The expansion of William and Mary under Chandler meant bringing in many more students, as well as erecting new buildings and adding new academic programs. This, in turn, necessitated significant increases in the size of the faculty and staff. Within the space of a few years, the changes in personnel, as well as the increased size of the student body, meant that the William and Mary community was vastly different from what it had been during the Tyler era. Despite the dramatic increase in the size of the institution, however, Chandler’s leadership remained highly personal. Few activities at the College escaped his scrutiny, and he insisted on being personally involved in matters pertaining to the curriculum, faculty, and student life to a degree that would be unimaginable to later presidents. At times his manner, which some regarded as downright dictatorial, caused considerable resentment. Still, much was happening, and for the most part the future looked bright. In many ways it was an exciting time for both faculty and students.

The Administration

The administration that Chandler inherited in the summer of 1919 was an exceedingly modest operation, In addition to the president, it consisted merely of a registrar, Herbert L. Bridges (who also served as secretary to the faculty); a treasurer, Levin W. Lane, Jr. (who also served as secretary to the Board of Visitors); a dean of women, Caroline F. Tupper; and a manager of the boarding department, Esther W. Rodiman. The catalogue also listed the part-time college physician, Dr. David J. King, as well as the secretary to the president and the secretary to the registrar as members of the administration. William and Mary had no administrative dean, although Professor John Lesslie Hall held the largely honorific title of dean of the College.^[1]

With the expansion of the student body, faculty, and programs, Chandler needed more administrators and support staff. In 1920 he brought in Kremer J. Hoke to be a professor of Education, director of the summer school, and dean of the College. As such he became the second highest officer at William and Mary, a position he held throughout Chandler’s presidency. Born in Emmitsburg, Maryland, in 1878, Hoke graduated from St. Mary’s College and earned a master’s degree from the University of Virginia and a doctor of philosophy degree from Columbia University. For a number of years, he had worked under Chandler in the Richmond school system, first as a principal and then as assistant superintendent. Since 1916 he had been superintendent of schools in Duluth, Minnesota. Hoke lacked a flair for the dramatic, and at William and Mary he worked very much in the shadow of his strong-willed superior, but he proved himself to be a competent and loyal administrator.^[2]

Another of Chandler’s early appointments to the combined administrative-teaching staff was William T. Hodges, who was hired in 1920 as professor of Education and director of the extension program. In 1924 he was granted a leave of absence to complete work on his doctorate in Education at Harvard, and Joseph Eugene Rowe became director of extension. Hodges returned to administrative work in 1927 as both dean of freshman men and alumni secretary. The next year he was made the first dean of men. He also reassumed the office of director of extension and continued as alumni secretary.^[3]

At a different level, an important addition to Chandler’s staff was Kathleen M. Alsop, a cousin of the president. Hired in 1920 as college secretary, she became secretary to the president the next year (succeeding Irving Hamilton White). She also enrolled as a student at the College, and in 1925 graduated with a bachelor of arts degree. Alsop served William and Mary in several capacities for many years. In addition to her duties as secretary to the president, she became an instructor in shorthand and typing in 1922 and an assistant professor of secretarial science in 1931. Upon Bridges’s retirement in 1933, she became registrar.^[4]

During the 1920s a few other additions were made to the administration. These included two nurses and a dietitian in 1921, a steward in 1922, and a superintendent of grounds and buildings in 1923. Still, compared to the overall growth of the College, the increases in the staff were modest. Most came about by creating assistants to the existing officers or adding more secretaries, not by the proliferation of new administrative posts.

Although classified as a member of the administration, the librarian had a very different role from other staff members. For many years the position had been held by Emily Pryor Christian. Although Chandler knew her to be a loyal and dedicated employee, he hoped to appoint someone with stronger professional qualifications to oversee the development of the library in an expanded College. He found such a person in Earl Gregg Swem. Born in Belle Plaine, Iowa, on December 29, 1870, Swem had earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Lafayette College and had worked some twenty years as a professional librarian, including several years as chief of the catalogue division in the copyright office at the Library of Congress. Since 1907 he had been the assistant librarian of the Virginia State Library, until his dismissal, following a dispute with the librarian. But Swem had many strong supporters. Douglas Southall Freeman wrote to Chandler that “all the equities are on the side of Swem. … He is a first rate man. … If there were an opening I would rather have him than any man I know.” Chandler was satisfied. In 1920 Swem became the new librarian at William and Mary, where he served with distinction for nearly two and a half decades. Christian remained as an assistant librarian until her retirement in 1934.^[5]

