The dramatic changes that occurred at William and Mary during the fifteen years of Chandler’s presidency helped bring new attention to the ancient College. Much of this was benign, the kind beloved by alumni and members of the Board of Visitors. Examples of this sort were seen in the inevitable publicity surrounding the presence of President Warren G. Harding at Chandler’s formal inauguration ceremony on October 19, 1921, or the visit by President Calvin Coolidge on May 15, 1926, at a celebration in honor of the 150th anniversary of the Virginia Resolution for Independence. The College also benefitted considerably from the publicity accompanying the restoration of Colonial Williamsburg. But some of the attention was less than welcome. In some instances it was the product of problems that may be directly attributed, at least in part, to Chandler and his style of leadership. Although no knowledgeable observer doubted his commitment to William and Mary, his tactics and manner frequently invited controversy.

A Gift from the Klan

An example of the sort of attention that Chandler certainly did not welcome occurred as a result of an offer by the Ku Klux Klan to present William and Mary with a flagpole and an American flag. In the summer of 1926, the Richmond leader of the Klan visited Chandler and informed him that his organization was planning to hold a meeting in Williamsburg in the fall and that it wished to present a flag to the College at that time. Asked if he would refuse the gift, Chandler responded: “Of course, I can not refuse to accept a flag of the United States.”^[1] But Chandler had been placed in an uncomfortable position. He had no sympathies for the Klansmen. As he explained to Douglas Southall Freeman, editor of the Richmond News Leader. “They have forgotten the Declaration of Independence which claims that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and they have forgotten the first Amendment to the Constitution. … I am greatly concerned over intolerance.”^[2] Chandler feared that if he did not allow the Klan to present the flag, he would appear to be intolerant. As he noted, he had allowed the Sons of Italy to appear on campus to present a tablet honoring Charles Bellini, the first professor of modern languages at the College, and he had recently allowed Catholic students from the Gibbons Club to hold a Mass on campus. “This is a state institution, and while I know I have been put in a very awkward position I have no right to discriminate between different organizations in this state. I have never been put in such a quandary before in my life, but it would be impossible for me to say to men who are American citizens that I cannot receive a flag.”^[3]

On Sunday, September 26, 1926, some five thousand Klansmen from nearly all parts of Virginia descended on Williamsburg. They were joined at the afternoon ceremony by most of William and Mary’s one thousand students. Hiram Wesley Evans, the imperial wizard of the Klan, presented the flag and pole and delivered a short address. Fortunately, he did not wear his white robes.^[4] Chandler had prepared his remarks carefully. After noting the historic importance of Williamsburg in regard to the movement for independence in 1776 and the adoption of the Virginia Bill of Rights, he called attention to two recent Klan circulars. One claimed to endorse the Declaration of Independence as the basis of popular government; the other expressed a belief in upholding the Constitution. This gave him the opportunity to say he welcomed such statements and to praise both documents as the basis for American liberties. “It is incumbent upon us, as law-abiding citizens, to permit every man to have his liberty and to proceed in his own way towards the pursuit of happiness, provided, of course … that he does not violate the Constitution of the United States and of his State, and the laws passed thereunder.” Chandler did not attack the Klan directly, but by calling for respect for the rights of the individual, for tolerance of differences, and for obedience to the law, he had clearly rebuked many of the activities associated with the Klan.^[5]

Chandler had hoped that his remarks would forestall adverse criticism. Freeman believed that Chandler’s approach was probably the best solution to an embarrassing dilemma.^[6] Some others agreed. “You handled the situation admirably,” wrote George P. Phenix, the vice-principal of Hampton Institute. ‘1 wished that the Klan could have kept its unclean hands off the college, but I believe that you have done something which will be remembered by future generations with great satisfaction.”^[7] But others were greatly troubled by Chandler’s action. “To me it was quite a blow,” wrote one recent alumnus, who begged Chandler for an explanation of how William and Mary could accept a gift from an organization that was “so un-American.”^[8] Chandler’s response was unlikely to satisfy such critics. The Klan was a legal organization, he said. “I have never felt that I could discriminate between the Klan and other organizations, and I knew that I stood firmly for religious freedom, religious liberty, and other things.”^[9]

Some people, of course, believed that it was indeed Chandler’s responsibility to make a distinction between the Klan and ordinary law-abiding organizations. Henry Jackson Davis, an alumnus and former member of the Board of Visitors, expressed his “surprise and disappointment” that the College had accepted the flag from an organization whose methods were “totally foreign to the traditions of law and just government.”^[10] Freeman reported that John Stewart Bryan, the publisher of the Richmond News Leader and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and a member of William and Mary’s Board of Visitors, ”was distressed beyond words at what had happened and he was almost ready to send in his resignation as a member of the Board.”^[11] Thus Chandler stood in the midst of the cross fire, certain that he would have been damned by some no matter what he did. Fortunately, the controversy died down rather quickly. There is no evidence that William and Mary students got particularly excited about the event one way or another. Indeed, an editorial in the Flat Hat on October 1 noted that “the presentation to the college on Sunday of the magnificent flag pole and national standard has filled one of the greatest needs of the college.” It did not even mention the Klan.^[12] Nevertheless, others continued to be embarrassed by the episode. The flagpole, to which was affixed a bronze tablet stating that it had been donated by the Ku Klux Klan, was prominently located at the southwest comer of Jamestown Road and South Boundary Street. In the early 1940s, the tablet was surreptitiously removed, but until the late 1950s the flagpole remained as a continuing reminder of the Klan’s visit to William and Mary.^[13]

Alpha of Virginia

A less obvious controversy, but one of greater long-run significance, arose over Chandler’s role in the Alpha chapter of Phi Beta Kappa. Dormant for many years, Alpha had been revived for the second time in 1893. It was unusual in that, until the 1920s, it elected, with a few exceptions, only honorary, alumni, and some faculty members. Students had to wait at least one or two years after graduation before being considered. The actual leadership of Alpha chapter was provided by the vice-president, not the president, who often did not live in Williamsburg and, except for presiding at initiations, filled largely an honorary role. The term of office was one year, but a person could be reelected. With the exception of Professor John Lesslie Hall, who held the position from 1908 to 1917, the vice-presidents served from one to three years. From 1919 to 1921, the office was held by Professor Van F. Garrett, one of the Seven Wise Men. With the coming of Chandler, however, the practice of rotating the office soon ended. A member of Phi Beta Kappa since 1899, Chandler began to exert a considerable influence over Alpha chapter shortly after becoming president of the College. At the end of 1920, he was elected its vice-president. Rejecting traditional practices, Chandler held that office from 1921 until his death in 1934.^[14]

