CAMPUS LIFE

[pb]

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
ON CAMPUS LIFE

Study of Coeducation in the
Undergraduate Program

May 25, 1984

[pb]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL LIFE, FRATERNITIES AND INDEPENDENT STUDENTS

[pb]

REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL LIFE,
FRATERNITIES AND INDEPENDENT STUDENTS
(A SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON CAMPUS LIFE)



This sub-committee was asked to consider, relative to the
coeducation study, that portion of the Committee on Campus Life's
responsibilities relating to "the character and quality of social
and extracurricular...programs at Washington and Lee University...
the fraternity system...and all other policy matters which have
bearing on the extracurricular life of the Washington and Lee
student". A number of topics, drawn from President Wilson's
memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated February 13, 1984,
were specifically suggested for consideration, including:

1. How women in residence might alter the shape of social life.

2. How the fraternities might change if women are admitted.

3. The possible impact on the number of independent students
and the increased demand for more all-university social
events.

4. The accommodation of national fraternities to changes
instituted at other colleges undergoing the change to
coeducation.

5. How fraternity structures and fraternity life were altered
at places that insisted upon converting these organizations
to coeducational housing/social units (e.g., Amherst).

6. What the advent of sororities could mean to undergraduate
life here.

7. Whether the physical side of the Student Center would have
to be changed.

The sub-committee's approach to this assignment was in three
parts: first, Mr. Touchton made a two-day on-site visit to the
campus for the purpose of visiting with a number of student groups
as well as with some members of the faculty and administration.
Second, Mr. Gallivan conducted telephone interviews with deans
and others at a number of institutions which previously had made
the transition to coeducation. Third, Dean of Students Lew John, in

[pb]

Page Two


conjunction with Assistant Dean of Students for Fraternity Affairs
Dan Murphy and Student Center Director Michael Cappeto, was asked
to draft responses to the topics referred to above, based on their
many years of combined experience with student life issues, supplemented
most recently by their fact-finding visits to other institutions.
These responses were then reviewed by Messrs. Touchton and Gallivan
who do not pretend to have the same degree of experience and expertise
with these issues but nonetheless found that their independent
visits, interviews and conversations produced findings that permitted
them to agree in general with the responses prepared by Dean John
and his associates. In any event, the goal of this combined effort
was to develop information which would permit us to express to the
entire Board of Trustees certain facts, thoughts and opinions that
would assist the Board in its full study of the coeducation issue.

It is important to point out that there previously have been
prepared certain reports which must be considered an integral part
of this sub-committee's report since they deal specifically with
some of the suggested topics. Those reports, included as Exhibits
are:

A. "The Impact of Coeducation on Fraternity Life" prepared
by Assistant Dean of Students for Fraternity Affairs
Dan Murphy in December, 1983.

B. "Visits to Selected Colleges for Study of Fraternity and
Residential Life Issues" prepared by Dean John and
Assistant Dean Murphy in September, 1983.

C. Excerpts pertaining to student life from "The Report of
the Committee on Coeducation at Washington and Lee
University, April 4-5, 1970."

Everyone involved in this sub-committee's work properly points
out that much of the information requested of this sub-committee is
speculative and conjectural in nature relative to changes that might
occur at W&L vis-a-vis what occurred at other institutions. Recog-
nizing this as being true, a special effort was made in the on-campus
visit to obtain a broad spectrum of thought and opinion from students,
faculty and administration who both favor and oppose coeducation.

This sub-committee's responses to the suggested topics are
as follows:

1. How women in residence might alter the shape of social life.

Coeducation at Washington and Lee, in all likelihood, would
not have a sudden or perhaps even a readily perceptible
impact on the social life at Washington and Lee initially.
Instead, a slow evolutionary process would be more probable.

[pb]

Page Three


The initial number of women to arrive on campus in the
first coeducational freshman class would likely be quite
small relative to the overall student population. Even
assuming the warmest reception by the undergraduate
male population, these women would be too few in number
to alter in any real sense the social patterns which have
long been established with the neighboring women's
colleges. Indeed, until subsequent coed classes enrolled,
and until something very close to parity in numbers was
reached in the male/female ratio, Washington and Lee
would not become a self-sufficient social entity. Indeed,
if the university chose to adopt a prescribed enrollment
pattern of admission, such as 1,000 men and 500 women, it
might never be. While we would continue to have some
students traveling between Washington and Lee and the
women's colleges under any circumstances, the numbers
involved would depend ultimately on the proportion of men to
women on our campus.

It was frequently suggested by students, faculty and others
that the nature of the social interaction between male and
female students would be less frenetic should coeducation
occur. Many students, fraternity as well as independent,
currently complain of the false nature of the social life
which is largely dependent upon fraternity parties and
alcohol on Wednesday nights and weekends. The opportunity
to perceive women as equals in the classroom and in social
situations removed from a party atmosphere could well reduce
the social pressures about which many of our students complain
and might also reduce, to a degree, the inconsiderate behavior
about which women from the surrounding women's colleges
complain. A student might think more carefully about his
behavior toward a female peer whom he will see in class the
next morning than he might toward a female student from "down
the road". This is, of course, speculation based more on hope
than on any concrete evidence.

Comments from other institutions - Davidson and Sewanee, for
example - would seem to give credence to this view, however.
A Sewanee official has recently indicated that the presence
of women has "civilized" that institution somewhat and that
parties are "less frenetic, manic, all-or-nothing". He is of
the opinion that "most person-to-person commerce is done with
greater consideration and thoughtfulness".

2. How the fraternities might change if women are admitted.

The loss of some of the university's financially and numerically
weaker fraternity chapters should be expected. Fraternities would
lose some - perhaps much - of the monopoly on student social life
they now enjoy and would be forced to offer services and

[pb]

Page Four


opportunities beyond the merely social. Coeducation could
be seen as an opportunity for a more complete integration
of fraternity social behavior and residential life into
overall university standards; student opposition to
coeducation and poor treatment of early classes of women
might well be increased, however, if coeducation were
viewed as an excuse for the institution to make undesired
changes and to impose stricter regulations on fraternity
life. (See Exhibit A: "The Impact of Coeducation on
Fraternity Life.")

3. The possible impact on the number of independent students
and the increased demand for more all-university social events.

Independent students now at W&L (37% of the student body)
feel strongly about the need for a restructered social life,
and many are very supportive of coeducation. The number of
independent students at Washington and Lee undoubtedly
would increase as a result of coeducation. Although it is
difficult to assess the impact on the percentage of independent
male students, the number of independents would rise as a
result of (a) a larger student body and/or (b) the presence
of females who, at least initially, would be independents.

Coeducation, as indicated previously, would in all likelihood
reduce to some degree the predominant position fraternities
now occupy in the social life of the campus. Students would
have numerous other opportunities for social contact with
women, and the ability of fraternities (and perhaps eventually
sororities) to attract members would depend on virtues and
strengths beyond the obvious social attractions. In addition,
coeducation should also reduce, at least in the longer run,
the Washington and Lee male student's dependence upon women's
colleges for social contacts and the social events those
colleges provide.

As a result, we could likely expect the Washington and Lee
student body to demand more all-university social events to
supplement both the "down the road" activities and the "keg
of beer and a band" fraternity activities. The primary reason
for the proposed pavilion has been the demand for an appropriate
facility in which to hold more all-campus events. Coeducation,
it is assumed, would make the pavilion even more important to
university social life.

In addition, it should be noted that coeducation would be
likely to cause greater diversity and creativity in student
activities once women are in a position to influence their

[pb]

Page Five


nature and scope. The Student Activities Board may well
sponsor such activities as talent shows, dancing lessons,
art exhibits, more culturally balanced film series, and
arts and crafts programs, all of which are standard at
coeducational institutions but which have been neglected
by our SAB over the years.

4. The accommodation of national fraternities to changes
instituted at other colleges undergoing the change to
coeducation.

National fraternities have generally accommodated to the
advent of coeducation quite easily, except where colleges
have required that all organizations become coeducational.
(See Exhibit B: "Visits to Selected Colleges...")

5. How fraternity structures and fraternity life were altered
at places that insisted upon converting these organizations
to coeducational housing/social units.

Amherst College provides the most relevant example of such
an institution. The Amherst Board of Trustees, after
requiring for a number of years that all residences,
including fraternities, be coeducational, has just recently
voted to abolish fraternities. If W&L becomes coeducational,
this sub-committee does not suggest that the Amherst approach
be used as a guide to be followed on this campus. (See
Exhibit B: "Visits to Selected Colleges...")

6. What the advent of sororities could mean to undergraduate
life here.

Should Washington and Lee become coeducational, we could
reasonably assume that once the number of women on campus
became substantial, the university would receive overtures
from national sororities wishing to establish local chapters
on campus. Recognizing that university policy currently
supports the existence of fraternities on campus, and
assuming a sufficient degree of interest from female students,
it would seem only fair to honor requests for the establishment
of sororities at Washington and Lee. Fraternities, at least
in their finer moments, have been instrumental in the develop-
ment of character, leadership, and camaraderie among Washington
and Lee men for generations. Sororities should be expected to do
no less for Washington and Lee women. Further, they could
provide important support structures for women in a community
where the coeducation of women is a relatively new phenomenon.
Housing for sororities could perhaps be provided in former
fraternity houses or in sections of university residence halls.

[pb]

Page Six


The experience of Dartmouth College following the advent
of coeducation could be a likely scenario for Washington
and Lee in this regard. (See Exhibit A: "The Impact of
Coeducation...", p. A-3)

7. Whether the physical side of the Student Center would have
to be changed.

Mike Cappeto is of the opinion that no physical changes
in the University Center would be necessary to accommodate
women since a substantial increase in the student body size is
not contemplated. There is currently a proposal to partition
the browsing library in that building to provide additional
office space for career planning and placement and for
student activities functions, but those changes are thought
to be desirable regardless of the decision on coeducation.
There undoubtedly would be dramatic changes in programs and
possibly an increase in the number of people using that
building, including the Cockpit, but no physical changes
would be anticipated specifically because of coeducation.



SUMMARY

The purpose of this sub-committee's investigation was to
seek to make some determination about the ways in which social
life in general would change if W&L became coeducational at the
undergraduate level. Components of the study included considera-
tion of the role of fraternities and the effect that coeducation
might have on the social lives of independent students. The
possibility of sororities being created on campus was given only a
small amount of attention since it seemed premature to do otherwise.

We believe that it is appropriate for this sub-committee to
take an opportunity in this report to make an important statement
relative to the social/fraternity/extracurricular life of this
University. Whether or not W&L becomes fully coeducational, we
believe positive changes must occur in the present social life
arrangement. A great deal has been written on this subject in so
many reports that it need not be repeated here. For example, see
President Wilson's comments on social life and fraternity issues
in "Taking Thought on Coeducation", Alumni Magazine, November, 1983.
In addition, an eleven-page report dated March 15, 1984 of the
Ad Hoc Committee on Fraternity Affairs to President Wilson and the

[pb]

Page Seven


Student Affairs Committee, which has not yet been circulated to
the entire Board of Trustees but was requested for review by this
Campus Life sub-committee, contains much current information and
many recommendations for change, not all of them unanimously
approved by that Ad Hoc Committee. We strongly believe that much
of the negative comment directed toward the fraternities� too-
important role in the social life of the University is accurate,
although Deans John and Murphy indicate to us that a turnaround
in behavior patterns has already occurred and that more recent
classes of students have been more cooperative with the administration
in positively responding to criticisms of the system. We do not
believe that fraternities should be abolished. Nor do we believe
that coeducation should be considered solely as a way in which to
deal with "the fraternity problem". Moreover, it would be foolish
to believe that all social problems would disappear should W&L
become coeducational. They would not do so under any set of
conditions on any university campus. We would certainly trade one
set of problems and opportunities for another - although there was
not a single institution with which we consulted who indicated
that its social/extracurricular life had worsened as a result of
coeducation.

It is our considered judgment, relative to the social life/
fraternity question alone, and without seeking to invade the
prerogative of the Board of Trustees' Executive Committee which
is studying the question of "Intangibles" in the Washington and
Lee experience, that coeducation would result in strongly positive
changes occurring throughout the social and extracurricular life
of the University.

[pb]

Exhibit A


The Impact of Coeducation on Fraternity Life

Fraternities at Washington and Lee today are at least as strong
numerically and financially as they have been over the last fifteen
years. Following a drop from an affiliation rate of approximately
80% of the student body in the mid-60's (a rate which had held steady
for at least the previous thirty years) to a low of 52% in 1973, the
percentage of students in fraternities has climbed back to, and appears
to have stabilized at about 63% of the student population. While the
percentage of students affiliating with fraternities has dropped, the
actual number of students in fraternities is not much different now
than in the mid to late 60's owing to the overall increase in the under-
graduate student body. From 1964 - 1967 the average number of students
in fraternities was 862; from 1980 - 1983 it was 815. The average size
of fraternities both then and now is forty-eight.

Today, Washington and Lee supports seventeen fraternities ranging
in size from twenty-seven toseventy-three men. According to the most
recent financial review of their status, only one was judged to be in
danger of financial failure, and that fraternity has recently been
placed under alumni control. Although there have been occasional crises
when a fraternity has had to petition the treasurer's office for leniency
in meeting a mortgage payment, by and large the fraternities have met
their financial obligations in a routine manner. (See Attachment #1 for
the size of each fraternity, current mortgage balances, repayment schedules
and maintenance reserve balances.)

The fraternity houses themselves, for the most part, are structurally
sound. Of the seventeen, only two have problems of a major nature which
would require a substantial amount of money to repair. On the other
hand, the majority of the fraternity houses would benefit greatly from
extensive cosmetic work and improved house-keeping practices.

In general, then, while fraternities are by no means the most
cost-efficient way to house and feed students, and setting aside the
arguments of anti-intellectualism, exclusiveness and anti-social
behavior which have been raised against fraternities for decades, one
would have to acknowledge that the majority of students at Washington
and Lee continue to see fraternity affiliation as an integral part of
college life, valuing the fraternal camaraderie and perceiving the
social advantages of fraternity life as an almost indispensable part
of the Washington and Lee experience. Though many students, both
non-fraternity and fraternity, will admit to certain flaws and short-
comings in the fraternity system, by and large the W & L fraternity
man is fiercelyloyal to both fraternity and University and is loathe
to see change in either. An objective observer might have difficulty
calling the current fraternity system healthy, but relatively little
trouble describing it as strong.

