The changes in the size and composition of the faculty during the 1920s and early 1930s were accompanied by comparable developments in the student body. Increases in enrollment began at the start of the Chandler presidency and continued steadily for more than a decade. During his first year, 1919–20, the number of students on the campus in Williamsburg rose to 333, or more than twice the number enrolled in the previous session. Enrollments reached a peak of 1,682 in 1931–32. After that the Great Depression took its toll, as the totals dropped to around 1,200 between 1934 and 1936. Not until after World War Il were the earlier highs reached again.

Student Recruitment

Aside from the increase in the overall size of the student body, the most obvious change was the presence of a growing number of women. In only three years, the approximately two dozen first admitted in 1918 had reached a total of 288. By 1921–22 some 41 percent of the students were women. This development troubled some of the alumni. In 1924 former Rector Robert M. Hughes warned Chandler that “several of the best friends of the College … express the opinion that the College is becoming too feminized, and that if continued, will cut down on the male attendance.”^[1] The next year the Board appointed a special committee to look into the question of establishing a fixed ratio of men and women. Ultimately, the committee concluded that it had no authority to do that; instead, it recommended that the College deal with the problem by providing dormitory facilities for men and women at approximately a 60:40 ratio. The Board agreed and adopted this as its policy at its June 8, 1925, meeting.^[2] Despite this effort, the proportion of women in the student body continued to increase. By 1931–32 there were 814 women students, equal to 48 percent of the total. A year later they had become a majority of the student body. It was a position they maintained for the remainder of the decade.^[3]

During this same period, the student body became somewhat more cosmopolitan, as well as more feminine. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, nearly all of the students had been Virginians. Of those enrolled during the 1918–19 session, Tyler’s last, only 5 percent came from outside of the state. But this proportion gradually increased during the 1920s, reaching 13 percent in 1925–26 and 39 percent in 1931–32. By 1934–35 it had risen to 43 percent, and from 1937 to 1940, a clear majority of the students, between 55 and 57 percent, were non-Virginians. A substantial majority of those were out-of-state women. Despite William and Mary’s southern heritage, few of the non-Virginians came from the South. Initially, most were recruited from neighboring states, plus New York and Pennsylvania, but the northeastern influence steadily grew. By 1931–32, six states (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Connecticut), plus the District of Columbia, accounted for 79 percent of the out-of-state enrollments, and the proportions remained similar for the remainder of the decade.^[4]

To be a college student in the 1920s and 1930s was, almost by definition, to be a member of a privileged group. At that time less than 20 percent of young Americans in their late teens remained in a school of any sort, and the percentage was considerably less for those in their early twenties.^[5] Unlike their counterparts at a few of the elite private universities, however, few William and Mary students came from truly wealthy families. Rather, the available data indicate that most of the women, at least, came from reasonably comfortable, well-educated, middle-class families, and there is no reason to believe that the background of most of the men was substantially different.^[6] Many of the students had been brought up in the small towns or rural areas of Virginia, and many held jobs while at college to help cover their expenses. Others—some 30 percent of the student body in the early 1920s—had state teachers’ scholarships. By the early 1930s, however, this group had declined to around 16 percent.^[7]

In some respects William and Mary students remained a rather homogeneous, even provincial, group, despite the changes that were occurring in both Williamsburg and the society at large. A large majority were Protestant Christians. An October 1930 report showed that about 80 percent of the students professed to be Protestant, 7 percent Catholic, and 7 percent Jewish, while 6 percent expressed no preference. Nearly a quarter of the students were Methodists, followed by Episcopalians, Baptists, and Presbyterians. Together, these four denominations accounted for 71 percent of all students and 88 percent of all Protestants.^[8] A 1935–36 survey showed only slight changes. In that year about 83 percent of the students were Protestant, 8 per cent Catholic, and 6 percent Jewish. Only 3 percent expressed no religious preference. The Episcopalian had become the most numerous denomination, followed by Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist. These four accounted for 85 percent of all of the Protestants.^[9]

Until 1933 admission to William and Mary was open to virtually any white high school graduate. Indeed, during Tyler’s presidency the problem had not been one of selectivity but of recruiting enough students to keep the College going. Similarly, Chandler’s concern for expansion precluded the application of strict admission standards. To be admitted to the College in 1919, students merely had to be at least sixteen years old, submit a certificate of honorable discharge from the last school they had attended, and present 14 units of work in specified subjects. Others with at least 12 units could be admitted conditionally, with the understanding that the deficiencies had to be removed (bypassing certain required courses) by the end of the second year. Still others, who did not meet these requirements, could be admitted by passing examinations, held at the opening of the session, in the subjects required for entrance.^[10] In 1919 admissions standards were slightly stiffened by raising the number of required units to 15; two years later they were raised to 16. In 1920 the high school requirement was rewritten to require “completion of a four year course,” but it was still possible to meet the requirements by examination.^[11]

