In the spring of 1934, William and Mary stood at a turning point. Even before Chandler’s death, it was obvious that the agenda for the remainder of the 1930s was going to be very different from what it had been during the previous fifteen years. With Chandler’s building goals largely realized, further development of the physical plant was no longer a high priority. In any event, the continuing economic woes made expansion, either of the buildings and grounds or of the size of the student body, virtually impossible. As the Downs Report suggested, a period of retrenchment was now desirable. Chandler had himself indicated that the time had come to concentrate on the improvement of the academic quality of the student body by a selective admissions process. With his death came an even greater sense that William and Mary would have to choose between significantly different conceptions of its place in the state’s educational system. That feeling was clearly present in the discussions over the selection of Chandler’s successor.

Selecting the President

The process began during the spring of 1934, as the gravity of Chandler’s illness became apparent. Noting the “imminent prospect of losing Dr. Chandler’s invaluable guidance,” on May 23, 1934, John Stewart Bryan, the vice-rector of the Board of Visitors, suggested that the members must begin to take more active control of the College’s policies in the light of what they considered to be its purposes. As he put it: “Now, the aims between which William and Mary must choose are the ideal of a college of liberal arts, or the ideal of a college which has as its main purpose the development of public school teachers.”^[1] Bryan obviously favored the former. His concern arose because of the support that had already emerged for Sidney B. Hall, the state superintendent of public instruction, to be Chandler’s successor. So much headway had the pro-Hall campaign made that immediately after Chandler’s death on May 31, newspapers reported that “informed circles” regarded his appointment “as virtually certain.” A few days later some other names were also mentioned, but Hall continued to be regarded as the likely choice. By June 4 the rector, James H. Dillard, had received more endorsements for Hall than for any other candidate.^[2]

A 1916 graduate of William and Mary, Hall had earned a master of arts degree from the University of Virginia and a doctorate in Education from Harvard. He had spent his entire career in secondary education—as a teacher, school principal, state supervisor of secondary education, and professor of secondary education at Peabody College in Nashville—before being appointed superintendent in 1930. As such he was an ex officio member of the Board of Visitors.^[3] Those who believed that William and Mary should become a quality liberal arts institution were deeply alarmed by the possibility of Hall’s selection as president. Leading the opposition was former governor Pollard, who turned to John Stewart Bryan as the best person to head William and Mary. “The college is at the parting of the ways, and its future course is about to be decided,” he wrote to Bryan. “From what I have learned there is a real danger of the election to the Presidency of a man who, in the minds of the public, will stamp the institution as another ‘Normal School.’ In my opinion you can avert this calamity and are probably the only man who can do it.” Pollard sent similar letters at the same time to Dillard and to Governor Peery. Dillard agreed, and he was joined by fellow Board members Gabriella Page and Charles J. Duke, Jr., in urging Bryan to take the presidency.^[4]

Many others also believed that this was a critical moment for William and Mary. The future they envisioned for the College was significantly different from that apparently embraced by Hall. The Williamsburg chapter of the Society of the Alumni stated that the College was “at the threshold of a new era in her long and glorious life,” and urged the Board to choose a president who would direct it “toward a future as a liberal arts college of such high standards” that it “will equal the best days of the old College in the character and achievements of her sons.”^[5] Similarly, the alumni of William and Mary in Richmond passed a resolution supporting the development of the College as a liberal arts institution and requesting “that any emphasis that its curriculum now places upon teacher-training be forthwith removed.” They did not endorse any specific candidate for president, but they suggested that he not be over fifty-five years of age.^[6] In a letter addressed to the Board of Visitors on June 8, W. A. R. Goodwin argued that “ample provision exists within and without the State for Teacher-Training.” As he saw it, William and Mary was in a position “to perform a mission above and beyond the ordinary College,” to provide a place where youth can liberate their minds through “liberal and cultural education” and “create a new sense of values.” Goodwin also hoped that it would be possible for William and Mary to become an independent institution, free from state control.^[7]

Goodwin’s support for independence lent credence to what by then had become a widely circulated rumor that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was going to bestow a large endowment on William and Mary. In fact, as he told Bryan on June 23, Rockefeller had no such intention, although he did look sympathetically on the separation of the College from state control.^[8] But the rumor persisted. A few suspicious individuals even believed that there was a conspiracy to get money from Rockefeller, in exchange for letting him dictate the selection of the president, with the result that William and Mary would become “Yankeeized.” “It would be little less than treason to separate William and Mary from the Commonwealth,” wrote one such opponent of independence.^[9] Former president Tyler, ever alert to the threat of a Northern invasion, shared some of these same fears.^[10] Significantly, Hall aligned himself squarely with the opponents of independence. Writing to Tyler, he expressed his belief that William and Mary should “remain a Virginia college, and that it should be conducted by individuals who know and love Virginia traditions. I fear, if we sell out to some people, that we will lose this very atmosphere.”^[11]

Thus the issue was joined between those backing Hall, who presumably would build on William and Mary’s recent past as a teacher-training and service institution, and those who saw the possibility of it becoming a quality liberal arts college. By mid-June Pollard was worried that “the high-powered campaign” for Hall had won over as many as seven members of the Board, but he believed that Bryan was the one person who could still “save the day.” As he told Dillard, they must convince Bryan “that it is his patriotic duty to accept the post.” Pollard and Dillard believed that a number of Board members, who otherwise supported Hall, would back Bryan should he consent to be a candidate.^[12] At first Bryan would not consider the idea, and for good reasons: he would be sixty-three years old in October; he had a newspaper to run; his family was against it.^[13] But Pollard, Governor Peery, Goodwin, Rockefeller, and others continued to urge him to accept the presidency. Pollard thought that the best hope to change his mind lay with Admiral Cary T. Grayson, a man who wanted to make William and Mary “the Dartmouth of the South” and who shared Pollard’s vision of the College’s future. Grayson also favored Bryan for the presidency, even if he would only agree to serve for two years. At Pollard’s request Grayson talked to Bryan in Washington on June 27. The tactic worked. Bryan finally consented to accept the position should it be offered to him. Three days later, on June 30, the Board of Visitors unanimously elected him the nineteenth president of William and Mary.^[14]

In many ways Bryan’s background made him an unlikely candidate to be a college president. Born on October 23, 1871, at Brook Hill, the family estate in Henrico County, Bryan was educated at the Norwood School in Richmond and the Episcopal High School in Alexandria. He later lived at Laburnum, the Bryan estate in Richmond. His father, Joseph Bryan, was a successful lawyer and businessman, who in 1887 became owner of the Richmond Times and in 1896 of the Leader. The young Bryan graduated from the University of Virginia in 1893 and from Harvard Law School in 1897. He practiced law for a short while in New York and Richmond, but in 1900 dropped that for work on his father’s newspapers, which went through a number of changes. Joseph Bryan died in 1908. Shortly before, John Stewart Bryan had become the president of the company, which, until 1914, included both the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Richmond News Leader. In 1915 Bryan selected Douglas Southall Freeman to edit the News Leader, which became an important voice in Virginia public life. Active in community affairs, Bryan served not only on William and Mary’s Board of Visitors, but, among others, on the board of the Richmond Public Library and the Virginia Historical Society. He had been a delegate at a number of Democratic national conventions, and from 1926 to 1928 was president of the American Newspaper Publishers Association.^[15] Bryan’s experience was in neither the classroom nor educational administration, but his work on the Board of Visitors had made him well acquainted with William and Mary’s needs. Praising his selection, the Alumni Gazette welcomed him as a “cultured Virginia gentleman with a vision that extends far beyond the confines of his native state.”^[16]

Despite his earlier misgivings, Bryan had good reasons to accept the presidency. A member of the Board of Visitors since 1926, he was acutely conscious of the College’s history, attached to its buildings, and sympathetic to those who wished to move away from teacher training and develop it as a liberal arts institution. Initially, he seems to have regarded his appointment as merely an interim one, pending the election of an acceptable younger man. He also told the Board: “I cannot sever all connections with my private affairs, nor attempt to handle the daily administration of the College. That I will leave to the Deans and to the fiscal officers.”^[17] The Board understood and accepted these conditions. This meant, however, that Bryan’s approach to the presidency was obviously going to be a very different one from that of his predecessor.