The most significant change for Alpha chapter during the 1920s was its decision to begin electing students as ” members in course.” Actually, the chapter had modified its bylaws in 1912 to allow a maximum of two seniors still in college to be elected each year, but few were elected. After considerable debate, Alpha adopted a new policy in June 1922 which provided “that members of the chapter shall be elected primarily from the best scholars of the graduating classes of the college, secondarily from the alumni … and lastly from any persons distinguished in letters, arts, sciences or education.” Student members were limited to one-sixth of the graduating class in any one year.^[15] By the latter part of the 1920s, twenty or more members in course were being elected each year. Through 1934 about 54 percent of these were women.^[16]

Eventually the 1922 revisions in the bylaws significantly changed the membership of Alpha chapter. But they did not put an end to the granting of what some people regarded as an excessive number of honorary and alumni memberships. If anything, this apparent abuse became more flagrant under Chandler’s leadership. Many memberships were bestowed on public figures, or on members of the Board of Visitors. Worse yet, it appeared to some people that Chandler was willing to sacrifice scholarly standards in the hopes of gaining financial contributions to the College.^[17] The problem came to a head in the spring of 1928, when a member of Phi Beta Kappa from New York charged that the election in 1926 of Otto H. Kahn, a New York banker affiliated with Kuhn, Loeb and Company, was the result of a ”bargain and sale” that produced a substantial financial contribution to the College. As a result, Oscar M. Voorhees, the secretary of the United Chapters, protested to Chandler. In this instance, however, the evidence does not support the charge by the unnamed accuser, despite the questionable merits of some of the previous recipients of honorary memberships in Alpha chapter. Chandler, of course, denied that there had been any such sale of a membership.

Robert M. Hughes, the former rector of the Board of Visitors and prominent alumnus from Norfolk, also defended the chapter in a long and convincing rebuttal to Voorhees. The chapter took “every precaution to insure proper selection,” he insisted. Out of the many names suggested each year only a few were elected, and most were not rich. In fact, the only really rich person elected that he was aware of was John Barton Payne (in 1921). As Kahn had not learned of his election until after it had taken place, Hughes emphatically denied that there had been any previous understanding regarding a contribution. Rather, he insisted, Kahn was selected because of his interest in drama. Kahn subsequently gave the Phi Beta Kappa address, which was ” among the very best” they had had. Furthermore, as Chandler pointed out, Kahn made no substantial financial contribution to the College.^[18]

If the Kahn case did not really prove the worst in regard to honorary or alumni memberships, it was suggestive of the doubts that had been raised about Chandler’s direction of the chapter. He was, after all, in a position to exercise what some regarded as dictatorial leadership. Some members of Phi Beta Kappa feared that they would jeopardize their salaries or promotions if they opposed Chandler’s wishes^[19]  Despite such unhappiness, there was certainly no open revolt against his leadership. After his death in the spring of 1934, the chapter passed an appropriately respectful resolution acknowledging Chandler’s “remarkable services” and stating that “the Chapter has lost a friend, comrade, counselor and guide.”^[20] Nevertheless, the chapter never again permitted one person to hold the vice-presidency for such an extended period of time. From 1934 to 1940, the vice-presidents served for only one to three years, and none was the president of the College. In 1940 the Alpha chapter finally amended its bylaws to prohibit a vice-president from serving more than two consecutive one-year terms.^[21]

Intercollegiate Athletics

Chandler’s controversial role in Phi Beta Kappa was of far less concern to many students and alumni than the development of intercollegiate athletics. In the 1920s William and Mary was not immune from the pressures of alumni, townsfolk, and others to produce winning teams, ones which would allegedly foster pride in the College and increase its prestige. Such pressure had been felt even during the Tyler presidency, and it certainly increased after that. Ever the expansionist, Chandler favored an enlarged intercollegiate athletics program. But he set distinct limits. Sensitive to concerns about the recruitment of athletes, academic standards, and the financing and control of the program, he proceeded more cautiously than some sports enthusiasts would have liked.

During Tyler’s presidency intercollegiate athletics at William and Mary were poorly organized and conducted on a relatively informal basis. The College had organized its first football team in 1893, but not until 1900 were teams in both football and baseball firmly established. In 1893 there had not even been a head football coach. Subsequently, coaches were changed nearly every year. Because of the war, the College did not play football in 1918. One of Chandler’s first moves upon assuming the presidency was to hire James G. Driver, a member of the class of 1910 who had coached at the University of South Carolina and Newberry College, to organize and direct the sports program at William and Mary. Appointed athletic director, head coach, and professor of physical education, Driver was at first put in charge of all sports, but in 1921 W. E. Fincher was hired to take over the duties of head football coach.^[22]

At that time men’s athletics at William and Mary were controlled by an Athletic Council composed of the officers and managers of the various teams, plus the College athletic director and a member of the faculty. The council established the College’s athletic policies, including eligibility rules for players. Unlike the practice at some colleges, William and Mary allowed freshmen to play on varsity teams.^[23] Under Driver’s leadership the athletic program was expanded, and the caliber of its teams improved. But the improvements were not fast enough for some people, including many in the alumni association. By 1921 they concluded that William and Mary needed stronger athletic leadership.^[24] Chandler apparently agreed, for in December 1921 he began negotiations with John W. Heisman, then a coach at the University of Pennsylvania, to become athletic director and football and baseball coach at the extraordinary salary of $10,000, twice what Chandler had earned when he began as president. Heisman was willing to accept the offer. Half of his salary was to be paid from money raised by student activity fees; the remainder, which the Board of Visitors insisted would have to be arranged in a separate contract, was to come from the alumni.^[25] A contract along these lines was drawn up in early February, but before the arrangements could be concluded, unexpected opposition arose. It began when a group of students asked Chandler to appoint a special faculty committee to look into the Honor System, athletic policy, and the handling of student activity fees, among other matters. Chandler agreed, and on February 10, 1922, he appointed Professor Oscar L. Shewmake to head such a committee. Wasting no time, on February 11 Shewmake reported that his committee was opposed to the hiring of an athletic director-coach at $10,000, and that it recommended the creation of a new committee on athletics. As a result, Chandler withdrew the offer to Heisman.^[26]

Some of the faculty opposition to Heisman apparently came from Driver and his friends. Although they had blocked Heisman’ s appointment, the episode obviously undermined Driver’s position. A year later, on March 23, 1923, he announced his resignation. To succeed Driver the College hired J. Wilder Tasker, then head coach at Connecticut Agricultural College, to be athletic director and head coach of basketball, baseball, and football. Unlike Driver, Tasker did not hold a professorial appointment.^[27]

Following the recommendations of Shewmake’s committee, Chandler replaced the Athletic Council in August 1922 with an Athletic Committee composed of three male faculty members and three male students, one each from the sophomore, junior, and senior classes. Shewmake had also proposed that there be three alumni members, but they were not added until 1924. At first Chandler stated that he would not be a member of this new committee, but he could not resist his desire to keep a close watch on all College doings.^[28]Thus, before long, he began sitting on the Athletic Committee as one of the three members of the faculty.