These admissions requirements were similar to those at several other Virginia institutions. Indeed, Chandler worked with the presidents of Hampden-Sydney, Randolph-Macon, and Richmond College to try to insure that all four institutions would admit students on the same basis.^[12] But until the mid-1930s, it was widely recognized that it was easy to be admitted to these institutions and that many who entered were ill-prepared for college work. After a semester of teaching at William and Mary, Professor Cary F. Jacob concluded “that ninety percent of the students are unprepared for college.”^[13] This was an extreme position, but many students were dismissed for academic deficiency. In May 1928 William T. Hodges, then dean of freshmen, reported that “we have already lost 30 per cent of the men of our freshmen class which entered last September; and we shall, and undoubtedly should, lose some more.”^[14] They probably did, for during most of the 1920s and 1930s, only about a third of the students eventually graduated.^[15]

Although lax admissions standards were widespread, the practice had begun to trouble some educators. As early as 1921, Rector Dillard complained that the high schools were not doing their job properly and that colleges were admitting students “who don’t know the subjects they are given credit for knowing.” Dillard asked “whether the admission of students by the unit system and by credits may not be having a tendency to lower the standard of the public high schools,” and he suggested William and Mary set an example by admitting only those who were truly prepared for college work.^[16] Dillard did not specify just how this was to be accomplished, but he clearly implied that William and Mary should move in the direction of more selective admissions.

Such a reform was most unlikely during the 1920s, for the College needed all the bodies it could get to fulfill Chandler’s expansionist objectives. Despite some obvious problems brought on by weak admissions standards, Chandler was not dismayed. In his June 1927 report to the Board, he acknowledged that about 10 percent of the students should have not been admitted, but he claimed that they were eliminated by the end of the first semester. According to his estimate, 60 percent of the students did excellent work and another 30 percent clearly profited from their William and Mary experience.^[17] Others regarded the situation less favorably, and by the latter part of the 1920s, pressure was increasing for William and Mary and other state institutions to adopt a more selective admissions process. In 1927 a special session of the Virginia General Assembly appointed a commission to survey the educational system of Virginia. Dr. M. V. O’Shea of the University of Wisconsin was hired as staff director. The O’Shea report, which was published in 1928, made a number of recommendations for the improvement of the educational system in Virginia at all levels. One of these was “that all institutions of higher learning establish a more rigid system of selecting candidates for admission.” This recommendation was a response to the high rate of failure among first year students at Virginia’s various colleges. It concluded that these poor students took up space that might have been more profitably used by others who could have been identified by more careful admissions procedures.^[18]

Although no changes were instituted at William and Mary as an immediate result of the O’Shea report, support for a more careful admissions process was gaining ground, even among students. In October 1928 a Flat Hat editorial deplored the fact that many students were regularly dropped after the first semester and suggested that this could be avoided by a more careful screening of students, based on entrance examinations.^[19] The editorial did not state what sort of examinations it favored. One new possibility, which the College did not then seriously consider, was the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). Only two years earlier, in June 1926, the College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) had first administered the SAT (as opposed to its strictly subject matter tests, which it had offered since 1901). At that time, however, the SATs were taken mainly by applicants to a few private institutions in the Northeast. William and Mary did not use them in its admissions process until after World War II.^[20]

For the time being, Chandler’s policy of expansion meant that he welcomed virtually all applicants. Nevertheless, interest in tightening the College’s admissions standards continued to be expressed. In November 1931, for example, the subject of the annual freshman debate was: “Resolved, that William and Mary should have a selective system of admission.”^[21] A year and a half later, Chandler finally made a significant change of course and announced his agreement with that proposition. In his annual report to the Board of Visitors, presented on June 9, 1933, Chandler asserted that he had three definite goals when he assumed the presidency of William and Mary. The first two—to improve the College’s buildings and equipment and to improve the faculty—had, he claimed, been largely accomplished. Now the time had come to begin to implement his third goal, “the selective process of the admission of students.” Under his proposal, which he identified with the “Dartmouth Plan,” all applicants would be screened for scholarship, personality, and character. To be accepted, he said, applicants should rank in the upper half of their graduating class in high school. They should also be interviewed by an alumnus or representative of the College, and they should present certificates from their principal and several teachers vouching for their truthfulness.^[22]

Chandler seems to have judged the moment correctly, for the Board readily agreed with his proposal and ruled that the new standards would be applied to the class entering in the fall of 1933.^[23] To be sure, such changes were not radical, but in some respects it was a surprising, perhaps a daring, move to make at that time, given the prospect of declining enrollments as the country moved deeper into the Great Depression. Although the total for 1932–33 had fallen only slightly (from 1,682 to 1,602), as it turned out there was a precipitous drop to 1,231 for the 1933–34 session. Nevertheless, William and Mary not only adhered to the new policy, in the subsequent years it attempted to become even more selective in its admissions process.

Rules and Regulations: In Loco Parentis

In the long run, the changes in the size, composition, and academic quality of the student body altered the nature of student life at William and Mary. But most of the changes in the 1920s and 1930s came about gradually, without any sharp break with the past. William and Mary in the 1920s was still a very personal place. Everybody ate together in the dining hall. It was “just like one family,” recalled Vernon L. Nunn, a 1925 graduate.^[24] Students knew and spoke to everybody, and “you knew every member of the faculty, whether you took a course under him or not.”^[25] Undoubtedly, these close, personal relations created an atmosphere that appealed to many of the students; certainly many graduates later looked back on these aspects of their college years with real affection.