A Change in Atmosphere

For years Chandler had nearly worked himself to death in his effort to be in control of virtually all aspects of the College. Bryan had no intention of emulating that example. As he was willing to delegate responsibilities to a far greater extent, he relied much more on assistants and deans. Selecting such officers became one of his first concerns. He had a number of misgivings about retaining Hoke as dean of the College and initially considered replacing him with a younger, more aggressive person, one who was distinctly in the liberal arts. Finally, Bryan decided to “give him a year’s workout.” Although his doubts were not completely resolved, he allowed Hoke to continue as dean of the College until 1938. At that time Bryan replaced Hoke with James W. Miller, a professor of philosophy who was given the title dean of the faculty. The old title, dean of the College, was discontinued, at least for the time being. Miller, who had come to William and Mary in 1935, was a University of Michigan graduate with a doctorate from Harvard. Hoke remained dean of the School of Education and dean of the summer session.^[18]

In contrast, Bryan did not hesitate to act quickly to remove Bessie P. Taylor, the strict social director of women, and replace her with a younger, more receptive person. In August 1934 he brought in Marguerite Wynne-Roberts, not as social director, but as an assistant dean of women. At about the same time, he also appointed J. Wilfred Lambert as dean of freshmen. It was the first of several administrative positions that Lambert eventually filled in a long career at William and Mary. Four years later he became dean of men, and John Evans Hocutt, an instructor in chemistry, was appointed to a newly created position, the assistant dean of men.^[19]

The most significant of Bryan’s administrative appointments was that of Charles J. (“Charlie”) Duke, Jr., as assistant to the president and bursar. A nephew of President Chandler, Duke had served with Bryan on the Board of Visitors since 1926, and the two had become close friends. Duke’s father, a William and Mary graduate, class of 1893, had for a long time been the treasurer and a powerful political figure in Norfolk County. The younger Duke was born in Churchland on December 8, 1898. He began college at Wake Forest, but after service in the army during World War I, he resumed his education at William and Mary, from which he was graduated in 1923. An insurance man by profession, Duke acquired his father’s interest in politics and the art of power brokering. A friend of Harry F. Byrd, he was on good terms with many members of the General Assembly and knowledgeable in the intricacies of Virginia politics. Bryan relied very heavily on Duke, far more than his job title might indicate. Duke soon came to play an important role in the running of William and Mary—too important, some believed. But all agreed that he was a loyal assistant, well versed in the business side of the College, and a man who knew how to get things done.^[20]

When he assumed office in 1934, Bryan believed that the most pressing need at William and Mary was to improve the morale of both students and faculty, which he concluded was “dispirited and bad.” He thought that students should be given more responsibility, but that “the rough and intractable element from out of state,” the ones who had caused so much trouble during Chandler’s later years, had to be eliminated. As for the faculty, he noted that they were overworked, that their salaries had been cut, and that they felt insecure. They had been “deprived not only of power, but of every semblance of power.” Thus, the first thing Bryan did “was to try to reestablish confidence and hope.”^[21]

However intended, Bryan’s assessment amounted to an indictment of Chandler’s leadership. Not surprisingly, the faculty welcomed the change. “You ought to see now how happy the members of the faculty are already under the New Deal,” Professor Morton wrote to Pollard in early July 1934. “Even if the new president does not succeed in striking wealth and in making all our dreams come true, the change in administration will mean a revolution in the history of the College.”^[22] Many others were similarly impressed by the changed atmosphere. As J. Wilfred Lambert later recalled, “the improvement in morale was immediate and widespread.”^[23] Much of the change was due to Bryan’s style and personality. He brought to William and Mary something that it did not have before—a “sociability,” a “friendliness” in daily encounters.^[24] In contrast to Chandler’s grim, overworked routine, Bryan had a more relaxed style that tended to restrict business to office hours.^[25] To Vernon L. Nunn, the auditor, Bryan was “one of the most pleasant and in a sense, remarkable individuals” he had known, one who liked being with students.^[26] Both faculty and students welcomed the new openness, the receptivity to their ideas, that was lacking under Chandler. Most of the faculty also approved of his professed intention to move away from teacher training and professional and technical programs in favor of the liberal arts. Later, some people would criticize Bryan for being a part-time president, one who spent too much time on his newspaper in Richmond and allegedly neglected the College. All agreed, however, that within a short time, the atmosphere at William and Mary had changed remarkably under Bryan and that life there had become much more enjoyable.

In contrast to Chandler, Bryan loved to entertain, and he welcomed the opportunity for gala occasions. On Saturday, September 15, 1934, the day after classes began, he invited the entire faculty and their spouses for a party at Laburnum, his estate in Richmond. It was the first of many such events.^[27] But they were not just for faculty. As John Hocutt later observed, Bryan “had a great flair; he was equally at home with royalty and with students from very humble circumstances.” He was also the first president to have student aides, whom he selected personally.^[28] In addition, Bryan was “singularly well schooled in making convocations, anniversaries and academic feast days notable.”^[29] In fact, it was Bryan who was responsible for beginning the annual celebration of Charter Day. The first, which was called Founders’ Day, was held on February 8, 1937. It illustrated the typical Bryan flair for the dramatic. It began with an academic procession, with the faculty in full regalia, walking from Jefferson dormitory to Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall, where they were greeted by trumpeters standing on the steps of the building. Inside, Bryan, the master, sat on the stage flanked by six professors. Professor Miller read excerpts from the charter, the choir sang “God Save the King,” and Wesley Frank Craven, a visiting professor of history from New York University, delivered the principal address.^[30]

Bryan’s first opportunity for a special celebration came with his inauguration on October 20, 1934. This one was particularly noteworthy because it was held in conjunction with the formal opening of the restored Duke of Gloucester Street. President Franklin D. Roosevelt came to Williamsburg to participate in both events and to receive an honorary doctor of laws degree from the College. It was a spectacular occasion that focused more attention on Williamsburg and on William and Mary than either had ever enjoyed in modern times.^[31] Inevitably, the speakers related the eighteenth century glories of the city and the College to the needs and promises of the present. As Bryan stated in his inaugural address, the “fundamental creed of William and Mary is that of the scholar in politics. … With all my heart I believe that the blood and background that transformed this nation in 1776 are still present and potent here, and need only the liberating touch of leadership to be set free once more for the nation’s welfare.”^[32]