The Faculty

The number of faculty members in 1919 was not much larger than the number of strictly administrative officers. At the time of Chandler’s appointment, the teaching staff consisted of only twelve professors and three assistants. The professors included Van Franklin Garrett and John Lesslie Hall, the remaining two of the Seven Wise Men who had begun their service at the time William and Mary reopened in 1888. Garrett, who was seventy-three years old at the beginning of the 1919–20 session, continued to teach chemistry until 1923.^[6] Hall, sixty-three years old in 1919, was a professor of English. A popular teacher, he remained at William and Mary until his death in February 1928.^[7] Two others, Richard M. Crawford, a professor of fine and industrial art, and Henry E. Bennett, a professor of Education, had begun their service in 1907. Otherwise, the faculty inherited by Chandler consisted of recent appointees.^[8]

Upon assuming office Chandler immediately began a decade-long period of faculty expansion. Throughout, he remained personally involved in the recruitment process. By August 1919 he had hired four new professors and two new associate professors.^[9] After the departure of one professor, this raised the total number of faculty at the beginning of the 1919–20 session to fifteen professors, three associate professors, and five instructors. The title of assistant was dropped. This was still a small enough group to allow him to hold his first faculty meetings in his office, although that would soon change. Chandler followed the increasingly common practice of ranking faculty from instructor to professor and after a few years, dropped the ill-defined rank of assistant.^[10] He hired his first assistant professors in 1921, and their number, along with instructors, slowly increased over the next two decades; but until the latter part of the 1930s, the highest two ranks made up about two-thirds of the faculty. By the 1933–34 academic year, Chandler’s last, the teaching staff had risen to seventy-eight: thirty-one professors, seventeen associate professors, seven assistant professors, and twenty-three instructors. All but three had come to William and Mary during his presidency.^[11]

A continuing concern in recruiting and retaining faculty was the low level of William and Mary salaries. For the 1919–20 academic year, the average salary was only $2,160 for professors and $1,850 for associate professors. During that session Chandler convinced the Board that this situation simply had to be improved. Thus, despite a tight budget, the Board agreed to raise the average for professors to $2,697 and for associate professors to $2,100 for the 1920–21 academic year.^[12] Unfortunately, the state appropriations for the 1920–22 biennium were not adequate to do much more. Chandler then sought help from the General Education Board, which in December 1920 approved a grant of $30,000 to increase faculty salaries at William and Mary for the period January 1, 1921, through June 30, 1922. The result was an immediate increase up to a maximum of $3,000 for professors and $2,400 for associate professors, with the understanding that the maximum level for professors would be raised to $3,600 for 1921–22.^[13] As deans and the directors of certain programs received an additional stipend of $600, their maximum would reach $4,200. Not all faculty received the maximum, but by 1922–23 the average salary had risen to $3,250 for professors and $2,500 for associate professors. This was a meaningful improvement. Nevertheless, salaries at William and Mary lagged significantly below those at other state institutions, such as Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia Military Institute, and the University of Virginia.^[14]

In subsequent years Chandler did what he could to improve the situation, but, with one exception, money for an increase in salaries simply was not to be found. In his June 1927 report to the Board of Visitors, he complained that it was “practically impossible to organize the faculty on the salaries paid,” and that fifteen members of the faculty, most of them people he wanted to keep, were leaving for higher-paid positions elsewhere. The College, he said, had to convince the state budget committee to authorize an increase in the maximum from $3,600 to $4,200.^[15] In this instance Chandler got his wishes. For 1927–28 the authorized maximum salaries at William and Mary were raised to $4,200 for professors, $3,500 for associate professors, $2,500 for assistant professors, and $1,800 for instructors. However, only seven professors received the maximum; most got $3,600. The highest paid associate professor earned $3,100. With the additional $600 dean’s stipend, the absolute maximum salary (except for the president) went up to $4,800.^[16] The salary levels set in 1927 remained the standard at William and Mary until the early 1940s. Beginning faculty, of course, started well below the maximum level and could expect modest increases for a few years. But, for about a decade and a half, no members of the faculty, once they had reached the maximum, received salary increases. Indeed, for a number of years during the depression, everyone’s actual take-home pay was cut, despite the nominal retention of the existing pay scales. As late as 1939–40, the average faculty salary at William and Mary was only $2,841.^[17] It was obvious that during the 1920s and 1930s, many members of the faculty faced a constant struggle to make ends meet and to live according to the standards they deserved by virtue of their training, talent, and responsibilities.^[18]