Assessing the impact of coeducation on the Washington and Lee
fraternity system is highly speculative at best. Working strictly from
numbers, and assuming no change in student interest and the nature of
the system, one can draw a very simple conclusion. An enrollment of

[pb]

A - 2


1,000 men with the current affiliation rate of 63% will support
thirteen fraternities of forty-eight members, the current average
size of a fraternity at W & L. But this simplistic approach dis-
regards, on the one hand, the determination of a fraternity to
survive in the face of reduced membership and, on the other, the need
for a fraternity to survive in a coeducational setting. Would it not
be possible for seventeen fraternities with an average membership
of thirty-seven to continue; with women on campus would they all wish
to?

A common argument against coeducation raised by fraternity men
at W & L is that the addition of women will indeed make fraternity
affiliation less attractive, if not superfluous, and lead to a weaker
fraternity system, meaning in their minds fewer houses and fewer
fraternity men. The alternate argument is that the introduction of
women to campus life will force fraternities to review carefully their
contribution to student life and the University community as a whole.
Those houses which offer their members only a social outlet might well
fold in the face of coeducation. The fraternities that survive will
offer, beyond social opportunities, opportunities for leadership develop-
ment, personal growth, community service, and intellectual discourse.

Drawing upon the experience of other colleges which made the
transition from all male to coeducation in the mid-60's to early 70's,
one might conclude that the impact of coeducation on the fraternity
system at W & L will depend largely upon the willingness of the University
to allow our fraternities to continue to exercise some degree of autonomy
in their internal operations. Amherst College, for example, caused
seven national fraternities to leave the campus by insisting that all
residences, including fraternities, become coeducational. While two
national fraternities and six local fraternities currently remain,
the system has been so weakened and altered that there is a strong
chance that the remaining fraternities will soon be abolished. A similar
situation exists at Trinity College, whose faculty voted to recommend
that the Trustees of the College phase out fraternities over a three-
year period. Failing that, the faculty at Trinity believe the fraternities
should be required to become coeducational.

If one assumes that fraternities at Washington and Lee are a valued
aspect of student life and that the fraternity system's existence should
be encouraged, the tack taken at Dartmouth College and the resulting situa-
tion provides perhaps the best example of what might transpire following
coeducation at Washington and Lee. Dartmouth's very strong fraternity
tradition is quite similar to W & L's. Recognizing that strong tradition,
Dartmouth's administration has chosen not to require the coeducation
of its fraternities. Rather, social organizations have been allowed
a freedom of choice. The result today is a system of twenty-seven
organizations, including five coeducational local fraternities and five
sororities. Approximately half of the student body at Dartmouth partici-
pates in the system today, essentially the same pattern that existed prior
to coeducation.

While a move to coeducation might well result in the loss of some
of Washington and Lee's financially and numerically weaker fraternity
chapters, one should not necessarily expect the vacated houses to remain

[pb]

A - 3


long empty. There are certainly options available to the University
for their use, such as language houses, faculty housing or student
apartments. However, the fraternity tradition, so deeply engrained
in the fabric of the University, may well carry over to Washington
and Lee women, many of whom will enroll from the south and southeastern
portions of the United States where sororities have been a common part
of the social culture and the college campus. In addition to the emergence
of sororities, certain fraternity chapters currently on the campus might
choose to open their doors to women rather than close their doors alto-
gether. Thus, the Washington and Lee man who no longer requires a fraternity
in a coeducational W & L and leaves the fraternity system could very possibly
have his place in the social organization structure filled by a woman
who finds a sorority affiliation a supportive base and a valuable part
of her college experience; or yet, that place might be filled by a liberal-
minded male who would not have joined an all male fraternity because of
a perceived sexist attitude on the part of the fraternity, but when given
the opportunity to affiliate with a coeducational organization would gladly
join.

As mentioned earlier, these arguments are largely speculative.
And it would take several years for the various changes to evolve.
But one should keep in mind that,while basing these projections on 1,000
men at Washington and Lee, overall the University's size will increase
by 150 with the addition finally of 500 women, many of whom will come from
backgrounds similar to the men, into a college where the tradition of
fraternity is strong. One should keep in mind, too, that fraternities
and sororities, always strong in the south, are experiencing a great
resurgence in all other parts of the country, including the northeast
and midwest. It may well be unrealistic, then, to predict more than
seventeen or eighteen social organizations on the Washington and Lee
campus. That is about the highest number the University has ever been
able to support. But it might be equally unrealistic to predict fewer.

[pb]

Attachment #1

FRATERNITY LOANS




Fraternity # of men Date Originated Original Amount Term (Years) Interest Rate Payment Amount Maintenance Reserve Amt. Land Rent Balances Loan 11-30-83 Reserve
Beta Theta Pi 47 7-1-69 $50,000 25 4% $1,591SA $1,500 50 SA $28,097 $8,296
Chi Psi 43 10-9-82 20,000 25 7% 853SA NR 34 Mo. 19,689
Delta Tau Delta 34 1-1-66 35,000 35 4% 465 Q NR - 23,128
" " " 59 9-18-80 4,200 4 7% 611SA NR - 1,161
Kappa Alpha 59  10-1-79 75,000 25 4% 2,386SA  1,500 72 SA 67,389 11,040
" " 6-10-82 100,000 25 7% 4,263SA NR - 99,237
Kappa Sigma 52 1-14-83 15,000 20 9.62% 852SA NR 225 Mo. 15,000
Lambda Chi Alpha 37 7-7-78 30,382 25 4% 966SA 1,500 72SA 26,878 4,338
Phi Delta Theta 67 10-14-68 50,000 25 4% 1,591SA 1,500 50SA 28,097 21,300
Phi Gamma Delta 32 9-11-78 46,000 25 4% 1,463SA 1,500 - 40,045 1,577
" " " 9-1-81 10,000 25 7% 426SA NR - 9,678
Phi Kappa Psi 57 3-15-69 60,000 25 4% 3,841 A 3,090 50SA 36,037 12,574
Phi Kappa Sigma 73 7-6-78 4,000 10 7% 281SA NR 25SA 2,341
Pi Kappa Alpha 69 3-2-80 43,709 25 4% 1,390SA 1,500 50SA 39,867 12,324
Pi Kappa Phi 63 7-14-79 35,554 25 4% 1,131SA 1,500 50SA 31,946 11,749
Sigma Alpha Ep. 61 6-24-77 75,000 25 4% 2,386SA 1,500 - 63,107 21,441
Sigma Chi 50 2-1-75 67,000 25 4% 2,132SA 1,500 - 51,147 7,875
Sigma Nu 28 6-9-78 37,000 25 4% 655* NR - 32,733
Sigma Nu 7-1-83 50,000 25 8.54% 2,436SA NR -
" " Advance 7-1-83 50,000 3 8.54% NR 25,352
Sigma Phi Ep. 56 8-31-63 25,000 20 4% 914SA NR - PAID
" " " 7-7-78 33,400 25 4% 1,062SA 1,500 - 29,076 12,410
Zeta Beta Tau 27 5-12-82 5,500 10 7% 386SA NR 57SA 4,896


* Not required, Interest Payment Only

A-4

[pb]


Exhibit B

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
LEXINGTON,VIRGINIA 24450


DEAN OF STUDENTS

To: President John D. Wilson September 13, 1983

From: Lewis G. John
Dan N. Murphy

Re: Visits to Selected Colleges for Study of Fraternity and Residential Life
Issues


During the week of August 15, we visited Amherst, Dartmouth, and Trinity Colleges
to learn more about fraternity and residential life issues on those campuses. In
addition, Dan visited Davidson College and Duke University during the week of August
22. We were not able to visit Williams College, but have reviewed copies of relevant
reports and documents.

Following, in summary fashion, are our comments and observations. We offer first
a few common themes and generalizations, and then some comments about the individual
colleges.

A. General Observations

1. All of the colleges visited were more truly residential in nature than Washington
and Lee, some housing nearly 100% of their student bodies.
2. Partially as a consequence of the above, most of the colleges view fraternity
life in the general context of residential life, e.g. establishing standards
and regulations concerning repair, maintenance and housekeeping for all student
residences.
3. There appears to be no real attempt to regulate student social life and
fraternity parties at any of the colleges visited. Most seem to endure mid-week
parties, but without any serious effort to restrict or control them.
4. The impact of coeducation on fraternities, and the institutional responses, differ
from campus to campus. There has been some demand for sororities, or at least
for the participation of women in Greek life, at each. Responses range from an
institutional requirement that all organizations become coeducational at Amherst,
to the formation of some "separate but equal" sororities and coeducational or-
ganizations at Dartmouth.
5. The fraternity system and campus environment most comparable to that at Washington
and Lee is perhaps found at Dartmouth. Its approach is one of very precise
minimum standards, mutually arrived at by administration and students, to which
fraternities and sororities must adhere for continued recognition.

B. Individual Colleges

1. Amherst College
Visited on August 15, 1983, and talked with Irwin Nussbaum, Assistant
Dean of Students.
Amherst has 1,500 students and became coeducational in 1975 (the first fresh-
men entered in 1976). It is now 60% male. 94% of the student body lives in
dormitories or in one of the eight fraternity houses, all of which are owned and

[pb]

B - 2


maintained by the college. Amherst bought the houses (voluntarily) in the
1950's for financial and maintenance reasons.
Amherst's plan for coeducation was to increase enrollment from 1200 to
1500, with male enrollment dropping to 900. All dormitories became coeducational
(by corridor or by suite) immediately, while fraternities were allowed to remain
single-sex. Several years later, however, the Board of Trustees issued a
mandate requiring that all residences, including fraternities, be coeducational.
This decision was made on two grounds: (1) all students pay the same room
and board charges and should therefore have access to all facilities; and (2)
since Amherst receives federal monies, all college-owned facilities should
legally be open to members of both sexes. Six or seven national fraternities
left the campus as a result of this decision; two national and six local
fraternities remain. Houses that were formerly fraternities have been converted
to other types of residence--lottery dorms, language houses, etc.
Amherst maintains all residences, but Dean Nussbaum believes that the
fraternities get second-class treatment from college buildings and grounds
personnel. Damage costs billed to students run five to six times higher in
fraternities compared to the dormitories. Fraternities do not have resident
counselors, as do dormitories, but each has at least a half-time college custodial
person. The two national fraternities are the best maintained, since each has a
full-time janitor, with one-half of the cost borne by the alumni corporation.
Concern with fraternity life at Amherst led President Gibbs to promulgate
in November 1982 six principles for improving faternity life. These included:
(1) the elimination of all forms of hazing activities; (2) the reduction of
"hurt and humiliation" associated with rush; (3) the guarantee that any student
wishing to live in a fraternity house shall have the opportunity to do so for
at least one semester; (4) the replacement of the dual categorization of res-
idential and social members, with a single membership of residential members
being accomplished through an "objective, non-selective process" i.e. if a student
lists at least four fraternities, he or she is guaranteed a bid to at least one
of them; (5) maintenance of facilities in "safe, sanitary conditions" with
effort to eliminate damage and vandalism; (6) a significant increase in the
number of upperclass live-in members.
As with Washington and Lee, one major problem is that over 80% of frat-
ernity residents have been sophomores. Proposals to modify this situation have
been formulated by the IFC and the college administration. Effective this year,
at least four fraternity officers must reside in each house, and priority will
be granted to rising juniors and seniors; by the 1985-86 year, at least 50%
of the residents must be juniors or seniors.
Despite optimistic statements and written documents, Dean Nussbaum believes
the fraternity system to be "in a shambles"--poor behavior and maintenance of
houses, no community service, parties every night of the week, abuse of females
by returning alumni, etc. Administrative encouragement of change, in his opinion,
has not worked, and he feels that fraternities may well be eliminated following
the current capital fund drive and the construction of a student center.

2. Dartmouth College
Visited on August 16, 1983, and talked with Edward Shanahan, Dean of the
College, and Lee Levison, Assistant Dean of the College for Fraternities and
Sororities.
Dartmouth has slightly over 4,000 undergraduate students (55% male in the
Class of 1987) and 800 graduate students. It became coeducational in 1972, at
the same time adopting a year-round calendar to permit expansion of its student
body. Dartmouth is 90% residential and has a fraternity system of 27 or-
ganizations, including five coeducational local fraternities and five sororities.

[pb]

B - 3


Approximately one half of the student body participates in the system. Of
the 25 residences, including three of the five sororities, only five are
owned by the college, with the remainder in the hands of alumni corporations
as private property.
Fraternities have been a source of continuing concern and attention at
Dartmouth for some time. The faculty in 1978, for example, voted to abolish
fraternities on the basis of their anti-intellectual, anti-social, and sexist
attitudes and actions. The trustees rejected this recommendation, but outlined
a ten-point program for change (with no time deadline). The practical result
was a more formalized college-fraternity relationship, with the creation of an
advisory Board of Overseers providing at least paper accountability; this Board,
chaired by an alumnus, is perceived by students as a buffer between them and the
dean.
Dean Shanahan describes Dartmouth's current posture as beginning a "develop-
mental mode." He believes strongly in effecting change by working with and
through student leadership, in the enforcement of objective, measurable standards
which are jointly determined, and in the treatment of fraternities within the
general context of residential and dormitory life in regard to behavior, plant,
and program. He advocates college funding of social and intellectual activities,
leadership training programs, and compensating faculty members for associating
with fraternities and sororities. He favors direct college ownership and control
for fraternities--with custodians provided on a regular basis as in the dorm-
itories, for example--rather than a lease-back arrangement with alumni cor-
porations. His philosophy is that the college should not attempt to regulate
students' out-of-class behavior, that the college should not tell students when
they can and cannot party. He strongly believes that improved student behavior
will follow as a result of the implementation of his proposals.
The foundation for the current approach at Dartmouth is found in four re-
solutions approved recently by the Committee on Undergraduate Life and the
Fraternity Board of Overseers:
(1) The application to fraternities and sororities of general residential
life concepts. Specific emphasis is to be placed on faculty advising, leadership
development, program development, and improvement of social spaces.
(2) A cap on the number of recognized organizations at 30, with no increase
in the number of fraternities but with growth in the number of sorority and
"alternative houses." In reaction, the IFC supported continued growth in the
sorority system, but questioned "whether this should be done at the expense of
other viable, established fraternal organizations."
(3) Ultimate ownership or leasing on a long-term basis of all of the re-
cognized fraternities and sororities. The CUL/FBO resolution recommended that
the administration explore with the Board of Trustees the means by which this can
be accomplished as a condition for continued or future recognition. The IFC
objected strongly to the mandatory nature of the proposal; it is likely that
ownership or lease will be regarded as a desired goal, but to be achieved only
on a voluntary basis.
(4) The adoption and implementation, according to a set evaluation schedule,
of a Minimum Standards document. Standards were initially drafted by the IFC
and then revised by other groups and individuals. Minimum Standards are in seven
areas:
(a) Leadership e.g. orientation programs for new officers; IFC- or college-
sponsored leadership development programs; alumni corporation meetings.
(b) Budgets e.g. room rents of not less than 85% of the college average;
vacancy level of no more than two beds per term; a capital improvements and
major deferred maintenance budget of 10% of annual gross revenues.
(c) Membership e.g. range of house size of approximately 35-90 dues-paying

[pb]

B - 4


members; rush and pledge education programs.
(d) Program Development e.g. development of a program schedule that
reflects major social, cultural, educational and athletic events; internal
house rules and goals regarding use of alcohol.
(e) Alumni e.g. relations and meetings with alumni representatives;
outreach programs.
(f) Behavior e.g. organizational accountability for violations of
college policy; internal adjudicating mechanisms; internal codes of ethical
behavior for members.
(g) Physical Plant Standards - specific standards outlined for exterior
and interior of houses e.g. grounds must be free of all litter, and lawns must
be kept trimmed to a height of no more than 3"-5"; no vehicles parked on lawns;
all bathroom sinks, toilets and showers must be functional, without leaks
and meeting code requirements per occupant, with all bathroom areas free of
litter, dirt, odors and standing water.
Evaluations of fraternities and sororities will be held by the college during
the fall term of 1983, with action lists prepared for each; all identified de-
ficiencies must be corrected by the fall term of 1984. Organizations will be
responsible for adherence to all standards beyond that fall term, subject to
quarterly inspections and spot checks. Dean Shanahan states that the purpose
of the standards is to improve every house and to preserve the system, but that
the result may be fewer houses. Student suspicion is that the administration
wants fewer fraternities so as to accommodate the need for more residential
sororities.

