Thomas interview [Begin Tape 1, Side 2] Warren: Okay. Thomas: I'm sorry to be hesitating. Dr. Shannon, English professor, father of the later president of the University of Virginia, was influential. I admired him. I didn't feel as close to him as I maybe do to some others. You know, I hesitate now because I haven't got any memory there. Warren: What was your major? Thomas: Well, we didn't have majors in those days. Warren: Really. Thomas: I don't know, maybe I did, but- Warren: You know, I think you're right, I think that that developed a little later. Thomas: Yes. I was interested in English. Mathematics was not among my major interests. Of course, I enjoyed some history. Warren: Now, I looked you up in the yearbook and I see that you were involved with the newspaper, with the Ring-tum Phi. Thomas: Oh, yeah, I was manager of the Ring-tum Phi. I forgot about that. The important person was the editor of the Ring-tum Phi, who was-I can't recall his name now, I can see him. That's the only elective office I ever ran for there. You know a lot about me. Warren: Well, I like to do my homework. Thomas: You should have given me time to do mine. [Laughter] Well, have you got anything else? Warren: Well, I also saw that you were in the Washington Literary Society. Thomas: Yes. 14 Warren: And I don't know exactly what that means. Thomas: Well, it was a society which met maybe once a month, where the student would present paper and we would discuss it. I recall the law students being in it just to cultivate our interest in literature generally: The fact I was a member of the Literary Society I don't think was of any particular significance. Warren: Well, I know at some point you had to be a member of- there were two literary societies. Thomas: Yes. Warren: I don't know whether that was still true in your day, but there was some time when you had to be in one or the other, the Graham, there was a Graham Literary Society and a Washington. Thomas: Oh, what was the other one? Warren: The Washington. Thomas: Yes. I've forgotten which one I was in. Warren: Well, the yearbook says you were in the Washington Literary Society. Thomas: I was in Washington. Warren: Then I also saw that you were on the business staff the Mink. Do you remember the Mink? I think it was some kind of a humor magazine. Thomas: The Mink was an annual publication. The Ring-tum Phi was the newspaper. Was I on the staff of the Mink? Warren: Well, no, that's the Calyx. The annual is the Calyx. I think the Mink was maybe a short-lived humor magazine. Thomas: I guess it was. Warren: But you don't really remember that? Thomas: I remember the Mink, but I don't recall my relationship to it. Warren: Now, there's another thing that I'll tell you if I were a member of this, I'd be very proud of it, that you got into ODK. 15 Thomas: Yes. Warren: And that was fairly early on in the exi9tence of ODK. Thomas: Yes, and one of our favorite professors was one of the founders of ODK. The Betas had something to do with the founding of ODK, and yeah, I was-I guess I knew the right people, so I got into ODK. Warren: Was that Rupert Latture? Thomas: Latture was a good man, he was not an outstanding person, he was very religious and we needed that. Warren: Can you remember when you were selected for ODK? Thomas: I was selected, I think, in my junior year. Warren: That's an accomplishment. Thomas: I may be flattering myself when I say that. Warren: That's an accomplishment. Thomas: I believe I was in the junior year. Betas had a big part in forming ODK. Warren: I didn't know that. Thomas: You see, it was organized, it was created at Washington and Lee. It's national now. Warren: You mentioned a little while ago that you wanted to talk about religion. Thomas: Washington and Lee, as I imagine you know, was started by Irish Presbyterians, and, of course, Lexington was, at least it was at the time, was primarily a Presbyterian place, and so at the time that Washington College was started, it wouldn't have been thought by anybody then not to have recognized it as committed to the Christian religion. It was that way when I was there. I don't think there was a united and enthusiastic commitment that had been the case in earlier years. In my day, the Christian religion played a real role at Washington and Lee. For instance, it had a college YMCA, and in that day the YMCA was rather influential, it was much more so than later. They had a full-time YMCA secretary, 16 and the first time I got to Europe was through the YMCA. (You can see how my mind has deteriorated when I talk.) The student YMCA was really quite influential and the YMCA was more liberal than the old Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more liberal in the sense that there was a concern with social issues. As I've said, I got to Europe first in connection with the YMCA. Ted Shultz was the secretary of the YMCA the first year and also an All-American football player, so that was a pretty good organization. Warren: When you arrived in 1920, were there a lot of World War I veterans? Thomas: A lot of what? Warren: Were there World War I veterans in your class? Thomas: No, no. You might look up the records and find out that there was one or two World War I veterans there, but I'm not aware of it. I don't believe they were there. The war was over in '18, so it would have been two years since the termination of the war. I would just throw in at this point that I'm pro-VMI with respect to the Supreme Court. Warren: Well, you're one step ahead of me, on my next question. My next question was, what did you think about Washington and Lee becoming coeducated? Thomas: I was opposed to it. I just liked the school the way it was. We could go to Sweet Briar or Mary Baldwin or Hollins and had dates there and invite girls to the campus. So I'd rather have them there as guests than as members of the student body. Now, that reflects, frankly, a prejudice on my part. There isn't any question about the fact that women are as smart as men. As