However interesting, the formal inauguration ceremonies were necessarily one of a kind. The festive events that most typified Bryan’s presidency, his annual Christmas parties, were of a very different order. William and Mary had never seen anything quite like them; nor have they been repeated in the years since Bryan. The first was held in 1934 and well illustrated Bryan’s love of pageantry. The festivities actually began a week before, when decorative lights were turned on at the Wren, the Brafferton, and the President’s House. The party itself got under way at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, when freshmen, assuming the role of serfs, carried the Yule log into the Great Hall of the Wren Building, while a crowd of more than one thousand students and faculty gathered at the entrance. They were greeted by Bryan, who was clothed in the costume of a lord of the manor and attended by costumed lords and ladies. The students and faculty filed through the Great Hall, where each was given a tin horn or other noisemaker for later use. Upon leaving the building, each person picked up a lighted torch and then joined a procession that encircled the Wren Building. Costumed students, carrying a boar’s head on a wooden platter, then led the group into Trinkle Hall for a festival dinner. After this, there was a dance that lasted until midnight. In one nice final touch, Bryan got an ovation when he told the students that they need not attend class the next day. In the words of the Alumni Gazette, it was the “greatest Xmas party since colonial days.”^[33]

Subsequent parties were even more elaborate. Each began with the Yule log ceremony, but beginning in 1935 faculty members attending the ball dressed in eighteenth century costumes which were rented for the occasion. Students either wore costumes or made their own fancy dress. These balls were held in Phi Beta Kappa Hall, which was decorated with holly and pine boughs and lit by hundreds of candles. Before the dancing began, various student groups put on skits for entertainment. Charlie Duke acted as chamberlain for Bryan, the lord of the manor, who with his entourage presided over the festivities from a place on the stage. The celebrations lasted until two or later in the morning.^[34] By the latter part of the decade, some feared that these parties, or at least student behavior at them, had gotten out of hand. Before the 1939 party, a writer in the Flat Hat urged his fellow students to show more control. “Unfortunately,” he wrote, “we students in the past few years have turned the party into a combined Mardi Gras, Beaux Arts Ball with a minor riot thrown in for good measure.”^[35] Afterwards, the Flat Hat reported the 1939 Christmas party to have been a great success.^[36] It was also the last, because of the war.

The Christmas parties were the most colorful and distinctive social events of the Bryan years. But Bryan changed the atmosphere in other ways that, compared to Chandler, reflected his more diverse and sophisticated cultural interests. For example, at the faculty meeting on October 29, 1934, Bryan announced that he had arranged to have the Richmond Symphony Orchestra give a concert in Phi Beta Kappa Hall on November 13. He also stated that he wanted to enrich the intellectual environment by bringing outstanding lecturers to the College.^[37] During the spring semester in 1935, Bryan arranged for a series of Sunday afternoon musicals with performances by a number of artists. Other events of note during Bryan’s first year included lectures given by such prominent figures as Gertrude Stein, Douglas S. Freeman, and Julian Huxley.^[38] In subsequent years the Richmond Symphony and other classical ensembles or artists continued to perform at William and Mary from time to time. Suggestive also of the somewhat more enlightened atmosphere, and of Bryan’s interest in the graphic arts, was the awarding of an honorary degree in 1938 to Georgia O’Keeffe, the painter and former Williamsburg resident. So too was his enthusiastic support for the development of a fine arts department at the College. William and Mary may not have become a great cultural mecca, but under Bryan’s leadership it had at least broadened its horizons.

Faculty Development

Although Bryan left routine details to others, he did take a considerable personal interest in enlarging and strengthening the faculty. When he became president, he was acutely aware of the fact that some departments, particularly history, English, government, philosophy, and fine arts, were badly understaffed and that others needed to be improved qualitatively. During his eight years in office, Bryan brought about thirty new faculty members to William and Mary and increased the overall size of the faculty from seventy-eight in 1933–34 to 102 in 1941–42. By the latter year, 52 percent of the faculty possessed earned doctorates, up from 41 percent in 1933–34.^[39] Many of the professors Bryan hired—including M. Eugene Borish, Charles T. Harrison, and Fraser Neiman in English, Harold L. Fowler in history, and Donald L. Meiklejohn and James W. Miller in philosophy—had earned their doctoral degrees at Harvard. In fact, so many of the new appointees were from that institution that Bryan began to be mildly criticized for having a pro-Harvard bias. There was some truth to the charge. Bryan not only had received his law degree from Harvard, he was also elected to Harvard’s Board of Overseers in the spring of 1937 and had a continuing interest in Harvard affairs. By the 1939–40 session, nineteen faculty members, nearly one-fifth of the total, had earned their highest degree there. Of course, many of the new faculty had studied at a number of other institutions, although none had earned a doctorate at a southern university. For example, Roy P. Ash in biology had a doctorate from Brown University, Warner Moss in government from Columbia University, and George J. Ryan in ancient languages from the University of Michigan. But Harvard clearly predominated.^[40]

Moreover, almost all of the new appointees were men. Although Bryan’s apparent gender bias, unlike his preference for Harvard graduates, was not a matter of much public discussion at the time, during the years of Bryan’s presidency women faculty definitely lost ground at William and Mary. During the 1933–34 session, Chandler’s last, the twenty-five women faculty members, including four professors and three associate professors, made up 32 percent of the total. But by 1940–41, their number had fallen to nineteen, with four professors (including one on leave), two associate professors, six assistant professors, and seven instructors. Women represented slightly over 19 percent of the total, with most still serving in the lowest two ranks. Only three women, all professors, possessed the doctorate. Every one of the women professors and associate professors had been appointed between 1921 and 1930.^[41] With this exception, Bryan’s record in regard to faculty recruitment was commendable. Despite the depressed economic conditions and the absence of growth in enrollments, he was able to increase both the size and the quality of the faculty. In so doing, he brought to William and Mary a number of able individuals who eventually had a significant impact on the College’s development. He was justly proud of his achievement.

Bryan’s interest in the William and Mary faculty was also demonstrated by his role in the adoption in 1938 of the first set of faculty bylaws. It was a highly significant step, for it marked the first time that the faculty of the College was recognized as a legislative body with certain rights, ones which were not simply revocable at the whim of the president. Early in the fall of 1938, Bryan and Dean Miller drafted a set of proposed bylaws. These were distributed to the faculty on November 7 and formally introduced for discussion at a faculty meeting on November 15. The faculty read and unanimously approved the document section by section and then as a whole. Bryan then announced that the bylaws, having been approved by the faculty, were in effect. Subsequently, the Board of Visitors approved the document.^[42]

According to the bylaws, the faculty consisted of the three ranks of professors and the full-time instructors, plus the president, the bursar, and the librarian. The most important article specified the powers of the faculty. These were: (1) to determine the requirements for earned degrees; (2) to grant earned degrees; (3) to make recommendations to the Board of Visitors for honorary degrees; (4) to determine the policy to be followed in evaluating a student’s transfer credits; (5) to determine the policies to be followed in giving examinations; (6) to determine the nature of the grading system; (7) to determine class attendance policies; and (8) to make recommendations to the president and deans concerning any matter of educational policy. The bylaws also established certain elected faculty committees. (Previously all committees were appointed by the president.) These were a nominating committee, a curriculum committee, a degrees committee, and an honorary degrees committee. Other committees remained appointive.^[43] By supporting these bylaws, Bryan made clear that he wanted the faculty to be a partner in furthering the development of William and Mary. Their adoption certainly boosted faculty morale. It was a major step away from the arbitrary presidential domination of the Chandler years and one that would prove its value during certain difficult moments that lay ahead.^[44]

