SPECIAL REPORT/April 1972

iversity

S
=
Y
vu
aes)
oO

ington an

ine of wash

1 magaz

> «the alumn

 

 

a“ Ie % ; < pe mye oe e r 3) °

RS Saat am * $ 5 eis =") 2 ro
ty = ares. SS Awe) 0 /a0L2.
ee. eee Ae Ud Ce
: oon oe

 

 

 

Richt EEEP

 

 

ve
omeae f
:

Sas iu ws mn

s ei MP RAS yh
. bes, AOS ane a

BOO pe we <0 22 Se

&
ere
ws

ary
a ycalle tras

ATHLETIC FIELDS

 

 

War
Soy 22
YP Ian K4
a Rise A f Wp,
L a oP ant NG

NELSON

ROUTE NO. 60

{_.U-$—

 

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY

PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ce

SPECIAL REPORT

the alumni magazine of washington and lee
Volume 47, Number 3, April 1972

William C. Washburn 7400000000000... Editor
Romulus T. Weatherman.......................... Managing Editor
A. Michael Philipps ’64.....0.0.000000000000.. Associate Editor

and Photographer
Moberis. Keele, Gani Contributing Editor
TA NOG NOCIONI faci Gace se tee Editorial Assistant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

a Ti a a eh a ee ]
means tor the Plait ooo ee ae 2
DMEM POL OMNIS’ 5 cir ee tia da CN Ge a 4
Guero SIAMIR rs o8h el hoe i Ae ee ge eee 5
Ae COG OL LAW. 6 ee ay ere or 6
SE AY tata ce ae ct ic 7
‘The School of Commerce, Economics, and Politics ... 8
Renovation of Tucker and Newcomb .............. 9
peMment TIOUSINE S44 ita gee ee 10
Preservation of Front Campus .................6. 11
2G SAIOWOREI Go lo a a 12
Sue Expanded Campus o.oo cs. os ene eves 14
AMAL SUPROLe sc 6 oc koe ein oo ca ee cs 16
The Historic Basis for Giving ..........0s+seceee0s 17
Growth during the 60's... ..045.6.seog ee eaaeb en 23

Published in January, March, April, May, July, September,
November and December 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, Virginia 24450. Second class postage
paid at Lexington, Virginia 24450, with additional mailing
privileges at Roanoke, Virginia 24001.

 

In 1796, George Washington made to Liberty
Hall Academy, now Washington and Lee Univer-
sity, a gift of stock valued at $50,000. This gift—at
the time the largest ever bestowed on a private
educational institution in America—formed the
basis of the University’s endowment and has pro-
duced income of more than $500,000. Every Wash-
ington and Lee student can truly say that part of
his education was paid for by the Father of His
Country. Dr. Francis P. Gaines, one of the Univer-
sity’s greatest presidents, often noted that Washing-
ton’s name does more than acknowledge substantial
aid to the University in a time of dire necessity: his
name is symbolic of those who build and rebuild
the University. It was appropriate, then, that this
year on Washington’s Birthday, the University re-
committed itself to the future and to the vision
Washington had for it.

 

 

 

m

 

A

By

a

 

 

 

: “This enterprise can succeed... even though
. ws ona scale never before dreamed of.”

— Dr. JOHN NEWTON ‘THOMAS

 

 

The loom that for more than two centuries has
been weaving history so stoutly into the fabric of
Washington and Lee was accelerated on Washing-
ton’s Birthday, 1972. At a Founders’ Day Convoca-
tion on that day, President Robert E. R. Huntley,
on behalf of the Board of Trustees, announced that
the University will seek $56-million from its several
constituences during the decade of the 1970's to
support the most comprehensive program of devel-
opment in the history of the institution.

Joining the President in expressing confidence
that this goal can and will be met were Dr. John
Newton Thomas, Rector of the Board, and John
Stemmons, chairman of the Board’s Achievement
Council, the organization created to coordinate the
effort.

The program calls for raising $36-million of the
total by 1976, the 200th anniversary of our country’s
independence and the 227th year of Washington
and Lee’s service to American higher education.

Dr. Thomas reported that the program is off to
a promising start. He said $9,258,369* had already
been committed, representing slightly more than
one-fourth of the first-phase goal, and the Board of
Trustees, with all 19 members participating, had
contributed $2.5-million* of this amount.

“This initial response to our needs confirms our
belief that, big as it is, this enterprise can succeed,”
Dr. Thomas said. “We have this faith because we
know there are people who truly believe in Wash-
ington and Lee University.”

The announcement climaxed several years of
study that focused on every facet of the University’s
operation. The planning identified needs associated
with anticipated requirements in the University’s
educational program and in the University com-
munity. President Huntley said that “never in its
history has Washington and Lee sought to identify
its needs for a decade ahead and to meet them in
such generous and sound fashion.”

The major elements in the decade-long program
include $24-million in new endowment, $24-million
in construction and renovations, and nearly $8-
million in annual giving for current expenses. (A
detailed explanation of the items in the program
appears on the following pages.)

President Huntley conceded that those involved
in the planning “were a bit frightened” by the
magnitude of the requirements. “We were uncer-
tain at the outset whether this objective was one
we could seriously aspire to,” he said. “So we
studied it again and came to the conclusion that
it was an objective we must aspire to—that Wash-
ington and Lee’s past and its commitment to the
future require us to do so.”

Mr. Stemmons was equally enthusiastic. “Your
Board,” he said, “is dedicated to the maintenance
of excellence at Washington and Lee and, to this
end, feels that it is necessary that we maintain fi-
nancial stability in the school in its entire opera-
tion... . We have a tall hill to climb. We go at it
with perhaps a little trepidation, but with com-
plete confidence. I say to you now, on behalf of
your Board of Trustees, we are going to climb this
hill.”

Dr. ‘Thomas said there are people who “have a
deep conviction that there is a unique and essential
value in a private, independent institution like
Washington and Lee,” but this freedom means that
“it is wholly dependent upon its own efforts for its
support. Yes, there are those who will give because
they believe in us. ... But you and I have some-
thing in addition to belief: We have Washington
and Lee in our hearts.”

*At the time this magazine went to the printer in mid-April,
total gift commitments had reached $18,700,000, and the
Trustees’ participation had risen to $11,500,000, reflecting the
$9,000,000 gift of Mr. and Mrs. Sydney Lewis for the School
of Law.

 

 

 

“...from these premases the planning

has proceeded...”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

The Board of Trustees’ decision to embark upon a
decade-long program to raise $56-million for Washington
and Lee, with $36-million to be raised by 1976, was
based on what President Huntley called “the broadest
and most far-reaching study of the University’s future
yet undertaken.”

The Trustees brought their intelligence to bear on a
complex body of information gathered over a period
of several years from input by members of the faculty,
members of the administration, students, and archi-
tectural and development consultants.

At the outset the Trustees identified certain general
premises concerning the University from which the
planning proceeded and will proceed in the years ahead.
These premises, as outlined by President Huntley, are:

—That the University would wish to remain small.
“We recognize that although size is in part a relative
concept—a function of the circumstances of the particular
era in which we live—for Washington and Lee, in part,
perhaps in major part, it is also an absolute concept—
a function of the internal strengths and values which
are so deeply embedded in the fabric of Washington
and Lee’s past and which are the more important for
being the rarer in this world of gargantuan enterprise.”

—That the University would need to maintain and
enhance its long-standing commitment to the premise
that the best in liberal education and the best in pro-
fessional or pre-professional education can and should
be combined at Washington and Lee. “There is no
dichotomy between the two, but rather each reinforces
the other, and they become inextricably interwoven to
the enhancement of both. Therefore, the depth and
scope of Washington and Lee’s curriculum must be
retained. The growth and strengthening of our academic
program in the recent past have been truly extraor-
dinary. We are proud of it, but more than proud, we
are committed to it as the right course for Washington
and Lee.”

—That Washington and Lee would in all likelihood
not wish to add further graduate programs, but will
strive to accomplish its mission in the best possible way
in the College, the School of Commerce, Economics and
Politics, and in the School of Law.

2

—That the faculty which the University has attracted
is tts greatest single strength. “The faculty must be
large enough to create the opportunity for close
relationships with the students and with each other and
must have the capacity, the training, and the integrity
to act as the intellectual stimulus, on the campus and
must be dedicated to the conviction that teaching and
professional fulfillment are career objectives which are
consistent with each other and which bring the greatest
measure of personal satisfaction. We have such a
faculty; we must continue to have it.”’

—That for every area of the formal curriculum there
must be a selective, but rich array of non-curricular and
co-curricular opportunities for students and faculty.
“For though we should not aspire to be a University
which attempts to absorb every aspect of the personality
and needs of our students, we can provide the setting
in which our students can achieve personal and
intellectual growth.”

—That the University’s bold move in the 1950’s to an
athletic program for all here who wish to avail
themselves of it was the right step. “Far from apologizing
for it, we must deepen our commitment to it—to the
end that the classical relationship between the effective
mind and the effective body is a living reality with us.”