3. Trinity College
Visited on August 17, 1983, and talked with David Winer, Dean of Students,
and briefly with Wayne Asmus, Director of Student Activities.
Trinity has 1,700 students, 52% male and 48% female, and has been co-
educational since 1969. The college is 91% residential. Approximately 17% of
the student body belongs to one of the two sororities and eight fraternities;
only six fraternities of the ten Greek organizations have houses, which are
privately owned by alumni coporations. Five serve meals, and three are res-
idences.
Trinity has lacked social spaces on campus, and historically there has been
a heavy dependence on fraternities for social life. Renovation this past summer
will provide some larger social areas in the student union. Dean Winer describes
the administrative posture toward fraternities and sororities as basically
reactive. Until recently, it was one of "benign neglect," but the college has
been successful, according to Dean Winer, in overcoming the student argument
that "we don't have to abide by your rules since we are on private property."
A more active IFC has agreed that Greek organizations should abide by general
college regulations covering all student groups and facilities e.g. closing of
parties at a specific time, serving of alternative beverages, housing standards
primarily concerned with state and local safety codes. The physical condition
of the houses is not considered to be a real concern, but the outside appearances
of several houses raised some serious doubts in the minds of the two Washington
and Lee visitors.
The major policy concern at the present time--one that is causing a serious
rift between faculty and trustees--is the question of coeducation within the
fraternities and sororities. Following a 16-month study by a committee of six
faculty members and two students, the faculty recommended that Greek letter
societies at Trinity be phased out over a three-year period. The rationale for
such a proposal was one of principle, based on discrimination, sexism, and

[pb]

B - 5


exclusivity. A second part of the motion said that if fraterniities and
sororities were not abolished, they should be required to become coeducational.
The Board of Trustees in May voted to permit continuation, but the
President will be authorized to require all new organizations to be coeducational.
Existing fraternities and sororities may apply to the President for an exemption
if 75% of their undergraduate members vote to seek one. The trustees also
called for periodic reviews of the single-sex organizations to determine
whether they contribute to or detract from the overall quality of student
residential life, and the trustees created a new advisory council to assist the
President in regulating residential life.
The faculty, in response to the trustees' decision, appointed an interim
fraternity committee, which met frequently over the summer. The faculty will
most likely vote early this fall to ask the trustees to reconsider. Dean
Winer indicated that two major issues will face Trinity over the next several
years: (1) Will fraternities remain and, if so, in what form? (2) How will
the college deal with behavioral problems and violations of regulations
pertaining to all student activities?

4. Davidson College
Visited August 25. Met with Dean of Students Will Terry. Undergraduate
enrollment is 1300. 60% male, by design. 95% residential. Co-ed 1973.
Davidson, of the colleges visited, is probably the one most similar to
Washington and Lee in terms of size and character. And in 1970, the size and
strength of its fraternity system was remarkably like that of Washington and
Lee. At that time there were twelve national fraternities which dominated the
social life of Davidson College.
However, in 1970, at the urging of the President, the Davidson Board of
Trustees passed a resolution to introduce a self-selection process into the
fraternity rush system. Prior to the resolution, Davidson's fraternities and
freshmen rushed in a competitive system. Fraternities determined which freshmen
they would invite to join. Freshmen who received several bids had a choice;
those who received no bids were excluded from the system. Under the self-
selection system, a freshman was (and still is) entitled to join any fraternity
he wished, regardless of the fraternity's views.
The self-selection process was not well received. The students believed
it was an attempt to drive fraternities off campus. The alumni of the college
were also quite upset with the decision. And the national fraternities bailed
out; eight of twelve fraternities left the campus. Six fraternities left
Davidson completely while two others continued to operate off campus.
Today, sixty-five percent of Davidson's upperclassmen are associated with
one of four fraternities, two women's eating clubs, or three co-ed eating clubs.
(Hereafter, the term fraternity will also apply to the eating clubs.) Each
fraternity is located in college-owned, college-maintained houses on the
Davidson campus. The structures are used primarily as dining and social
facilities; one or two students at most live in the fraternities. The college
assumes responsibility for providing and maintaining the kitchen equipment and
all other aspects of maintenance except furniture. The fraternities are
responsible for the hiring of cooks and the billing and collection of food and
social revenues.
Fraternity rush at Davidson begins in early October. At that time, each
freshman dormitory section visits each fraternity. On the basis of those visits,
a freshman may select up to three houses, at each of which he will eat four
meals over the course of a week. Freshmen are allowed to visit fraternities
at any time beginning in October.
In February, a freshman may "single shot" by announcing his intention to
join a specific fraternity or he may list up to three fraternities he is willing

[pb]

B - 6


to join. If a freshman lists more than one fraternity, he is randomly
assigned by a computer to one of his choices.
The self-selection process has become an increasing headache, according
to Dean Terry. When it was first introduced, the fraternities quickly
developed a system of verbal encouragement to pledge those freshmen they most
preferred. However, in recent years, there has been an increasing incidence
of fraternities verbally discouraging those freshmen with whom they would
prefer not to associate. Student sentiment on the campus now is estimated
by Dean Terry to be split evenly between retention of the current system and
a return to the old competitive rush system. It is likely that Davidson's
Committee on Student Life will review the issue this year and perhaps ask
the Board of Trustees to reverse the policy.
Coeducation at Davidson College, which began in 1973, has not affected
the fraternities per se, according to Dean Terry, but it has affected the
social life of the college greatly. Davidson is no longer the "suitcase
school" it once was. Fraternities now party with the women's eating clubs
regularly. In addition, the change has eased the social life for the non-
fraternity student to a large degree. Dean Terry stated, "Coeducation is
the best decision Davidson ever made."
While fraternities are no longer the only social outlet, they continue
to make the most consistent contribution to the social life at Davidson
College. Fraternities generally offer parties every Thursday night. In
addition, a disco party is held in the College Union every other Thursday.
The Davidson faculty objects to the Thursday discos in the Union but not to
the fraternity parties because "they respect fraternity autonomy," says
Dean Terry. The faculty is not happy with the Thursday night socializing,
but there is no attempt to legislate or control fraternity parties.

5. Duke University
Visited August 26. Met with Dean for Student Life Suzanne Wasiolek.
Undergraduate enrollment is 5700. 50% male. 90% residential. Became
coeducational in 1901, with separate campuses merged in 1973.
Duke University bears relatively little resemblance to Washington and
Lee in terms of the size of its campus and enrollment, the living patterns
of its students, and consequently, the nature of its fraternity system.
Ninety percent of Duke's 5700 undergraduates live on campus and are
divided between East Campus and West Campus. Until 1973, men were housed
exclusively on East Campus and women on West. Though segregated for living
purposes, class instruction was coeducational. Today both campuses are fully
co-ed and virtually 50/50 in male to female ratio.
Freshmen are housed separately from upperclassmen in "clusters" which
also are nearly evenly split by sex. Freshmen may select either single-sex
or co-ed housing. However, only 250 of this year's 1400 entering freshmen
requested single-sex housing.
Between thirty and forty percent of the undergraduate men are members
of the twenty national fraternities at Duke while forty percent of the under-
graduate women affiliate with thirteen different sororities. Sixteen of the
twenty fraternities are residential. Three of the four non-residential
fraternities are black and do not wish to be housed together. The fourth will
become residential next year. The sororities at Duke are not residential by
choice.
The residential fraternities at Duke, which average approximately 45
members each, are housed in dormitories set aside by the University for their
use. A fraternity dorm is just like any other dormitory on campus and it is
common for sophomores, juniors, and seniors to live together. Fraternity
members generally eat in University dining halls. The fraternities themselves
do not offer food services.

[pb]

B - 7

Fraternity rush is conducted informally throughout the fall semester,
though the Interfraternity Council does regulate, to some degree, freshman
visitation at the fraternities. The first invitational parties are held
at the end of the fall term; formal rush and pledging take place at the
beginning of the spring term.
Dean Wasiolek notes that the biggest problem with the fraternities
at Duke is that they are housed next door to people who do not respect
or appreciate them. As a result, there is a constant undercurrent of
independent lifestyles conflicting with fraternity lifestyles. Many
independents resent a perceived favoritism toward fraternities on the part
of the Duke administration. Dean Wasiolek says such favoritism does not
exist. Rather, it appears that fraternities get more attention and more
favors simply because they are well enough organized to accomplish more,
both socially and politically.
While independent students may tend to complain about the fraternities,
it is not uncommon for them to participate in fraternity social functions.
All fraternity parties are open to all students. Dean Wasiolek openly
states, "Fraternities provide the social life of the campus."
Though there is some concern among the faculty about the impact of
fraternities on academics, there is no attempt on the part of the University
to regulate fraternity parties. (Statistically, the academic performance
of fraternity members and independent students is equal.) And , while the
administration has placed a cap on the number of fraternities at twenty, the
fraternity system at Duke appears quite safe. No one in the upper ad-
ministration wants to do away with them, according to Dean Wasiolek.

6. Williams College
Because of conflicting schedules, we were unable to meet with the
administration of Williams College. We did, however, receive documents from
the College which outline the decision by Williams to phase out fraternities
as facilities for living and dining in 1962 and, subsequently, to ban them
from the campus completely in 1968.
The rationale behind that decision is most clearly stated in the con-
clusions drawn by a committee of the Board of Trustees in May of 1962.
Those conclusions are:
"1. Fraternities at Williams have come to exercise a disproportionate
role in undergraduate life, and as a result the primary educational purposes
of the College are not being fully realized.
2. Long continued delegation to the fraternities by the College of a
large part of its responsibility with respect to the housing, eating, and
social accommodations of the student body is a major cause of many existing
conditions which are harmful to the educational purpose of the College; and
early steps should be taken by the College to re-assume this responsibility
and integrate these functions into the life of the College, where they properly
belong."
In response to these conclusions, Williams determined that the College
should assume complete responsibility for providing housing, eating, and social
accommodations for the entire student body in units owned and operated by the
College. The implementation of the program led nine of fifteen fraternities
to discontinue their operations almost immediately. Six fraternities continued
to operate on a purely fraternal basis as allowed by the College. In 1968,
however, Williams asked the remaining chapters to discontinue operations also.
This decision was made on the basis of the fraternities' closed, exclusive
nature and on their "unwillingness or inability to live within the stated
College policies governing their operations."

[pb]

Exhibit C

THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON
COEDUCATION AT WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
(April 4-5, 1970)


PART III EFFECTS ON STUDENT LIFE...

(d) Cultural and Social Activities:


In general, the evidence is that greater interest in campus cultural
activities will result from a dcecision to admit women. Not only do certain
cultural activities require women's participation but also taking a date to
a concert or a play is widely held to be more fun than going with your roommate!
Drama is a field in which female participation is essential. It has usually
been possible for the Troubadours to find women for the necessary roles in the
plays presented; however, since the activities of the Troubadours are designed
for the education of students, plays of great interest often cannot be considered
for production since many of the important parts require women. A decision to
admit women to the University in substantial numbers would thus enrich offerings
at the theater.

Similarly, in music, a decision to admit women would increase our opportunities.
The committee recognizes that a quite satisfactory program has been worked out for
men alone, especially when so many nearby women's choruses are willing to cooperate
for special concerts. In the area of choral music, a decision to become coeducational
would in no way limit our capacity to have an all-male chorus. It would simply give
us an added opportunity to have both a mixed chorus and a female chorus. The brass
choir, too, is an area in which men commonly specialize. The decision to replace
some of the present male students with females would likely result in fewer people
interested in the brass choir. A decision to expand overall enrollment by the
addition of 800 women simply gives us a larger base for building a brass choir.
The committee believes that the addition of women would bring more string players,
more interest, and would increase opportunities for all students to participate in
the musical arts. (The committee takes note of the fact that an expanded program
in the performing arts would highlight and accentuate the need for an auditorium
in the Lexington area.)

The student exhibitions in the fine arts have overflowed the available
facilities. The fine arts courses are overflowing with students so there would
seem to be no need for the stimulation in these areas which would most probably
occur with the addition of women to the student body. Rather this would be an
area in which both faculty and facilities would need to be expanded. Needs are
projected in the appendix.

Dance weekends (University-wide social functions) as such and other social
activities would not be affected significantly.

Beyond the merely cultural and social, there are no indications that women
could not find a place for themselves in existing student organizations. Indeed,
they should and undoubtedly would seek membership and offices in all campus
organizations. It would be to the benefit of the newly coeducational institution
to have women thoroughly assimilated into the student body.

[pb]

C - 2


As for the possible introduction of sororities, the University need take
no position one way or the other. It would be mere conjecture to say that the
founding of sororities would follow the first coeducated class, but there is no
reason to think it would not happen. The inception of sororities should not be
stifled and their birth and growth would be determined by the type of women, and
their interests, who come here. There are no foreseeable problems with sororities,
vis-a-vis either fraternities or the University. They would presumably be subject
to the same regulations as fraternities. In fact, we might find fraternities
promoting the growth of sororities. On many campuses such alliances prove to be
mutually desired.