Like most colleges during this period, William and Mary stood in loco parentis in relation to its students. The president, the deans, and the faculty closely supervised student academic and social activities, which were governed by many rules and regulations. Upon arrival each student was assigned to an “advisory professor,” who kept close watch on that student’s academic progress. Class attendance was mandatory, and teachers were obliged to report absences to the dean’s office. Students received three monthly reports on their academic progress each semester, in addition to the final semester reports, making a total of eight reports during an academic year. This practice continued until 1935, when it was scaled down to midsemester and final reports.^[26]

The enforcement of these regulations added considerably to the burdens of each faculty member, particularly in the 1920s when the administrative structure was still rudimentary. But the faculty’s obligations went beyond matters of student attendance and academic performance. As Chandler stated, the faculty had “to aid in the campaign against drinking, hazing, and general college disorders.”^[27] Prohibition obviously failed to eliminate alcohol from the campus, for throughout the 1920s, drinking by students was a matter of considerable concern. During Chandler’s presidency “using intoxicating liquors” was expressly prohibited by College regulations.^[28] Although the rule was not always obeyed, a variety of efforts were used in an attempt to enforce it. In March 1922 the Men’s Student Council announced that “drinking must stop” and warned that if a man had been a consistent drinker and had been previously warned, he would be expelled from college if he was then found guilty of drinking intoxicating liquors.^[29] During the 1920s all incoming students were required to sign a statement agreeing to abide by a long list of regulations, including one against the use of liquor, before being permitted to register.

Nevertheless, drinking was an obvious fact of life. Indeed, a sub-rosa organization known as Kappa Beta Phi adopted the motto dum vivimus bibimus (“while we live, we drink”), and another group, the “13 Club,” was regarded as “an out-and-out drinking society.”^[30] Each year Chandler reported that a few men students had been expelled or otherwise disciplined for drinking.^[31] Still, the amount of drinking at William and Mary should not be exaggerated. On balance, the evidence suggests that the abuse of alcohol seems to have been only an occasional, and not a widespread problem during these years. After Chandler’s death, which came shortly after the repeal of Prohibition, the College approached the issue of drinking in a more relaxed manner. In 1935 the regulation prohibiting the use of intoxicating liquors was dropped from the section on discipline in the catalogue, but it was replaced in 1938 with a milder admonition stating that “the use of intoxicating liquors is regarded as out of accordance with the college standards of good behavior.”^[32] In short, the issue was present, but it was not a dominating fact of campus life.

Other regulations forbade hazing or subjecting other students to any form of humiliating treatment, gambling, the keeping of firearms in student rooms, and smoking in any academic building or in the halls of a dormitory. Students living in College dormitories were required to take their meals at the College dining hall, while all students were forbidden to leave the College without the express permission of the dean of men or women. Student use of automobiles became an issue early in the 1920s. Chandler disapproved. They were likely to cause accidents, he argued, “because of the young student’s feeling that he must run as fast as possible to attract attention.” Chandler also feared that they would interfere with studies and that they would promote class distinctions between those who could and those who could not afford them. As a result, a new rule in 1924 forbade students to have automobiles without the special permission of the president.^[33]

Another troublesome regulation was that pertaining to attendance at chapel. Although the rules had been changed several times, when Chandler became president, all students were still “required to be present at chapel exercises two days of the week.”^[34] On Mondays the fifteen-minute exercises were led by the president; on Thursdays by the Young Men’s Christian Association. In practice, many students simply did not attend the service. Significantly, in 1921 the word “required” in the chapel regulation was changed to “expected.”^[35] The next year the whole exercise was restructured. The new regulations called for four “assemblies” a week (sometimes called chapel services), which were to be conducted by the president and members of the faculty. Seniors were required to attend on Mondays, juniors on Tuesdays, sophomores on Thursdays, and freshmen on Fridays. The faculty were also divided into four groups, with members of each group assigned to attend on a specified day. Although William and Mary was officially a secular, state institution, the assemblies clearly reflected the overwhelmingly Protestant Christian leanings of the administration and student body, for the services were admittedly religious, including hymn singing, Bible reading and a prayer.^[36] This approach lasted for several years, but it obviously lacked widespread support. In March 1927 the editors of the Flat Hat concluded that, “Chapels as they are now conducted are about the most useless part of college life on this campus that we can mention.” Let there be voluntary religious service once a week, but “attendance at chapels with religious services cannot be compelled.” If there were to be a required assembly, they insisted that it should be nonreligious.^[37]

Bowing to reality, Chandler responded positively to such criticism. In 1927 the policy was changed to require students to attend a weekly “assembly” in the new Phi Beta Kappa Hall. By 1929 the weekly assemblies had been cut back to ones held “from time to time.” If students so desired, they could also attend, on a voluntary basis, religious exercises in the chapel three or four days a week.^[38] Although this approach was somewhat more successful, the idea of required assembly attendance was not popular. In 1935 President Bryan had this changed so that students were merely “expected” to be present at what were now called convocations, and by the latter part of the decade the voluntary chapel was reduced to a service once a week.^[39] Thus, the evolving policies on chapel and assembly somewhat belatedly recognized the changes in the composition of the student body and the nature of the College.