The new Athletic Committee, like the earlier Athletic Council, controlled athletic activities for men. After the admission of women in 1918, a separate Women’s Athletic Council had been created to manage all aspects of women’s sports. This was composed of one female faculty member (later increased to three), appointed by the president, and three female students elected by popular vote of the Women’s Athletic Association. Women participated in a wide variety of intramural sports and beginning in 1922, intercollegiate contests in basketball and tennis.^[29]

In 1919 William and Mary was a member of the Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Association, which was composed of the smaller colleges in the state. This became the Virginia-North Carolina Intercollegiate Athletic Conference in 1922, after it admitted five North Carolina institutions.^[30] The conference’s rules then allowed freshmen to play, but they attempted to restrict payments to the athletes by declaring ineligible anyone who received financial support from someone “other than those on whom he is naturally dependent … unless the source and character of these gifts or payments to him shall be approved by the President of this Conference.” However, regular tuition scholarships, such as those granted to students who planned to become teachers, were allowed.^[31]

Many of William and Mary’s opponents in football and baseball were members of the Virginia (or the Virginia-North Carolina) Intercollegiate Athletic Association, schools such as Randolph-Macon College, Hampden-Sydney College, Roanoke College, or the University of Richmond. The football season always ended by playing Richmond, the traditional rival, continuing a series that began in 1904. In the early 1920s, the quality of William and Mary’s other football opponents varied widely, from Union Theological Seminary in 1921 (which William and Mary defeated by 76 to 0) and Gallaudet in 1922 to strong teams in 1923 and 1924, such as the United States Naval Academy and Syracuse (which routed William and Mary by 61 to 3 in 1923). Most of William and Mary’s opponents were Virginia schools, but they usually did not include the so-called big four—the University of Virginia, Virginia Military Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and Washington and Lee University—all of which were members of the Southern Conference. Under the leadership of Driver and subsequently Tasker, the quality of William and Mary’s football teams steadily improved, and they consistently ended the season with winning records. In 1925 William and Mary won its first intercollegiate football championship with a record of 7 and 4. All four losses were to out-of-state schools. During the years of Chandler’s presidency, the men’s teams had similar successes in baseball, basketball, and track.^[32]

Unfortunately, the improved athletic performances prompted some alumni enthusiasts to demand even greater glory and to reject the eligibility restrictions imposed by the Virginia-North Carolina Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. At a meeting in July 1924, one alumni member of the Athletic Committee, Otto Lowe, an attorney from Cape Charles, Virginia, recommended that William and Mary withdraw from the conference. Lowe also complained that the College contributed nothing to the support of athletics, and he objected to the fact that the Athletic Committee was obliged to follow any regulations (such as the eligibility rules) that College authorities might make.^[33] Chandler strongly disagreed. The College did contribute financially to athletics, he replied, noting that under a policy adopted in 1922 it paid for the physical education program and maintained the athletic fields. It also paid for the coach, the players’ equipment, and their traveling expenses through the student athletic fees and guarantees on games. As for the eligibility rules, Chandler reminded Lowe that joining the conference meant that the College had accepted its rules and that it would abide by them. “Good athletics can not be maintained except by the adherence to some definite policy. … I want athletics on a high plane, which does not mean merely winning of games, but means living up to a definite policy—and that is just what we have at this time.”^[34]

One of these policies, and one that Chandler strongly supported, was that there should be no athletic scholarships. Replying to an inquiry from a New York reporter in December 1926, Chandler insisted that he was thoroughly familiar with athletic conditions at William and Mary and that the College had no athletic scholarships.^[35] This policy continued throughout his presidency^[36] Chandler also strongly endorsed the rule of the Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference that excluded freshmen from varsity teams. This rule went into effect in 1928, but shortly thereafter some members of the conference began a drive for its repeal or modification. In March 1931 the conference voted six to two over the opposition of William and Mary and Richmond, to allow members the option of using freshmen for two seasons. Chandler continued to favor the freshman rule, however, and at a meeting of the conference on November 27, 1931, he introduced a resolution to return to its strict observance at the end of the two-year optional period. Although his resolution lost five to three, Chandler had again demonstrated his commitment to fairly restrictive regulations.^[37]

Nevertheless, by the end of 1927, the men’s intercollegiate athletic program at William and Mary had expanded to the point where it had a coach for each major sport (football, basketball, and track), full-time assistant coaches in the major sports, and a full-time freshman coach. By the beginning of 1928, the College had also hired James Branch Bocock to replace Tasker as football coach and William S. Gooch to take over the new position of athletic manager. Bocock had coached at several institutions, including the University of North Carolina, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Louisiana State University, and the University of South Carolina. He retired after two years and was replaced by his former assistant, John S. Kellison. Gooch was also a well-known sports figure in Virginia, having directed athletics at St. Christopher’s School in Richmond and at Christchurch School. He remained at the College until his retirement in the late 1960s. Tasker, the former athletic director, left after coaching the 1928 baseball season.^[38]

The reorganization and strengthening of the men’s athletic program were inevitably accompanied by a steady increase in its costs. Money had to be found to pay for more and more equipment, for travel, for publicity, and for an increased staff. At the beginning of the decade, receipts were regularly less than expenditures; the rest had to be borrowed. But, as the Athletic Committee stated in the spring of 1924, the College could not “go on accumulating debts whose annual interest will presently be sufficient to finance a basketball or track season.” The committee appealed to the Board of Visitors for a $2,000 annual athletic allotment, for an increase in the student athletic fee, and for a loan from the endowment fund. To make its request more palatable, the committee optimistically asserted, in words that would become all too familiar to future generations of college students, that “our teams will become financially productive in a very few years, if support is given now.”^[39] Despite William and Mary’s successes on the playing fields, the financial problems did not disappear. In 1926 student fees were significantly increased in hopes of liquidating all outstanding indebtedness. But the costs of the program rose steadily, and by the end of the decade, it continued to be a struggle to raise enough money to balance the annual athletic budget.^[40] The expansion of the men’s athletic program added to the financial problems in another way by creating a pressing need for a new stadium. To meet this need, in December 1932 the Board of Visitors agreed with Chandler’s suggestion that the College should seek a loan of $75,000 from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.^[41] The request was rejected, however, with the result that erection of the new Cary Field Stadium had to wait until the administration of Chandler’s successor.