Working conditions, especially the heavy teaching load, also affected the recruitment and retention of faculty at William and Mary. The normal teaching responsibilities were a minimum of five courses, or fifteen academic hours, a week. To be sure, at the time Chandler became president this was not an unusual load for college teachers at many institutions. But the development of the extension program increased the burdens placed on the faculty, who could be assigned, as part of their regular duties, to teach one or more courses a week in Richmond, Norfolk, Newport News, or some other community. To make certain that there was no misunderstanding on this point, in 1924 the Board of Visitors formally empowered the president “to have all professors carry not less than 15 hours of work, including extension work, per week.”^[19] In practice, a few had as many as 21 hours, while 18 hours were not uncommon.^[20] For example, during the fall semester in 1926, Albert C. Martin, an assistant professor of modern languages, taught 15 hours from Monday through Saturday on campus in Williamsburg (five sections of four different courses), plus an additional 3 hours each Monday evening in Newport News. Professor Richard L. Morton, head of the history department, taught 12 hours from Monday through Saturday on campus (four sections of three different courses), plus a course in Norfolk on Tuesday evening and one in Newport News on Thursday evening.^[21] Morton and some of the other heavily pressed faculty got some help from student assistants in grading papers, but the teaching loads were still oppressive for much of the faculty during the 1920s, and with a 15-hour load remaining the norm, they were only slightly improved in the 1930s.

Under such conditions little research or publication was expected from the faculty. Alfred R. Armstrong, a member of the class of 1932 who remained at William and Mary as an instructor (and eventually a professor), later commented that “anyone who attempted it was looked on with suspect [sic],” and that Chandler allegedly “fired” a biology professor, Donald W. Davis, at least once a year for doing research.^[22] Nevertheless, from time to time, some effort was made to encourage a modest amount of scholarship. For example, in a 1922 letter to Chandler expressing his concerns about the professional growth of the faculty, Dean Hoke suggested that “it would be a big asset for the college to have its faculty well represented through publications, study at other institutions, research activities, etc.” He recommended that the College consider having sabbaticals, exchange professorships, and “assignments to special fields for research, etc.”^[23] Not surprisingly, nothing came of Hoke’s suggestions. Still, despite the obstacles, a number of faculty members—such as Joseph R. Geiger in philosophy, Richard L. Morton in history, James E. Pate in political science, and Albion G. Taylor in economics—continued to do research and to publish articles and books in their fields. Indeed, in 1935 Taylor reported the results of a survey showing that in the social sciences the faculty at William and Mary produced more scholarly works than did similar faculty in any other Virginia institution except the University of Virginia and VPI.^[24] To be sure, the output was modest by later standards. But this was long before lowered teaching loads, higher salaries, and improved support facilities had begun to change the mission of the College and the expectations for the faculty. Teaching (and related service) remained the primary, indeed almost exclusive, obligation of the William and Mary faculty. That many were able, in varying degrees, to pursue research and writing beyond that required for the classroom was a testament to their stamina, skill, and devotion to their discipline.

Despite the low pay scale and the onerous teaching load, each year many people would write to Chandler in hopes of getting a position at William and Mary. Although the qualifications for an appointment were not clearly specified, many of the applicants lacked the appropriate training or experience. Within these limitations Chandler did the best he could to recruit a strong faculty. An earned doctorate had not yet become a virtual prerequisite for an appointment, but it was obviously desirable, especially at the highest rank. Instructors and assistant professors, however, usually held no more than bachelor’s or master’s degrees at the time they were hired. A few of them eventually earned their doctorates and remained at William and Mary. Most did not.