The chapel and assembly regulations applied to all students. The most detailed parietal regulations, however, were those pertaining to women. From the start Chandler insisted that strict standards had to be maintained. As he wrote to Caroline F. Tupper, the first dean of women, “I am a great believer in the old Virginia idea that when girls and boys go out in groups to special functions or to the ‘movies’, or when the girls go alone to the ‘movies’ they should be chaperoned.”^[40] Working with the women students, Tupper drew up the first set of rules regarding the women’s dormitory, social activities, restrictions, and permissions. Although Chandler expressed his general approval of these, he insisted on a far more strict approach than did Tupper, who, as one former woman student recalled, “was quite a liberal person for the period.”^[41] As a result, in December 1919 Tupper told Chandler that she “could not enter sympathetically into your policy for the social life of the College” and offered her resignation effective January 1, 1920.^[42]

Tupper was a native of South Carolina and had earned a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, and a doctorate from Radcliffe College. To replace her, Chandler selected a very different sort of person, Bessie Porter Taylor. Then an English teacher at John Marshall High School in Richmond, Taylor was hired not as a dean, but as the “Social Director of Women.” As Chandler explained it, her duties were “to organize and look after the social work among the girls with due consideration to their health and to matters of hygiene, the work to be done under the immediate direction of the President.” Thus Taylor became “a real chaperone,” who “watched the girls with an eagle eye.”^[43] From then until 1925, William and Mary did without a dean of women.

According to College regulations, the Women’s Student Government Association was to cooperate with the social director in overseeing and enforcing the social rules for women.^[44] In 1921 Chandler approved a new set of “Regulations to Safeguard the Women Students of the College of William and Mary in Their Social and College Life.”^[45] Amended from time to time, these were published each year in the Women’s Student Government Association Handbook. Little was left to chance. According to the 1923–24 rules, men were not allowed to visit the women’s dormitories before 4:00 p.m. or after 8:00 p.m. Women had to be in their dormitories by 10:00 p.m. and in their rooms with lights out by 10:30 p.m., except on Saturdays, when lights were allowed on to 12:00 p.m. Women’s social hours and “engagements” were carefully regulated, varying somewhat according to one’s class, with freshmen having more restrictions than seniors. A freshman was not allowed to take a walk with a man, although she was allowed to attend church services with a man, provided at least two couples went and returned together. Women going to the movies, the drugstore, or church services had to go and return by way of the Duke of Gloucester Street. Women were not supposed to have engagements in town, except with the permission of the social director; nor were they allowed to play tennis on Sunday or dance at any time in the dormitory living rooms; nor were they ever to go off campus alone after dinner in the evening. Permission of the social director (later the dean of women or assistant dean of women) was required for a long list of activities. Penalties for violators ranged from probation to expulsion.^[46]

The restrictive social rules were designed to protect women students from the dangers and temptations of the modern world. Significantly, there were no comparable social regulations for the men, although the women’s rules obviously affected the men’s social activities. There were also differences in the treatment of men and women in regard to enforcement of College rules and the punishment of violators. In the early 1920s, men accused of violations were tried and punished by the Men’s Student Council, although the decision could be appealed to the president. But in 1924 the men gave up this right. Thereafter, all matters of discipline came under the supervision of the president, and were handled to a large extent by the dean (later the dean of men).^[47] The enforcement of the rules for women remained the responsibility of the Women’s Student Government Association through its Judicial Council.

In most years not many students were actually dismissed, although there were always a number who were disciplined for various violations of the regulations. The 1928–29 session seems to have been a particularly troubled year; twenty-two women were forced to leave “for serious infringement of college rules,” and another thirty-three were disciplined by the Judicial Council. During the same year, eight men were dropped for drinking and three for misconduct.^[48] Between 1925 and 1933, a total of sixty-two students were expelled for misconduct. Thereafter, the number sharply declined, with only eight dropped for that reason between 1934 and 1942. To a considerable degree, this dramatic reduction can probably be attributed to the fact that the more relaxed Bryan had replaced the stern, puritanical Chandler as president. Bryan, however, believed that it was the result of an improved student body, produced by the more selective admissions procedures.^[49]

By the mid-1920s William and Mary finally recognized the desirability of restoring the position of dean of women with responsibility for overseeing women’s academic as well as social activities.^[50] As a result, in September 1925 Annie M. Powell was appointed dean of women and professor of English. A graduate of both Hollins College and Sweet Briar College, with a master of arts degree from Columbia, Powell had been the principal of the Chatham Episcopal Institute since 1920.^[51] Taylor continued as social director, although from March to September 1926, that position was temporarily held by Adele Clark while Taylor was on leave.^[52] After Powell resigned in the summer of 1927, she was replaced by Grace Warren Landrum, then a professor at Westhampton College, who became dean of women and professor of English. Landrum had strong academic credentials, having earned her undergraduate and doctoral degrees at Radcliffe College.^[53] She entered into her work at William and Mary with enthusiasm, and over the next two decades, she became a valued faculty member who was deeply involved in her teaching and academic program, as well as in her duties as dean of women. Taylor, who was unwavering in her insistence on the strict enforcement of the social rules, remained at William and Mary until after the death of Chandler in 1934. Her duties were then taken over by a person with a somewhat less restrictive approach, Marguerite Wynne-Roberts, who was named assistant dean of women.