—That the University must have enlarged capacity to
provide financial help to students who share Washington
and Lee’s philosophy of education and who wish to be
a part of tt, but who cannot afford to attend without
assistance. “Our objectives are not consistent with
a student body comprised of those who come here
only because of circumstances.”

—That financial integrity and soundness are essential.
“Without them we will inevitably be washed down the
drain of disappointed aspirations and leave behind us
a legacy of failure.”

—That the identification and meeting of present
needs should be done in a way which will accommodate
the need for a range of flexibility within the general
premises for the future. “In other words, the base which
we build must be secure enough to retain for us the
attribute of manageability so that we and those who
follow may respond to the future with imagination.”

 

> _ i , . 4
so

.

|

 

a

i

»

a
— =

 

 

With these general premises in mind, the Trustees
and others involved in the planning made their working
philosophy one of identifying the needs of the
Washington and Lee of today—needs for improvements
in facilities and additions to endowment required to
finance a costly enterprise over the decade ahead—
recognizing in President Huntley’s words “that no
answer we give can ever be regarded as the final answer,
but that no one, in these times, can move ahead without
a game plan.”

Dr. John Newton Thomas, Rector of the Board of
‘Trustees, said the Board’s faith in the success of the

 

President Robert E. R. Huntley addressed the Founders’ Day Convo

cation at which the $56-million development program was

program was bolstered by the knowledge that there are
those who are “basically committed to the enduring
purpose of Washington and Lee—a purpose uniting
two great devotions: first, devotion to the authentic
liberal education . . . designed to liberate man from

his bondage to ignorance and to bias, so that he may be
free to pursue untrammeled the truth; and second, a
devotion to the Christian ideal, an ideal so beautifully
exemplified in the personal character and faith of Robert
E. Lee and in the public service of George Washington.”

Such are the foundations of another historic under-
taking in the life of Washington and Lee University.

   

* ee
ey

announced. The Doremus Gymnasium basketball arena, in which the Convocation was held, is a completed project of the program.

2

— RosBErRT E. R. HUNTLEY

Summary of Goals

A. CAPITAL PROGRAM

Building for School of Law $7,000,000
Undergraduate Library 5,250,000
Gymnasium addition and renovation* 3,250,000
Expanded campus facilities and improvements

to grounds and utilities 3,000,000
Married and unmarried student housing 2,000,000
Renovation of McCormick Library to

house the School of Commerce 1,250,000
Restoration of historic buildings 1,100,000
Renovation of ‘Tucker and Newcomb Halls to provide

central location for several academic departments 700,000
Improvements to outdoor athletic and recreational facilities 600,000

Subtotal

* Completed and put into full service in February, 1972.

24,150,000
B. ENDOWMENT 24,000,000
C. CURRENT GIFTS in support of educational and general expenditures . 7,850,000
TOTAL . $56,000,000

i i ee ee

—s “we

Le

ii a i

ee

 

 

 

 

“©... the classical relationship between

the effective mind and the effective body

is a living reality with us.”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

The 100,000-square-foot addition to Doremus Gym-
nasium was completed and put into full service in
February at a cost of $3,250,000. ‘The new wing virtually
triples the size of the building. It contains a new swim-
ming pool, the site this spring of the NCAA College
Division national swimming championships. It also has
a basketball arena now seating 2,200 with a capability of
accommodating 1,400 more. ‘This arena was inaugurated
this winter by the Generals with a 17-9 season against
formidable competition, climaxed by winning the Col-
lege Athletic Conference co-championship. ‘The addition
houses facilities which are adequate, for the first time
in decades, for wrestling, handball, squash, and other
indoor sports. It provides spacious locker rooms and
team rooms; areas for instruction, physical therapy,
and every other activity essential to a top-quality
physical education program.

With Doremus virtually unchanged since its con-
struction more than 50 years ago, the Board of ‘Trustees
saw the need for modern athletic facilities as an item
of long-standing priority. The matter had been studied
for years, and construction of a five-level wing to the
rear of the existing building proved feasible. ‘The project
also included renovation of the old gym to provide
more adequate faculty offices and classrooms. The old
basketball court and swimming pool were retained for

 

On opening night, the new addition to Doremus Gymnasium
was packed with spectators to watch the WeL-Virginia
basketball game.

physical education and recreational purposes. ‘Thus

it was decided to make expansion of the gym the

first project in the new development program. Planning
for it was well advanced, and the project was not
dependent upon completion of the master plan for
the expanded campus and could be developed as an
independent structure. Completing the funding of
the gym project is an important priority in the
development program.

The University fields teams in 12 varsity sports, and
more than 25% of Washington and Lee men are active
in intercollegiate athletics. More than two-thirds par-
ticipate in an exceptionally broad program of intra-
mural competition. Altogether, it is estimated that more
than 75% of the student body makes use of the
gymnasium during the academic year, to say nothing
of heavy use by the faculty.

Athletes at Washington and Lee must be scholars first,
and every alumnus and friend of the University can
share the special feeling of pride of these young men
of character who thrive on athletic competition but
who can live with a loss, who prize the enduring bonds
that form among teammates when they participate
for the sake of the sport itself—and for the sake of their
University.

 

 

 

The pool in the new addition was the site of this year’s
NCAA College Division national swimming / diving
championships.

 

<a solution which would provide adequate

quarters for the School of Law...”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

A thorough analysis of the future of the School of
Law has pointed dramatically to the necessity of
increasing the enrollment in that division of the
University to 350 men and women. For if a law program
presumes—as Washington and Lee’s does—to prepare
its students for the complex and dynamic society of the
last third of this century and the beginning of the
next, it has no choice: It must have a faculty large
enough to cover effectively the diverse material
essential to its curriculum; it must provide facilities to
enable participation in programs for the study of
problems at the frontiers of the law while simultaneously
performing a real service to the legal profession; it must
provide extensive library and other research facilities.

That kind of law school—and Washington and Lee
insists on nothing less—is difficult to achieve with a
student body of the size that can be adequately accom-
modated now. To increase enrollment to the optimum
350 in ‘Tucker Hall, the present law building, is beyond
the realm of the possible. A new law facility is clearly
needed. Construction and equipping the new building
will cost approximately $7-million.

Tucker was built in 1935, when the student body
in the School of Law numbered 76. For that enrollment,
and for the scope of legal education at that time,
Tucker Hall served admirably. But the building made
inadequate provision for any significant expansion
of the size of the School and the scope of its programs,
much less to the levels identified as necessary for
the 1970's and beyond; its design incorporated none
of the co-curricular activities crucial to a quality law
program—Law Review, for example, or moot court
argumentation, or legal aid and research activities.

A new law building will provide ample quarters for
these vital co-curricular activities and for new services
which will enable the School of Law to make increasingly
important contributions to legal research and
scholarship. ‘The resulting larger law enrollment will
make it possible for the School to continue its excellent
teaching tradition by enlarging its faculty and broadening
its course offerings.

‘The decision to increase the law enrollment was made
before the current nation-wide movement toward law

6

 

The Law Review, now edited in cramped quarters of Tucker
Hall, will have more spacious offices in the new building.

 

education got under way. Washington and Lee has
experienced a dramatic upsurge in the numbers of
applications it has received in recent years. With a
program of recruitment more vigorous than ever before
and with the reputation of the School and its graduates
spreading ever wider, applications come in increasingly
heavy numbers from the areas of the School’s traditional
strength and trom the customary undergraduate
schools—and from new colleges and regions as well.

Just four years ago, the School of Law received 300
applications for admission; the median grade-point
average of entering students that fall was 2.5; their
average Law School Admission Test score was 523.
One year ago, the last for which complete figures are
available, a total of 816 applications was received;
the grade-point had risen to 3.0; the average board
score, to 602. And this year applications have risen in
number again—to a phenomenal total of more than
1,400. ‘That is 75 for each available place in next fall’s
entering class.

4

 

“...umprove the quarters available to the

undergraduate library...”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

‘Culture’ cannot be taught,’’ Henry Steele
Commager has written. “It is something the student
absorbs from the atmosphere in which he lives—from
the tradition of the institutions, from the buildings
and the grounds, from well-stocked libraries, from great
teachers, from fellow students, from exposure to the
intangibles ‘at hand’.”

Because of its essential relationship to the overall
undergraduate educational program, the main library
at Washington and Lee must be the academic and
physical hub of the University. The need for a modern,
enlarged undergraduate library to meet the challenges
of the 1970's and beyond cannot, however, be met
either by renovation or expansion of the existing
Cyrus Hall McCormick Library.

The original Carnegie Library was constructed in
1908 to house 30,000 volumes. ‘Thirty-three years later,
a major addition and renovation project was completed
(and the name was changed); McCormick Library
accommodated its 110,000 holdings and the University’s
800 undergraduates comfortably. But today, McCormick
houses more than 215,000 books and other holdings
(and 110,000 additional volumes are shelved in the six
undergraduate departmental libraries and the Law
Library elsewhere on campus). A staff of six full-time
professional librarians and a supporting staff of 11 full
time employees administer the McCormick system.

