caused it to
strive to transform virtue into necessity.

We want to afford our students the oppor-
tunity to achieve disciplined intellects, to be
trusting as well as trustworthy, to be selfless as
well as self-reliant. In this quest we have some-
times failed but failure has neither modified the
ideal nor dimmed the hope for the future.

Our history is a source of pride and a reason
to celebrate; our hope for the future in a time
when despair is common in the world around us
is an even greater cause for rejoicing.

 

President Huntley
Special Alumni Conference.

speaks at

11

 

12

Above: James M. Ballengee

by James M. Ballengee, ’45L

Rector of the Board of Trustees

‘. . . With Pride and Gratitude’

The Washington and Lee Board of Trustees
has a far weightier responsibility than the com-
monly understood one of acting in the role of the
‘“prudent man.’’ Certainly a board must govern
the institution for which it is responsible in a way
that protects it and helps to assure its continuance.
But the most demanding challenge facing Wash-
ington and Lee’s Board is to examine constantly
the question: in what way should the University
continue? Or, stated differently: in what ways
and through what means should Washington and
Lee improve its educational mission? Answers
to the latter questions require much more labor
and concern than the more routine demands of
fiscal management and legal responsibilities.

Other characteristics of the Washington and
Lee Board are ambition and high ideals for the
University’s present and future leadership in
American higher education. Such ambition is
not achieved by standing still or by preoccupation
with preservation.

Perhaps the Board’s ultimate responsibility
is to each year’s entering freshman class. This is
a responsibility to see to it that, through the
faculty and administration, the trust bestowed
upon the University by its students is never
broken: a trust that their Washington and Lee
education will be important and helpful all their
lives.

Inspired by President Huntley’s vision, the
Board of Trustees began formulating in the late
’60s an institutional Development Program con-
sistent with the Board’s and President Huntley’s
aspirations for Washington and Lee. No facet of
the Washington and Lee program was left un-
examined, including the Board’s own organiza-
tion. The trustees determined to improve dra-
matically every aspect of the University’s aca-
demic and student life. The academic calendar,
the curriculum, the size and quality of the faculty,
faculty salaries, the physical plant and campus,
athletic opportunities, student dining and living
facilities, student financial aid, institutional fi-
nancial planning and business procedures, con-
stituency-wide fund-raising efforts, and endow-
ment management—all these aspects of the Uni-
versity’s program were closely examined, am-
bitiously redesigned, and carefully blended into
a comprehensive program for institutional devel-
opment which was publicly announced on George
Washington’s birthday, 1972.

The financial requirement that would make

 

possible all that the Board wanted for Washing-
ton and Lee was staggering. In short, if the
Board were to make good on its hopes and plans
for the University’s future, the most ambitious
fund-raising effort ever for a school of Washing-
ton and Lee’s size would have to be undertaken.
Perhaps even more sobering was the realization
that the Board would have to shoulder most of
the fund-raising effort itself. It was clear that the
Board had sufficient resolve to undertake the
necessary work among the Washington and Lee
constituency, but it was not until the magnificent
gift from Frances and Sydney Lewis that the
Board truly believed that the fund-raising task
was realistic.

The rest is now history: $67 million was
raised in response to a $62 million program. The
Board’s ambition produced 25 percent of the
goal from the Board itself. Washington and Lee
did succeed with the largest fund-raising effort
undertaken to date by a college or university of
our size. Best of all, every one of the planned
improvements—physical, curricular, and fi-
nancial—has been made.

While the Board has rejoiced in the many
advancements of the past decade, it must also be
said that the Board has held sacred the priceless

i i Jy

 

 

moral traditions that are the very fabric of Wash-
ington and Lee. Chief among these are the Honor
System and the University’s code of courteous
conduct. As important as the changes that have
produced improvement has been the nurturing of
the characteristics of the Washington and Lee
student which—admittedly with bias—I think
sets him or her apart from those at any other

institution of higher learning.

Upon this celebratory occasion the Board
looks back on the past decade with pride and
gratitude for all that has happened at Washington
and Lee. I would say that the University’s future
is brighter today than it has ever been. On behalf
of my fellow trustees, let me assure you that we
intend to keep it that way.

 

Top left: Ballengee (center) pre-

sides over Board meeting.

Bottom left: Ballengee and former

Rector E. Marshall Nuckols Jr.

3

 

14

Farris P.. Hotchkiss

by Farris P. Hotchkiss, ’58

Director of Development

W&L’s Philanthropic Tradition

 

Washington and Lee University has develop-
ed many traditions over its 233 years. Of equal
importance to any of these, I believe, is the
philanthropic tradition which recently has been
relied upon so successfully. The Development
Program’s achievement must be explained ulti-
mately by the generosity of our donors and the
dedicated labor of those who sought our gifts.
But I would suggest that there were important
philosophical and practical elements in the pro-
gram—perhaps not always consciously perceived
—which made the greatest possible contribution
to the University’s good fortune and, in so doing,
helped to perpetuate our philanthropic tradition.

From a conceptual point of view, Washington
and Lee might be thought of as a white-water
stream, like the ones that populate the Univer-
sity’s mountain home in the spring of the year.
The University resembles such a stream because
of the rapid flow of progress fostered by the
wisdom of its Board and faculty growing out of
their concern for the changing needs of its stu-
dents. In order for the University to grow con-
stantly in stature, however, the financing of its
enterprise must similarly grow, making possible

the swelling of the stream of ideas and improve-
ments.

The need to secure funds for Washington and
Lee, large or small, is a sign of the University’s
traditional vitality and independence. This per-
ception was aroused particularly, I think, by the
Development Program’s announcement in 1972.
The announcement itself was a sign of vitality.
Only a stagnant enterprise could need no addi-
tional funding, particularly when that enterprise
does not ask a fee for its services even equal to its
annual cost. (A time for worry would be a time
when the message from Lexington would imply
that the University has all the funds it needs!)
The 1972 announcement was also a sign of inde-
pendence because Washington and Lee can be
independent only to the extent that it is adequately
supported financially from private sources. And
another signal of independence seen in the pro-
gram’s announcement was the reassurance that
those who govern Washington and Lee intended
to keep the University’s charges at as reasonable
a level as possible, thus affording those who
wish and are qualified to attend the University
the greatest degree of freedom to do so.

The fund-raising program announced in 1972
was an open invitation for support to all constitu-
encies. That invitation, though very large, was
philosophically consistent for those who identify
themselves with American private education in
general and with Washington and Lee in par-
ticular. I believe that those who agree on the
importance of Washington and Lee’s educational
service expected then and now to be asked to
support it through their gifts and by seeking gifts
for the University from others. Such support
should not stem from a feeling of obligation but
rather from a feeling that a gift of assets or
service is expressive of a donor’s interest and,
through that expression, makes possible the es-
tablishment of a permanent record of a donor’s
personal values. In 1972, Washington and Lee’s
campus already bore the names of many who had
chosen to express and record their life-values at
the University, or to create honors or memorials
for others. Gifts to the recent program added
many more names that will stand for as long as
there is a Washington and Lee.