Throughout his presidency Chandler took his parietal responsibilities very seriously. But the restrictive regulations were a product of a widely accepted conservative social climate, not of one man. Significantly, most students seem to have accepted the rules with relatively good grace, although no doubt some skirted the edges of the regulations even violated some from time to time—especially the less serious ones, such as those governing lights-out in the dormitories. Still, Marguerite Wynne Roberts concluded that most women obeyed the social rules, and “if they were broken they were usually done quite innocently.”^[54] Some changes came about after Chandler’s death, as Bryan favored a somewhat less restrictive policy and, certainly, less severe punishments. But most of the changes were ones of minor detail. The significant fact was that detailed regulations similar to those first promulgated in the early 1920s continued to govern the conduct of women students at William and Mary throughout the 1930s and long afterwards.^[55]

Student Self-Government: The Honor System and Ducs

Unlike the parietal regulations, which required a considerable measure of external control, the Honor System came to be largely student run. The College took great pride in the system, which according to tradition had its beginning at William and Mary in 1779. The Honor System assumed that all students were trustworthy and would not be dishonest or violate their pledged word. It was also based on the idea of student self-government.^[56] The constitution of the Men’s Student Self-Government in 1919–20 provided for a general Student Council to try students accused of cheating on examinations and other honor offenses, as well as for all manner of acts, including drunkenness and gambling.^[57] In 1922 this was separated into two councils, one for the Honor System and another for other disciplinary matters.^[58] Similarly, the constitution of the Women’s Student Government Organization for 1921–22 provided for only one council, which included among its many duties dealing with infringement of the rules and dishonorable conduct. This lasted until 1925–26, when the constitution was changed to provide for both a Judicial Council and an Honor Council.^[59]

During the 1920s the degree of student control of the Honor System increased. The 1919–20 catalogue suggested that the faculty might find it necessary to impose various penalties to insure the system’s enforcement.^[60] Moreover, at the beginning of the decade, the decisions of the councils could be appealed to the faculty. But after hearing a controversial case in early 1922, in which it voted 13 to 10 to overturn the conviction of a woman student found guilty of cheating on a chemistry examination, the faculty declared that thereafter it would not entertain any appeal of a student found guilty of cheating, stealing, or breaking his or her pledged word.^[61] The Board of Visitors, however, continued to insist that actions by the Honor Councils had to be subject to review by the president and, if necessary, the Board.^[62]

By the mid-1920s the Men’s and Women’s Honor Councils had begun the practice of explaining the Honor System to all incoming students. All scholastic work was under the Honor System; written tests and examinations given in the classrooms required a formal pledge; the willful breaking of any pledge, including athletic and drinking pledges, was a violation of the code. The penalty for violation of the Honor System was dishonorable dismissal from the College.^[63] From time to time, some students were dismissed—a total of forty-six from 1925 to 1933, but only thirteen from 1934 to 1942.^[64] Then, as later, however, the severity of the punishment caused problems and may have deterred some students from reporting violations. Many faculty and students believed that it was legitimate for the Honor Councils to consider the degree of guilt of an accused in order to decide whether and how soon someone found guilty would be allowed to return to the College.^[65] Many also continued to urge that some scale of punishments be established, with, perhaps, expulsion reserved only for second offenders. A survey of students and faculty conducted in the spring of 1932 reported that a majority of both the men and the women said that they were unwilling to report violators. At the same time, an overwhelming majority declared their belief in the system which, they said, “functions successfully.”^[66] The growth in the size and diversity of the student body between 1919 and the early 1940s undoubtedly had an effect on the operation of the Honor System. It did not work perfectly, but it retained widespread student and faculty support; it was destined to remain very much a part of the William and Mary scene.^[67]

Another student-run practice, although one of far less significance, involved the freshman “Duc Rules.” The term “duc” was applied to any student enrolled for the first time at William and Mary; it also referred to a little cap which all freshmen were obliged to wear.^[68] Separate rules were drawn up for men and women, but both contained a few common requirements. For example, the rules for 1921–22 required all freshmen to attend all athletic rallies, celebrations, and home games; to attend football practice once a week; and to learn all the College songs and yells by October 15. The details varied somewhat from year to year, but the tendency from 1921 to 1927 was to become ever more restrictive. Beginning in 1923 men were not allowed to talk to women until after 4:00 p.m., except on Sundays and holidays. They were also required to use only the sidewalks while on campus. Among numerous other restrictions, women were forbidden to appear in public on Mondays without a hat; on Tuesdays they had to wear their dresses “hind part before”; on Wednesdays they had to fix their hair with two pigtails. New rules in 1925 required the men to wear a black necktie every day of the week, except Sundays and holidays; they also required both men and women to yell “Come on Richmond” when passing the statue of Lord Botetourt.^[69]