(h) Fraternities

We find no way of predicting the precise effect of coeducation on fraternities.
One point of view is that fraternities exist now largely because they serve two
main functions: they facilitate social intercourse with surrounding women's schools
by providing contacts and transportation, and they provide eating, sleeping, and
partying functions within the University. If this is a proper view the admission
of women would partially eliminate the need for the first of these but would not
significantly affect the second. The need for fraternities would appear to be
reduced by some immeasurable amount with the likely result that the fraternity
system would play a smaller role in the life of the University. The need for some
kind of social organization would remain.

Another point of view is that fraternities would be strengthened through the
establishment of sororities and through the feeding and housing shortages attendant
upon expansion of enrollment. Whatever may be one's viewpoint, there is no reason
to believe that fraternities could not or should not adjust to a new coeducational
situation.

It is quite clear that a number of houses could not survive at all if the
decision were made to admit women in place of men. Some chapters are already in
financial difficulty with only a few members. If the number of males is reduced
sharply to 750 the number of fraternities would likely be reduced at least
proportionately.

Given a decision to add women to the present enrollment the committee believes
that the usefulness of fraternities would be somewhat reduced and that relatively
fewer male students would elect membership. If new dormitories for male students
were built still fewer student would opt for fraternities.

The effect of coeducation on fraternities has been used as an argument for
as well as against a decision to become coeducational. The committee would make
neither argument. We agree that it would be undesirable to preserve fraternities
artificially and that they must adjust to existing needs of students. The needs
which could be met by fraternities would be fewer if Washington and Lee were
coeducational. We cannot translate that likelihood into predictions about the
demise of chapters.

[pb]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESIDENTIAL AND DINING FACILITIES

[pb]

REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY
HOUSING AND DINING FACILITIES
(A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON CAMPUS LIFE)

The following models provide projections, through 1994, of additional residential
spaces for undergraduates which would be needed under varying enrollment assumptions,
both with and without coeducation, under current housing policies, (with freshmen
required to live in University dormitories and upperclass students given the opportunity
to live in University housing if they so choose). Any change in housing policies would
require entirely new projections, requiring more number crunching regardless of the
coeducation decision.

We do not suggest that the 4 non-current plus 1 current enrollment models are the
only models to choose from--they are simply indications of directions possible to take.

The figures are based on an assumption that 65% of upperclass women will choose
to live in the dormitories (as opposed to the current 20% upperclass male volunteers’
rate). This is a very risky assumption, since information from other college provided
little help in projecting the proportion of upperclass females who would choose to live
in University facilities:
-Randolph Macon and Lafayette Colleges have residence requirements for all
four years.
-The University of Virginia, with a housing policy similar to ours, houses
approximately 32% of its upperclass students, experiencing less than a 5%
differential in the proportion of males and females who request housing.
-Wake Forest, also with a policy similar to ours, houses approximately 74%
of its upperclass males, and 90-95% of its upperclass females.

Some points about projections of need for new dormitories:
-Projections assume that 75-100 additional students could be housed in the
private housing and that;
-180 additional freshmen could be accommodated by converting single rooms
to doubles.
-Model A-1 would not require new dorms until '88-89 by which time perhaps
sorority/mixed fraternity question may have been addressed;
-Model A-2 would result in severe crowding, requiring converting practically
all single rooms to doubles, for at least one year.
-Model B-5 offers various possibilities for tempting or requiring some/all
upperclassmen to live on campus;
-The placement of women in current facilities would be through scattering
them through the dormitories, coeducating primarily by floor or vertical
dormitory section.

Consideration could be given to converting Baker, from law students to all freshman
women's dormitory if desired.

Once the decision is made on the question of coeducation, we would be in a position
to begin planning for the next phase of residential development at Washington and Lee.
This planning would involve longer term considerations, such as size of the student
body and specific needs for additional undergraduate housing, law school needs, types
of accommodations, and ways to attract or require additional upperclassmen into
university housing.

[pb]

-2-

Beds Needed
Circled Figures Indicate Earliest Requirement
For Additional Dormitory Spaces***
Current: 360 Freshmen, 1350 total undergraduates

1985-6 1986-7 1987-8 1988-9 1993-4

A. With Coeducation
1. No Growth in Student Body. 360 Freshmen:
240 Men and 120 Women admitted each year.
1350 Total Undergraduates. 0 +60 +110 160.......+160

2. 2000 Undergraduates Ultimate Goal.
540 Freshmen: 360 men and 180 women
admitted each year. +180 +285 +390 +495.......+495

3.* 1500 Undergraduates Ultimate Goal. 405 Freshmen:
270 men and 135 women admitted each year. +45 +110 +175 +240.......+240

B. Without Coeducation
4. No Change from Current Policies.
1350 Male Undergraduates 0 0 0 0..........0

5.** Enrollment Reduced to Admission Office's
projections of How Many Males We Can Enroll and
Maintain Academic Standards: 1000 undergraduates
ultimate goal. -10 -22 -36 -52.......-144



3* 270 males is based on Admission Office's projection of our ability to maintain current
academic standards over the next decade through a reduction in class size.

5** This figure is also based on Admission Office's projection of how many males we can enroll
while keeping our current academic standards over the next decade. Assumption of a reduction
of 10 students per freshman class, beginning in 1985 and continuing until 1993, when the
size of the freshman class would be 270, with a total student body of 1,000.

*** Dean of Students' detailed report attached, and includes possible use for "extra" beds
in Model #5

[pb]

-3-


Food service through current facilities in Evans Dining Hall: Mr. Darrell
estimates that he could accommodate an increase in the number of students on the
full board plan from the current 500 to 800 through extended meal hours, increased
staffing, and some minimal expenditures for additional equipment.

Current Fall term Projected/Proposed

No. of boarders 500 800

Average number of point card
holders at lunch 85 150

Average participation
at breakfast 300 480

at lunch 575 920

at dinner 525 840

The following would have to occur to provide service for the above projected numbers
of diners:

EXTENDED MEAL HOURS

Breakfast hours could remain the same, 7:15-9:00 a.m. (we extended them this year, from
7:45-9:00 a.m.). See "additional staffing" to follow. Lunch hours, currently 11:50-1:40
would be extended forty minutes to 11:30-2:00.
The dinner hour would have to be extended by an hour, from 5:00-7:00 p.m.

Before any decision about the effect of coeducation on Washington and
Lee's physical facilities can be made, other models must be run based upon:
1) Board decisions on numbers of total student body and proportion of women;
2) Serious professional research on upperclass women's desire to live on
campus.

[pb]

April 20, 1984 Exhibit A

Placement of Students Under Residential Models


Summary: A basic assumption is that the private housing market in the
Lexington area can absorb some limited number of additional students,
perhaps in the neighborhood of 75-100. Not all of these would be
regarded as desirable accommodations, however, and some would be
substandard. Given this assumption, however, new university housing
facilities would be necessary by 1986 for Model A.2., by 1987 for
Model A.3., and by 1988 for Model A.1. Details are as follows.

A.1. 1985-6: No additional spaces required.
1986-7: 60 additional upperclassmen could obtain private housing.
Alternatively, some single rooms in current freshman dormitories
could be converted to doubles, with some current freshman space
converted to upperclass housing.
1987-8: 110 additional upperclassmen could be housed through a combination
of above two methods.
1988-9: New facilities should be completed by September 1988 to house 160
additional upperclass students.

A.2. 1985-6: Could house 180 additional freshmen by converting single rooms to
doubles.
1986-7: New facilities would be strongly desirable by September 1986, since
we would have to house 180 additional freshmen plus 105 additional
upperclass students. If new facilities were impossible, we could
once again double up in freshman rooms and attempt to place the
upperclassmen in private housing.
1987-8: New facilities would be absolutely necessary by September 1987 in
light of the demand for 210 upperclass spaces in addition to the
180 freshmen.

A.3. 1985-6: 45 additional freshmen could be accommodated in existing facilities.
1986-7: Additional facilities might be desirable, but would certainly not
be necessary. The doubling of freshmen could continue with 65
upperclassmen required to find private housing. Alternatively,
Baker Dormitory could be used as an upperclass, rather than as a
law, facility, with all rooms converted to doubles. Additional
Woods Creek apartments could be reserved for the displaced law
students, and only 30 additional upperclassmen would need to find
private housing.
1987-8: Additional facilities would be needed for 195 additional upperclass
students, plus the 45 freshmen.

B.5. For the model of an all-male student body, reduced in size, various
alternatives exist to try to fill the empty spaces.
(1) Attempt to attract additional upperclass and law students into
university housing. This would be relatively easy during the early years with
fairly small numbers, but might be difficult to accomplish, without other
changes, in the later years. Davis Dormitory could be converted in stages
from a freshman to an upperclass and/or law facility. Baker Dormitory
could also be converted from a law student dormitory into an undergraduate
dormitory, with additional spaces in Woods Creek Apartments reserved for
law students.
(2) Renovate some existing facilities into upperclass and/or law student
suites or apartments.
(3) Convert some double rooms in the freshman dormitories into singles.

[pb]

A - 2



(4) After several years, require sophomores to reside either in dormitories
or in fraternity houses, perhaps with the percentage of sophomores in each
house restricted to no more than, say, 50%. A requirement for all sophomores
to live in dormitories would necessitate additional spaces unless we would
experience the shift of a significant number of juniors and seniors from
university housing to fraternity houses.

Of the three models for coeducation, A.1. would obviously provide the
fewest housing problems because it would involve no additional freshman
spaces and the fewest upperclass demands. Model A.2. would provide the
most difficulties, with severe crowding in the freshman dormitories, the
greatest upperclass demands, and the earliest requirement for additional
facilities. Practically all single rooms capable of housing two students,
however crowded, would have to be converted into doubles for at least one
year.

In regard to the specific placement of women in current dormitory facilities
under the coedcuation models, various configurations are possible, depending
on whether Baker Dormitory remains a law facility and whether we convert any
singles into doubles on a temporary basis. The main objective, however, would
be to scatter the women throughout the current dormitories, coeducating
primarily by floor or by vertical dormitory section. A fairly small, all-
female dormitory, such as Baker, could be offered if that were considered to
be a desirable alternative for freshman women. Insofar as possible, women
would be assigned to upper floors for security purposes.

For Model A.3., the two most practical alternatives for housing a freshman
class of 265 men and 135 women in the initial years of coeducation are the
following:
(1) Use of the existing freshman dormitories, increasing their capacity
by converting some of the larger single rooms to doubles. Dean Huntley
projects that by converting thirty-seven such rooms in Davis Dormitory, and
five in Graham-Lees, the total freshman residence hall capacity could be
increased to 411. Mr. Arthur, however, is concerned that the rooms will lose
their attractiveness and may not be large enough to accommodate the additional
furniture; this problem is made more severe by the "built-in" nature of Davis
Dormitory furniture. On the other hand, we used all of these Davis rooms as
doubles during the year of Graham-Lees renovation, and at least on a temporary
basis, we could do so again. Also, no law or upperclass students would be
displaced.
(2) Use of Baker Dormitory, currently a law student facility, on an
interim basis as a freshman hall, with some additional space for law students
provided in Woods Creek Apartments. With the present room configurations,
approximately 405 freshmen could be accommodated. The disadvantage of this
alternative is that some upperclass and/or law students would be displaced
until additional facilities are completed.

Various plans have been studied for the placement of 135 women throughout
the freshman dormitories. One possibility, for example, with the use of
Baker Dormitory would provide the following: (1) thirty-six beds in Baker
as an all-female dormitory; (2) thirty-two beds in Davis Dormitory, utilizing
all of the second and third floors; (3) twenty-six beds on the second and third
floors of the north section of Gilliam Dormitory; (4) forty beds on the third
floor of Graham-Lees, room 335-382. This plan provides for the placement of

[pb]

A - 3


134 women plus eight counselors.

The conversion of our current dormitory facilities into coed residences
could be accomplished with relatively minimal physical alterations. Dean
Huntley and Mr. Arther have studied this matter and have concluded that
the primary alterations needed would be in the plumbing and in the security
arrangements. Urinals should be removed, and individual shower stalls,
perhaps provided in Graham-Lees and Gilliam as they are now in Davis,
through the addition of some partitions in the bathrooms of the sections
reserved for women. All outside doors should probably be locked at a
certain hour each night, with keys provided for all residents. No
significant changes are expected for the individual bedrooms, and no
additional parietal regulations or separate rules of conduct for women
are anticipated.

[pb]

April 10, 1984 Exhibit B


Campus Life Committee
Residential Life Subcommittee



Insofar as housing and dining facilities are concerned there appears to be
no barrier to the acceptance of women to full undergraduate status in 1985. Females
could be accommodated on a short-term basis in current University facilities ac-
cording to any of several enrollment models, up to a maximum addition of approximately
180 women to our current male freshman enrollment of 360 men. This last model,
however, would involve some rather severe crowding of freshmen, with a large number
of single rooms converted temporarily into small doubles.

The following models provide projections, on a year-by-year basis, of ad-
ditional spaces for undergraduates which would be needed under varying enrollment
assumptions,both with and without coeducation. It should be noted that all models
assume the continuation of current housing policies, with freshmen required to
live in University dormitories and upperclassmen given the opportunity to live in
University housing if they so choose. Any change in housing policies would, of
course, require entirely new projections. The first three models assume the
enrollment of women, at the freshman level only, for the first time in 1985.

1985-6 1986-7 1987-8 1988-9....1993-4
A. With Coeducation

1. No Growth 0 +60 +110 +160 ..... +160

2. Addition of Women +180 +285 +390 +495 ..... +495

3. Intermediate +45 +110 +175 +240 ..... +240

B. Without Coeducation

1. Stable Enrollment 0 0 0 0 ..... 0

2. Reduced Size -10 -22 -36 -52 ..... -144

Assumptions of Above Models

A.1. Replacement of 120 males in each freshman class by the same number of females.
Each freshman class to include 240 resident males and 120 resident females,
with an ultimate student body of 900 males and 450 females. Need for ad-
ditional spaces caused by difference between 20% of upperclass males choosing
to live on campus and assumed figure of 65% for females. (Note: Information
from other colleges provided little help in projecting the proportion of
upperclass females who would choose to live in University facilities. Randolph
Macon and Lafayette Colleges have residence requirements for all four years.
The University of Virginia, which houses approximately 32% of its upperclass
students, experiences less than a 5% differential in the proportion of males
and females who request housing. Wake Forest, also with a policy similar to
ours, houses approximately 74% of its upperclass males, and 90-95% of its
upperclass females).
A.2. Addition of 180 females to current freshman class of 360 males. Projections of
upperclass residential students, as in A.1., of 20% and 65%. Overall enrol-
lment growth to approximately 2,000 undergraduates.