a matter of fact, you can get some figures showing that they're smarter than men, their grades in other places are superior. You know about this. But I think feminism is a wrong philosophy. I don't think it was necessary. I don't mean, now, that there weren't injustices to women, but then there are injustices to men, too. And feminism is pretty dominant now. As 17 a matter of fact, I would say that the Supreme Court judgment about VMI reflected straight-out feminism. What's the name of the lady who wrote the opinion? Warren: Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Thomas: Yeah, that's right. She stated that men and women were of the same "stature." I've looked through the unabridged Webster's dictionary to see the different meanings of that, and it's not quite clear to me what she meant by the same "stature," but that was the basis, as far as that opinion was concerned, that was the basis of the action of the Court. It was not the Constitution which was the basis of it, it was a judgment that men and women are of the same stature. I think really the great problem today is the change in the status of women in this society that has come through the years. Now, I think I'm right about this. Bader indicated, I think, and I have to say that this is my memory from what I read in the paper, I think she indicated that in the colonial times, women were discriminated against by Jefferson and others who were leaders. I couldn't say I'm an authority on that, but I believe that I-and it's perfectly obvious to you that I'm not a feminist. Of course, some of the worst feminists, if I may put it that way, are male. I get to going on one thing, it must be tiring to you. Warren: Not at all, you're doing great. You're a wonderful interview. Have you been back to the school since women are on the campus? Have you seen what the changes have been? What do you think about that? Thomas: Since the VMI decision? Warren: No, since Washington and Lee became coeducated. Thomas: Oh, yes, I've been back. Warren: What do you think about what you see now? Thomas: Well, I think it's as good as could be expected. [Laughter] Warren: Very diplomatic. 18 Thomas: I frankly don't know, having not been there in the student body, and I have to accept the judgment of others, and it varies. I will admit the force of the argument for women, but I'll have to admit to force the argument for men, particularly as far as VMI is concerned. I think that if the Court was consistent, it would say that women should be sent into military service along with men. That's not my belief, but I think that's what we are really committed to if we're going to be consistent. Warren: You were on the board for a very long time, right? Thomas: Yes. Warren: Were you on the board at the time of the coeducation decision? Thomas: Uh-huh. Warren: Were you still on the board then in 1984? Thomas: I've forgotten when I got off the board. I think I was. Warren: Well, I'm sure the coeducation issue was discussed through the years for a long time. Thomas: Yes. I don't remember it in my student years. Warren: No, no, I mean when you were on the board. Thomas: We didn't discuss it as much as you might think. I don't know. I'm not in a position to state this, but what I'm thinking about is this, it wouldn't be right to say that having women there reflects a position advocated by the board. I think it reflects a position which was inevitable given the developments in society. Now, you would have to check that with other Washington and Lee people, some of whom would simply, I think, would disagree with it. Warren: Well, I'm just about at the end of my list, but I have one last question that has to do with somebody you've mentioned and the very particular time you were there. The Mock Convention of 1924 was when John W. Davis was nominated. It seems to me that must have been a pretty big event at Washington and Lee. 19 Thomas: It was and I was head of the Virginia delegation and we voted Carter Glass [phonetic]. Warren: Really? Thomas: Yes. Warren: Tell me about that. Thomas: Well, Carter Glass was highly thought of, and I think justly thought of, as a fine and able person. I wouldn't have said that Carter Glass was in the category of the top political leaders. I thought he was a good man. He lived in Lynchburg, just twenty-five miles away from Bedford. I don't know what else to say now, except that the movement for women gathered such strength and lulled such converts among men and so on, I think that was-I started to say inevitable, that's not the right word-it was maybe highly probable. I thought highly of John W. Davis, who became, as you may remember, became the nominee in 1920, was it? Warren: 1924. Thomas: '24, yes. Class of '24 year. Although I had tried to get Carter Glass, I was willing to support Glass, but I supported him because somehow, I don't know what position I had, but I was connected with the Virginia effort. That was what I- Warren: Was the Mock Convention a big event when you were there? Thomas: Yes, yes. It's been a big event, I think, through the years. I think that's an educational feature. Have you had any criticism of it from others? Warren: Not at all. I went to the one last year and it was exciting. It felt like the real thing. I've never been to a real one, but it sure felt like what I see on TV, and I just wondered if it had been that exciting all through the years. Thomas: I don't know enough to say categorically yes or no, but it's certainly been exciting. It's certainly been-well, maybe if not that exciting, [unclear] it has been an exciting thing through the years, yes. 20 Warren: Was there a special feeling, though, in 1924 because John W. Davis was a Washington and Lee man? Thomas: Yes. I don't think there's any question about that. I would say that I would have voted for John W. Davis. He was a brilliant man. As far as I know, his general positions would be in conformity with mine, or to turn it around, mine conformity with him. I think I quoted