Diverse Challenges: Political Office and Student Unrest

The intercollegiate athletic program was a continuing concern. By comparison, some other widely reported matters were only temporary diversions in Chandler’s busy schedule. One concerned the possibility that Chandler might become a candidate for governor in the 1929 election. The story began in late November 1928 when Professor John Garland Pollard issued a statement that was published in the Flat Hat, endorsing Chandler for governor, “provided that he can be induced to run.” This announcement was picked up by a number of newspapers around the state, and for a while a small Chandler boomlet was under way. Although Chandler may not have directly encouraged this, he also did not immediately remove his name from consideration. Thus, in replying to those citizens who urged him to run for governor, he stated that he was giving the matter his “consideration.”^[42] Members of the William and Mary community had mixed feelings. Most faculty did not comment publicly, although undoubtedly a few would have welcomed his departure from Williamsburg. In contrast, the men’s student body endorsed his candidacy in a resolution which also said it would be a loss to the College if he left.^[43] James H. Dillard, the rector, believed that Chandler was probably the best man in sight for the governorship, but Dillard wanted him to remain at William and Mary and thus strongly opposed his entry into the race.^[44] Another Board member, John Stewart Bryan, agreed with Dillard. Obviously somewhat intrigued by the idea of running, Chandler also realized that before declaring his candidacy he would have to be assured of the support of many of the political leaders of the state. This he simply could not obtain. As a result, in late February he issued a statement declaring that “after careful consideration I have decided that I can not be a candidate for the Governorship Virginia.”^[45] As it turned out, it was not Chandler, but Pollard who left William and Mary for the Governor’s Mansion in Richmond.

Three years later Chandler had to confront a very different sort of problem, one involving rebellious students. It, too, attracted widespread attention, but of the sort that no president would welcome. It was an unusual challenge for one who, for nearly thirteen years, had so firmly controlled the College and whose authority had seldom been publicly questioned. The troubles began when some freshman men planned to rush into the Williamsburg Theatre on Monday, April 25, 1932. The prank was thwarted, however, thanks to a tip to Dean of Men Hodges from another student, a junior who worked as the headwaiter in the dining hall. Hodges was waiting for the students at the theatre and turned them away. On Tuesday a number of freshmen tried, but failed, to punish the informant. The next evening a near riot broke out when some 150 freshmen pursued the headwaiter through the dining hall in an attempt, again unsuccessful, to grab him and toss him into a nearby fish pond. In the course of the melee, Dean Hodges was knocked down, and his glasses were broken. Only four of those involved were caught.^[46]

On Thursday morning, April 28, the faculty Discipline Committee, headed by Chandler, suspended those four students for the remainder of the semester and ordered them to leave Williamsburg. That afternoon a hastily assembled meeting of the men students resolved that the entire men’s student body would refuse to attend classes unless the four students were allowed to remain in Williamsburg and be given a new trial. The students argued that many other freshmen had been involved in the disorders, that the four who were disciplined were not even the ringleaders, and that they were apparently being made scapegoats for the actions of others. By that time Chandler had left Williamsburg for an alumni association meeting in Philadelphia. This meant that College affairs were in the hands of Dean Hoke, a person ill suited for handling an insurrection of this sort. As Hoke refused to rescind the action of the Discipline Committee, the men students proceeded to call for a strike. Reportedly, no men students attended any classes on Thursday afternoon.^[47]

Chandler hastily returned to Williamsburg on Friday, April 29. In the afternoon he met with a student committee. “I think you are guilty of gross disrespect of authority,” he told them. The students argued that four students should not be held responsible for the actions of 150. “Bring the whole 150 here and I’ll expel them all,” Chandler replied. That evening a mass meeting was held in Blow Gymnasium. According to one observer, Chandler began by stating: “Students are people who go to class and study their assignments. You people for several days have not met that qualification.” But he then went on in a conciliatory manner and announced that the four suspended students would be allowed a new trial and that the strikers would not lose any of the five voluntary class cuts allowed them. He also said that he would confer with student representatives to discuss granting men students some say in disciplinary matters. Despite these concessions, a few students interrupted his speech with hisses and boos. But Chandler’s actions won over most of the students, who then voted to call off the strike.^[48]

On May 2 Chandler sent a letter to the parents of every male student. In it he briefly summarized the events of the previous week and insisted that the administration had not been unjust to the student body and that “this recent attempt to coerce the administration by group action is very deplorable.” He urged each parent to write to his son to ” request him to devote his entire time to the accomplishment of the purposes for which you sent him to the college and to avoid even the appearance of countenancing disorders of any kind by his fellow students”^[49] That evening the Discipline Committee reheard the case of the four students, who this time were represented by Channing M. Hall, a local attorney. A final decision was not reached until after the administration had a chance to question nearly all of the men students about their participation in the dining hall disorder.^[50] Chandler announced the outcome of these procedures on Saturday, May 14. Three of the four students were suspended, but only until May 23. The fourth student was put on probation and allowed to return to classes. In addition, forty students were placed on “strict probation without any social privileges” for the remainder of the semester. Each had to pledge his word of honor to abide by the restriction^[51]

The student strike, which drew headlines in the Virginia press, was one of the most exciting events to take place on the usually calm campus in many years. Its immediate cause could be attributed to the. high jinks that characterized student behavior from time to time. But underneath, something more serious may have been involved. For years William and Mary students had, with scant objection, accepted Chandler’s direction of all phases of college life. Privately: however, an increasing number of them had begun to tire of his autocratic leadership. The disorders and the strike that followed gave expression to some of these feelings. One of the demands of the students was that the disciplining of men, which (unlike that for women) had been handled by the president since 1924, be returned to the men’s student body. Subsequently, the men students proposed more modestly that a Discipline Council be established, composed of the president, the dean of the College, the dean of men, the registrar, and three seniors. (This was simply the existing Discipline Committee with students added.) In June the Board of Visitors appointed a committee to study the matter, but after consulting with the president, the deans, and some students, it refused to accept the students’ proposal. Instead, it recommended that the president delegate the handling of men’s disciplinary matters to a committee composed of the dean of the College, the dean of men, and two professors appointed by the president. The decisions of that committee could be appealed to the president. The Board adopted this proposal at its meeting on December 28.^[52] To this extent was Chandler’s role in men’s disciplinary matters reduced during the final year and a half of his presidency.