From the standpoint of practicality, important
philanthropy responds best to important plans
giving rise to important need. While a privately
supported school always has plans and needs, it

Ne a

 

 

is from time to time managerially desirable to
package them into a cohesive institutional plan
calling for dramatic progress and committed and
organized philanthropic response. That kind of
progress—which was absolutely necessary for
Washington and Lee in 1972 in the minds of the
members of the Board of Trustees—called for
the highest degree of disciplined attention from
the Board, administration, faculty and alumni. I
believe that the energies of these groups were
beneficially focused within the bounds of a pro-
gram whose numerous interlocking objectives
were easily explained and justified. It was excit-
ing to see the ambition for success spring up
among the University’s constituencies in a
mutual effort to bring Washington and Lee what
she needed. Examples of that enthusiasm took
many forms. All members of the Board of Trus-
tees made capital gifts as did 87 percent of the

University’s faculty and staff; 67 percent of all
funding was given by alumni. The Washington
and Lee family developed and sustained the desire
and synergism which are the sine qua non for
great philanthropy.

Philosophically or practically, the fact that
Washington and Lee exceeded the $62-million
goal by $5 million demonstrates that the Univer-
sity is able to meet the great plans it makes. Our
recent success demonstrates also that there is
every reason to believe that the University can
continue to plan for its improvement with the
expectation that reasonably drawn plans will be
supported. ,

The fact that Washington and Lee is both
traditionally independent and traditionally phil-
anthropic is no accident. The two traditions de-
pend absolutely on one another for their exist-

ence.

 

Hotchkiss takes trustees on a tour
of Lewis Hall. From left, Frank
C. Brooks, Hotchkiss, Frances
Lewis, Sydney Lewis, and J. Alvin
Philpott inspect the law school
building.

15

   

 

The Program: Year by Year

T 9g 7 T —Achievement Council under the leadership of
John M. Stemmons, ’31, meets with the Uni-
versity Board of Trustees to help plan a fund-
raising effort to make possible a dramatic in-
stitutional Development Program.

T Qg 7 2? —A gift of $600,000 from the William R. Kenan
Jr. Charitable Trust of New York establishes
the Kenan Professorship.

—Formal announcement of a comprehensive
10-year Development Program is made on
Founders’ Day in the recently-opened gym-
nasium; $9.2 million has already been com-
mitted to the effort.

—Sydney and Frances Lewis of Richmond, Va.,
give the University $9 million for the law
school.

—The front campus is declared a National His-
toric Landmark during ceremonies at the Uni-
versity.

—The Kresge Foundation offers a challenge
Top right: President Huntley an- grant of $500,000 toward the construction of a

nounces the Development Pro- new undergraduate library.
gram.

Bott ‘ht: Front campus is —The University receives a $1.5 million be-
ottom right: : ’
designated a National Historic quest from the estate of Wilbur C. Hall, °15L,
Landmark. of Leesburg, Va.

 

 

 

$20,41 0,498

 

16

 

—Groundbreaking ceremonies are held for
Lewis Hall, the new law school building.

—A grant from the Mary Reynolds Babcock
Foundation establishes the East Asian Studies
program.

—Work begins on the Woods Creek Apart-
ments, new all-weather tennis courts, the

maintenance building, and the heating-cooling
facilities.

—A grant of $900,000 is received from the late
Christopher T. Chenery, 09, of Doswell, Va.,
providing significant funding for the proposed
new library.

 

1973

Top left: Frances and Sydney
Lewis prepare to break ground at
Lewis Hall site.

Bottom left: Woods Creek Apart-
ments provide needed student
housing.

 

 

1974

Top right: Former Rector John
Newton Thomas flanked by the
late Ross Malone (left) and Presi-
dent Huntley

Bottom right: Miss Ruth Parmly
(left) and President Huntley listen
to Rector E. Marshall Nuckols Jr.
at Parmly Hall dedication.

Se

$27,215,659
fu

       

—The S. Blount Mason Jr., 05, Professorship
is established in recognition of the grant from
the estate of Mr. Mason, a Baltimore insurance
executive.

—An endowment grant from Mrs. Philip F.
Howerton of Charlotte, N.C., creates the
Philip Fullerton Howerton Program in the de-
partment of religion.

—John Newton Thomas, ’24, retires as Rector
of the Board of Trustees; Ross Malone, ’32, is
named as Thomas’ successor.

—Following Mr. Malone’s untimely death, E.
Marshall Nuckols Jr., ’33, ’35L, is named
Rector of the Board.

 

—A grant from the Lilly Foundation establishes
‘*Society and the Professions: Studies in Ap-
plied Ethics,’’ a program for pre-professional
undergraduate students in journalism, law,
medicine, and business.

—For the first time in its history, the Univer-
sity’s Annual Fund surpasses $500,000.

—An endowment grant of $1.5 million is made
to the University by Miss Ruth Parmly and is
recognized in the dedication of the biology,
physics, and engineering building on the cam-
pus in memory of Charles Howard Parmly,
Miss Parmly’s father.

 

 

 

—The Woods Creek Apartments are opened for
occupancy by students.

—The University receives a $1.6 million grant
from the late Richard E. Gooch, 30, of Lex-
ington.

—A campus solicitation program is begun, re-
sulting in gifts from 87 percent of the Univer-
sity’s faculty and staff for the University Li-
brary and scholarships.

 

 

—Edgar A. Basse, ’39, of San Antonio, Texas,
makes a gift of $500,000 to the University for
the new library and campus restoration.

—The University gains the services of five De-

velopment Associates residentially located in
New York, Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, and
Texas; others joined the program later.

 

1975

Top left: President Huntley and
Dr. Leon F. Sensabaugh, dean
emeritus, discuss campus solicita-
tion program, which Dr. Sensa-
baugh headed.

Bottom left: The University Li-
brary’s earliest stages.

 

1976

Clockwise from top left: The late
Miriam Caperton Alexander Mc-
Clure; the Board of Trustees holds
Bicentennial meeting in Inde-
pendence Hall; the Warner Cen-
ter for Athletics.

$37,469,063

 

20

—The University receives a bequest of $11 mil-
lion from the estate of John Lee Pratt of Frede-
ricksburg, Va. Because of the special nature
of the grant, the Board of Trustees decides not
to include it in the Development Program gift
totals.

—A $4.2 million grant is made to the University
by the late Miriam Caperton Alexander Mc-
Clure of New Orleans, La. This provides the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

largest grant used for the University Library.

—The nation’s Bicentennial is celebrated with a
gathering of the University’s Board of Trustees
in Philadelphia; the Board meets in Independ-
ence Hall.

—Phase I of the Development Program is suc-
cessfully concluded with a total of $37.5 mil-
lion, $1.5 million more than the $36 million
goal.