The capacity of the building to be expanded further,
to accommodate additional volumes or staff, has been
exhausted. Yet in response to the “information
explosion,”’ to exciting developments in educational
technology, to the needs of students if they are to be
well prepared in the Washington and Lee tradition—
the University is committed wholeheartedly to expanding
its library collections, to adding valuable new technical
capabilities, to increasing the range of services it
provides to the inquisitive mind.

Books are not all that are inadequately accommodated
in McCormick. When last remodeled (1941), the
University’s undergraduate enrollment was 800; today
it is 1,350. To serve today’s students adequately, the
library must provide study facilities for at least 800,
including almost 600 individual reading stations or

carrels—and many of these must contain electrical
terminals and other provisions to take advantage of
existing and future technological advances in audio-
visual and even computerized techniques of information
retrieval.

The new library will make use of the most modern
construction techniques—floor areas and supporting
columns designed to permit maximum flexibility in
the use of partitions, dividers, and semi-permanent
walls; and as a result, the entire building will remain
functionally adaptable to innovations and improvements
still to be developed.

Located immediately behind Washington Hall, the
new library—approximately 130,000 square feet in size,
almost four times as large as the 35,602-square-foot
McCormick building—will be conveniently close to
every undergraduate academic facility on campus.
And because of its location on the edge of the Wood’s
Creek Valley, the library will, through imaginative
design, serve as a psychological and physical extension
of the historic main campus area toward the expanded
campus, where the School of Law, new student housing,
and enlarged athletic fields are to be located.
Construction and equipping the new library will cost
approximately $5,250,000.

 

With the new Library, there’ll be no need to hold sociology
classes amid the stacks in the lower level of McCormick Library.

7

“...enhance the space occufned by the School

of Commerce, Economics, and Politics...”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

After a detailed study of the long-recognized need
for improved quarters for the School of Commerce,
Economics, and Politics, the Board of Trustees concluded
that with major renovations McCormick Library can be
converted into an ideal home for the School and fulfill
all of its requirements for the indefinite future. The
estimated cost of this project, to be undertaken when
the new undergraduate library is completed, is
$1,250,000.

More than 250 students are enrolled today in the
School, and more than 80% of Washington and Lee
students take one or more courses in the School’s four
academic departments—accounting, administration,
economics, and politics. ‘The result of this intense student
interest in the School’s curriculum is that Newcomb
Hall is no longer adequate for the School’s present needs,
not to mention the needs that the future will bring.
Moreover, studies over the years have confirmed that
expansion of Newcomb to meet the School’s needs is
impracticable.

The School’s academic departments are the bene-
ficiaries of advancing technology and the “information
explosion” at least as much as any other department in
the University. Preliminary plans for redesigning
McCormick to house the School take this fact into full
account. For instance, the new quarters will provide
for more efficient use of computers which are now

ee ae 00 ee a

'
'
'
ea
'
'
'
ef
Gs
H gs
‘

a
eee

 

Because of insufficient space in the present building, stacks were
moved to make room for study tables in the Commerce library.

8

routinely employed in many courses. There will be
complete data-processing facilities, linked electronically
to the University’s master computer, and a center for
other advanced information storage and retrieval
systems. ‘There are plans also for an auditorium with
tiered seating and a statistics laboratory suited to the
“space age.” Group research facilities will be included
as well as individual study carrels for students along
with five classrooms, three seminar rooms, and individual
offices for the 20 faculty members who will teach in

the building.

Trustees authorized establishment of the School of
Commerce and Administration in 1905—36 years after
Robert E. Lee had initially proposed creation of a
“Commercial School,” not to teach merely the form
and detail of business, but to permit young men to
obtain “‘such scientific and literary culture” in the
other divisions of the institution as they might wish.

Dr. Glover D. Hancock, dean of the School from
1920 to 1949, oversaw its reorganization along modern
lines, and he was largely responsible for developing the
special philosophy which was preserved and refined by
the late Dean Lewis W. Adams and which characterizes
the School today: ‘That the paramount value to be
acquired through a Washington and Lee education is
familiarity with, and a commitment to, the broad
and humane principles that permit men to be leaders in
a modern complex society, not just the narrow fields
of their specialization.

“The mechanical and routine work of the business
office,””’ Dean Hancock wrote, “‘can be learned in clerical
schools and night classes. ‘The Washington and Lee
graduate, by contrast, will have developed knowledge
and understanding of the economic and political
influences on human behavior; the analytical techniques
basic to those disciplines; standards of value by which to
measure success and failure of alternative goals and
processes. Recognizing modern business enterprise as
perhaps mankind’s most impressive creation, the School
seeks to develop skill in operating it, refinement of the
business leader’s critical abilities; development of a
sense of responsibility toward the society whose
interest he represents and whose resources he manages.”

 

 

aii

 

 

«,..adeal quarters for departments now
tucked in attics and parts of the campus

that are less than satisfactory.”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

When the Commerce and Law Schools are located in
their new facilities, Newcomb and ‘Tucker Halls
will become available to the College for instructional
use, helping alleviate overcrowding in existing buildings
used by the College and permitting centralization of
several academic departments that are now “homeless.”
The cost of renovations is expected to be $700,000.

Newcomb was completed in 1882, at a cost of
$20,000—the gift of ‘‘a friend at the North,” Mrs.
Warren Newcomb, who wished to memorialize her late
husband. The portico and columns were added years
later, to make the building “‘fit in” with the rest of the
front campus; in 1936 Newcomb was renovated and
fireproofed. Originally the library and art building,
Newcomb was designated to house the School of
Commerce in the new century, and for a time the offices
of the President and other administrators were located
there as well.

The building, while in basically sound structural
condition, requires extensive repair work. Its faults
include cracks in the exterior walls, falling plaster, a
decided southward list, even a free-standing column.

Tucker, completed in 1936, was designed to harmonize
with the other front campus buildings. With
three classrooms, seven offices, modest faculty and
student lounges, a library room, and two study areas,
Tucker was adequate for its purpose and its time. It
remains adequate—not for a law program of the size
and sophistication of Washington and Lee’s today,
certainly, but admirably for class and office use in the
College.

Tucker will make available more than 18,000 square
feet of space; Newcomb, more than 14,000.

The necessity to- provide additional space for the
College, to permit centralization of departments, is
plain. An example is the Department of History: its
courses are taught in Washington Hall, duPont, New
Science, Washington Annex, and Payne. More than
simple convenience and efficiency will be served by the
centralization, though they are important factors. ‘The
virtues of smallness, so highly valued at Washington
and Lee, tend to be diminished when teachers in the
same department, and students taking the same

 

Sear ae
Ps J
2 ae

ed
bj
«a &
|

_—
a on ele eenee are

a redetet tthe hs
Ft pa ee

 

PPR

iellncemanstcneenadiitmeeediee

 

  

When Tucker and Newcomb are renovated, professors no longer
will have to make daily treks between office and as many as five
classroom buildings, as Dr. Leon Sensabaugh is doing here.

 

courses, and majoring in the same field, are separated
physically from one another.

Beyond permitting the highly desirable centralization
of the several academic departments whose teaching
functions are now dispersed across the campus, renova-
tion of ‘Tucker and Newcomb will relieve pressures on
buildings already used by the College. For example,
duPont Hall is shared by history, art, psychology,
philosophy and German, and it also houses the
electronic language laboratory.

 

ee ee a eee ey en. ek ee ae er tee

“...to provide tts students a chorce im

terms of housing. i

— RosBerT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

Washington and Lee has never attempted to provide
on-campus housing for all of its students. By long-
standing University policy, freshmen are required to
occupy dormitory rooms throughout their first year.
Except for a limited number of apartments for married
students, there is space for only 83 upperclassmen or
law students in Davis or Baker dormitories.

As has been the case for many years, the majority
of Washington and Lee’s students occupy off-campus
rooms, apartments, and houses rented from a variety of
local landlords, or they live in fraternity houses.

Most upperclassmen and law students prefer private
housing, and the gradual increase in the size of the
student body over the past 15 years has taxed the
capacity of Lexington and its immediate environs to
meet this demand for one, two, and three-man
apartments, the most preferred of private accommoda-

 

An architect’s preliminary rendering shows how some rooms of
the new housing units will look out across Woods Creek Valley.

10

tions. In recent years, increasingly mobile students have
taken to living farther and farther from the campus,
renting cabins and farm houses across the substantial
breadth of Rockbridge County. For most of the students
engaged in this distinctive pattern of upperclass living,
there is great appeal. They enjoy the traditional off-
campus freedom that has been the life-style of many
generations of students, and the University does not
intend to remove this alternative.

Not all students who live off campus are satisfied

with the accommodations they occupy, however. The
market has brought into use a number of private

accommodations that fall substantially below acceptable
standards of safety, health, and comfort. Many students

believe they are being over-charged both for sub-
standard and acceptable housing by their landlords.