After a calm fall and winter, student unrest briefly flared up again in the spring of 1933 over the case of Maurice Berkwitz, a senior who was well known on campus for his able dramatic performances with the William and Mary Theatre. In early April the night watchman discovered a considerable quantity of whiskey in Berkwitz’s room. For this breach of regulations he was expelled by the Discipline Committee and ordered to leave town immediately. But he remained in Williamsburg, so the College authorities turned him over to the local police on the charge of “possession of ardent spirits.” Berkwitz was then booked and released on a $100 bond. Outraged by this treatment, some five hundred students gathered twice in mass meetings on the afternoon of April 6. At first they voted to strike, but shortly after they rescinded this and instead appointed a committee to make a formal protest to the Discipline Committee.^[53] The next day the local police court magistrate heard the case in a courtroom jammed with William and Mary students. To the surprise of College authorities, the magistrate quickly found Berkwitz not guilty. It was well known “that a large portion of our best citizens are guilty of the same crime” for which the student was charged, declared the magistrate, so the responsibility for handling such cases should be with the College. That evening a group of students talked with Chandler, who promised to review the case. But after Chandler met with the Discipline Committee later that night, it was announced that Berkwitz’s expulsion would be upheld.^[54]

Many students believed that Berkwitz had been unfairly singled out, as others guilty of similar offenses had not been punished. They were particularly angry at the College’s night watchman and asked for his resignation. Berkwitz even claimed that the watchman had offered to use his influence with the College authorities if he would turn the liquor over to him. Such protests were to no avail. After reviewing the case at a special meeting on April 13, the Board of Visitors unanimously voted to uphold Berkwitz’s expulsion. However, because of his “high scholastic record” and “his previous good conduct,” they did grant him permission to apply for reinstatement in February 1934.^[55]

Such leniency did not please Chandler. At the meeting of the Board of Visitors on June 9, 1933, he complained that when Berkwitz finally left Williamsburg, he “ran away with [and married] one of our best women students—a gentile girl from Ohio.” That being the case, Chandler asked the Board if it still intended to allow him to return in February 1934 and apply for a degree. It did not take the Board long to answer that question. Noting that the College had never permitted students to marry one another, and that it had only been willing to grant the woman in question an honorable dismissal, not the right to return for her degree, the Board reversed itself and ruled that Berkwitz too should not be allowed to complete his degree.^[56] Having been supported in his tough stance in this instance, Chandler then asked the Board to issue a definite statement of policy in regard to strikes. “My own feeling,” he said, “is that everyone who strikes automatically eliminates himself from the College, and cannot be reinstated by the President … [although] every man should be granted the right of petition and impartial hearing.” The Board agreed. Thus it resolved that “any student having any relation with a strike of students be automatically eliminated from the College.”^[57] So armed, Chandler was prepared to deal sternly with any future student uprisings.^[58]

Confronting the Depression

As it turned out, financial and accounting problems, not student behavior, were Chandler’s most troubling concerns during his last two or three years. Some of his difficulties were a product of his management style and the College’s defective accounting practices. Others, quite beyond his immediate control, were a consequence of the Great Depression. The economic collapse did not greatly affect William and Mary until the spring of 1931. It was a very different story for several years thereafter, due especially to the state’s inability to maintain an adequate level of support. On May 21, 1931, Governor Pollard warned the Board that the College must exercise “utmost economy.” The prospect for salaries was particularly bleak. ”No assurances can be given at this time for further salary increases until economic conditions have materially improved “^[59] Chandler understood this only too well. ”Financially, the College is in a terrible fix,” he told Pollard. It was not that the College had exceeded its budget; rather, William and Mary had received only about half of its estimated collections during the first four months of 1931. To meet the crisis Chandler was forced to cut expenditures where at all possible.^[60]

Nothing Chandler or Pollard was able to do could offset the continued economic downswing. But they had to react to the decline in revenues. When the governor submitted his budget for the 1932–34 biennium on January 14, 1932, he asked that it be subject to a number of qualifications in order to prevent expenditures from exceeding revenues. These included a 10 percent reduction of the salary of every state official or employee over what it had been on January 1, 1932, and specific reductions from the recommended appropriations for each state institution. For William and Mary this came to $25,000, which was about 10 percent of its state appropriation for operating expenses. In addition, Pollard recommended that the head of any state agency be made “personally liable for the full amount of … [an] unauthorized deficit.” As if this were not bad enough, he also asked that all appropriations under the budget be considered “maximum, conditional and proportionate” and that he be given authority to examine the collections during each quarter and to make such proportional reductions in appropriations as should be necessary to prevent a deficit.^[61] The General Assembly granted all of Pollard’s requests in the Appropriations Act of March 18, 1932. Section two specifically called for a 10 percent reduction in the compensation of all state employees for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1932.^[62]

In addition to the pay cuts, the College faced the loss of some faculty positions because of the economic difficulties. Unless some adjustments could be made, Chandler feared that five faculty and several members of the administrative staff would have to be dropped. Because the College was already understaffed, the loss of any faculty would have a serious impact on the educational program. In history, for example, Professor Morton warned that if Associate Professor Joseph T. Ecker, the department’s only Europeanist, were let go, it would leave only himself and Associate Professor Thomas J. Stubbs to teach five hundred or more students. Moreover, they would become responsible for classes outside their own field of study.^[63] On April 20 Chandler stated that although every full professor would be recommended for retention, he had advised several associate and assistant professors to take the precautionary step of looking for other jobs.^[64] Desperately seeking assurances that there would be no further cuts, Chandler explained to Pollard that the state’s appropriation for operating expenses for fiscal year 1932–33, plus the amount they expected to collect from students, fell nearly $300,000 short of what it took to run William and Mary during the previous year.^[65]

On June 11 Pollard announced that the 10 percent cuts authorized in the Appropriations Act would go into effect on July 1.^[66] As a result, each faculty member’s letter of reappointment for the 1932–33 session included the comment that from his or her stated base salary “there will have to be deducted ten per cent as provided by law.” Ominously, these letters also warned that, “Your appointment is made subject to a further reduction if the Governor requires it.”^[67] The latter statement was not an idle threat. In the face of a continuing decline in revenues, on December 10 Pollard ordered, under the authority granted in section thirty of the Appropriations Act, a further reduction of 10 percent in general fund appropriations beginning January 1, 1933.^[68] As this cut only applied to the second half of the 1932–33 fiscal year, it amounted to another 5 percent reduction in one’s annual salary. But it meant that the total reduction for 1932–33 compared to the previous year’s salary would come to 15 percent.