 

 

 

—Lewis Hall is formally dedicated in honor of to honor gifts from Jonathan Westervelt War- l 9 / 7]
the grant from Sydney and Frances Lewis. ner, 41, of Tuscaloosa, Ala., and the David

—The University is given Skylark Farm, a Warner Foundation.

splendid 400-acre facility on the Blue Ridge —The Fletcher Otey Thomas Professorship in
Parkway, by Mr. and Mrs. Leslie Cheek Jr. of Bible is established in memory of Mr. Thomas
Richmond, Va. by his sons, John Newton Thomas, ’24, of

Richmond, Va., and William O. Thomas, ’31,
of Bedford, Va.

—The Warner Center for Athletics is dedicated

Clockwise from top left: Jack
Warner at dedication ceremonies
for Warner Center; Skylark Farm
on the Blue Ridge Parkway;
President Huntley toasts the new
law school facility with Lewis Hall
scotch, donated for the occasion
by Judge Alex M. Harman, ’44L.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

$41,781,311

 

 

T Q7 S —Restoration of the Lee-Jackson House is
completed.

—The University receives a grant of $900,000
from the late David D. Johnson, ’21, ’23L, of
Pittsburgh, Pa.

—President Robert E. R. Huntley announces
Phase II of the Development Program: the
Phase II goal is $26 million to be completed by
1981.

—Mr. and Mrs. Robert G. Brown of Dallas,
Texas, make a grant of $500,000 to create the
Robert G. Brown Professorship.

—The Development Council under the leader-
ship of S L Kopald, 43, is formed as a succes-
sor to the Achievement Council of Phase I.

 

Top to bottom: § L Kopald heads
the Development Council; the
Lee-Jackson House after its reno-
vation; President Huntley dis-
plays check presented by Trustee
Ross Millhiser on behalf of Philip
Morris Inc. at the outset of Phase
II of the Development Program.

 

$45,294,919

 

 

 

 

 

 

—The University moves into the new library
building with the Great Library Move of ’79.

—The $3.5 million renovation of the old library
for the School of Commerce, Economics, and
Politics is begun.

—The University receives a bequest of $1 mil-
lion from the estate of Egbert Doggett, ’14,
for the creation of an endowed scholarship

program.

nem

ee

 

 

1979

Clockwise from top left: President
Huntley announces Phase II at
New York banquet; the Com-
merce School Building begins to
take shape; the Great Library
Move in progress.

SN

 

1980

Top to bottom: The Chenery
Bridge in front of the University
Library; Winstanley’s portrait of
George Washington in the Uni-
versity Library; students tele-
phoning alumni as part of the
Annual Fund campaign.

$53,525,186

—Jonathan Westervelt Warner, ’41, gives the
University the priceless Winstanley portrait of
George Washington for the new library.

—Dedication ceremonies are held for the new
University Library.

—The Annual Fund tops $1 million for the first
time.

—The School of Commerce, Economics, and
Politics moves into its new quarters.

—Renovation of Newcomb and Tucker Halls
begins.

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
    

 

 

 

 

 

—F. Fox Benton Jr., ’60, of Houston, Texas,
gives the University a $1 million endowment
grant.

—An endowed honor scholarship program, the
Lewis Scholars, is established by a gift from
Mrs. Dora L. Lewis of Richmond, Va. A
similar honor scholarship program is estab-
lished by the Best Products Foundation.

—Undergraduate departments move into reno-
vated Newcomb and Tucker Halls.

  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 

—An anonymous $2 million challenge is an-
nounced to match all capital grants of $10,000
Or more.

—James M. Ballengee, ’48L, succeeds E. Mar-
shall Nuckols Jr., ’33, ’?35L, as Rector of the
Board of Trustees.

—The Development Program is completed,
surpassing its goal by $5 million; the program
is the largest successful effort ever by a school
of Washington and Lee’s size.

1981

Clockwise from top left: Philos-
ophy seminar room in renovated
Newcomb Hall; Trustee and
Achievement Council Chairman
John M. Stemmons (left) and
Trustee Jack Warner toast the
Development Program’s success;
an overview of the campus.

$66,978,954

 

 

 

EDITOR’S NOTE

This article and the ones
that follow bring the De-
velopment Program into
perspective from the point
of view of a generous
alumnus donor, a current
law student and graduate
of the College, a retired
Dean and teacher of
German, a law professor
who did his undergraduate
work at W&L, aW&L
graduate who returned

to the University last year
to teach German, the head
of the Department of Fine
Arts who came to W&L
from a large state univer-
sity, and a scientist who
has twice been on the
faculty of W&L and
formerly taught and did
research ata large urban
university. We are grateful
to them for sharing their
views with us.

 

John Boardman, ’51

26

A Donor’s Eyeview

On a sunny June day back in 1980, John
Boardman paid a visit to his alma mater.

A 1951 graduate of Washington and Lee,
Boardman had been back on the campus
numerous times since he received his diploma.

But this visit was different.

This time, Boardman took a long, hard,
careful look at what his University had become.

He saw a splendid new library building
where a gorge had been. He saw a marvelous

 

plaza area on the back campus. He saw a
beautiful new home for the commerce school
taking shape where a library had once been. The
more he saw, the more impressed he was.

‘I was astounded at what had been
accomplished,’’ says Boardman, recalling that
visit of two years ago.

‘*So many times you hear people return to a
place they remember and say, “Gee, it’s just not
the way it used to be,’ Certainly, Washington
and Lee is not the way it was when I was in
school—it’s better.’’

Boardman had not made this visit simply as a
sightseer. He had come at the University’s in-
vitation because he had been asked to make a
capital gift in support of the historic Development
Program that was entering its final stages.

The University had asked him to make a
contribution of $25,000 to the fund-raising effort.
He gave Washington and Lee $50,000.

‘‘Tn a nutshell, I was so impressed by what I
saw and so proud of my school and of what it had
done that I wanted to be involved,’’ says Board-
man.

‘*T don’t know why people give. I’m sure
there are many, many different reasons. But
there was nothing complex about my decision. I
had an opportunity to do something for a place
that had done a great deal for me.”’

Like those many individuals who gave so
generously to the Development Program over
these last 10 years, John Boardman simply be-
lieves in Washington and Lee. He believes in
what the University is and what it has done. And
he is confident that the faculty and administration
are steering the school in the right direction.

Boardman is the president of Sam Moore
Furniture Industries in Bedford, Virginia. Under
his guidance, that company has grown to become
the largest manufacturer of chairs in the United
States. He has become a leader in the furniture
industry and was recently elected president of
the Southern Furniture Manufacturers Associa-
tion.

‘“What success I have had, if I’ve had any at
all, I have a very strong feeling that a great deal
of it was because of Washington and Lee,”’
Boardman says. *‘I made a gift to Washington
and Lee because it profoundly affected my life.

‘‘T think that a young man who went to
Washington and Lee and was not profoundly
affected by it just was not listening. Your life is

 

 

affected by that place. Your standard of values is
affected. How you relate to other people is af-
fected.”’