him, did I not, earlier? Warren: You mentioned him. Thomas: What he said about my Uncle Charlie Graves? Warren: Yes, yes, being a great teacher of railroad law. Thomas: Yeah, that he knew more railroad law than anybody else in the nation. Well, that was a strong statement. Warren: Well, we have come to the end of my list of questions. Is there anything you'd like to say about Washington and Lee? You spent a long time on the board. Is there anything you'd like to talk about from that time? Thomas: Yes, I would talk about the question of religion. You would expect that from me. On the whole, I am proud of Washington and Lee and in agreement with its policies. Of course, when it started, as Bob Huntley likes to point out, it started in a preacher's study. Do you know Huntley? Warren: Yes, certainly. Thomas: Of course, it was assumed in that day that it would be religious, that is to say, yes, it would have worship services. If there was any teaching of religion-well, I've answered it. So when I was there, we simply had the YMCA with a great emphasis on religion supported by the university. Most of the faculty were active and leaders in the Lexington scene and the atmosphere was favorable to, supportive of, religion. In recent years-when I say in recent years, I don't know exactly where to date the beginning of that, but I suppose thirty, forty years ago-no, couldn't have been 21 quite that far back. Anyway, what I'm saying is that the board changed its view. Now, we had a-what is the term I want-it was a position taken by the board with regard to religion. What do you call that? Anyway, we had that. The board recognized Washington and Lee as a Christian institution. Now, that's all it said, that doesn't mean the board did anything else, but it does mean that the board recognized it, and that was the case when I was there and that was the case many years after I left. But I'm guessing now, six or seven years ago, the board changed its position. It was a-what's the term we use? I'm embarrassed. Warren: A resolution? Thomas: No, to describe a position that's held-it was not in the Constitution, but it was a position taken by the board that Washington and Lee was a religious institution, a Christian institution. But I don't know, maybe ten years ago, give or take some, the board rejected that position. It canceled that position which stated that Washington and Lee was a Christian institution. So Washington and Lee officially is not a religious institution doesn't recognize it. I was, as you would expect, I was greatly concerned about that, and I wrote a long letter dealing with the history of it and arguing with it, and sent it to Miles. Warren: Steve Miles. Thomas: Yeah. And he agreed with me that we ought to restore it, but the board turned him down. So the Washington and Lee board has not only not maintained what it had, but it has refused to bring it back. That leaves Washington and Lee in the unfortunate procession of universities that are secular. Maybe you could say they were led by Harvard. Now, after hearing me, you're able to imagine that didn't make me very happy. Our position that Washington and Lee was a Christian institution in the past meant, didn't mean that any sort of force was brought to bear on students, but it did mean that, well, if we had a professor of religion, he was probably the lead of Christian religion. He wouldn't use it just to bring up criticisms 22 of it. If you brought up criticisms, he would deal with it. I was hoping we might get that change, and, as I said, Miles Stevens [sic Steve Miles] agreed with me, but the board turned him down. Warren: You're not the first person to bring this up. Another person brought this up, too, as an issue. Thomas: Is that right? Well, I'm pleased to hear that. I think I'm familiar with all the arguments pro and con, and I appreciate that. Incidentally, when I decided that I might go to the seminary, I wasn't certain I could believe in God. I am an authentic doubting Thomas. So I went to Edinburgh University for two years to get my M.A. and then I got my Ph.D. over there, and the primary consideration was, could I believe in God, which, of course, led me into philosophy. My belief in God has a stronger basis than it has in the past. I suppose I will have to sum this up by saying that I think that Washington and Lee's deliberate rejection of commitment to the Christian faith is a very, very sad and serious situation. We still have a professor of religion, but we don't have to have a Christian professor. We can have a Mohammedan or we can have a person who doesn't believe in God. You can have those people in religious ed. Of course, there are some people who feel that any commitment like that is unworthy. Now, if you asked them on what basis they make that statement, they can't say anything. The main thing, you can't hold it in this day so that this day was such that you can't believe in religion, presumably if you a responsible intellectual person. Warren: Well, that's a real good summation, and I hope you shared these thoughts with President Elrod, too. Thomas: To some extent I'm going to share them with him at length. That's one thing definitely I'm going to do. Warren: Good. This is a good practice session. [Laughter] Thomas: [Laughter] I must do it better than I've done here with you. 23 Warren: You've done a great job. Dr. Thomas, I am just thrilled to have been able to come and visit with you. Thomas: Well, bless your heart. Warren: This has been a real honor for me. Thomas: Well, I am certainly thrilled to hear you say that. Warren: You are very, very well thought of at Washington and Lee and people were very, very pleased to hear I was coming to see you. Thomas: Well, I'm pleased to hear that, because there are fewer and fewer people at Washington and Lee that have had anything to do with Jack Thomas or ever heard of him. Warren: You've got a reputation. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thomas: Well, I thank you. [End of interview] 24