Four years later the condition of faculty members was improved in quite a different way as a result of the passage of the Virginia State Retirement Act. Before its enactment in March 1942, William and Mary had no provision for pensions or retirement benefits for its faculty and staff. To lessen the obvious hardships this could create, in 1919 the Board had dropped its former policy of forcing people to retire at the age of sixty-five. Thus, two professors, John Lesslie Hall and Van Franklin Garrett, the last of the Seven Wise Men, had been able to continue teaching in the 1920s until they were well past the age of seventy.^[45] In the meantime, the rapid expansion of the faculty, which brought in many new young members, meant that retirement was not an imminent threat for most of the faculty in the 1930s. In fact, there were no retirements during Bryan’s presidency, but by the beginning of the 1942–43 session, six members of the faculty were over sixty-five and two were over seventy.^[46] The lack of pensions could not help but affect the morale of the entire faculty. Senior William and Mary faculty, along with Bryan and numerous others, strongly favored the enactment of a state retirement system. Fortunately, the idea won considerable support in Richmond by the early 1940s.^[47] The result was the passage on March 31, 1942, of the Virginia Retirement Act, which set up a pension system for state employees and teachers who reached the age of sixty-five, if they had had twenty years of service. For those in the system, retirement at the age of seventy would be mandatory. The system went into effect July 1, 1942. People who were employed before that date had the option of joining the system; those hired after it were automatically in it. The pensions would be funded by employee and state contributions.^[48]

The Virginia Retirement Act was long past due. Unfortunately, the pensions it provided were exceedingly modest, so much so that some of the oldest faculty considered not joining, as it would have forced them to retire at the age of seventy without adequate benefits. To ease their plight, on August 17, 1942, the Board of Visitors adopted a system of supplementary aid to employees with thirty-five years of service if they participated in the state pension system. This provided an additional benefit equal to 1 percent of the employee’s final five-year salary average for each year of service at William and Mary, although the total of the supplementary pension and the state retirement was not to exceed $1,500 per year. Obviously, no faculty member could look forward to a luxurious retirement under such a system, but it was still an enormous change for the better. In the words of Bryan’s successor, John E. Pomfret, it “aided faculty morale no end.”^[49]

Limiting Vocationalism

Bryan’s concern for the status and morale of the faculty contrasted very favorably with what many faculty perceived to have been the attitude of President Chandler. Another difference between Bryan and his predecessor was shown by his skeptical attitude toward the technical and vocational programs and the schools, all of which conflicted with his desire to emphasize the liberal arts at William and Mary. Bryan favored the elimination of some programs, including those in library science and secretarial science, and the downgrading of others. The easiest to deal with was secretarial science, which was eliminated as a concentration in 1935, leaving only a few elective courses for interested students. Library science had more support, and despite weak enrollments, the department continued until 1948.^[50] Chandler’s short-lived program in aeronautics was abolished in 1935, and the courses in journalism, which dated from 1922, were dropped in 1937.

Consistent with the new emphasis on William and Mary as a four-year college of arts and sciences, in February 1935 the curriculum committee, headed by Dean Hoke, recommended the elimination of all schools. Although Bryan was sympathetic to such a proposal, he realized that he would have to proceed with caution, particularly in regard to the Marshall-Wythe School of Government and Citizenship. Before submitting the proposal to the Board of Visitors, he was careful to discuss the matter with John G. Pollard, who was understandably anxious to save what had been largely his creation.^[51] After a lengthy deliberation on March 14, 1935, the Board gave its partial approval to the curriculum committee’s recommendation. The Marshall-Wythe School and the School of Jurisprudence would be continued, but the Board authorized Bryan to reduce the School of Education and the School of Economics and Business Administration to departments “at his discretion.”^[52] As a result, the latter was abolished at the end of the 1934–35 session. The economics courses were placed in a separate department, headed by Albion G. Taylor, but the business administration courses were dropped. The accounting courses, all taught by Professor Wayne F. Gibbs, were simply listed in the catalogue under “Courses of Instruction.”^[53] So matters stood until 1941 when Bryan, anxious to increase the number of male students, reversed his position and reestablished a Department of Business Administration beginning in September.^[54] The Education program was in a stronger position, for no responsible person suggested that William and Mary abandon the training of teachers. Thus Bryan waited until 1938, when he appointed James W. Miller to replace Hoke as dean of the faculty, before reducing the School of Education to a department. The change was largely one of name only, however, for the School of Education had never possessed the relative autonomy enjoyed by true schools at universities, and the program itself remained essentially as before.^[55]

The School of Jurisprudence created special problems. Although it was small, it came closer to being a true school, and it had the strong backing of some powerful alumni. Its historic appeal was also hard to ignore. At its March 14, 1935, meeting, the Board of Visitors decided “that the historic position of William and Mary as the first law school in America made it desirable to continue, if possible, the School of Jurisprudence as now established.” The Board emphasized that its continuation “was justifiable not so much for the need of educating lawyers for practice at the bar, but by the need of teaching the fundamental principles of jurisprudence for the education of student [sic] in the School of Government and Citizenship.”^[56] Bryan continued to harbor doubts about its worth, however, and for good reason. In fact, the failure of the school to win accreditation by the Association of American Law Schools until 1936 had placed the rest of the College in serious jeopardy. One of the standards for membership in the Southern Association required that any professional or technical department of a member institution be of an approved grade in order for the institution to be accepted or to remain on the approved list. As a consequence, William and Mary was reduced to conditional membership from 1934 through 1939.^[57] It was a high price to pay for what was still such a peripheral part of the College’s endeavors.

Even after it won accreditation, however, the School of Jurisprudence faced numerous difficulties. In granting its approval the Association of American Law Schools warned that the school would have to lighten its teaching load and make other improvements, all of which would cost more money than the state was likely to provide. At a meeting of the Board on February 8, 1938, Bryan argued that the continuation of the School of Jurisprudence could not be “justified solely on the ground of gratifying our sense of historical priority.” At most, he favored retaining a few courses, such as those in constitutional law, international law, and contracts. But, he concluded, “our law school is not a credit to William and Mary and it cannot be made a credit to us without the expenditure of money which we do not have, and which I can see no likelihood of getting.”^[58] This time the Board moved closer to Bryan’s position, for it approved his recommendation to redesignate the School of Jurisprudence as the Department of Jurisprudence. It also authorized the rector to appoint a special committee from the Board to look into the question of dropping the law program, as suggested in Bryan’s report.^[59]

The Board committee, which was chaired by Channing M. Hall, spent much of the 1938–39 academic year looking into the matter. In a statement to the committee and in a lengthy written report, Dean Theodore S. Cox did his best to defend legal studies at William and Mary. After reviewing this information, Charlie Duke, who served as secretary to the committee, advised Bryan early in 1939 not to take any hasty action. He insisted that William and Mary’s program did not simply duplicate the work at the University of Virginia, because of the way its legal studies were integrated with other academic fields.^[60] The special committee finally submitted its report to the Board on May 27, 1939. Noting that only twenty-three law degrees had been granted since the school was reestablished in 1922, they suggested that maintaining the school could be justified only if its enrollment and its teaching staff were increased. But even if that could be done, the need for such a school was not apparent, given the existence of three other law schools in Virginia. Thus the committee recommended the discontinuance of the professional law courses and degree program, retaining only those courses of a “cultural nature” that were useful background to other fields. After some discussion the Board adopted the committee’s recommendation by a vote of five to three.^[61]