What is it exactly about this University that
elicits such loyalty and devotion from its alumni?
Why are Washington and Lee graduates so dra-
matically affected by their time on the campus?

‘‘T can’t explain what it is,’’ says Boardman.
‘‘But there is something about the place. . . .

“The beauty of the campus and the sur-
roundings has a little to do with it. But much of it
has to do with the quality of the people you meet
there and with the quality of the faculty. I still
feel so very fortunate to have studied under the
professors who were there when I was. I felt, in
several cases, that I learned things from those
professors that shaped my business philosophy,
that shaped my approach to concepts of social
responsibility, in particular. ”’

Boardman’s experience at Washington and
Lee revolved around the School of Commerce,
Economics, and Politics. Fittingly, the Board of
Trustees has named the student lounge in the
Commerce School Building in recognition of his
gift.

Boardman feels as strongly now as he ever
did in the educational value of the commerce
school.

‘As a businessman, I am obviously biased
and obviously very much in favor of our under-
graduate school of business,’’ Boardman says.
**The commerce school, I think, is one of the
best and most unusual programs at Washington
and Lee—the availability of an undergraduate
curriculum in which students can pursue pre-
professional course work without attending
schools that more resemble factories.

‘*There is a lot to be said for the pure liberal
arts education, of course. But Washington and
Lee’s ability to offer courses in commerce to
young men who are going to be liberal arts gra-
duates—and vice versa—is what makes the
school exceptional in my mind. And the students
are not going to be able to find any better physical
surroundings anywhere in the United States than
they will find on the campus in general and in the
Commerce School Building in particular. ’’

As with most fund-raising programs at private
schools, the underlying philosophy in asking
alumni to contribute is that their alma mater
needs their help in order to make educational
progress and remain independent.

‘‘Tf you aren’t careful, though, you can turn
this experience into an ego trip,’’ says Boardman.
‘*You can take the approach: ‘Here W&L, look
at me; look at what I’m going to do for you.’
Sure, I’m proud to have been able to do what I
have done for Washington and Lee. But the

bottom line is that Washington and Lee did so
much for me that I wanted to do what I could for
Washington and Lee.’’

Back to that June afternoon, to Boardman’s
tour of the campus, and to the feeling he had as
he walked the campus—a feeling undoubtedly
shared by countless other alumni who have re-
turned to their alma mater over the years.

‘‘T remember that I was so impressed and so
thrilled to say that this is my school,’’ Boardman
recalls now. ‘‘I thought to myself, “Look at what
it is, look at what’s happened here, look at how
everything I see is better than it was.’

‘‘And finally I thought: ‘I want to be a part of
this.” ”’

And so he was. And, through his gift, so will
he always be.

 

Boardman in his Bedford factory
2/

 

Rand Weinberg, ’78, ’82L

by Rand D. Weinberg, ’78A, ’82L

Instant Nostalgia

Rand Weinberg is a third-year law student from
Frederick, Md., who received his B.A. degree
from Washington and Lee in 1978.

Those of us who attended college in the 1970s
were witness to a wave of nostalgia which gripped
those who had been college students some years
earlier. Graduates of the 1950s fondly remem-
bered their carefree college days. Times were
simplier then, we were told, and values were
clearer. Graduates of the 1960s spoke reverently
of the days in which they, as students, took the
lead in a nationwide protest movement. We were
told that the Viet Nam era students had cared
deeply about the future of our species, while we
cared only about finding a job. I suppose eventu-
ally we collegians of ’70s will pass through a
similar stage, during which we will become con-
vinced that our decade was the only time to be in
school, and we will announce this important
conclusion to the world. For now, though, it
seems that most of us are too busy to be swept
away by nostalgia. It’s not that our college days
have not affected us deeply. Perhaps, rather, the
effect was so profound that we do not yet recog-
nize it; or if we do we are not ready to articulate it
to others.

However, for the handful of us who have had

 

the good fortune to be at Washington and Lee as
students throughout the bulk of the recently com-
pleted Development Program, there has been a
different and unique experience: instant nostal-
gia. For the last 10 years, Washington and Lee
has been perhaps the only academic institution
which has changed as much or grown as sub-
stantially as the young men and women who
studied within her halls. Each fall upon my return
to Lexington I found that some old, comfortable
campus fixture had been transformed into some-
thing far different from that which I had become
accustomed to, or had disappeared altogether.
Never again will a nervous 17-year-old freshman
sweat through his first hour of college classes in
the mini lecture hall known as ‘‘Washington
Annex 2.’’ The magnificent new University Li-
brary now casts its shadow over the grave of that
not forgotten repository of memories. And, no
longer will a Commerce School student have his
attention diverted from the task at hand by such
pursuits as counting the cracks in the walls of his
Newcomb Hall classroom. He is now subjected
to the unrelenting luxury of newly renovated
McCormick Hall. Of course, the pre-renovation
McCormick Hall, which served as our library,
played an important role in the development of
growing minds and bodies. Many of my class-
mates kept promises to their mothers to get suf-
ficient sleep only by the good graces of the full-
length sofas in McCormick’s magazine lounge.

The one product of the Development Program
with which I am most familiar, and the one
which will produce many of my most enduring
memories of Washington and Lee, is Lewis Hall,
home of the School of Law. As I watched this
building rise from the ground from my vantage
point in the bleachers of Wilson Field, I thought
it terribly out of place. What right did this fu-
turistic structure have to stand with such noble
and time-tested edifices as Washington Hall and
Lee Chapel? Yet what I failed to realize then was
that one of Washington and Lee’s great charms is
the seemingly effortless harmony of the old and
the new. Lewis Hall, and its younger brother on
the opposite bank of Woods Creek, the University
Library, have added immeasurably to Washing-
ton and Lee without detracting at all from the
sense of history we all feel here. In Lewis Hall
we have one of the great law school facilities in
the United States. Those of us who have been

 

 

 

 

fortunate enough to study there owe much to the
Lewises and all the others whose strong sense of
devotion to Washington and Lee have profoundly
influenced our academic career.

While the fabulously successful Develop-
ment Program has brought many changes to
Washington and Lee, perhaps the most signifi-
cant result of the program has been to underscore
a characteristic of the school which remains
markedly consistent. The unflagging support of
and dedication to Washington and Lee exhibited
by her alumni and friends is as much a part of the
University as is the Colonnade. I have heard
many try to explain, in cold, logical terms, why
the typical Washington and Lee graduate retains
such a fierce loyalty to his (or her) alma mater.

No one has convinced me of his particular theory.
Suffice it to say that Washington and Lee is a
special place, and the people who love her are
special people. Never has this been shown more
Clearly than during the last 10 years.

The recently completed Development Pro-
gram was the product of many and will benefit
even more. We who have been passive bene-
ficiaries of this Development Program should
never forget the accomplishments of the past
decade. The time will certainly come when an-
other effort of this magnitude will be required to
keep Washington and Lee on the course its
founders and leaders have charted. Let us all
stand ready to do our part to carry on the tradition
of this great old school.