During Chandler’s presidency the percentage of faculty holding earned doctorates gradually increased, from 35 percent in 1919–20 to 49 percent in 1931–32, although this slipped back to 41 percent in 1933–34, his last year. Excluding fields in which the terminal degree was not a doctorate, such as fine arts, home economics, physical education, secretarial science, and library science, the percentage holding earned doctorates was considerably higher—42 percent in 1919–20, 60 percent in 1930–31, and 55 percent in 1940–41.^[25] The doctorates were earned at many different universities. Several came from Columbia, Chicago, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Virginia, but many others were represented. In the 1920s and early 1930s, no one institution predominated as a place of doctoral study.^[26] The one pattern that was clear, however, was the emergence of a stronger relationship between rank and possession of the doctorate than had previously been the case. In 1918–19, Tyler’s last year, five of the twelve professors on active duty and all three of those on leave did not hold the doctorate. There were no associate or assistant professors.^[27] In 1930–31, however, twenty-four of the twenty-nine professors held the doctorate, a much higher proportion than under Tyler. At the same time, only ten of twenty-five associate professors and none of the nine assistant professors and thirteen instructors held that degree. Only seven of those in the two lowest ranks taught in fields such as physical education, home economics, or secretarial science.

Some students regarded the increase in the number of faculty with doctorates with skepticism. William and Mary was obviously changing, and some believed that in the process there was a decline in teaching skill. The problem, complained the Flat Hat, was not with the curriculum, but with the professors. Good teachers “breathe life into a course” and arouse the student’s interest, but the uninspired professor has the opposite effect. “Colleges assume that anyone with a Ph.D. can teach. Of course this is not the case. It is likely that real ability is often sacrificed in order that the college catalogue may be well filled with Ph.D. titles.”^[28] This was not the last time that students would voice such complaints.

In addition to having more doctorates, by the early 1930s the William and Mary faculty came from a far more diverse and cosmopolitan background than had been the case during the Tyler years. Even graduates of William and Mary ceased to be heavily represented, except among instructors. Thus, in 1930–31 only four of the twenty-nine professors, four of the twenty-five associate professors, and two of the nine assistant professors had degrees from William and Mary, although seven of the thirteen instructors were alumni or alumnae.

Another change was the increase in the number of women on the faculty. Until the admission of women in 1918, William and Mary’s faculty had been all male. During Tyler’s last year, 1918–19, the sex barrier was finally broken with the appointment of Edith Baer as a professor of home economics. By 1930–31 there were five women professors, three associate professors, five assistant professors, and seven instructors. In all, they comprised 26 percent of the faculty. The total rose to 32 percent during the 1933–34 session, but the additions were all in the lower ranks. Many of the women were hired as the inevitable consequence of coeducation and taught such subjects as physical education, home economics, and secretarial science. Still, more than half taught a variety of liberal arts subjects or Education. A few, all with doctorates, such as English Professor Grace Warren Landrum (who was also dean of women), Kathleen Bruce in history, and Inga Olla Helseth in Education, were appointed at the highest rank. These were the exceptions. A large proportion of the women were instructors and assistant professors, all without doctorates; many were in relatively temporary positions at the lowest end of the pay scale.^[29]

One limiting factor for women was the practice of the Board of Visitors to deny employment to married women. The plight of Madeline Wales illustrates this point. Wales was an instructor of physical education for women, who, on January 9, 1925, married Charles C. Fichtner, a professor of economics and business administration. Although she was allowed to complete that academic year, in June Chandler notified her that the Board of Visitors “preferred not to appoint married women to positions at the college,” and thus her appointment would not be renewed. Chandler stated that he was “sorry that the Board reached this decision,” and told her that she would be considered for “extra work” should the need develop.^[30] But the discrimination against married women remained in force.

The Limits of Freedom

During the Chandler years, married women were not the only ones to feel the effect of the strict regulations and practices governing the faculty. In numerous ways—involving appointments, teaching assignments and scheduling, salary increases, and aspects of their personal lives—Chandler, backed by a sympathetic Board of Visitors, ran a tightly controlled organization that allowed little room for unconventional behavior. The faculty soon learned that the president made or approved all significant decisions at the College. Some faculty worked comfortably within the prescribed limits, and Chandler, in turn, appreciated conscientious and devoted service. But those who incurred his displeasure might pay a high price. For example, when Chandler discovered in the fall of 1922 that a young professor of modern languages had gone to a college dance after he had been drinking, he informed the unfortunate man that his connection with William and Mary would end in June. Although Chandler acknowledged that this person was an excellent teacher, he simply could not allow such a breach of etiquette. “If it did not weaken the discipline of my faculty by permitting … [the professor] to remain I should never have let him go,” he explained.^[31] Fortunately, not all cases were so serious. Chandler merely expressed his shocked displeasure to Professor Morton, who, in an effort to enliven a history class, had the temerity to use Charles and Mary Beard, The Rise of American Civilization, a work Chandler considered “too radical.”^[32]