The Board’s decision to abolish the School of Jurisprudence shocked students and alumni and brought forth a storm of protest. On Sunday, May 28, a large group of students gathered in front of the Wren Building to consider what could be done to save the school, and called on the Board to reverse its decision. Hardest hit were the law students, five of whom were scheduled to receive their degrees at the June commencement. Several of the students drew up a petition, wrote letters to each member of the Board, and conferred with Bryan, Duke, Hall, and others. Letters and telegrams protesting the decision poured into the College. Alumni groups in several cities sent petitions to the Board. Former Board member Oscar L. Shewmake led a group of Richmond alumni who were strongly opposed to the Board’s decision. Among other concerns, he warned that closing the school at a time when William and Mary was desperately trying to increase the number of male applicants would remove “the last feature of the work of the college that makes it especially attractive to men students.”^[62]

In this instance, at least, the protests were efficacious. On Friday, June 2, less than a week after it decided to close the school, the Board met in special session to reconsider its action. Law students, delegations from several localities, and prominent alumni such as H. Lester Hooker of the State Corporation Commission and Oscar L. Shewmake, attended the first part of the meeting and were allowed to present their views. After a considerable amount of discussion in a closed meeting, the Board adopted a resolution by a vote of eight to one to instruct “the President to take such steps in the securing of financial support and personnel as in his judgment are necessary to strengthen and develop the Law School in keeping with past traditions and prestige.”^[63] Thus, professional legal studies continued to be offered at William and Mary.

This episode marked the end of Bryan’s efforts to eliminate the schools. In accordance with the Board’s instructions, he did what he could to strengthen the Department of Jurisprudence, and soon after he appointed two new professors (one to fill a vacancy) for the 1939–40 session.^[64] Although the study of law at William and Mary remained a marginal operation for years to come, outside evaluators did find the program to be defensible. A May 1941 report by Professor Frank E. Horack, Jr., for the American Association of Law Schools praised the faculty as “unusually competent and diversified” and described the curriculum as “unique.” At the same time, he criticized the salaries for being “lamentably low,” the teaching load for being “too heavy,” and the library for missing many items. However, he concluded that “the program at William and Mary is peculiarly desirable … it provides a proving ground for a program of social and legal integration which will be useful to the entire law school world.”^[65] In June 1942 Professor Alexander Hamilton Frey prepared a follow-up report for the Association of American Law Schools and came to similar conclusions. Strongly praising the faculty, Frey asserted that Professors Cox, Beutel, Foltin, and Woodbridge “would be worthy additions to the faculty of any school in the Association of American Law Schools.” He agreed with Horack that the school should be given every encouragement, especially increased funding.^[66] By that time, however, the problems created by World War II had begun to overshadow all other considerations, and further development of the law school had to be indefinitely deferred.

Strengthening the Liberal Arts

Bryan’s dislike of the schools was a reflection of his desire to strengthen William and Mary as an undergraduate liberal arts college. His efforts to improve both the quality and the number of faculty members were directed towards that end. But he was merely the sympathetic supporter, rather than the instigator, of the most significant change in the College’s educational program that occurred during his presidency, the adoption of the 1935 curriculum. The movement for curriculum reform dated back to the 1929–30 session. In the fall of 1929, Chandler had appointed a committee, comprised of Professors Grace W. Landrum, William T. Hodges, and Anthony P. Wagener, with Dean Hoke as chairman, to study problems in the curriculum. It presented a preliminary report on March 13, 1930.^[67] Discussion continued over the next two years and led to a more detailed report, the “Suggested Plan for the Reorganization of the Curriculum,” presented by the committee on curriculum on January 8, 1932. The committee criticized the existing curriculum for dividing subject matter into overly small units, resulting “in temporary learning, in detached information, and in wrong values.” It proposed organizing the subject matter into courses that would be much more comprehensive than those under the old curriculum and that would run for the whole academic year. Students would take only three courses a year, with a total of twelve required for graduation. The proposal was an interesting recognition of existing deficiencies, but it was weak on the administrative details of how such a substantial change was to be implemented. Nothing came of this plan.^[68]

For the next three years the curriculum committee continued to explore means of reform. On December 21, 1934, it submitted a preliminary proposal to Bryan which, among other things, called for better coordination of subject matter in the freshman and sophomore years and a liberalization of degree requirements by allowing more electives.^[69] The committee issued its final report on February 12, 1935. Although the proposed changes were substantial, they were presented in an arrangement that was likely to win broad support. After reviewing recent changes in the nature and size of the student body at William and Mary, the committee attempted to formulate what it believed to be the objectives of the College:

The mission of the college is to offer a liberal curriculum which will make provision not only for the preservation, development and dissemination of culture, but also for the stimulation and development of the professional interests and abilities of its students. … The aim of the college is to give the student skill, not in technical procedure, but in the discovery of truth, to develop his powers of self-direction, and to foster his continuing intellectual interests. … The facilities of the College of William and Mary should be devoted primarily to the interests of undergraduate students.

The committee made several general recommendations, including the continuation of the policy of raising entrance standards, the elimination of all schools, the revision of the grading system, the reduction in teaching load, and the introduction of exchange professorships and sabbatical leaves.^[70]

The product of years of discussion, the proposed reforms were presented at a propitious moment. On March 4, in an extraordinary meeting of minds, one that has seldom, if ever again been displayed at William and Mary, the faculty unanimously adopted the new degree requirements. These would take effect for students entering in September 1935. (Returning students were given the option of continuing under the former requirements or transferring to the new ones.) The new curriculum set a degree requirement of 124 hours (compared to 126 hours under the old curriculum), including 4 hours in physical education. Subjects were divided into four broad groups: (1) English literature, archaeology, and art; (2) ancient or modern foreign languages; (3) biology, psychology, chemistry, and physics; (4) economics, history, and government. All students would be required to take 6 semester hours of courses from group one, 12 from group two, 10 from group three, and 12 from group four, primarily in their freshman and sophomore years. This meant that the total number of hours in required subjects was reduced to 40 (compared to 61 to 63 under the old curriculum), and even then students had some choice of the specific courses they would take within each group. Each student was also required to select one field of concentration of 40 to 42 semester hours (compared to two majors of 30 credits each, or one major of 30 credits and two minors of 20 credits each under the old curriculum). Consistent with the move away from vocationalism, the new rules also prohibited a student from taking more than 21 hours in technical courses in any one department. The faculty also replaced the old grading system, which recorded grades by percentages, with one based on letter grades. Under it an A was to be assigned 6 quality points per credit, a B earned 5 points, and a C earned 4 points. To graduate a student had to accumulate a minimum of 240 quality points.^[71]

The new curriculum brought meaningful change and reflected the preference of the faculty and Bryan for the liberal arts over a narrow professionalism. It required a distribution of subject matter over four areas, yet it gave students some flexibility in the selection of specific courses; it required a concentration in a selected subject field in far greater depth than under the old major-minor system; and overall it allowed more free electives. Although there were some changes in details in the years that followed, the reforms adopted in 1935 remained the basic curriculum at William and Mary until the early 1970s.