A continuing University survey of student housing
patterns indicates that some 200 students now living in
private housing would prefer to occupy University-
owned, on-campus housing if it were available. In
assessing the requirements for the decade ahead,

the University has concluded that it has a responsibility

to provide a better housing alternative for its upper-
classmen and law students than it now does. Accommo-
dations for as many as 400 students are anticipated

in the planning, with the introduction of approximately

half this number as a high priority first stage of
development.

Present planning is focusing on modular apartment

units for three to six students each, arranged in attractive

clusters along the far bank of the Woods Creek Valley
that separates the main campus from the Wilson Field
area.

‘The University anticipates that rentals will off-set
operating expenses and a portion of the project’s
amortization; approximately half of the total project’s
development must be funded from gifts carried in the
development program’s goals for the 1970's at $2-million.
(Current plans to replace the venerable Hillside
Terrace married student apartments with 30 modern
apartment units on the far back campus near Liberty
Hall are being supported through the College Housing
Program of the Office of Education).

a

%

a

need attention...”

“...the historic front campus... will

— RosBerT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

Washington and Lee’s famed front campus—recognized
as a National Historic Place earlier this year, an
important designation conferred by the Department of
Interior—will require early restoration and preserva-
tion work as an integral part of the development
program. The expected cost is $1.1-million.

The “historic precinct” consists of the seven pre-Civil
War buildings—the Washington College complex of
buildings and the four faculty homes flanking it.

These four elegant houses, which are so closely identified
with Washington and Lee’s image, simply will not
stand much longer without extensive restoration.

The central College building, now Washington Hall,
was completed in 1824 at a cost of just $9,000, most of
it contributed by the colorful horse-trader, speculator
and whiskey-distiller “Jockey” John Robinson, whose
benefactions rank with those of Washington in the
early history of the institution. Col. John Jordan, the
distinguished architect, designed and built “The Centre
Building,’ as it was called. One of the distinctive features
of this building is “Old George,” the statue atop its
cupola, carved in 1844 by Mathew Khale. This beloved
landmark is in danger of being lost to assaults by insects,
woodpeckers, and general decay. Major restorative
work is required to save it.

eo
y

-

ee ee a

 

The historic front campus, shown here with the Lee-Jackson House at the left, needs extensive renovation and preservation.

The buildings now known as Payne Hall, erected
in 1831, and Robinson Hall, 1842, complete the old
College complex. The entire group was renovated and
fireproofed in 1936, but now needs additional work.

The four faculty homes, two on each end of the front
campus, were built in 1842, simultaneously with the
new academic building; each house cost $3,500 (the
professors who were to live in them designed as a
committee and paid for them individually, though
later they were reimbursed by the College). ‘The most
southerly of the four was set aside as the President's
Home, and it was there that Lee lived during his first
two years in Lexington; Stonewall Jackson lived there
as well for a time in the 1850’s when he married
Eleanor Junkin, daughter of Lee’s predecessor as
president of Washington College.

(The Lee Chapel—a National Historic Landmark
since 1961—was restored in 1963 through a grant of
$370,000 from the Ford Motor Company Fund. The
current President’s Home, built for Gen. and Mrs. Lee,
was renovated completely in 1960.)

In addition to the necessary restoration work on the
old academic buildings and four residences, the historic
campus project will include relocation and upgrading
of some existing walkways, new plantings, resodding,
and general landscaping improvements.

<a ty. ORS
ae are
a

AES

—, cmeatininseatl “a
. Ke Ge | Le

eo '*, -. + a
> a te a + -
ae ee a : “a * i
4 Sige Sat ehece bt a ie
oe a i eee es iz FO Rca Sa
7 i oe es] Fg OF xe

II

“It as necessary that we maintain
financial stability.”

<n JOHN M. STEMMONS

 

At the same time that the Board of Trustees was
determining the University’s physical requirements in
the decade ahead, it made a thorough study of the need
for new endowment. President Huntley reported that
approximately $18-million would be needed in additional
general endowment plus approximately $6-million in
new endowment for student financial aid to meet the
demands of the future. The total need for new en-
dowment by 1980 then is about $24-million.

One of the premises on which the Trustees based
their study was that the share of the cost of their
education that students pay through tuition—about
55%-—should not be allowed to increase. This means,
of course, that the dollar amount of the gap between
what the student pays and the cost of a W&L education
will increase during the years ahead.

A relentless rise in fixed costs accounts for much
of the gap, to be sure. But equally important is the
demand, currently experienced by every first-rank
educational institution, that it adopt new technologies
and new programs, and that it meet new needs and
provide new kinds of learning in new depth. And there
is the additional demand upon Washington and Lee
that it accomplish these ends without sacrificing the
fundamental strengths of its tradition: its historic
smallness, tied to its orientation to the individual; its
abiding emphasis on teaching, the scholar’s “vital
service to young men.”

If Washington and Lee is to attract and retain as
distinguished a faculty as it now has and has had in
the past, it must offer—among other attractions, not
the least of which is the opportunity to teach at an
institution like Washington and Lee—salaries that are
competitive with those paid at other prestigious
institutions and in business. Salaries have increased
gratifyingly in recent years. They have doubled in the
past decade alone, and the American Association of
University Professors has ranked Washington and Lee
in the top decile for average faculty compensation
among the nation’s colleges. But as enviable as this
record is, Washington and Lee must do more than
merely maintain it.

12

New facilities require maintenance and care. New
technologies require diligent attention, constant
refinement, regular updating. Libraries never stop
needing new books. Faculties of excellence deserve
research opportunities and facilities, and so do students.
‘These are some of the major ingredients that make for a
“very costly enterprise” as Washington and Lee
continues its pursuit of excellence, and they form the
basis—along with faculty salary support—for the
University’s need for $18-million in new endowment.

Increasingly, also, student financial aid is a crucial
factor in Washington and Lee’s twin standards: That,
on the one hand, the University continue to enroll
only those students best qualified to profit from and
contribute to the opportunities the entire $56-million
development program seeks to preserve and expand;
and that, on the other hand, no such student should
ever be denied the chance to participate in that unique
educational enterprise merely because his resources
and those of his family are not sufficient to meet
unavoidable high tuition charges and other costs.

Accordingly, it has been a principal goal in the
University’s planning for many years to be able to offer
grant and loan assistance to every applicant who meets
admissions standards—in the full amount of his need.
The University has committed larger and larger sums
toward meeting that goal each year: In 1971-72,
approximately one-fourth of Washington and Lee’s
student body participates in a program that has awarded
more than $500,000 in financial aid. Yet the stark fact
is that $6-million in increased endowment for student
financial aid is required for future years.

Washington and Lee officials have determined, as a
result of careful research, that up to 30% of the
student body will qualify for aid by 1980. And, they
point out, the average amount of each recipient’s
need can be expected to increase also. Under existing
financial aid policies, a student who receives the
customary ‘“‘aid package” must borrow about one-half
of the amount of his award. In the future, as the
amount of assistance students will require increases, the
University hopes to prevent an undue rise in the dollar
amount they must borrow.

-

_

 

 

 

KOA AMMEPHR 67GU

 

 

a

One of WeL’s greatest strengths is its distinguished faculty. To maintain such a faculty, additions to the endowment are mandatory.
Shown above is Dr. William A. Jenks, the University’s first William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of History.

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“...a way m which the physical needs of the
enstitution could be preced together to pre-
serve a sense of community...”

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

Opening the new areas beyond the Woods Creek a
Valley for construction and other development has
created a need for imaginative and efficient systems of
roads and walkways. In addition, site preparation for the
new projects must include ample provision for installa-
tion of utilities, for landscaping, and also for vehicular
and pedestrian access across the Valley itself.

 

A major vehicular entrance to the expanded campus ee eo
area must be developed, and a new “loop” road will oo ee |
bring traffic from Route 60 just west of Doremus ee ; Pec ta
Gymnasium past the new undergraduate housing, to .
the new law building, then by the married student hous-
ing beyond the baseball field, and past the Liberty Hall
ruins back to Route 60.

The traffic circulation systems planned for the
expanded campus area include full parking facilities,
a network of walkways across the Valley and within the
expanded campus area. Also included will be additional
walks and trails through the remaining large acreage
that will be beautified in its natural state.

The heating plant, recently converted to natural gas,
must be expanded to accommodate a cooling system
to serve the new law building, new library, and much
of the existing campus as well. Building and grounds
offices will have to be relocated and additional space
provided for maintenance and other shop functions.

Closely related to the construction of the major new
facilities in the expanded campus area are needed
improvements in outdoor athletic facilities. These
projects include renovation of the team dressing areas
beneath Wilson Stadium, development of new playing
and practice fields on previously unused land, and the
provision of facilities for the practice of outdoor sports
during inclement weather.

The cost of the expanded campus facilities and
improvements to grounds and utilities is set at
$3-million; the improvements to outdoor athletic
and recreational facilities are expected to cost $600,000.

     

Washington and Lee has always treasured a natural
heritage—the extraordinary beauty of its location.
The University remains deeply committed to preserving
this priceless asset.