Although such strict and intrusive leadership engendered a considerable undercurrent of resentment among members of the faculty, there was little they could do to change conditions. In March 1930 one exasperated associate professor of psychology finally decided to complain directly to the Board of Visitors. His letter certainly did attract the Board’s attention, but it did him no good. After conducting what it described as a “full discussion” of the matter, the Board dismissed the complaint with the observation that it was “thoroughly familiar with the management of this college” and could find “no merit in your criticism.” That faculty member left William and Mary at the end of the session.^[33]

One form of control over the faculty was the result of state law, not internal policies. In March 1926 the General Assembly enacted a law requiring all officers and salaried employees of all state departments and institutions to register, showing dates and reasons, whenever they left their department or institution for more than a day, whether on official or personal business. As a result, William and Mary set up an alphabetical index card system whereby all faculty had to register their departures from and returns to Williamsburg. Not surprisingly, the system was strictly enforced during the Chandler presidency, although it fell into disuse later in the 1930s, despite the fact that the law remained in the code until 1966.^[34]

Like many other colleges and universities during the 1920s and 1930s, William and Mary lacked an explicit set of rules and procedures governing faculty appointment, dismissal, promotion, and tenure. It also had no formal guarantee of academic freedom or due process in the event of dismissal or other controversy.^[35] The most relevant document was a set of “Rules and Regulations of William and Mary College” that the Board of Visitors adopted in June 1919, but this did not come close to meeting the standards proposed in 1915 by the report on academic freedom and tenure by Committee A of the newly founded American Association of University Professors (AAUP).^[36] Instead, the College rules and regulations were mainly concerned with spelling out the functions of the Board of Visitors and the duties of the president, the registrar, the librarian, and the treasurer, although there were a few relevant points regarding the faculty. Article VI dealt with the “Tenure of Professors” and stated that “every professor shall be first elected for one year. Thereafter his tenure shall be at the pleasure of the Board.” Obviously, the word professor was intended to cover all ranks of the teaching staff, but the important point was the absence of any guarantee of continuing employment or in the event of a termination, of a hearing, or of any protection against arbitrary action.

The only protective statement regarding the faculty in the 1919 Rules and Regulations was in Article II (section 10), which stated in part that “the professors shall have liberty in the development and administration of their own departments, subject to the recommendations and approval of the President and the decisions of the Board.” But even this was weakened by the next sentence, which held that “the President is authorized to assign the duties of all professors.” In addition, the president’s authority over the curriculum and faculty was emphasized in several other places in Article II: “The President … is placed in charge of the administration and courses of instruction of the College” (section 1); “The President is authorized to call upon any member of the faculty at any time during his or her employment to represent the College in any efforts which may be made to increase its usefulness” (section 3); “All officers and professors must report to the President, when desirous of absenting themselves from their duties” (section 6); and “The President may suspend, for good reason, any officer of the Institution until the next meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board of Visitors, and may appoint some person to discharge his duties during such suspension” (section 14).

Of course, these regulations tell us little about the actual position of the faculty. On this the evidence is limited and at times somewhat contradictory. Despite the absence of formal protections of academic freedom and tenure, for example, the president and the Board of Visitors did seem to recognize in practice that faculty members had certain rights as well as obligations. During Chandler’s first year, a potentially serious issue of academic freedom arose that tested some of these limits. On December 18, 1919, the Newport News Record published a story alleging that Professor Frederick Juchhoff had made unpatriotic and pro-German remarks in his classes. Juchhoff immediately denied making such statements and professed his absolute loyalty, and Chandler attacked the story as a “very unjust one.”^[37] But Peninsula Post No. 39 of the American Legion looked into the matter and came to the conclusion “that Professor Juchoff’s [sic] beliefs and sympathies are not those of a wholly patriotic American citizen, and they further show that he is distinctly pro-German and partial to the cause of the enemies of our Country.” In a letter to Chandler, the American Legion asked for Juchhoff’s immediate dismissal.^[38] Fortunately for Juchhoff, the charges that he made unpatriotic remarks to his classes could not be substantiated. Indeed, students in one of his extension classes in Newport News, several of whom were veterans, rallied to his defense. This made it easier for the Board of Visitors to conclude, at a special meeting on February 10, 1920, that it did “not see sufficient reason to dismiss Dr. Frederick Juchhoff from his position as professor in this College.”^[39]