 

An interior view of Lewis Hall;

portrait is of Frances and Sydney

Lewis.

29

 

 

Bottom left: Dr. William W.

Pusey Ill

Bottom right: Chinese exchange
program in front of Lee Chapel

by William W. Pusey III

S. Blount Mason Jr., Professor of German, Emeritus

The
International

Dimension

Bill Pusey retired from teaching last year after
serving on the faculty for 42 years. He was Dean
of the College for 11 years and was Acting Presi-
dent of the University for five months. He was
head of the German department for many years;
he also taught Russian and from 1972 to 1976
was program director of Chinese Studies.

A college or university, such as Washington
and Lee, located in a rural area must be par-
ticularly careful to avoid a regional or parochial
approach in its educational programs. Nestled
comfortably between the Blue Ridge and House
Mountain in the ‘‘Athens of Western Virginia,”’
Washington and Lee has during its distinguished
history enjoyed long periods of serenity, broken,
to be sure, by international or domestic strife.
Yet beginning more than 165 years ago Wash-
ington College students in debate in their literary
societies showed an awareness of the world be-
yond the borders of the United States, and by the
time of General Lee’s presidency there were
faculty members who had studied in Europe.

After World War II a number of foreign
students were supported at Washington and Lee,
but it was in the 1970s that a dramatic growth in
opportunities for our students to study abroad

took place. The introduction of the Spring Term
made it possible for students to attend foreign
universities for five or six weeks. In some in-
stances the emphasis has been on culture as shown
by the language: French, German, Spanish.
Other programs have taken students to England,
Italy, and Greece for study of historical monu-
ments or artistic developments in these countries.

A further expansion of the international hori-
zon came with the development in the 1970s of a
program of Chinese, and then East Asian studies,
devoted to an area of increasing importance for
the United States, which previously had received
inadequate attention. The implementation of this
program has led to valuable exchanges of stu-
dents and professors with educational institutions
in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan, as well as to
opportunities to visit the People’s Republic of
China. The initiation in the later 1970s of a fac-
ulty exchange program with Oxford University
is also emblematic of the value W&L puts on an
education reaching beyond the confines of Vir-
ginia and the United States.

In the main, these programs with foreign
emphasis have resulted from the initiative of
individual faculty members. They have obtained
support and encouragement from President
Huntley and other members of the administra-
tion, and have been well received by students.
As in all human endeavor, there is room for im-
provement. The expense of studying abroad, de-
spite the availability of limited student financial
aid, tends to restrict participation to the more af-
fluent students. An angel would be most welcome!

In summary, it seems to me that the expansion
of the international dimension of its undergradu-
ate education is one of the most significant de-
velopments at Washington and Lee during the
past dozen years.

 

 

 

by Lewis H. LaRue, ’59

Professor of Law

A Subjective Assessment

Lash LaRue received his B.A. degree from
Washington and Lee in 1959 and his LL.B. degree
from Harvard University School of Law in 1962.
After service in the Marine Corps Reserve and
with the U.S. Department of Justice, he returned
to Washington and Lee in 1967 to teach law.

There have been many changes at the law
school since I began teaching here in 1967, but I
am not sure which of them are most important. I
do know that others have been affected rather
differently from the way I have been by the many
changes that we have lived through, and so I
Suspect that they might rank events in ways that
might differ from my assessments. My story of
what has happened is partial in its view.

My inability to be objective is unfortunate,
since it limits what I can say about some of the
most important things. For example, the students
are surely the most important part of the school,
and thus changes in the studentry should be the
core of this report; but an objective account of
which changes have been most important to
them, to their life and education, is beyond my
power. For these years, there have been so many
students, and they have differed in so many
ways, that it would be presumptuous for me to
claim to speak in their name, or on their behalf.

I can make some reasonably objective com-
ments about the intellectual community among
the students, and as to that I am pleased to report
that there is a far more professional engagement
with the law than there was when I first came.
This has its visible manifestations: there is the
proliferation of teams that participate in national
competitions in advocacy and other lawyer skills;
there are the hours spent by students in providing
legal services to the inmates of the womens’
federal penitentiary and the state mental hospital;
there is the innovative and entirely self-created
program of teaching law to high school students;
there are the hours that they spend teaching each
other, and especially the generous way in which
second- and third-year students give of their time
to those who are in their first year of studying
law; and so forth (as I must end this list).

I do not know, however, what sort of com-
ment to make about changes in the ‘‘social’’
composition of the studentry. When I started,
there were no women law students, but now they

constitute a minority that is more than marginal.
In the same years, the representation of blacks
has changed in a minor sort of way from being
absolutely marginal to being marginal. The sons
and daughters of lower class families or blue
collar families are not represented in our school,
except sporadically. But I am not competent to
tell the story of this, to say what any of this has
meant to the particular students involved, or to
some hypothetically mythical average student.
The most tangible change in my own life has
been the change in my relationships with my
colleagues; it is far more professional than it was
when I arrived. Of course, I do admit that
Wwe gossip about trivia (including sports), and the
petty banter of social ritual is large in our life.
However, what I value the most are serious con-
versations about law and the place of law in
society. This sort of talk is not only more perva-
Sive than it was when I came, but it is more
professional, in all of the senses of professional.
The acuteness and the depth of the legal analysis
is far greater, and the range of historical and

 

Lewis H. LaRue, ’59

3]

 

au

A classroom in Lewis Hall

ethical analysis are better in every way.

Anyone who has seen the building that pro-
vides the base for our professional community
knows how great are the changes that mark the
contrast of Lewis Hall with Tucker. Here, I
could offer an objective catalogue, but once
again, I would note the changes that this has
meant for my own life. We now have a library in
which it is a joy to do research. The classrooms
in which I teach are comfortable, pleasant, and
have acoustics that aid instead of impede speak-
ing. We now have a secretarial staff that is large
enough for the ever increasing load of work, and
their willingness to develop new skills in the use
of modern equipment has led to a truly fantastic
increase in their productivity, and thus to a
modest increase in my own.

Throughout these years of change, there has
remained the solid presence of our dean, Roy L.
Steinheimer, the unchanging center. This is re-
markable, since nowadays the average tenure of
deans in American law schools is two or three

years. I do not know what changes Roy can
claim credit for (luck has also been part of it), but
he can claim absolute credit for the one thing that
has meant the most to his faculty, and that is his
scrupulous honesty. He has never-promised any-
thing that he didn’t deliver, and his word has
always been fair and true.

Indeed, these years have seen so many
changes, and all for the good, that my supersti-
tious nature is made fearful: since all of these
good things have happened, what bad will now
occur? According to all the Greek myths, good
fortune is always followed by bad. Perhaps this
is merely superstitious and irrational paranoia,
but it has some basis in reality: we are now well
placed enough to be able to make serious mis-
takes. When I first came, we were small enough
and poor enough so that our mistakes were un-
noticed. We have lost that luxury; but I have no
objective prognosis of how well we shall succeed
in justifying our good fortune as we try to find
new ways to educate.