4
A

>

dfs
7 + Me .
Mees - ‘
. . rE
TF” _&
. ‘ y
fem. . a a J N ¥/\
. ° . ~'
. 7 h ‘ a
was
> f 5 Sy . -
i wee a J \
ZR Sie Yi Yi, Jay DO Ww
—S Sm
re b C
beeen D
“Vatas

 

 

| eS 8
FINS, Lh,

14

15

Development Office
Doremus Gymnasium

LEGEND
Alumni Office
Dormitories

Colonnade
Faculty Housing

Howe Hall

duPont Hall
Lee Chapel
Lee-Jackson House
Liberty Hall
McCormick Hall
Newcomb Hall
Payne Hall
President House.
Reid Hall
Robinson Hall
Science Building
Student Center
Tucker Hall
University Store
Heating/Cooling Plant

Law School

Library
Married Student Housing

Modular Valley Housing

Washington Hall
Wilson Field

A
B

“nO AmMHEODeEMYSZAOKnHDD SM >

CC
DD
EE

<A

 

               

NOS$4834433f

'Z
eT AG |
Pe yee te
} Te le whe i
b ---—- gz0)
ae 4
Y d Mbp, iz)
H 2 b. demi Xe ay Ba, Ri Rane —_-—
Zr " ry : y - m y |
Bh r . : rah! "7 : i
. at Ne > ) ;
\ kK 5 «
\
‘
ee \
‘ se Cy

We NTO ° au
an x7 , 7 ~
WK eee) OS . Ne Al) hat) é iH i i ;
\. 0 EIS ged | 1s My Hip) A | Yteo
-— = a i} A A y wt) ’ '
\ Bey ® \ \ tnt os o™ <a ’ ~Y 4 / om ? ! , ; ~~ i z
; Rg \ XN rt ‘ a ; , | |
a ~ >» \ or ‘ j / p = J FD Ta 4 fl 0:
a . w%8 \ » [TT LD , D : nad <= a . “”
\ - - We Py a 4 ;
. ‘ bei — : = ae re yory ae K > Q oe { J i] v9) oe wi
a <A 1 oe ICT pe hs aul OR eg | 2
~ . A , : A a eh EM eke
‘ L "
‘ \ \ XN i rn lige a)
‘ \ ™ . n
\ ‘ ‘s \ N “> ~ oa o< .
es ‘ \ % Se 0, iy t eal
° x ‘ XN a ~ 7 p s
: .
s ‘ \ \ x eee 4 pd
\ ~ ‘N \ \ ers 29 4, sik
‘ex « ™ ‘\ s - 7 ON . °
= a 7 f 4, oo
= x : x = s ~ *. al 1 . Crab) _, =e £2) Se o ghia
° ‘ \ i vg a J Ab 5 a a Re TT TS : ‘ a=
» N gt nt ee and ‘ y +.</L ZAG ~ mh ” aS “
‘ 7 . wo Ete wen sen Me ks AV AY , a») ‘ y > ps ;
\ \ \ ne [5 perenne me Yj) Yy  -Y> (5 if Te f
' \ > ’ x ~ z ? = — 1 Pe . YY Y} 7) Paes S07 \y
' \ ™ ve \ 5 3 |) Plans ew va Ub 1) ' a 4
t % ‘ ‘\ reer ee SS ; W]]
' \ \ a ee ee eae
‘\ aH Sy \
~ ‘“

ie . ‘ oo, Re
: q hy [»} Wie 4) er. £20;
: Py Fa ; CPI} ny pA 7 oY 4 yy, '{3 > --—q
sy } WAY AS 5 I," <8///,) Tn e_. F PAL OS %
\ N \ ae q LY "x r 7 ' A My’ —< < ; e ;
\ NN ‘ TE 4 > wr) L iN p] y
oe \ Stone eee . liars y

ooo me

105°
/
4
baste ase Ne Oa
v
’ -
Le
i ie
{
‘\
\
‘ /
ee
4 '
/ 1
/ :
'
I
|
\
1
\
'
'
'
I
/
1 tp WEG rt
QA“ on

 

 

 

 

    

 

~e
-<—--—- =. ae
i Pd — sl
- ~ ~~ a
\ ‘ o* Sy Rees.
\ 7 I Me ——
\ ‘ ~ - = =.
\ \ --- =A ~~, .
\ \ ae ~~ ~
\ N os
\ \ \ '
' ' a \
\ ' - ¥ -"-N ’ a
' rms Ps 1 / ' Tea Netsme,
\ I ~ ”
eae os 5 oe / ; ;
oe oy = ’ ol \
re, OF \ / oe <
\ \ \ \ S
4 oe a ra , DW. ‘-- — g20!
\ A \ $
\ ‘\ \ ‘ \ ' ¢ ¢ Fa,
' \ \ ~ \ =n : q We
\ | ‘ ~ ; p
' \ \ ime \ ‘ : é
ye okees toons I ‘ SS y ; L
' Not. Me tees ' a ie ing -—- g§zol
t ' Sh ; ~“ = \ N J
. ot C4 4 \ “ \
! ! argent, ty ‘ \ ‘\ %
' 5 t
Po Vee ee ‘ ‘ss
\ t ' 4 | t : \ wee ' ae SS,
t ~ ‘ ‘ ‘ ~<
\ { bole \ ~ \ ’
' \ ors \ = 1 : ’
! \ | q 4 \ z ' \ ry
\ \ he gk 7 = ; \ '
' \ \ [cse.tY ‘ \ \ \ \ ' ol
; \ ts: § \ \ ‘ re 7 (i ~¢- 7-08
\ \ \ \ \ ) NC “Sse cern ’ 1
\ ‘ \ } ' \
ae | \ \ \ / ' 7
' \ \ - \ ' .
oy \ ‘ \ --- \ ' ' ¢ \ |
' \ ae \ \ \ .--7 , PEs 4? \ ; |
' ’ \ . \ \ \ \ J oe ss “ a on “6 I
' ' ' \ \ \ ‘ ' (. ae ae 0 \ 1 f-ing
’ ' 1 \ \ 1 ‘ - PIS f« I =." 2 — ¢Zo/
1 \ \ } / ¢ ' Ie ' +.
. ‘ \ ‘oy ' : ‘ ’ 1! \ ~s
' \ ' ‘ ' i ( camera" / “ \ aa \ o , —
yo oN YE Tf C j eB
! \ \ ‘ \ \ ~SL ¢ \ S °
\ \ \ \ \ q So wy \
\ \ , yoy \ . “ ~ = . \ \
' 4 ae \ 2 7 etre 4 = ayy ; .
\ \ \ ‘ \ \ A
‘ ; ‘ VA‘ \ 3 \ \-
\ > ‘
_ . “
- Sees - >
"i - :
\ . v Ce = so. x.

 

 

“It ws the life’s blood in the maintenance

of excellence.”

tonne JOHN M. STEMMONS

 

Washington and Lee’s requirement for annual
giving during the decade of the 1970’s is nearly $8-
million. ‘The importance of this phase of the development
program to the success of the whole cannot be
minimized. The University depends upon annual gifts
to close the gap between income and expenses, and it
is clear that as Washington and Lee builds for the
future by adding to its endowment and plant there
will be a simultaneous requirement for continued
annual giving for current operations at increased levels.

One of the hard economic facts of life at Washington
and Lee is that students, through tuition, now pay only
about 55% of the cost of their education. And one of
the premises on which the Trustees based their
planning for the future was a determination that the
students’ share of this cost should not be allowed to
grow larger.

That those who have supported Washington and Lee
so generously through annual giving in the past will
rise to the challenge by increasing their own gifts and

GOALS FOR TOTAL VOLUNTARY SUPPORT —ALL SOURCES

Hundreds of 1970-71 through 1978-79

thousands

Me
YS
Rwy

br Als ee Sa i Lia Leen

ay
te
’

SS
ee fd.) tes ae a) ler err Gor es ee 2d is

te
SOA 21 eed tee

Oe

Wt eR Ue
SRO a Lt
SN 2 ed ds

;

b ww :

fog aN NE Seat te

NE ae TSO See NS. URL ace Pi RM ot

2 EE?

wet ae eee a | ;

RYE BAS aN Py :
ea fat LA oP

‘FE

VAN SE eNO BAYNE E REO }-

A
ha]
a
AE
ki
N
ri
=e

Se SP REP

a PRT AOE LMS ie SE:

|

oh

i WRAY GEREN OP \
eee es. ibe al des

bl
Te het 7 ie FN ek ee a nL A 7

Pa Be
SN a

oe eet Nal

EN OG A: AONE
Na ad ies as aot Ne Ne Eee ee ee

FHF ACR.

 

(RT NA) 1 2 NS NR / RAR fa ete

LTA IS er 2 aa cee” oe Ma 38 Bay)
Mi ee io at

TM EO Ee

PE REL PO Ee,

PANG LE ee Names 5 El mae

Bie S: Oli mee Te

be Fete kN
PRINS

Af

0 Nx 3 Mo 9S % oF 78
997... BUCO"

That the University may attain its goals, between now and 1980
annual gifts for current expenses must grow at the above rate.