To enforce these rules, in 1922 students from the upper three classes created a “supreme court.” Separate sessions were held for men and women. Freshmen convicted of violations might be required to wear a sign with the words, “I am ashamed of myself.” Unofficial punishments could be considerably more severe, especially among the men, who might be strapped with a belt for what the upperclassmen regarded as particularly heinous sins.^[70] Although upperclassmen insisted that the duc system did not constitute hazing, a practice clearly forbidden by College regulations and, beginning in 1928, by state law, it was in fact something very close to it. By the latter part of the 1920s, many students began to tire of the petty harassment. In May 1927, two days before the scheduled removal of the duc caps, a group of freshmen staged a revolt by parading across the campus and burning their caps. Alarmed by the disturbance, Chandler threatened to forbid all freshmen duc rules during the next session. Ultimately, he backed off from this position, but the controversy led to the writing of considerably shorter and less restrictive rules for 1927–28.^[71]

Although the duc rules continued, so did resistance to them among at least some of the freshmen. Noting the enforcement problems, the Flat Hat in December 1930 appealed for “a certain respect for tradition and a conformation with the customs of the school.” In 1932 the president of the Men’s Student Body announced a drastic step. Freshmen accused of violating the rules were to be tried by a senior tribunal, and if found guilty, they would be sentenced to from one to three weeks of probation, with loss of all social privileges. Furthermore, they would be forced to go to President Chandler and sign a pledge that they would obey the probation restrictions. This meant that a subsequent violation of a restriction would constitute an Honor System violation, punishable with dismissal. According to the Flat Hat, “the frosh have shown themselves so unsporting and independent that it has been necessary to bring the honor system into effect in dealing with continual offenders.”^[72] There is no evidence that any student was ever so punished for violating the duc rules. But even to consider such extreme measures was itself a reflection of the declining respect many freshmen had for the system. The result was the suspension of the duc rules entirely during the 1935–36 and 1936–37 sessions. Other students still thought that they were a good idea, however, and a new set of freshman regulations was introduced beginning in the fall of 1937. These were relatively simple, and merely required the wearing of duc caps, attendance at convocations, class meetings, and athletic events, use of the campus walks, and the tipping of one’s cap at the Botetourt statue. Thus modified, the duc rules continued at William and Mary.^[73]

Beyond the Classroom

Although the petty harassment of freshmen and the strict social regulations may have bothered some William and Mary students during the 1920s and 1930s, most of them seem to have had a good time. Living in a small community far from a metropolitan center, and with few automobiles allowed, students had to rely upon their own resources for much of their social activity. But their needs were rather simple, and much was done without large expenditures of money.

In the 1920s the YMCA and the YWCA played a part in student life that would become unthinkable to succeeding generations of college students. Until the mid1930s the Ys were supported by the student fee. Many of their activities were openly religious, such as assistance with the chapel services or the promotion of systematic Bible study. They also tried, through receptions, to ease the adjustment of new students to the College, and they published an annual Students’ Handbook (later titled Indian Handbook), containing information about William and Mary activities, faculty, procedures, and so forth. Not until the edition of 1935–36 did the College itself finally assume responsibility for publishing the Handbook. By that time the significance of the Ys at William and Mary had measurably declined, although they continued to exist as campus organizations.^[74]

Literary societies provided another form of extracurricular activity that was popular, at least in the early 1920s. There were two societies for men, the Phoenix, which had been founded in 1850, and the Philomathean, which dated from two years later. Two new societies were created for women, the Whitehall Society and the J. Lesslie Hall Society. All were supported by student fees, and from 1925 through 1934, membership in one was required of all sophomores. The literary societies had regular Saturday evening meetings at which members read papers, delivered orations, and debated. In December, Phoenix and Philomathean held a contest for freshmen, and twice a year, in the fall and during commencement week, they held a major contest to determine which was best in debate. Many students took the clubs seriously and enjoyed the verbal contests.^[75] By the middle of the decade, however, interest in them began to decline, so much so that in March 1925 the Flat Hat ran an editorial bemoaning “the literary society crisis.”^[76] In October 1927 Whitehall merged with the J. Lesslie Hall Society. The others struggled on for a number of years, but by the 1930s it was obvious that their role in student life was nothing like what it had once been. In 1935 the Flat Hat observed that while the Philomathean and Phoenix “used to be the most powerful organizations on the campus, … [they] have lost most of their prestige because of continued inactivity and internal bickerings.” However, it claimed that the J. Lesslie Hall Literary Society continued to be “quite active.”^[77] The Philomathean Society held no meetings after February 1936, except for a final one in May 1938, when it merged with the Phoenix Society. The latter held its last meeting in February 1941. None of the literary societies resumed their activities in the post-World War II period.^[78]

Student publications, such as the Flat Hat, the Colonial Echo (the yearbook), or the William and Mary Literary Magazine (a monthly published by the men’s literary societies), provided other meaningful extracurricular activities for some students. So did clubs such as the Clayton-Grimes Biological Club, the French Club, and Los Quixotexcos (the Spanish Club), all of which were academically oriented, or, for some women, the Edith Baer Club, which promoted the study of home economics. Catholic students might find friends in the Gibbons Club. With the opening of Phi Beta Kappa Hall in 1926, the William and Mary Theatre, under the direction of Althea Hunt, became an outlet for the talents of some students, and a source of entertainment for many others.