 

 

 

by M. Kirkland Follo, ’67

Instructor in German

Back to the Source

Kirk Follo received his B.A. degree from Wash-
ington and Lee in 1967, four years before the
beginning of the Development Program. He re-
ceived his M.A. degree from Northwestern Uni-
versity where he taught from 1974 to 1981. He
Joined the German faculty at Washington and
Lee in September, 1981, just as the Development
Program was coming to a close.

Like many graduates of Washington and Lee
I developed strong ties to Lexington during my
student days and had long toyed with the
idea of returning one day and settling there.
So when offered a position in the German
department a year ago, I left Chicago without
hesitation. I had learned from my years in the
city and the time I had spent in Germany, but I
was ready for a change. Return to the source, I
thought to myself, only half ironically. So I
packed my worldly goods into a modest U-Haul
and set out—for what, I wasn’t sure. Time, as I
believe has been observed before, has a way of
changing things.

Today I have finished my first two terms of
teaching at Washington and Lee, and I know
more clearly what I was setting out for last sum-
mer. Now would seem to be a good time to write
down my thoughts on what I have found. I do
this for myself—there are certain things I need to
formulate—but probably also for a few others,
since no doubt more than one person reading this
has wondered what it would be like to go back.

First of all there is the landscape. It is as-
tonishingly beautiful—I am tempted to say more
beautiful than it was when I left 15 years ago; but
of course that’s not so. It hasn’t changed, the
observer has. And although nearly everyone who
is a student here knows that the Shenandoah
Valley and the Blue Ridge are beautiful (it says
so in the catalogue), it is only after years of waking
up to the tense, monotonous drone of rush-hour
traffic that one realizes how rare it is to be able to
live and study in a place like this. One sets about
learning the names of plants and birds and stars
that he had lived with and never really seen.

Then there is the school itself—the familiar
Georgian red brick and white columns, the green
expanse of lawn, the enormous ash trees, the
dogwood and redbud in early spring. All this is a
handsome sight to anyone who comes here. But

it no doubt means most to someone who returns
here and recalls, beneath this oak, an innocent
conversation, trivial at the time; or behind that
darkened window, a moment of decision and
resolve—or who perhaps remembers, in the No-
vember dusk, amid the smell of damp leaves and
stones, the voice of a friend now gone.

But it is not enough to say that the school is
fine to look at. Go into the buildings and see how
they have changed. The old ones have been
renovated; the classrooms which they house are
better equipped, more spacious and comfortable
than before. And of course there are the new
buildings—the library, the gymnasium, the law
school. Looking at them now, one has to wonder
how we did without them and has to admire the
energy and generosity which gave us all this and,
in bad times, made Washington and Lee finan-
cially strong.

What one finds on his return—the superb
natural setting, the handsome appearance and
excellent facilities of the University—all this
one acknowledges with profound gratitude. And
yet I think one has to say that Washington and
Lee is not yet what it should be. There is some-
thing missing here. What? As with all important
things, it is hard to say exactly. Something aca-
demic? Yes, but that’s too dry a word. Something
spiritual? Yes, but that’s too unctuous. Some-

M. Kirkland Follo, ’67

 

aE eh i gy, ia a

 

Dogwoods in bloom on the front
campus.

34

thing intellectual? Yes, but again not quite. Sull,
although none of these words is adequate, they
all point in the right direction. One knows that
something of this nature is missing when too
many students, who are clearly intelligent, do
mediocre work, prepare poorly for class, and
show little true liveliness of the mind, regarding
what they learn as merely functional or decora-
tive.

One knows it in other ways as well. For
instance, on the last day of the winter term I
distributed a questionnaire to my classes. At the
end, after a number of questions concerning the
particular course involved, came this: ‘“What do
you think of the intellectual and academic at-
mosphere at Washington and Lee in general?’’
The best students were critical. The remainder
said, almost to a man, that it was hard and they
had to work a lot. Now it seems to me revealing
that none of them chose to view the intellectual
atmosphere here except under the categories of
‘*hard’’ and ‘‘easy.’’ There was no sense that it is
appropriate to ask whether such an atmosphere 1s
stimulating, exciting, or vital—much less a sense
that the atmosphere is any of these. Clearly,
that’s not good.

One other comment stands out in my mind;
and it, too, is telling. A senior wrote something
that I remember hearing for the first time 19
years ago, soon after my arrival in Lexington. A
fellow freshman had just returned from a talk

with some upperclassmen, and he told me what
had been revealed to him, his face still bearing the
marks of holy awe: “‘At Washington and Lee we
work hard, play hard, and do a hell of a lot of
both.’’ It’s not exactly the Wisdom of the Ages,
and the words still strike me as embarrassingly
puerile. They betray an attitude which is all too
tenacious—that on the one hand we have aca-
demic or intellectual life, which is hard; on the
other hand, social and athletic, which we need as
a release from the academic and intellectual. To
see things this way is to impoverish not only
intellectual life, but social and athletic as well.
And it is precisely this kind of impoverishment
that one finds too often here. There is not a
strong enough sense that every activity of our
lives should be the expression of a deeper aware-
ness; and that only when this is so, or when we
are working towards making it so, do we deserve
to use the big words, Culture and Education,
which otherwise remain pious, empty clichés.

This has to be said, and said with some
severity. And while it is true that the problems
we are talking about are not unique to Washing-
ton and Lee but are widespread and, I think most
would agree, symptomatic of a larger disorder in
our culture, we must not use this as an excuse.
For Washington and Lee remains a remarkable
place, with extraordinary potential; and if it is
not yet what it should be, still it can be. We must
see to it. That is the task before us now.

 

 

 

by Albert C. Gordon
Head of the Department of Fine Arts

[mprovement

In the
Arts

Al Gordon received his A.B. and M.A. degrees
from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill and his Ph.D. degree from Tulane Univer-
sity. An accomplished actor as well as a teacher
of drama, he taught first at Union College and
Armstrong College and then from 1965 to 1974
at the University of Toledo. He joined the Wash-
ington and Lee faculty in September, 1974.

When I am asked to assess the benefits of the
Development Program at Washington and Lee I
naturally think of the large building projects that
have been completed in the last few years. Cer-
tainly the renovation of Newcomb and Tucker
Halls, the transformation of the old library build-
ing into a new home for the Commerce School,
and the completion of the back campus mall
must be mentioned. Most important to us in the
fine arts has been the spectacular restoration of
duPont Hall as a music and art building. At last
the teaching and rehearsal facilities of the music
department are under one roof and the music
faculty no longer have to race between three
different buildings to meet their students. Each

 

member of the music faculty has a teaching studio
and there are enough practice rooms for all. The
duPont gallery and auditorium have been refur-
bished so that we can welcome the community to
exhibits, lectures, and even small concerts. In
short, the whole building has been reclaimed for
the arts. The result is a handsome permanent
home for at least two-thirds of the department.