[pb]

B - 2


A.3. Reduction of male enrollment to 270 per freshman class (based on Bill
Hartog's projection of our ability to maintain current academic standards
over the next decade through a reduction in class size), with the addition
of 135 freshman women. Overall enrollment growth to approximately 1,500
undergraduates (1,000 men and 500 women). See January report on "Res-
idential Development at Washington and Lee" (pp. 2-3) for alternative
means of housing freshman classes in current facilities.
B.1. No change from current student body enrollment.
B.2. Congruent with A.3. projection of reduced male enrollment to maintain current
academic standards. Assumption of a reduction of 10 students per freshman
class, beginning in 1985 as an alternative to coeducation and continuing
until 1993, when the size of the freshman class would be 270, with a total
student body of 1,000. The problem with this model would be that of
attracting additional upperclass and law students into existing spaces,
rather than the building of additional spaces.

Food service through current facilities in Evans Dining Hall would pose no
problems for any of the above models, with the possible exception of A.2. (growth
of the undergraduate student body to 2,000). Mr. Darrell estimates that he could
accommodate an increase in the number of students on the full board plan from the
current 500 to 800 through extended meal hours, increased staffing, and some minimal
expenditures for additional equipment. His attached memorandum provides details as
to our capacity for feeding additional students.

Once the decision is made on the question of coeducation, we would then be in
a position to begin planning for the next phase of residential development at
Washington and Lee. This planning would involve longer term considerations, such
as size of the student body and specific needs for additional undergraduate housing,
law school needs, types of accommodations, and ways to attract or require additional
upperclassmen into university housing.

In regard to law student housing, law school officials are of the opinion that
the primary need is for married student housing. Dean Henneman also believes, how-
ever, that a significant number of additional single first-year students would live
in university facilities if attractive, apartment units with kitchens were made
available. His best estimate is that we could fill perhaps an additional fifty spaces
with law students in that type of accommodation. Baker Dormitory is not particularly
popular as a law school residence because of its dormitory-style rooms, location, and
noisy surroundings. Many law students live there for the first year and then move
into Woods Creek Apartments or into apartments off campus. If additional apartment
units are built, Baker Dormitory could then be converted into an undergraduate
facility.

An important aspect of the planning for additional housing will be to try to
determine student needs and interests as to the types of accommodations which will
prove attractive and which will cause students to want to live on campus. Pre-
liminary assessment would indicate that double rooms are acceptable for freshmen, but
are not appealing for upperclassmen, who prefer single rooms, suites, and apartment
units. Law students express a definite preference for apartments with kitchen
facilities, in the vicinity of other law student, rather than undergraduate, housing.

[pb]

B - 3

Campus Correspondence

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
TO: Lewis G. John

FROM Jerry Darrell DATE: April 5, 1984

Dear Lew,

I am responding to your question, "What is the maximum number
of people we can serve, on a regular basis, in our existing
Evans facility"?

After consulting with Chef Dunn and putting a pencil to the paper
I am suggesting that we could accomodate 800 folks on the
board plan, which would give us meal participation numbers
as follows:

current FALL term projected/proposed

No. of boarders 500 800

Ave. no. of point card
holders at lunch 85 150

Avg. participation at
breakfast 300 480

at lunch 575 920

at dinner 525 840

The following would have to occur to provide service for the
above projected numbers of diners:

EXTENDED MEAL HOURS

Breakfast hours could remain the same, 7:15-9:00 a.m. (we ex-
tended them this year, from 8:45-9:00 am). See "additional
staffing" to follow.

Lunch hours, currently 11:50-1:40 would be extended forty min-
utes to 11:30-2:00.

The dinner hour would have to be extended by an hour, from
5:00-7:00 p.m. There are complications here to be considered
in extending the dinner hour to 7:00. Athletes now eating a
special "late" meal 7:00-7:15 would now have to finish practice
a little earlier, in time to eat regular dinner by 7:00. Banquets
currently scheduled for a 7:15 or 7:30 starting time would now
be delayed to a 7:45 or 8:00 pm starting time. The additional
labor costs for these special functions can be passed on to the
banquet patrons, i. e. banquet prices will go up.

[pb]

B - 4

STAFFING

Breakfast & Lunch One serving line is currently opened for
breakfast. Two lines will be required for 480 diners. The
majority of additional serving labor (line server) could come
from the student work study force, to help keep costs down.
Obviously more technical, regular staffing will be required
for preparation with more food to prepared in less time, since
we will now be serving lunch at 11:30, with early lunch at
11:00 a.m., just two hours after the closing of the breakfast
line!

Dinner Will probably only require one more full time person,
perhaps one and one half persons, with the line servers and
dish crew coming from the student labor force.

EQUIPMENT

An expenditure of $10,000. - $12,000. for additional service-
ware and equipment such as a refrigerator for the serving line,
a 60 qt. mixer, french fryer, 20 gal. steam kettle and a hot
food cart will need to be made.

SEATING

In all probability the side dining rooms will have to be opened
for regular cafeteria seating at lunch and dinner. Again the
poses problems with starting times for banquets.


In a related matter Lew, some time ago President Wilson asked
me for a "ballpark" figure regarding the construction of a new
dorm; how many folks would we have to have on a board plan to
justify, financially, including a cafeteria in this dorm? My
research, including conversations with colleagues at UVA and
Univ. of Maryland, suggests a magic number of 400-500 boarders.
However it is relative in that, to cover fixed expenses with
a lower number of boarders, a higher board rate is required
and visa versa. My personal feeling is that we could justify
a new commons,excluding amortization of the new building it-
self, with 350-400 boarders.

I hope this gives you the information you need. Give me a
call if further data is required.

[pb]

Exhibit C

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
LEXINGTON,VIRGINIA 24450


DEAN OF STUDENTS

January 1984


Residential Development at Washington and Lee


A. Current Status

At the start of the 1983-84 academic year, 635 students resided in
University dormitory facilities. Of this total 358 were freshmen and 90
were law students. Approximately 19% of our undergraduate upperclass
students (187 of 974) lived in University-owned facilities. Another 250
students, primarily sophomores, lived in our seventeen fraternity houses
(three of which are owned by Washington and Lee). Attachment #1 provides
a detailed breakdown of dormitory occupancy as of September 1983.


B. Without Coeducation

The desirability of additional residential development at Washington
and Lee, whether or not we become coeducational, is evident. Although
there is apparent balance between the supply of, and the demand for, upper-
class and law housing (all students seem to find some place to live), students
and parents frequently voice the desire for additional, attractive upperclass
facilities on campus. The two most recent housing surveys, conducted by Mr.
Parsons during the fall term matriculation periods in 1982 and 1983, provide
evidence supporting this need. Some private places of residence in the city
and county are obviously substandard. In addition, some of us associated
with the University feel the need to develop alternative housing facilities
which can provide a more cohesive and less dispersed upperclass living ex-
perience.

The size of the additional need is yet to be determined with any degree
of precision, but we could probably fill, on a volunteer basis, a minimum of
one hundred additional beds in configurations attractive to upperclass and law
students i.e. primarily single rooms, single bedrooms within suite arrangements,
and/or apartment units. The need would obviously be greater were we to choose
to abandon our present policy of complete freedom of choice for upperclass students
in favor of some additional requirements for campus residence.

One possible requirement, for example, would be for all sophomores to live
on campus. Alternatively, we might require all sophomores to live either in
University dormitories or in fraternity houses, with the percentage of soph-
omores in each house restricted to no more than, say, 50%. A policy of this
nature, in addition to providing a more cohesive and less dispersed upperclass
living pattern, would also have the added advantage of reducing the current
sophomore dominance of fraternity house living.

[pb]

C - 2



In any event, even with a stable student population, it is not un-
reasonable to anticipate the construction of some additional upperclass
housing in the near future. If, for example, we were to project an increase
in the overall percentage of our undergraduate student body in University
housing from the current 40% up to 50% (which would mean an increase in the
upperclass percentage from nineteen to thirty-two), we would require an
additional 121 beds. To this number must be added some figure for additional
beds for law students. Law school officials have for several years in-
dicated a fairly sizeable, unmet need for attractive rooms or apartments,
especially for first-year students. Mr. Parsons is currently conducting
a survey of law students in an attempt to determine that need more precisely.



C. With Coeducation

If we assume a decision to become coeducational, with an increase in the
size of each entering freshman class to four hundred and in the size of the
total undergraduate student body to 1500, the need for additional housing
becomes considerably more acute. For the first year or two, the larger, co-
educational freshman class could be housed in current facilities, but the
pressure on upperclass housing would require the construction of additional
dormitories or apartments as soon as possible.

The two most practical alternatives for housing a freshman class of 265
men and 135 women appears to be the following:
(1) Use of the existing freshman dormitories, increasing their capacity
by converting some of the larger single rooms to doubles. Dean Huntley projects
that by converting thirty-seven such rooms in Davis Dormitory, and five in
Graham-Lees, the total freshman residence hall capacity could be increased to
411. Mr. Arthur, however, is concerned that the rooms will lose their at-
tractiveness and may not be large enough to accommodate the additional fur-
niture; this problem is made more severe by the "built-in" nature of Davis
Dormitory furniture. On the other hand, we used all of these Davis rooms as
doubles during the year of Graham-Lees renovation, and at least on a temporary
basis, we could do so again.
(2) Use of Baker Dormitory, currently a law student facility, on an
interim basis as a freshman hall, with some additional space for law students
provided in Woods Creek Apartments. With the present room configurations, ap-
proximately 405 freshmen could be accommodated.

Various plans have been studied for the placement of 135 women throughout
the freshman dormitories. One scheme, for example, with the use of Baker
Dormitory would provide the following: (1) thirty-six beds in Baker as an
all-female dormitory; (2) thirty-two beds in Davis Dormitory, utilizing all of
the second and third floors; (3) twenty-six beds on the second and third floors
of the north section of Gilliam Dormitory; (4) forty beds on the third floor of
Graham-Lees, rooms 335-382. This scheme provides for the placement of 134 women
plus eight counselors.

Various configurations are possible, depending upon whether or not Baker

[pb]

C - 3


would be used, and whether or not we would convert any singles into doubles.
The main objective, however, would be to scatter the women throughout the
current dormitories, coeducating primarily by floor or by vertical dormitory
section. A fairly small, all-female dormitory, such as Baker, could be of-
fered if that were considered to be a desirable alternative for freshman
women. Insofar as is possible, women would be assigned to upper floors for
security purposes.

The conversion of our current dormitory facilities into coed residences
could be accomplished with relatively minimal physical alterations. Dean
Huntley and Mr. Arthur have studied this matter (see Attachment #2) and have
concluded that the primary alterations needed would be in the plumbing and in
the security arrangements. Urinals should be removed, and individual shower
stalls,perhaps provided in Graham-Lees and Gilliam as they are now in Davis,
through the addition of some partitions in the bathrooms of the sections re-
served for women. All outside doors should probably be locked at a certain
hour each night, with keys provided for all residents. No significant changes
are expected for the individual bedrooms, and no additional parietal regulations
or separate rules of conduct for women are anticipated.

Beyond the greater need for additional residential development which would
come with a larger student body, the inclusion of women in the student body
should increase this need further. It is likely that a larger percentage of
upperclass women would choose to live on campus than is presently the case for
men. The absence of off-campus facilities for women, similar to the fraternity
houses for men, would certainly be one major factor, at least in the early years
of coeducation. Many, if not most, sophomore women would therefore choose to
live in University dormitories as would also, in all likelihood, a significant
proportion of junior and senior women.

If we assume a student body of one thousand men and five hundred women, with
approximately 20% of the upperclass men and 65% of the upperclass women voluntarily
living on campus, we would require approximately two hundred additional beds plus
an unspecified number for law students. These assumptions would not appear un-
reasonable,given the lack of fraternity and other forms of alternative housing
for women, if attractive facilities are provided.

We can also anticipate, at some time following the implementation of a
coeducation decision, requests for additional upperclass housing, in units smaller
than the standard dormitories. Requests may come for special interest or social
unit housing, coed or all-female, and probably from sororities. Women at most
colleges visited this summer have expressed interest in Greek organizations and
have made requests for sorority housing. Facilities here, if we choose to re-
spond positively, could come from former fraternity houses (if some chapters
fail to survive) or from other houses owned by the University, such as we now
have in the Lee House, the International House, and the Minority Student Center.
An alternative approach might be to provide separate sections of University
dormitories or apartment complexes for such groupings.

[pb]

DORMITORY OCCUPANCY-September, 1983 	C - 4

GRAHAM-LEES
Freshmen in single rooms 163
Freshmen in double rooms 70
Counselors 16
Total Occupancy 249

GILLIAM
Freshmen in single rooms 32
Freshmen in double rooms 52
Counselors 7
Total Occupancy 91

DAVIS
Freshmen in single rooms 32
Freshmen in double rooms 9
Counselors 4
Total Occupancy 45

BAKER
Law students in single rooms 36
Law students in double rooms 2
Total Occupancy 38

LEE I - Minority Center
Upperclassmen in single rooms 2
Upperclassmen in double rooms 4
Total Occupancy 6

LEE II
Upperclassmen in single rooms 3
Upperclassmen in double rooms 18
Total Occupancy 21

INTERNATIONAL HOUSE
Upperclassmen in single rooms 3
Upperclassmen in double rooms 2
Total Occupancy 5

COL ALTO STUDENT APARTMENT 1

APT 13B UNIVERSITY PLACE 1

WOODS CREEK APARTMENTS
Law students (male and female
in single rooms) 52
Upperclassmen in single rooms 94
Upperclassmen in double rooms 32
Total Occupancy 178

PAID RENTALS COUNSELORS

Freshmen 358 Freshmen 27
Upperclassmen 160 Upperclassmen 0
Law Students 90 Law Students 0
608 27

TOTAL OCCUPANCY = 635

[pb]

Attachment #2 C - 5


Facilities for Coeducational Housing:

Only minimal renovations should be necessary for domiciling women in the
present freshman dormitories; for one thing, women have been residing in our
current freshman facilities, with no reported problems, during summer camps the
past few years.

Plumbing:

1. Existing urinals are easily removable. To add an additional
shower stall in this position, however, would entail going into
the walls and terrazzo floors with a hot-water pipe with an
approximate cost of $2,000 a room. This seems unnecessary since
there'll be no more people using these facilities than at present,
and there've never been any complaints about availability.

Security:

1. A minimal degree of protection is provided by the simple expedient
of domiciling women on upper floors.

2. Hall entry doors on third and fourth floor Gilliam can easily be
fitted with locks, dispensing with the need for an outside lock on
the building.