For recreation, however, no club or special interest group had as significant an impact on student life as a whole as did athletics, which involved virtually the entire student body either as participants or as spectators. Football, baseball, basketball, and track were the major men’s intercollegiate sports at William and Mary, but such minor sports as tennis, swimming, wrestling, and cross-country were important activities for a number of students. In the 1920s the male varsity athletes had not yet become semiprofessionals segregated from most of their fellow students, so they remained very much a part of the regular campus life. Participation in athletics also provided an important outlet for women, who early on had teams in field hockey, basketball, track, swimming, and in the 1920s, even in baseball. Later, women’s tennis and fencing were added. In addition, numerous students participated in intramurals or some informal sport. For nearly all William and Mary students the major athletic events, particularly the football games, were important recreational and social events. In the 1920s college spirit was strong, and most students naturally supported their teams. Nearly the entire student body would attend the big games, such as the final one against traditional rival, Richmond. But other sports, including baseball and women’s basketball, also attracted a considerable following.^[79]

Aside from athletics, the most popular student social activity in the 1920s and 1930s was probably dancing. At the beginning of the period, however, a certain amount of administrative resistance had to be overcome, for Chandler, a Baptist, regarded the activity with considerable suspicion. Traditionally, regularly scheduled dances with live music had been organized either by the Cotillion Club, the men’s dance organization, or by fraternities. Chandler permitted these, but he forbade informal dancing in the women’s dormitories or in the gymnasium during social hours. As one former woman student later observed, he feared “that it was giving the state the impression that they were spending their state money in riotous living for the students.”^[80] In October 1920 Chandler issued three basic rules which had to be enforced at all dances: all intoxicating liquors were forbidden; “shimmying, cheekdancing and all objectionable dancing” were prohibited; and the names of all visiting men had to be submitted to the president of the club at least five days before the dance.^[81] After meeting with student representatives in March 1921, Chandler issued a new policy on dances. Thereafter, all formal dances on campus, which were to be held in the gymnasium, had to be arranged exclusively by the Cotillion Club, not fraternities or other groups. The Monogram Club was placed in charge of informal dances. Fraternities, which had previously conducted the Easter and final dances, could hold dances in their houses or at the Colonial Inn, if they obtained the permission of the administration.^[82]

Still uneasy, however, Chandler brought the subject up at a meeting of the Board of Visitors in October 1921. After some deliberation, the Board ruled dances would be allowed “under proper supervision and control.”^[83] The stipulation was important. The conditions under which Chandler subsequently approved a limited number of scheduled dances provided that invitations had to be sent to the faculty, that there must be chaperones (at least five faculty wives and five other ladies not connected with the College, all under Bessie Taylor’s supervision), and that the dance committee of the sponsoring club was responsible for maintaining proper conduct at all times. Beginning in 1923 the German Club was recognized as the women’s dance club, and it was also allowed to arrange some dances. But Chandler insisted on maintaining tight control of its activities.^[84]

For Chandler, and other similarly minded conservatives, the danger was not necessarily in dancing per se—at least not as they knew it—but in the new wild and sensuous dances that allegedly threatened traditional values. The editors of the Flat Hat, who throughout much of the 1920s seemed eager to support administration positions, quickly picked up the cue. “It should be fairly easy,” they argued, “to draw the line between dancing and the contortionistic wiggling popular among the loosethinking who follow the line of sensational innovation. … William and Mary’s social functions have always been characterized by the absence of any untoward breaches of conduct. … We trust that the reprimand of authority will never be necessary to curb the more audacious.” Similarly, the president of the Cotillion Club went out of his way to assure Chandler that it was “the intention of the club to conduct the dances on the highest possible plane.”^[85]

The authorities had little to fear, at least in regard to the approved, scheduled dances. The program for the Cotillion Club’s 1923 midwinter dance, for example, listed only fox-trots, one-steps, promenades, and waltzes.^[86] Of course, William and Mary students in the 1920s were not immune to many of the new dancing fads. But there is no evidence, in the form of disciplinary actions, administration warnings, or public criticism, that dancing corrupted their manners or morals. Still, many students wanted more than the few carefully controlled formal and several informal dances that were permitted each year. The limited social opportunities at William and Mary meant that a number of students would seek permission to leave campus on weekends. In the fall of 1925, Chandler asked Professor Pollard to discuss the problem with the YMCA, the YWCA, and various social committees. Among other things, they suggested that the Ys and the churches sponsor more weekend entertainment and that there be more informal Saturday evening dances.^[87] By 1925 even the Chandler administration had come to accept an increased amount of dancing as a worthwhile activity.