16

 

by recruiting new contributors is at the core of the
thinking behind the program. President Huntley put
it this way:

“We then took a close look at the University’s need
for annual giving. ‘These are the funds which come to
us each year from our loyal constituency of alumni,
friends, and parents to be expended in the year in which
they are given to pay the bills of the year, to supplement
the tuition income from students and the income from
endowment—to enable us to achieve, as we have thus
far achieved and shall continue to achieve, a balanced
budget.”

John Stemmons, Chairman of the Board’s Achievement
Council, attached this perspective to the annual-giving
part of the program:

“While bricks and mortar of $24-million are tre-
mendously important and while the endowment
required to see that the work continues in a degree of
excellence is equally important, no less important is
the fact that we will require $8-million in annual giving.
And I say to you that this is the cement that holds your
University together... It is this that holds us together
as far flung as we are... It is the life’s blood in the
maintenance of excellence in this institution or in any
institution of this kind. It is truly the catalyst that
keeps it alive.”

Every year Washington and Lee, because it is a
private, independent institution and therefore must
rely solely on its own resources for its support, appeals
to alumni, parents, corporations, and friends for gifts
to the Annual Fund, two major components of which
are the Alumni Fund and the Parents’ Fund. The
resulting gifts are the major source of unrestricted income
that the University can apply directly to meeting day-
to-day expenses. Many generations of Washington and
Lee students have been the beneficiaries of such
generosity. It has preserved the financial integrity of
Washington and Lee and has enabled it to go about its
business of educating young men successfully and with
confidence for the future.

An upsurge in the flow of this “life’s blood in the
maintenance of excellence’ at Washington and Lee
is essential in the years ahead.

>) \>

“~

“There are those who are basically

committed to the enduring purpose

of Washington and Lee.”

— Dr. JouHN NEWTON THOMAS

 

Washington and Lee University has always excited
a loyalty and devotion among its alumni and friends
that is so intense, so personal, so abiding that those who
come under its influence are unable quite to under-
stand it.

In difficult times as well as good, these Friends of
Education have given a full measure of devotion—
tangible and spiritual—to their beloved University and
to the noble ideal it represents.

“From every year of nearly two centuries the gifts
have come,’ wrote Dr. Francis P. Gaines in 1936; “and
from every section of the country and from many distant
lands the gifts have come; and from the bewildering
variety of noble motives that prompt generosity these
gifts have come; and here on this campus these Friends
of Education are brought into beautiful and lasting
unity of faith and helpfulness.”’

There is Washington, of course, the first Friend, who
wrote to the ‘Trustees of Washington Academy in 1798:
‘To promote literature in this rising empire and to
encourage the arts have ever been amongst the warmest
wishes of my heart, and if the donation which the gen-
erosity of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of
Virginia has enabled me to bestow on Liberty Hall—
now by your politeness called Washington Academy—is
likely to prove a means to accomplish these ends, it
will contribute to the gratification of my desires . . .”

There is Robinson, the Irish immigrant, who resolved
that other boys should have the opportunities which
had been denied him and gave all that he had to that
noble end.

There is Lee himself, giving “gifts not of gold”—his
ability, his character, his lasting influence; his “final
achievement”: “There was a University which was dead,
and he made it alive.”

There is McCormick, who, “first of all men,’ came
to Lee’s side after the Civil War, whose splendid
benefactions were made with the “impetus of courage
and hope, the first that broke through a great despair.”

And there are others: Judge John Barton Payne, who
“stands revealed by the causes he cherished’; Robert
Parker Doremus, the New York broker, so impressed

by the cordiality and intelligence of an unknown
Washington and Lee student he chanced to meet that
he bequeathed his entire multimillion-dollar estate to
the institution that had influenced the young man;

Mrs. Jessie Ball duPont, the charming lady whose name
“became synonymous with the strength and vitality

of Washington and Lee’s educational enterprise’; Dr.
Gustavus Benz Capito, whose gift in 1960 created the
distinctive Robert E. Lee Research Program, that
enriching and broadening opportunity for students
to work with professors in their advanced research.

It has been remarked that some of the University’s
largest benefactions have come from non-alumni:
Washington, Robinson, Doremus, Mrs. duPont, Mrs.
Letitia Pate Evans, Mrs. Charlotte Flint, Mrs. Annie
Fielding Early, Mrs. Annie Early Fairfax, and the
anonymous donor who in 1955 established the Robert
E. Lee Scholarship Program. But the gifts of its sons
have been Washington and Lee’s sustaining strength.
For no less important to Washington and Lee than
buildings and major endowments are those gifts to its
annual operating budget, through the Alumni and
Parents’ Funds, the Robert E. Lee Associates and the
General’s Council, that have always meant the
difference between black and red, which preserve the
priceless element of independence, the special degree
of excellence.

Many foundations have generously supported the
institution’s ideals—Ford, Sloan, Kenan, Mellon,
Lilly, Merrill, Hillsdale, Dana, Calder, Jones, Davis—
along with some of America’s largest corporations and
also generous businesses which have helped Washington
and Lee through the Virginia Foundation for Inde-
pendent Colleges.

And in this decade to come, Washington and Lee will
require of every Friend of Education an extra measure of
devotion, a stronger commitment still to that special
and commanding educational ideal. Today there are
men of great talent and helpfulness who are as willing
to make sacrifices to preserve and protect Washington
and Lee as those who have sustained the institution over
more than two centuries. This can be clearly seen on
the following pages.

17

 

‘T know of no Board of Trustees anywhere
which gives so high a proority to the
educational institutions which they govern.”

— RosBeErT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

 

Rosert E. R. HUNTLEY JoOsEPH E. BIRNIE
President Chairman of Executive
Washington and Lee University Committee

Lexington, Virginia National Bank of Georgia

Atlanta, Georgia

 

JOHN Newton Tuomas, D.D.,
Rector

Professor of Systematic Theology
Union Theological Seminary
Richmond, Virginia

 

THOMAS C. FRost, JR. JosepH L. LANIER
Chairman & President Chairman (retired)

Frost National Bank West Point-Pepperell, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas West Point, Georgia

TRUSTEES EMERITI

CHRISTOPHER T. CHENERY
New York, New York

JOHN FRANKLIN HENDON
Birmingham, Alabama

Homer A. HOLT
Charleston, West Virginia

 

Lewis F. POWELL, JR. IsADORE M. Scotr
WALTER ANDREW McDONALD . ;
Cinci ti. Ohi Associate Justice Chairman
pomemaconra tance The Supreme Court of the Tri-Institutional Facilities
Huston St. Crair, M.D. United States Program
Surfside, Florida Washington, D.C. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

18

 

 

S

4 “FRANK C. Brooks
Partner

 Yongue, Brooks, & Co.
| Baltimore, Maryland

 

  

=e
SYDNEY LEWIs

« President

Best Products Co., Inc.

a

§ Richmond, Virginia
U

JOHN M. STEMMONS
President

Industrial Properties
> Corporation
Dallas, Texas

. >

 

    
  
    

 

J. STEWART BUXTON
Retired Investment Counselor
Memphis, ‘Tennessee

  

JosEPpH T. LYKEs, JR.

Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer

Lykes-Youngstown Corporation

New Orleans, Louisiana

 

JAck W. WARNER

President and Chairman
Gulf States Paper Company
Tuscaloosa, Alabama

JOHN W. WARNER

JOHN L. Crist, Jr.
Investor
Charlotte, North Carolina

 

Ross L. MALONE

Vice President and General
Counsel

General Motors Corporation

New York, New York

  

The Secretary of the Navy

Washington, D.C.

E. WALLER DUDLEY

Lawyer

Boothe, Prichard, and Dudley
Alexandria, Virginia

E. MARSHALL NUCKOLS, JR.
Senior Vice President

The Campbell Soup Company
Camden, New Jersey

JOHN MINoR WIspoM
Judge

Fifth U.S. Circuit Court
New Orleans, Louisiana

 

 

 

19

 

“We have a tall hill to clumb, but
we are going to clumb that hill!”

— JOHN M. STEMMONS

i er a

 

The Washington and Lee Achievement Council
consists of five committees, each designated to work
with a major constituency of the University. Each
committee is headed by a Trustee, assisted by several
alumni, parents, or friends of Washington and Lee.
This volunteer leadership group has accepted the
responsibility of instituting the effort to secure $36-
million in gift commitments by 1976.

 

From the top of the Science Building, members of the Achieve-
ment Council get a view of the site of the new Law School
(marked by a smoke flare), which will be located west of Woods
Creek Valley.