To their credit, neither Chandler nor the Board succumbed to the Legion’s misguided sense of patriotism. Still, the episode was troubling and the outcome less than wholly satisfactory. The Board approached the issue very cautiously, and, in an attempt to placate the local patriots, it expressed its desire “to commend the action of the American Legion … in calling [the] attention of this Board to the alleged pro-German attitude … and utterances of Professor Frederick Juchhoff.”^[40] Juchhoff retained his position, but the College did not explicitly uphold his right to express unpopular views. Rather, the Board concluded that the evidence did not support the charge that he had made unpatriotic statements. Thus, although the episode ended without further damage to Juchhoff, it did not bring forth a defense of, or even a clarification of, the principle of academic freedom.

As for tenure, then, as later, state regulations prohibited the issuing of contracts of unlimited duration. Instead, each year the Board of Visitors “elected” the faculty, upon recommendation of the president, for one year at a time. The president then informed each member of his or her election in a letter, which served as a contract for the next academic year.^[41] Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the guiding principle remained that faculty served at the pleasure of the Board. The absence of formal written protections and procedures had consequences. One could not assume, for example, that competent service as an instructor or assistant professor would be followed after a reasonable period of a few years by either a salary increase or a promotion to the next higher rank. More importantly, during this period the few faculty members who were forced to resign for alleged misconduct, or who were not rehired for a variety of reasons, had no meaningful opportunity for appeal or for review of their cases by an established committee. In practice, seniority did afford a considerable measure of protection, and most, although not all, of the faculty who wished to remain at the College, particularly professors and associate professors, were regularly reappointed. But there is evidence that firm—at times seemingly arbitrary—presidential leadership, coupled with the absence of formal protective procedures, tended to stifle critical voices and to sap morale. In the words of Professor Morton, “You couldn’t get very much free discussion in the faculty.”^[42] Another professor expressed it more strongly. Faculty members, he later recalled, “were scared to death of President Chandler, I guess, and they knew he was boss.”^[43] Not surprisingly, during his presidency there was little indication of vigorous internal debate about the direction of the College, and the faculty were rarely willing to question publicly the policies of the president or the Board.

By 1925 a small group of faculty, led by Professor Donald W. Davis, decided that the time had come to establish a local chapter of the AAUP, in the hope that it might do something to improve morale and provide some measure of protection. Davis sent out letters to those faculty who were members of the national organization, inviting them to attend an organizational meeting at his home on January 24, 1925. As a result ten professors founded a local chapter. Cary F. Jacob, a professor of English, was elected president; Walter A. Montgomery, a professor of ancient languages, vice-president; and George H. Gelsinger, a professor of English and Greek, secretary-treasurer. Membership was not open to all. In addition to being a member of the national organization, which required one to have held a position of teaching or research at a college or university for at least three years, faculty could become full members of the local group only after nomination and approval by the chapter. Those who were not yet eligible to be members of the national AAUP could be elected nonvoting associates. Two negative votes would prevent a nominee’s election.^[44] From the start the members recognized that their organization would have to operate more or less sub rosa and that their discussions would have to be confidential. Meetings were held off campus in the homes of various professors, including that of W. A. R. Goodwin, who lived in the Wythe House on the Palace Green. All knew that President Chandler disapproved of the AAUP, which he viewed more as a trade union than a legitimate professional organization. In the words of Professor Albion G. Taylor, who joined the chapter when he came to William and Mary in 1927, “The AAUP was a thorn in the flesh to President J. A. C. Chandler. Why? In a word, it interfered with his well established and practiced policy of employing and dismissing faculty members at will.”^[45]