3. Some colleges have check-in areas for women's residence halls. If
it seems necessary, this could be managed in Graham-Lees and Davis.
The procedure noted in #2, above, should make it unnecessary in
Gilliam.
a. In Davis women housed on the second and third floors would
enter the building only by the center door, where a check-in
system could be set up. The east and west wing doors on floors
two and three could be furnished with panic bars for purposes
of egress, but preventing entrance from outside.
1) The same procedure would pertain for the women's hall
in Graham-Lees.

The Infirmary:

1. Since the Infirmary is already more or less divided into two wards,
no renovations should be necessary.

2. In addition there are two existing isolation rooms, one with a single-
bed capacity, the other with a four-bed capacity.

Incidental Considerations:

1. Four hundred freshmen might require an additional laundry unit in
the Graham-Lees laundry room. There's space available.

2. At some point full-length mirrors, similar to those in Graham-Lees,
might have to be installed in Gilliam and Davis. At any rate, the
University should go with what it's got and wait to see if there's

[pb]

C - 6

-2-


a demand.

3. The University will have to have a woman custodian to service the
women's residency areas.

4. At some future time, some consideration will have to be given to
providing adequate facilities for handicapped women.




H. Robert Huntley

[pb]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ATHLETICS, CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITES AND
STUDENT GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS

[pb]

REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON
ATHLETICS, CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
AND
STUDENT GOVERNMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS

"A Subcommittee of the Committee on Campus Life"

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY


May 18, 1984



The Committee on Campus Life of the Board of Trustees was given
as its principle concern the character and quality of social
extracurricular and residential programs at Washington and Lee
University. This Subcommittee was asked to consider, relative
to the co-education study, that portion of the Committee's respon-
sibilities relating to "intercollegiate athletics, co-curricular
activities, student government and organizations"...and all
other policy matters which have bearing upon the extracurricular
life of the Washington and Lee student." The specific topics
assigned to this Subcommittee which were drawn from President
Wilson's memorandum to the Board of Trustees dated February 13,
1984, include the following:

1. The changes to be anticipated in our athletic
programs at all levels (i.e., physical education
classes, intramurals, club sports, junior varsity
and varsity).

2. The adequacy of our playing fields and indoor
athletic facilities.

3. The impact (if any) on all on-going student
organizations and agencies of student government.

4. How co-curricular activities (i.e., art exhibits,
concerts, visiting lecturers, foreign films, and
other cultural events) may be effected.

[pb]

Report of the Subcommittee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 2




This Subcommittee has approached its assignment in the following
manner:

1. Mr. Leggett had numerous discussions on the subject
of athletic matters with Mr. William D. McHenry,
Athletic Director, during their trip to Yellowstone
National Park in February.

2. Mr. Leggett met with members of the University
Athletic Committee on the evening of Tuesday,
March 20, to discuss that committee's "Report
on Co-education and the Athletic Program"
dated January 30, 1984. In addition, Mr. Leggett
had several telephone and personal conferences
with Professor George Ray, Chairman of that
committee.

3. On Thursday, April 26, Mr. Leggett met with eight
student leaders for about two and one-half hours
to discuss how, in their opinion, co-education
would impact upon athletics and student government
and organizations. On that day, a public honor
trial was being conducted so the subject of the
Honor System was very much on the minds of Bob
Jenevein, Student Body President, and two members
of the Executive Committee with whom he met during
dinner.

4. Mr. Leggett and Bishop Keller, the other member
of this subcommittee, met at the Roanoke, Virginia
airport on Friday, March 30, to review this sub-
committee's assignment and decided that Mr. Leggett
would undertake the on-campus interviews because
he resides close to Lexington. Bishop Keller has
been consulted by telephone whenever needed.

5. President John D. Wilson and Dean Lewis G. John
have offered suggestions for the direction that
this inquiry should take and have been valuable
sources of information on the subjects under study.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 3



The objective of this effort has been to develop information
which would permit the Sub-Committee to express to the entire
Board of Trustees the facts, observations, and opinions that
will assist the Board in its study of the co-education issue.

Numerous reports on the general subject of co-education at Washington
and Lee and on specific areas of the inquiry of this Sub-Committee
have been prepared previously and were used extensively in the
preparation of this report. "The Report on Co-Education and
the Athletic Program" prepared by the University Athletic Committee
dated January 30, 1984 is included as Exhibit A. Throughout
this report, reference is made to "The Report of the Committee
on Co-Education at Washington and Lee University" dated April 1970
and "Volume I: Summary Volume" dated August 1975 of the Washington
and Lee University Trustee Study Committee on Co-Education.
"The Student Handbook, 1983-84", published by the Office of
the Dean of Students, was used extensively in studying the areas
of student government and organizations. Specific references
to these publications are indicated by footnotes in this report.
Every effort has been made to include facts wherever available
to substantiate the conclusions of this report. However, due
to the nature of this study and the distinct characteristics
of The University, it has been difficult to avoid both speculation
and conjecture as to what may happen if Washington and Lee were
to co-educate.

* * * * *


The topic of ".....changes to be anticipated in our athletic
programs at all levels...." were specifically addressed in the
"Report on Co-Education and the Athletic Program", Exhibit A
of this report. What follows will be purely a summary of the
important findings of that Report.

The program offerings of the Athletic Department include physical
education, intramurals, club sports and intercollegiate sports.
The Committee concluded that "...co-education would have only
a minor effect upon our present impressive range of nearly 30
basic skills in physical education offerings." Other than the
addition of courses in dance and movement, the Committee believes
that "Almost all the basic skills courses can be easily be taught
as "co-ed" courses."

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 4



Intramurals and club sports would experience considerable growth
if co-education were adopted. At schools which have co-educated
in recent years, women have participated with men in those sports
in which they do not have a physical disadvantage. Where women
required or desired a sport in which men do not normally partici-
pate, these would be conducted on a "separate but equal" basis.
Club sports for women would probably flourish in the initial
stages of co-education. Some of these would envolve into varsity
sports when sufficient women were available to fill competitive
teams, and other sports, in which there was sufficient interest,
would continue on a club basis.

The Athletic Committee concluded, and experience in other schools
confirms, that the intercollegiate sports program would be signi-
ficantly affected by the admission of women. Two conclusions
are important to note here. About 25% of the male students
have participated over the years in intercollegiate sports.
If the number of men is reduced to, say 1,000, there will be
approximately 88 fewer male students available than are presently
participating in these sports. By the time co-education is
fully implemented, the number of intercollegiate athletic teams
in which women will participate should total 10. The Committee
points out that "Ten Virginia colleges and universities already
offer intercollegiate league and championship play in eight
women's sports sanctioned by the Old Dominion Athletic Confer-
ence."

The Athletic Department's staff would be increased by three
full-time female members by 1990. The specific positions to
be added are discussed in the report. Several female interns,
e.g., trainer, swimming and tennis would be added as needed
throughout the period. The female staff members with coaching
responsibilities will also teach physical education courses.
It should be noted that coaches Norm Lloyd and Boyd Williams
will reach normal retirement age (65) in 1989 and 1992 respectively.
So, to accommodate co-education, the net addition of full-time
staff upon the retirement of these two gentlemen will be one.
The Report of the Committee goes into much greater detail in
regard to the addition of female staff.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 5



It is very surprising to find that the changes and additions
to existing facilities to allow co-education are relatively
few. A minimum of two full size playing/practice fields are
needed whether or not women are admitted. Resurfacing of the
tennis courts under the footbridge has a high priority and is
now included in the Capital Projects to be undertaken in 1984
if approved by the Board at the May meeting. The Student Pavillon,
already approved for construction, will provide practice space
for some teams during inclement weather.

Alterations to the Warner Center as a result of co-education
are limited to providing locker room space for female students
and additional team and faculty locker rooms, physical education
classrooms and coaches offices. The details of the re-arrangements
of Warner Center are fully described beginning on Page 3 of
Exhibit A. Fortunately, this facility was designed with the
possibility of co-education in mind and does not require extensive
renovation to provide adequate facilities for female students.
Included in Exhibit A is a "Proposed Alterations of Warner Center
to Co-Ed Use" which includes schematic drawings of the proposed
changes and cost estimates associated with these changes.

The impact of the expenditures budget of the Athletic Department
are summarized on Page 6 of Exhibit A and a sheet entitled,
"Co-Educational Phase - In Chart" which is a part of Exhibit
A. Because the dollar amounts included in Exhibit A were unadjusted
for inflation, a schedule entitled, "Added Athletic Department
Expenditures to Co-Educate Based on UAC 1-30-84 report to JDW
(except women enter Fall, 1985)" is included as Exhibit B to
this report. The following are the amounts of added expenditures
for program and staff to enable co-education in the Athletic
Department:

1985 $ 51,350
1986 $ 56,900
1987 $ 88,850
1988 $ 114,500
1989 $ 133,450 (assumes that Coach Lloyd
retires in June 1989)
1990 $ 141,750
1991 $ 150,750
1992 $ 105,250 (assumes that Coach
Williams retires in June
1992)

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 6



The major capital costs for renovating Warner Center include
$140,000 for the female student locker rooms to be spent in
1985 and $125,000 for the additional classrooms, team and women
faculty locker rooms, etc. to be spent in 1987. Renovation
of the coaches' offices on Level 500 of the Warner Center are
desired but no cost estimates for this work have been made.
It is expected they will be nominal. The Committee does not
forsee any other capital cost associated with co-education.

This Sub-Committee wishes to make some observations on the following
subjects based on its interviews with Mr. McHenry, a few of
the coaches and some members of the student body, as well as
the information contained in reports from previous co-education
study committees:

1. Student Attendance at Athletic Events. Attendance
should benefit from the fact that co-education would
provide an easy and relaxed dating opportunity at
athletic events. In a separate report, a projection
is made that increased numbers of students will live
on campus if women are admitted.(1) The convenience
of athletic events may encourage increased attendance.
Women who are dating athletes and friends of athletes
would be likely to turn out in support of athletic
teams. And, finally, as co-education causes changes
in dating patterns, a reduction of road trips to women's
schools would occur as male students begin to date
the co-eds and, therefore, would be available to attend
athletic events.

2. Quantity and Quality of Male Athletes Enrolled and
the Effect on Intercollegiate Performance. One of
the main concerns of the athletic director and the
intercollegiate sports coaches is the reduction in
the number of male athletes that would occur with
co-education. Assuming that 1000 male students and
500 women students were enrolled, a reduction of approx-
imately 350 male students would occur. As explained
earlier in this report, if the traditional 25% partici-
pation of student body in intercollegiate athletics
continues, then the number of male students available
for intercollegiate athletics would be reduced by
88.

(1) "Report of Sub-Committee on University Housing and Dining
Facilities - Committee on Campus Life." April 1984,
pp. 1-3.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Goverment and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 7



2. Quality of Male Athletes Enrolled and the Effect on
Intercollegiate Performance (continued)


The Athletic Department fears that the quality as
well as the quantity of male athletes will be reduced
by co-education. Their argument is that the need
to admit academically less well qualified male students
will decrease with the admission of female students.
The students with strong academic qualifications are
not usually the most competitive athletes. This argument
is countered by the possibility that some good athletes
are either not applying or not accepting admission
offers of the University because the school is not
co-educational. It is known that a significant percentage
of those who declined Washington and Lee admission
offers say they do so because the school is all male.
The coaches do believe the level of competitiveness
will be reduced especially in the large team sports,
e.g., football, soccer, lacrosse, baseball and track,
due to the reduced number of qualified athletes.


3. Contributions to Campus Life with the Implementation
of Women's Intercollegiate Sports. Successful performances
of women's intercollegiate teams will attract female
student athletes. This should enrich the intercollegiate
athletic program of the University. It may be stretching
the point to say that having dedicated women athletes
on campus will improve the quality of campus social
life, but it is believed that this will tend to dilute
the intensity of social occasions that depend primarily
on women coming from other schools. There also may
be some value to the male students by learning about
women's sports.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 8



In concluding the section of this report that deals with the
athletic program, this Sub-Committee would like to make a comment
about the athletic facilities available to W&L students. The
indoor facilities are among the best for schools of our size.
The outdoor facilities, although lacking sufficient playing
and practice fields, are considered to be adequate. With the
improvements to the latter which have been approved and/or budgeted
for future completion, this University should have excellent
athletic facilities of all kinds. The University is fortunate
to have the option of admitting women without incurring large
financial expenditures for athletic facilities.



* * * * *


It is very difficult to forecast what impact the admission of
women will have on student government. At Davidson in 1975,
two years after co-education was begun, a woman had been elected
vice-president of the Student Government Association.(2) At
Sewanee, "Women are quite active in extracurricular activities
and have held a number of leadership positions".(3) It is not
anticipated that significant changes in the structure of student
government would occur as a result of a decision to co-educate;
and, in fact, schools which have made the transition in recent
years have generally witnessed an increased interest and partici-
pation in existing student government activities when women
have been admitted. It is expected that the women students
would be integrated into the student government as they have
in other institutions. In the Report of the Committee on Co-
Education at Washington and Lee University dated April, 1970,
the conclusion was made that "...they (women) should and undoubtedly
would seek membership in offices in all campus organizations".(4)


(2) W&L Trustee's Study Committee on Education "Volume I:
Summary Volume" August 1975, Davidson College Visit Section,
p. 8.

(3) Ibid., Sewanee Visit Section, p. 10.

(4) See referenced report, p. 18.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee of Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 9



The students interviewed by this Sub-Committee expect that election
campaigns would probably be more lively and that the student
interest and participation in the election process would be
increased. Some students feel that women will be more serious
than the men about the political process. Of course, it can
be anticipated that initially women will have some frustration
about their representation in student government because of
their small numbers. The Law School experienced this until
the proportion of women in the total student body reached about
30%.

One of the most important functions of student government is
the Honor System. This Sub-Committee defers to the wisdom and
experience of the Executive Committee of the Board to deal with
this subject. The students who have been interviewed considered
that the size of the student body influences the effectiveness
of the Honor System more than the gender of the students. These
student leaders do perceive women to be more lenient than men
in determining punishment for honor offenses and that male/female
relationships may compromise a student's willingness to report
an honor violation. Again, the Honor System which deserves
much more attention than is given in this report will, by mutual
consent of the Rector and President, be the subject of inquiry
by the Executive Committee of the Board.