20

THE ACHIEVEMENT COUNCIL
Joun M. STEMMoNns, Chairman
President

Industrial Properties Corporation
Dallas, Texas

 

ALUMNI

)
|
j
id
a

LAW]
——- ALUMNI
COMMITTEE

| PARENTS
COMMITTE

| FOUNDATIOI
COMMITTEE

 

BUSINESS &
— INDUSTRY
COMMITTEE)

 

 

Chairman: JAcK W. WARNER, Trustee

Partner: THomMas C. Frost, JR., Trustee

Vice-Chairmen: RopotpH P. DAvENport, III, President and Treasurer, The Ktystal Company,
Chattanooga / CHARLEs P. LyKeEs, President, Lykes Brothers, Inc., Tampa / THOMAs BROADUS,
Owner, Thomas H. Broadus Company, Knoxville / J. ALvin Puitpott, Executive Vice Presi-
dent, Burlington House Furniture, Lexington, N.C. / Lewis A. McMurran, Secretary, Treas-
urer and Board Member, Citizens Rapid Transit Company, Inc., Newport News / RicHarp H.
TURRELL, Senior Vice President and Secretary, Fiduciary Trust Company of New York, New
York.

Chairman: Ross L. MALONE, Trustee

Vice-Chairmen: JOHN BELL TowiLL, Lawyer, Hull, Towill & Norman, Augusta / JoHN WILLIs
Bat, Lawyer, Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby & Ball, Jacksonville / THomas D. ANDERSON, Law-
yer, Anderson, Brown, Orn, Pressler, Houston / JAMES BLAND Martin, Lawyer, Martin, Hicks
& Morris, Ltd., Gloucester, Va. / MARION G. HEATWOLE, General Counsel, U. S. Steel Corpora-
tion, Pittsburgh / Epmunp D. CAMPBELL, Lawyer, Douglas, O’Bera & Campbell, Washington /
JAMEs D. Sparks, Sr., Lawyer, Thomas, Sparks & Cudd, Monroe, La.

Chairman: JOHN L. Crist, JR., Trustee

Partner: JOSEPH E. BirNiE, Trustee

Vice-Chairmen: H. REED JOHNSTON, Partner, Johnston and Lunger, New York / CHARLEs C.
StieFF, II, Executive Vice President, The Stieff Company, Baltimore / RicHARD T. Scruccs,
President, Vulcan Metal Products, Birmingham / WILLIAM INGLEs, Industrial Labor Consult-
ant (Retired), White Marsh, Gloucester, Va./ DAvip T. JOHNSON, President, Fisher-Brown, Inc.,
Pensacola.

Chairman: Isapore M. Scott, Trustee

Vice-Chairmen: L. AppIsoN LAntgR, Vice President, Thomas Emery’s Sons, Inc., Cincinnati / FRED
M. VINSON, JR., Lawyer, Reasoner, Davis & Vinson, Washington / THomas Mosss, President,
Indianapolis Water Company, Indianapolis / JosEpH C. Broapus, Vice President, Chase Man-
hattan Bank, New York.

Chairman: JosePH T. LYKEs, JRr., Trustee

Partner: E. MARSHALL NUCKOLS, JR., Trustee

Vice-Chairmen: Epwin Hyve, Chairman, Miller and Rhoads, Richmond / JosEPH MERRICK JONES,
President, Canal Barge Company, Inc., New Orleans / Epwin A. Morris, Chairman of Board
and Chief Executive Officer, Blue Bell, Inc., Greensboro.

a

 

CHAIRMEN
VOLUNTEER
ANNUAL GIVING
AND

DEFERRED GIVING

 

Robert E. Lee Associates
EpwIn Foitz, Chairman
President

Campbell Soups International
Camden, New Jersey

 

 

Alumni Fund Estate Planning Council

JAMEs BIERER, Chairman MARTIN Burks, Chairman
President and Chief Executive General Counsel
Officer Norfolk and Western Railway

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation Roanoke, Virginia
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 

ALUMNI
BOARD OF
DIRECTORS

22

 

Alumni Board of Directors
RICHARD H. TuRRELL, President
Senior Vice President & Secretary
Fiduciary Trust Co. of New York
New York, New York

A. CHRISTIAN CoMPTON / Judge
Law & Equity Court / Richmond, Virginia

THOMAS HAL CLARKE / Lawyer & Director
Federal Home Loan Bank System / Washington, D.C.

W. UpTON BEALL / President
Robinwood Building & Development Co. / Tyler, Texas

RicHARD D. HAynes / Lawyer
Haynes & Boone / Dallas, Texas

WILLIAM H. HILuier / Lawyer
Lord, Bissell & Brook / Chicago, Illinois

S. L. Kopa.p, JR. / Executive Vice President
Humko Products / Memphis, Tennessee

J. ALVIN PuiLportr / Executive Vice President
Burlington House Furniture / Lexington, North Carolina

Emit C. RAssMAN, III / Lawyer
Rassman, Gunter & Boldrick / Midland, Texas

BEAUREGARD A. REDMOND / Vice President
Bank of New Orleans and Trust Company / New Orleans, Louisiana

EvERETT TUCKER, JR. / President
Industrial Development Co. / Little Rock, Arkansas

 

 

- o

/ a

_—

“The growth and strengthening... the

recent past have been truly extraordinary. ]

— ROBERT E. R. HUNTLEY

 

With the attention of alumni and other friends of
Washington and Lee University focusing now on the
institution’s unprecedented development goals for the
decade of the 1970's, a review of the 1960’s and a few
years beyond can provide a valuable, perhaps essential,

perspective in assessing the challenging objectives ahead.

The past 15 years have seen the University strength-
ened impressively by virtually every standard by which
academic enterprise can be measured. Washington
and Lee has launched its monumental task for the
1970's from a solid base of achievement.

Here are some highlights of this important period of
University development and progress:

Faculty—Washington and Lee has been able to build
and maintain a strong faculty, offering distinguished
scholars an opportunity to teach well-qualified, highly-
motivated undergraduates in an academic environment
stressing close student-professor relationships. ‘Through
various programs of leaves and research support, the
University has encouraged the continuing scholarship
and professional development of its faculty. In the
important area of faculty compensation, Washington
and Lee has been consistently among the top 100
institutions in the nation.

In 1960-61, there were 86 full-time faculty teaching
in the three major divisions of the University. ‘he
average faculty compensation then was $8,760,
including fringe benefits. During the current 1971-72
academic year, the full-time faculty totals 135, and
the average compensation is $16,962. ‘This average
compares with a national average faculty compensation
of $14,707, as reported in April, 1971, by the American
Association of University Professors. Washington and
Lee leads Virginia colleges in faculty compensation
and ranks above many institutions of comparable size
in the nation. Much of the progress made in faculty
compensation over the years was made possible by the
generous gifts for endowment by the late Mrs. Jessie
Ball duPont, a member of the Board of ‘Trustees.

Enrollment—Washington and Lee’s enrollment has
grown, gradually but steadily, over the past 15 years.
The opening enrollment in September, 1957, was 1,077;
last September, it was 1,634, the largest in the University’s

\

te
. east
Se
SS

Ni : :
a

Typical of the professors Washington and Lee has attracted in
the past decade is Dr. Henry S. Roberts, Professor of Biology,
who came to WeL from Duke in 1964. He finds teaching under-
graduates compatible with — and as rewarding as — research.

 

23

 

history. Some of this growth has stemmed from decisions
to make modest increases in the size of entering freshmen
classes, but other important factors include a significantly
lower attrition rate among today’s students: fewer

fail academically, and fewer withdraw for non-academic
reasons. Also, the number of transfer students has
grown, coming increasingly from the junior and
community college systems. Many transfers are welcome
additions in departments with capacity to accommodate
them in the advanced courses without undue strain.

The most dramatic enrollment increases, which are
reflected in the total cited above, have occurred in
the School of Law. There the student body has
increased from 97 in 1957 to a record high of 252 last
September. Effective recruiting, a high national
interest in legal education, and the growing prestige of
the Law School are all factors which have produced a
total of 1,400 applications for 80 places in the entering
class for September, 1972.

The University continues to draw its students from
broad geographic and socio-economic bases. Virginians
still comprise the largest single state representation,
with from 22 to 25% of the total, but such widely
separated areas as Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida,
‘Tennessee, New York, and many other states contribute
significant fractions of the enrollment. Nearly one-
fourth of Washington and Lee’s undergraduates
require financial assistance, either from the University
directly or through federal assistance administered by
the University, in order to attend. Public school
graduates make up nearly 70% of recent entering classes.

Financial Development—Washington and Lee
University continues to operate within a balanced
budget. Careful budgeting procedures have helped
assure the wisest use of income from the customary three
primary sources: tuition (currently covering about
55% of educational and general expenses), endownment
earnings (currently about 20%), and voluntary gift
support for current operations, principally the annual
funds from alumni and parents (about 15%).

Washington and Lee’s total operating expense in
1960-61 was $2,186,921. This year the University expects
to spend $6,256,250 in support of current operations.

24

The University’s endowment has increased in book
value from $10,283,637 in 1960-61 to $15,996,875 as of
June 30, 1971. The increase represents $2,406,338 in
new additions to endowment, with the remainder of
growth attributable to re-investment procedures. ‘The
market value at last fiscal year’s end was $20,703,832.
Endowment last year amounted to $855,735.