Unlike the 1935 curriculum, some of the other changes in the academic program in the 1930s can be more directly credited to Bryan. From the start he hoped to add the study of geology and marine biology to the curriculum and to strengthen one of his special interests, the fine arts program. The latter included art, music, and theatre, which beginning in 1934 were nominally grouped together in one department.^[72] During the 1935–36 session, Bryan hired Leslie Cheek, a Harvard graduate with a degree from the Yale School of Fine Arts, as an instructor in fine arts. Cheek lectured on colonial architecture and the decorative arts in the course in American social history offered by James L. Cogar, a curator with Colonial Williamsburg and also a former student at the Yale School of Fine Arts. The next year Cheek was promoted to assistant professor and made chairman of the fine arts department. In addition to his work in the graphic arts, Cheek made a major contribution to the William and Mary Theatre through his knowledge of stagecraft. He assisted Bryan’s Christmas parties by planning the decorations for Phi Beta Kappa Hall. Cheek also designed the remodeling of old Taliaferro Hall on the south campus, as a home for the fine arts department, which was opened in February 1937. Bryan was delighted with the work done by the talented Cheek, which attracted national attention, and promoted him to associate professor in 1938. Inevitably, he was soon sought by other institutions, and at the end of the 1938–39 session, Cheek left William and Mary to accept a position as director of the Baltimore Museum of Art.^[73]

Unquestionably, the fine arts program at William and Mary was greatly strengthened in the 1930s with Bryan’s encouragement. This was also true for the theatre, under the leadership of Althea Hunt, as well as in the graphic arts. Nothing quite as exciting happened in music, although both the faculty and offerings were enlarged. Bryan was particularly enthusiastic about the appointment in 1939 of Allan B. Sly as an associate professor of music, under whom Bryan hoped the program could become as strong as that in drama.^[74]

Bryan’s hopes for the addition of geology to the curriculum were not realized. But a beginning was made in the development of a program in marine biology, thanks in part to the persistence of Professor Donald W. Davis, head of the biology department. At the beginning of the 1930s, the United States Bureau of Fisheries had established a laboratory at Yorktown. Because of the vital effect of the fisheries industry in Virginia, in February 1937 the Board of Visitors authorized Bryan to give such aid as possible to the project at Yorktown and to establish a course in marine biology. Beginning in 1938 close cooperation between that laboratory, the Virginia Commission of Fisheries, and William and Mary began. The first state appropriation for the Yorktown laboratory came in 1938. The facility was reorganized in 1940 as the Virginia Fisheries Laboratory, which was run jointly by William and Mary and the Virginia Commission on Fisheries. Under it, courses in marine biology began to be offered.^[75]

Another of Bryan’s interests was in developing a closer working relationship with Colonial Williamsburg. In November 1937 Professor Morton of the Department of History proposed the establishment of a “Center for the Study of Colonial Life” at the College in cooperation with Colonial Williamsburg.^[76] Bryan would go even further. Believing that the two institutions had many parallel interests in the humanities and social sciences, in December 1937 he suggested to Rockefeller that they jointly set up an “Institute of American Life.” The responsibilities of such an institute would be to “(1) manage the Restoration properties, (2) direct researches for the Restoration, (3) be the trustee of its manuscripts and other collections, and (4) supply funds for instructions in certain of the social sciences (notably history and political science) at William and Mary, and one in the humanities, specifically the arts.” Although Rockefeller gave “a great deal of thought” to the proposal, he was obviously wary about entering into such an extensive arrangement with the College. After a discussion between Rockefeller and Bryan in April 1938, the proposal was dropped, although as later developments showed, the idea that the College and Colonial Williamsburg might jointly sponsor some sort of scholarly enterprise was by no means dead.^[77]

A More Selective Admissions Policy

If the curriculum developments of the 1930s helped to improve the academic climate and to strengthen William and Mary’s identity as a college of liberal arts, so did the more selective admissions procedures that had begun under Chandler in 1933. Although the new policies were modest, they, along with a more flexible approach adopted in 1935 as to what high school credits were acceptable, undoubtedly resulted in an academically stronger student body.^[78] A curriculum committee report in February 1935 showed that median scores on the Psychological Aptitude Test administered to freshmen had risen between 1930 and 1934 from 110 to 154 for men, and from 149 to 198 for women. In June 1936 Bryan reported that “though our enrollment is smaller, the quality of the student is much higher, and the quality of the work done is much higher. The selective process is already evident in the scholastic achievement.”^[79] Bryan was correct. By the end of the decade, for example, grade point averages, especially among the women, showed an impressive increase. The graduation rate also rose.^[80]

Still, the new admissions process was not without problems. As a result, in April 1938 Bryan appointed a committee on admissions, chaired by the dean of freshmen, J. Wilfred Lambert, to study the admissions process and to make recommendations.^[81] Ultimately, the committee proposed no radical changes, but it did rewrite the admissions policy in order to put even greater emphasis on scholarship and selectivity. The relevant statement in the College catalogue was retitled, “The Selective Process of Admission.” The specific requirements continued to list graduation in the upper half of one’s class of an accredited secondary school and the accumulation of a minimum of sixteen units, but the following proviso was added: “Since the number of applicants who meet the essential requirement is considerably in excess of the number that can be admitted, the College selects those who present the strongest qualifications in scholarship, character, personality, performance in extra-curricular activities, and breadth of interest.” In addition, a separate paragraph under the heading “Scholarship” stated that “evidence of superior achievement in the secondary school is considered of primary importance in determining selection for admission.” The committee recognized that class rank was, by itself, an inadequate measure of scholarly competence, and it continued to favor a flexible admissions procedure, one that afforded admission officers a great deal of discretion. But the greater emphasis on scholarship and selectivity was unmistakable. Moreover, in order to meet the competition from other colleges, the committee set May 1 as the date for the first selection of applicants, although the selection process would continue as needed throughout the summer. Another result of this committee’s work was Bryan’s appointment of Lambert as chairman of a new committee on admissions, with overall responsibility for the admissions process. Before then the process had simply been handled by the registrar, Kathleen Alsop.^[82] The policies adopted in 1938 remained the guiding principles of William and Mary’s selective admissions process until it started requiring the Scholastic Aptitude Test more than two decades later.^[83]

Although the more selective admissions procedures resulted in an academically improved student body, they also had a significant impact on the male to female ratio. As Bryan noted, as soon as William and Mary tightened admissions, “the immediate result was to exclude many more men than women.”^[84] The 1932–33 session was actually the first year in which a majority of the students were women. But by the fall of 1936, their number had risen to 57 percent. Alarmed by the trend, Bryan warned in February 1937 “that the growing disproportion between men and women students is a menace to the future of this College.”^[85] He attributed the condition to the higher admissions standards and to the fact that there was a more intense competition for men applicants among Virginia institutions than for women, and he promised that his administration would do “everything possible to restore the proper balance.”^[86]

By 1937 the male to female ratio (and the fact that the proportion of in-state students had dropped to about 50 percent) had become a matter of intense concern for the alumni association. At its annual meeting on June 4, 1937, the board of the Society of the Alumni voted to ask the Board of Visitors to set a male to female ratio of 60:40 and to give preference in admissions to sons and daughters of alumni. The alumni board also asked for a change in the requirement that students be from the upper half of their high school class, to allow men to be selected from the upper half of the men’s group and women from the upper half of the women’s group.^[87]