"The Student Handbook 1983-84" lists and explains a number of
the separate activities of student government beginning on Page 6
and ending on Page 16. These activities include the following:


1. The Student University Council
2. Student Control Committee
3. Student Affairs Committee
4. Student Activities Board
5. Student Financial Relations Committee (cold check)
6. Student Emergency Loan Committee
7. Voting Regulations Board
8. Recruiting Committee
9. Contact and University Publications Board

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 10



This Sub-Committee has had great difficulty in trying to determine
what effect co-education will have on any or all of these student
government activities. We can say with some assurance that
women will participate in these activities and will bring the
female point-of-view to bear on the particular concerns of the
individual Boards and/or Committees. In schools that have recently
adopted co-education, women have actively participated in these
campus activities. (5)


* * * * *



A number of student organizations and campus activities would,
in the opinion of the Sub-Committee, receive real benefit from
the admission of women to Washington and Lee. Among those are
musical and choral groups, e.g., the Brass and Percussion Ensemble,
the String Ensemble, the mixed chorus and the concert guild;
the University Theatre; service organizations, e.g., the University
Federation of Volunteers consisting of Big Brother- Big Sister
Program, tutoring program and a companionship therapy program
with Western State Mental Hospital in Staunton; the Inter-varsity
Christian Fellowship which would involve female athletes; the
Student Association for Black Unity (SABU) and the Mock Conven-
tion. Those organizations and activities on which co-education
may have a neutral effect include political organizations, e.g.,
Young Democrats and College Republicans, The International Club,
The Debate Team, The Outing Club, Student Telephone Union, honorary
socities, e.g., Phi Beta Kappa, Omicron Delta Cappa Phi, Eta
Sigma, Beta Gamma Sigma, and the literary works, e.g., The
Political Review and Focus-Excelsior. It is believed that women
would certainly participate in these organizations but it is
not known in what measure they will benefit them.




(5) The "Report of the Committee on Co-Education and Washington
and Lee University", April 1970, p. 18.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 11



As with student government organizations, it has been substantiated
that women become active in such student organizations very
quickly and very enthusiastically.(6) In a few instances,
the formerly all-male organizations have resisted inclusion
of women into their activities, but resistance generally diminishes
two or three years after co-education begins.


Students who were interviewed were generally positive about
the involvement of women in student activities and feel that
they will improve the quality of the programs and heighten the
activity level of these organizations. It is possible that
once women have been completely integrated into student activities,
they also may become complacent, losing their initial drive
to succeed where women were not previously given an opportu-
nity.


* * * * *


Co-curricular activities are those which enhance and reinforce
the academic curriculum. Art exhibits, musical concerts, guest
lecturers, foreign film series, campus workshops comprise this
category of activity. Attendance at these activities is considered
by all campus constituencies to be very poor. Students seem
to think these type of activities would provide them with natural
dating opportunities and that they would be encouraged to attend.
Women generally have a stronger interest in cultural activities
than men, and it is felt they would encourage their male friends
to attend with them. Also, with a large proportion of female
students living on campus, attending co-curricular activities
will be more convenient than for male students who do not reside
on or near the campus. There should be an increase in the variety
of co-curricular offerings as a result of admitting women.
Modern dance and ballet groups are notably absent. The Sub-Committee
feels strongly that co-curricular activities would enjoy a resurgence
of interest and attendance were women to be admitted to W&L.

* * * * *

(6) Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, The
University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, Douglas Pashcall's
letter to Dr. John D. Wilson, March 12, 1984, p. 3.

[pb]

Report of the Sub-Committee on Athletics, Co-curricular Activities,
and Student Government and Organizations
May 18, 1984
Page 12




SUMMARY


With the exception of the known changes in athletic program
and facilities that would be caused by co-education, the majority
of the conclusions contained in this report are mainly speculative.
It may be helpful in the period between the regular May Board
meeting and the special July meeting to visit some colleges
and universities that have adopted co-education in recent years
for the purpose of gathering specific data on student organizations
and activities and student government. These topics were not
given a great deal of attention in the previous studies on co-
education so there is very little information available with
which to forecast what may happen. Therefore, the Sub-Committee
feels that with the exception of the detrimental effect on the
competitiveness of large team intercollegiate athletics, the
impact of co-education on other phases of the athletic program,
student government and organizations, and co-curricular activities
will be very positive.

[pb]

EXHIBIT A


January 30, 1984

To: Dr. John D. Wilson, President
From: The University Athletic Committee


Report on Coeducation and the Athletic Program


The University Athletic Committee has understood its task to be studying
the implications of a decision to coeducate at Washington and Lee upon all
aspects of our athletic program. The Committee's report is based upon a ten-
year evolutionary model which assumes:

1. earliest decision to coeducate: May, 1984
2. earliest implementation of coeducation: Fall, 1986
3. full coeducation to be achieved by 1990 with student body of
1500 students (1000 men and 500 women) engaging in 13 men's inter-
collegiate sports and approximately 10 women's intercollegiate
sports, either separately coached or integrated teams
4. an incremental accretion/diminution of women/men, from a base figure
of 100 women matriculating in 1986, which projects the following
approximate yearly enrollment figures:

Year Women Men Total

1985 0 1300 1300
1986 100 1250 1350
1987 200 1200 1400
1988 300 1150 1450
1989 400 1100 1500
1990 500 1000 1500
1991-4 500 1000 1500

The Committee devoted its November meeting to a determination of desiderata
and set up a four man subcommittee (consisting of the Athletic Director, one of
the alumni representatives, one student, and the Chairman) which subsequently
met several times for preliminary discussions of the issues and inspection of
the Gymnasium complex. The Committee also made use of the relevant segments
from previous Washington and Lee studies on coeducation and met with the Uni-
versity architect, Professor Henry Ravenhorst, at its January meeting.

From its study thus far, the Committee offers the following assessment of
the likely impact of coeducation upon our program offerings, staff, athletic
facilities, and operating budget.

I. Program offerings:

A. Physical education courses: Coeducation would have only a minor effect
upon our present impressive range of nearly 30 basic "skills in physical
education" offerings. Some courses, especially in dance and movement
(e.g., aerobic dance, ballet, modern dance) probably would be added, but
there should be no appreciable quantum change requiring more, or fewer,
staff members. Almost all the basic skills courses can easily be taught
as "coed" courses.

[pb]

- 2 -


B. Intramurals and Club Sports: Coeducation would create considerable
growth, perhaps as much as 50%, in our intramural sports programs. Where
women would not be at a physical disadvantage (for example, in such sports
as softball, touch football, and volleyball), the programs would be coedu-
cational; otherwise, the sports would be conducted on a "separate but equal"
basis.

We assume also that a number of Club Sports, requiring only faculty
sponsors, would come into being during the early phase of coeducation.
Some of these, depending upon the inclination of the club members, might
prefer to keep their club status, as men's rugby and Ultimate Frisbee now
do, whereas others may evolve to varsity status in due time.

C. Intercollegiate sports: Our projections are based on the assumption
that roughly the same percentage of women will participate in intercollegi-
ate sports each year as the men traditionally have, that is to say,25%, or
approximately 125 of the 500 women matriculating by 1990.

We can not, of course, precisely predict the growth rate or the patterns
of interest, but we do foresee the formation of at least ten women's varsi-
ty teams by 1990--three in the fall (cross-country, volleyball, field hockey),
three in the winter (swimming and diving, basketball, indoor track), and four
in the spring (tennis, golf, track, lacrosse). We assume that those sports
emphasizing individual prowess and requiring relatively small team rosters
will form first and that the larger, more expensive team sports (e.g.,
lacrosse and field hockey) will develop later. (See the "Coeducation
Phase-In Chart" for our projected rate of implementation.

It should also be noted that Washington and Lee's women's teams would
have no difficulty developing attractive schedules with schools of compatible
size and athletic philosophy. Ten Virginia colleges and universities already
offer intercollegiate league and championship play in eight women's sports
sanctioned by the Old Dominion Athletic Conference. (See page 3 of the ODAC
1983-84 Information Guide and Directory.) As a charter member of the Con-
ference, Washington and Lee could have its female athletes compete as in-
dividuals in ODAC championships in cross-country, fencing, tennis, and
swimming and diving from the very inception of coeducation.


II. Staff:

To offer effective coaching and teaching coverage for our expanded
programs, we estimate that the Physical Education department would add
three fulltime female members by 1990, for a net gain of only one staff
member because Coaches Norman Lord and Boyd Williams will reach the manda-
tory retirement age of 70 in 1990.

We foresee that these staff members will be hired in the following
sequence:

A. In 1986 a woman, probably in her thirties with previous collegiate
coaching and administrative experience as an Assistant Athletic Director,
who would report to the Athletic Director, would direct the women's
athletic programs and have coaching duties as well. This appointment
should be mindful of the counsel of Dr. Ruth Adams, former President of

[pb]

- 3 -


Wellesley and Vice-President of Women's Programs at Dartmouth, quoted
in the 1975 Trustee Report, that in the transition to coeducation "major
efforts need to be made to bring in highly qualified, relatively senior
female faculty and administrative members, not just at the instructor or
assistant professor level":

B. In 1988, a woman qualified to coach both volleyball and basketball.

C. In 1990, a woman qualified to coach both field hockey and lacrosse.

The Committee also anticipates the hiring of a number of female interns
e. g., a female trainer, and interns for the women's swimming and tennis
teams, to supplement these fulltime personnel. In the short run, the
present athletic staff could coach women in such sports as cross-country,
golf, tennis, track, and swimming. The Washington and Lee School of Law,
now over 30% female, would also be a potential source for assistant coaches
for the women's teams.


III. Facilities:

A. Outdoor:

1) The most pressing need, whether we coeducate or not, is for more
field space; additional cut-and-fill work on the field alongside Route
60 would provide two full-size fields and reduce some of the pressure
on the existing practice fields. In addition, the area on either side
of the Liberty Hall ruins might be developed for recreational, intra-
mural, or team use.

2) The longest-standing need has been the rebuilding and resurfacing
of the six "Har-Tru" tennis courts under the footbridge with an all-
weather surface. (See Mr. McHenry's letter to Frank Parsons as of
March, 1983 for a complete long-term listing of desirable renovations
or additions to our existing athletic facilities).

B. Indoor:

The only modification absolutely essential to coeducate in the
first year is the partitioning of the main locker room on the 300
level to provide adequate lockerroom space for the women. Prof.
Ravenhorst has presented a plan (see sheet 3-1, overlay 1) of Mr.
Ravenhorst's "Proposed Alterations Warner Center to Coed Use" which
the Committee believes makes sense from the standpoint of security
and traffic patterns, and would comply with Title IX, the federal
regulations governing sex discrimination. Were we to adopt the Raven-
horst plan, basically the east end of the Doremus gym would become
the women's locker room, the antiquated gang shower room would be
replaced by modern stall showers, and a cinderblock partition would
insure privacy for the women and an entrance to the auxiliary pool
for the men.

The Committee has also considered other probabilities and possi-
bilities for reallocating space and remodelling although we have not
yet had time to study these options in sufficient detail to make final
recommendations. The present stage of the Committee's thinking on our

[pb]

- 4 -


options is summarized below floor-by-floor: (By referring to the space
use diagrams and Mr. Ravenhorst's blueprint overlays the reader may better
visualize the changes.)

1. 100 level:

a) The present women's locker room (121) could become the women's
faculty locker room, or, perhaps, the men's faculty locker room for
those faculty members using the pool or indoor courts.

b) The present faculty locker room (156) could become the women's
swim team locker room. Because access to the pool deck can be
gained from both ends of the room, 156 could also be partitioned
and used by female faculty members as well.

c) The present men's swim team locker room (104) would probably
remain as is, but if space needs are acute, this room might also
be partitioned to accommodate more than one team.

2. 200 level: This level would remain unchanged unless space needs
might dictate conversion of the dormitory (225) to a visiting team
locker room. At present this room has no shower facilities; visi-
ting teams must use the showers in 343 on the next level. According
to the Athletic Director, the dormitory is used well over 100 days a
year and helps us to schedule intercollegiate opponents who other-
wise might not come to Lexington because of prohibitive travel expenses.
(See letter of January 23, 1984 from Mr. McHenry)

3. 300 level: If we retain the present "one team/one locker room" con-
cept, by 1990 a crunch on lockerroom space might develop when there
presumably would be three women's teams in both the fall and spring
seasons needing separate locker rooms. Additional rooms could be
freed by having "out-of-season" teams (i.e., lacrosse and tennis)
vacate team rooms in the fall or by reducing the number of rooms now
designated for visiting teams. In addition, the present women's locker
room by the auxiliary pool could be used by one of the smaller teams
or even used as a women's weight room if separate weight training
facilities are deemed to be necessary or desirable.

If any lebensraum problem developed which could not be solved by
these measures, then several options could be entertained, among them
remodelling of the auxiliary pool to provide several additional locker-
rooms (see Prof. Ravenhorst's sheet 3-1, overlay 2). The auxiliary
pool, however, is used often enough now when the main pool is unavaila-
ble and patronized daily by recreational swimmers who prefer the inti-
mate "Roman bath" setting of the Doremus pool to warrant retaining it
in its present form for now. (The cost of maintaining and heating
it is negligible; about $150 worth of chemicals are used each year).

If we were to modify the present proprietary approach to locker
rooms and simply regard the seven "team rooms" with their total
capacity of 230 lockers as space to be allocated to our intercollegi-
ate athletes, men and women, regardless of their team affiliation,
then we might make more efficient use of these rooms.

[pb]

- 5 -


The present coaches' and guest lockerroom, fitted out with
additional lockers and shower heads, would be large enough to serve
as the men's faculty lockerroom (now located on the 100 level). The
equipment, laundry, and training room areas should not have to be ex-
panded, though office space will have to be found for the female trainer
somewhere. The laundry area has space for an additional washer if neces-
sary; however, the simplest way to handle the anticipated increase in
volume would be to create a "night shift" and let members of the custodial
staff run the laundry equipment then.

4. 400 level:

a) The present officials' locker room would probably be designated
as the female coaches' locker room.

b) The office in the administrative complex now being used for office
supplies (or the SID's office) would become the office for the Director
of Women's Athletic Programs. If additional office space should be
needed, the rooms off the lobby adjacent to the rest rooms now used
as a public lounge and as an office by the custodial staff could be
converted.

c) Finally, whether or not the auxiliary pool is retained, the present
auxiliary pool balcony area could be remodeled to provide additional
offices and classrooms or a practice area suitable for the full range
of dance and movement classes we will likely be offering by 1990.
(See Sheet 4-1, overlay)

5. 500 level: The two additional female coaches would eventually move
into the offices now occupied by Coaches Lord and Williams at the
time of their retirements. Alternatively, there could be some
"doubling-up" in the larger offices, or some of the offices might
be repartitioned to provide a suite for the football staff and hence
create more office space. Furthermore, the office now being used
by the University Proctor could be recaptured for use by members of
the athletic department.