Tuition charges have increased significantly, but
Washington and Lee’s charges have remained relatively
in line with rising tuition assessments at the private
colleges with whom the University is customarily
compared. In 1960-61, both undergraduate and law
tuition was $750, but undergraduates were subject to
several additional fees. In 1965-66, a comprehensive
tuition was established at $1,300, and other fees were
eliminated; law school tuition was pegged at $900 for
the same year. Currently, the comprehensive fee is
$2,200 yearly for undergraduates, and law school
tution is $1,700. Yet income from tuition still covers
only about 55% of educational and general expenses.
Rising tuition has placed new strains on the University’s
financial aid resources, but applications have not been
unduly affected by the higher charges.

Voluntary gift support from Washington and Lee
alumni, parents, and other friends has grown at a
heartening pace throughout the 1960’s. The annual
Alumni Fund in 1960-61 resulted in $47,075 from
1,522 donors. Since then, the number of alumni
contributors has swelled, as has the average gift. Last
year 4,100 W&L alumni gave $351,000 for current
operating expenses, including an all-time high of
$302,000 to the annual Alumni Fund. Gifts to the
1971-72 Alumni Fund are running well ahead of the
pace set last year. In addition, since 1968, 304 persons
have become Robert E. Lee Associates, donors who
contribute $1,000 or more within a 12-month period.

Over this same span of time, the support from
parents of current students through the annual
Parents’ Fund has risen from $11,357 from 152 parents
in 1960-61 to last year’s all-time high of $61,502 from
429 contributors.

Voluntary support of current operations, which
includes almost all gifts through the Alumni and

 

 

 

————

Parents’ Funds, has risen steadily since 1966-67 when
gifts from all sources totalled $452,770. Over the next
three years, this total rose from $466,339 to $507,912
to $532,067. Last year, it jumped to $737,690.

Campus Development—It is accurate to describe the
major thrust of Washington and Lee’s progress during
the late 1950’s and the 1960’s as being related more
closely to people than to bricks and mortar. Highest
priorities were assigned to the strengthening of the
faculty, the expansion of student financial aid, the
broadening of administrative and academic services
for the benefit of both faculty and students, and the
acceleration of library acquisitions and services.

Such concerns tended to overshadow the growth and
development of the physical campus, but when the
University’s Trustees measured the needs of the 1970's
against the physical plant improvement of the recent
past, these achievements were found to be considerable

Between 1954, when Washington and Lee completed
its first new building since World War II, and June,
1970, when the Trustees approved the development
objectives for the 1970's, the University’s physical plant
was expanded by improvements valued at $5,923,016.

—New buildings were constructed, among them
Jessie Ball duPont Hall, an academic classroom and
studio building; Letitia Pate Evans Dining Hall; Newton
D. Baker and John W. Davis upperclass dormitories;
an additional freshman dormitory; and a new Science

cw

Pn eee = ae

ney i

sp ctl y

0

Building housing biology and physics.

—Howe Hall, housing chemistry and geology, was
renovated and a major wing added. Reid Hall was
renovated for journalism and communications. ‘The
President's Home was thoroughly overhauled, and a
faculty campus residence was renovated to become the
Alumni House. The University Supply Store—the old
“Co-op”—was remodeled and expanded to provide
a University Book Store. The old “print shop” and
World War II “Beanery” were remodeled for academic
and administrative purposes. The Troubadour ‘Theatre
received substantial exterior and interior improvements
and additions.

—Lee Chapel was completely renovated and restored,
along with the restoration of the memorial entrance
gate near the Chapel.

—The old Student Union was completely overhauled
and expanded to create the Early-Fielding Memorial
University Center for student activities.

—New facilities for University maintenance functions
and a classroom and office building for RO'T'C were
constructed. Major remodeling occurred in virtually
every existing academic building, and the campus
utilities systems were improved.

—Property acquisitions, such as the gift of Col Alto—
an antebellum mansion—and other residences and
lots adjoining the campus helped add more than
$405,000 to the value of the physical holdings.

      

Among the new additions during
the past decade was the Sctence
Building. Modern facilities, such as
this building, are a prerequisite to
complement the University’s extra-
ordinarily strong academic program.

25

 

26

Oe

~
-

 

 

_————<—Ko St

. a7
———

«
ow,

+.

‘a »

rd

7.

“~ 8

Miley took this photograph (upper left) almost 60 years after
the laying of the cornerstone of Washington Hall in 1824. New-
comb had just been completed, and on the right may be seen
two of the four faculty houses now scheduled for restoration.
By the 1930’s (lower left), the campus had grown considerably,
spreading to the south and to the west, bypassing the Woods
Creek Valley. Under the current master plan, as shown below,
the Washington and Lee campus will continue to expand to
the west and the interesting topography of the Valley itself will
be put to use, although care will be taken to preserve its
natural beauty. The superimposed shapes on the aerial view of
today’s campus (below) represent proposed locations only, and
are not meant to indicate architectural styles of the projected

buildings.

Student
Housing

ea Remodeling &

fs McCormick \e
Renovation
of Newcomb

Married
Students
& Housing

Development
of new

m= roads/walks

; system sie £

- rae as Ds ‘ :
Site of

Rprcsitsisiniained: SCORN
of Law

Renovation
of central
utilities

Renovation
of Tucker

 

27

 

Planning for the 1970’s—The intensive planning which
has helped shape the University’s Development Program
for the 1970's began during the comprehensive in-
stitutional Self-Study carried out between 1964 and
1966. ‘This critical self-evaluation, which involved
participation by Trustees, administration, faculty, and
students, delved into every aspect of Washington and
Lee. From its roster of over 300 specific recommendations
for improvements, the University has drawn direction
and priorities in its determination of goals for the
new decade. Virtually all Self-Study recommendations
have been implemented. Among those related to future
planning and development, the most important are:

—the reorganization of the Board of ‘Trustees, with
expanded membership, terms of service, mandatory
retirement at age 70, and a new committee structure
that involves ‘Trustees more actively in University affairs
and supports their role in the new Development
Program.

 

—a more systematic approach to campus planning,
including the development of a viable “master plan”
for improving the existing facilities and incorporating
new components of University expansion. President
Huntley is now served by a special planning committee,
which includes a resident architect, with additional
guidance from landscape and building consultants
working in cooperation with architects undertaking
specific projects.

—the creation of a continuing self-study process that
involves constant re-evaluation of Washington and Lee’s
academic programs and university services and their
impact upon financial resources and physical facilities.

In the announcement of the development goals for
the 1970’s, Achievement Council Chairman John M.
Stemmons declared: “We have a tall hill to climb.”
Because of what has gone before, Washington and Lee
can start its climb to the summit from a position of
strength, well up on the slope.

 

 

Members of the Achievement Council made an “on-site” study of the needs of the University. Above, they are shown inspecting the
severe lack of individual study carrels and reading space in the library of Washington and Lee’s School of Law.

28

Vy? syb Ww y
ITLQ kK tit 9

— RoBErT E. R. HUNTLEY

President Huntley closed his remarks announcing
Washington and Lee’s $56-million development
program with this tribute to Robert E. Lee, whose
name has been linked to Washington’s in the title of
this institution as well as in history, testimony and creed:

“General Lee, when he came here as President brought
to this institution, a special quality. It is truly correct,
as Dr. [Francis P.] Gaines often noted, that General
Lee symbolizes for us that special, impossible-to-
articulate quality which gets under the skin of every
Washington and Lee student and every Washington
and Lee alumnus, and which is our strongest virtue.
What is that quality? Many have attempted to articulate
it. None, I think, has fully succeeded, and I am sure
I shall not. For me, such statements need to be personal
in nature. The quality is epitomized by the sense of
trust, the pervasive concept of honor, the pervasive
concept of intellectual integrity which have over all the
generations motivated those who dedicated their lives
to us and motivated those faculty and students for
whom we exist. It is a special quality that I believe to be
rarer today than ever before. We do not intend to
lose it. Endowment and facilities cannot provide this
quality. ‘They can make it possible. . . .

“It was Lee’s unshakeable belief in the ultimate
goodness of divine providence, his unalterable devotion
to duty, and his profound desire to work for human
love and understanding which he brought with him to
Lexington in 1865. The College faced utter ruin and
poverty, but he was not perplexed. The world around
him heaved in distress and hatred, but he was not
discouraged. He saw his mission here in the clear terms
of the nobility of the educated mind and the compas-
sionate spirit, and he realized fully the superlative
importance of his setting the proper example for those
who looked to him for guidance and example. Shortly
after arriving in Lexington, General Lee wrote these
lines to Mrs. Lee, who had not yet joined him here:
‘Life is indeed gliding away and I have nothing of
good to show for mine that is past. I pray I may be
spared to accomplish something for the benefit of
mankind and in the honor of God.’

“He succeeded in this, his final and finest achievement.
And we, too, shall succeed.”

 

 

 

WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY
Lexington, Varginia 24450

ag

George Washington’ s acknowledgment of the renaming of Liberty Hall t in its s Hanger.

 

 

  
  

 

epee PS akeek
fen sr smn Et ee fi? > Pree-©
ae 17 oe occ an JOA aera lee

ot AY a