Through the remainder of the session, economic woes were a constant concern. In February 1933, a headline in the Richmond Times-Dispatch proclaimed that “W. & M. Faces ‘Huge Deficit.’” Chandler pointed out that not only had state appropriations been cut, but other revenues were off due to the inability of many students to pay their bills. Speaking at the alumni club in New York, William T. Hodges went even further and warned that “William and Mary’s very existence has been threatened.”^[69]

Worse was yet to come. On May 29, 1933, Pollard ordered yet another reduction, this time of 30 percent of all appropriations allotted for the three months from July 1 to September 30. This would inevitably have an effect upon salaries, and he requested that an additional 5 percent be cut from all salaries over $1,350, bringing the total reduction from the 1931–32 base to 20 percent.^[70] Unfortunately, such cuts in salary were still not enough to solve the College’s financial crisis. On June 9, 1933, Chandler told the Board of Visitors that he was “unable to balance the budget,” so he had been forced to seek permission from the governor for William and Mary to borrow $40,000 to meet its 1932–33 obligations. This was granted. But it was obviously only a temporary stopgap, for Pollard approved the request with the condition that the money be repaid out of the appropriation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1933.^[71]

This meant that even more had to be done to keep the College within its budget. On June 22 Chandler told the executive committee of the Board that “it would be necessary to dispense with the services of certain members of the faculty unless a further reduction was made effective.” To make matters worse, he also expected enrollment to decline. Dillard argued that it would be better to cut salaries again rather than let anyone go.^[72] Two days later Chandler presented this stark option to the faculty: either some would have to be dismissed, or they could all accept another 5 percent salary cut beginning July 1. (This would mean a total reduction of 25 percent from the 1931–32 base salaries.) After much discussion, Professor Anthony P. Wagener presented the following resolution: “It is the sense of the faculty that the present faculty should be kept intact in so far as the coming year is concerned and that the faculty will support The Board of Visitors and the President in the salary reduction necessary to bring that about.” The resolution passed without a dissenting vote.^[73] In a time of crisis, the William and Mary faculty had demonstrated an impressive sense of corporate identity.

The members of the faculty all retained their positions, but, just as they had been warned, their letters of reappointment for the 1933–34 session stated that their base salaries would be reduced by 25 percent. Moreover, in those letters Chandler noted the possibility that there could be still another reduction, although he indicated that this was unlikely to happen “unless the enrollment is very small.” Then he added the following inducement: “If every faculty member would be responsible for the enrollment of ten new students, I could increase salaries, rather than decrease them.”^[74] Unfortunately, this was something the faculty was simply not able to do. During the 1933–34 session, there were 333 fewer students enrolled than the previous year, a drop of nearly 21 percent (and 25 percent off the peak enrollment of 1,682 in 1931–32). The decline continued through the session of 1935–36, but at a much slower pace.

The summer of 1933 marked the low point in the budget crisis. Virginians had accepted the first cuts that Pollard demanded fairly calmly, but many strongly criticized his requests in the spring of 1933. In an address to an extra session of the General Assembly on August 17, Pollard acknowledged that the reductions had reached their limits. Institutions could not further reduce their expenditures and continue their essential activities. Pollard took the position that section thirty of the Appropriations Act required him to make cuts, without limit, in order to prevent a deficit, and that unless the law was changed, he would have to order additional reductions beginning October 1. To forestall this he proposed changes in the law that would prohibit the governor from ordering reductions that amounted to more than 30 percent of the original appropriation.^[75] The General Assembly agreed and shortly after amended the act along these lines.^[76] This action ended the immediate threat of further cuts during 1933–34 fiscal year. But the restoration of appropriations to their predepression levels was another matter, for that was unlikely to happen without a significant improvement of the state’s economic situation. As it turned out, William and Mary had to wait until 1942–43 before it received an appropriation from the general fund for maintenance and operation that was equal to, or greater than, what it had been at the beginning of the 1930s.^[77]

Despite tight budgets Chandler was anxious to restore faculty salaries to their predepression levels. Acting on his recommendation, the Board of Visitors adopted a resolution at its meeting on December 28, 1933, authorizing the restoration of 5 percent of the salaries as of February 1, 1934, “if funds are available.”^[78] That happy time was delayed until June 1934. By then the Board concluded that it would end the year with an operating surplus, so it authorized the restoration of the 5 percent retroactive from July 1, 1933. In addition, the Board hoped to restore another 10 percent for the 1934–35 session if funds were available. This was subsequently achieved. (The last 10 percent was finally restored in 1936–37^[79] The corner had been turned, although full economic recovery was still several years in the future. By that time Chandler was dead. He lived just long enough to see the promise of recovery, but not its fulfillment.

The Downs Report

The economic collapse added greatly to Chandler’s burdens during his last three years, but it was not his only trouble relating to fiscal matters. His other problems were a result of accounting and managerial practices that dated back to his early years as president. Committed from the start to the expansion of William and Mary in many areas—enrollments, programs, buildings—he was willing to move ahead of resources in hopes that funds would eventually be found to cover his expenses. To a considerable degree he succeeded, but his bullish approach conflicted with the budgetary conservatism characteristic of Virginia officials. As early as April 1923, J. H. Bradford, then a statistician in the office of the Director of Budget of the Commonwealth of Virginia, chided the College for ending the fiscal year with a net deficit of $68,851 and a total indebtedness of $96,717, most of it in the form of bank loans. (This did not include the even larger debt owed on improvements and additions to the physical plant.)^[80] Much of this deficit was the result of the increase in faculty, who had been hired because of the higher enrollments. To cover some of this the College hoped to obtain a grant of $40,000 from the General Education Board, but, Bradford noted, “beyond this there appear to be no definite plans for handling the deficit.” This was hardly satisfactory. He concluded with the recommendation “that the officials at William and Mary should be instructed to take such measures as are necessary to bring its expenditures within its income.”^[81] Governor Trinkle agreed. “I believe that the situation demands careful attention,” he wrote to Mrs. Munford, then a member of the Board of Visitors. “I trust that you will study this memorandum carefully and lend your personal assistance in getting the affairs of the College on a more satisfactory financial basis.”^[82]

That was not an easy task, given William and Mary’s commitment to expansion and the small amount of money for operating expenses that the endowment campaign was able to secure. The College continued to run up deficits and borrow from banks to meet its current expenses. Dillard asked the governor for patience and understanding. “We are doing the best we can down at William and Mary under serious handicaps,” he wrote to Trinkle in March 1925. “Naturally the difficulties must be great when an institution jumps within a few years from 150 students to over 900. But William and Mary is doing such an invaluable service in its close connection with the public schools of the state that I cannot keep from having faith in its future.”^[83]

In September 1926 J. H. Bradford, now director of the budget, sent a letter to Chandler admonishing him for again running up a deficit. As Bradford saw it, the problem was similar to what he had warned of in his 1923 memorandum. The College’s expenditures had increased during the first six months of the fiscal year that began on March 1, while its revenues had actually decreased. “With the large indebtedness already carried at your institution and with additional obligations now being incurred,” he cautioned, “it would seem to be of the utmost importance that you not only keep your expenditures for support within your Budget allowance, but that you accumulate some margin from your support fund to apply to your indebtedness.”^[84] Again, this was not simply accomplished. Chandler would no doubt have preferred to operate within a balanced, but ample, budget. Lacking that, however, he was not prepared to abandon his goals. As he explained in his annual report in June 1927, “Education is an expensive thing and modern civilization has made it more expensive. We cannot turn back. We cannot impede progress. We must give what other institutions in Virginia and the country are giving—things that are no longer luxuries but are prime necessities.”^[85]