It should be also noted in passing that because half the classroom
area is now serving as an office for four interns, a better sound-
proof divider should be installed in the classroom.

Of the various longer-term options available for remodelling the interior
of Warner Center to provide more space, the Committee views Prof. Ravenhorst's
proposal for converting the balcony space at the north end to be the most attrac-
tive and cost-efficient. This area, structurally designed to take the weight of
additional stands for the basketball arena, has never been needed for spectators;
instead, it has been used occasionally for fencing and badminton (it is lined
for these sports) and for tennis and martial arts classes. Mr. Ravenhorst's
plan (see Sheet 5-1, overlay) would convert this balcony into two lockerrooms,
three offices, and a medium-sized classroom.

[pb]

- 6 -


IV. Budget:

The yearly estimated costs of a coeducational athletic program are
displayed on the "Coeducational Phase-In Chart." The annual expenditures
would rise from an initial estimated outlay of $41,000 in 1986 to $112,000
in 1990 when all of the anticipated women's programs would be in place.
The Athletic Director estimates that Starting salaries for the full time
staff members and interns would total $80,000 by 1990, a figure unadjusted
to reflect annual salary increases. The Athletic Director also estimates
that yearly athletic team expenses (e.g., for equipment, travel, meet
expenses and recruiting) would amount to approximately $32,000 by 1990.
Again, these figures are unadjusted for inflation; hence, the full finan-
cial impact of a fully expanded coeducational athletic program upon the
University budget would be somewhat greater. Perhaps $125,000 by 1990
would be a more realistic cost estimate to work with.

The "Coeducation Phase-In Chart" also provides current estimates for
the indoor and outdoor construction contracts with the highest priority,
but the Committee wishes to stress that almost all of these capital im-
provements to our physical education facilities are ones we should under-
take anyway and are not directly tied to the coeducation issue. If the
Board of Trustees votes for coeducation, then we would have to modify only
the interior of the 300 level of Doremus Gymnasium to provide separate
and sufficient lockerroom facilities for female students, a job Prof.
Ravenhorst estimates would cost $140,000. Thus the minimal "start-up"
cost of coeducating our athletic program by 1986 would appear to be
approximately $180,000.

Respectfully submitted by the
University Athletic Committee,



*Prof. George Ray, Chairman
Prof. Herman Taylor
Prof. Sam Kozak
Prof. Barry Machado (on leave)
Dean F. L. Kirgis
Prof. Larry Lamont
Mr. Stephen H. Suttle '62
*Mr. William P. Wallace Jr. '75
Mr. Ian Banwell '85
Mr. Marty Bechtold '84
*Mr. Gordon Ogden '85




* Indicates members of the UAC sub-committee on coeducation.

[pb]

Coeducational Phase-In Chart

Year Number (# of women athletes) Intercollegiate Offerings Estimated Program Cost Staff (approximate starting salary in parentheses) Facilities Cumulative Budget Increase

1985 resurface Har-Tru ten-nis courts ($70,000)

1986 100 (25) Fall: x-country Winter: swimming & diving Spring: tennis $1000 $2000 $2000 1 intern ($8000) 1 women's ass't AD ($20,000) 1 intern trainee ($8000) modify 200 level of War-ner to provide separate locker rooms for female students ($140,000) $41,000

1987 200 (50) Spring: track (championship meets) golf $1000 $1000 $43,000

1988 300 (75) Fall: volleyball Spring: track $4000 1 volleyball coach ($16,000) develop, grade, & seed Rt. 60 fields ($125,000) 63,000

1989 400 (100) Winter: basketball $6000 (volleyball coach will coach BB) 1 tennis intern ($8000) construct additional lockerrooms, classrooms & offices on basketball arena balcony?($105,000) $77,000

1990 500 (125) Fall: field hockey Spring: lacrosse $7500 $7500 1 field hockey/la-crosse coach ($20,000) (retirement of Coaches Lord & Williams) Rt. 60 fields available $112,000

1991-1994 500 (125) Add other sports as sufficient interest develops Build a field house?

TOTALS by 1990 500 (125) 10 sports $32,000 3 coaches 3 interns ($80,000)

[pb]

1983-84 O.D.A.C. SPORTS

[pb]

Campus Correspondence

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY

TO: Mr. Frank Parsons, Assistant to the President

FROM: William D. McHenry, Director of Athletics DATE: March 18, 1983

Subject: Priority List of Athletic Facilities Needed


1. Conversion of racquetball/handball courts, one per year by Jim Arthur.
Two finished, four to go.

2. Resurfacing and rebuilding of lower tennis courts with same surface
as upper courts. American Surfacing Co. Inc. Mr. Andy Hord.$61,518.00.

3. Indoor field house with artificial surface that could accommodate indoor
tennis, lacrosse, baseball, track, soccer, football and P.E. Classes.
It could also be used as a multi-purpose area for concerts, dances, and
campus-wide parties. Architect would have to provide cost estimate.

4. Expansion of athletic fields along Route 60. Area could be developed
for two additional fields to accommodate outdoor sports, intramurals,
and recreation. See Tom Borellis for price estimate.

5. Resurface and rebuild track and jumping pit runways with all weather
track. Drainage system track construction and resurfacing by
Moffett Paving and American Surfacing Co., Inc. $125,476.00.

6. Stadium Renovation - annual maintenance on stadium to include press
box renovation, improved seating, improved gate arrangements, painted
periodically, and new restroom expansion.
Much of this should be done by Jim Arthur while other work would need
estimates by architect.

7. Improvement in baseball stadium to include new backstop, permanent
seating, proper fencing. The farm house could be renovated as a club
house with toilet facilities and storage, but wouldn't be needed if
field house is approved.

8. Field Lighting - Needed for late afternoon practices in Fall and for
expanded Intramural use. Fall presents serious problems for outdoor
teams.

9. Tennis Courts Light for recreational use and late matches. This could
be done at same time as field lighting.

10. Artificial Turf or prescription turf would help Wilson field to accomodate
football, soccer and lacrosse. Thirty to thirty-five contests are
played on Wilson Field each year.

[pb]

Mr. Frank Parsons Page 2


11. Outdoor recreational facilities to include basketball courts, volleyball
court, one wall handball courts, bike racks at dorms and public buildings.
Future dormitories should have space for universal gym and weight training.

12. Renovation of Old Gym - indoor track need attention. Radiators should
be removed with alternative heating planned. Nets hung from track for
indoor activities.

Note: this is not important if field house is a strong option.

Weight room needs better ventilation with exhaust fans installed.





WDM:am

[pb]

Landscape Architects
GWSM Inc

[address redacted]
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217
Telephone (412) [phone number redacted]




January 10, 1984



William McHenry
Athletic Director
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450

Re: Washington and Lee University
Route 60 Field Construction

Dear Bill:

I went thru the past studies for this area and found some figures which
we quickly could extract and update as a very rough 1984 cost estimate:

TOTAL FIELD CONSTRUCTION
Includes grading, topsoil, lawn (seeding)
and storm drainage
Does not include irrigation $125,000.

For a sod playing field 22,000.

Another item which I'll pass on: In 1981, GWSM, inc. did a complete
improvement-feasibility study for a local school district (heavy in
field athletics). We compared various field surface alternatives (astro,
prescription turf and natural turf); also synthetic track installations.
Enclosed is a sheet from that report. These prices include 400 meters,
6 lanes and jogger's lane; relocation of track events (long jump and pole
vault); excavation and removal of old track and subgrade preparation.

Best regards,

[tom]

W. Thomas Borellis

WTB:jeb
Enclosure

cc: Mr. Frank Parsons
Mr. James Arthur
Mr. Scott Beebe

[pb]

List of Tracklite II Installations

Hempfield High School
Oliver High School


List of Tartan Surface Track Installations

Pitt Stadium
Mt. Lebanon Stadium


Cost Estimate

The following costs are for replacement of the existing track based
upon receipt of construction bids by April 30,1981:

Tracklite II
5,800 sq. yds. @ 30.00 $174,000.

*Tartan Surface
5,800 sq. yds. @ 56.00 $324,800.

Note: Costs do not include drainage corrections which are presented
elsewhere in this study.



*The Tartan Surface cost was not included in any of the preceding
surface option cost estimates.







-40-

[pb]

PROPOSED

ALTERATIONS

WARNER CENTER

TO

CO-ED USE

[pb]

Sheet 3 - 1 300 Level


Shows the existing conditions in the Locker Room area



Sheet 3 - 1 (overlay 1)
Indicates renovations required to provide locker and shower
facilities for women students. This consists of new
structural partition which will separate the basket issue
and dressing areas for men and women. The womens' locker
area will have an entrance as indicated which will provide
access with some control from the equipment issue room
window.
Additional lockers will be needed. The existing shower
room will be converted with new shower and lavatory facil-
ities. Doremus pool will remain and will be accessible
from both the men's locker room and women's locker room.
The existing coaches' locker room will be changed to
accommodate both faculty and coaches.


The estimated cost of this work is $140,000.00.


Sheet 3 - 1 (overlay 2)

Indicates elimination of pool and constructing team rooms
and related facilities.


The estimated cost of this work is $148,000.00.

[pb]

Sheet 4 - 1 400 Level


Shows existing conditions of the 400 Level


Sheet 4 - 1 (overlay)


This indicates the conversion of the upper space above
Doremus Pool into class rooms and offices.


If this is constructed independent of the lower area
(pool space -- see Sheet 3 - 1 (overlay2)
the estimated cost would be $95,000.00.
(Plus additional ventilation system for pool area, $15,000.00.)



If this is constructed in conjunction with the conversion of
the pool space (Sheet 3 - 1 (overlay 2) the cost is
estimated to be $70,000.00.

[pb]

Sheet 5 - 1 500 Level


Shows existing conditions


Sheet 5 - 1 (overlay)


Indicates the conversion of the present balcony area
(which is experiencing very limited use at present) into
two team rooms, class room and three offices.


The balcony was originally designed to provide for bleacher
seating but has never been used for this and present in-
dications are such that it will not be needed for this use.
The space as shown in this study will be well used. A
limited balcony or walkway is retained to provide for good
access and circulation. The conversion will necessitate
new partitions, lighting, heating and ventilating; plumb-
ing for showers and toilets, etc.


The cost of this work is estimated to be $105,000.00.



(This does not include cost of renovating the existing coaches'offices)

[pb]

Campus Correspondence

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
TO: Dr. George Ray
Chairman - Athletic Committee

FROM: William D. McHenry
Director of Athletics
DATE: January 23, 1984

Subject: Use of the Athletic Team Dormitory in the Gymnasium


For the academic school year 1983-84 we have already made reservations
for 81 days usage of the athletic team dormitory by visiting teams.
The normal pattern would be between 6 and 10 days per month with the
exception of March which has 31 days use. In addition to these 81 days
our football team will use it 14 days, during pre-season football and
summer camps will use it for approximately 22 days. This gives us a
usage of 117 days per year.

Unfortunately, Dick throws away the records of past years use since
they are of no consenquences to us. This would be a similar situation
each year in my estimate between 75 and 100 days per year was not too
far off.

Hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely yours,

[Bill]

William D. McHenry
WDM:am

[pb]

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COST



1. 300 Level — per Overlay 1 . . . . . . . . . . . $ 140,000

2. 300 Level — per Overlay 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 148,000

3. 400 Level — per Overlay 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 95,000
(Independent of 2 above)

4. 400 Level per Overlay 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 70,000
( In conjunction with 2 above)

5. 500 Level — per Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . 105,000
( Does not include cost of renovation of present
offices - )

[pb]

EXHIBIT B
Added Athletic Department Expenditures to Coeducate
Based on UAC 1-30-84 Report to JDW
(except women enter fall, 1985

Budget Years
1984-85 Amounts 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94
Faculty & Staff - escalated at 6% & 7% as shown
Woman intern - swimming - 6% 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,100 10,700 11,350 12,000 12,750 13,50[0?]
Woman Asst. AD - 7% 20,000 21,400 22,900 24,500 26,200 28,050 30,000 32,100 34,350 36,75[0?]
Woman intern trainer - 6% 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 10,100 10,700 11,350 12,000 12,750 13,50[0?]
Woman volleyball/basket-ball coach - 7% 16,000 19,600 21,000 22,450 24,000 25,700 27,500 29,40[0?]
Woman tennis intern - 6% 8,000 10,100 10,700 11,350 12,000 12,750 13,50[0?]
Woman field hockey/lacrosse coach - 7% 20,000 28,050 30,000 32,100 34,350 36,75[0?]
Coach Lord retires 6-30-89 - 7% (25,133) (35,250) (37,700) (40,350) (43,200) (46,200)
Coach Williams retires 6-30-92 - 7% (26,833) (46,100) (49,350)

Net added salaries 38,400 40,900 63,100 77,500 75,400 80,350 85,550 45,150 47,85[0?]
Fringe benefits at 20% 7,700 8,200 12,600 15,500 15,100 16,050 17,100 9,050 9,55[0?]

Net added compensation cost 46,100 49,100 75,700 93,000 90,500 96,400 102,650 54,200 57,40[0?]
Program Costs (i.e., Supplies & Equipment) - escalate at 6%
X-country 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700
Swimming/diving 2,000 2,100 2,250 2,400 2,500 2,700 2,850 3,000 3,200 3,400
Tennis 2,000 2,100 2,250 2,400 2,500 2,700 2,850 3,000 3,200 3,400
Track 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700
Golf 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700
Volleyball/track 4,000 4,750 5,050 5,350 5,650 6,000 6,400 6,750
Basketball 6,000 7,550 8,050 8,500 9,000 9,550 10,150
Field Hockey 7,500 10,050 10,650 11,300 11,950 12,650
Lacrosse 7,500 10,050 10,650 11,300 11,950 12,650

Total added program (S&E) costs 5,250 7,800 13,150 21,500 42,950 45,350 48,100 51,050 54,100

[pb]

Added Athletic Department Expenditures to Coeducate
(continued)


Budget Years
1984-85 Amounts 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94
46,100 49,100 75,700 93 ,000 9¢ ,500 96,400 192,650 54,200 57, 40°

Net added compensation cost 46,100 49,100 75,700 93,000 90,500 96,400 102,650 54,200 57,400

Total added program (S&E) costs 5,250 7,800 13,150 21,500 42,950 45,350 48,100 51,050 54,100

TOTAL ADDED OPERATING BUDGET COSTS 51,350 56,900 88,850 114,500 133,450 141,750 150,750 105,250 111,500

Capital Costs - escalate at 6%

Separate Warner Center locker rooms 140,000 140,000

Renovate Warner Center balcony 105,000 125,000









ESE 4-27-84