the alumni magazine of washington and lee university MAY 1981 SSO CF the alumni magazine of washington and lee (USPS 667-040) Volume 56, Number 3, May 1981 William C. Washburn, °40 ................ cece eee eee ee eee Editor Romulus T. Weatherman ....................... Managing Editor Jeffery G. Hanna .............. cece eee ee eee es Associate Editor P. Craig Cornett, "80 ............ cece eee e eee e eee Assistant Editor Joyc@ Carter’)... csc c cece eee dee ete weeee Editorial Assistant W. Patrick Hinely, °73 ..............c cece eee eee Photographer TABLE OF CONTENTS The Woods Creek Gap .............cceecceee eee eee eee eee 1 ‘Electronic Judge” .............ccececeeeeeeeeeeeneee ene eaees 8 The Game .......0.0 cece edeccceeccceneccosnssssevmagmennagings 10 Phi Beta Kappa Convocation ..............:sseeeeeeeeeees 13 Drinking at W&L oo... cece cece eee renee eee ee es 14 From Mound to Munich ................:seeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 16 WEL Gazette ......... ccc ceeeeee sence eens ee 17 Chapter News ..............cscceeeeceeeeeeeeeeeeen een en eee es 23 Class Notes. ......0:..0c00ceclesei:ase ee re 25 In Memoriam ..........5.3-2.-.4.000 32 Published in January, March, May, July, September, October, and November by Washington and Lee University Alumni, Inc., Lexington, Virginia 24450. All communications and POD Forms 3579 should be sent to Washington and Lee Alumni, Inc., Lexington, Va. 24450. Second class postage paid at Lexington, Va. 24450 and additional offices. Officers and Directors Washington and Lee Alumni, Inc. | RICHARD A. DENNY JR., 52, Atlanta, Ga. President WILLIAM B. OGILVIE, 64, Houston, Texas Vice President PAUL E. SANDERS, 43, White Plains, N.Y. Treasurer WILLIAM C. WASHBURN, 40, Lexington, Va. Secretary LEROY C. ATKINS, 68, Lexington, Va. Assistant Secretary PETER A. AGELASTO III, 62, Norfolk, Va. W. DONALD Batn, 49, Spartanburg, S.C. ANDREW N. Baur, 66, St. Louis, Mo. EDGAR M. Boyp, "42, Baltimore, Md. JAMES F. GALLIVAN, 51, Nashville, Tenn. OwEN H. HARPER, 59, Pasadena, Calif. G. RuSSELL LADD, 57, Mobile, Ala. WILLIAM E. LATTURE, 49, Greensboro, N.C. Joun H. MCCorRMACK Jr., 50, Jacksonville, Fla. WILLIAM C. NORMAN Jr., 56, Crossett, Ark. ON THE COVER: Washington Hall and Lewis Hall linked by the Footbridge over Woods Creek—symbolic of what some W&L observers perceive to be a widening gap between the undergraduate school and the School of Law. News Office Director Jeffery Hanna and Assistant Pub- lications Director P. Craig Cornett, ’80, set out to examine this issue from many angles. Their in-depth report starts on Page 1. THE WOODS CREEK GAP How Wide is the Separation Between the Law School and the Undergraduate School? IL, the fall of 1976, Washington and Lee’s School of Law packed up its torts and its texts and moved, leaving the cozy environs of Tucker Hall on W&L’s historic Colonnade to take up residence in spacious, modern Lewis Hall. The move created an obvious division—a physical one— between the law school and the undergraduate school, separated as they are by Woods Creek. But now, five years after the move, some members of the University community are concerned that this physical separation has caused, or at least magnified, other divisions and that there exist differences which simply cannot be reconciled no matter how many footbridges span Woods Creek to connect the schools. Has there been a change? Or is it only imagined? Has the relationship between the two schools been altered by the relatively recent geographic separation? Or has there always been an invisible, perhaps inevitable, line of demarcation? If, as some argue, the relationship has changed, is that a desirable change? And if it is not desirable, can anything be done to reverse the trend? What will be the future relationship between the law and undergraduate schools? These questions are not necessarily new. Conversations about a growing rift between the two schools has been heard on both sides of Woods Creek for some time now. But the issue rose to the surface in March when student leaders addressed the questions, touching off a series of articles and editorials in both the Ring-tum Phi, the undergraduate newspaper, and its law school counterpart, the Law News. There is, in the debate, some common ground. Virtually everyone associated with Washington and Lee seems to acknowledge that some separation between the undergraduate and law schools not only exists, but is quite natural given the different purposes and goals of the two schools. Yet, there are those who contend that one of the University’s distinctive traits is a certain sense of community that pervades the campus. These are the people who not only suggest the situation has changed, but also lament that change. But is it really any different now from what it ever was? William McC. Schildt, 64, ’68L, assistant dean of the law school, says no. ‘‘There was no more interaction [between undergraduates and law students] when I was in law school than there is today,’’ says Schildt, speaking from the perspective of one who attended W&L both as an undergraduate and a law Student. Andrew W. McThenia, ’58, ’63L, a professor of law who addresses the question from the same perspective as Schildt, agrees, saying: ‘‘People who think the separation is a ‘new’ thing are freezing history at a point in time when they were here, the way things were. There was a separation then, it has manifested itself in different ways, but there has always been Separation.’’ And from that same perspective Robert E. R. Huntley, "50, ’57L, president of the University and professor of law, suggests: ‘‘Nostalgia has a way of visiting the past with a rosy glow that never existed. There’s always been a separation between the law and undergraduate students. There was a Separation for me when I was a student. On the other hand, for several reasons, separation is a greater fact now.”’ Why is the separation more apparent? First and foremost, there is that geographic separation. The move from Tucker Hall to Lewis Hall represents a move of no more than 300 yards. In some respects, though, it might as well have been 300 miles. Law students simply do not need to come to the main campus very often. The exceptions are meals in the dining hall or co-op and use of the gymnasium. Also, undergraduates find little need to cross the ravine to visit the law school. And it is not a situation limited to the respective student bodies. The move created an obvious division—a ‘‘Faculty interchange is not quite as great now as it has . been,’’ admits Roy L. Steinheimer, dean of the law school, PY SICON VETERE ASCH ‘partly because it’s difficult for those of us in Lewis Hall to undergraduate school, separated as they are go to the Alumni House every morning for coffee.”’ by Woods Creek. The footbridges are there, though. So the physical separation, while a factor, is not the only change in the relationship. ‘*The physical division has made the separation that has always existed more evident,’’ says Schildt. Louis W. Hodges, professor of religion, adds that ‘‘a community—a sense of relating among human beings ‘“*People who think the separation is a ‘new’ thing are freezing history at a point in time when pursuing a common purpose—can be aided by spatial they were here, the way things were. There proximity, but not generated by it.’’ was a separation then, it has manifested itself What, then, are the other changes, the other differences? Some figures help explain: in 1957, there were 97 ae students in the School of Law while in 1980, four years after separation. ”’ the move, the law school enrollment was 334—more than Andrew W. McThenia, °58, *63L triple the number of 23 years earlier. ee With the change in numbers has come an even more dramatic change in the composition of the law school student body. For instance, the law class of 1959 had 29 graduates representing eight states. By contrast, the law class of 1979 in different ways, but there has always been | had 115 graduates representing 25 states. Law students now come from more undergraduate institutions than ever before—144 different schools as opposed to just 79 in 1970. All of this did not just happen, of course. The University instituted a law admissions policy designed to make the law school a strong national institution. Joseph E. Ulrich, ’59, ’61L, professor of law, observes that “‘when you decided to go out and recruit and bring in people from all over the nation, you necessarily had a more diverse group. The first year I was on the admissions committee, we had about 250 applications, the great majority from Washington and Lee and V.M.I. Over the next few years, we had 1,300 to 1,500.’’ Starting in the 1976-77 admissions year, Washington and Lee graduates were no longer given special consideration in admission to the School of Law. Prior to that change, Washington and Lee had been a seven-year program for many students: four years for the bachelor’s degree with another three for the law degree. Of the 185 students enrolled in the law school in 1970, 46 (or almost 25 percent) had received their undergraduate degrees from Washington and Lee. Ten years later, that figure was 26 (or less than eight percent) out of 334 law students. The fact is, W&L undergraduates are no longer encouraged to apply automatically to W&L’s law school. ‘‘The advice I give to an undergraduate is that if you’ve been to Washington and Lee, an all-male institution in a small town, for four years and you can get into a law school as good or better than Washington and Lee, then go,’’ says Michael A. Cappeto, director of career counseling and placement for the undergraduate school and pre-law advisor. Adds Ulrich: “‘My own impression is that for Washington and Lee students [undergraduates] it’s better to go some place else for law school.”’ The decline in the number of W&L undergraduates strolling across the footbridge to Lewis Hall for their postgraduate work has unquestionably contributed to whatever division exists between the schools. Fewer law students have ties to the undergraduate community. Clearly, the law school has become a different institution from what it was several years ago simply in terms of the diversity of its student body. That diversity involves more than the increasing number of undergraduate schools represented in the law school. There was a crucial turning point in 1972, for it was then that the law school began admitting women. Without question, that event had great impact on whatever gulf might have existed between the two schools. **With the addition of women, the law school becomes more and more a socially distinct and self-sufficient community,’’ says Lewis H. LaRue, ’59, professor of law. The differences in the composition of the respective student bodies do not stop there, either. In any given year, about 20 to 25 percent of the law students will be married—a figure far greater than that in the undergraduate school. And, as another point of comparison, the average age of the entering first year law student is slightly over 23 as opposed to the average age of an entering The move from Tucker Hall to Lewis Hall represents a move of no more than 300 yards. In some respects, though, it might as well have have been 300 miles. ‘A community—a sense of relating among human beings pursuing a common purpose— can be aided by spatial proximity, but not generated by it.’’ Louis W. Hodges Professor of Religion In 1957, there were 97 students in the School of Law while in 1980, four years after the move, the law school enrollment was 334—more than triple the number of 23 years earlier. ‘“‘The advice I give to an undergraduate is that if you’ ve been to Washington and Lee, an all- male institution in a small town, for four years and you can get into a law school as good or better than Washington and Lee, then go.’ Michael A. Cappeto Pre-law Advisor W&L freshman—18. Too, more law students than ever are entering law school after spending a year or more in the job market. With these striking changes in the law school student body—the variety of undergraduate institutions represented, the addition of women, the increase in the married student population—t is little wonder the law students and undergraduates find less common ground than in the past. Says McThenia: *‘It’s not surprising to me that there is not going to be a lot in common between a 42-year-old woman who has returned to [law] school and an 18-year-old freshman in college for the first ttme. They approach life differently and have had different life experiences. And both are now at Washington and Lee.”’ There are still other changes. Some observers note that legal education—i.e., the way law students are forced to perform—is also different now. Huntley, for instance, says that ‘‘there is a likely difference in the maturity and motivation of undergraduate and law students, a difference that is endemic to the situation. This has now been enhanced by the greater competition among law students in any law school to excel. The competition in law and in a tighter job market has increased the unity that exists in the law school. ‘‘In the old days, it did not make a difference how well you did in undergraduate or law school—not nearly the difference it makes now. But now the greater competition for satisfactory grades and good recommendations has increased the professional competition among law students. Now law students simply have to work a lot harder.’’ There are other, more visible, signs of the separation. Access to support services, dining facilities in particular, have added to the division. For many years, Washington and Lee students were virtually forced to eat at fraternity houses since there was no campus dining hall open to all students. As a result, most law students began or continued an affiliation with a fraternity—and thereby a relationship with the undergraduates. The addition of a dining hall open to all and other support services has lessened the fraternity affiliations of law students. For the past several years, the law school and undergraduate school have operated under different academic calendars. In 1970, the undergraduate school instituted its new curriculum with an accompanying change in calendar— two 12-week terms followed by one six-week term in the spring. The law school curriculum, meantime, requires two 15-week terms. That means that while classes are in session for 30 weeks at both schools, the two groups are only on campus together for about 21 of those weeks, allowing for varying holiday schedules and not counting pre-examination reading days and examination weeks. In 1979, for the first time, there were separate commence- ment exercises for the two schools—again for very important reasons. The undergraduate calendar requires that commencement take place during the first week of June at a time when law seniors would have been out of school for about three weeks and in the middle of bar examination review courses. eee aeeeeeeee—s———o—~™m™m™—™" ~~ **Both schools have their own classes for good, pedagogical reasons,’’ says Lewis G. John, ’58, dean of students in the undergraduate school. ‘*But when both undergraduate and law schools were on the same academic calendar, there was a more natural congruence.’’ It is, perhaps, these differences in the calendar that fuel some conflicts between the two student bodies. For instance, when the undergraduate campus is on break for certain vacations, some University support services are not available to law students who are still in class. The dining hall, for one important example, does not serve meals. The infirmary operates under shortened hours. The swimming pool closes because no lifeguards are available. This creates a situation in which the law students feel slighted. James F. Berl, ’81L, president of the Student Bar Association (S.B.A.) summarizes that feeling when he says: ‘“The University seems to revolve totally around the undergraduate campus.”’ Adds Daniel R. Collopy, ’81L, treasurer of the S.B.A.: ‘“We sometimes get the feeling that we’re being treated as second-class citizens.”’ Samuel L. Flax, ’81L, a third-year law student, observes: ‘“Many law students feel that since they pay the same tuition as undergraduates, they should be entitled to the same University services. Most law students really don’t realize that if this were an autonomous body of 350 students [in the law school] they wouldn’t have these support services in the first place.”’ Aside from these general complaints, there is the special situation arising from the presence of women law students on a campus with an all-male undergraduate population. Malinda E. Dunn, ’81L, a third-year law student and law representative to the University Council, speaks to that question when she says that ‘‘the University was really lacking in support services for the women law students until recently. There are still special problems that women have here that I’m not sure anyone recognizes.”’ There is also the matter of the structure of several campus-wide governance committees. The University Council, the official intermediary between the students and the faculty and administration, is composed of 27 members. Only three of those 27 are from the law school. The Student Body Executive Committee, which is responsible for administration of the Honor System and the supervision of all campus student activities, is composed of 12 members and includes a designation for only two law representatives. Although it is theoretically possible to have five, it has never been more than three in recent years. Law representatives are not consciously excluded from either the University Council or the Executive Committee—or from any other group, for that matter. But the law school is unlikely to get a significantly strong voice in student affairs. Some student body leaders point out that law students are represented as much as they want to be. Robert H. Willis Jr., ’81, a senior and president of the student body, says: ‘“When the effort for better communication is made, it seems to be made only by the undergraduate side. And law students often say they don’t ‘With the addition of women, the law school becomes more and more a socially distinct and self-sufficient community.’’ Lewis H. LaRue, ’59 Professor of Law ‘“, . . the greater competition for satisfactory grades and good recommendations has increased the professional competition among law students. Now law students simply have to work a lot harder.’’ Robert E. R. Huntley, ’50, ’57L President of the University and Professor of Law i have enough representation, but every law student who applied to a student body committee this year was accepted.”’ The Student Bar Association, the law school student organization, regularly receives approximately 86 percent of the student activity fees that law students pay for their non- classroom activities. The remainder is used for general student body functions, both undergraduate and law. Some law students feel the S.B.A. should receive more; some undergraduates think it should receive less. ‘*There are many people who advocate giving the S.B.A. all of their student activity fees and letting them do with it as they please,’’ says Eric T. Myers, ’82, a junior and president- elect of the student body. ‘‘But that would probably make the division between the two groups even more pronounced. ’’ Adds Willis: ‘‘We understand the differences in the needs of law students, and we give them more freedom on spending than we do with any other campus organization.’’ Perhaps the greatest issue in the division between the two schools involves the Honor System. It is not a new problem. Richard A. Denny, a 1952 graduate and president of the Washington and Lee Alumni Association, addresses that issue when he says that ‘‘the chief concern of many alumni regarding the division is with the Honor System.’ And Flax, who is president of the University’s chapter of Omicron Delta Kappa national honorary society, puts the Situation in perspective: *‘There is a basic resentment among law students regarding the Honor System. Many feel that, . considering the composition of the Executive Committee, they would not be judged by their peers in an honor hearing. But I don’t think that most law students recognize the intangible assets the honor system provides: free access to the stacks in the law library, 24-hour access to the law school in general, being able to leave your books in a carrel without fear of having them disappear.”’ Adds Sara A. Burford, ’81L, secretary of S.B.A.: “‘In ‘ ad woe (= < © — $599.00 ~ == Per person-double occupancy ty - — * pr > My WRAY) en —— ee ki aL YOUR TRIP INCLUDES: fe er Et bee] een QO Round trip jet transportation to Idaho Falls, Idaho via United Airlines’ DC-8 aircraft (meals and GR 7 uote tl 7, | beverages served aloft). 1. Deluxe accommodations forfour nights in Sun Valley, Idaho at the mag- a nificent Sun Valley Resort LodgeandInn.* O Exciting low-cost optional tours available featuring white water rafti ng andtroutfries. [© Deluxe motorcoach transfer from Sun Valley to West Yellow- For further information and stone, Montana via the Craters of the Moon National Park. O Charming western accommodations reservation coupon, contact: in West Yellowstone for three nights.* 1 Exciting low-cost optional tours available featuring Yellow- W.C. Washburn, Washinaton stone National Park. 1 All gratuities for bellmen and chambermaids. 0 Allround trip transfers and a . ‘ g : luggage handling from airport to hotels. 0) Pre-registration at hotels. Arthurs Travel’s Sun Valley/ and Lee University Alumni, Yellowstone National Park Travel Tips. O Free time to pursue your own interests. No regimentation. Inc. Lexington, Virginia CJ) Experienced tour directors and hotel hospitality desks, staffed by Arthurs Travel’s on-site teamof 24450 PHONE:(703) 463-9111 professionals. *Some trips will be four nights Yellowstone National Park/three nights Sun Valley. EXTENSION 214 Wedgwood plates in sets of four different scenes: WASHINGTON Lee Chapel; Washington College (1857); Lee-Jack- AND son House; Washington College (contemporary). Available in blue only. LEE Price: $100.00 including shipping charges. COMMEMORATIVE Send order and check to PLATES Washington and Lee Alumni Inc. Lexington, Virginia 24450