Neither Bryan nor the Board of Visitors endorsed these recommendations, but they did look favorably on the ideas of Charlie Duke who, in a memorandum to Bryan in September 1938, recommended that William and Mary increase its financial aid for men, develop departments and courses likely to appeal to men, and launch a public relations campaign. He also suggested that Bryan appoint a study committee to come up with a program to attract men.^[88] All of these approaches were attempted to some extent. As a first step, the College began sending out many brochures and other materials designed to attract male applicants. To assist in this process, in 1939 Bryan appointed Thomas Pinckney as a full-time director of public relations.^[89] Bryan also appointed Duke to head a committee to develop a program to recruit men. On February 3, 1940, Duke submitted a progress report in which he reviewed what had been done, and he proposed a four-phased approach that called for: (1) alumni participation in the recruitment process; (2) distribution of publications aimed at men; (3) student aid; and (4) development of a program in cooperation with Colonial Williamsburg designed to attract young men to the College.^[90]

Although nothing immediately came of the last suggestion, a new student aid program was set up in May 1940 in line with the recommendation in Duke’s report for the establishment of four annual Cary T. Grayson Memorial Scholarships of $500 each, to be awarded to male residents of the states of the Southern Association. In response to announcements sent to the principals of public and private high schools in most of those states, the College received ninety-three applications. Twenty-three applicants were invited to the campus, and eventually four winners were selected. Although this was not a large number, the process netted eleven other scholarship applicants who decided to enroll at William and Mary anyway.^[91] Following up on another recommendation in the progress report, the College also prepared a new promotional brochure, which in 1940 “received recognition as one of the thirteen best pieces of direct advertising in the United States.”^[92]

All such efforts produced only limited results. Women continued to make up a majority of the student body, although their proportion did not increase. From a high of about 57 percent in the fall of 1936, the number of women dropped to 53 percent in 1937–38, 52 percent in 1938–39, and then held at about 53 percent for the next two years. The efforts to keep up male enrollment continued until wartime conditions drastically altered the College’s activities. In July 1941 Dean Lambert submitted a report on ‘Factors Affecting the Enrollment of Men at William and Mary.” Lambert suggested that the decision to reestablish the Department of Business Administration beginning in the fall of 1941 and the introduction of a five-year engineering program in cooperation with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) would help attract men students. He believed also that the publicity efforts had been useful. The prospects were less favorable in regard to student aid. The state had prohibited free-tuition scholarships for out-of-state students and reduced the amount of funds available to Virginia students. Nor was the alumni recruiting program a success. In 1941 Lambert wrote to sixty qualified alumni, asking them to participate in an interviewing program. Although thirty agreed to do it, only eight actually held interviews. On the other hand, Lambert believed that Dean Hocutt’s recruiting trips were useful.^[93]

Nevertheless, in the fall of 1941, the proportion of women increased. As a result, in October 1941 the Board of Visitors appointed a committee to study ways to insure that men would make up at least 50 percent of the student population. Chaired by the rector, J. Gordon Bohannan, the committee reported on December 13, 1941, and its recommendations were immediately adopted as Board policy. These called for a 60:40 male to female student ratio “as circumstances may permit,” preference to Virginians over equally qualified out-of-state women, an effort to reduce the number of men dropped within the normal four-year period, curriculum changes that would increase the number of men “without lowering the academic standards or grades,” special recruitment efforts, and an increased number of scholarships.^[94]

For some alumni, including Bohannan, the troublesome problem of recruiting enough men provided justification for their deep seated feelings that it had been a mistake for William and Mary to admit women. “I do not like co education,” Bohannan told Bryan. “I have never liked it. If I could possibly take part in having it set aside … I shall [sic] certainly do so.” Bryan replied that while he had felt similarly when he first came to William and Mary, he believed “exactly the contrary now, and would regard it as a deadly blow to the College were this question stirred up now.”^[95] Bryan was correct. By 1941 coeducation had become a permanent feature at William and Mary, despite the misgivings of some older alumni. Nevertheless, had it been possible to implement the Board’s new policies rigorously over the next few years, the proportion of women at William and Mary might have been significantly lowered. In so doing, this would also have adversely affected the academic climate at the College, given the marked discrepancy between the intellectual performance of the men and women. As it turned out, however, in the early 1940s the whole male to female student ratio problem could be set aside, at least for the time being. With the coming of the war, which drastically altered the whole admissions issue, the challenge became instead one of simply finding enough students of any sort to keep the College open.

A New Role for Athletics?

The need to make William and Mary more attractive to men had become a major concern by the latter part of the 1930s. Some used this as a reason to question Bryan’s attack on vocationalism and to defend the offering of courses or programs with a technical or vocational bent, such as the preprofessional engineering program with MIT, or business administration, or law. For others it became a rationalization for having a stronger intercollegiate athletics program. Initially, Bryan’s interest in the athletic program was minimal. Unlike Chandler, he decided not to sit on the Athletic Committee. Instead, he appointed Duke to take his place on one of the three faculty seats.^[96] The most significant events relating to intercollegiate athletics during Bryan’s first two years were the construction of the new football stadium in 1935 and the joining of the Southern Conference in 1936. The stadium, which was built with the assistance of funds from the Public Works Administration (PWA), was not something Bryan initiated; rather, it was the completion of a project begun at the end of the Chandler presidency. William and Mary participated in intercollegiate athletics as a member of the Southern Conference for the first time during the 1936–37 session. On the whole the members of this group—which included Virginia Military Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Duke University, the University of North Carolina, and North Carolina State University—were larger, athletically stronger institutions than had been those in the old Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference. William and Mary’s traditional rival, the University of Richmond, also joined the Southern Conference at this time.^[97]

The rules of the Southern Conference required that men’s intercollegiate athletics be controlled and supervised by the college’s administration. This meant that the old Athletic Committee, which was composed of three alumni, three students, and three members of the faculty, had to be abolished. It was replaced by a new three-member Faculty Athletic Committee.^[98] One of its first concerns was the question of financial aid to athletes. In 1935 the Southern Conference had adopted the socalled Graham Plan, which regulated such aid fairly strictly. This was no problem for William and Mary, for its own practices had been just as strict. But by the end of 1936, the Graham Plan was already under attack by those who believed that athletes should be subsidized. As a result it was somewhat modified at the Southern Conference meeting in December 1936, although the conference did adopt minimum scholarship requirements. William and Mary added a regulation of its own, providing that scholarship requirements would be the same for participation in all other College activities as were required for those in athletics.^[99]