Still, Chandler was accountable to the state, and in 1927 the frugal fiscal conservative Harry F. Byrd was governor. Also relevant was the fact that on January 1, 1927, the New York Bureau of Municipal Research had submitted a report (the Reed Report) recommending complete reorganization of the state government of Virginia. Such reforms, it argued, would promote efficiency and save money. Although the report did not single out William and Mary, or any other college, it did condemn the inadequacy of the accounting systems in the state’s educational institutions and their recurrent annual deficits.^[86] Referring to the Reed Report, Byrd told Chandler that “when the budget estimates for your institution are submitted for my consideration, I look forward to finding that you have made every possible reduction both in personnel and other expenses of your institution suggested by the survey report.”^[87] Chandler replied: “I shall do everything I can to keep our budget down to the very last notch. … I appreciate the difficulties which you have in the administration of the State Government and wish to assure you of my desire to cooperate fully.”^[88] He could hardly have done otherwise. By that time, however, Chandler was well known in Richmond as one quite willing to exceed the College’s budgetary limits. Determined to expand William and Mary, he felt compelled to use means that inevitably conflicted with the methods and values of the state’s conservative politicians and administrators.

In response to the Reed Report, the General Assembly met in an extra session in 1927 and passed a Reorganization Act that implemented many of its recommendations. Included in this act (and some amendments to it in 1928) was a major overhaul of the state’s finance and accounting practices. Thereafter, the finances of colleges and other state institutions were to be subject to much stricter state control.^[89] In 1928 William and Mary responded to these changes by requesting that the state audit its accounts and help it install a new accounting system. As it happened, the state was not able to undertake such a project at that time. But it was this request that eventually led to the controversial report that clouded Chandler’s final days.

Thus, a few years later, L. McCarthy Downs, the auditor of public accounts, and his staff conducted a detailed examination of William and Mary’s accounts and records for the fiscal years July 1, 1931, through June 30, 1933. His report, submitted on February 26, 1934, came to some damning conclusions about the College’s accounting practices. Included among these were the following observations:

While this department does not of course, undertake to comment as to the educational policy of the College, we do feel that the present financial condition of the College indicates that expansion in recent years has been too rapid in proportion to its financial strength, and we believe a policy of retrenchment advisable. …

From the results of our investigation it is also evident that the guiding spirit of the College has been the president, who, in his zeal to transform an institution of enviable historic background, small student body, and poorly equipped physical properties into an institution of the present size and physical equipment, has in some instances disregarded the statutes relating to the control of the Commonwealth over the financial affairs of the College. Nothing that we shall say in this report should be construed as disparagement of the ability and integrity of the president. We shall point out, however, those practices which have been inconsistent with the statutes and good financial management. …

Our first procedure was the establishment of balances in the various funds at July 1, 1931. The accounting records of the College should have enabled us to obtain this information easily but instead it became a most difficult and unsatisfactory undertaking. … Our examination disclosed the fact that prior to the Reorganization Act, March 1, 1928, there were no intelligent accounting records at the College. …^[90]

Although William and Mary had incurred deficits in previous years, the report noted that it was able to live within its revenue for the year ending June 30, 1933, and even to reduce its indebtedness somewhat. But the auditors found much to criticize as a result of a detailed examination of each account and concluded that the College owed the state $87,376.97.^[91] Some of their harshest words were reserved for the way William and Mary handled its endowments. It was “one of our most difficult tasks” just to ascertain the amount of the endowment “because of the absence of definite records on the subject.” They were particularly displeased with the fact that endowment investments had been used to secure loans for building, and that, with the exception of two trust accounts, all the endowment funds received after 1919 had in effect been invested in real estate.^[92] They also disapproved of the management of accounts in the Norfolk Division, where, among other things, they alleged that some endowment funds had been used for operating purposes, instead of being credited to endowment fund accounts. The auditors claimed that the College had erred in several other instances, such as mishandling student loans (by not remitting student payments under them to the state treasurer and by making loans from state funds to students who were not Virginia residents) and improperly administering athletic funds, including the making of questionable loans to some athletes.^[93]

The report concluded with two recommendations. One was to have the business managers of state institutions be placed under the supervision of the state comptroller in addition to the heads of the institutions. The other was to make the state treasurer the custodian of all endowment and donation funds of state institutions.^[94]

The publication of the Downs Report created a considerable flurry throughout the state and stunned many at William and Mary. Chandler’s defenders were quick to point out that there was not the slightest indication in the report of wrongdoing, only the technical violation of “some minor State regulations.” “The report is full of mole hills that will undoubtedly be magnified into mountains,” asserted the Alumni Gazette. Chandler may have occasionally spent some funds “for ‘this’ instead of ‘that’ … [but] the auditor was able to account for every single cent of nearly $2,000,000 disbursed at the College during the period which he audited.”^[95]

Chandler’s illness and death on May 31, 1934, prevented him from responding personally to the report. Instead, on June 8 the Board of Visitors appointed a committee of three (George Walter Mapp, John Stewart Bryan, and Charles J. Duke, Jr.) to consider it and act for the Board.^[96] Although they felt that “many of the comments contained therein were petty and unworthy of comment,” the committee members tried to be upbeat and took the approach that on the whole the report was useful. They readily acknowledged the need for the new accounting procedures that Downs had prepared for the College, and they agreed that new policies were needed in handling the athletic fees and the endowment.^[97] Their twenty-page response also dealt effectively with some of the criticisms. For example, they pointed out that the report separated endowment from building funds, whereas William and Mary had not made such a distinction in the moneys it had raised. Moreover, many of the funds were given explicitly for buildings. In some cases where endowment funds were temporarily used to improve the physical plant, this had been done with permission of the donors, provided the money was returned intact to the endowment. The committee specifically defended the investment of endowment funds in real estate as “a wise course to follow,” at least in this instance, for it had made possible the improvement of William and Mary’s physical plant.^[98] As for the $87,376.97 allegedly owed to the state, they showed convincingly that the auditors had misinterpreted several of the accounts, and that at most the amount owed was $24,114.92.^[99] They also corrected the report in a number of specific details, showing, for example, that all but one of the alleged out-of-state students receiving state loans were in fact Virginia residents.^[100] As for the report’s two recommendations, the committee had no objection to the first, which, they noted, had in effect been the practice since the Reorganization Act of 1927–28. But they strongly objected to entrusting all endowment funds to the state treasurer. Such a policy, they warned, “would in effect destroy private gifts for public institutions.”^[101]

The most important practical consequence of the Downs Report was the introduction of new accounting procedures at William and Mary in the summer of 1934. All concerned agreed that they were a needed improvement. Indeed, in December 1934, Charles J. Duke, Jr., the new bursar at the College, wrote to Downs “to express our complete satisfaction with the results.”^[102] His feelings were certainly understandable. After a follow-up audit of the College’s accounts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, Downs had reported that the College was administering its financial affairs according to law and that it was making every effort to correct the conditions noted in the report. Recognizing this, and the fact that the state did in fact receive the benefit of all the funds that had allegedly been diverted, Downs had recommended, and Governor George C. Peery agreed, that the $87,376.97 “be charged off.”^[103] In the fall of 1935, Downs reported that “the records of the College are in excellent order. Those in charge of the financial affairs of the College should be commended for capable and efficient management.”^[104] Within a short period of time and under a new administration, the accounting and financial practices at William and Mary had been substantially reformed.