Dancing, formal and informal, remained popular with students throughout the 1930s. In the words of the Flat Hat, formal dances “offer a sparkle and charm to what may become at other times a somewhat drab existence—they are our only adventure into real society life, and not only are happy moments, but also aid in behaving like ladies and gentlemen.”^[88] By that time the Cotillion Club had come under considerable criticism for its management of the dances and for running up a deficit. The less restrictive Bryan administration attempted to assist the club in arranging dances and in helping it get out of its financial difficulties.^[89] But in 1936 the Cotillion Club was finally disbanded, and the College assumed its debt. Thereafter, dances continued under the supervision of students who were selected as “President’s Aides.” Under this arrangement there were dances in Blow Gymnasium every Saturday evening with music provided by a college orchestra, and four big formal dances a year.^[90] For the latter, especially for the spring finals just before commencement, the College frequently hired nationally known bands, such as Gene Krupa and Glenn Miller. The big dances were held either in Blow Gymnasium or, for the spring finals, in the splendidly decorated Sunken Garden.^[91] These colorful occasions were very much in keeping with the social tone set by President Bryan, but World War II brought a halt to this phase of student social life at William and Mary. As it turned out, it was the end of an era.

Fraternities and sororities provided another social outlet for a significant proportion of William and Mary students during the 1920s and 1930s. The oldest of the social fraternities at the College was Theta Delta Chi, which was established in 1853. This was followed by Sigma Alpha Epsilon in 1857 and four others between 1871 and 1904. The rapid expansion of enrollment in the 1920s was accompanied by a similar increase in the number of fraternities, which totaled eleven by 1925 and thirteen by 1929, including locals without national affiliation. The first sorority established at William and Mary was Chi Omega in 1921. Seven others were added between 1923 and 1928, and one more, Gamma Phi Beta, in 1931.^[92] The percentage of William and Mary students who were members of fraternities and sororities was fairly constant over the two decades. In 1920–21 about 39 percent of the men and 32 percent of the women were members; by 1927–28 the figures were 41 and 31 percent, respectively. The average membership for the period between 1935 and 1941 was similar, 38 percent of the men and 37 percent of the women. The highest percentages, which ranged from 39 to 45 percent of the men and 36 to 51 percent of the women, were always obtained in the spring semester because of the addition of the new initiates.^[93]

The members of the fraternities and sororities were responsible for drawing up their own rules, subject to administration approval, pertaining to eligibility for membership and rushing, as the process of selection was called, as well as to other activities. This was done through what became the Interfraternity Council for men and the Panhellenic Council for women. In this and other matters, however, the Greeks could not escape Chandler’s watchful eye. Thus, in 1921 he ruled that the Cotillion Club, not the fraternities, would thereafter have exclusive responsibility for organizing the formal dances. In 1926 the Board of Visitors further clarified matters by stating that the president was authorized to promulgate rules for the fraternities, and that fraternity houses were “in the nature of dormitories” and subject to all of the College’s rules and regulations.^[94] By that time nearly all the fraternities had houses scattered about the town, and many of the men lived in them. Chandler kept an even tighter rein over sorority women, and would not permit them to live in houses not owned or substantially controlled by the College. That meant that in 1927 women were allowed to live in only two sorority houses, Chi Omega and Phi Beta Phi. The solution to the women’s problem came a few years later with the building of the houses on Richmond Road and in Sorority Court.

By their very existence, fraternities and sororities fostered a certain amount of exclusiveness which had implications for the more cosmopolitan student body that was developing by the middle to latter part of the 1920s. Significantly, a local Jewish fraternity, Zeta Theta Pi, was established in 1925. This became a chapter of Phi Alpha, a national organization, in 1927. The next year some other students, who were not satisfied with that group, requested and finally received permission to establish a second Jewish fraternity. This led to the creation of Pi Lambda Phi in 1929. For these students, at least, such organizations had some special significance. But they remained small, with only thirteen members in the first and seven in the second in 1934 (out of a total of about forty-six Jewish men then enrolled at the College).^[95]

Just how important fraternities and sororities were in the lives of William and Mary students in these years is a matter of some dispute. Obviously, some students enjoyed the companionship that fraternities and sororities fostered, and they took their membership in them quite seriously. But much of the social life at William and Mary was not centered around the fraternities. The strict social regulations were a factor here. For example, Chandler forbade women to enter a fraternity house at any time, day or night, except when properly chaperoned.^[96] Although the Flat Hat regularly reported on the activities of the Greeks, its stories do not suggest that they dominated the campus or that nonmembers, nearly two-thirds of the students, strongly resented their presence. By the latter part of the 1930s, some critics began to express serious doubts about the role of fraternities, and to a lesser extent the sororities, at William and Mary. But this came some time after Chandler’s death. For the time being they remained an accepted, if not always admired, part of the social life of the College.