Certainly these renovation projects were very
high points in the Development Program. How-
ever, as I look back on my personal experience
here, I feel that the most profound result of the
work of the fund-raisers has been the day-to-day
ability of departmental administrators to realize
goals and meet the needs of their faculty. It has
certainly given me great satisfaction as I have
tackled the problems of the department and tried
to guide its development and formulate its philo-
sophy to find the administration attentive, under-
standing, and ultimately responsive to our ideas.

The study of the arts is a problem for small
liberal arts colleges and universities. Arts training
generates demands for space and equipment
which are often out of proportion to those made
by other disciplines. The arts are messy and loud
and what goes on in rehearsal halls and studios is
not always impressive. It takes time and tolerance
to produce effective results. The problem is
complicated in a liberal arts institution where
time and tolerance for specialized training are at
a premium. It also takes money. Budget requests
for the arts are sometimes embarrassingly large
and the task of arts chairman to justify and uni-
versity administrators to understand such requests
can be formidable.

I must confess that I only became aware of

Albert C. Gordon

 

Trustees inspect the inadequacies
of the Troubadour Theatre.

these kinds of problems since coming to Wash-
ington and Lee. Before that I led a sheltered life
as professor of dramatic literature and aesthetics
in a professionally oriented theatre department in
a university of around 20,000. In that position, I
left budgetary considerations to my department
chairman who dealt with a faceless administra-
tion, who in turn sent in biannual requests to a
State legislature. My financial responsibility
consisted of requesting funds for my part of the
theatre program and then shrugging my shoulders
with resignation when I got only part of what I
asked for. After all nobody really knew who was
responsible for granting requests.

When I came here I was plunged into admini-
stering a department, developing budgets, over-
seeing renovation projects, and finally, develop-
ing a building program. The adjustments
necessitated by such a change of work would
have been traumatic in most situations but here at

Washington and Lee they have been exhilarating!

As I look back on the eight years I have been here
I am amazed at how many of our goals have been
achieved. I have seen recommendations articu-
lated in departmental self-studies realized. I have
been able to represent the artist/teachers in my
department personally to a receptive administra-
tion and fulfill the kinds of requests I used to
shrug my shoulders over. Most important of all
we in the fine arts have been able to develop

ideas on how to teach art, drama, and music in a
liberal arts institution and avoid the usual solu-
tions of relegating these subjects to the level of
cultural polish. Even though we cannot offer the
concentrated training of a professional school we
would like to avoid the role of simply servicing
the general student with an introduction, a survey
or two, and light buffing with some specifics.
The philosophy we are developing is one in
which every student gets the same exposure in
history and research courses and the same in-
volvement in practical studio courses whether he
is a major or not. This kind of serious commit-
ment to our curriculum requires first rate artist/
teachers, equipment, and facilities. It also re-
quires financial support and this we have gotten
as long as we were able to justify our requests.

We have not mastered all our problems nor
housed all our programs. We desperately need a
new drama theatre. There are other projects to be
started and corrections to be made. However, we
can look back on a list of impressive achieve-
ments and we certainly enjoy greatly improved
facilities. Finally, it is very important to be able
to say that for me at least this progress has been
made in a gratifying atmosphere of trust and
cooperation with the administration. I have en-
joyed my work and my relationship with my
departmental colleagues and the University ad-
ministration.

 

 

 

by Leonard E. Jarrard
Professor of Psychology

Beyond the Obvious

Len Jarrard is a graduate of Baylor University;
he received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from
Carnegie-Mellon University. Dr. Jarrard first
taught at Washington and Lee from 1959 to
1966. He then taught at Carnegie-Mellon until
1971 when he returned to Washington and Lee
as professor and head of the Department of Psy-
chology.

A number of important changes have occurred
at Washington and Lee over the last 10 to 12
years. These changes must be viewed in the light
of the primary responsibilities of a college and
university, that is, teaching and research.

While there are many other activities that are
carried out at institutions of higher learning,
these should properly follow from the two basic
responsibilities. Research and related scholarly
activities are important at Washington and Lee,
but the main emphasis is rightfully on teaching,
e.g., on helping prepare young people for
responsible living and for the challenges they
will face in the future. Described below are what
I consider to be the more important changes and
how these have affected teaching and research.

The most obvious changes at Washington
and Lee have been in the physical facilities. The
addition of new buildings, renovation of existing
structures, and the improvements in landscaping
are apparent even to the casual observer. An
important question to ask is how these
improvements relate to teaching and research.
For example, just consider the old law school
facility in Tucker Hall and the old library
building. Almost everyone agreed that these
facilities were inadequate for future growth and
that they, in fact, served to limit what could be
accomplished. Beautiful Lewis Hall and the new
University Library not only provide the kind of
facilities that are needed now and for the
immediate future, but they serve to inspire both
students and faculty. As one who spends time in
the library, I can truthfully say it is a pleasure to
work in such efficient and elegant surroundings.
Another important addition has been the
Computer Center in Tucker Hall. These up-to-
date facilities provide opportunities for students
to learn about computers and computer
programming and also serve an important
research function for both faculty and students.

 

Perhaps I could describe in more detail how
the activities in the Department of Psychology
have been affected by our move to the recently
renovated space in Tucker Hall. In addition to
classroom instruction, we in psychology feel
that one of the most effective ways to expose a
student to the field is to have him become
directly involved in research. In our previous
facilities, we were limited in what students and
faculty could do. Now that we have moved into
Tucker, we not only have beautiful classrooms
and offices, but the laboratory facilities are as
good as any I have seen at institutions of
comparable size. For the first time, we are able
to provide independent work areas where
students can set up their research. As a result, it
is not at all unusual to find students working in
the labs at night and on weekends—this seldom
occurred when we were in duPont Hall. Also, we
are now able to have outside visitors spend time
in the department. Mr. Hiroshige Okaichi, an
associate professor on sabbatical leave from
Doshisha University, just returned to Japan after
a year doing research in our laboratory. Even
though he did not teach courses, he was usually
around the department and students often went to
him for assistance. Next fall, a psychologist
from Oxford will teach several courses and do
research in our laboratory. This kind of exposure
to scholars from other countries can be
extremely beneficial to both students and
faculty.

A number of the more important changes

Leonard E. Jarrard

37

 

 

Student at work in the computer

center.

have been in academic programs and are thus
less obvious than improvements in the physical
facilities. Most academicians agree that an
institution can be only as strong as its faculty.
Not only have several excellent, well-
established academicians been added to the
faculty in recent years, but opportunities for the
professional development of existing faculty
have increased. Specifically, a formal program
of sabbatical leaves was established, and this has
made it possible for faculty members to study
and do research away from campus. In addition,
more funds are now available for faculty to
attend professional meetings. The result has
been an increase in the number of papers
presented at professional meetings and in the
number of books and articles that have been
published. These activities serve to help faculty
members keep up-to-date and interested in their
areas of expertise—a necessary condition if one
is to be a truly effective teacher.