Until the mid-1930s William and Mary had taken pride in its refusal to subsidize athletes. By 1936 the climate had changed. Appalled by a series of lackluster football seasons, an increasing number of students and alumni began to argue that financial aid should be used as a means of recruiting able players. “If we want good teams in the future,” said the Flat Hat, “we’ve got to go out and get them.”^[100] In December 1935 James Branch Bocock had been enticed out of retirement to return to William and Mary as head football and basketball coach, but to the dismay of the new enthusiasts, even Bocock’s skills could not prevent a disastrous (one win, eight losses) 1936 football season. Bocock did the best he could with the players he had, but, as he stated publicly, William and Mary badly needed “competent athletic material.”^[101] In a candid statement presented to the Faculty Athletic Committee on December 10, 1936, Bocock pointed out that “the better organized schools, with superior facilities in scholarships and jobs (and some degree of elasticity in conscience) usually get the cream of the lot because they have the most to offer.” That meant subsidies. “Practically all desirable athletes seek to capitalize their athletic ability to defray a portion, if not all, of their College expenses. … Whether they be good students or bad students is immaterial so long as their deportment and conduct be satisfactory. Their presence on the campus is justified because they possess the capacity to give the College something it wants.” Bocock insisted that he was merely describing conditions as they then existed in American colleges, “whether we like it or not.” But, he added, they represented conditions that William and Mary would have to deal with. “What we need here more than anything else is [sic] some virile, sturdy young men with character and personality who have the capacity and the interest to inspire others to a masculine perspective. We have a sufficient supply of the ‘soft boys’ who are self-centered.” Bocock’s recommendation was to “induce desirable athletic material” to enter William and Mary by offering “scholarships or ‘expense allowances’ equivalent to all expenses charged by the College.” If it did not wish to do that, he recommended that it immediately resign from the Southern Conference.^[102]

At its December 10, 1936, meeting, the Faculty Athletic Committee named Bocock head athletic coach, a position intended to be equivalent to athletic director. William S. Gooch, who had previously held that title, was made business manager.^[103] Improvements in athletic performance were another matter. In a review of the year 1936–37, Gooch noted that most of the athletes coming up from the freshman teams were “relatively mediocre.” Moreover, “other institutions have more favorable facilities than we,” and the alumni provide scholarships to help bring in good athletes.^[104] By early 1938 some William and Mary alumni took concrete steps to do just that. In January 1938 James D. Carneal, Jr., informed Bryan that the Richmond alumni association was interested in encouraging men of athletic and scholarly ability to attend the College and that it wished to share in the burden of raising athletic scholarships. While recognizing that Southern Conference rules required athletics to be controlled by the College, he suggested that it would be possible to set up an Alumni Advisory Athletic Committee. He further proposed that a new General Athletic Committee be created which would be made up of the Faculty Athletic Committee, the proposed Alumni Advisory Athletic Committee, and a new Athletic Executive Committee. The last would consist of a member of the College administration chosen by the Faculty Athletic Committee, an alumnus chosen by the Alumni Advisory Athletic Committee, and a representative of the athletic department.^[105]

Bryan responded politely to this proposal and expressed his appreciation for the interest of the Richmond alumni. But he made no commitment, and parts of his letter suggested that he had a rather different order of priorities. “I recognize as well as you do the great prestige that a college receives from a highly skilful and effective team; I also realize that in the long run the history and necessary prestige of a college depend not upon its athletic but upon its scholastic achievements.” At the same time Bryan softened his answer by stating that college authorities did “desire the advice and judgment of its alumni in formulating its athletic policy.”^[106] On March 8, 1938, the board of directors of the alumni association endorsed the proposal of the Richmond alumni. A month later the Faculty Athletic Committee adopted the plan.^[107] Thus, despite Bryan’s misgivings, the alumni had apparently found a way around the rules of the Southern Conference and had acquired an influential position regarding William and Mary’s athletic program.

As promised, members of the alumni association set out to raise money for athletic scholarships. But their activities made Bryan uneasy, as he was trying to solicit funds for scholarships and other purposes through the “Friends of William and Mary.” He cautioned Carneal against stirring up “cross currents” and suggested that it would be wise to have scholarship work handled by one organization.^[108] That did not happen. In 1939 the board of directors of the alumni association set up an “Alumni Loyalty Fund” to handle contributions for athletic scholarships. This raised over $5,000 for the 1939–40 session and over $4,700 for 1940–41. Most came from the Williamsburg, Norfolk, and Richmond areas.^[109]

The increased influence of the alumni was also illustrated by the activities of the new General Athletic Committee, which played a role in hiring a new athletic director-coach and in restructuring the athletic department. In October 1938 Bocock announced he would retire at the end of August 1939. The General Athletic Committee immediately appointed a search committee, composed of Duke and three members of the Alumni Advisory Athletic Committee, to find a successor to Bocock.^[110] As a result of their efforts, in November 1938 the College was able to announce that it had hired Carl M. Voyles as the new athletic director and football coach. A native of Oklahoma, Voyles had been an assistant to Wallace Wade at Duke University since 1931. His attractiveness was enhanced by the fact that Duke was just completing a spectacular undefeated football season. Shortly after, Reuben N. McCray was selected as his assistant.^[111] Voyles’s appointment came as exciting news to William and Mary sports fans. Noting the praise for Voyles, Bryan reported to the Board that the College had obtained “not only a coach of extraordinary ability, but a powerful influence for good on this campus.”^[112]

In addition to its work in securing the appointment of Voyles, the General Athletic Committee pushed for a reorganization of the athletic department. Duke welcomed the idea and recommended that intercollegiate athletics and physical education should be brought together under one head since they all were an integral part of one broad program.^[113] Bryan eventually agreed. In March 1939 he announced the establishment of a new Department of Physical Education that would coordinate the required and professional physical education courses, intramurals, and intercollegiate athletics under one head. Voyles was given the added title of professor of physical education and head of the department.^[114] The new structure reflected the efforts to enhance the status of varsity athletics at William and Mary.

Although Bryan did not initiate these developments, he acquiesced in the changes, justifying them largely as a means of attracting more men, both athletes and nonathletes, to William and Mary.^[115] Others were more enthusiastic, believing that the athletes would bring greater glory to the College through victories on the playing fields. Voyles insisted that he only wanted to promote a “well rounded program,” whereby William and Mary would hold its own in all sports against its natural rivals, not “big time” football.^[116] Nevertheless, he immediately began building a strong football team, one that dramatically reversed the poor records of previous years. In 1939, his first season, William and Mary won six games, lost two, and tied one (compared to a dismal two and seven record the previous year). This included a 7 to 0 win over Richmond, the first since 1933. By the end of the season, Voyles had been dubbed “the Wizard” by enthusiastic fans.^[117] In 1940 William and Mary’s football team had an identical record, losing only to the United States Naval Academy and North Carolina State University, and for the first time in its history, it won the state championship. As an added bonus, the baseball team won the state title in the spring of 1941. The successes continued through the 1941 and 1942 football seasons, including nine wins and another state title in 1942.^[118]

William and Mary’s sudden rise to athletic prominence was heady stuff, at least for some sports enthusiasts. “Carl Voyles was certainly exactly the prescription the doctor ordered,” asserted Oscar L. Shewmake. “He has done wonders for the College.”^[119] The Flat Hat now complained not that players were receiving financial aid, but that the athletic scholarships did not pay enough. “Here at William and Mary football is run on a semi-commercial basis,” they frankly admitted, sparing no words of praise for Voyles and his staff.^[120] The switch in the Flat Hat‘s position, compared to its earlier praise of amateurism, was striking. Thus had values changed, among some students at least. It was ironic that these developments occurred under President Bryan, a man committed to the liberal arts and, as far as the evidence reveals, one with little personal enthusiasm for athletics. It is also not clear that the athletic successes had a significant impact on male enrollments. In 1943 the war brought a temporary halt to the intercollegiate athletic program. But the alumni and other enthusiasts did not forget what had been done, and after the war they renewed their efforts. It was an activity for which the College would eventually pay dearly.