The Battle Ends

Chandler did not live to see this happen. Seriously ill at the time, he was undoubtedly upset by the Downs Report. Indeed, some of his associates believed that it hastened his death.^[105] Questions about Chandler’s health were first raised at least as early as 1928. “I am convinced that unless he does take a rest,” W. A. R. Goodwin wrote to Governor Byrd, “he will probably completely break down before or during the next session. He is too valuable a man to lose, and we certainly will lose him if he continues without rest to carry his present burden of work.”^[106] But Chandler continued his hectic pace, at least until the summer of 1932 when he was twice hospitalized following attacks of dizziness.^[107] During the summer of 1933, he was again hospitalized, and for a while Dean Hoke assumed Chandler’s administrative duties. Chandler resumed work in the fall of 1933, but his health continued to deteriorate. In January 1934 the Board of Visitors granted him a four-month leave and made Hoke acting president.^[108]

In retrospect, it is obvious that Chandler was seriously ill for several years, during a period that included the crisis of the Great Depression and culminated with the publication of the Downs Report. By 1934 he was in no condition to deal with the College’s problems. During that winter and spring of 1934, Chandler was hospitalized first in Richmond and later in Norfolk. In April he went to Virginia Beach for what he hoped would be a two-month period of rest and recuperation, but he was soon forced to return to the hospital in Norfolk. While there he suffered a heart attack which was complicated by kidney problems. Kathleen Alsop reported to Dillard on April 27 that his doctor then believed that there was “very little hope for Dr. Chandler.”^[109] Chandler lingered on for another month and died on Thursday, May 31. Funeral services were held in the Wren Chapel two days later.^[110]

During the spring of 1934, the alumni association planned a celebration, to be held on June 9, to honor Chandler on his fifteenth anniversary as president of William and Mary. Thus, even before his death there was an outpouring of what at times was effusive praise from his admirers and there were many—for his contributions to the College. “The coming of Dr. J. A. C. Chandler to William and Mary in 1919 was truly providential,” declared the Alumni Gazette. “He assumed his task with a clear cut vision of what was needed and he had the ability to carry out his plans. Verily, he made bricks without straw. … Dr. Chandler’s administration has been outstanding in the history of higher education in America.”^[111] The Flat Hat called on all students to be present at the celebration in order to pay “tribute to the man who has done more for the College of William and Mary than any other man living or dead.”^[112] The editorial in the May issue of the Virginia Journal of Education praised his “outstanding accomplishments,” ones that made him and “the old College of William and Mary really a national asset.”^[113] Other words of praise can be found in the numerous letters, written by Chandler’s friends and associates at the request of Charles A. Taylor, Jr., secretary of the alumni association, for inclusion in an album which was to have been presented to Chandler at the ceremony on June 9. John Garland Pollard recalled how delighted he had been when he learned that Chandler had been named president of William and Mary, adding: “My hopes have been more than realized.”^[114]

After Chandler’s death more tributes of a similar nature poured forth. A resolution passed by the Board of Visitors praised his commitment to the College, his energy, and his accomplishments: “Out of the seemingly inexhaustible resources of his energy, courage and imagination, a magnificent school of learning was resurrected and enshrined.”^[115] The Alumni Gazette concluded that “to those who knew and loved him his memory will always be an inspiration. His name will be linked forever with the great of his Alma Mater.”^[116]

In the emotional aftermath of his death, such words of praise were understandable, perhaps to be expected, but they were by no means a complete or final evaluation. All agreed that Chandler had been a man of remarkable energy and determination, and that under his leadership William and Mary had been radically transformed. Indeed, the most obvious and common assessment was to point to the huge increase in the size of the student body, the expansion of the faculty, and the many new (or restored) buildings.^[117] But others emphasized a different side of Chandler and argued that his achievements had to be weighed against his faults. Many members of the faculty believed that Chandler had stifled their opinions and initiative, and they resented the fact that his leadership allowed them no influence in determining policies. Donald W. Davis concluded that “our college government has illustrated almost perfectly the ‘Fuehrerprinzip.'”^[118] Some of the faculty who served under him remembered him as “an autocratic president,” “aloof and authoritarian,” or “a dictator.”^[119] The “atmosphere was frequently tense,” and even his supporters acknowledged that Chandler “was not generally liked by faculty members.”^[120] A former student described him as “inflexible and rigid,” and added: “We were afraid of him.”^[121]

Such feelings related to and perhaps resulted from Chandler’s almost compulsive need to be aware of, and to the extent possible to control, all aspects of college life. He “knew just about everything that went on on this campus. If a windowpane was broken in a residence hall he learned about it.”^[122] Chandler had his table in the dining hall placed in front of the doors leading to the kitchen “so he could not only hear what was going on in the kitchen, but he could survey everybody that was eating there.”^[123] Another former student noted that “Chandler had to mix into everything, and he wasted his time on such petty things.”^[124] Both students and faculty agreed that he was a harsh disciplinarian and frequently quick to anger. But if many regarded him as a “tyrant,” a number of students saw him as at least a benevolent one. They believed that he was interested in all of the students and would help any who were willing to work and maintain a decent academic record.^[125]

Chandler clearly elicited strong feelings. He was controversial during his presidency and has remained so in retrospect. Still, one cannot deny his very real achievements and the transformation of William and Mary that came about during his tenure. How this is weighed against the negative aspects is another matter. The Board of Visitors, which during his years agreed with his approach and gave him pretty much of a free hand, was unstinting in its praise. Most outsiders, seeing the dramatic physical changes, were likely to come to favorable conclusions. For students, the picture was less clear. They may have respected Chandler, but they also feared him, and many sorely tired of his harsh and rigid discipline. Some of the strict conditions could be passed off as ones common to that time. But not all. Later generations of students would surely find such a regime intolerable. Faculty, then and later, were more likely to emphasize his apparently arbitrary exercise of power and the fear and distrust that it generated. It is difficult to maintain that this style of leadership was necessary for the achievement of most of Chandler’s expansionist goals. Such methods were certainly incompatible with the spirit of free inquiry that was essential if William and Mary was to become not just a bigger institution, but a place of higher education. For this, if for no other reason, Chandler left an ambiguous legacy.