An unusual program in the area of faculty
development is the faculty exchange that was
established in 1976 between Washington and
Lee and Oxford University. Under the program,
faculty members from W&L spend a term as
temporary fellows at University College. At
Oxford one is able to study, do research, and
interact with dedicated scholars at one of the
oldest and most distinguished universities in the
world. In addition, one can observe first-hand
the tutorial approach to education. The Oxford
fellows who come to W&L have been valuable
additions to our community. It has not only been
good for our faculty to have them here, but they
teach undergraduate courses as well. Thus,
students benefit directly from the program.

The improvements in facilities and faculty

 

described above have had profound effects on
our students. Changes in the curriculum that
were instituted in 1971 have also had an impact.
One of the immediate effects of the new
curriculum was to permit greater flexibility in
selecting courses. There was an increase in the
number and variety of courses offered, and this
in turn permitted students to pursue areas of
interest in greater depth. Even though a
committee of the faculty is now recommending
that the general education requirements be
increased, the overall effect of the previous
curricular changes has been’ extremely
beneficial.

Other important areas of change have been
improved opportunities for independent study
and research and for foreign study. Increased
funds made available through the R. E. Lee
Undergraduate Research Program have allowed
more students to become involved in research. It
is not at all unusual for our students to present
papers based on their research at professional
meetings such as the Virginia Academy of
Science. Foreign study programs during the
Spring Term are now offered in many European
countries, and the East Asian Studies Program
has expanded the options to include Japan and
Hong Kong. All of these programs have served
to increase the quality of the educational
opportunities available to our students.

In thinking about improvements, one should
not fail to mention those occurring in the area of
scholarships. Just since 1976, the George
Washington, Francis P. Gaines, Best, and
Lewis Scholarships have been added. These
important scholarships have made it possible to
attract to the campus young men who have
outstanding leadership qualities and have
demonstrated exceptional achievements.

It is apparent from the above that there have
been significant improvements during the last 12
years in teaching and research, and therefore in
the quality of education available to our
students. These improvements have been
expensive. Certainly, without the necessary
funds most of the changes would not have been
possible. I would like to congratulate and to
express personally my appreciation to those
most directly responsible for the successful
completion of the 10-year Development
Program—namely, members of the Office of
Development under the able leadership of Mr.
Farris Hotchkiss, the Board of Trustees, and
especially President Bob Huntley. More
important than the actual funds raised is the trust
and confidence that have been demonstrated by
the many alumni and friends of Washington and
Lee.

 

 

Fund-Raising Follies

Some funny things happened on the way to
$67 million.

Hard as it may be to believe, the process of
fund-raising is not always smooth (some might
argue it is never, ever smooth). For every success
story, there are generally a dozen untold tales:
missed airplane connections, unreturned tele-
phone calls, dead-end streets, and all manner of
other mishaps.

Take, for instance, the Case of the Missing
Check.

A donor had handed President Huntley a
$10,000 check. And, as usual, the president had
turned the check over to the Development Office
(see how smooth it is?) At least, President Hunt-
ley thought that he had given the check to the
Development Office. And folks in the Develop-
ment Office assumed they had, indeed, received
that $10,000 check.

Some weeks later, the donor telephoned to
ask why his $10,000 check had not yet cleared
the bank, a fair enough question for which no
one had a satisfactory answer. The Development
Office personnel launched an all-out search,
turning their offices upside down. The check
had, it seemed, vanished without a trace.

After the office personnel had finally thrown

y
L/HAT WAS THAT

COMBINATION AGRIN,

A
Evetyn?

 

up their hands and given up all hope of finding
the lost check, they spent more than a few hours
revising their accounting and check-recording
procedures to prevent a repetition.

Meantime, the donor was exceedingly un-
derstanding about the snafu. He stopped payment
on the missing check and kindly wrote another.

The story does not end there. Three months
later, Evelyn Huntley was rearranging President
Huntley’s sock drawer when she uncovered the
Missing Check nestled among the drawer’s con-
tents. Obviously, the president had (ahem!)
socked the check away months earlier.

That resulted in further alterations in De-
velopment Office routine. From then on, Mrs.
Huntley joined the search whenever a Develop-
ment Office document was missing. But while
they considered it, the Huntleys decided not to
replace the president’s bureau with a wall safe.

Then there is the Case of the Mistaken Iden-
tity.

It seems a Washington and Lee trustee and a
member of the University’s development staff
had made an appointment to meet with an alum-
nus in a large Southern city. Their purpose was,
as you might guess, more than a mere social call.

 

 

Ye i Se

Drawing by Shawn Spencer

  
  
 

39

 

40

The two University emissaries had arrived at
the appointed hour and were well into their sales
pitch when it became apparent that they were
wooing the wrong person. He had the same name
(a rather distinctive name, at that) and lived in
the same city. But he had a different alma mater.

Undaunted by what might have been a rather
embarrassing situation, the trustee simply
changed subjects to a discussion of the trustee’s
personal business interests and wound up closing
a deal of a different sort.

As a postscript, the alumnus was eventually
located and courted—to no avail, however.

The Potted Palms Caper is indicative of the
earnestness with which the University pursued
its fund-raising efforts.

President Huntley had arranged to meet a
donor, who had requested that the meeting be as
inconspicuous as possible. As their meeting
place, they chose the most inconspicuous corner

_ Of an inconspicuous hotel lobby.

As the two men became locked in rapt con-
versation, they failed to notice that their meeting
was so inconspicuous that the hotel staff forgot
they were even there and began decorating the
corner in which they sat with a veritable jungle of
potted palms. When the conversation finally

Drawing by Shawn Spencer

ended (inconspicuously but successfully), the
two men were alarmed to discover they would
require a safari guide and machetes to escape.

And then there is the Keystone Cops Caper
wherein President Huntley and Development
Office Director Farris Hotchkiss spun their
wheels throughout the nation’s capital.

After having received a particularly large
and gratifying commitment, the two principals
started off in separate cars bound (ostensibly) for
the same location.

The intended rendezvous never occurred,
however. And each decided, after waiting some
time, to return to their original starting place. So
they did, arriving at their point of departure 10
minutes apart. Three times the two cars went
back and forth between the two locations as the
two men tried to connect and missed.

Finally, a Marine sergeant forcibly detained
President Huntley while another Marine appre-
hended Mr. Hotchkiss and reunited the two in
the Pentagon.

A happy ending? Not quite. Once in the same
automobile, the two men departed the Pentagon,
immediately made a wrong turn, and wound up
in the middle of a military funeral procession in
Arlington Cemetery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Alumni Magazine of
WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
(USPS 667-040)

Lexington, Virginia 24450

 

Second Class Postage Paid
At Lexington, Virginia 24450
And Additional Mailing Offices

037556

MR DANIEL T BALFOUR

211 RALSTON RD
RICHMOND VA

23229