During the spring semester in 1925, the local AAUP became involved in a controversy involving Cary F. Jacob, the chapter president. Jacob had been appointed an associate professor of English at the beginning of the spring semester in 1920 and promoted to professor for the 1920–21 session. An able scholar, he had published several essays, stories and plays, a volume of poetry, and other scholarly works. At William and Mary, Jacob was put in charge of the freshman English composition course; by all accounts he was a demanding teacher with high expectations for his students. As head of the freshman English course, Jacob had functioned more or less independently of the English department, which was headed by Professor John Lesslie Hall, one of the remaining Seven Wise Men.^[46] The conflict that arose in the spring of 1925 was in part due to Chandler’s insistence that Jacob would have to give up his virtual autonomy and instead work completely under Hall’s direction, something that Jacob admittedly found difficult to do. But Jacob’s underlying complaint involved the serious charge that Chandler had applied pressure to give students credit that had not been earned. One case involved a student who had failed English 111. Chandler then enrolled her in English 121 with the instruction that if she passed that course, she was to be given credit for English 111 as well.^[47] In addition to a few examples of this sort, Jacob also alleged that “every year students are voted degrees when those students have failed to win them. Dr. Chandler keeps hammering at the members of the faculty until, rather than run the risk of losing their positions, they vote as he wishes them to vote.” In a letter to Mary-Cooke Branch Munford, a member of the Board of Visitors, Jacob reported that whenever he objected to Chandler about his pressure to pass students in freshman English, he “becomes violently angry.” Chandler never mentioned this aspect of their dispute in his correspondence with Jacob; rather he wrote as though Jacob had simply rebelled against working with Hall.^[48] As Jacob could not make the promises Chandler demanded, Chandler refused to recommend his reappointment, and Jacob left at the end of the 1924–25 session.^[49]

The correspondence between Chandler and Jacob in the spring of 1925 does not mention the AAUP, so one can only speculate as to the extent that Chandler’s views may have been colored by Jacob’s association with that organization. Until that time relations between Jacob and Chandler appear to have been cordial. Even then, Chandler’s letters indicate that he would have been willing to reappoint Jacob if he would agree to work under Hall’s direction and teach the classes Hall assigned to him. Perhaps so. But the fact remains that in late April, only a few months before the start of the next academic year, Chandler dismissed the professor who headed the local chapter of the AAUP, despite his more than five years of creditable service.

On May 2, 1925, Jacob presented his correspondence with Chandler to the local AAUP chapter and asked it to investigate the matter. This was done by a committee of three, composed of Gelsinger, Davis, and Morton, which reported its findings on May 23. The report was cautious. The committee avoided direct criticism of the administration in regard to Jacob’s charge that Chandler had conferred credits for courses that students had not passed and instead, referred to the broad powers over courses of instruction that were granted to the president in Article II (section 1) of the Rules and Regulations. On the question of tenure, however, the committee pointedly referred to the statement adopted by the AAUP earlier in 1925, one that had also been endorsed by several other professional associations, including the Association of American Universities in which William and Mary had membership. According to those standards, the termination of a long-term appointment, such as that held by Jacob, required action by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the college. Moreover, they also required that notification be given at least a year before the end of the academic year. None of these conditions had been met in Jacob’s case. Perhaps fearing Chandler’s wrath, the committee merely reported these facts and made no recommendation. The investigation pointed to real problems, but it did not save Jacob’s position or force Chandler to reform his dismissal procedures. For the time being, William and Mary faculty continued to serve with no guarantee of due process or tenure.^[50]

Although the William and Mary chapter of the AAUP continued to exist, it did not again become involved in a comparable controversy. Chandler still viewed the organization with suspicion, however, and meetings continued to be held more or less secretly in professors’ homes. Not until after John Stewart Bryan assumed the presidency in 1934 did the members feel secure enough to hold meetings on campus.^[51] After the spring of 1925, the meetings were largely concerned with the discussion of noncontroversial topics or the presentation of academic papers. As one member later noted, “virtually nothing was ever said about tenure or salaries or academic freedom or things of that kind.”^[52] The existence of the AAUP may have been a positive sign, but its limitations perhaps tell us even more. During the Chandler years, particularly, the faculty had learned that acceptable criticism had rather narrow limits at the College of William and Mary.